|This article was nominated for deletion on 27 April 2018. The result of the discussion was no consensus.|
|This article was nominated for merging with Simplified Chinese characters on 31 July 2009. The result of the discussion was no consensus to merge.|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ambiguities in Chinese character simplification article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in Taiwan may be able to help!
The Free Image Search Tool may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Specify criteria for what to include.
I suggest that you only include one variant for non-simplified characters. If not, you'll have a hard time deciding which variants to include. For example, 鬥鬪鬦鬭 are all the same grapheme, 並 and 竝 are the same grapheme, 回 and 囘, 裡 and 裏, etc. Whatever you do, stick to it, else the lists grouped by one-to-n is pointless. Asoer (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- I strongly agree with this. 面 = 面麵麪麫 being classified under 1-to-4 comes off as an overstatement. Ironically, this list itself is ambiguous. There are plenty of variant characters in Chinese (like spellings in English). It didn't seem hard finding variants for 簫, even if they're mostly historical: wikt:Talk:簫#Alternate.3F. Nibiko (talk) 00:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
http://www.nciku.com/search/zh/detail/%E8%90%B1/47807 I came across this character on nciku which hadn't been included. Nciku lists 4 separate traditional variants, but their character pages are set up in a manner as to not include the simplified version itself if it was also used in traditional texts. I've added it under "1 to 4," but it may be more correct to place it under "1 to 5," and include 萱 itself as one of the traditional characters. I do not know. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 10:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
傑 and 杰
I believe that 傑 and 杰 should be added as a 1:2 mapping. While I know 傑 and 杰 can be considered the same character in terms of meaning, I have seen both forms used distinctly in traditional Chinese (primarily for names). In simplified, of course, only 杰 exists. Mingjai (talk) 20:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)