Talk:Chinese name

spelling of a character

Sometimes the same set of Chinese characters could be chosen as a Chinese name, a Hong Kong name, a Japanese name, a Korean name, or a Vietnamese name, but they would be spelled differently due to their varying historical pronunciation of Chinese characters.

Is spelled the best word here? —Tamfang (talk) 04:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't really think the sentence is really even correct or appropriate. I would say 'spelled' is an alright word, I would probably use 'transliterated' instead, but I think the sentence itself should probably be rewritten to make those respective names seem less...bespoke? As with many Sinosphere articles, we have a really difficult time writing elegantly when distinctions between Chinese [language] and Chinese [nationals] are necessary. Remsense聊 06:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

chinese person articles in wikipedia

Only one thing: why are chinese names (in wikipedia) written family name first? They are not the only one in the world who use this style, other Asians use it as well, for the western people most notably Japanese. In elsewhere, at least Hungarian names use this style, though not in wikipedia for some reason. It seems that the chinese are the only ones not using the western style in wikipedia... 109.240.21.250 (talk) 20:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

109.240.21.250, It's about representation in English-language sources, which has historically been strongly "family, given" for Chinese, and "given, family" for Japanese, for example. It's not absolute: figures that are better known in English by a "given, family"-order name are referred to as such. Recently, Japanese names are written "family, given" more often in English, so there has been discussion on switching the name order in certain situations.
See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) for more information. — Remsense诉 01:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

modern chinese name length

A modern chinese name may have an either 1-character or 2-character given name. Both cases are very commonly seen.

The old description "followed by a given name (míng; 名), which is almost always disyllabic, consisting of two characters." is obviously against this fact thus incorrect.

Name some simple examples: NBA Star Yao Ming, pianist Lang Lang, Premier of China (2023-) Li Qiang Yumeyao (talk) 08:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Also, @Remsense, you're the one who start the edit war and are actually responsible to use the page talk function to solve the debate. But I did that for you. Solve this talk before you do further editing/reverting. Yumeyao (talk) 08:40, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, since Wikipedia operates via consensus, "fixing it" requires mutual conversation, so I'm not sure it helps if you're going to opt out for no reason from that responsibility. Remsense诉 08:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I edited it because I'm Chinese and I think I what I wrote is the consensus of living Chinese people. I edited several pages and I know a user doesn't need to start a talk page to fix things. Actually you're the one who questions about the consensus so I think you should start the talk page instead of a bold revert. Yumeyao (talk) 09:05, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

The present figure I recall is around 80% of Chinese people have two-character given names. If your concern is as basic as you've said, wouldn't it be well-addressed by changing "almost always' to "usually"? I was confused because your edits were also changing other things for reasons I couldn't connect. Remsense诉 08:40, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I did a history search(Wikipedia:WikiBlame) to find the source of that description and found the diff here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chinese_name&diff=prev&oldid=991963696

In this diff it changed from "almost always monosyllabic" to "almost always disyllabic", both are wrong.

I was not changing other things because I actually followed the old description at that time in the diff.

Regarding the the 80% data, if I'm not wrong, you're referring to some 2000s report/news on the new birth child naming.

• That was a trend. It doesn't last forever.
• That only affect on a certain generation thus small population.

Fix me if you think there is more authoritative source. Yumeyao (talk) 09:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I looked across a few journals and my book collection and didn't find a more recent figure. If you have a more recent one, it would be appreciated to demonstrate the shift over time. Remsense诉 09:16, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Obviously the data source you found is regarding to the trends of new birth child naming, not the naming over the whole population. Yumeyao (talk) 09:22, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

You are incorrect. The new births rate was higher, at around 90% for men and 80% for women in 2005. Remsense诉 09:23, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

80% data, if I'm not wrong, you're referring to some 2000s report/news on the new birth child naming.

You added this after I replied, so I just wanted to make clear that you are indeed wrong: the 80% figure is a total across the entire population as of the 2005 census. Still looking for more recent numbers. Remsense诉 09:23, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Simple math:

1.3 billion population. ~50-50 1989. ~80-20 on 1999. 30% turnover over 10 years.

birth rate: around 2% * 10 years = 20%.

So: all people died during this ten years are with 1-chararcter given names, all people given a birth to during this ten years are with 2-character given names. PLUS: 10% of people changed their names from 1-chararcter given name to 2.

REASONABLE? POSSIBLE? Yumeyao (talk) 09:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I would characterize it as "original research". The other paper I found does indeed show that the average length of Chinese names has ticked back up a bit since 2005, but that just makes your "simple math" result look even more egregious if you're suggesting we should consider changing anything about what the article says based on it. Remsense诉 09:43, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I meant the only reasonable to explain the chart to me is the data is based on new birth child naming. If that reflects the name over the whole population, that means more egregious things than my "simple math" happened.

I don't know how did the author collect the data, and there is simply no further reference on the data. I just used the "simple math" to suggest the invalidity of this reference if it claims to be the population. Sure sampling may lead to different data statistically, but such huge difference suggests nothing rather than the "original research" is possibly an unauthoritative source. Yumeyao (talk) 09:49, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

They tell you in the paper how they collected the data; that's a pretty normal part of how research works. Moreover, they seem to provide analysis that would address your confusion as to what historically would explain the appearances of the data. Remsense诉 09:50, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Pretty normal? Age distribution(50% are university students, around 20)? Region distribution(Qingdao)?

With total amount of sample unmentioned.

Data collected on 2004, then what about past years? further reference? Yumeyao (talk) 09:56, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

With total amount of sample unmentioned.

Not sure what to say; it's given quite plainly.

Then twelve names were randomly extracted for each gender and each year of birth. Next, the names were grouped by thirteen five-year periods. Thus, there are 120 names (sixty males and sixty females) for each period. All in all, there are 780 male names and 780 female names for a total of 1560 for the thirteen five-year periods from 1940 to 2004

Moreover, the 80% in 2005 figure does not seem to be at all controversial or underexamined: the 2021 paper says

...we accessed data from the 2005 China’s 1% Population Census...Our sample was a random subset (N = 2,585,481) drawn by the NBS, which had been widely used in previous economic and population research...To note, in the 2005 China Census sample we used here, 82.82% of Han Chinese possessed two-character given names, whereas only 17.14 and 0.04% held one-character and three-character given names, respectively.

Remsense诉 10:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I assume the data is biased towards...Qingdao residents? Why would they have needed to collect data before 2005 for a statistic about the 2005 population? I am really struggling to see this as you hopping to increasingly tendentious arguments while providing absolutely no data of your own. If you don't start backing up your objections with sources of your own, I'm not going to bother with this any further. Remsense诉 10:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Why is the sampling method questionable? What reliable source has questioned it? Remsense诉 10:30, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

References