Module talk:zh/data/ts

@H2NCH2COOH Can you verify these recent changes? —Fish bowl (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@Fish bowl: To me, most of them look right, with a few exceptions:

• 篠 -> 筿: 篠 is seen as an off-table variant of 篠 in 现代汉语词典. 篠 is Frequently used in Japanese names, and while mentioned in Simplified Chiese, mainstream media uses 筱, and some use 篠 directly, but hardly anyone would use 筿.
• 貟 -> 贠; 壠 -> 垅; 飈 -> 飚: No longer the standard simplified forms (貟, 壠, 飈 are merged to 员, 垄, 飚 as variants in the latest standard), but still widely used so just leave them there
• 諮 -> 谘: A bit tricky. 谘 used to be a standard form but not in the latest standard, can be found as an independent entry in dictionaries. In modern Chinese text, 咨 is overwhelmingly preferred in Simplified Chinese and 諮 in Traditional, with 谘 occasionally appearing in published classical Chinese (Simplified) literature. Probably just leave it there and deal with the modern ones manually.
• 鉏 -> 锄: Not exactly. 鉏 has other meaning than 锄, and its simplified form 𬬺 has an independent entry in 现代汉语词典. So probably should revert to 鉏 -> 𬬺 (or better leave it unsimplified IMO)
• 癎 -> 𰣯: Technically this is not wrong, but 癎 is commonly seen as an off-table variant of 癇／痫 (xián), and the simplified form of 癎 is poorly supported on most devices.

More importantly, both 简化字总表 and 第一批异体字整理表 that editors cited are obsolete documents and no longer effectively used. The latest standard is 通用规范汉字表. But none of them is properly arranged to specify the simplification rules outside the table (neither for off-table orthographic variants, semantic variants nor off-table independent hanzi; and to make things worse, many semantic variants listed in the table, like 鉏 -> 锄, are problematic). Technically, there is an authoritative guidance 《通用规范汉字表》解读 specifying that off-table hanzi should not be simplified, but this is debatable and virtually no one follows this rule. --H₂NCH₂COOH (Talk) 03:02, 18 April 2022 (UTC)