text:
Ohio Athletic Conference

The Ohio Athletic Conference (OAC) was formed in 1902 and is the third oldest athletic conference in the United States. Its current commissioner is Sarah Otey. Former commissioners include Mike Cleary, who was the first General Manager of a professional basketball team to hire an African American head coach, and would later run the National Association of Collegiate Directors of Athletics (NACDA). It is an intercollegiate athletic conference which competes in the NCAA's Division III. Through the years, 31 schools have been members of the OAC. The enrollments of the current ten member institutions range from around 1,000 to 4,500. Member teams are located in Ohio.

History
The Ohio Athletic Conference was found in 1902 with six charter members—Case Tech, Kenyon, Oberlin, Ohio State, Ohio Wesleyan, and Western Reserve. By 1934, the conference reached an all-time high of twenty-four members, seeing many schools come and go throughout the upcoming decades. By 2000, the conference solidified to its current form with the addition of its final school, Wilmington, to ten members.

On January 18, 2024, John Carroll University announces departure from the OAC to the North Coast Athletic Conference (NCAC), beginning in the 2025–26 academic year.

Conference timeline

 * 1902 – The Ohio Athletic Conference (OAC) was founded. Charter members included Case Institute of Technology, Kenyon College, Oberlin College, Ohio State University, Ohio Wesleyan University and Western Reserve University, beginning the 1902–03 academic year.
 * 1907 – Denison University, Heidelberg College (now Heidelberg University) and the College of Wooster joined the OAC in the 1907–08 academic year.
 * 1909 – Wittenberg College (now Wittenberg University) joined the OAC in the 1909–10 academic year.
 * 1910 – The University of Cincinnati and Ohio University joined the OAC in the 1910–11 academic year.
 * 1911 – Miami University of Ohio joined the OAC in the 1911–12 academic year.
 * 1912 – Ohio State left the OAC after the 1911–12 academic year.
 * 1914 – Mount Union College (now the University of Mount Union) joined the OAC in the 1914–15 academic year.
 * 1915 – The University of Akron and Baldwin Wallace College (now Baldwin Wallace University) joined the OAC in the 1915–16 academic year.
 * 1916 – Ohio Northern University joined the OAC in the 1916–17 academic year.
 * 1919 – Baldwin Wallace left the OAC after the 1918–19 academic year.
 * 1920 – Hiram College joined the OAC in the 1920–21 academic year.
 * 1921 – Otterbein College (now Otterbein University) and St. Xavier College (now Xavier University) joined the OAC in the 1921–22 academic year.
 * 1922 – Muskingum College (now Muskingum University) joined the OAC in the 1922–23 academic year.
 * 1923 – Baldwin Wallace re-joined the OAC for a second time in the 1923–24 academic year.
 * 1924 – Cincinnati left the OAC after the 1923–24 academic year.
 * 1926 – Marietta College joined the OAC in the 1926–27 academic year.
 * 1927 – Capital University joined the OAC in the 1927–28 academic year.
 * 1928 – Denison, Miami, Ohio, Ohio Wesleyan and Wittenberg left the OAC to form the Buckeye Conference, alongside Cincinnati (who left 4 years prior), after the 1927–28 academic year.
 * 1931 – Ashland College (now Ashland University) joined the OAC in the 1931–32 academic year.
 * 1932 – Western Reserve left the OAC after the 1931–32 academic year.
 * 1932 – John Carroll University, Kent State College (now Kent State University) and Toledo University (now the University of Toledo) joined the OAC in the 1932–33 academic year.
 * 1933 – Bowling Green State College (now Bowling Green State University) joined the OAC, with Denison re-joining for a second time as well, in the 1933–34 academic year.
 * 1934 – Wittenberg re-joined the OAC for a second time in the 1934–35 academic year.
 * 1935 – Hiram left the OAC after the 1934–35 academic year.
 * 1936 – Baldwin Wallace, Case Tech, John Carroll, Toledo and Xavier were suspended from the OAC for a violation of the opening date of football practice, all of them (except Xavier) were re-instated back the following school year.
 * 1936 – Akron and Xavier left the OAC after the 1935–36 academic year.
 * 1942 – Bowling Green State left the OAC after the 1941–42 academic year.
 * 1947 – Ohio Wesleyan re-joined the OAC for a second time in the 1947–48 academic year.
 * 1944 – Akron re-joined the OAC for a second time in the 1944–45 academic year, with football re-joining in the 1948 fall season (1948–49 academic year).
 * 1947 – Ohio Northern left the OAC after the 1946–47 academic year.
 * 1947 – Ohio Wesleyan re-joined the OAC for a second time in the 1947–48 academic year.
 * 1948 – Ashland and Case Tech, alongside Baldiwn Wallace for a second time, left the OAC after the 1947–48 academic year.
 * 1949 – John Carroll and Toledo left the OAC after the 1948–49 academic year.
 * 1951 – Kent State left the OAC after the 1950–51 academic year.
 * 1951 – Hiram re-joined the OAC for a second time in the 1951–52 academic year.
 * 1961 – Baldwin Wallace re-joined the OAC for a third time in the 1961–62 academic year.
 * 1966 – Akron left the OAC for a second time after the 1965–66 academic year.
 * 1971 – Hiram left the OAC for a second time after the 1970–71 academic year.
 * 1973 – Ohio Northern re-joined the OAC for a second time in the 1973–74 academic year.
 * 1984 – Kenyon, Oberlin and Wooster left the OAC, alongside Denison and Ohio Wesleyan for a second time, to form the North Coast Athletic Conference (NCAC) after the 1983–84 academic year.
 * 1989 – Wittenberg left the OAC for a second time after the 1988–89 academic year.
 * 1989 – Hiram re-joined the OAC for a third time, alongside John Caroll who re-joined for a second time, both effective in the 1989–90 academic year.
 * 1999 – Hiram left the OAC for a third time after the 1998–99 academic year.
 * 2000 – Wilmington College of Ohio joined the OAC in the 2000–01 academic year.
 * 2011 – Defiance College joined the OAC as an associate member for men's and women's swimming and diving in the 2011–12 academic year.
 * 2012 – Transylvania University joined the OAC as an associate member for men's and women's swimming and diving in the 2012–13 academic year.
 * 2015 – Manchester University joined the OAC as an associate member for men's and women's swimming and diving in the 2015–16 academic year.
 * 2024 – Defiance will leave the OAC and the NCAA Division III ranks as an affiliate member for men's and women's swimming and diving to join the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA) and the Wolverine–Hoosier Athletic Conference (WHAC), beginning the 2024–25 academic year.
 * 2025 – John Carroll will leave the OAC to join the NCAC, beginning the 2025–26 academic year.

Current members
The OAC currently has ten full members, all are private schools:

 * Notes:

Former members
The OAC had 20 former full members, all but seven were private schools:

 * Notes:

Former associate members
The OAC had three former associate members, all private schools. This included the only schools outside of Ohio that had any level of OAC membership.

 * Notes:

Sports
In 2023–24, the OAC sponsors the following championships:

Facilities
Departing member in pink.

Men's Swimming & Diving

 * 2016-24: John Carroll
 * 2006-16: Ohio Northern

Women's Swimming & Diving

 * 2017-24: John Carroll
 * 2015-16: Mount Union

Men's Basketball

 * 2020-22: Marietta
 * 2019-20: Mount Union
 * 2018-19: Baldwin Wallace
 * 2017-18: John Carroll
 * 2016-17: Marietta
 * 2015-16: John Carroll
 * 2014-15: Mount Union
 * 2013-14: Wilmington
 * 2012-13: Marietta
 * 2011-12: Capital
 * 2010-11: Marietta
 * 2009-10: Wilmington
 * 2008-09: John Carroll
 * 2007-08: Heidelberg
 * 2006-07: Capital

Women's Basketball

 * 2022: Baldwin Wallace
 * 2020-21: John Carroll
 * 2019-20: Baldwin Wallace
 * 2018-19: John Carroll
 * 2017-18: Marietta
 * 2016-17: Ohio Northern
 * 2015-16: Mount Union
 * 2014-15: Baldwin Wallace
 * 2013-14: Capital
 * 2012-13: Ohio Northern
 * 2009-10, 2010–11, 2011-12: Mount Union
 * 2008-09: Capital
 * 2007-08: Baldwin Wallace
 * 2005-06, 2006-07: Wilmington
 * 2002-03, 2003-04: Wilmington

Football

 * 2017–19;2021: Mount Union
 * 2016: John Carroll
 * 1995–2015: Mount Union
 * 1994: Baldwin Wallace/John Carroll/Mount Union
 * 1992–1993: Mount Union
 * 1991: Baldwin Wallace
 * 1990: Mount Union
 * 1989: John Carroll
 * 1988: Baldwin Wallace/Wittenberg

Baseball

 * 2021-22: Marietta
 * 2019: Otterbein
 * 2018: Baldwin Wallace
 * 2017: Otterbein
 * 2015–16: Marietta
 * 2014: John Carroll
 * 2013: Mount Union
 * 2011–12: Marietta
 * 2010: Heidelberg

Men's Soccer

 * 2023: Ohio Northern
 * 2018-22: John Carroll
 * 2017: Otterbein
 * 2016: John Carroll
 * 2015: Ohio Northern
 * 2014: Heidelberg
 * 2010–13: Ohio Northern
 * 2009: Capital and Ohio Northern (tie)
 * 2008: Ohio Northern
 * 2004: Wilmington
 * 2000: Wilmington

Women's Soccer

 * 2019: Ohio Northern
 * 2018: Otterbein
 * 2017: Ohio Northern
 * 2016: Mount Union
 * 2013–15: Capital
 * 2012: Ohio Northern
 * 2011: Capital
 * 2010: Otterbein

Women's Volleyball

 * 2018–19: Ohio Northern
 * 2017: Otterbein
 * 2016: Ohio Northern
 * 2015: Heidelberg
 * 2011–14: Mount Union
 * 2010: Heidelberg
 * 2009: Ohio Northern
 * 2008: Heidelberg

Men's Golf

 * 2015–19: Otterbein
 * 2014: Baldwin Wallace
 * 2011: Mount Union
 * 2009–10: Otterbein
 * 2007–08: Mount Union
 * 1998–06: Otterbein
 * 1997: John Carroll
 * 1996: Otterbein
 * 1994–95: John Carroll
 * 1992–93: Otterbein
 * 1991: Heidelberg and Hiram (tie)
 * 1990: John Carroll
 * 1988–89: Wittenberg
 * 1987: Muskingum

Men's Wrestling

 * 2016–19: Baldwin Wallace
 * 2012–14: Heidelberg
 * 2011: Mount Union
 * 2006–10: Heidelberg
 * 2002–05: John Carroll
 * 2001: Ohio Northern
 * 2000: Muskingum

Men's Cross Country

 * 2018-2019: Otterbein
 * 2015–2017: Ohio Northern
 * 2012–2014: Mount Union
 * 2011: Ohio Northern
 * 2010: Mount Union
 * 2009: Heidelberg
 * 2007–2008: Ohio Northern
 * 2005–2006: Mount Union
 * 2003–2004: Otterbein
 * 2001–2002: Mount Union
 * 2000: Heidelberg

Women's Cross Country

 * 2015–18: Otterbein
 * 2014: Mount Union
 * 2013: John Carroll
 * 2010–12: Ohio Northern
 * 2009: Baldwin Wallace
 * 2008: Ohio Northern
 * 2007: Baldwin Wallace
 * 2006: Ohio Northern

Men's Lacrosse

 * 2016–22: John Carroll
 * 2013–15: Otterbein

Women's Lacrosse

 * 2014–19: Mount Union

title: Ohio Athletic Conference


text:
Talk:Main Page/Layout design/Archive 1

New colour layout
I just wanted to say: ... wow! Fantasy :-)

 * Yeah, it looks much better than the old one Whkoh 15:04 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Agreed JasonM 17:07 3 Jul 2003 (GMT)

 * Hmm. Well, as they say, it takes all sorts... ;-) Personally, I find it garish. But I suppose I'll have to live with it -- James F. 16:37 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Why should you have to live with it? It looks astoundingly amateurish. --The Cunctator 21:40 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Oh garishness! Oh luridness!. Perhaps I may be deemed blandish, but I deeply feel Wikipedia should be unimpeded by graphics & color. This being an encyclopedia, we should give solely what the researchers expect: substance. Looks pretty cool though! Usedbook 18:24 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * I say the colors suck. ours is much better. -- TomK32 19:17 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * It doesn't look bad, but it sends the wrong message IMHO. Wiki is about content, and colour and formatting should be used only when absolutely needed. Colour and fancy layout should be done in themes, not hard-coded into the database.

 * Is there any chance we could have a vote on whether to change it back? -- stewacide 19:24 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I'm against a vote, we should try to find a reasonable compromise first. The colors we currently have are somewhat logical: The yellow of the community box represents the background on the community pages. The blue of the articles box is the blue that will soon be used for the Table of Contents boxes above articles. The red/pink for the Selection will be our "general" color for highlighting certain boxes, e.g. on Recent Changes. I like the colors a lot, and I think people should try to get used to them for a few days before calling for another change. --Eloquence 23:26 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * I agree. The layout is beginning to really grow on me. The TOC and special page bit is interesting, however I chose blue because it symbolizes hyperlinks and the red hue because it symbolizes red/edit links and the constantly unfinished nature of our project. IMO red, blue and yellow should be our official colors and should be in or logo. --mav

Brilliant redesign of the front page. Far more professional. It makes wiki's front page look like a properly laid out professionally designed encyclopædia. I find the suggestion that it is sending out the "wrong message" perverse. Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't Encyclopedia Briittanica use colour? And World Book? And every other modern twenty-first century encyclopædia? And of course colour and "fancy layout" should be hard-coded into the database; it is called branding; creating a clear and recognisable brand visual. That's how an twenty-first century encyclopædia should look, not like a 1980s pre DTP cut and paste job. Full marks to those responsible for a great great job. BTW sorry to TomK32 but all I can say to ours is mega yuch! Sooooooo 1990s. :-) FearÉIREANN 23:28 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * I thought the idea of Wikipedia was to design a great, copywrite-free encyclopedia - not a great webpage. Hardcoding formatting and layout may make Wikipedia.org look better and more "profesional" (something that should be done with "themes" IMHO), but it also makes it far less portable.

 * What if, for example, someone wanted to leverage the Wikipedia datebase for a non-webpage application (e.g. a stand-alone encyclopedia application, a device-specicfic version for cellphones or the like, a printed version, etc.)? Also, what if the Wikipedia developers get around to making the site fully skinable? Hardcoding web-specific HTML formatting makes these things much harder or impossible when they don't have to be.

 * The #1 most important web innovation of the 21st century (IMHO) is the idea of seperating content from formatting (see: css, xml, etc.). This is a step backwards in that respect. -- stewacide 01:15 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I could not disagree more. One of wiki's most dramatic flaws has been its poor use of layout, inadequate use of images and overall a look that has made it look like an amateur attempt at an encyclopædia. That was perfectly understrandable as that was what wiki was, an amateur attempt at an encyclopædia. But with the growth in the number and range of contributors and in the scope of articles, wikipedia is now a serious sourcebook and that fact has to be clear the moment someone sets eyes on a wiki page. If in the first five seconds a reader forms the opinion that (a) we are unreliable fact-wise, or (b) even if we have the facts we would bore them rigid communicating the facts, they will be gone with one click of a mouse and all the work by all the people who wrote and continue to wrote wiki will be wasted.

The previous front page looked (a) dated, (b) reader-unfriendly, and (c) targeted at academics. Those three characteristics if perpetuated would kill wiki stone dead. It has to communicate the fact that it reader-friendly, and it is no good relying on words to communicate that. Before someone reads a letter let alone a word, they will have formed an opinion on wiki based on the visual product in front of them. That is why EB and World Book have spent so much redesigning their hardcopy versions and and why they treat the visual look of their computer-based versions as central. Get the look wrong and the message it sends to a reader who is not sure whether to use it or go elsewhere, is either 'by God but we are going to bore you rigid' or 'we are an encyclopædia. We don't want you if you are just some schoolkid scanning the net for stuff. We are for serious people, not you.' EB and WB and all the others know that. Getting wiki's visual look right is nothing to do with play-acting at web page design. It is about the basic requirement of every single publication, book, magazine, internet site, absolutely everything. Image contextualises the product and if you get the image wrong, you screw up the product.

In fact this page redesign must be the first step in putting together a full graphic package. Among other things that should require one corporate logo, not the different ones on different bits of wiki, an absolutely uniform visual look everywhere, to give a visual and corporate unity to a text which is slowly being brought together and unified in its form of communication. Until recently many longer articles were so text-heavily and image-light that even PhD students would take a deep breath before tackling them; try reading Abortion and see if you can get to the end without dying of boredom. Major rewriting, editing, adding in headings, images, captions etc had now made wiki far far more user friendly. Thankfully a similar process is now being applied to the front page, which if done well will entise people in, not frighten people away. FearÉIREANN 04:49 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * I don't disagree that Wikipedia should look better and be more standardized. What I'm pointing out is that hardcoding HTML is entirely the wrong way to go about it. It's very unlikely, for example, that the fancy layout on the EB or WB online editions are hand/hard coded HTML. Rather, they're "themes" applied to content extracted from a database. Wikipedia is only going to start looking better and being more standardized if we adopt a similar strategy starting with the software that runs Wikipedia.

 * For example, instead of using tables and other HTML tricks to place images in articles, it would be easier, make more sense, look more consistent, and be more portable if a Wiki' shorthand was developed for associating images with paragraphs of text, and associating captions with immages (see: ). That way the Wikipedia software can worry about how to lay out the image and the page, and us Wikipedians can worry about the content. It may end up being more work for the programmers, but I think it's much better to have a programmer do something once, than for us to do it a million times on every page.

 * Untill a more intelegent "engine" is developed that can do fancy formatting and layout in a standardized and portable way, I think it's best that we keep things simple. -- stewacide 07:41 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * "[I]t's much better to have a programmer do something once, than for us to do it a million times on every page." Um, I hate to say it but we don't have 150 billion images. I think you overestimate the conversion costs, and the cost of continuing to do what we're doing. It could be years before we have decent software. I think it's well worthwhile at least having a decent main page in the meantime. Additionally, software doesn't just pop out of a big black box marked "SOFTWARE MACHINE" -- future hard-coded designs could be based on the HTML hacking we are doing now. -- Tim Starling 08:21 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * These colors look awful. Wikipedia doesn't need lame pastels to help it. --The Cunctator
 * What if only the encyclopedia topic had the pastel inbehind, the rest, is left plain. That would draw attention to the most crucial section for browsing, and not present the eye with such an array of colours? - user:zanimum

I agree with James F., Usedbook, TomK32, stewacide, and The Cunctator. (As you've probably guessed from my edit last night, if you saw it.) The new design is a Bad Thing. I have seen uglier pages on the Web, but they're mostly by teenagers who have just discovered HTML for the first time and are eager to try out every colour they can think of, all on the same page, just for the the hell of it. So when are we getting the flashing heading, scrolling footnotes, and those cool pictures that follow your mouse around the screen when you move it? Ahem. I mean, why can't we just stick to elegant simplicity? Is there a reason for adding these background colours, or is it just that it looks "cool"? -- Oliver P. 00:59 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I also dislike the new design and don't see the point in it - I certinaly don't agree with FearÉIREANN that the old design was dated (how can plain text be dated? maybe I should get my Shakespeare out and attack it with some watercolours...) or reader unfriendly or anything like that. Putting pastel coloured boxes around things doesn't make them easier to mentally parse anyway. If somebody edited an article so that one paragraph was in a red font, the next in blue and the next in green, I expect it would be changed back without much fuss, so why are we slapping colour around in a similarly pointless way on the main page? On a more personal note, I hate pastel shades in general (they're alright for toilet paper, I guess), and didn't really like it when the current division of the main page into two vertical parts arrived (this probably makes me certifiably insane, I know). That said, I'm not going to make a big deal out of this (unless I get into a really bad mood). Mumble grumble--Camembert

First, let's be clear: the current pastel colors are a bit too soft for my taste as well. I liked the original new design. But I can live with the current version, and I think it's a good basis to work on, and still an improvement upon the black and white scheme.

It's hard to argue about taste, so ultimately, an opinion poll will probably be used to decide what we do. But please keep in mind that if you vote for the old version, it is very unlikely that a color experiment will be tried again, and we will probably be stuck in black and white for months, if not years. On the other hand, if you vote for the new one, we can always think about improving upon the colors.

Why I think colors are important:
 * We already use them. Right on this page -- check the background color. This yellowish color has been there since the Phase III upgrade, and it has never really been linked to any concept. The new Main Page links it to the general concept of "Community", and if you think about it, that's what most of the yellowish pages are about (except for the image pages, which should probably be white anyway).
 * Similarly, our taxonomy, physics and chemistry boxes have had color for quite a while. This helps in identifying them as a separate part of the page, or in highlighting particular sections of the respective box. The colors we agree upon for the Main Page can be used consistently throughout Wikipedia. If properly done, this gives our site an additional level of logic that helps people to navigate it.
 * Our current Main Page says to the visitor: Here there be text. Text, text, text. Oh, and we also have some text. If you look at the logo, you will notice that it contains text. This symbolizes the fact that we like text. Right below the logo there's some navigational text, and to the right, there's some more text, and a text box that, when expanded, contains text. Below that is the welcome text, followed by the two text boxes that contain the text categories to view the text on our site.

 * I think it's time that those of us who like brilliant pictures can try to attract others who do. Wikipedia is certainly a text-centric community, and our dislike for all things "fancy" reflects this. But we need pictures, and people who are good at creating pictures are often not identical to those who are good at creating text. For example, I think almost completely in fully phrased sentences -- almost never in pictures (hence the username). And although I like beautiful imagery, I'm terrible at creating it. The people I know who aren't would be scared away by our old, text-heavy Main Page layout. Granted, colors are not pictures, but for a visual person, they convey information and, more importantly, emotions. One emotion they convey (besides "Have I still got any toilet paper left?") is "You like colors? You like pictures? Come on in, there's more of it in here." And I think that's an emotion we have neglected to convey in the past. An encyclopedia is a collection of all human knowledge, in different forms. We have various galleries, great public domain pictures, a lot of fair use images and so on. Our old Main Page design was therefore misleading. We have color. We have images. We should make this clear to those who visit us.

 * Colors are not unprofessional. That's a red herring and you all know it. Every professional website we are competing with uses colors and images extenssively. Colors are a fundamental part of professional, usable web site design as anyone with a bit of experience can tell you. Now, if you don't like the current colors, say so. But don't condemn us to a colorless existence because reverting is easier than improving.
 * The argument that "design should not be hardcoded into the database" is also a weak one. It is not any more "hardcoded" than our article text is "hardcoded". It was collaboratively created in the wiki process, whereas the skins are PHP files written and developed by individuals (e.g. Cologne Blue is almost entirely the work of Magnus Manske). We should continue to work together on the designs that we use instead of leaving it to the programmers to decide how our pages look. Skins should only specify navigational and basic layout elements, not fundamental aspects of a page's look. The right approach to replace HTML is a template system like the one described here. That could easily interact with the skins, with a different template specified for each skin.

If you want some colors, but not necessarily our current ones, please do vote for the current version, and help us improve it. --Eloquence 03:30 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

i'll voice off here. mostly i have used the "links" browser to browse and edit wikipedia; so perhaps i am the wrong person to express an opinion, since the change would not apply to "links" anyway. i have a very pov view of the matter anyway. gui bad command line good. call me the old guard. only colors that are good are amber and phosphorous green. :-P -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 07:55 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The problem is that there is simply too much information on the page. I propose that we move the "encyclopedia" and the "community" columns off the main page. The help page, which is linked from the first paragraph of the main page, mirrors most of the links in the "community" column. The "encyclopedia" section could be merged with Category schemes, which is a short article that duplicates the "Other category schemes" heading at the bottom of the main page. This would greatly simplify the layout. -- Merphant 08:55 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * I agree, so I would propose a Google-like (just a try) design:

 * When I open Wikipedia, I look for knowledge. I "Search". So the Search Box should be in the middle of the page, the most important thing.
 * A Button for the current, the "Extended Homepage" can give people more information, if they want to.
 * Effects:

 * faster load,
 * faster search,
 * people know immediately that Wikipedia is about Finding information,
 * not a chatroom,
 * not a talk-tool
 * not a news-collection...
 * Fantasy 09:31 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * move the "encyclopedia" and the "community" columns off the main page

 * thirded. The most useful part of the main page is the quick summary of recently updated articles. Our front page should be like that of a newspaper, or some other continuously updated resource. Let's have some more space given over to new articles, or articles in the news. Heck, why not have a daily "featured article"? That's the sort of thing that will have people bookmarking wikipedia's front page and regularly browsing to it. A static list of categories? Not going to impress... Martin 16:07 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * You got in better words what I wanted to say, Thanks, Fantasy ;-)

Yes, the new look is better, but the white background should go too and we should have a colour theme: i.e., it is good design to have a single colour family with a single contrasting colour. For example, a very pale green wash over the entire background, boxes picked out in one or at most two darker shades of the same colour, and (if needed for highlights) a contrasting but compatable second colour (yellows and golds go well with greens). Note that green is just an example: you can choose any base colour you like - blue, brown, grey, whatever - but whichever one you choose, the other backgrounds should be variations of it, not completely different colours. Tannin 14:39 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Good gods, are you crazy? ;-)
 * Seriously, I generally ignore websites with much use of colour, as it suggests that it's been taken over or is run by people who believe in form over substance. All good websites use white backgrounds (yes, this is a generalisation, I admit). Going even further in the direction of Noddy's toy-land is not what we should be doing. This is a proper web-site, not one that is meant to capture the limited attention-span of someone who doesn't care.
 * -- James F. 16:56 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * You may ignore websites which use colour, JF, but the vast majority of people run a mile from pages that don't. The old front page sent out the unambiguous message - by God are we going to bore you rigid. The old version should be called the insomniacs version because it was a complete turn off, liable to put you to sleep. Luckily I came on wiki through a google search, not the front page. If I had seen the old front page I would have run a mile from wiki and when I did see the front page for the first time, my immediate reaction was an unambiguous yuch and a decision not to go there again. (I have only begun going there since becoming a sysop.) It had a ridiculous amount of text, no appeal, nothing attractive, nothing to make all but a minority of net users want to go any further. Even now it has far too much text and need to lose a lot of it. Any page that looks like a pre DTP hot metal page is dead in the water. Even Britain's conservative Daily Telegraph has realised that it needs better larger pictures and more front page colour to attract readers and is undergoing a redesign. If extensive use of colour is good enough for the Telegraph, why is it a problem on a net-based encyclopædia? FearÉIREANN 17:53 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * If you look at their site, however, you'll see that the only colour on the front page, excluding hyperlinks, are the adverts (which they don't create, and which for some reasons are guided by the concept that garish is better). The use of grey backgrounds allows clear differentiation of seperate sections of information, and yet is understated and 'clean'. I'm not advocating using no formatting or colouration, merely that using large blocks of colour, rather than neat thin lines, to differentiate sections is just ridiculous. See also The Times, The FT, The Independent, The Guardian, &c. All of these sites, like the Wikipedia, are primarily text-based information sources, all have spent lots of money on their sites' designs, and they all are understated. If you want garish websites, you can go the tabloids' sites, but surely you don't suggest that Wikipedia should try to align itself with such 'news' sources?
 * -- James F. 18:49 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * FCOL JF, they have to use a standard broadsheet look in terms of colour-scheme because it is part of their overall corporate identity. Wiki doesn't and would be exceedingly stupid to do so, because we are not a newspaper we are an encyclopædia. By no strength of the imagination is the front page garish. If anything its main problem is FAR to much content crammed in. All I am suggesting is that wiki stop looking like an amateur cut and paste pre-DTP document on its front page and start applying the professionalism it is trying to achieve in its content to its corporate identity and graphics style. The front page has long been an embarrassment. It failed just about every rule of professional layout - from its use primarily of black and white in a medium dominated by colour use, to having too much tightly packed text. Colour allows a heavy page to be made less heavy by categorising the page. That is basic design. Question might be raised about the page colours chosen, ie as they too pastel, but the principle behind their use is blatently obvious and advocating their non use is the design equivalent of complaining about the use of the car and championing the use of the horse instead. The next task is to severly cull the amount of text. There is too much, meaning that what is there is drowned by everything else and nothing makes an impact on the potential reader. And that is what the front page is there for, to make an impact on the reader, not to have them reacting "what the hell is that?" which is how they would react to the old page, with its dreary look, its 'by god are we going to bore you' construction, its over-use of text, its underuse of design and colour. Getting the black and white mentality out of wiki is crucial if it is to be taken seriously as a net encyclopædia, not an insomniac's dream. FearÉIREANN 19:21 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * I merely cited broadsheets because 'you started it'. :-) However, quite to the contrary, I would agree with you that the case of broadsheet website design is primarily ruled by corporate identity - they've worked out what looks sensible and clear and aids reading of intelligent pieces of discourse. I'm reticent to accuse you of tabloidisation, but do you think the use of pink paper for the FT not translating across to the web medium is because they don't care for their 150-year-old 'corporate identity', or because large-scale use of colour online is not beneficial? (FYI, they used to have the background colour set to their particular form of pale pink, but got rid of it a few years ago.)
 * I think that we're not ever going to agree here - you seem to disagree with me on fundamental levels of the principles of design: colour is not the be-all and end-all of sectioning, and in most cases detracts the attention from the content. Stylistic sectioning is not only less obtrusive, but more accessable (text-to-speech browsers often section by layout, but rarely if ever by colour) and uses the principles of progressive disclosure, physical analogy, web-site consistency, and uses expectations and stereotypes to advance the immediate sub-concious understanding of the structure of the data presented; people do not need to read bits text to understand that, say, the largest column with the most information is probably going to be the most important - it is instinctive. I suggest we just drop the discussion, as it doesn't seem to be going anywhere.
 * I do agree with you that the current Main Page is perhaps a little overloaded with information, but I don't think that the way it has be coloured in as if the contents of some eclectic 4-year-old's drawing book helps in this respect in the slightest
 * Oh, and riding is so much more fun (and almost certainly better for the environment) than driving ;-)
 * -- James F. 19:52 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

You are right about one thing; we are unlikely to agree. All textual products have two types of readers. Those who purposely choose to read it, and so are primarily focused on text and those who are openminded about going further. In the latter case, their opinions, positive or negative, are formed within 5 seconds. How they judge their response is shaped not primarily by text (unless it is of such a size and scale, as in a headline, that it immediately grabs their attention) but on whether the overall look meets with their expectations and arouses their interest to look further. What they expect depends on the nature of the product. A religious person will baulk at seeing a page of the bible in courier font, because that font is never ever used in religious texts. Given its 1960s feel, generally ugliness and its alien feel in a bible context, it would be guaranteed to drive away all but the most committed potential readers. Similarly putting a newspaper into italics, a broadsheet into tabloid style, a tabloid intro broadsheet style is guaranteed to cause potential readers to walk away in droves, not because a newspaper text in italics would necessarily be ugly but because it wouldn't "look like a newspaper". (The Irish Times caused chaos with its readership some months ago simply by changing its font. Though the content was the same, it no longer looked like the way the reader expected and that became a big barrier that it took months and a lot of advertising to overcome.)

In wiki's case it is a net-based encyclopædia. A design that looks hardcopy based by definition is wrong because the people who came to it come from a different medium, the net, that uses different visual stimulæ and layout. As with all other text-based sourcebooks, it has two forms of potential reader: people chasing up information (most of whom would through google searches go straight to a page not the main page) and those who find wiki, hit its first page and are faced with the simple question which is usually answered in 5 seconds, will I or won't I go further? As anyone who has ever laid out a document knows, the first reaction is formed from the overall page en bloc, not a detailed analysis of its contents. If the page is unfriendly, uninviting, too textual, too bland or too heavily, the vast majority of readers in those five seconds will instantly make up their minds and almost always make it up in the negative, and go elsewhere. (As a political consultant I have designed and laid out 11 advertorials; some were broadsheet in design and targeted at a broadsheet reader, others tabloid.)

In grabbing the potential reader's attention, colour is vital. The new page for example in using three colours sends the instant message that there are three aspects to wiki; up to date information, encyclopædia entries and a community behind wiki. As many potential readers may be attracted to one of those categories, allowing their eyes to focus on one area (each area clearly shown through the use of colour) rather than be faced with a page full of identical complicated text is crucial to making them want to go further rather than walk away having been overwhelmed by a word-heavy page. Colour is crucial on net pages because it is something that net users more than hardcopy users will presume is going to be there. Black and white, or grey, is an instant visual turnoff on colour screens for the vast majority of screens unless very very very well designed.

The warmer the colours the less the danger that someone will get intimidated away by the text within the crucial first five seconds. The old wiki front pages embodied the worst possible way to greet a potential reader: hit them with realms of text which they may not be able to make head or tail of, certainly not in the first five seconds when they will decide whether to stay or go. A clear graphic style, a page that is not too text heavily, and the use of colour to 'break up' the page into less intimidating portions, are three crucial features if a front page is to work. The changes solve two of those problems. The next crucial reform is to axe most of the text, so that what is on the page is easy to read, large enough to be reader-friendly and does not intimidate a new arrival. The old page was a disaster in that regard and the German page not much better. If I had used such a page in any advertorial, the person who commissioned me to produce the document would have refused to pay me, becuase the document would have been dead in the water, a guaranteed turn off with the vast majority of people who glanced at it, it ending up unread in the bin. FearÉIREANN 22:01 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * I don't know what an advertorial is, but it doesn't sound very comparable to an encylopaedia. Anyway, I doubt many people would disagree that the main page shouldn't look like an "amateur cut and paste pre-DTP document", but the problem is that people don't agree on what makes it look like that. You might find colours look professional, but not everybody does (and anyway, not everybody particularly wants to look "professional" - after all, we're not). Certainly, whatever camp one falls into, it's possible to find many websites to support one's view that way X is the sole True and Right way.

 * Personally, I've come round to thinking that reducing clutter is more important than the question of colour. I don't find Main Page/Temp3 nearly as bad as the current main page, and though I'd prefer it to be without colour as well, I could live with it if it meant having a simpler front page (I'd also prefer to do away with the vertical division, but I don't think anybody else dislikes that quite as much as I do). --Camembert

Personally I think that at the top of the main page there should have some big bold graphics, which proclaim "Wikipedia Your Free Encyclopedia" or some such.

It looks a bit dry and amateurish at the moment G-Man 14:46 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

- Oh great, another stupid vote. Voting on this seems rather premature - shouldn't the people who object to the color try to help us design something that most of us like and the rest of us can at least live with? This rush to voting on every stupid little thing sickens me - have we forgotten how to do things the WikiWay and compromise? Voting, especially idiotic ones like this one where the degree of approval or disapproval for each option is not counted, just polarizes people into different opposition groups. Then one option wins all and the rest (usually the majority of people who voted) don't get their ideas enacted at all. They just get shafted. If I were "voting" I would choose the three color (hues: red, yellow and blue) as my first choice, the "blue" heading fill option as my second choice and the longstanding no-color option as the third. But what I really want is for people to stop being so unimaginative and lazy that the only solution they seek is to put every damn controversial thing to a vote. See also VotingIsEvil. --mav 20:24 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * And, of course, VotingIsGood ;-). Voting is good and useful when done right, but bad when implemented in haste and without clear rules. What we need is a formalized process for deciding when to hold a vote, e.g. after a minimum of 14 days of consensus-seeking. --Eloquence 20:39 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * I think the opinion poll at the top of the page is a useful one to provide a bit of feedback to the folks who designed the new page - both positive and negative. Based in part on that feedback, I hope the next design will be even better. :) Martin 21:06 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Indeed - the thing at the top of this page isn't a vote, as far as I can tell (not in the sense that some decision will be taken based solely on it, anyway). It's just there to give a rough idea of how many people think what. It seems quite useful to me, so long as we don't take it too seriously. --Camembert

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Main Page/Layout design/Archive 1


text:
Oriental Mindoro

Oriental Mindoro (Silangang Mindoro), officially the Province of Oriental Mindoro (Lalawigan ng Silangang Mindoro (Oriental Mindoro)), is a province in the Philippines located on the island of Mindoro under Mimaropa region in Luzon, about 140 km southwest of Manila. The province is bordered by the Verde Island Passage and the rest of Batangas to the north, by Marinduque, Maestre de Campo (or known as Sibale but official name is Concepcion) Island, Tablas Strait and the rest of Romblon to the east, by Semirara and the rest of Caluya Islands, Antique to the south, and by Occidental Mindoro to the west. Calapan, the only city in the island, is the provincial capital and Mimaropa's regional center.

Oriental Mindoro is touted as the country's emerging eco-tourism destination. In 2005, the Philippines was found to be the center of marine fish biodiversity and the home of the most diverse marine ecosystem in the world, by American biologists Kent Carpenter and Victor Springer. Most of the endemic species in the Philippines are found in the Verde Island Passage between Mindoro island and the main island of Luzon. The passage houses 2,983 individual species of algae, corals, crustaceans, mollusks, fishes, marine reptiles, and marine mammals, based on a study conducted by Carpenter and Springer in 2005.

UNESCO declared Puerto Galera a biosphere reserve under its Man and the Biosphere Programme in the 1970s. The Verde Island Passage is at the apex of the so-called Coral Triangle – the Philippines, Indonesia, and Malaysia – which has the distinction of being the "center of the center of the world's marine biodiversity" and the "center of the center of marine shorefish biodiversity".

Japanese occupation era
A Japanese force landed on northeastern Mindoro in the Philippine Islands on 27 February 1942.

Almost three years later, after the invasion of Mindoro by Allied forces, they proceeded to land to Bongabong and heading to and capturing Calapan, the capital of the united Mindoro Province at the time on 24 January 1945.

Foundation
After World War II, reconstruction and rehabilitation of infrastructure and economy took place on the island, which then constituted a single province. This was partitioned on 13 June 1950 into Oriental Mindoro and Occidental Mindoro by virtue of Republic Act No. 505.

In the decades after the War, Mindoro attracted settlers from overpopulated provinces in the Philippines. Apart from the hope to become landowners or to have better tenancy conditions, the Hukbalahap Rebellion in Central Luzon was an important factor for migration. Under the settlement program of the National Resettlement and Rehabilitation Administration (NARRA) founded in 1954, families from Central Luzon were settled in the Bongabong-Pinamalayan area. This project ended in 1956 after 606 families (3,636 people) were settled on 8,600 ha of public land. Since then, new settlers continue to migrate to Mindoro until today.

Contemporary
On November 15, 1994, a magnitude 7.1 earthquake struck the Verde Island Passage located north of Oriental Mindoro, killing 69 people in the province, with most casualties due to the tsunami caused by the earthquake. Within a year after the calamity, however, the provincial government under Governor Rodolfo G. Valencia was able to successfully rehabilitate the province in a brisk manner, and was thus conferred the Disaster Management Award by the National Disaster Coordinating Council in July 1995.

The island currently sees an ongoing conflict between the Armed Forces of the Philippines and insurgents. On March 6, 2010, eleven soldiers were killed and seven were hurt in a gun battle with the New People's Army in Mansalay, Oriental Mindoro.

Geography

Oriental Mindoro covers a total area of 4,238.38 km2 occupying the eastern section of Mindoro island in Mimaropa region. The province is bordered by the Verde Island Passage to the north, by Marinduque, Maestre de Campo, Tablas Strait and the rest of Romblon to the east, by Semirara and the rest of Caluya Islands, Antique to the south, and by Occidental Mindoro to the west.

The western portion of the province is mountainous or rugged, while the east has hills and flood plains. Mount Halcon, standing 2,582 m above sea level, is the 18 th highest mountain in the country and is the province's and island's highest peak. Lake Naujan, the fifth largest lake in the country with an area of approximately 8,125 ha of open water, is located at the northeastern part of the island and the province.

Administrative divisions
Oriental Mindoro comprises 14 municipalities, with one city, Calapan serving as the provincial capital.

Provincial capital and component city

Municipality

Climate
Oriental Mindoro has no distinct wet or dry season. Average temperature ranges from 28 to 32 C. The province experiences maximum rainfall during the months of June to September. Relative humidity is registered at 87%.

Demographics
The population of Oriental Mindoro in the 2020 census was 908,339 people, with a density of undefined PD/km2.

The province is largely rural, with 70% of the population engaged in agriculture and fishing and with only 30% living in urban centers. Tagalog and English are widely spoken in the province. Tagalog is usually spoken with Batangas dialect both due to its geographical contact with Batangas and Batangueño residents in the province, although it has been greatly influenced by the native Mangyan and Visayan languages, creating another unique dialect. Other languages spoken are Ilocano, Bicolano, Kapampangan, Maranao, Maguindanaon, Tausug and Cebuano, to varying degrees by their respective communities within the province. Dialects of the Mangyan language are Arayan, Alagnan, Buhid, Hanunoo, and Tadyawan. Because of the RORO trips coming from Caticlan, a few people from the southern part facing Panay can understand Hiligaynon.

Religion
A very large portion of the population are of Roman Catholic conviction (81%). Other Christian and Islamic beliefs constitute most of the remaining religious affiliation in the province. Other populations practice indigenous Philippine folk religions, animism, or atheism.

Indigenous people
The indigenous people of Oriental Mindoro are the Mangyans (Manguianes in Spanish, Mañguianes in Old Tagalog), consisting of seven distinct tribes. They occupy the interior, specially the highlands. Mangyans have inhabited the island since pre-history. They are believed to have originally traveled from Indonesia and settled down for good in the island.

Economy
Oriental Mindoro's rich and arable land is suitable for agriculture. It produces large quantities of rice, corn, coconut, vegetables and fruits like calamansi, banana, rambutan, marang or uloy, lanzones and durian. For that, Oriental Mindoro is also known as the Rice Granary and Fruit Basket of Southern Tagalog. It still is the Banana King and Calamansi King of the region. Its total agricultural area is 169,603.34 ha. Based on agricultural statistics, 85,244 ha are devoted to palay production while 21,671 has to coconut plantation. For 2019, the province has been one of the top producers of rice becoming a source of rice for the National Food Authority's rice procurement target.

Tourist attractions

Access from Luzon via the Batangas ports mostly goes through the Verde Island Passage to reach Puerto Galera, the key entry point to Oriental Mindoro. In November 2004, Puerto Galera was voted a member of the UNESCO-affiliated ‘The Club of the Most Beautiful Bays in the World. Puerto Galera features a natural harbor which also protects ships, yachts and bancas from strong typhoons sweeping in from the Pacific.

Puerto Galera, known for white sand beaches and the accompanying honky tonk bar scene on some key beaches, is known for its dive sites with a biodiversity of marine life in and around the coral reefs. Underwater rock formations and coral gardens are home to a variety of marine life, which include numerous species of nudibranch, mantis shrimp, sea anemone, moray and sea fan sea horses. The seas off the coast are host to passing dolphin pods and even the rarer whale shark, and are part of the migratory small whale route from the Visayas.

Towering 8488 ft above sea level, Mount Halcon in Baco, is a popular mountain climbing destination. Local and migratory birds allow birdwatching activities. The province is home to endemic wildlife like the tamaraw, a straight-horned water buffalo.

Other tourist destinations include:

Hidden Paradise
The attraction consists of a natural spring with a swimming pool and picnic cottages. It is located in Baco, and can be reached in 45 minutes by taking a jeepney bound for the Calapan market.

Alibatan Island
The island measures 5 ha and is noted for its white sand. The place serves as the breeding place of seagulls and turtles. Corals and oysters can be found all around the area. The island is also called "Target Island" because Americans used the island for bombing practice in 1946. It is located in Baco, and can be reached in an hour through a motorized banca from the market square.

Buyayao Island
It is a rocky island, except for the area facing Buyayao Peninsula. Big snakes called "sobre kama" are found in the mountains. The water around the island is suitable for deep-sea fishing. It is located off the coast of Mansalay, and can be reached in 30 minutes by motorized banca from Mansalay market.

Suqui Beach
This is a public beach with cottages and other facilities. It is a favorite place for the local people, especially during the summer. It is located in Suqui, Calapan, and can be reached in 15 minutes by taking a tricycle from the town proper.

Banilad Beach
The place is a good spot for picnicking and swimming, especially during the summer. It is located in Pili, Pinamalayan, and can be reached by taking a jeepney to the port of Barangay Wawa, then an hour's ride by motorized banca to the beach.

Bongol Beach
It is a secluded beach, with a 2 km white sand beach. It is located in Bongol, Pinamalayan, and can be reached in two hours by boarding a Bongol-bound jeepney from the town proper of Pinamalayan and then a tricycle to the beach area.

Tamaraw Falls
The 423 ft waterfalls, situated alongside the road, is actually a series of asymmetrical falls, leading to the grand one, dropping to a frothy waterbed below. The cascading waterfalls are a great attraction to passers-by. Tamaraw Falls is located in Barangay Villaflor, Puerto Galera. It can be reached in two hours by taking a jeepney bound for Barangay Villaflor from Puerto Galera, or Calapan.

La Laguna Beach
An ideal place for swimming, snorkeling, and scuba diving. There are a number of resorts that offer accommodation and other travel and aqua sports facilities to both domestic and international tourists. It is located in La Laguna, Puerto Galera, and can be reached in 30 minutes from the town proper of Puerto Galera by taking a jeepney bound for La Laguna.

Sabang Beach
This area is ideal for swimming, snorkeling, and scuba diving. A cluster of nightspots abound in this area, which makes it popular for evening socials. Cottages with entertainment facilities stand close to each other. Low-budget accommodations are available. It is located east of Puerto Galera, and can be reached in 15 minutes from the Puerto Galera pier by taking a jeepney or an outrigger banca.

Small La Laguna
Contrary to its name, Small La Laguna is bigger than La Laguna, and has more facilities. It has coral reefs, and its water is ideal for snorkeling and scuba diving. There are diving equipment for rent at nearby dive shops. It is located beside Sabang Beach, and can be reached in 20 minutes from the pier by taking a jeepney bound for Sabang.

Talipanan Beach
This area is not as busy as the other beaches in Puerto Galera. Thus, it is an ideal site for private swimming. It is located in Puerto Galera, and can be reached in 40 minutes by taking a jeepney or an outrigger boat from the town pier.

White Sand Beach
The white sandy strips of this beach offer excellent opportunities for swimming. Resorts in this area provide entertainment facilities for tourists' greater amusement and leisure. It is located in Barangay San Isidro, Puerto Galera, and is accessible in 30 minutes from the town proper by a jeepney or a boat.

Punta Guarda Beach
This beach is far from the busy areas of Puerto Galera; thus, it is ideal for those who seek privacy and retreat. It is located in Puerto Galera, Oriental Mindoro, and can be reached by taking a 10-minute jeepney ride from the town proper, to about one kilometer on the beach mark. The remaining distance is covered on foot.

Melco Beach
It is a beige-colored sandy beach with cottages for rent. It is located in Roxas, Oriental Mindoro, and can be reached in 10 minutes by a banca from the pier.

Education
Higher education institutions in the province:

 * Abada College
 * ACMCL College
 * AMA CLC College of Calapan (ACLC College)
 * Baco Community College
 * Clarendon College
 * CLCC Institute of Computer, Arts & Technology
 * Dalubhasaan ng Lungsod ng Calapan (City College of Calapan)
 * Divine Word College of Calapan
 * Eastern Mindoro College
 * Eastern Mindoro Institute of Technology and Sciences
 * Erhard Science and Technological Institute - Oriental Mindoro Inc.
 * Filipino Academy of Scientific Trades
 * Grace Mission College
 * Innovative College Of Science in Information Technology
 * IATEC Computer College
 * Institute of Business Science and Medical Arts
 * John Paul College
 * Luna Goco Colleges
 * Mindoro State University
 * Mindoro Bible College
 * Paradigm College of Science and Technology
 * Pinamalayan Maritime Foundation and Technological College, Inc.
 * Polytechnic University of the Philippines - Bansud
 * Prince of Peace College
 * Colegio De Puerto Galera
 * Southwestern Institute of Business and Technology
 * Southwestern Maritime Institute Foundation
 * Saint Augustine Seminary
 * Simeon Suan Vocational and Technical college
 * St. Anthony College Calapan

title: Oriental Mindoro


text:
Simplified Chinese characters

Simplified Chinese characters are one of two standardized character sets widely used to write the Chinese language, with the other being traditional characters. Their mass standardization during the 20th century was part of an initiative by the People's Republic of China (PRC) to promote literacy, and their use in ordinary circumstances on the mainland has been encouraged by the Chinese government since the 1950s. They are the official forms used in mainland China and Singapore, while traditional characters are officially used in Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan.

Simplification of a component—either a character or a sub-component called a radical—usually involves either a reduction in its total number of strokes, or an apparent streamlining of which strokes are chosen in what places—for example, the radical used in the traditional character 沒 is simplified to  to form the simplified character 没. By systematically simplifying radicals, large swaths of the character set are altered. Some simplifications were based on popular cursive forms that embody graphic or phonetic simplifications of the traditional forms. In addition, variant characters with identical pronunciation and meaning were reduced to a single standardized character, usually the simplest among all variants in form. Finally, many characters were left untouched by simplification and are thus identical between the traditional and simplified Chinese orthographies.

The Chinese government has never officially announced the completion of the simplification process after the bulk of characters were introduced by the 1960s. In the wake of the Cultural Revolution, a second round of simplified characters was promulgated in 1977—largely composed of entirely new variants intended to artificially lower the stroke count, in contrast to the first round—but was massively unpopular and never saw consistent use. The second round of simplifications was ultimately retracted officially in 1986, well after they had largely ceased to be used due to their unpopularity and the confusion they caused. In August 2009, China began collecting public comments for a revised list of simplified characters; the resulting Table of General Standard Chinese Characters lists 8,105 characters, including a few revised forms, and was implemented for official use by China's State Council on 5 June 2013.

Nomenclature
In Chinese, simplified characters are referred to by their official name, or colloquially as. The latter term refers broadly to all character variants featuring simplifications of character form or structure, a practice which has always been present as a part of the Chinese writing system. The official name tends to refer to the specific, systematic set published by the Chinese government, which includes not only simplifications of individual characters, but also a substantial reduction in the total number of characters through the merger of formerly distinct forms.

Background
According to Chinese palaeographer Qiu Xigui, the broadest trend in the evolution of Chinese characters over their history has been simplification, both in graphical shape, the "external appearances of individual graphs", and in graphical form , "overall changes in the distinguishing features of graphic[al] shape and calligraphic style, [...] in most cases refer[ring] to rather obvious and rather substantial changes". The initiatives following the founding of the Qin dynasty (221–206 BC) to universalize the use of their small seal script across the recently conquered parts of the empire is generally seen as being the first real attempt at script reform in Chinese history.

Before the 20th century, variation in character shape on the part of scribes, which would continue with the later invention of woodblock printing, was ubiquitous. For example, prior to the Qin dynasty (221–206 BC) the character meaning 'bright' was written as either or —with either  or  on the left, with the  component on the right. Li Si (d. 208 BC), the Chancellor of Qin, attempted to universalize the Qin small seal script across China following the wars that had politically unified the country for the first time. Li prescribed the form of the word for 'bright', but some scribes ignored this and continued to write the character as. However, the increased usage of was followed by proliferation of a third variant:, with  on the left—likely derived as a contraction of. Ultimately, became the character's standard form.

The Book of Han (111 AD) describes an earlier attempt made by King Xuan of Zhou (d. 782 BC) to unify character forms across the states of ancient China, with his chief chronicler having "[written] fifteen chapters describing" what is referred to as the "big seal script". The traditional narrative, as also attested in the Shuowen Jiezi dictionary (c. 100 AD), is that the Qin small seal script that would later be imposed across China was originally derived from the Zhou big seal script with few modifications. However, the body of epigraphic evidence comparing the character forms used by scribes gives no indication of any real consolidation in character forms prior to the founding of the Qin. The Han dynasty (202 BC – 220 AD) that inherited the Qin administration coincided with the perfection of clerical script through the process of libian.

Late Qing literature and Republican-era reform (1850–1949)

Though most closely associated with the People's Republic, the idea of a mass simplification of character forms first gained traction in China during the early 20th century. In 1909, the educator and linguist Lufei Kui formally proposed the use of simplified characters in education for the first time. Over the following years—marked by the 1911 Xinhai Revolution that toppled the Qing dynasty, followed by growing social and political discontent that further erupted into the 1919 May Fourth Movement—many anti-imperialist intellectuals throughout China began to see the country's writing system as a serious impediment to its modernization. In 1916, a multi-part English-language article entitled "The Problem of the Chinese Language" co-authored by the Chinese linguist Yuen Ren Chao (1892–1982) and poet Hu Shih (1891–1962) has been identified as a turning point in the history of the Chinese script—as it was one of the first clear calls for China to move away from the use of characters entirely. Instead, Chao proposed that the language be written with an alphabet, which he saw as more logical and efficient. The alphabetization and simplification campaigns would exist alongside one another among the Republican intelligentsia for the next several decades.

Recent commentators have echoed some contemporary claims that Chinese characters were blamed for the economic problems in China during that time. Lu Xun, one of the most prominent Chinese authors of the 20th century, stated that "if Chinese characters are not destroyed, then China will die". During the 1930s and 1940s, discussions regarding simplification took place within the ruling Kuomintang (KMT) party. Many members of the Chinese intelligentsia maintained that simplification would increase literacy rates throughout the country. In 1935, the first official list of simplified forms was published, consisting of 324 characters collated by Peking University professor Qian Xuantong. However, fierce opposition within the KMT resulted in the list being rescinded in 1936.

First round of simplification (1949–1977)
Work throughout the 1950s resulted in the 1956 promulgation of the Chinese Character Simplification Scheme, a draft of 515 simplified characters and 54 simplified components, whose simplifications would be present in most compound characters. Over the following decade, the Script Reform Committee deliberated on characters in the 1956 scheme, collecting public input regarding the recognizability of variants, and often approving forms in small batches. Parallel to simplification, there were also initiatives aimed at eliminating the use of characters entirely and replacing them with pinyin as an official Chinese alphabet, but this possibility was abandoned, confirmed by a speech given by Zhou Enlai in 1958. In 1965, the PRC published the List of Commonly Used Characters for Printing (hereafter Characters for Printing), which included standard printed forms for 6196 characters, including all of the forms from the 1956 scheme.

Second round of simplification (1977–1986)
A second round of simplified characters was promulgated in 1977, but was poorly received by the public and quickly fell out of official use. It was ultimately formally rescinded in 1986. The second-round simplifications were unpopular in large part because most of the forms were completely new, in contrast to the familiar variants comprising the majority of the first round. With the rescission of the second round, work toward further character simplification largely came to an end.

Since 1986
In 1986, authorities retracted the second round completely, though they had been largely fallen out of use within a year of their initial introduction. That year, the authorities also promulgated a final version of the General List of Simplified Chinese Characters. It was identical to the 1964 list save for 6 changes—including the restoration of 3 characters that had been simplified in the first round: 叠, 覆, 像; the form 疊 is used instead of 叠 in regions using traditional characters. The Chinese government stated that it wished to keep Chinese orthography stable.

The Chart of Generally Utilized Characters of Modern Chinese was published in 1988 and included $7,000$ simplified and unsimplified characters. Of these, half were also included in the revised List of Commonly Used Characters in Modern Chinese, which specified $2,500$ common characters and $1,000$ less common characters. In 2009, the Chinese government published a major revision to the list which included a total of $8,300$ characters. No new simplifications were introduced. In addition, slight modifications to the orthography of 44 characters to fit traditional calligraphic rules were initially proposed, but were not implemented due to negative public response. Also, the practice of unrestricted simplification of rare and archaic characters by analogy using simplified radicals or components is now discouraged. A State Language Commission official cited "oversimplification" as the reason for restoring some characters. The language authority declared an open comment period until 31 August 2009, for feedback from the public.

In 2013, the Table of General Standard Chinese Characters was published as a revision of the 1988 lists; it included a total of $8,105$ characters. It included 45 newly recognized standard characters that were previously considered variant forms, as well as official approval of 226 characters that had been simplified by analogy and had seen wide use but were not explicitly given in previous lists or documents.

Outside mainland China
Singapore underwent three successive rounds of character simplification, eventually arriving at the same set of simplified characters as mainland China. The first round was promulgated by the Ministry of Education in 1969, consisting of 498 simplified characters derived from 502 traditional characters. A second round of 2287 simplified characters was promulgated in 1974. The second set contained 49 differences from the mainland China system; these were removed in the final round in 1976. In 1993, Singapore adopted the 1986 mainland China revisions. Unlike in mainland China, Singapore parents have the option of registering their children's names in traditional characters.

Malaysia also promulgated a set of simplified characters in 1981, though completely identical to the mainland Chinese set. They are used in Chinese-language schools.

In British Hong Kong, A small group called (or ) attempted to introduce a special version of simplified characters using romanizations in the 1930s. Today, however, traditional characters remain dominant in Hong Kong.

Structural simplification
All characters simplified this way are enumerated in Charts 1 and 2 of the 1986 General List of Simplified Chinese Characters, hereafter the General List.
 * Chart 1 lists all 350 characters that are used by themselves, and can never serve as 'simplified character components'.
 * Chart 2 lists 132 characters that are used by themselves as well as utilized as simplified character components to further derive other simplified characters. Chart 2 also lists 14 components or radicals that cannot be used by themselves, but can be generalized for derivation of more complex characters.

Derivation based on simplified components

 * Chart 3 of the General List includes $1,753$ characters which are simplified based on the same simplification principles used for components and radicals in Chart 2. This list is non-exhaustive, so if a character is not already found in Charts 1–3, but can be simplified in accordance with Chart 2, the character should be simplified.

Elimination of variants

 * Series One Organization List of Variant Characters accounts for some of the orthography differences in mainland China versus in Hong Kong and Taiwan. These are not simplifications of character structures, but rather reduction in number of total standard characters. For each set of variants with identical pronunciation and meaning, one character—usually the simplest—is elevated to the standard character set, and the rest are obsoleted. By 1993, $1,027$ variants were declared obsolete by this list. Among the chosen variants, those that appear in the 1986 Complete List are also simplified in character structure accordingly.

Novel forms

 * New standardized character forms originated from the 1965 Characters for Printing list containing $6,196$ characters. These tend to be vulgar variant forms for most of its characters. The 1988 List of Commonly Used Characters in Modern Chinese (hereafter Common Modern Characters) contains $7,000$ characters, and replaces the 1965 list. Since the new forms take vulgar variants, many characters now appear slightly simpler compared to old forms, and as such are often mistaken as being structurally simplified.

Structural simplification
All characters simplified this way are enumerated in Chart 1 and Chart 2 in the 1986 Complete List. Characters in both charts are structurally simplified based on similar set of principles. They are separated into two charts to clearly mark those in Chart 2 as 'usable as simplified character components', based on which Chart 3 is derived.

Merging homophonous characters:
 * 蒙、懞、濛、矇 → 蒙; 復、複、覆、复 → 复; 乾、幹、榦、干 → 干; 髮、發 → 发

Adapting cursive shapes (草書楷化):
 * 書 → 书; 長 → 长; 當 → 当; 韋 → 韦; 樂 → 乐; 車 → 车; 興 → 兴; 發 → 发; 東 → 东; 專 → 专; 過 → 过; 報 → 报; 爾 → 尔; 盡 → 尽; 學 → 学

Replacing a component with a simple arbitrary symbol (such as 又 and 乂):
 * 對 → 对; 觀 → 观; 僅 → 仅; 難 → 难; 鳳 → 凤; 這 → 这; 劉 → 刘

Omitting entire components:
 * 廠 → 厂; 廣 → 广; 飛 → 飞; 習 → 习; 滅 → 灭; 親 → 亲; 業 → 业; 鄉 → 乡; 餘 → 余; 氣 → 气

Omitting components, then applying further alterations:
 * 婦 → 妇; 麗 → 丽; 歸 → 归; 顯 → 显; 務 → 务

Structural changes that preserve the basic shape
 * 繼 → 继; 龜 → 龟; 齒 → 齿; 奪 → 夺; 門 → 门; 見 → 见

Replacing the phonetic component of phono-semantic compounds:
 * 鄰 → 邻; 斃 → 毙; 蠟 → 蜡; 鍾 → 钟; 艦 → 舰

Replacing an uncommon phonetic component:
 * 華 → 华; 憲 → 宪; 歷、曆 → 历; 賓 → 宾

Replacing entirely with a newly coined phono-semantic compound:
 * 護 → 护; 驚 → 惊; 藝 → 艺; 響 → 响

Removing radicals
 * 麼 → 么; 開 → 开; 裡/裏 → 里; 餘 → 余; 關/関 → 关

Only retaining single radicals
 * 廣 → 广; 親 → 亲; 產 → 产; 類 → 类; 廠 → 厂; 鄉 → 乡

Replacing with ancient forms or variants:
 * 塵 → 尘; 膚 → 肤; 從 → 从; 眾 → 众; 雲 → 云; 網 → 网; 與 → 与; 無 → 无; 電 → 电

Adopting ancient vulgar variants:
 * 體 → 体; 國 → 国; 憑 → 凭; 陽 → 阳; 陰 → 阴

Readopting abandoned phonetic-loan characters:
 * 餘 → 余; 後 → 后; 裡/裏 → 里

Copying and modifying another traditional character:
 * 義 → 义(乂); 髮、發 → 发(友); 龍 → 龙(尤); 頭 → 头(斗)

Simplifying components
Based on 132 characters and 14 components listed in Chart 2 of the Complete List, the 1,753 derived characters found in Chart 3 can be created by systematically simplifying components using Chart 2 as a conversion table. While exercising such derivation, the following rules should be observed:

 * The Complete List employs character components, not traditional radicals. A component refers to any conceivable part of a character, regardless of its position within the character, or its relative size compared to other components in the same character. For instance, in the character 摆, not only is 扌 (a traditional radical) considered a component, but so is 罢.
 * Each of the 132 simplified characters in Chart 2, when used as a component in compound characters, systematically simplify compound characters in exactly the same way the Chart 2 character itself was simplified. For instance, 單 is simplified in Chart 2 to 单. Based on the same principle, these derivations can be made: 彈 → 弹; 嬋 → 婵; 囅 → 冁
 * The 14 simplified components in Chart 2 are never used alone as individual characters. They only serve as components. Example of derived simplification based on the component 𦥯, simplified to 𰃮 (U300EE.svg), include: 學 → 学; 覺 → 觉; 黌 → 黉
 * Chart 1 collects 352 simplified characters that generally cannot be used as components. Even in rare cases where a Chart 1 character is found as a component in a compound character, the compound character cannot be simplified in the same way. For instance, 習 is simplified in Chart 1 to 习, but 褶 cannot be simplified to ⿰衤习.
 * A character that is already explicitly listed as simplified character in the "Complete List of Simplified Characters" cannot be alternatively simplified based on derivation. For instance, 戰 and 誇 are simplified in Chart 1 to 战 and 夸 respectively, thus they cannot be simplified alternatively by derivation via 单 and 讠 in Chart 2 to and ⿰讠夸. 過 is simplified in Chart 2 to 过, thus it cannot be alternatively derived via 呙 in Chart 2 as.

Sample Derivations:
 * 𦥯 → 𰃮 (U300EE.svg), thus 學 → 学; 覺 → 觉; 黌 → 黉
 * 單 → 单, thus 彈 → 弹; 嬋 → 婵; 囅 → 冁
 * 頁 → 页, thus 顏 → 颜; 頷 → 颔; 順 → 顺; 額 → 额
 * 專 → 专, thus 傳 → 传; 轉 → 转; 磚 → 砖
 * 𩙿 → 饣, thus 飯 → 饭; 飽 → 饱; 飼 → 饲; 餃 → 饺
 * 訁 → 讠, thus 話 → 话; 語 → 语; 誰 → 谁

Elimination of allographs
The Series One List of Variant Characters reduces the number of total standard characters. First, amongst each set of variant characters sharing identical pronunciation and meaning, one character (usually the simplest in form) is elevated to the standard character set, and the rest are made obsolete. Then amongst the chosen variants, those that appear in the "Complete List of Simplified Characters" are also simplified in character structure accordingly. Some examples follow:

Sample reduction of equivalent variants:
 * 姪 → 侄; 蹤 → 踪; 恆 → 恒; 佇 → 伫; 虖、嘑、謼 → 呼; 夠 → 够

Ancient variants with simple structure are preferred:
 * 異 → 异; 淚 → 泪; 災、烖、菑 → 灾

Simpler vulgar forms are also chosen:
 * 傑 → 杰; 貓 → 猫; 豬 → 猪; 獃、騃 → 呆

The chosen variant was already simplified in Chart 1:
 * 裏 → 裡 → 里; 歎 → 嘆 → 叹; 唘、啓 → 啟 → 启; 鬦、鬪、鬭 → 鬥 → 斗; 厤、暦 → 曆 → 历; 歴 → 歷 → 历

In some instances, the chosen variant is actually more complex than eliminated ones. An example is the character 搾 which is eliminated in favor of the variant form 榨. The with three strokes on the left of the eliminated 搾 is now seen as more complex, appearing as the  radical 木, with four strokes, in the chosen variant 榨.

Not all characters standardised in the simplified set consist of fewer strokes. For instance, the traditional character 強, with 11 strokes is standardised as 强, with 12 strokes, which is a variant character. Such characters do not constitute simplified characters.

Novel forms
The new standardized character forms shown in the Characters for Publishing and revised through the Common Modern Characters list tend to adopt vulgar variant character forms. Since the new forms take vulgar variants, many characters now appear slightly simpler compared to old forms, and as such are often mistaken as structurally simplified characters. Some examples follow:

The traditional component 釆 becomes 米:
 * 粵 → 粤; 奧 → 奥

The traditional component 囚 becomes 日:
 * 溫 → 温; 媼 → 媪

The traditional "Break" stroke becomes the "Dot" stroke:
 * 虛 → 虚; 噓 → 嘘

The traditional components ⺥ and 爫 become ⺈:
 * 靜 → 静; 睜 → 睁

The traditional component 奐 becomes 奂:
 * 換 → 换; 煥 → 焕

Inconsistencies
A commonly cited example of the irregularity of simplification involves characters that share the "hand" component 又, which is used in many simplified characters. While there is an observable pattern involving the replacement of 𦰩 with 又 as seen in 漢 → 汉, 難 → 难, 癱 → 瘫, 嘆 → 叹, 灘 → 滩, when observing that 歎 → 叹, 歡 → 欢, 勸 → 劝, 灌 (not simplified) and 罐 (not simplified), an inconsistency arises. This is due to the fact that in the Complete List of Simplified Characters, 漢 → 汉 appears in Chart 1 while 難 → 难 is listed in Chart 2 and 癱 → 瘫 as a derived character in the non-exhaustive list in Chart 3. Therefore, 难 is defined as a 'simplified character component' according to the standard, while 又 is not. Based on 难, 癱 is simplified to 瘫, and 灘 to 滩. Since both 歡 → 欢 and 勸 → 劝 appear in Chart 1, they are not defined as derived characters. There are therefore no characters or components found in Chart 2 usable for derivation of 灌 and 罐. Further investigation reveals that these two characters do not appear in Chart 1 nor in "Series One Organization List of Variant Characters". Thus they remain unchanged from traditional forms in the Common Modern Characters list.

Distribution
The People's Republic of China and Singapore generally use simplified characters. They appear very sparingly in texts originating in Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan, and overseas Chinese communities, although they are becoming more prevalent as mainland China becomes more integrated globally.

Mainland China
The Law of the People's Republic of China on the National Common Language and Characters implies that simplified Chinese characters are the country's standard script, with traditional Chinese being used for purposes such as ceremonies, cultural purposes such as calligraphy, for decoration, in publications and books on ancient literature and poetry, and for research purposes. Traditional characters remain ubiquitous on buildings that predate the promotion of simplified characters, such as former government buildings, religious buildings, educational institutions, and historical monuments. Traditional characters are also often used for commercial purposes, such as in shopfront displays and advertisements.

As part of the one country, two systems model, the PRC has not attempted to force Hong Kong or Macau into using simplified characters. The PRC tends to print material intended for people in Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan, and overseas Chinese in traditional characters. For example, versions of the People's Daily are printed in traditional characters, and both People's Daily and Xinhua have traditional character versions of their website available, using Big5 encoding. Mainland companies selling products in Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan use traditional characters in order to communicate with consumers; the inverse is equally true as well.

Dictionaries published in mainland China generally show both simplified and their traditional counterparts. In digital media, many cultural phenomena imported from Hong Kong and Taiwan into mainland China, such as music videos, karaoke videos, subtitled movies, and subtitled dramas, use traditional Chinese characters.

Hong Kong
Textbooks, official statements, and newspapers show no signs of moving to simplified Chinese characters, including state-funded media. However, for example, Hong Konger students sometimes opt to write with simplified characters when taking notes or while taking exams, in order to write faster.

It is common for Hong Kongers to learn traditional Chinese characters in school, as well as some simplified characters incidentally, usually by consuming media produced on the mainland. For use on computers, however, people tend to type Chinese characters using an IME with a traditional character set, such as Big5. In Hong Kong, as well as elsewhere, it is common for people to use both sets, due to the ease of conversion between the two sets.

Taiwan
Simplified characters are not officially used in governmental and civil publications in Taiwan. However, it is legal to import simplified character publications and distribute them. Certain simplified characters that have long existed in informal writing for centuries also have popular usage, while those characters simplified originally by the Taiwanese government are much less common in daily appearance.

In all areas, most handwritten text will include informal simplifications which are not the same as the simplifications officially promulgated by the PRC, often ones influenced instead by 新字体 characters that originated in Japan. For example, the simplification 台 of the first character of "Taiwan" 臺 rivals its orthodox form in commonality, even in publications and academic contexts. In part, this is due to the simplification process adopting existing variants already in use, rather than inventing new simplifications as was done in the unsuccessful second round. This is because the adoption of simplified characters has been gradual and predates the Chinese Civil War by several decades and some are used beyond mainland China to some extent.

Southeast Asia
In Singapore, where Mandarin Chinese is one of the official languages, simplified characters are the official standard and are generally used in most of official publications as well as the government-controlled press. While simplified characters are taught exclusively in schools and are generally used in most of official publications, the government does not officially discourage the use of traditional characters and still allow parents to choose whether to have their child's Chinese name registered in simplified or traditional characters. Traditional characters are widely used by older Singaporeans, and are widespread on billboards, stall menus, and decorations, as well as in newspapers and on television. There is no restriction on the use of traditional characters in mass media, and television programs, books, magazines and music imported from Hong Kong and Taiwan are widely available, almost always using traditional characters. Many shop signs and menus in hawker centres and coffee shops continue to be written with traditional characters.

Chinese is not an official language in Malaysia, but over 90% of ethnic-Chinese students in the country are educated in Chinese schools, which have been teaching in simplified characters since 1981. Traditional characters are also widely used by older people and are likewise widespread on billboards, to a greater extent than in Singapore. Most of Malaysia's Chinese-language newspapers compromise by retaining traditional characters in article headlines, but opting to use simplified characters for the bodies of articles.

In Indonesia, Chinese is not an official language. However, the country is also home to a sizable ethnic-Chinese community, and similarly to Malaysia, ethnic-Chinese students typically receive their education in Chinese-language schools that almost exclusively use simplified characters. Traditional characters are seldom used, typically only for stylistic purposes.

In education
In general, schools in mainland China, Malaysia and Singapore use simplified characters exclusively, while schools in Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan use traditional characters exclusively.

Today, simplified Chinese characters predominate among college and university programs teaching Chinese as a foreign language outside of China, such as those in the United States.

Mainland China
In December 2004, Ministry of Education authorities rejected a proposal from a Beijing Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) political conference member that called for elementary schools to teach traditional Chinese characters in addition to the simplified ones. The conference member pointed out that many, especially young people, have difficulties with traditional Chinese characters; this is especially important in dealing with non-mainland communities such as Taiwan and Hong Kong. The educational authorities did not approve the recommendation, saying that it did not fit in with the "requirements as set out by the law" and it could potentially complicate the curricula. A similar proposal was delivered to the first plenary session of the 11th CPPCC in March 2008.

Hong Kong
Most, if not all, Chinese-language textbooks in Hong Kong are written in traditional characters. Before 1997, the use of simplified characters was generally discouraged by educators. After 1997, while students are still expected to be proficient and utilize traditional characters in formal settings, they may sometimes adopt a hybrid written form in informal settings to speed up writing. With the exception of open examinations, simplified Chinese characters are considered acceptable by the Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority for their speed.

Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia
Chinese textbooks in Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia are written exclusively in simplified characters, and only simplified characters are taught in school. Traditional characters are usually only taught to those taking up calligraphy as a co-curricular activity or Cantonese as an elective course at school.

Chinese as a foreign language
The majority of textbooks teaching Chinese are now based on simplified characters and Hanyu Pinyin – although there are textbooks originating in China which have a traditional version. For practical reasons, universities and schools prepare students who will be able to communicate with mainland China, so their obvious choice is to use simplified characters.

In places where a particular set is not locally entrenched, such as Europe and the United States, instruction is now mostly simplified, as the economic importance of mainland China increases, and also because of the availability of textbooks printed in mainland China. Teachers of international students often recommend learning both systems.

Europe
In the United Kingdom, universities mainly teach Mandarin Chinese at the undergraduate level using the simplified characters coupled with pinyin. However, they will require the students to learn or be able to recognise the traditional forms if they are studying in Taiwan or Hong Kong (such as taking Cantonese courses). In Australia and New Zealand, schools, universities and TAFEs use predominantly simplified characters.

Russia and most East European nations are traditionally oriented on the education of the PRC's system for teaching Chinese, which uses simplified characters but exposes the learners to both systems.

East Asia
In South Korea, universities have used predominantly simplified characters since the 1990s. In high school, Chinese is one of the selective subjects. By the regulation of the national curricula standards, MPS I and traditional characters had been originally used before (since the 1940s), but by the change of regulation, pinyin and simplified characters have been used to pupils who enter the school in 1996 or later. Therefore, MPS I and traditional characters disappeared after 1998 in South Korean high school Chinese curriculum.

In Japan there are two types of schools. Simplified Chinese is taught instead of traditional Chinese in pro-mainland China schools. They also teach Pinyin, a romanization system for standard Chinese, while the Taiwan-oriented schools teach bopomofo, which uses phonetic symbols. However, the Taiwan-oriented schools are starting to teach simplified Chinese and pinyin to offer a more well-rounded education.

Southeast Asia
In the Philippines, the use of simplified characters has become increasingly popular. Before the 1970s, Chinese schools in the Philippines were under the supervision of the Ministry of Education of the Republic of China. Hence, most books were using traditional characters. Traditional characters remained prevalent until the early 2000s. Institutions like the Confucius Institute, being the cultural arm of the People's Republic of China, are strong proponents of the use of simplified characters. Also, many schools are now importing their Mandarin textbooks from Singapore instead of Taiwan.

Public universities such as the Linguistics and Asian Languages Department of the University of the Philippines use simplified characters in their teaching materials. On the other hand, private schools such as Chiang Kai Shek College and Saint Jude Catholic School remain major proponents of the usage of traditional characters. Some private universities, such as the Ateneo de Manila University, also use simplified characters.

Use with computers
In computer text applications, the GB encoding scheme most often renders simplified Chinese characters, while Big5 most often renders traditional characters. Although neither encoding has an explicit connection with a specific character set, the lack of a one-to-one mapping between the simplified and traditional sets established a de facto linkage.

Since simplified Chinese conflated many characters into one and since the initial version of the GB encoding scheme, known as GB 2312-80, contained only one code point for each character, it is impossible to use GB 2312 to map to the bigger set of traditional characters. It is theoretically possible to use Big5 code to map to the smaller set of simplified character glyphs, although there is little market for such a product. Newer and alternative forms of GB have support for traditional characters. In particular, mainland authorities have now established GB 18030 as the official encoding standard for use in all mainland software publications. The encoding contains all East Asian characters included in Unicode 3.0. As such, GB 18030 encoding contains both simplified and traditional characters found in Big-5 and GB, as well as all characters found in Japanese and Korean encodings.

Unicode deals with the issue of simplified and traditional characters as part of the project of Han unification by including code points for each. This was rendered necessary by the fact that the linkage between simplified characters and traditional characters is not one-to-one. While this means that a Unicode system can display both simplified and traditional characters, it also means that different localisation files are needed for each type.

In font filenames and descriptions, the acronym SC is used to signify the use of simplified Chinese characters to differentiate fonts that use TC for traditional characters.

Internet usage
The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)'s Internationalization working group recommends the use of the language tag zh-Hans as a language attribute value and Content-Language value to specify web-page content in simplified Chinese characters.

Criticism
Author Liu Shahe was an outspoken critic of the simplification of Chinese characters. He wrote a dedicated column entitled "Simplified Characters are Unreasonable" in the Chinese edition of the Financial Times.

title: Simplified Chinese characters