So do you have any suggestions?

The translation of parent as “父” is a computer convention, just as “Parent Companies” is translated as “母公司”. They no longer represent gender per se, but exist as an abstract, extended concept.

As one of the contributors to the Chinese translation, we do not have a problem of “sexism” when we translate terms according to the conventions of translation.

If you still think there is a problem with this translation, you need to give specific advice.

BTW, GPT says:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/zotero.org/images/forums/u7424907/twbu9gxakpizwoink1bj.png

Because 父 does not exclusively refer to "father" in modern Chinese and is frequently used in technical documents, its appearance here does not necessarily imply that the translation team should be held accountable for any potential accusations of discrimination. I am deeply thankful for your hard work, which is often voluntary.

However, the Chinese character 父 is undeniably less gender-neutral than the English word "parent." This is because its other (more abstract) meanings are derived from its original sense of "father," whereas "parent" encompasses both "mother" and "father." 父 is also closely tied to masculine authority, as highlighted in GPT's mentioning of 《说文解字》. As a male human and native Chinese speaker, I can clearly feel this connotation when I saw the character 父 in 父项 or 父类---well, why not 母项 or 母类? There must be a reason. Gender inequality is unfortunately deeply encoded in human languages.

Therefore, I suggest using 上级条目 or 主条目 instead, with a slight preference for the former. These terms are more neutral and universally applicable for the following reasons: 1) the alternatives clearly explain the relationship between items (literally, upper-level item versus lower-level item for the former, and main item versus subitem for the latter) 2) almost nobody is likely to deny—or feel offended by—the reality that we live in a hierarchical world. 3) While 父项 or 父类 is clear and accurate in programming contexts, Zotero's users come from diverse backgrounds.

I don’t understand your perspective. When you perceive a distinction between the characters “父” and “母,” you may associate this with gender discrimination. However, when I see “父” and “母” as equivalent, I do not interpret their usage as discriminatory. The reason for using “父” instead of “母” has already been clearly explained through 《说文解字》. Here, “父” represents a hierarchical concept, which corresponds to what you refer to as the “parent item.” If we were to use “母条目,” implying that the item is the origin or core of everything, it would not align with Zotero's logic.

Take, for instance, why we say “字母” and “航空母舰” instead of “字父” and “航空父舰.” The former indicates that letters form the components of all words, while the latter signifies that the aircraft carrier serves as a collection for all planes.

The translation team chose “父条目” instead of “上级条目” because Zotero also has “child notes.” How should we translate “child notes” then? Clearly, “下级条目” does not fit the conventions of the Chinese language. Therefore, the team opted for “父条目” and “子条目” to maintain elegance and consistency in translation.

If we view the characters “父” and “母” without bias, they carry no inherent connotations; they are merely neutral descriptive terms.

> The question is: Is the term 子条目 still used in Zotero's UI? If not, this consistency would no longer support the current word choice. In Zotero 7, "item note", which should be translated into 项目笔记, is used instead of "child note."

But 'Child Item' is not 'Child Note', 'Child Item' is still exist.

I don't understand why you associate 'Item Note' with 'Child Item'.

> The first two paragraphs of my previous comment directly address the question posed by Chikit_L: "How should we translate 'child notes' then?"

Oh.. got it, I missed TA's comment.

Yes, the use of "child" also exists within Zotero's terminology. From my perspective, the use of "父" and "子" more directly and clearly conveys their relationship. Vocabulary translation should follow Zotero's usage logic to achieve a more appropriate outcome, as many terms are interrelated and not simply based on their literal meanings. We have also discussed how to use more neutral terms for translation. Unfortunately, despite several rounds of discussion, we have yet to reach a suitable conclusion. This adjustment may require more time to complete.

I personally hold a slightly different view from yours. You mentioned that “父 is consistently associated with hierarchically superior positions, while 母 is always associated with sources, origins, birth, or home to something.” The reason "父" conveys a sense of hierarchy might stem from early societies where men were often responsible for hunting and distributing resources. Meanwhile, "母" is associated with life and origins, which is likely influenced more by objective biological structures. I do not believe this reflects stereotyping; if we were to associate "母" exclusively with housewives or nurturing roles, that would be the true stereotype.

Words themselves simply serve as referential tools, and any emotional connotations attached to them are subjective. For example, many wonder why we say "history" instead of "herstory," only to find that "history" predated the coining of "story." In reality, "history" likely evolved independently. As you can see, the evolution of words often diverges from their original paths. It is contemporary society that has attributed additional emotional and political layers to them. Is it truly necessary to revise such terms? Of course, in China, the characters "父" and "母" have also undergone numerous evolutions. From a modern perspective, discussing historical usages is often more of an exploration than a definitive conclusion.

In my view, true equality lies in the equality of consciousness—treating others fairly in social interactions, allowing each gender to fully utilize their strengths, and avoiding discrimination based on perceived gender weaknesses.

Of course, I agree with your point that we should contribute to gender equality. In terms of translation, however, we still need further discussion and exploration to find the most appropriate vocabulary.