Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China/Archive/July 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


Contents

Article merger requested

Mao-tun and Mao Dun are two separate articles about the same person, differing only in romanisation. It would be great if someone could merge the two. --Sumple (Talk) 08:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll take up the challenge :-) — Nrtm81 18:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Moved text to Mao Dun, though there's a different text on his life, I've hidden the text in comment tags — Nrtm81 18:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Central Asia

WikiProject Central Asia has just been created. It may overlap with some articles and subjects relevant to this WikiProject (Xinjiang, parts of Mongolia, etc), so I thought I would put the word out here as well. Aelfthrytha 21:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

New Participant

We have an arbcom member as a participant. Everyone stand up straight and don't pick your nose. --Ideogram 01:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Or should everyone kneel and fart? Fred Bauder 03:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
*Farts because Fred Bauder says so*. Seriously, I don't think we need to treat anyone special. -- Миборовский 03:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
*burp* If this WikiProject is going to be on China, it might as well feel like it. --Jiang 04:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

"New articles" section?

So I've been looking through a bunch of WikiProjects and collaborations and noticeboards and such and I found that a lot of them have this "new articles" section where contributors tell the rest of the project what their newest addition to WP is and hopefully get others who are more knowledgeable in that field to chip in as well. My thinking is that such a list could foster better intra-project coordination (do I sound like some PR guy?) but it would require everyone to report their actions to the project, something that sounds vaguely Big Brother-ish. And I'm not sure if everyone is willing to take the time to add their newest additions to that list, and more importantly, I'm not sure if everyone is willing to take the time to look through that list. So should we have such a list, or should we just post here and let people know we need an article looked at? (Like, "I need you guys to take a look at Empire of China (1915-1916)!!!) -- Миборовский 07:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

good idea.
can you add some references to that so we can post it on the main page in the dyk section?--Jiang 07:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, added a few refs. I really only took stuff from the ROC "diary"/annal thingy and from other pre-existing Wikipedia articles. The only other thing was the flags. -- Миборовский 08:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Don't see how it's different from WP:SG! - I guess we could report other new creations too. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 03:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
this is nice so we can wikilink appropriate articles and reduce orphans. BlueShirts 19:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Where should it go then? A portion of the todo list in the project banner? On the main project page? Somewhere on this talk page? -- Миборовский 21:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, added a tentative "new articles" section in the worklist. Everyone please check it regularly... -- Миборовский 02:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Taiwan vs. Taiwan Island

Edit: You can also vote for the portal name at Portal talk:Taiwan#Vote for portal name. — Nrtm81 12:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey everyone. The portal linked from Taiwan is Portal:Taiwan however there are some concerns that using "Taiwan" as the article/portal name will mislead people into thinking that Taiwan is a country.

At the portal page, there's been a suggestion to rename it to "Taiwan Island". However, I believe there should be consistency between the name of both the article and portal. Can I ask that people share their input on this issue? — Nrtm81 10:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

No one would use Ireland Island or Sicily Island. Fred Bauder 13:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, their sovereignty is not disputed, so adding Island clarifies that it is not a country. The name Taiwan itself is such a politically sensitive issue in the Greater China region. You Westerners and outsiders would least understand, no offense. -Chiang Kai-shek 19:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Adding "island" says nothing in the English language about sovereignty, neither denotation nor connotation. Fred Bauder 00:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, what adding "island" does say is that the article is about a natural geographical feature, not a country... -- Миборовский 02:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
But it's not just about a geographical feature. It is primarily about the people. the culture, and the history. --Ideogram 03:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
One occasionally encounters "Philippine Islands" and, of course, "The Isle of Man". The Isle of Man is not a part of the United Kingdom although it is a possession of the Queen. Generally only small islands are called something like Baffin Island. But that is a big one. Hawaiian Islands is used. And Hainan Island. Japanese Islands and New Zealand Islands is never used, but North Island and South Island. If the name contains "land", Ireland, Greenland, then island is never used. Taiwan Island simply sounds odd in English. Fred Bauder 03:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it is pointless to add "island". As a province it is still called Taiwan. --Yenchin 08:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

"Taiwan island" in of itself is NPOV, as it could only really be designed to belittle Taiwan's claims to sovereignty. The simple fact is that no one refers to it as "Taiwan island" - even nationalist PRC Chinese. It would be ridiculous if it was moved. John Smith's 10:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you mean it is POV, which from the initial request to move is indeed the point, "there are some concerns that using "Taiwan" as the article/portal name will mislead people into thinking that Taiwan is a country". We do need to inform the reader of the subtleties of the matter and shouldn't create the impression that they are independent or claim to be. Fred Bauder 11:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
If you have a look at Portal:Taiwan, the introduction box states the situation of Taiwan. I was hoping that this would be enough to allay any worries about people mistaking the portal as being about a country. It even goes so far as to make it clear that the ROC governs two provinces: Fujian Province (Kinmen and Matsu islands) and Taiwan Province. — Nrtm81 12:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Don't they have some Zhejiang islands too? Or were those abandoned? -- Миборовский 20:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
"台湾岛" is a common enough usage, John Smith. -- Миборовский 20:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
This isn't the Chinese version of wikipedia. I'm not interested if in Chinese there is a reference to Taiwan as "Mickey Mouse land". We're talking about English. In any case, when my friends (PRC) talk about it, they always say "Taiwan" and not "Taiwan island". John Smith's 17:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Neither is this the English/American POV version of wikipedia. "台湾岛" is commonly used to refer to Taiwan (island) in Chinese. That translates directly to "Taiwan Island". As to your PRC friends, did you know that my pro-Taidu friends also referred to Taiwan as "Taiwan Island"? ;) -- Миборовский 20:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I know people from Taiwan that would prefer Taiwan refered to as "Taiwan" and not "Taiwan Island". I really don't see why a change is necessary. John Smith's 14:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The Zhejiang islands I believe you're referring to the Dachen islands. --Yenchin 22:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, Taiwan IS a country. Second, it is NOT part of China BECAUSE it has its own government, flag... and also it is a democratic country. you aren't jealous of that are you? And...to answer your question: I would prefer Taiwan because it is its name already! --Jerrypp772000 18:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Zigong Museum Wikiproject Dinosaurs

Hi, anyone near Zigong city? I am on the Wikiproject dinosaurs and this museum looks absolutely amazing for any dinosaur buff. If anyone goes there or has photos, using them on the Zigong page (and assoicated dinosaurs) would be great..Cas Liber 01:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Because of the Great Firewall we don't get too many users from the mainland. >:( -- Миборовский 20:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Taiwan Province

I've proposed that Taiwan Province (People's Republic of China) be merged into Taiwan Province. Hopefully we can have that article be about the ROC-governed Taiwan Province and then include the history of it being a province under Qing Dynasty and Empire of Japan. Also we can cover the PRC's claim to Taiwan Province in the same article. — Nrtm81 12:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, that's such a good idea. Makes things much easier. John Smith's 22:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've just merged the content from Taiwan Province (People's Republic of China) to Taiwan Province. Anyone interested in checking the article for typos or cleanup, please do so. Thanks! :) — Nrtm81 08:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, someone pointed out that the map of Taiwan Province has an error. It's supposed to highlight Kaohsiung City as being a central municipality outside of Taiwan province, but Tainan City was highlighted by mistake. Can anyone good with a graphics editor correct the mistake? Thanks. — Nrtm81 09:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Legal status of Taiwan#Position of the United States

I'm getting tired of finding these "Richard W. Hartzell" (not a user on Wikipedia) original research based on fantasy. This pretty much covers everything under "Position of the United States". This Hartzell guy has his own website http://www.taiwanadvice.com/tw_insular4b.htm where he doesn't even cite references for his essays. When he does make mention of historical documents, nothing in them supports his claims. I don't know who added his theories onto Wikipedia but I don't know if I should just delete it or not. — Nrtm81 16:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Hartzell makes the mistake of comparing Taiwan with Puerto Rico and Cuba where the war was fought between USA and Spain. In the case of Taiwan, USA fought against Japan. The difference is that the ROC was the ally of USA so the Chinese territories were restored to the ROC. This cannot be said for Puerto Rico and Cuba after the Spanish-American War. It's a different scenario. — Nrtm81 17:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Complete nonsense. The information is not verifiable and does not come from a reputable source. On top of that, it is not even good original research. Fred Bauder 17:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I just went ahead and deleted the entire section. If the person who added that content doesn't agree, they can give their reasons why it is appropriate and provide actual evidence that supports it. I gave the reason for its deletion as being based on personal research by Hartzell. — Nrtm81 09:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposal: Chinese titles

Chinese manners of address aren't as complex as Japanese, but we could write an article on something like Japanese titles.--Jiang 10:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I just created the article with a few titles. — Nrtm81 12:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Do we have an article that includes stuff on "客套话"? It doesn't belong to Chinese titles or Chinese honorifics since they encompass more than just titles of peoples but also references to objects, concepts and actions. Examples that come to mind immediately are "寒舍", "府上", "贵庚"... It could probably go under Classical Chinese, but might be too specific for that article. -- Миборовский 22:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, the article Japanese honorifics seems to cover polite speech and makes no mention of honorific titles which is covered seperately in Japanese titles. I think if we follow that example, the honorific titles should be moved out of Chinese honorifics and into Chinese titles. As for personal pronouns, it should be moved into Chinese pronouns. As for 客套話, that can be included in the Chinese honorifics article since it part of polite usage in the Chinese language. What do you think? Also I found a short list of 常用客套話 here. — Nrtm81 23:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Scope of "Tibet" stub types

Please take note of this discussion on the scope of the current {{tibet-stub}}, and the proposed {{tibet-geo-stub}}. Comments welcome. Alai 06:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

cliques and factionalism again

The articles Anhui clique, Fengtian clique and Zhili clique has been created, but I suppose we need a article for the general term of "clique". The current article at clique doesn't seem to fit, although I've tried to expand the scope by adding something about the ROC. Would it be cliques in China? Then again, one realises warlordism in China isn't a new thing, and has existed ever since the Warring States Era. The warlord conflict in Republican China (perhaps warlordism in Republican China and a warlordism in China article, itself being a subarticle of warlord) definitely existed past the 1928.

The Chinese Civil War is generally attributed to the CPC vs KMT conflict but I wonder if we could squeeze the warlords in there too - after all, Wang Jingwei's colloborationists, the regional governors et al. all took part. Then we have things like the First Zhili-Fengtian War, so we definitel need some new "encompassing concept" articles, in addition to the individual articles we have on the era.

Well at least we have concessions pinned down. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 04:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, not sure if I went overboard, but I've created category:warlordism in Republican China, category:warlords in Republican China, category:warlord cliques in Republican China, as well as a general category:warlordism. I might even think of category:Chinese warlords. Please populate them as necessary. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 09:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Warlordism in China and Category:Chinese warlords are all that's necessary, I think. -- Миборовский 21:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_China_Archive_July_2006_cc97.html"