Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China/Archive/September 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 1 FAR listing of Go (board game) 2 Questions on Shang Yang's books 3 User:Bonafide.hustla and pov issues 4 Has anybody wondered 5 Imperial consorts: mass reverts are needed

FAR listing of Go (board game)

The article Go (board game) is currently on featured article review, meaning it may lose its featured status if not significantly improved. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Questions on Shang Yang's books

I'm working on The Book of Lord Shang, by Shang Yang on Legalism. I noticed that Project Gutenberg has a work called Shangzi at http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/7383, but the translation of the Book of Lord Shang I'm working from gives the Romanized form "Shang chün shu". Are these two works the same thing, or am I wrong in thinking that only one of Shang's works has survived? (I can't read Chinese to save my life, so I'm hoping someone here will know). -- Gwern (contribs) 00:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

"Zi" is the honorary title given to thinkers, ie. Kong(fu)zi, Mozi, Zhuangzi, Mengzi. The collective works of these thinkers could be referred to by their names, so "Mozi" is the collective works of Mozi. In this case, I would assume "Shangzi" to be the complete (or as complete as possible) set of works by Shang Yang, though I have never heard of Shang Yang being referred to as "Shangzi". -- Миборовский 01:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Neither have I, thus the difficulty... Would a comparison of Gutenberg's text and a Chinese copy I found online do anything? -- Gwern (contribs) 02:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

"Shangzi" is the "colloquial" name of "Shang jun shu". So I would say that these (your book and the Gutenberg book) are one and the same. Note that the book was not exclusively written by Shang Yang - it was compiled and partly written by his disciples and disciples of disciples, as is the situation with most of the "classics". --Sumple (Talk) 02:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Great! Thanks, everyone. -- Gwern (contribs) 02:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Bonafide.hustla and pov issues

Just wanted to drop a line that patrollers here might want to look out for edits by User:Bonafide.hustla on China-related pages. The user appears to have a limited and somewhat slanted understanding of China and especially Taiwan, believing, for example, that "Singapore's culture is more Chinese than Taiwan's". --Sumple (Talk) 02:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Going through his contributions, I found the edit somewhat interesting: [1]. How was that edit vandalism? Isn't England part of Britain?--TBCTaLk?!? 20:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Bonafide.hustla (talk • contribs) has been renamed to Certified.Gangsta (talk • contribs) and continues to make POV edits to China/Taiwan-related pages. Please see his contributions for more details. RaGnaRoK SepHír0tH

Has anybody wondered

why Chinese subjects are often known by their translated "English" names but the opposite is true with Japanese subjects? Compare Forbidden City and Kokyo or Sushi and Chinese noodles or Chinese dragon and Obake? --Sumple (Talk) 12:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Because it's so hard to transliterate Chinese, and it's relatively easier to do so for Japanese? -- Gwern (contribs) 14:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't think much of it. After all, the there are terms like baozi, mahjong that are from Chinese, while we say.........er.......Japanese bondage instead of shibari, Japanese traditional dolls instead of ningyo, and shinto shrine instead of jinja. I think it's because some things are harder to translate, so they just left it in their original languages...like, you can't really translate sushi into a single English word or two. _dk 05:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Imperial consorts: mass reverts are needed

Highshines (talk • contribs) just moved a whole host of Qing imperial consort articles to obscure (Anglicized?) renderings. I just moved "Yehenala, the Empress Xiao Qin Xian" back to "Empress Dowager Cixi". In the very least, this should not be done without discussion.

All such moved by this user need to be removed--Jiang 02:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems like the Manchu names. And now there's a bunch of double redirects and such due to the moving about.And Cixi's talkpage is now a redirect to the Manchu/posthumous name talkpage, I think you missed something while moving. -- Миборовский 05:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I was promptly reverted. I've posted notes to the users responsible, Highshines and Geisha1021 (talk • contribs), to discuss at Wikipedia talk:History standards for China-related articles. As far as I can tell, there has been no prior discussion on this.--Jiang 05:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I've issued a final warning to 108059 (talk · contribs). Please block this user if he continues to unilaterally move page be unresponsive to requests to explain his actions.--Jiang 00:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It might a good idea to put a tag on the user pages of User:108059 and User talk:Geisha1021, stating that they are suspected sock puppets of User:Highshines. At the same time, we can put a notice on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding these page moves. That might send him/her a message. What do you think?--Niohe 01:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)