Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China/Archive/2007

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

Confucius is now the core topics COTF

Hi, Confucius has been selected for the Core Topics Collaboration. If you can help bring this up to WP:GA standard, we'd appreciate it. Thanks, Walkerma 06:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar of national Merit: PRC

Hi, Didn't see any BoNM PRC. Didn't know about the awards on this page 'til just now; have already made a barnstar template and created & uploaded three image options.

I'll leave it to the folks in this project to choose an image option. The current option is created from the PRC flag...


Cheers, --Ling.Nut 20:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I would call it the PRC Barnstar of National Merit, to avoid POVness. It also avoids using PRC imagery for pre-PRC-era-related articles. --Nlu (talk) 20:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
We have done all we could to avoid showing preference for any particular nation/state in this project and I think we need not compromise for this barnstar. Feel free to award this however, but I don't think it should be "endorsed" in any manner by this project. -- 我♥中國 00:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'll make it go bye-bye. :-) --Ling.Nut 01:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your understanding. :) -- 我♥中國 21:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Empress Dowager Cixi

Would like a little help resolving an issue on the naming standards for "Empress Dowager". One particular editor insists that the term "Dowager Empress" is just as valid as "Empress Dowager", and regularly changes any reference to the name of Empress Dowager Cixi to "Dowager Empress Cixi". It would be good to get some feedback on whether we should: a) leave the references as "Empress Dowager" as seems to be the standard both in English literature and in Wikipedia, b) decide to change to "Dowager Empress" and change all the relevant Wikipedia articles and names, or c) allow this one article on "Cixi" to have a mix of different terms, while other related articles continue to use "Empress Dowager". Background info on the issue can be found on the Cixi talk page at Talk:Empress_Dowager_Cixi. Ka-ru 14:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think "Dowager Empress" would be more correct at all. The title, in Chinese, is Huang Taihou (皇太后), with no real correspondence to the word "dowager" in English, anyway. A more literal translation would be "Superior Empress." I'd say that Empress Dowager is the more appropriate term in any case, as if word order is important at all, "Huang" ("imperial") came first in the title. --Nlu (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
But in the case of Taishang Huang Huang comes last... what would that mean? -- 我♥中國 21:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
One means "Emperor's/Imperial Great Empress", the other means "Great High(er) Emperor" --Sumple (Talk) 21:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
The vast majority of English books that mention Cixi, mention her as the 'Empress Dowager,' not the 'Dowager Empress.' Therefore I am in favor of having all references to her be 'Empress Dowager.'Zeus1234 17:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Zh-min-nan

What language is it written in? [1]

It's labelled "zh" but it sure ain't Chinese! Is anyone here involved with that language version? What kind of transliteration is it using, and why is it using transliterations and not Chinese? --Sumple (Talk) 21:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It's written in Minnanhua, using Pe̍h-ōe-jī (白話字) romanisation, which has been in use on Taiwan since the 1870s (mostly by Christians, apparently, prior to the 1990s). It uses a transliteration, I imagine, because that is the way its founding editors felt most comfortable writing it.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?)
Looks like Vietnamese. I would assume it's pretty much the same story as latinized Vietnamese. -- 我♥中國 02:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

A glance in their village pump (or whatever) gives me this:

The issues, as you probably suspect, are complex and complicated by contemporary politics. But I'll boil it down to this: editing articles collaboratively is very difficult for lack of a standard in writing Ban-lam-gu using Chinese characters. Since no one believes this will change any time soon and some people do want an encyclopedia in the language, we naturally turn to the Latin tradition of writing Ban-lam-gu. This has the advantage of standardization, a body of literature going back 150 years, new learners in the educational system. It is not without problems, but on the whole it is a useful choice. I'll stop here (this PC being very slow). A-giâu 09:37, 18 Chhit-goe̍h 2006 (UTC)

_dk 03:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Islam in China

we are having Demographics dispute at Islam in China please sort the mess out.7day 12:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Foreign influence on Chinese martial arts

This is a new article and may have various quality issues. Please review the article and provide your feedback. See also Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection. Shawnc 19:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Portal:China

Portal:China is now a featured portal candidate. Help on whatever is there to improve if you can! Cheers AQu01rius (User • Talk) 18:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

History fact check

Can someone check these edits here for accuracy and POV? I'm a bit concerned that this user overwrote quite a bit of information in the process of writing. --Yuje 12:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Fragrant Concubine: Admin help needed

I need help from an administrator to move the page Fragrant Concubine back to its original name. Someone moved the page to the far less common name Consort Rong without discussing it in advance, which has led to a number of double redirects.--Niohe 01:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

History of China Trade

Is there some kind of category that deals with the history of China trade? I cannot seem to find a category that would encompass 18th and 19th century trade, and the impact of Westerners in China, from Chinese exports to missionaries and doctors, or the sack of the Summer Palace and the Boxer rebellion. I can find individual articles, but nothing linking all these topics. Any ideas? The Opium wars are listed under History of Hong Kong, but surely we can find a more accurate category.Scotchorama 13:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Attention: New page move campaign

It seems that Highshines has started a new page move campaign, which needs the immediate attention of an administrator. For evidence, please refer to Special:Contributions/Highshines. I have also posted a notice at the Administrators 'noticeboard.--Niohe 01:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

If anyone had any doubt what kind of editor Highshines is, please have a look at the following foul language posted to Jiang's user page for four hours:
I think Highshines has earned himself/herself a block by now.--Niohe 14:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I left a note/warning on her talk page. Tell me if she does something like that again. -- 我♥中國 20:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I think Highshines should be blocked for a week at the very least. Highshines is already lying about what he said. If he/she can get away with this, it will happen again. Just read how he/she is misrepresenting the remark to an administrator who doesn't know Chinese here and how Highshines calls me a liar for paraphrasing the remarks.--Niohe 21:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Reshui

I have a stub of an article about Reshui, but I really do not know anything about it. Anyone want to help fill in more details, add Chinese text etc?--Filll 23:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, okay, for a second there, I thought this was just going to be an article about hot water.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 00:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

lol. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 18:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Energy policy of China

Does anyone have the time and knowledge to start an article on the energy policy of China? See energy policy of the United Kingdom, energy policy of the European Union and energy policy of Russia for suggestions... Beagel 12:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Romanization

Hello, apologies if this is addressed elsewhere. The Romanization of Chinese names in WP is a mess! One can haphazardly find Wade-Giles and Pinyin combined in the same articles. I prefer pinyin, as I'm sure most of you. I think this project should somewhere state a preferred Romanization policy so that finicky types like me have a justification for standardizing everything. 140.247.163.157 06:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It's here--> Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese). Though I think links like this should be more visible in the project page... _dk 06:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Yup, under "Tools" in the sidebar. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 04:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

need help placing these images of a Chinese bamboo book

I have these four great images of a Chinese bamboo book, found on flickr and now on the commons, but I'm having trouble placing them on Wikipedia. Where should these photos go? Any thoughts? And can anybody tell me what is the title and who is the author?

unfolded

"page" edges

binding

cover

Thanks, — coelacan talk — 06:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This is The Art of War, I would suggest placing the cover image on that article, but uh....the Chinese letters are upside down from this angle. _dk 07:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Ha! Oh no! I'll email the flickr uploader and see if another shot can be taken. Are they correct in the other images, particularly the "first page" shot that I have labelled "binding"? If so, that would also be a good photo for The Art of War. — coelacan talk — 09:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Yup, the rest of the images are correct. And it looks like this edition was written by the Qianlong Emperor, for your information. _dk 11:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Wow! By his own hand? Or commissioned by him? — coelacan talk — 22:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Unless I'm very mistaken, the cover says "乾隆御書"...which could mean both. There's no question that the book belongs to him though. _dk 07:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Great! I'll add that to the files. Thanks for all your help. — coelacan talk — 08:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Caution: it doesn't look like an actual Qianlong-era antique. The other line of text is "千尋(? not sure about that character... I might be influenced by Spirited Away here)竹齋精製", (exquisitedly made by xxxx bamboo study) which sounds like a modern print.
I googled 千尋竹齋 and it seems to relate to zh:吳昌碩 (1844-1927). (Quite a bit later than Qianlong era) --Sumple (Talk) 12:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yue Fei

I've greatly expanded the Yue Fei page, however, the section on his military career is sorely lacking. I used quotations from several books to describe his military career, but it is by no means a definitive chronology of all his military actions (which I would like to see). I am not knowledgeable enough about his military career to make these changes.

The main reason I am writing is so that others may critique or add more stuff to the page that I haven't already. The lead paragraph is only a single sentence. It could be expanded as well. The overall page not as good as it could be, but it certainly is better than what it was. The old version was full of folklore that was presented as fact. Tell me what you think. (Ghostexorcist 18:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC))

A potential FA topic and page. I'll review it when I have time. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 18:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. (Ghostexorcist 18:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC))

By the way, I transferred all of the Yue bio stuff from my Jow Tong article to the Yue Fei page. I did this because the Jow Tong page was getting too big, plus the Yue page was lacking in background info. (Ghostexorcist 18:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC))

Social Issues

As most of you are aware, currently there are an innumerable list of social issues in the People's Republic of China, but the article is currently only in an introductory stage. I will be working on these articles but would also appreciate any help I can get from interested parties. Please inform me here or on my talk page if you are. Thanks. Colipon+(T) 22:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


Articles listed at Articles for deletion

Uncle G 20:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Controversial topic. I will do some research and join the discussion. I'm leaning toward rename all. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 03:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

People's Republic of China FAR

People's Republic of China has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Greetings from WikiProject Disambiguation. Right now I am working on disambiguating [[Wu]]. It's not hard, but it requires a lot of detail work, because Wu (region) is found in the same articles as Wu (state), Wu (linguistics), etc.

Please disambiguate your links. You can't just type "[[Wu]]" (or "[[Yue]]" or whatever), and expect the disambiguation fairies to come along an fix it. Actually, I am a disambiguation fairy, and I am here to fix links, but we are few and over worked. When you make a link, make sure you know where you are linking. In some cases all you need to do is include more text ("[[Kingdom of Wu]]" instead of "Kingdom of [[Wu]]"). In other cases you can use the pipe trick ("[[Wu (state)|]]" expands to "[[Wu (state)|Wu]]").

I confess, whoever invented the pipe trick did not have "Wu" in mind. They were likely thinking something more like [[A Streetcar Named Desire (film)|]]. In fact with Wu it should often be avoided. Don't write "a [[Wu (linguistics)|]] dialect", write "a [[Wu (linguistics)|Wu dialect]]", even though it's two keystrokes more.

And your archive bot is broken. — Randall Bart 09:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Soliciting comments: Double Ten Day

Hi all, I'm soliciting comments at Talk:Double_Ten_Day#RfC:_inclusion_as_a_Chinese_holiday. Would appreciate community input. Thanks. Wl219 21:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Witkey

Just came across this article, and I can't make head or tail of it. Could someone here check it out please, and clean it up/delete it as appropriate? Thanks. J Milburn 22:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to say. You might want to list it on AfD. --Ideogram 22:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh jeez

Someone has nominated List of common Chinese surnames for deletion along with other lists of surnames based on the reason that they should be transwikied to wiktionary. If you're interested in the AfD, please comment[3]. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's been relisted for deletion[4]... See this comment[5] also. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I started a new discussion on the topic at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of common Chinese surnames. Looking forward to discuss this you there!--Niohe 00:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Gwoyeu Romatzyh

I recently requested feedback on Gwoyeu Romatzyh, which I've worked on since Christmas. I'd welcome any comments.

Incidentally, someone User:Ideogram gave the article a Low importance rating—which seems a bit harsh! Within WP:WPW it has a Mid importance rating; so I would think that in the China project it should be at least Mid too, if only because of its historical importance. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 10:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

If you can get other people to agree with you I will gladly change it. --Ideogram 13:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Did you get any other people to agree with you? 218.102.216.204 14:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm rating hundreds of articles. How am I supposed to know if someone disagrees with me until they speak up? --Ideogram 14:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

--NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 15:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC) I haven't conducted a survey of other people's opinion about this, if that's what you mean. I based my assessment on the guidelines on WP:ZH1, which state:

Mid Subject fills in more minor details, and may have been included primarily to achieve comprehensive coverage of another topic. Important in China, but not necessarily known as well outside of China.
Low Subject is peripheral knowledge, possibly trivial.

It would surely be absurd to describe GR as "trivial" knowledge. It certainly has been "important in China" in the past (even though it is no longer used); and it is known outside China—not to everyone, of course, but to those who study China & Chinese culture.

I hope that others will support my Mid Importance assessment. While they're at it, I would also appreciate some substantive feedback about the article itself. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 15:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I can see your point, so I'm not really going to argue with you. However, you are obviously biased, so it would be better to get an outside view. --Ideogram 15:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

That's fine by me: that's why I'm here! --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 15:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Gwoyeu Romatzyh: "GR was used as the official form of romanization in the Republic of China until 1949". I would assume that's enough to prove that the subject is not "peripheral knowledge". However, the subject has passed its prime, and is no longer significant at present, so a Mid importance rating would be most likely appropriate. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 18:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
(Edit conflict)Just to put my two cents in as a frequent rater of articles, this article merits a "Mid" ranking in my view, for the reasons stated by Nigel above. No worries, though, rating importance is such a subjective process, as I have said before.--Danaman5 18:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I'm fine with it. Apparently it has already been changed. --Ideogram 21:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to all who responded. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 22:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm having difficulty finding a non-copyright photo of Yuen Ren Chao (Zhào Yuánrén) for inclusion in the GR article. The article on Chao hasn't got one either. Can someone help, please? --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 17:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Badagnani

Badagnani (talk · contribs) and I are having a couple of disagreements. First, I believe Ethnic minorities in China should be rated Mid importance, while he thinks it should be High. Second, he seems to think that List of qinpu belongs in Category:Chinese music even though it is already in Category:Guqin which is included in Category:Chinese musical instruments which is included in Category:Chinese music. Please offer your opinions. --Ideogram 08:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the criteria in WP:ZH1, I would say ethnic minorities ought to be at least High, perhaps even Top if one considers Tibet & Xinjiang. No doubt it would be politically convenient to brush them aside as Mid; but that's not WP's job.
My comment relates to the intrinsic importance of the subject, not the quality of the article, which I haven't studied in any great detail. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 10:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Criteria for Mid importance: "Subject fills in more minor details, and may have been included primarily to achieve comprehensive coverage of another topic. Important in China, but not necessarily known as well outside of China."

By labelling the article in mid importance does not mean that it is not of high importance. It's just that, the subject is not as significant outside of China as it is in China. The Ethnic minorities in China fills in the details of List of ethnic groups in China, which is a broader subject.

There is no harm of having multiple categories. It would have been different if he was replacing the categories. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 18:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Importance ratings

Actually I think the importance ratings themselves need to be reviewed. It's kind of lacking that the ratings are so dependent on how important the subject is outside of China. To use the current criteria, really, Geography of China should be rated Mid or Low. I don't know how the geography of China has such a big "impact" on the outside world. Same would go for many of the history articles. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I somewhat agree. As a student of China myself, I think that a lot of things that I rate are quite important (ethnic minorities, provinces, famous dynasties, etc.). However, the guidelines say that "popular importance" (it's above the guidelines box, actually) should be considered. I just can't justify to myself that the average reader is going to look up the ethnic minorities of China, or even the general minority situation in China, with any consistency, so I rated them all Mid. It's a tough question between what is really important in the study of China and what the average reader cares about.--Danaman5 19:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I suppose that "average readers" may be pretty parochial in their outlook—& for all I know they may be under 20 years old. Nevertheless, most people with a modicum of interest in current affairs are likely to want to know something about the status & condition of Tibetans in China. And if they don't, perhaps they should ...

Anyway, it probably doesn't matter much what WP's internal assessment of the importance is: if people want to find out about a subject, they'll look it up. Maybe we'll end up using consumers' choice to determine the importance, a bit like Google's weighting algorithm! --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 21:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The importance of Tibet is reflected in the fact that Tibet Autonomous Region is Top when it would otherwise be only High. The fact that Tibetans are considered an ethnic minority and therefore one of many ethnic minorities in China is an indirect relationship and does not by itself qualify Ethnic minorities in China as Top. --Ideogram 21:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
The assessment is being done as part of the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team which will determine which articles are included in various print and offline versions. Since these ratings will determine which articles some readers actually have access to, they are quite important. --Ideogram 21:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

For Top level importance, I think, what is the average Wikipedia reader most likely to look for in China-related topics? These include: first level headings in a print encyclopedia article on China thus Geography of China and Tourism in the People's Republic of China; Chinese cuisine has become popular in the West so a lot of food items; events that changed the course of Chinese history should be well known even if they are not so 1972 Nixon visit to China and UN General Assembly Resolution 2758; Current and significant past paramount leaders; recent issues that are likely to be looked up such as Internet censorship in mainland China and Tiananmen Square protests of 1989.

High level importance articles would be those that just miss Top importance or first level headings in Top importance articles. This is a major reason I decided to make all province articles High. --Ideogram 21:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

My 2 cents - Certainly Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) and Tibet-related issues get a lot of international media attention because of the controversy in PRC's rule, and that makes it probably top importance in a politics-related WikiProject like Wikipedia:WikiProject Power in international relations. But how important is it in the context of China as a country/nation/civilisation/etc? Not "top" importance, in my opinion, for a WikiProject specifically about China. And it's kind of subjective to think that Tibet-related issues should be "top" importance in a WikiProject about China overall. What I would think of as top importance for this WikiProject would be articles that are about China as a whole. Geography of China, Tourism in the PRC, Government of the PRC, etc etc. It shouldn't be a topic about some specific part or attribute of China that may not cover anything else about China. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The assessment is part of the WP1.0 effort so we should consider our audience. Most people reading the print and offline versions will not be in China, so importance should be rated according to what they are interested in or should know. --Ideogram 22:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Sure. Rate it "top" for Wikipedia:WikiProject Power in international relations then. The TAR itself, being a province-level administrative region, should be given the same importance level as the other provinces, which I don't think should be "top". For one thing, the article on the TAR doesn't even concentrate on the political controversy. That's handled by other articles. The current criteria is pretty subjective and basically lets any editor to come in and bump up the importance level on any of their favourite political controversy. It lets people push a political agenda. In my opinion, only articles that cover the whole of China should get Top importance for this WikiProject. Anyway, that's just my 2 cents. I haven't really been involved in this WikiProject. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, we are trying to work together to develop a consensus on importance ratings. You are more than welcome to join us. I personally plan on patrolling the logs to watch for changes. --Ideogram 23:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Importance of food

I strongly disagree with food items should make it to Top importance, unless it is so influential, and so wide spread, as to have "changed the world" - say Chinese cuisine or (less confidently) Yum cha (no rating yet on the latter btw). --Sumple (Talk) 05:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I must have been hungry when I made that decision.
Seriously, if other people agree with you, I will gladly move them down. --Ideogram 06:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The only articles I think this affects are Chow mein, Egg roll, and Wonton. I think Chinese tea, Chopsticks, Dim sum, Rice, Soy sauce and Tofu should still be Top. Thoughts? --Ideogram 02:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I think I agree with that. --Sumple (Talk) 02:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Fixed. --Ideogram 02:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Prehistory of Taiwan

I have rated this article Low-importance and Jerrypp772000 (talk · contribs) wants it rated High. Opinions, please. --Ideogram 02:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Tough to say. It doesn't seem to have affected other countries enough to be "high", but it might be important enough in China to warrant a "Mid". You might try that as a compromise. If Jerry changes it back to high a second time, just leave it. It is really not important enough to edit war over.--Danaman5 04:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Definetly not Low importance. High importance is also not suitable, but since it's for WikiProject Taiwan, it's acceptable. If other users raises concern on this, a change to Mid importance would seem to be a solution. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 18:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
It would be a High for Taiwan, but a Low for this project, IMO. --Sumple (Talk) 10:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it'll even be part of this project, the prehistory of Taiwan has nothing to do with China.--Jerrypp772000 18:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Sure, man. Republic of Taiwan! yeah! --Sumple (Talk) 21:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't. Taiwan in general only has to do with China because people living their are a Chinese people, the way many Singaporeans or Chinese Americans are. And? Republic of Chinese America! Yeah!DownUnder555 21:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Chinese zodiac pages

If anyone has some spare time, please take a look at the "Chinese zodiac" pages: e.g. Tiger (zodiac). Of particular concern to me are the the "Traditional Attributes/Associations" sections, e.g. Rat#Traditional Rat Attributes/Associations. They are invariably unreferenced, and seem too ridiculous to be real: e.g. the Rat is apparently associated, among other things, with "Germany, Austria, Sweden, Netherlands, Brazil, Colombia". I really don't see what's so ratty about these countries, or how the Rat could have been "traditionally" associated with these countries, given that some of them weren't even countries in "ancient times".

I don't want to go through and delete them, though, just in case I am wrong and there is such a country association with the zodiacs.... --Sumple (Talk) 05:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Merging Wang Mang and Xin Dynasty

The current Xin Dynasty article is stub and I don't envision anyone adding a lot more content that wouldn't overlap the Wang Mang article. I'm following the example of the Wu Zetian article, which is where Second Zhou Dynasty redirects. Haven't heard much since the merge templates came up so I thought I'd give fellow Sinologists a heads-up for discussion. Kelvinc 00:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Although Xin Dynasty was more significant than Second Zhou Dynasty, the subject is not of public interest, so if anyone is up to redirect right now, feel free to do so. I will work on the article in the future if no one else is up to it. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 04:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Which article will you be working on? The Xin one or the Wang Mang one? Kelvinc 10:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Obviously the Xin one. Wang Mang is very well written (may need some clean-up). AQu01rius (User • Talk) 16:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Well if you have more information to add to the Xin one, then it's probably not a good idea to merge the two. Kelvinc 20:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Much of the content about how Wang Mang ruled can probably be moved onto the Xin dynasty article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Goguryeo

I tried to rate this article Low-importance. Some people apparently think it should be Top. --Ideogram 00:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly why the importance level should not be dependent on how much "impact" it had outside of China. It's very subjective. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Ignore the "official" guidelines (they were never accepted by consensus anyway). What do you think the importance should be? --Ideogram 01:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I would rate it Mid importance. I think Top importance should be reserved for articles that cover a category of information for all of China. High importance should have some amount of national prominence and notoriety. Mid should be for those subjects that are more of regional importance. And Low should be reserved for subjects that are very local in nature. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I almost think that you could get by with Low on this one, because from my (admittedly cursory) reading of the article, it seems to be a Korean kingdom that warred with the Sui dynasty at some point. It is important to Korea, not China. Then again, I may just be missing some key fact.--Danaman5 06:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, some Koreans are accusing the Chinese government of claiming Goguryeo as a "Chinese" kingdom. The Chinese government has registered some sites in what used to be northern parts of Goguryeo, and now Chinese territory, as World Heritage Sites. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Aid needed on expansion of Gwoyeu Romatzyh

Hello, fellow wikipedians. I have an article in need of attention by editors familiar with chinese romanization, Gwoyeu Romatzyh. The article has been largely created by Nigel G, who has contributed sample texts and cleaned up the entire thing. He needs help finding images and expanding the content. If anyone is interested, please help out or leave a note on the talkpage of the article, Nigel's talkpage, or my talkpage. Thank you for your time. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 02:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Fortune cookie

Should this be part of WPCHINA? --Ideogram 11:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Even if it should, I don't think it should be high importance.... It's not Chinese food. It's just food that happens to be served in some Chinese restaurants. --Sumple (Talk) 11:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Let's decide if it should be included first, then we can decide what importance it is. --Ideogram 12:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I think it should definitely be included. But high importance doesn't make sense, unless we had a Cuisine Workgroup, which would then be suitable. I think Low would be better if assessed for WikiProject China in general. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 17:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
This definitely should be included, though I wouldn't rate it very highly. Low sounds fine. --Danaman5 18:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Original research

There is a dispute about original research on Yuan (surname), one of WikiProject China's featured articles. The balanced views of those who have familiarity with Chinese sources would be appreciated. See Talk:Yuan (surname). Yeu Ninje 23:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Why has the article on Xuanzang been given a "low-importance rating"?

What possible justification can be given for rating this article of "low importance" (i.e. "Subject is peripheral knowledge, possibly trivial"?)

Xuanzang is one of world history's most famous travellers and his book of travels and Biography contain so much historical information on the many countries he travelled through that they are by far the most important historical documents on this period for many places in Central and South Asia.

Moreover, he was one of the greatest and most prolific translators of Buddhist texts into Chinese and was a major influence on all who followed him, and on the development of Chinese Buddhism in general. He is also important for the influence he had on the development of later Chinese literature notably the enduring and important Ming novel Journey to the West with it's world-famous character, Monkey, based on the life of the great pilgrim himself.

Please, I strongly urge that the "importance rating" of this article be reconsidered and considerably upgraded.

Sincerely, John Hill 06:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that a Low rating is indeed insufficient, but I can't decide between Mid and High as a replacement. Was he influential outside of China as well as inside? If so, than "High" is warranted. If not, maybe a Mid.--Danaman5 06:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Dear Danman - thank you for your prompt reply. Yes, Xuanzang was (and is still) very influential both inside and outside China. His accounts are are our very best and most detailed historical records of northern India and much of Central Asia during the 7th century. He plays a role rather like that of Marco Polo in many ways - but, with additional importance to the history and development of Buddhism. Historians constantly refer to his writings as they are filled with all sorts of acute and accurate observations (with the rider, of course, as was natural for a person in his position at that time, to be rather credulous when it came to Buddhist stories, miracles, and the like). He also was befriended by a number of important monarchs and left the best records we have of their courts and, similarly, with the great Buddhist universities of the time such as Nalanda in India. I, myself, would rate him as amongst the greatest travel writers and recorders of historical information of all time (and I don't think I am overstating the case). Cheers, John Hill 07:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
You know, these facts are not apparent from reading the lead paragraph of the article. You need to rewrite the lead to explain to the reader why Xuanzang was important and what his greatest accomplishments were. See WP:LEAD for more about writing the lead paragraph. --Ideogram 07:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
The lead actually sums up pretty well. It tells that Xuanzang's accomplishments includes the translation of thousands of original Sanskrit scriptures which he brought back from India, and with his influence, it led to series of movement in Chinese Buddhism.

Few more things should be mentioned. The cultural interaction he brought was both influential in Indian and Chinese Buddhist history. The book he wrote, "Journey to the West in the Great Tang Dynasty", was translated to many other languages, and is considered to be a highly valuable source to the life of Central Asia at the time. The book was also the inspiration for the Ming novel Journey to the West, which is one of the Four Great Classical Novels in Chinese literature.

To User:Ideogram: Xuanzang is actually a household name to average Chinese readers. Unless you weren't educated in Chinese (I don't know your nationality), you probably shouldn't have rated this article as low importance. It is quite offensive, frankly. The lead section was enough for a Mid importance at least to a unaware reader. I have re-assessed the article as High importance, but separated it out to the Chinese History workgroup, which is more appropriate. CheersAQu01rius (User • Talk) 08:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

AQu01rius (User • Talk) 08:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Xuanzang, whether because of Journey to the West or not, is one of the best known ancient Chinese personalities in China of all time. --Sumple (Talk) 09:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I wasn't educated in Chinese. It was an honest mistake. If you are going to criticize a mistake in rating Importance as "offensive" you had best not have importance ratings at all. Or maybe you can find someone else to help you on "your" project. --Ideogram 22:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I am sad to see all this has turned so personal. As "Ideogram" says it was an honest mistake and it has been corrected now. Let's just leave it at that and get on with more important things. Best wishes to you all. John Hill 03:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we should move on. Ideogram has taken the intitiative, and others should be assisting him positively instead, including giving constructive comments if there are disagreements over the importance ratings.--Huaiwei 14:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Yang Chou

The article Yang Chou has been nominated for deletion. The nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yang Chou and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. --Eastmain 03:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Yang Qiu, Yang Hong, Yang Huai, and Yang Song, also people of the Three Kingdoms, were AFD'ed as well. _dk 04:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I rather see those articles deleted. Really have no interest in minor Romance of the Three Kingdoms characters. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 05:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Yang Yi and Yang Zuo were AFD'ed as well. _dk 06:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Felice Beato

Does this article really belong in WPCHINA? --Ideogram 15:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Though he is most well-known for his photography of Japan, Beato did spend some time in China, and, according to the article, his photos of the Second Opium War and a number of other Chinese subjects remain among the key images of those subjects. I don't know what the feeling is around here, but in most WikiProjects I'm with the idea of what does and does not fit under the umbrella is quite broad and loose.LordAmeth 16:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we should be tagging every westerner that ever made a pitstop in China in the 1800s. He took some of the earliest photos of China, and that makes him taggable on other WikiProjects. But just from the information on the article, I would say he's not important enough to be tagged for this WikiProject. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
But are we adding China tags to every Westerner who made a "pitstop" in China? I didn't add the China tag to Jules Itier, an article I created on the first person known to have taken photographs in China, because I didn't feel he stayed long enough. By contrast, Beato stayed in East Asia for most of his life and made important contributions to our knowledge of the history of that region. We clould add quite a few tags on the talk page here.--Niohe 22:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Congee

I don't know how many people are paying attention to Rice congee. So I'll repost the question here that I posted there[6]. The article says that congee is called 粥 in Mandarin. I know that's what it's called in Cantonese, but I thought in Mandarin, it's called 稀飯? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure it's 粥 in Mandarin also. 稀飯 is kind of different, and is between rice and congee. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 21:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
According to my dictionary 稀飯 means 粥 made from rice or millet.
粥 on the other hand, is more general, means congee/porridge made from any grains + any other ingredients.
I'm sure 粥 is used in northern China too. But 稀飯 I don't think is used in southern China. --Sumple (Talk) 21:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Alright then. I didn't know there was a difference. I always just called it 稀飯 in Mandarin. Don't remember who taught me that. It might have been somebody from HK. What do they call it in Taiwan? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

My impression (based on two trips to China, including one for work in Chengdu) is that zhōu is the formal, written form & xīfàn the more colloquial form. I don't think I ever saw xīfàn written on a menu. I don't know about regional variations, though. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 22:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Chinese surnames

Anyone mind if I turn this project into a workgroup of WikiProject China? So we can tag surname articles by just adding surname=yes parameter. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 02:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I want to ask, is there any interest in creating a template for Chinese surnames? Something that'll list both Trad/Simp characters, the common romanisations, and link to useful articles like Chinese surname and List of common Chinese surnames. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Like the name infobox in Sun Yat-sen? Is there a template for that? If not, should we make a standard template for those uses? AQu01rius (User • Talk) 18:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Something that'll go on the top left like the biographical infobox on the Sun Yat-sen article. I was thinking that since a lot of the surname articles have sections or paragraphs that explain and list the romanisations and different pronounciations, we might as well create an infobox template for that kind of stuff. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Subpages

I don't think it's a good idea to move an active discussion to a subpage. Most people won't click on it. --Ideogram 04:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

That discussion is currently 33 kb though. I thought keeping it in the main discussion page is a drag. It might be a little bit too early to move it to a subpage though, so you can move it back if you want. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 06:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Naming conventions

I would like us once and for all to agree on a set of naming conventions to handle the whole China/PRC/ROC/Mainland China/Hong Kong and Macao/Taiwan mess. I don't really care what we agree on as long as we apply it consistently across Wikipedia.

What we mostly have now is that articles relating to Politics, Government, and Economy are referred to as X of the PRC/ROC with additional X of Hong Kong and Macao, and articles relating to Geography, History before 1949, and Culture are referred to as X of China/Taiwan. Exceptions are Demographics of Taiwan and Economy of Taiwan, and Demographics of mainland China. We also have History of the PRC/ROC which concentrate on the history of those political entities rather than the history of a geographic region or a group of people.

The categories are also confused but that can be fixed relatively easily.

I have no problem with imposing the current system on the exceptions. One objection raised in an old debate at Talk:Demographics of mainland China is that the PRC currently encompasses Hong Kong and Macau but those areas are best covered under articles of their own. This doesn't bother me because we have a simple disclaimer in Economy of the People's Republic of China. But if we really wanted to split up articles into X of Mainland China and X of Hong Kong and Macao I can deal, as long as we make it consistent.

Also, the old debate at Talk:Economy of Taiwan was in favor of keeping Taiwan as the more commonly used term. Again, if we really want to collapse all ROC/Taiwan articles to Taiwan (and all PRC/China/Mainland China articles to China) I can deal, although it would be more work. --Ideogram 17:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

We also have Media in Taiwan and Media of Hong Kong, note the in/of. We also had Media of the People's Republic of China but that was really about Government control of the media in the People's Republic of China so I moved it. So now we need someone to write Media of the People's Republic of China. --Ideogram 19:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Then there's somebody's quirky pet project Medicine in China and Pharmaceuticals in China. If you are interested in this guy he also wrote Pharmaceuticals in India. --Ideogram 19:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

As background, please read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Political NPOV. --Ideogram 02:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyone remotely interested in looking up Chinese articles will quickly discover the political differences between all these: PRC/ROC/TW/HK/MO. This has been fairly stable for awhile, why are you bringing it up?
I've said many times that using "mainland China" as the title for anything is politically unacceptable. We do not treat a country by the name of some jurisdictional sub-division just because in the main it doesn't apply to some other subdivision. The existence of Hong Kong/Macao does not mean articles about the rest of the country should be titled mainland China. There are dozens of other countries with various level of sub-divisions and none of them get this kind of treatment. X is of the People's Republic of China, period. Most articles contain a simple disclaimer that HK/MO are written separately and that is enough.
As a tangent, the Demographics of mainland China article could be updated quickly to include an overview of HK/MO information, retitled to be about the PRC, and link to those more expansive sub-articles.
I've also expressed many times that nobody really disputes that "China" is the PRC, (even the old guard ROC recognizes that, they just say they no longer govern it and maintain they are the legitimate claim to be China). There are probably 100,000 references to China inside articles that don't comply with whatever the naming conventions NPOV section states is correct. It'll never get removed from that guideline, but that sentence will never be regarded as a useful guideline either. In any case, over the last few years of my involvement there has been steady progression to move anything titled with China to be specific to PRC or ROC, and IMHO, the more you keep them apart the better.
Taiwan is fine as a common name for the ROC, even the KMT say it. I wish people'd get over themselves on that one.
in/of, I don't care enough about prepositions in titles. There is a wiki-wide naming convention standard for it. SchmuckyTheCat 03:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Almost nothing you said is relevant to the discussion. I don't care which naming convention you want to use, as long as we pick one. My purpose here is to impose a consistent naming convention on all the China related articles. I've looked at almost one thousand articles and I am perfectly capable of fixing them all to follow a naming convention, if we can decide on one. That's why I'm bringing it up now, because I'm here now.
Now if you can pull your head out of your political position, just pick one of the three possibilities I listed and explain why you prefer it. --Ideogram 03:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually I don't know why we have to set some kind of artificial consistency or standard that only exists in WP. I would prefer we name them on a case-by-case basis, on whatever best reflects real life, instead of using a standard that is more prevalent only inside of WP. Not everything is going to work perfectly in that "PRC" should be used for everything, or "mainland China" be used for everything. Now having said that, I do want to ask for more of a notice and concensus before anybody start mass moving articles and mass emptying categories. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I would have to echo the sentiment regarding a flexible naming standard, especially on non-political, or articles with a broader scope. Like it or not to at least 90% of readers already associate the People's Republic of China with China as a whole, and couldn't distinguish (nor care) about the relation of the PRC, ROC, and Taiwan. Certainly when referencing official governmental organs, e.g. the ROC Executive Yuan, we should strive to use the official titles (abiet with some type of disambiguation). However for naming things like the economy article Ideogram just mentioned, or articles like culture, I believe the common term is just fine. Examples:
Of course this makes enforcement more difficult, and we will always face the possibility of "true believers" of one of any political camps trying to rename everything to fit their own interpretation of events, but will ultimately prove to be a better reflection of reality. -Loren 04:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree it has to be flexible and applied on a case-by-case basis, and as a matter of fact this has been the case for some time. Nevertheless I'm afraid for articles such as economy and culture, distinction between Taiwan and Republic of China has to be better maintained. For instance, Quemoy, Matsu, etc., are part of the economy of the ROC. They're however not culturally part of Taiwan and are generally excluded from the relevant Wikipedia article, such as culture, cuisine and languages. — Instantnood 11:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
(response to user:SchmuckyTheCat's comment at 03:14, February 18) Why is mainland China unacceptable? The South China Morning Post uses it, the New York Times uses it, the TIME magazine uses it, the People's Daily uses it, and the BBC uses it. Using mainland China in titles serves the same purposes as disclaimers, and using it with disclaimers is the clearest and the most politically correct. Is there any other sovereign state on Earth which like the PRC defines such territories as Hong Kong and Macao to be part of itself? As far as I know, at least the United Kingdom doesn't, while the Netherlands is defined to be part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, together with Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles. Metropolitan France is perhaps analogous, yet all départements d'outre-mer, territoires d'outre-mer, etc., of France are integral parts of the French Republic, that few if not no article focuses only on the part of France in Europe, and as a result we rarely need to use the term in titles of Wikipedia articles and categories. — Instantnood 11:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Inconsistency leads to confusion. We should expect Wikipedia readers to click on links and read more than one article and if we can't explain why we pick PRC/ROC or China/Taiwan then they will never learn the difference.

Just look at Category:China, Category:Hong Kong, Category:Taiwan, Category:People's Republic of China, and Category:Republic of China. Browse a little. There is no consistency at all, because everybody names their own private articles without regard for any of the others. That's what I'm here for.

I don't care if you want to call it "Economy of Taiwan" instead of "Economy of the Republic of China" as long as you can then tell me when and where to use "Economy of China" and "Economy of the People's Republic of China" and maybe "Economy of mainland China" and "Economy of Hong Kong".

There are many cases like this: "Medicine in X", "Culture of X" (we have Culture of China, Culture of the People's Republic of China, Culture of Hong Kong, and Culture of Taiwan, but no Culture of the Republic of China or Culture of mainland China), "Media in/of X", china-stub adds to "Category:China stubs" while china-geo-stub adds to "Category:People's Republic of China geography stubs" and china-struct-stub adds to "Category:Mainland China building and structure stubs". I hope you see deciding on a case-by-case basis is just going to be chaos.

If we can settle on a reasonable naming standard, we can explain it in a paragraph or two and link to it from all the introductory articles. I don't think it's that hard, you just have to make a decision and I will implement it.

And remember that we have redirects. It is silly to insist that "X of Taiwan" is easier to find when we can just plop a redirect there.

Example proposal

I know I said that I don't care, but just to prove to you it's not difficult to determine a set of rules, I'll give you the ones I've been using.

(proposal moved to Proposal #2 below)

I hope you can see that by simply applying the fundamental properties of these terms, namely that PRC and ROC are modern countries while China and Taiwan are ancient geographic regions (and Hong Kong is an exception) you can logically determine what any article or category should be called.

Again, I'm not wedded to any specific detailed proposal; if you can come up with an equally logical alternative rationale I'll be happy to implement it. --Ideogram 06:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Further discussion

I can see the problem with the different categories. They seem to be randomly categorised, for example, between X of PRC and X of China, without rhyme or logic. But as far as article names go, I'd prefer a case-by-case basis. I don't think readers will be confused with the different naming. And yeah they read more than one article - that's what wikilinking and the search function are for. For one thing, it's going to get controversial if you name something for "China" on an article that either includes or excludes information about Taiwan, even when it's geography. I think as it stands, a lot of the X of China articles have become intentionally ambiguous over the years as to whether or not it includes Taiwan. I foresee a lot of editors revert-warring these kinds of naming if you're going to do it on a mass scale. I know your intention is good here, but the implementation just sounds impractical considering the nature of WP editing and WP editors. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 08:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
If we achieve a consensus here we can write it down at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Political NPOV and point to it the next time someone wants to change it. Then they will have to try to forge a new consensus. That's what Wikipedia is all about, standards are defined and enforced by consensus. Now, you may say that I can't achieve a consensus here in the first place, and you may be right, but you can still choose whether to help me towards that goal or not. --Ideogram 09:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Neutral on the proposals so far, but I suggest if you do suggest new and consistent naming conventions, I suggest guidelines for Tibet be included as well, since that's also a controversial topic, which people of different political views regard as being or not being part of China, and is also inconsistently applied and as messy as other categories. Just look at Category:Tibet, and Category:Tibet Autonomous Region. --Yuje 09:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Man, that's just inviting revert-warring. Since when have naming conventions stopped revert-warring, especially if you plan on name changing first, and then pointing people to the naming conventions guideline if they revert? Not that many people actually participate in discussions over at the naming conventions articles anyway. Editors will feel totally ambushed by controversial changes they don't agree with. I can agree that we need to categorise articles better, but I can't agree with these types of controversial mass renaming. 1) Because I think it's futile and invites revert-warring, and 2) because I prefer a case-by-case basis on article naming instead of abiding by a standard that may only exist in WP. But again - I do know that your intention is good. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 09:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
You are not listening to me. Why do you think I planted invitations everywhere to join the discussion? Do you really think an editor who revert wars while refusing to discuss will gain the support of the community?
You are basically arguing that it is impossible to maintain consensus. If that were true, Wikipedia wouldn't work. There are all kinds of policies here that are maintained by consensus, how do you think those policies were formed? You don't seem to understand that discussing beforehand is a way to deal with controversy. If we come to an agreement, the mass renaming won't be controversial. No individual editor can revert-war for long against a consensus.
I already explained that a case-by-case naming system confuses the reader. Do you think the Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't have a naming system? That's one huge advantage traditional encyclopedias have, they have a consistent editorial direction. You seem to think a naming system is contrary to the laws of nature, but the fact is we are here to organize information and a case-by-case system is no organization at all.
Basically you are repeating yourself. I invite you to take some time and think about what I am saying. --Ideogram 11:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) You seem to think there are armies of revert-warriors hiding in the bushes waiting to pounce on any changes. What are you so afraid of? I have already made some major moves and I've found that most articles are just abandoned. --Ideogram 11:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I support Ideogram's plan stated above with Hong Kong, Macau, and Tibet named separately separately. I find very little reason to ever use "Mainland China" in an article title. It just doesn't describe anything that is helpful to the reader. The only exception might be something like "Geography of Mainland China".
It is not good enough to say "a lot of the X of China articles have become intentionally ambiguous over the years as to whether or not it includes Taiwan." Wikipedia does not practice self censorship. If you say "the People's Republic of China" for matters that occurred after 1949, everyone agrees that it does not include Taiwan, whether that is good or bad. "Medicine of China" should have a corresponding "Medicine of Taiwan" article, and so on.
I guess those are just a few thoughts on the matter.--Danaman5 17:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid Mainland China is not a term to distinguish Tibet from the rest of China or the rest of the PRC. — Instantnood 11:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, unfortunately this isn't Encyclopedia Britannica. I don't even know why you think mass renaming of controversial article names is ever a good idea. But hey, go for it. I can't stop you. I'm just stating that I don't support it. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
No encyclopædia can be too layman. In some ways it might be considered by some to be a little pedantic before they actually started reading. — Instantnood 11:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

A simple rule of thumb when naming articles is simply scope. Is it something that has been around since before 1949? (e.g. Economy, Culture, Railways... etc) If so then "... of Taiwan" is fine. If not, then is it related to an official governmental body? (e.g. military, government offices... etc) If so, then "... of the Republic of China" with relevent disambigs. -Loren 03:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposals

Please vote using approval voting, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/February 2007 for an example. All votes other than "Support" will not be counted. --Ideogram 04:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

#1

No mass renaming of articles.

Avoid mass renaming of articles with article names that are often subject to revert-warring, such as article names with the words "China", "People's Repbublic of China", "Taiwan", and "Republic of China", etc etc. Leave the naming of Chinese-related articles to be determined on a flexible case-by-case basis rather than named by an artificial standard that may only exist on WP and not necessarily in real life.

Discussion

  • I don't see a compelling enough reason to mass rename article names that are possibly controversial and prone to revert-warring. Plus, I think it's better to examine the naming of these articles on a flexible case-by-case basis. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Hong, your proposal is editorializing which doesn't belong in the proposal description. The proposals are supposed to specify 'what' not how. You don't see me putting my arguments in favor of my favorite proposal in the proposal description below. Have the courtesy to do the same. --Ideogram 07:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
All right, I moved possibly objectionable commentary below to "Discussion". Can we do the same here? Not to mention you are repeating yourself again. --Ideogram 07:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
You really don't get it, do you? What you have written above is discussion. It gives your opinion of all the other options, and is not necessary here. --Ideogram 07:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually your proposals contain explanations on why they are good proposals. That's what my proposal does. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
If you find such text feel free to move it to the discussion section. --Ideogram 07:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Why would I do that? I think they belong in the proposal description. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 08:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Who's running this poll, you or me? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ideogram (talk • contribs) 08:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC).
If you can't specify what text you are talking about then you have no point. --Ideogram 08:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh now you didn't ask me to specify before. Just read proposal #2. I think it's well-written, and it contains explanations of why it might be a good idea to rename the articles as specified in the proposal. For example:
An Economy must follow the laws set by the country it belongs...
Culture is usually considered to belong to a people and has deep historical roots...
Medicine and healthcare systems are determined by governments...
Etc, etc, so on and so forth. They serve to explain the proposal, and they belong in the description of the proposal. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 08:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
All right, fine. --Ideogram 08:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with HongQiGong. Each entry should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Michael G. Davis 20:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Before any kind of mass-renaming takes place, we'd need a lot more discussion, including more examples of what exactly would happen to individual article titles. I don't actually think consistency can be achieved (one man's consistency will be another's inconsistency). Kusma (討論) 14:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I think proposal #3 is quite clear, and much better than the current situation. There may be individual problem cases, but I think they will be few, minor, and resolvable by consensus. --Ideogram 00:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I would like to tackle the issue of potential edit-warring head on. From this thread on AN/I you will see that there is considerable edit-warring just to try to maintain the status quo. The assertion that trying to impose a standard will lead to more edit warring is not supported by any evidence, it is just a generalized fear. If your only reason to support the status quo is to avoid edit-warring, I submit your reasoning is invalid. --Ideogram 12:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Put another way: we can give it a try first and if there is a lot of edit-warring we can stop. If there is little edit-warring then there is no problem. Would any of you be in favor of that? --Ideogram 12:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I've decided on my vote. While I think #3 is good in general principles, in practical applications it is likely to run into too many problems. As a result, I'm voting for the status quo. --Sumple (Talk) 08:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

What kind of problems are you worried about? --Ideogram 08:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Mainly NPOV, but also inconsistent treatment/common usage problems. For example, "China" is used differently in different contexts. In my experiences, in common usage in English generally speaking "China" today would encompass Hong Kong and Macau. However, if you are talkinga bout the Chinese economy, the situation becomes more complicated, and very often it would not include Hong Kong and Macau. I don't think such problems could be solved with adopting a priori rules about when to use China and when not to (e.g. by replacing it with mainland China). As another example, does "culture of China" include Hong Kong culture or Taiwan culture? It's ambiguous and problematic. I would argue that in many contexts and in many sources it does. However, equating China with PRC would run against such a meaning.
When I said I think #3 is good in general principles, what I mean is that a China/Taiwan dichotomy based on the PRC/ROC administration dichotomy, with a flexible exception for Hong Kong, does reflect common usage generally. However, there are too many exceptions, intermediate cases, and contentious cases for it to work with any consistency. Some examples I have cited above. A few others that spring to mind might include "ethnicities of China" or "languages of China". What about "islands of Taiwan"? Is Kinmen an island of Taiwan? It is neither administratively nor geographically a part of Taiwan province/island.
Adopting #3, I think, will tend to lead to either much confusion or too many ad hoc exceptions. --Sumple (Talk) 08:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
We can go through the list of all the affected articles and decide by consensus what to do with the exceptions. I am already preparing such a list to answer Kusma; there really are not many affected articles.
Also, even if there are exceptions, it would be more regular than the current situation, in which every article and category name is treated as its own exception. --Ideogram 08:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
In addition to what Sumple has mentioned, is the culture of Kinmen Taiwanese culture? Is the language spoken on Matsu a language of Taiwan? Is a Macau company a Chinese company? Strictly enforcing a China-Taiwan dichotomy is creating more biases and inaccuracies. Michael G. Davis 20:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Support

  1. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 18:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Kusma (討論) 14:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Jiang 02:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Blueshirts 07:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Sumple (Talk) 08:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

#2

PRC/ROC are political entities from modern history and China/Taiwan are geographic entities that have always existed. Certainly Government of X, Foreign relations of X, and Politics of X should use PRC/ROC. And Geography of X should be China/Taiwan.

An Economy must follow the laws set by the country it belongs to and should follow Government and Politics.

History can be of a political entity or a place or a people, so we should have History of all four possibilities. History of the economy of X could cover PRC/ROC in modern times and China before that. (History of the economy of Taiwan would be difficult to write.)

Culture is usually considered to belong to a people and has deep historical roots, and should follow Geography of X. However, it is possible to speak of the modern Culture of the People's Republic of China distinct from the deep-rooted Culture of China. No need for Culture of the Republic of China.

Medicine and healthcare systems are determined by governments, so follow Government of X, again excepting the fact that China existed before the PRC/ROC.

There is also the China/PRC/mainland China/Hong Kong issue. The only examples I can think of here are Economy of X and Demographics of X. Economy and Demographics are measured within a country; mainland China is not a country so Economy and Demographics of mainland China doesn't work. Economy of the People's Republic of China and even Demographics of mainland China have disclaimers that they don't apply to Hong Kong

Discussion

  • Generally agree (not all details), but must be applied on a case-by-case basis. — Instantnood 11:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Similar. General agreement, definitely on the first, overall governing concept. But I'm not sure we need separate articles for "History of Taiwan" and "History of ROC", for example, since the two are geographically co-terminous. This is like having separate articles for the Italian peninsula and the Italian state, when the latter could simply form a later portion of the former. LordAmeth 12:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
    FYI, Taiwan wasn't part of the ROC until 1945, and Taiwan makes up more than 95% of ROC territory (yet not coterminous) since 1949. — Instantnood 13:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
    LordAmeth, you should read History of the Republic of China. The ROC governed all of China from 1912 to 1949, so the history of the ROC is not coterminous with the history of Taiwan. --Ideogram 13:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
    Taiwan wasn't governed by the ROC before 1945. — Instantnood 14:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Taiwan wasn't part of "China" back before 1945. And many people still think it isn't.--Jerrypp772000 00:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Under the current conventions, ROC != China. And neither is the PRC for that matter. -Loren 04:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Support

#3

Collapse ROC/Taiwan to Taiwan and PRC/China to China. Use ROC and PRC only where it is part of an official title and in historical contexts, e.g. Constitution of the Republic of China and History of the Republic of China.

Normally China would be understood to include Hong Kong and Macau, except as noted. However, there would also be separate articles such as Government of Hong Kong and Economy of Hong Kong.

Discussion

This is simple and corresponds to common usage, so it would be easy to understand and less controversial. It is more work, however. --Ideogram 07:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Easily understood by members of WP:China it may be, but this will quite inevitably bring on edit wars and lengthy debates spurred by misunderstandings from new users and others unaware of the Project's decision or logic. LordAmeth 12:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
We don't have those already? -Loren 04:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
ROFL. I wish I'd said that. --Ideogram 04:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Hardly means we should invite it. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I think you are failing to consider the possibility that the current system, having no standard, is more likely to invite revert-warring from new users who don't understand it, because there is nothing to understand. --Ideogram 04:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Irrespective of which one we go with I suspect we're going to have plenty of edit wars anyhow.</cynic> Anyhow, I need some time to think this over before I vote on it.-Loren 04:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
No, it's easier to understand for new users, because it is simpler to state (just look at the description) and it corresponds to common usage. The only proposal guaranteed to avoid edit-warring is proposal #1, making no changes at all. --Ideogram 13:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I support this proposal, but it would be better if we mention in the articles that Taiwan is only a common name for the Republic of China.--Jerrypp772000 00:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Only recently; in many things, there is some continuity between the Republic of China when Taiwan was not a part of it and the Republic of China whose territory is almost only Taiwan. Those things (like the Constitution of the Republic of China) can't be simply called "of Taiwan", and it gets very hard to stay neutral on the independence issue if the article is named "Constitution of Taiwan". Kusma (討論) 14:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Collapse ROC/Taiwan to Taiwan and PRC/China to China. Use ROC and PRC only where it is part of an official title and in historical contexts, e.g. Constitution of the Republic of China and History of the Republic of China. Kusma, this proposal says that we still will use PRC or ROC where it is part of an official title in historical context.--Jerrypp772000 19:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I can see this whole thing going either way. However, in light of the usage of "South Korea" instead of "Republic of Korea" on ROK related articles, I am leaning towards this proposal... unless someone wants to suggest to the WP:KOREA folks that they change their naming conventions... -Loren 04:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

At times I was on the verge of comparisons with the Korean situation as well. However, we have to note that the political situation is quite different. The two Koreas do not explicitely refuse to recognise each other. They do not claim the entirety of each other's territory (or at least since the last decade or so in the South), and nor do they claim to be the sole "Korea" in the world. These are the primary issues over China which results in names becoming a senstive issues. In Korea, however, we see much less contentions over names, if at all.--Huaiwei 17:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
" They do not claim the entirety of each other's territory " - Please refer to Article 3 of the 1987 Constitution of South Korea. [7] [8] " The two Koreas do not explicitely refuse to recognise each other. " - They can't refuse to recognise each other ever since both of them join the UN on September 17, 1991. — Instantnood 20:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
As I mentioned, it was particularly with regards to South Korea in the past decade or so. Please refer to its Sunshine policy with regards to this, unless you have not been updating yourself on Korean affairs for the past decade.--Huaiwei 14:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I still see the whole thing as a question of semantics. No one is going to argue that the ROK controls everything south of the DMZ while the DPRK controls everything north of it, irrespective of whether or not each side acknowledges the other sides's right to do so. The choice to refer to both sides using their common names is more a reflection of the linguistics of the English speaking world, then it is a judgement on who controls what. For nonpolitical articles, refering to a company "based in Taiwan" will be understood by most readers, while "based in the Republic of China" is an unconventional usage and is only going to raise eyebrows. Under these circumstances I'm adding my support to proposal #3 with the understanding that the official title still be used where appropriate. -Loren 20:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
It's never a matter of dispute since neither North Korea nor South Korea connotates any claim of territory or legitimacy, not to mention secession. That's not the case with with China / Taiwan.

Furthermore as a matter of fact the Republic of China governs not only Taiwan. A company based in Taiwan would automatically be based in the Republic of China (unless the time frame concerned is prior to 1945). But what about a company based on Quemoy? Is it based in Taiwan? Different people have different opinion. — Instantnood 20:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Instantnood your example of Quemoy is bunk. That's because you are false defining Taiwan to mean Taiwan Island when that's rarely how people use the word.
The names don't really reflect their histories accurately. Many Taiwanese companies were taken over by the KMT/ROC machine after 1945 and they renamed them China blah blah blah or something similar. They tried to change things to be more Chinese just by changing their names. One reason to call things in Taiwan Taiwan/Taiwanese is because it prevents it from being confused with pre-1945 entities.DownUnder555 20:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Also, it says to use Taiwan instead of the ROC, not Taiwan island or Taiwan province. Taiwan is the common name of the ROC, so it's a fact that ROC = Taiwan in a naming sense.--Jerrypp772000 18:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
That's like Great Britain or Holland. They are common names for the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. - Privacy 03:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
"Furthermore as a matter of fact the Republic of China governs not only Taiwan. A company based in Taiwan would automatically be based in the Republic of China (unless the time frame concerned is prior to 1945). But what about a company based on Quemoy? Is it based in Taiwan? Different people have different opinion."
We are only to use ROC in political context, so I think in this case we would still use Taiwan unless it specifically asks for the country. Then we would put ROC (Taiwan).--Jerrypp772000 19:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

"Where does this leave "mainland China" categories? But sign me up for anything that gets some sort of stability and consistency." In this proposal we would use "China" to describe all articles about the PRC but with the understanding that in some cases like Economy of China it doesn't really apply to Hong Kong and Macau. We already have the article Economy of Hong Kong. The term "mainland China" would not appear in article or category names.

However, I agree with you that any consistent standard is better than what we have now, so if you want to treat China/mainland China differently, feel free to propose it for discussion. --Ideogram 03:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I just want to be specific about this, since it's a point of long-running contention in categories and stub categories. In the past, there's been renames of PRC cats to "mainland China", but also the creation of separate "mainland China" cats as children of their PRC counterparts. It's not clear to me from #3 whether it permits or disallows something corresponding to the latter. If we're going to have these, it would be prudent to say in what circumstances. Alai 04:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
My opinion is to forbid "mainland China" in all category names. However, if you have reasons to differ, I will listen. --Ideogram 06:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
No, I've generally been inclined to get rid of them, precisely because they exist on such an unsystematic basis, and because it seems to be an informal name for something that's not an official subdivision. I just don't think it follows either way from the current "option 3". Do we need a separate consensus-gathering exercise on this? Alai 15:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
No, I've clarified here what I mean in this proposal. If anyone disagrees, they can make another proposal and we can discuss that. --Ideogram 21:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Feels to me more like an add-on than a clarification. I'd like to see the question addressed specifically and separately, since for one thing, some people may have a different opinion on this than they do on the "mass renaming", and for another, because even if the #3 gets consensus (or at least, 'supermajority') support, then "mainland China" fans will doubtless ignore this on the basis that it wasn't explicitly part of the original proposition, and thus "controversial". Alai 18:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Having two articles for the same country is confusing and mis-leading. There is not a separate article called "America" that just decribes the geography of the US and a seperate article "United States of America" describing its government. In English and common use, the term "Taiwan" denotes the country in its entirety. In hundreds of conversation I have had with suppliers in China and Taiwan, I have never heard anyone refer to the "ROC" as such. Instead, BOTH my Chinese and Taiwanese contacts always refer to "Taiwan" . I recommend merging the articles under Taiwan and having a seperate section on the "ROC". --Lucid-dream 19:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

As Privacy has suggested above, referring the Republic of China as Taiwan is as inaccurate as (if not more inaccurate than) calling the United Kingdom Great Britain or England, or the Netherlands Holland. The scenario is not like United States and America. — Instantnood 23:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Most people around the world understand "Taiwan", but not "Republic of China". Insisting on all articles on Taiwan being labelled "X in the ROC" seems to me just being done to placate people that support the Chinese view on Taiwan. -- John Smith's 19:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by " the Chinese view on Taiwan "? — Instantnood 23:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm entirely convinced by the "collapsing" arguments, but I'm utterly unimpressed by the alternative, the likely consequence of which seems to be "let's have no scheme at all, decide on a per-article and per-category basis, and where there's no per-article consensus, edit war" and edit wars on every article and category separately" alternative. Where does this leave "mainland China" categories? But sign me up for anything that gets some sort of stability and consistency. Alai 03:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It was a long process few years back that folks had decided to stick with People's Republic of China and Republic of China, rather than China and Taiwan. The rationale was that whereas the common name principle was acknowledged and considered, NPOV has a higher ground. According to Jimmy Wales, NPOV is "non-negotiable".

Not everybody agrees Taiwan equals the entirety of the modern ROC (e.g. considerable number of pro-Taiwanese independence people never consider Quemoy and Matsu to be part of Taiwan, PRC government doesn't group Quemoy and Matsu to its claimed Taiwan Province, etc.). Equating People's Republic of China with China is creating even more trouble, as that's implying territories under the ROC (i.e. Taiwan (including the Pescadores, Orchid Island, Green Island, etc.), Quemoy, Matsu, Taiping (with Chung-Chou) and the Pratas) not to be part of China. Putting People's Republic of China in place of Mainland China would, likewise, be implying that Hong Kong and Macao are not part of the PRC.

Therefore, while I understand it's more convenient to follow common names, that's not what titles should follow, considering the importance of NPOV and accuracy to an encyclopædia. Redirects and disambiguation notices are already fulfilling convenience requirements to cater everybody's needs. — Instantnood 23:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV is about reference to sources not maintaining some kind of political neutrality between PRC/ROC and Taiwan independence. You can't find any sources that apply the ROC/Taiwan distinction like Wikipedia does. --Ideogram 00:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
NPOV is about being balanced to sources. Creating a China/Taiwan dichotomy is not balanced: many sources would treat Taiwan as a part of China, while others would treat it as separate. --Sumple (Talk) 01:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Support

  1. --Ideogram 03:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. --Jerrypp772000 00:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. --Loren 20:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. --DownUnder555 20:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC) This is qualified support. First of all, the fact that this discussion is taking place on a China articles talk page is already biasing the whole thing. Second, the modern day ROC is really the same thing as Taiwan. You can say that the modern day Taiwan/ROC is not officially recognized as a country by most other countries in the world, but trying to split the two and make it seem like the ROC on Taiwan is identical as the ROC in China is ridiculous. Think about this. Taiwan is now a democracy. Could the government "move" again? Let's say there was a civil war in Taiwan and the ROC "moved" to the Pescadores. Do we now have the history of China as the history of the Pescadores? It makes no sense.DownUnder555 20:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. -- JFG 09:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC) For the sake of simplicity, apply this naming convention to reflect de facto reality and usage, and be accessible to all readers. For the sake of correctness and sensitivity to different points of view, add a prominent disclaimer to the top of each article, pointing to a single page which explains briefly the political situation, history and current interpretations. This page would in turn point to more detailed explanations of each naming / POV / political issue (we have no shortage of such pages, so people who want to know will have ready access to everything). This solution seems to me closest to the spirit of WP:ENC.
  6. --Danaman5 22:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC) I've been flipflopping in my mind on this issue for a while now. However, since this proposal codifies things that we already do anyway, it seems fair to write it down. However, my support is also contigent on the creation of a single page discussing these issues per JFG above.
  7. SchmuckyTheCat 02:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC) tentative support. I'm traveling and didn't read all the above discussion over the last month, but this looks right. SchmuckyTheCat 02:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. --Lucid-dream 19:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  9. -- John Smith's 19:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  10. Alai 03:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC) Partial support. I'm not sure I'm entirely convinced by the "collapsing" arguments, but I'm utterly unimpressed by the alternative, the likely consequence of which seems to be "let's have no scheme at all, decide on a per-article and per-category basis, and where there's no per-article consensus, edit war" and edit wars on every article and category separately" alternative. Where does this leave "mainland China" categories? But sign me up for anything that gets some sort of stability and consistency.

#4

Replace "mainland China" with "China" in all category and article names. In cases where Hong Kong is treated separately (e.g. Economy of China) a comment will be placed in the article noting this. --Ideogram 03:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Support

  1. --Ideogram 03:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. SchmuckyTheCat 00:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Furtherer discussion

Ok, there are slightly more people supporting #3 now, but Wikipedia is not a democracy and we still need to establish consensus. So please discuss. I think I answered the concern about edit-warring, what other concerns are there? Kusma, if you like I can come up with a list of the affected articles and we can go through them in detail. --Ideogram 04:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Economy of mainland China has appeared on WP:CfD. Could the consensus, if reached, be expressed there? Pavel Vozenilek 12:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
It looks like it will be some time before we reach consensus, but if that discussion is still there, I will post our decision. --Ideogram 03:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like to see a list of affected articles. I think there are many articles where we should say "Republic of China" instead of "Taiwan", especially when there is historical continuity. Like "Foreign relations of the Republic of China" or "Military of the Republic of China". These articles can't be renamed to "of Taiwan"; while an "of Taiwan" article could conceivably be spun off, the cut-off date will be completely arbitrary (1949, when the PRC was founded? 1971, when the UN gave up the idea that the ROC controlled "China"? When CKS died? After the end of martial law in Taiwan?) In other areas, "of Taiwan" has more historical continuity, like Rail transport in Taiwan. One problem is that "Taiwan" is often ambiguous, referring to either the geographical entity, or the province of the ROC, (or the hypothetical province of the PRC), or to the country usually called Taiwan. Geography of the Republic of China currently redirects to Geography of Taiwan, although the latter does not explicitly include Kinmen etc. Anyway, the situation here on Wikipedia may be messy, but this mirrors the real world situation of Taiwan. Most Taiwan-related articles seem to have made a pretty good choice between "Taiwan" and "ROC" depending on the context. I don't really see any articles that need renaming. Kusma (talk) 10:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

PRC
ROC
both

There it is. I might have missed some, but I think all the important ones are there. Feel free to note the cases where we should not replace PRC/ROC with China/Taiwan.

To answer your questions, it seems clear to me that "Taiwan" should refer to ROC after 1949, since that is when they retreated to Taiwan. Generally our articles are written to describe the present-day, and there is no ambiguity by referring to Taiwan. Articles about the history of the ROC before 1949 would be clearly labeled with the dates such as Transportation in the Republic of China (1911-1949) or with "History of ...". Thus we would have Foreign relations of Taiwan describing the present situation, and History of foreign relations of the ROC to cover the past with continuity before 1949. Similarly Military of the Republic of China is mostly about, and should be solely about, the current form of the Military, and the list of past engagements should be moved to one or more other articles.

It is important to note that our naming convention doesn't have to be perfect to be better than what we have now, which is no naming convention at all. --Ideogram 10:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we do currently have naming conventions regarding the use of ROC vs. Taiwan. I don't know whether they are actually written down somewhere, but there more or less seems to be agreement how to handle the issue. In your list above, the ROC entries are in my opinion clearly at the only possible choice of name, except for Tourism in the Republic of China, a bad stub where the name is the least of its problems. To split Military of the Republic of China into pre- and post-civil war articles is rather unnatural, and to rename Flag of the Republic of China to Flag of Taiwan looks silly to me. Now Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China again is the only NPOV choice I see, and mirrors Fujian Province, Republic of China.
Note that your consistency for "the present day situation" implies that we make strange choices or become inconsistent in our treatment of the history of the ROC. I don't think complete consistency is possible, and when in doubt, neutrality is an official policy, consistency is a nice optional extra. Kusma (talk) 11:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
No, we really don't have any naming conventions. If you think we do, feel free to explain them. There is no agreement, and every time some new editors come along it is impossible to explain to them why some articles are PRC/ROC and some are China/Taiwan. Then they edit war for a while. If you read Military of the Republic of China you will see that it is entirely about the present-day, except for a list of engagements which doesn't belong in the article at all. You give no reason for not calling it Flag of Taiwan; surely you don't expect a naming convention to depend on what "looks silly" to you.
I simply don't see what is strange or inconsistent about what I stated. Articles about the present day, which is most of them, should refer to Taiwan. Articles with history going back before 1949 should refer to ROC. What could be simpler? And again, just because complete consistency is not possible, doesn't mean we can't be more consistent. Again, I assert there is no consistency now, and I challenge you to prove me wrong. NPOV, as I explained to Instantnood, is about referring to sources to support assertions made in articles, not about choosing politically neutral names for articles. --Ideogram 11:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we are too far apart in our positions. I just think that there are some articles which are about both present day and past things, and I prefer the historical continuity POV to the "current consistency" POV. I think Flag of the Republic of China is in the same catagory (name wise) as the Constitution of the Republic of China. Flag of the Republic of China actually discusses the historical origins of this flag, which are completely unrelated to Taiwan. A possible way out would be a new article Flag of Taiwan that says "The Republic of China (often called "Taiwan") currently uses the Flag of the Republic of China since the ROC military fled to Taiwan after the Chinese Civil War. In the context of the Taiwanese independence movement, other flags were proposed." That is still a bit awkward, but simply renaming the article is not going to provide a good result here. Kusma (talk) 11:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind calling it Flag of the Republic of China; as I said, I never claimed that there would be no exceptions. But it would help me a lot if you could go through the articles I listed and mark the ones you feel should not be renamed to China/Taiwan, so we can see what we are talking about. (Don't forget, after we finish the article names we also have the category names.) --Ideogram 11:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I can live with renaming most of them to "of Taiwan", although I am not really convinced what is best. I would like those articles concerned with the constitution, the government (say, President of the Republic of China) and other official institutions (like the military) to stay at "of the Republic of China". Culture, economy, sports, tourism, anything not so much government-connected should be at "of Taiwan". I hope that makes a more or less clear separation. Kusma (talk) 14:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
That sounds a lot like proposal #2. I don't quite see the reason for Miltary of ROC instead of Military of Taiwan. Also, you haven't offered an opinion on all the PRC articles (not to mention "(China)" and "mainland China"). --Ideogram 20:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't have an opinion on the PRC articles. To your new additions: List of finance ministers of the Republic of China can't be renamed to "of Taiwan"; I don't see a strong case for splitting. List of islands of the Republic of China can't be renamed to "of Taiwan", since "Taiwan" has a geographical meaning as an archipelago that does not include the whole territory currently controlled by the ROC. Administrative divisions of the Republic of China has the same problem: "Taiwan" is a bit imprecise in that context. Perhaps a better name would be to always use "Republic of China (Taiwan)", but I am sure that has other disadvantages. Kusma (talk) 10:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
So does that mean it's ok to have Education in Taiwan, Foreign relations of Taiwan, Human rights in Taiwan, List of banks in Taiwan, List of national parks in Taiwan, Military of Taiwan, Politics of Taiwan, and Tourism in Taiwan? --Ideogram 11:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, probably, yes, maybe (Kinmen stands out a bit), maybe, probably, yes. All should be at least redirects. Kusma (talk) 11:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
All these involve stands-out places such as Quemoy and Matsu. We can't portray like Taiwan, as an offshore country in the Western Pacific, is occupying some geographically non-Taiwan islands along the Asian continent coast and deep in the middle of the South China Sea. Passer-by (talk) 17:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Two pieces of fact to note: i) "Taiwan" means what the Republic of China took from Japan following the end of the Second World War, and ii) Hong Kong and Macau are part of the People's Republic of China since 1997 and 1999, but they are not part of "Mainland China" (while Chongming, Hainan, the Paracels and so on do).

The simple rule is that - a) articles with scope beyond [i] should not be titled "Taiwan", and b) articles not covering Hong Kong and Macau should not be titled "People's Republic of China". - Privacy 22:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

How would you name articles which covers all of the People's Republic of China, on just about any topic?--Huaiwei 22:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Is there a President of Mainland China? Is there a Constitution of Mainland China? Why should Hong Kong and Macau be covered in an article on Education in Mainland China? - Privacy 22:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

More opinions needed note that the point of Wikipedia is to reach consensus via discussion and voting in the straw poll above is not going to be used for any decision, it is only used to get a general sense of what people think. Please go through the list of affected articles above and note which items you feel should not be renamed to use China/Taiwan, and most importantly why. --Ideogram 11:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The fundamental question we have to ask is whether common usage remains accurate. In some cases yes; in other cases, it's misleading. My opinion is that if it has anything to do with the government, use official names; if it doesn't then dont. It should be "parks in Taiwan" and "National parks of the Republic of China" (in vs. of is a somewhat rough indicator)...."Military of the Republic of China" "Tourism in Taiwan"...--Jiang 09:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
It is never a matter of debate whether "Taiwan" in common usage means Republic of China, to the extent that Lee Teng Hui was known commonly as the Taiwanese president. When it comes to neutral point of view, however, neutrality overrides common usage. Referring the whole Republic of China as "Taiwan" is not neutral. - Privacy 19:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't really get what's not neutral about it? And also, there is actually a article in the Chinese version of "Military of Taiwan (zh:台灣軍事)," perhaps we can translate that, and merge the current article:Military of the ROC into that one.--Jerrypp772000 21:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
And what about this: Template:Airports in Taiwan?--Jerrypp772000 20:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed list

For some of these articles I think it should be obvious that the naming is somewhat superfluous and unnecessary, and attempts to confine itself to a political standard rather than attribute it to practical and popular usage. Admittedly too, as the geopolitical status in the region evolves, some of these articles will have to be renamed. As a result it is more practical to name these on a case-by-case basis, but provide a list on a page called "Current ROC/PRC naming conventions" or something along those lines. I have added notes as to the case-by-case basis attempting to scrounge the best of NPOV possible. Feel free to disagree.

PRC

ROC

I hope we can see some consistencies being drawn out here. As people have suggested before, anything that is "official" must have the PRC/ROC attachment, while anything that is civil in nature should simply use "China" and "Taiwan" without trying to conform to a largely unrelated political standard. Colipon+(T) 23:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

My proposed list only covers articles that would be renamed from PRC/ROC to China/Taiwan under my proposal. Since you are making a different proposal, you need to also address articles that would be renamed from China/Taiwan to PRC/ROC, for instance possibly Economy of Taiwan and Demographics of Taiwan. --Ideogram 20:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions/critique/revisions to Sui-Tang Transition template

I created a series template ({{Sui-Tang Transition}}) in anticipation of an article that I'm going to write that will give overview of the transition from Sui Dynasty to Tang Dynasty. If you are familiar with the era, please take a look at the template to see if it is overinclusive, underinclusive, or should be revised in other ways. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 22:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

MTR FAR

MTR has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. LuciferMorgan 03:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

YR Chao photo

I'm still having difficulty finding a photo of Yuen Ren Chao (Zhào Yuánrén) for use in Gwoyeu Romatzyh. Actually, the article on Yuen Ren Chao himself needs one too.

I've tried all the obvious approaches, but have so far met with no success. Does anyone know of a free-use photo I could use? Please don't suggest that I request any more permissions: I've been there, done that! --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 09:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you want a high-quality portrait? Cause regular pictures of him are plenty. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 23:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
No need for high quality portraits! I just want one that I can use without running into problems of copyright. Obviously I've looked on Google Images, but the fact that there are pictures of him there is no guarantee that I can use them on WP. There aren't any (are there?) on WM Commons.
If you can suggest a couple of pictures that you are confident I can use freely, I'd be extremely grateful. -- NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 10:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
From a google search, I suggest: [9] This is clearly pre-1957 (he would have been 65 in 1957), which makes it public domain according to the copyright laws of the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China.
This page [10] suggests that the above photograph was from 1914 (small photo on the right seems to be the same photo). --Sumple (Talk) 10:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I've been through all this before. The small picture on the Cornell Univ. site clearly states "(Image: Property of the Wason Collection on East Asia, Cornell University Library)". Despite sending several emails to CU I've had no reply.

I've asked the webmaster at pinyin.info about the first (larger) image, & he tells me the picture was scanned from Autobiography of a Chinese Woman (John Day Company, New York, 1947), written by Chao's wife, Buwei Yang. He copied Chao's signature and superimposed it on the photo. Is the consensus that I should just go ahead & use it? Is John Day Co. still in business? I don't want to waste time using an image that's going to be deleted! Or am I just being over-conscientious?

Ideally we should get one of these pictures into the Commons. -- NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Any further comments on the above? Does everyone agree that I can use the portrait on WP?? -- NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 09:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it's fine. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 17:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Article Assessment script

For all of the article assessment team members, you might want to take a look at the user script posted at User_talk:Outriggr/metadatatest.js. I have already requested WP:CHINA support, so it could prove useful to us soon. Note that it is still in beta, however.--Danaman5 06:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Ceiling photo?

I just created Caisson (Asian architecture) as part of my Forbidden City revamp project. However, the only photo of a Chinese caisson (sunken panel in ceiling) I could find was a round one. I'd like to put on that page a photo of a more "typical" caisson - e.g. square. Does anyone have any photos lying around, maybe from a temple or the Forbidden City? Otherwise (long shot) is it convenient for anyone to take a photo of one? Or suggest one already here that I've overlooked? --Sumple (Talk) 04:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if this qualifies, but here's a ceiling of the Taipei Grand Hotel. _dk 05:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey that looks good. I'll put it in. Thanks. --Sumple (Talk) 05:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I've also found this photo floating around in commons, but it might be a tad political... _dk 00:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Its nice and bright though. I'll add it in. If anyone objects, it can always be removed... Anyway, it's probably true that you are more likely to find such traditional architectural elements among modern buildings in Taiwan than mainland China. --Sumple (Talk) 08:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Tibet

Hello Chinese wikipedians. I have worked considerably on Tibet-related articles and others such as Inner Mongolia Museum. However I feel it would be very useful to have a sub porject Wikiproject Tibet to conentrate on improving Tibet Automoumous regional articles. I understand the Tibetan nationalism thing so how about Wikipedia:WikiProject China/Wikiproject Tibet this way it is a part of the China project? It could really use some organization -CHina is huge!!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "I've been expecting you" 15:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

There is really no problem with setting up Tibet as a separate wikiproject. See for instance Wikipedia:WikiProject Hong Kong and Wikipedia:WikiProject Taiwan. If you need help in setting up a new wikiproject I suggest you ask AQu01rius (talk · contribs), he set up WikiProject;Taiwan and did substantial work on WikiProject:China. --Ideogram 19:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
It's not a bad idea at all, but I suggest you gauge editor interest in participating in such a WikiProject first. A lot of WikiProjects end up not having much activities. And since you may be interested in Inner Mongolia, you might want to consider a WikiProject for Autonomous Regions of China. It'll broaden the scope a bit and probably garner more editor interest. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

There was WikiProject Tibetan Buddhism, but the scope was narrow in a sense and no one was interested. Should we merge them and create something new? AQu01rius (User • Talk) 22:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

That is a pretty narrow scope, considering WikiProject Buddhism doesn't even get that much activity. What do you suggest we merge them into? I think one way to gauge editor interest might be to see how many Tibet-related topics exist. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
"If you build it, they will come." If you're going to go to the trouble of gathering Tibet topics you might as well put them in a Portal. --Ideogram 22:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Not really true that if you build it, they will come. A lot of WikiProjects don't really have much activity to even warrant existence. For example, take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Macau. I can appreciate the motivation, but with the lack of activity, you almost want to ask, "what's the point?" And it's a lot of work to keep a WikiProject going if there's only a few active participants - that's basically what's going on with WikiProject Hong Kong right now. But sure, it can't really hurt, and there's nobody stopping anyone from creating yet another WikiProject just on a whim. So like I asked, what would be a good scope for a new WikiProject? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Or can we just create them all and make them into workgroups (like WP:INDIA)? Therefore, narrow scopes could be acceptable? AQu01rius (User • Talk) 17:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

THankyou for your comments Whatever the case I would suggest merging that Buddhims project into the main Tibet. Afyer all a lot of Tibet is intertwined with Buddhism anyway. Even if it doesn't have too many memebers -I'm sure more will join it is useful for better project coordination ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "I've been expecting you" 17:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If you are to start a new WikiProject, would you consider creating one for the autonomous regions in China instead? That way it'll incorporate topics from the big three - Tibet, Xinjiang, and Inner Mongolia, as well as the two less notable regions. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's a good idea to have such a diffuse subject. Tibet's connection with China is controversial and linking it with the other autonomous regions implies a unity that is politically controversial. I don't have any problem with creating a smaller, more tightly focused project and waiting for editors to join as Wikipedia grows. --Ideogram 19:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't really see what the political controversy would be. The WikiProject would be about Autonomous Regions of China. Tibet is one such region along with four other regions. It's pretty straight-forward and factual. Yeah there is controversy with Tibet, but how does such a WikiProject imply "unity"? Or better yet, make the WikiProject about Autonomous Areas in general. That'll include all the Autonomous Prefectures and Counties. The only benefit to making a proposed WikiProject more narrow in scope is if there is a lot of activity concerning one particular subject within a scope. But again, anybody should feel free to create any WikiProjects they want. I would just think that some of them may be pointless if they lack activity. And really, if we disregard amount of activity and narrowness of scope, there's no need to merge WikiProject Tibetan Buddhism to any other WikiProject. Heck, I could create a WikiProject about broccoli - but there's a good reason why people don't do that. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
You have your opinion and I have my opinion and other people are free to do whatever they want. I have learned by now that with you it's best to leave it at that. --Ideogram 21:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I think I've said twice already that anybody is free to create any WikiProjects they want. All I'm saying is that it's better to gauge editor interest and not have too narrow a scope in relations to editor interest, before you create a WikiProject that might not end up garnering that much activity and sucks up all your editing time. And I have no idea what you're trying to imply with your "with you it's best to leave it at that". You are absolutely free to disagree with me. I have no problem with that at all. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Then why do you feel the need to repeat yourself? --Ideogram 22:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm only responding to you. I don't mind continuing this discussion at all. Sir Blofeld requested opinions on his idea of creating a new WikiProject, and I'm offering my suggestion but I wanted to note that nobody can stop an editor from creating a new WikiProject, however whimsical that WikiProject may be. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) What exactly are you responding to? You certainly don't need to repeat yourself, I have carefully read everything you wrote. --Ideogram 22:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, you can go over my previous comments to see what I was responding to. And this comment is in response to your question. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
If I state my opinion is it necessary for you to respond by repeating your opinion? --Ideogram 23:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
If you are stating something you have not stated before, then obviously my response would not be a mere repetition of what I've said before, because we'd be talking about something new. But if you are repeating an opinion you have stated already, then my response would likely be a repeat of how I've responded to you previously. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
You don't have to respond to everything I say, that we be called "Trying to Have the Last Word". There's no point in having an extended argument trying to convince one person of what they should do; they have probably made up their mind already anyway. If I state my opinion, you do have the option of simply noting that you disagree, or even saying nothing and trusting that intelligent readers will note that you stated a different opinion. If I repeat myself, that doesn't mean you have to repeat yourself as well. --Ideogram 23:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Likewise, you also do not have to respond to everything I say. If state my opinion, you also have the option of not responding. And if you'll note, our current discussion was spurred on by your response to my suggestion that a WikiProject be created for Autonomous Regions of China. You could have said nothing instead of responding. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You have your opinion and I have my opinion and other people are free to do whatever they want. I have learned by now that with you it's best to leave it at that. --Ideogram 21:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

What exactly in that statement did you feel the need to respond to? And what point are you trying to make, other than I must be wrong somewhere? --Ideogram 23:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm explaining my point. I have no idea what you meant by "I have learned by now that with you it's best to leave it at that." It seems like an expression of frustration that I care to voice my disagreement with you. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, guys, let's just cool down here. I don't think anyone meant any offense with what they said. All of the relevant points have been made, so maybe it is best to end the discussion here.--Danaman5 00:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It's ok, we still like each other. Or at least, I like HongQiGong, can't speak for him/her. --Ideogram 01:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Of course I like you. And I didn't understand why you got frustrated in the middle of the discussion. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, don't take me seriously. I get frustrated a hundred times a day. I'll get over it. --Ideogram 03:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh I take you very seriously. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Are you female? Will you be my wiki-girlfriend? --Ideogram 04:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, you're a lesbian? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I should have guessed from the Jade Ribbon Campaign. No, I'm male. You break my heart. --Ideogram 06:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad you cared to look at my userpage. Actually the Jade Ribbon Campaign is pretty noble project. You should read about it if you don't know about it already. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

HEY YOU TWO .ENOUGH!!!! Your're missing the point here! Lets focus on the proect rather than arguing over it! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "I've been expecting you" 12:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Chinese surnames

Hey guys, I have converted this WikiProject into a workgroup of WPCHINA, so we can add surname=yes to tag surname articles. It will add the article to the categories of the surname project. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 17:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Korea history

There is a discussion regarding Korea history (talk · contribs)'s behavior on WP:ANI. Per the suggestion of another administrator, due to his/her involvement in editing China-related articles, I am requesting interested parties to comment on his/her behavior there. --Nlu (talk) 04:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Question about chinese comic book

Has anyone ever heard of the comic book Zhou Tong Zhuan Qi (Chinese: 周侗传奇 – "The Legend of Zhou Tong")? I came upon it while I was doing research for my Jow Tong page. This website seems to have covers to all ten volumes of the comic book. I can’t read Chinese (I used an internet translator), so I was wondering if one of you could find a good description of it and add the material to the article's "Literature" section. (Ghostexorcist 10:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC))

This website mentions that the "Legend of Zhou Tong" was made into an opera (or it could mean the comic book came from the opera). Could someone look stuff up on that as well? It could be added to a "theatre" section. (Ghostexorcist 10:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC))
One chinese blog page says this about the comic book: "这套书籍讲述了他从投军到剿灭太湖水寇，抵御辽军，最近归隐，传授技艺于岳飞的一生经历。"

"This set of books about his vote from the military to destroy the Taihu Lake bandits resist Liao recently Hermitage, the life has been wrapped in imparting skills."

Sorry for the crappy translation. You can thank google. I did it for our english reading community (which includes myself). I have a feeling that Zhou Tong's wuxia biography was based upon this comic book or visa versa. The descriptions of both sound similar and one of the covers from the comic book is exactly the same (plus more detail and color) as one from his biography. It features what I can only assume is a young Zhou Tong tugging on a ladies leg under water. (Ghostexorcist 18:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC))

Chinese painting

Chinese painting needs your help! While a number of individual artists have pretty solid articles, Chinese painting is sorely lacking. (firstly, Chinese Painting Arts needs to be merged in.) Most of the related overview articles, such as History of Chinese art, Chinese porcelain, Chinese architecture, and Chinese music... Please help in whatever way you can. We don't need massive opuses on each period or style or school, but a good solid summary with a link to the main article for each of these things would be wonderful.

The same really ought to be done for Japanese painting, Korean painting, and likely other national overview articles. For these countries as well, the "History of ... art" articles are fairly solid, but the length and quality of the separate articles by medium (i.e. painting) really need work. These are major subjects, major foundational articles which I think should be of a high priority for the Project, no?

Thank you! LordAmeth 11:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

We can start a workgroup on Chinese Art. Anyone opposes? AQu01rius (User • Talk) 00:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Qing Dynasty Chancellors vs Prime Ministers

Hey guys, Category:Qing Dynasty Prime Minister was recently renaed to Qing Dynasty Chancellors in a mass-renaming of all Xxx Dynasty Prime Minister categories. However, as you know the Qing dynasty never had Chancellors, and it only got a Prime Minister in 1908 in the new Constitution, and that was definitely a Prime Minister and not a Chancellor. I have made a renaming proposal at [11]. Please comment. --Sumple (Talk) 09:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for help from the Philosophy WikiProject

I'm working on Template:Foreign philosophy terms and I'm finding that many of the philosophy terms redirect to things completely unrelated to the philosophy topic I'm trying to link (e.g., ch'i and two terms transliterated as chih all redirect to Qi, ching and ch'ing each link to something non-philosophical). I'm not sure if the problem is that the transliterations in my sources aren't the best, or maybe the problem can just be solved by a redirect. So, basically, if anyone from this project who knows Chinese (or can at least help me identify the best way to solve these problems), I'd appreciate it if he or she could leave a comment on my talk page offering assistance. Thanks. - KSchutte 19:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Beijing

Most articles about Beijing are out of date and lack enough information, which is bad as the city will be exposed to the world next year and is already now being hit by a lot of interest from abroad. I think the Beijing articles should be a major priority at the moment. Do you think that Beijing itself is important enough for it's own WikiProject? I have created a portal over at Portal:Beijing that needs expanding and a lot of work.

Anybody interested in helping out on the Beijing articles: drop me a note over at my talk page and we can maybe coordinate it and share sources we found...? Poeloq 23:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

There are WikiProjects dedicated to specific cities. But I would suggest you try to gauge editor interest in one about Beijing before starting it just to have to maintain it all on your own or on the efforts of just 2 or 3 active participants. If you want to address concerns about Beijing-related articles, you could try mentioning them here on this WikiProject first. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Some fun reading for you

I'm sure you've all heard of Conservapedia. Here's a sample of their offering: Gongchandang. --Sumple (Talk) 03:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I signed up as "Chiang" there. Im doing my best in holding high the great blue banner of the Three Principles of the People in redirecting misguided conservatives from promoting leftist Taiwan independence thought to promoting the benevolent Confucian-Christian democratic thinkings of the late President Chiang Kai-shek. Free China shall not be forgotten! Now the "gongchandang" you speak of is a bandit organization that does not (legitimately) exist, so we replace it with the next best alternative, the guomindang. --Jiang
A worthy cause. How do I sign up? (Log in/create an account doesn't seem to work) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sumple (talk • contribs) 04:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

hmm...you just create an account, like what we did here. that doesnt work?--Jiang 04:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope. The "create an account" button doesn't appear for me. Maybe I've been preemptively banned... --Sumple (Talk) 05:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

yeah, it's been disabled for some reason. you can always edit anonymously--Jiang 06:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


Gwoyeu Romatzyh (information)

For your information, Gwoyeu Romatzyh has been a FAC since 26 March. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

There's currently a discussion about the use of colour-coding to highlight the tones in GR. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 09:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Update: promoted FA on 3 April. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 10:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Internet brigades

Some help is needed in making a potential article over here - about the alleged flooding of the internet with information used by a few governments (currently the Russians and the Chinese have been alleged of doing this). China's role is based on this article by Guardian Unlimited. The original article (which was very problematic and was deleted) was purely based on the FSB allegations, and an attempt is being made to make the future potential article more international. It is currently up for deletion review over here, where there is a tie of votes (9 to 9) between those who endorse its deletion and those who want it overturned and relisted.

This is a very controversial topic, but in my view there seem to be enough notable sources to make a decent article out of it, so I hope that someone here may be able to help. Esn 01:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

historical timeline

The sequence of Chinese History pages need a bit of organizing. Take a look at one of the pages from the equivalent Japanese History pages: Kemmu restoration.

  • each page has a bar on the right with the entire sequence of articles, the dynasties in chronological order
  • each page also has a bar at the base of the article with "previous" and "next" links

I'll add the History bar to any articles I see missing- but how does one make the bottom bar? brain 19:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem with that is some dynasties are simultaneous. I.e. they existed during the same time period. More prominently, the ROC and PRC both technically exist today. Thus a model based on the History of Japan model is rather impractical. Colipon+(T) 23:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
As Colipon suggested, the strict succession model employed in the Jp history articles is unsuitable because it implies clean-cut historical succession where it did not exist. This is also a problem with our current side bar. I suggest doing away with that too, and building a footer timeline using m:EasyTimeline.--Jiang 23:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I see- so basically the history sidebar needs to be re-engineered to reflect the simultaneous dynasties. I also noticed that at least three articles linked from the History bar #1 do not have the History bar themselves and #2 already have content on their right side, making addition of the History bar impractical.
  • Since I'm pretty new on this project I'm not really ready to do the new bar/timeline footer myself. Is there a more public place we can post the need for this? brain 04:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't figured out how to use EasyTimeline yet so any help is needed.

We should add Template:Infobox Former Country to all the dynasty articles. There is a built in function in that template to show succession. Song Dynasty, for example, has the sidebar, but it is pushed down because of the infobox.

I can't think of anyplace else to post this, other than WP:VP--Jiang 21:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Beijing opera peer review

I have initiated a peer review for the article Beijing opera which can be found at Wikipedia:Peer review/Beijing opera/archive1. I invite you to comment.--Danaman5 05:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

List for ROC and PRC designations

Hi could I just get the thoughts of the people here about the proposed list for ROC and PRC naming desginations? (Scroll up) Colipon+(T) 04:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Guanmao vs. Chinese Crested Dog

Does anybody know if these are the same type of dog? - Peregrine Fisher 15:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes they are. Thanks for notifying, I have redirected Guanmao to the latter. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 17:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Naming conventions, revert warring, and User:Privacy

In the discussion of naming conventions above, people were concerned that trying to impose one would lead to revert-warring, and about half of the votes in the straw poll were for leaving things alone. Now Privacy (talk · contribs) is trying to implement sweeping changes to article categories imposing a naming convention of his own. As I have already stated, there is no consensus on a naming convention and that is what my proposal was intended to fix. So here we have proof that not having a naming convention is not going to prevent revert wars, as that is exactly what Privacy does. --Ideogram 20:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Why are you saying "..we have proof that not having a naming convention.."? There is a current set of naming conventions. Just that you don't agree with it. My edits are based on the current set of naming conventions and DRV and CFD. - Privacy 20:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
How many times do I have to explain this to you? What is written there is clearly labeled disputed. I am not the only one reverting your edits; practically every category change you make gets reverted. Don't you think something is wrong here? --Ideogram 20:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
And there is no active discussion for the "disputes". Aren't you told? (see User talk:Privacy#Discuss please) You know how many guys are there keep reverting? Something wrong too? - Privacy 20:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I've been trying to have a discussion but no one is discussing. And there are more of us reverting than you. So until you get a consensus for your changes you won't accomplish anything. --Ideogram 20:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
You voted for the option to "leave everything alone". If you really want to fix all the naming exceptions, the honest thing to do would be to propose your own naming convention (you can paraphrase what is already there, since you seem to support it) and have people vote on implementing it. --Ideogram 20:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I voted to keep the current set of naming conventions, and to decide each article or category case by case based on the current set of naming conventions. I agree with the current set of naming conventions, and therefore I don't know why I have propose my own one. - Privacy 20:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Can you read? The proposal says "no mass renaming of articles." That is what Hong proposed and what you are doing is clearly not what she had in mind. --Ideogram 20:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
The lack of active discussion is part of the problem, not "cover" for continuing to engage in disputed behaviour. If people continue to try to conform the categories to the different schemes in their various heads without resolving the issue, this is going to end up back at WP:ANI and WP:RFAR. Alai 18:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Bilateral relations discussion

I would like to invite you all to participate in a discussion at this thread regarding bilateral relations between two countries. All articles related to foreign relations between countries are now under the scope of WikiProject Foreign relations, a newly created project. We hope that the discussion will result in a more clean and organized way of explaining such relationships. Thank you. Ed ¿Cómo estás? 18:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Red Cliffs needs references

The Battle of Red Cliffs article has no references at all, which is a problem given its debate about troop numbers and casualties, etc. As an outside observer, I have a hard time accepting anything in the article, which is sad because an article about such a significant historical event really should be better. -- Exitmoose 00:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Beijing opera FAC

The article Beijing opera is now listed at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Beijing opera. I welcome your thoughts and suggestions.--Danaman5 18:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The article looks good. Good job. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

new article, new user

There is a new article Food Safety in the People's Republic of China created by a new user User:Lothringen I hope that members of this project can improve the article and welcome the new user into the community. Jon513 15:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

And the fact that this article is planted solely in a certain category is a tell-tale sign of sockpuppetry by banned user User:Instantnood.--Huaiwei 16:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't he have named it Food Safety in Mainland China? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
After reviewing the contribution of User:Instantnood I think it is very unlikely for User:Lothringen to be a sockpuppet. User:Lothringen seem to only editwar; I cannot find a single contribution of his that adds any content. He wrote a few well sourced (albeit not using WP:footnotes) paragraphs) that seem to me to be NPOV (of course I am unfamiliar with China issue and I doubt I could tell if it was). In any even, we have to give any new user the benefit of the doubt. I would be a shame to chase away a good editor because he put an article in a controversial category. In fact, he didn't put it into any category until a robot labeled it as uncategorized! Jon513 19:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Portal:China

Portal:China is now re-submitted as a featured portal candidate. Visit the page and comment if you want. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 18:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Can someone PLEASE comment? AQu01rius (User • Talk) 06:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I've had a lot going on in real life the last couple days. I'll comment later today.--Danaman5 14:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

My comment was toward some other users. We need a automatic bot to develop a newsletter system to get all participants of this China project connected. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 17:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyone here? Please comment... I rather see bunch of opposes than no comment from the editors here. Argh! (AQu01rius • Talk) 06:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Global search and replace and edit warring by User:TingMing

Once again we have an example of how not having a naming convention does not prevent edit-warring.

TingMing (talk · contribs) is enforcing his own naming convention and edit-warring across dozens of Taiwan-related articles. He is not interested in discussing, he only reverts to his preferred version. --Ideogram 21:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

vague question, sorry

Hey do you have any idea what "Gudai Zhanzheng Yibailie" might mean, in the context of a book reference as follows: Wuhan Forces Headquarters Editing Division for the Research of Military Materials, Zhongguo, Gudai Zhanzheng Yibailie (Wuhan: Hubei Province People's Publishing House, 1979). Sorry, no tones & no Chinese chars. Thanks! Ling.Nut 01:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


Hmmmmmm It looks like it might be the "100 Ancient Chinese Military Records"...ish. I could be wrong. Maowang 01:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I found it — thanks! Ling.Nut 02:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

New Task Force for Workshop Chinese History

Hello everyone, Pericles here from WP Chinese History; I have a suggestion for a new task force alongside the military history task force found in the Chinese History Workshop.

I propose we initiate a new History of Science and Technology task force in the History workshop of WP China. I have noticed an enormous lacking in almost all articles on the subject here at wikipedia.org. Due to my edits, articles such as Zhang Heng, Ma Jun, Su Song, and Shen Kuo look much, much better than they did before (two of them were a month ago merely stubs with one or two sentences). I have also created new articles, such as Technology of Song Dynasty. However, I feel that help from others interested in the history of Chinese science and technology would be invaluable.

For example, it is going to be exhaustive editing and rewriting this mess: Chinese astronomy. Like Joseph Conrad's character Marlow sailing into the Heart of Darkness, I need some [wiki] buddies with me armed with some Winchester rifles (i.e. scholarly sources, lol) in order to make it through.

What does everyone think?

--PericlesofAthens 22:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Judging from the silence on this, I'm guessing no one really gives a **** about Chinese science and technology. Oh well, it would have made a great task force.--PericlesofAthens 08:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Ask on Talk:History of science and technology in China. In particular Grimhelm (talk · contribs) was instrumental in bringing that article to GA. You could also help add depth to that article, maybe bring it to FA. --Wang C-H 18:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, that's definitely going on my to-do list. Thanks for responding Wang.--PericlesofAthens 03:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Dayuan featured article review

Dayuan has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Nydas(Talk) 10:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Chengguan and Cui Yingjie

These articles could use some editing and additional sources. Cui Yingjie was prod'd recently. I removed the prod and improved the article. However I cannot read much Chinese, and can't do all the searching/sourcing I would like to do. Any assistance would be appreciated. Thanks, Fang Aili talk 15:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I found a few articles about Cui Yingjie — but it's final exams week now and I should be studying ;-) I'll try to pitch in about a week or so from now.. --~~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ling.Nut (talk • contribs) 15:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC).


Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 FAR

Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. LuciferMorgan 14:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Xiangqi FAR

Xiangqi has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. LuciferMorgan 15:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Shen Kuo FAC

I have recently nominated Shen Kuo (1031-1095 AD) for Featured Article status. As most of you might know, Shen Kuo is one of the most important figures of Chinese history, and one of the most important scientists and writers of scientific literature in history. If you would like to review and provide comment/objection/support, then visit the talk page at Talk:Shen Kuo or specifically it's FA talk page here. Thanks! --PericlesofAthens 08:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Quality ratings and "A"

Can we have some discussion as to what and whether an 'A' rating should be used for in this project (and WikiProject Taiwan)? See Talk:Taiwanese aborigines. The relationship between 'A' and 'GA' ratings is not well defined, since GA uses an external process with a different population of reviewers and A is a WikiProject internal rating. Many people have said putting 'A' and 'GA' on the same scale is comparing apples and oranges. Different WikiProjects handle this in different ways; WikiProject Military History ignores GA and requires a project-wide peer review for A. Other, smaller WikiProjects that don't have a peer review process let GA and FA be assigned externally and don't use 'A'. This was my impression of how things worked here so far, but it's fine with me if we use a different process, as long as we agree and it is consistent. --Calde 04:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't use A when I rank articles, because I find it uncomfortable to declare that an article is basically ready for FA without any kind of external process. I'd be fine with setting up an internal review process if others want to.--Danaman5 13:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Take your POV probs elsewhere, sport. The ratings exist. Therefore they are intended to be used. End Of Story. Ling.Nut 22:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I find this response to be a little hostile. It is in fact true that other Wikiprojects don't use the A rating much, and I never use it, so it seems like this issue is worth discussing. We can't just say "End Of Story" and move on.--Danaman5 01:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

(undent) But if people want to use it, they can and should. That's the "End of Story." If you don't to use it, then you don't have to, and shouldn't. End of Story. It's just that simple. Ling.Nut 02:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the concept of a "standard rating system". --Calde 20:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Danaman5

It really doesn't seem to matter. Just let people use it if they want.

Any hostility is being aimed at User:Calde, who is suspected of being a "dirty sock" and not editing in good faith, which degrades our entire community. As you can see, this user's only edits appear between an 8 hour window on the evening of May 2 to after midnight May 3 Eastern Time or in the afternoon and evening Pacific time USA. Unfortunately Calde is trying to manipulate the community to a POV and whether you agree or not, it is not how cooperation or change should be forged. As a major contributor to Taiwanese Aborigines I welcome members from the WikiProject China to contribute their knowledge and expertise and offer any advise to make this a better page. Although I do not always agree, anything can be discussed rationally, without resorting to "tricks". I would like to assume everyone is working in good faith and NPOV, but unfortunately, not everyone is upfront with their motives and this casts a cloud of suspicion over innocent contributors. I think this is regrettable and I hope both WikiTaiwan and WikiChina communities can cooperate in discouraging our members from this type of non-constructive behavior. I also think User:Calde should be ignored. Thanks!Maowang 03:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

This is the reason for the hostility. These users will say anything to discredit me and it is not possible for me to have a rational conversation with them.
These users wish to attack my comments by attacking me ad hominem. I am content to let the other members of WPCHINA decide. In particular, I hope that AQu01rius (talk · contribs) who has done a great deal of work rating articles will weigh in. --Calde 20:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Anything GA and higher requires a formal review. ludahai 魯大海 14:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
That would be a good rule, but we don't have enough reviewers to provide formal reviews for the 'A' rating. What can we do about that? --Ideogram 14:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean that WOULD be a good rule. That IS the rule. ludahai 魯大海 01:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
There appears to be some disagreement on whether an 'A' rating requires a formal review, see the comments above by Ling.Nut (talk · contribs). And we are unable to provide project-wide formal reviews if it does. My personal preference is to not use 'A' ratings in this project at all. --Ideogram 02:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

(undent) actually the rule for wikipedia is, only GA and FA *require* an external rating process... I do agree that having a project-internal system for assigning "A" rating is preferable to having none.. but if no such rating exists, there is no rule against just assigning A rating.. Ling.Nut 02:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

So does an article have to pass GA to be rated 'A'? What is the difference between a GA article and an 'A' article? --Ideogram 02:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
...to walk the path to enlightenment, you must first read this :-) Ling.Nut 03:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I hate that table. It states that 'A' class articles do not necessarily have to pass GA, violating the normal expectation that it is a linear scale. It also says 'A' class "could be considered for FA" which implies that every 'A' class should be nominated for FA; but then if they succeed they are FA, and if they fail they are not 'A' class. The whole FA/A/GA sequence was the result of a messy compromise, which is why some projects like WP:MILHIST have modified it. --Ideogram 04:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I stand corrected on "A" class. We follow a different policy in WikiProject Bio. ludahai 魯大海 15:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I set up a A-Class Review department for WP:TWGOVT, maybe we can set up a department for each WikiProject.--Jerry 15:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) How many reviewers do we have? If we don't have enough, review requests will just sit there. --Ideogram 17:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Forbidden City

Hey guys, I've been working on Forbidden City for a while. I'd love for all of you to take a look and comment on the article, with a view towards a GA nomination eventually. Any suggestions, criticism, and of course editing would be great! --Sumple (Talk) 07:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

{{WikiProject China}} template

Why do you insist on slapping the {{WPCHINA}} template at the top of Talk pages willy-nilly?
I'll be blunt: it's really obnoxious.
JFD 17:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Articles related to China usually go under Wikipedia:WikiProject China. Is there any rationale for not including articles in WikiProject China or for including articles in another WikiProject? Please discuss this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China before removing the template. Thank you. LionheartX

The use of these national templates—even their placement, i.e. the order in which they appear on Talk pages—has escalated into WP:BATTLE before, and indiscriminately slapping national templates on Talk pages—at the very top, no less—can only worsen things where there is already tension. JFD 17:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia don't usually do things just to avoid controversy. "China" refers to the civilization China, with no political implications. Articles such as tea, gunpowder, ginseng, ect. is of great concern to China. In addition, see Talk:Foreign influence on Chinese martial arts and other talk pages where there are several "national templates" on the talk pages. LionheartX
Honestly, I use a script to add and assess articles, so the order in which the WP:CHINA tag appears on the talk page is somewhat random. I also second LionheartX's comments about the scope of our project. This project is about the Chinese civilization, not any one particular modern country or government.--Danaman5 18:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Then might I suggest being judicious in this template's application when there is the possibility of escalating WP:BATTLE? JFD 19:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

FAC voting

It looks bad for other members of WPCHINA/WPTAIWAN to support an article belonging to the project. I personally never support an article belonging to a project I am active in, I only speak up if I have an objection. For example, I felt the recent Beijing opera was a worthy FAC but let more objective people make the decision. --Calde 06:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I hope I wasn't out of line by mentioning Beijing opera here. Honestly, I was feeling like the FAC wasn't getting enough attention, so I was just trying to drum up comments.--Danaman5 06:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
The decision is not made by majority voting anyway. One reasonable objection trumps 100 "Support, great article" votes. It is useful to advertise FACs on WikiProject pages so other project members can help fix things that others have objected to. Kusma (talk) 06:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
No, of course FAC is not a vote (which many people fail to understand). I'm not objecting to mentioning a FAC to get help and feedback. What is dubious is members of the WikiProject showing up at FAC to say "support" and little more. I do believe this practice is deprecated somewhere, but I can't be bothered to look it up now. --Calde 17:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
A pure vote makes the voter look silly, but shouldn't have a large effect on the decision. Kusma (talk) 18:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not worried about these actions affecting the decision. I'm worried about WPCHINA/WPTAIWAN looking silly. --Calde 18:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Lion dance

I would like to translate the Lion dance article for German-language WP but it is tagged "Expand" and "Cleanup" and rated "Start-Class" while "Important". Since my username relates to something completely different, I only know what I can read in Wikipedia about it ;-) Could someone help me by reviewing the article so that I can have it exported to de:WP and translate it? Thanks. --Liondancer 04:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Translate

Can someone please translate the following titles into Chinese for me? (Ghostexorcist 10:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC))

Title of each volume
# Chinese pages # Chinese pages
1 首战传捷报 126 6 联姻邈川关 110
2 大破石佛寺 110 7 受困桃源山 102
3 孤胆闯太湖 126 8 全歼赵都都 110
4 奇取同盟录 134 9 除暴芒山道 126
5 剿杀熊双飞 118 10 名师出高徒 110

Forbidden city

I wikified this article, removing duplicate links, adding comments, and various small fixes. My changes were reverted by an editor who apparently does not understand the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Now he is ignoring my request for discussion. Could someone please examine my changes and either put them back or explain to me why they should not be allowed? --Ideogram 14:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The comments were perhaps not that great in the article text. I agree with you that the article is overlinked, and have wikified it a little by removing links. Kusma (talk) 15:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Are there any other WP:MOS problems other than the overlinking? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Date linking, fixed image sizes. Really the edits speak for themselves, if someone would just take the time to look at them. --Ideogram 15:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I think your edits were very good. The disparaging comments hidden within the text undoubtably exacerabated any negative reaction you might have received. Explanations for edits typically are made in the edit summary line or on the talk page for the article. It's not good form to put that kind of thing in the text, and it's not good form to disparage the previous version. Could you make these changes over the course of several edits and forego the hidden text comments, thus making it easier for the other editor to accept and assimilate your changes? -Jmh123 18:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I know, I tend to be sarcastic. I placed the comments in the text this time because I thought Sumple was actively editing it, but he seems to have left. If anyone else shows an interest in improving the article I can discuss the comments with them on the talk page, but otherwise I think I'm done with it. --Ideogram 18:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Location of Xanadu

The Xanadu article gives as location "northeast of Lanqui/Zhenglan Banner/Dund Hot". I have no idea what that means. None of the terms appear to have Wikipedia articles. Is this a hoax? AxelBoldt 02:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought Xanadu was fictional. --Ideogram 03:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Found this. --Ideogram 06:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll incorporate that information into the article. Cheers, AxelBoldt 02:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyone here from Beijing with a camera?

I realize Wikipedia is blocked in Mainland China, but I have heard there is some editing of Wikipedia in China anyway. Is there anyone in or near Beijing who has or can take photos of Chinese dinosaurs? My understanding is that Beijing has a very large museum of Asian dinosaurs, the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology. Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs has at least 50 articles of Chinese dinosaurs which lack illustrations. A quick visit to the museum could provide Wikipedia with illustrations for these articles. If you know of someone who has or who can obtain pictures of dinosaur genera Dashanpusaurus, Magnirostris, Yuanmousaurus, Microhadrosaurus, Kelmayisaurus, Eugongbusaurus, Siluosaurus, Tatisaurus, Chungkingosaurus, Chinshakiangosaurus, Datousaurus, Gyposaurus, Bienosaurus, Stegosaurides, Tugulusaurus, Omeisaurus, Zigongosaurus, Chaoyangsaurus, Bellusaurus, Phaedrolosaurus, Crichtonsaurus, Chialingosaurus, Alxasaurus, Archaeoceratops, Yangchuanosaurus, Gasosaurus, or the non-dinosaurian pterosaurs Huanhepterus or Liaoxipterus please have them upload them. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Huo Long Jing

Gunpowder, Firearms, Cannons, Flamethrowers, Land Mines, and Rockets - What do all of these have in Common?

Why, they're all described and illustrated in the article (I created) on the 14th century Ming Dynasty military treatise of the Huo Long Jing, edited and compiled by the artillery officer Jiao Yu! Lol. Hey guys, how's it going, Pericles here. I just set up the Huo Long Jing article for peer review at:

Wikipedia:Peer review/Huo Long Jing/archive1

I'd be grateful if the lot of you would make some contributions in suggesting improvements or adding material to the article. Otherwise, why even join WikiProject China? Get to it, soldier, or I'll launch a fire arrow up your kiester.--PericlesofAthens 19:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Three Kingdoms WikiProject

By the way, for anybody that's interested, User:Ling.Nut has created a Three Kingdoms WikiProject.

Thanks for putting out the word — and for the record it's been a joint effort with Gamer Junkie, _dk, Sarazyn, and Plastictv. Others are extremely welcome (and begged) to join in! :-) Ling.Nut 21:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I have it on my watch list and might help out occasionally, but as it is, I already have a major case of Attention deficit disorder when it comes to editing articles, so I can't make any promises.  :-p Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

convert tables on emperor articles to a template...

I'd like to propose converting those tables (employed as infoboxes) to a single template. Doing so will:

  1. Reduce the weight of every page
  2. Make it much easier to propagate changes (that is, if some across-the-board change, large or small is needed; see below)
  3. Ensure a consistent format.

While I'm thinking of it:

  1. The tables include notes.. which perhaps would better be formatted as as straightforward <ref>-type footnotes with their text appearing in a "Notes" section. Within the table/infobox, they look a bit distracting/cluttered...
  2. The text needs to be v-aligned (for example see in the "Posthumous name (full)" row in Qianlong Emperor).

...and other aesthetic improvements could be experimented with in a centralized manner...

Thanks --Ling.Nut 01:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

You want to convert this giant Table of Chinese monarchs to a single template?? May I ask if that is what you have in mind? Benjwong 03:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
No, that isn't it. :-) Look at Qin Shi Huang.. See the thing that looks like an infobox? It's a table. A similar table is in many articles. these should be converted to a single template, for the reasons given above. Ling.Nut 03:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

(undent) [[Qianlong Emperor]] has a template.. that could be edited... Ling.Nut 03:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I see. Yes that would be a good idea. In fact if I didn't look at the editpage, I would assume it was already using a template. Benjwong 20:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Mojibake move

I am proposing to have Mojibake, the current article for "乱码", moved to another name (preferably a purely English name). I think the problem is pretty common in Chinese. If anyone is interested in this topic, feel free to comment on its talk page. --Voidvector 10:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Workgroups

Although this project has many "workgroups," they all appear to be independent "WikiProjects." Should we make them part of this project?--Jerry 22:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Condor Heroes-related articles

A number of articles exist for The Legend of the Condor Heroes and The Return of the Condor Heroes, including articles for specific characters, but they are all either poorly sourced or completely unsourced. Some might need wikifying also. Most of them are not tagged for any WikiProjects - I did a few for WPChina. This is probably true also of articles that are about Jinyong's other books. I am not familiar with how to source for articles that are about fictional works or fictional characters, so if you have any insight, please try to improve these articles so they do not risk deletion when some editors come in and feel that they do not assert notability or something. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Help settle a dispute at List of tributaries of Imperial China

Calling all editors who are versed in imperial age Chinese history - I need some help settling a dispute at List of tributaries of Imperial China. I am neutral in the dispute, but I'm trying to help the editors involved come to a compromise. But I'm not as well versed in imperial age Chinese history as some of you may be, especially in terms of finding sources. So please help. Also, the article itself needs better sourcing that's not related to the dispute. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

China Green Party: China-related article up for deletion

Please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/China Green Party. --PalaceGuard008 07:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

chinese text

I think the {{ChineseText}} marker should be at the beginning of articles, not the end. Why: so readers can immediately see what is wrong if Chinese characters are not shown. What do you think? Hmains 17:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and even moved a couple of them, but often there are other things at the top as well, including infoboxes, navigation templates, and sometimes a picture. All these things tend to collide and the formatting gets messed up. I don't have a good solution. --Ideogram 21:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
The table that is the fix for stacked infoboxes is probably the fix. See Battle of Red Cliffs for an example. See Wikipedia:How to fix bunched-up edit links for more examples/discussion. Ling.Nut 01:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Can you fix Taiwan and Republic of China? --Ideogram 02:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

(Undent) I assumed you were talking about bunched-up edit links... I looked at Taiwan and it looks OK to me.. the dismabig text is to the left of the "Chinese chars" template; the latter is above a couple templates/images... what part needs to be fixed? (That's an honest question, not a rhetorical one). Ling.Nut 13:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

There's three things vying for the top right and they all have different widths making the right margin weave in and out. There's got to be a better way. --Ideogram 21:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Taiwan and Republic of China have the Chinese Text marker at the top. I think this is a good place for it, not at the bottom where I see it placed in various articles. Hmains 02:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I changed the size to be the same as a thumb image .... let me know if that helps... Ling.Nut 02:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't work, since the size of a thumb image depends on the user's preferences, and on the screen resolution for anonymous users. For example, my thumb image size is set to 300 pixels, so it still looks bad. And on Republic of China the infobox has a different width. It looks like you would have to do something fancy with a table to get everything lined up. --Ideogram 03:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

(undent) OK. I self-reverted my edits. I'll think about this problem... the table fix I suggested earlier won't work tho :-( Ling.Nut 03:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't even like having two images at the top of the article. I feel one image per subsection is enough, probably the location map. It would still be a problem making the ChineseText box and the map image look good together though. --Ideogram 03:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
As for the infobox in Republic of China, apparently the width is specified in something called "ex" (I don't know what this unit is, the width of an 'x'?) so different units from the ChineseText box. Ideally we could specify their widths in the same units, so they could be the same. --Ideogram 03:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Poll for article move at Wokou

There's currently a poll on a proposed article move at Wokou. Poll options include:

  • Move to Japanese pirates
  • Move to Wakō
  • Move to Wōkòu
  • Keep at Wokou

Please vote if you have an opinion. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


Proposing a sectional move

The section Simplified Chinese characters#Debate on traditional and simplified Chinese characters should be moved into a separate article. Would anyone object if this whole section moves to a page by itself? Benjwong 01:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Many parts of that section are unreferenced. It might be suitable for its own article, but I hope that you have references lined up.--Danaman5 22:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Propose to remove en:Image:Deadchinesesoldier.jpg

How about your idea?--Ksyrie 20:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

As pointed out at the deletion discussion, your rational that the image may be offensive to Chinese readers is not in line with Wikipedia precedent, as Wikipedia is not censored.--Danaman5 22:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Pedophilia materials are also banned by wikimedia.--Ksyrie 23:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I am sure there is some wiki policies to prohibit some sex and violent explicit materials and images appearing on wiki,but for the moment,I cann't find any,hoping someone can can help.--Ksyrie 00:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's a start - WP:NOT#CENSORED. LordAmeth 00:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a note: the deletion discussion here has been closed, because the image in question is a commons image. You will need to register an account and list it at commons if you would like to pursue this matter.--Danaman5 01:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Someone in the Talk:Korean War had found another similar pic Image:Deadparagermany.jpg, which I found it as bloody explicit as this one.So why not wiki set up a rule to prevent the high resolution violent and sex pics?--Ksyrie 04:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyone living on Taiwan?

(And willing to help me contact/phone/email the big, scary army of yours?) Anyway, I need to get permission to use a bunch of pics they have on their MND website, and their site is just monstrous. No link to contact the webmaster, and the response/suggestions form needs an ROC ID number... which I don't have. My ex-KMT general granduncle just happens to be retiring/vacationing in Shanghai now, and I doubt he still knows who to talk to for this sort of stuff... So if anyone can help me get in touch with someone in charge (of the website, at least,) I'd really appreciate it. -- 我♥中國 03:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

try this link zh:Wikipedia:台灣主題公告欄.--Ksyrie 03:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Not terribly active, though, is it? Last edit some time in May... -- 我♥中國 04:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
This one zh:Wikipedia:互助客栈/其他,one of the most active 'bulletinboard' in chinese wiki.Lots of wikimaniac,and often too political.Pay attention your way of wording to avoid unnecessary trouble.--Ksyrie 04:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Guess that'll have to do, thanks for the help. -- 我♥中國 04:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I live IN Taiwan (not on). I don't think the MND would give permission to use most of the pictures. ludahai 魯大海 23:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

best english version

What would be a good translation of 金台三打少林寺 ? Jin Tai is the main character, so would it be "Jin Tai's three battles with the Shaolin monastery"? The book mentions a person from one of my articles. I would like to note it.(Ghostexorcist 04:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC))

Duplicate articles

Would anybody be interested in helping to merge Lin Feng into Limahong? They are two articles about the same person. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't we be merging Limahong into Lin Feng? It seems like the latter is his real name.--Danaman5 05:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I think he is more commonly known as Limahong. That's why I suggested we merge into the Limahong article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
The Limahong has a lot of proper nouns in dialect transliterations. (e.g. the province of "Cuy Tan" -- I know Teochow is in Guangdong, but Cuy Tang sounds nothing like it! Regardless of which way it merges, someone with knwoledge of whatever dialect it is will need to go through and work out what they are and wikify them. --PalaceGuard008 00:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Use of Mandarin names for historical periods before Mandarin

It occurs to me that it's rather curious to use Mandarin names for people whose names would have been in Old or Middle Chinese (or some other dialect). Though Mandarin is the lingua franca -- and the academic community also refers to historical figures by their Mandarin names, I think we should make it clear that the Mandarin names are modern representations of the characters in their names, not what they would have actually been called.

For example, I note when the article talks about "Beiping" being changed to "Beijing", the change in pronunciation at the time would have been closer to changing "pukbaing" to "pukkaing" (which anticipates the eventual "Peking"). (I'm not at all an expert on old pronunciations, just using a reconstruction resource here, so feel free to correct me). I just think that we lose a lot of historical "feel" if we represent only the modern Mandarin pronunciation of characters. After all, when people talk about Anglo-Saxon history they often leave the names in Old English intact. I'm not at all suggesting we go into all the articles and start changing names, but perhaps make it clear that the pinyin forms for pre-Mandarin people and places are just the modern representations, not what they were actually called. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 01:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's a problem without an easy solution. Translating from one language to another, or from old forms of language to new, will always have problems. I mean, actually, Beijing's name was never Beijing at all. It is 北京。By romanizing it into English, we are already distancing it from the original to a certain degree. As for putting disclaimers about this on articles, well, that would be quite a few disclaimers to add...--Danaman5 01:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that, unlike those Saxon names, there is no standard practice for transliterating old or middle Chinese. Pronunciations and spelling will vary between sources. Plus, you don't know the precise pronunciation of any one person or place at any period or time.
For example, if you abandon modern Mandarin as the standard, then shouldn't you, say, transliterate the Wuyue article using 10th century Wu dialect? It may be difficult to find such sources. --PalaceGuard008 02:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Templates for Chinese emperors by dynasty

I have started making footer templates listing the emperors for each dynasty to ease navigation among them. I have finished Template:Liao emperors and Template:Song emperors. I will do the remainder of these dynasties in the coming weeks and affix the templates to the bottom of the relevant emperor pages. ludahai 魯大海 04:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I just finished Template:Western Xia emperors ludahai 魯大海 01:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Question about notability of an unlicensed Chinese video game for the NES

I wrote an article about Super Donkey Kong - Xiang Jiao Chuan, an unlicensed video game from China. People on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games questioned its notability. I am asking someone well-versed with Chinese to search Google with the game's Chinese name and see if you can find websites that discuss this game. WhisperToMe 13:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

WP China userbox

Does anybody else think that the current WP China userbox is kind of plain or ugly? Would anybody mind if I replaced the typed-in "華" with either this picture or a picture of the Great Wall from Commons? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Here are a couple of options:

 This user is a member of WikiProject China
This user is a member of WikiProject China

Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Since the picture in the left option is already on every single WP:CHINA tag, I'd prefer the great wall option.--Danaman5 17:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, we can change the background colour of the box, too. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I'll change the picture to the Great Wall now. Feel free to revert or discuss if you disagree with it. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Vote on name

[[12]]

please offer your opinion on whether the current title for Goguryeo-China Wars is good or not. Good friend100 22:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Lingwu, Lingzhou

I have recently put a merge tag on these two articles. From what I can gather from the information provided by OnlyButAlso's comments on the Lingwu talk page and my talk page, Lingzhou is the historical name of the city now called Lingwu. If this is the case I feel that the two articles should be merged with most of the information in the Lingzhou article being moved to a "History" section. However, OnlyButAlso does not seem to be very proficient with English, and I would like to be certain that he and I are understanding each other. Unless there is some opposition I will assume that my understanding is correct and will merge the pages early next week. If someone with better knowledge of China than I can correct me, if my understanding is incorrect, then I would be grateful. (If someone were to carry out the merge, if merging is appropriate, before I get to it, that would be good too.) Dsmdgold 03:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

hi,Dsmdgold,Lingzhou is old name of Lingwu,Lingzhou is know only by historian today in China,Most people know only Lingwu. So you can link Lingzhou to Lingwu,you can not link Lingwu to Lingzhou,because Lingzhou is a died word in China,I believe you can understand me. Dsmdgold,you can Merge Lingzhou and Lingwu in One,with name Lingwu,simple link Lingzhou to Lingwu,don't ling Lingwu to Lingzhou as before.You can image some people come from Lingwu see That Lingwu linked by Lingzhou,they will very sad and unhappy:so we do not called Iraq as babylon,we do not called America as Maya,we do not France as Gaul. IF you still want to link Lingwu to Lingzhou,please try to Link Iraq to Babylon first. Thank you for reading this.

OnlyButAlso 10:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Dsmdgold:I am very sorry I forget tell you some thing: Lingzhou have another means is China or 'God land' (灵GOD洲land)。And Lingwu is a name of a famous emperor (Han dynasty). OnlyButAlso 11:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Tally Trade

Does anyone know if we have an article on 勘合 (kanhe?) trading visas issued by the Ming and Qing to representatives of their tributary states? It seems quite common to call this the "tally trade" in English-language sources, though I have no idea why, and it doesn't appear on the disambig page for Tally. Thanks. LordAmeth 12:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Well "勘" means check, proofread, verify, measure, etc. So I guess it is tenuously connected with "tally". --PalaceGuard008 11:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

help with image of mengchong doujian (蒙冲斗舰)

... any thoughts on how to track down/verify the original source (and relevant copyright info) of the mengchong doujian (蒙冲斗舰) ... maybe this [13]? Also look in Chinese wikipedia under "naval warfare" or some such? Ling.Nut 12:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Chinese child considered one year old at birth

I am reading a biography about Yue Fei and one source therein claims an important person in his life died in 1121 when Yue was 19. But if Yue was born in 1103 (like this and so many other bios state), it should read 1122. Does anyone know of any scholarly sources that mention some Chinese believe a baby is one year old at birth? I think this has relevance to the miscalculation. If the author of the cited source believed Yue was 1 at birth, then 1121 would fit.

I don't think they messed up on what age Yue was because other sources state this person died shortly before Yue entered the military in 1122, when he was 19. (Ghostexorcist 23:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC))

Actually, your "age" in traditional Chinese reckoning is counted from conception, so that when you are born you are counted as (notionally) one years old. The "age" then increases by one year after each lunar new year. So a baby born on lunar new year's eve can be "two year's old" just a day after being born. This traditional "age" is called 虚岁 in Chinese.
In fact, there's a Wikipedia article on it: East Asian age reckoning. --PalaceGuard008 00:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I think that the easiest way to understand Chinese ages is to remember that it is basically counted by the number of lunar years that you have lived in. So, yes, a newborn baby is technically one year old, because he or she has been alive during one lunar year. And, if the lunar new year came two days later, that three day old baby would suddenly be two years old. I should note that, in my experience, younger Chinese people seem to be following the Western system these days.--Danaman5 20:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Help

I find some mistake at article Yinchuan,eg: 1,an area of 4467 km .(the real number is 9489 sq.km. and,you know km is length,not a area unit.)

2,an annual frost time of 158 days.(Infact,Non-frost(frost-free) time is 158 days,and frost time is 365-158)

I have edited it yesterday afternoon,but today i find all words and number i edited turn back again,why?OnlyButAlso 04:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Revert it back to the correct version. Miranda 05:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Feedback needed

I recently split the Zhou Tong (archer) article into two parts: History and Fiction. I then added more historical info about Zhou that I just learned about. I would like some general feedback from other users to see what they think of the changes. (Ghostexorcist 08:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC))

Goguryeo-China Wars

Currently there is a move request for Goguryeo-China Wars to be moved to Military history of Goguryeo. Please vote and offer your opinion on the subject here Talk:Goguryeo-China wars, thanks. Good friend100 00:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Energy policy of China

As this article is currently mentioned on the Main Page, perhaps someone is able to add more content? Gralo 08:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Image hunting and image use

I, along with several other editors at the WikiProject Three Kingdoms, have been trying to get Battle of Red Cliffs to featured status for a while now. One of the concerns we have with the article before we send it to WP:FAC is that it has too few images. For something as famous/influential as this battle (like THE most famous Chinese battle in history, really), I'm shocked that I cannot find any free use images depicting the battle on the internet. So here is my first request: Are there any free use image of the battle (ie. Did any ancient Chinese artist try to draw it?) that can be used on the article?

During my search, however, I've found this watermarked and off-scale picture which looks impressive enough for the article. The portrait is drawn by a Zheng Hongliu (郑洪流) on an unspecified year, and unfortunately for our purposes, he's not dead yet (God I'm horrible). Seeing that I cannot find a free alternative, if I were to use this image for the article, how can I convince the fair use crew that a free use alternative cannot be found for this 1800 year old battle? (And yeah, something needs to be done about that watermark)

Thank you. _dk 09:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I am sure that there must be plenty of images out there of this battle; I've heard of it through my Japanese art history class, and vaguely recall being told it was a popular subject. The issue is, however, that regardless of their age, many otherwise free images are copyrighted and closely guarded by museums. That said, if a good fair use image of one of these older paintings can be found, I would vote for using one of those over this admittedly beautifully but very much Western-style (i.e. non-traditional-Chinese) painting. LordAmeth 14:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
And a google image search in Japanese gives me screenshots from video games and the anime, orz. Also, for those interested, this is the page from where I found that western-style portrait of the Battle of Chibi, that page has tons of portraits for battles in the Second Sino-Japanese War and the Chinese Civil War (with some Communist bias, I suspect), which I think can be put to use :) _dk 23:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Deadkid dk - I tried searching for an image of the battle, but found the same painting you did. Not sure if it qualifies under fair use. You can ask about that here - Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. If editors and admins that frequent that page think it's OK, then it probably can qualify under fair use. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The answer is negative. Well then, what kind of images do you guys think can be/should be added to the article? _dk 11:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Are there old calligraphy written works about the battle? Or how about more modern-day pictures of the site of the battle? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Possible FA - need help

I have been working on the Zhou Tong (archer) page for roughly 2 years. I have put it up for FA status. One editor gave me a small list of stuff to fix before it can pass. I need someone to help with minor stuff, mainly grammar and readibility. Please see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Zhou Tong (archer). Apart from that, I just need general support. I will do the majority of the reference changes (but I don't like his suggestion). I like the way the references currently are. Thanks. (Ghostexorcist 02:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC))

You don't necessarily always have to do exactly what FA reviewers suggest, IF you can make a strong case for your own method (using Wikipedia guidelines, policies, etc.) Some reviewers are more experienced than others.
Wow that is a long article! I don't have time to go through it word by word. I fixed a few spelling errors. I saw a sentence that starts with "And." Also, just breezing through, it looks like some info can be cut.. I saw something that looked like a detailed comment about one of Zhou Tong's students emulating heroes.. if info is about people other than Zhou Tong, such detail may not be necessary... Ling.Nut 12:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I will take care of the longer bits about his students. I have a question though, throughout the page, I have formated all references of Chinese to look like (Chinese: example). Another editor suggested that I erase all of these because it is supposedly used too many times. This formatting was originally done by a very active member of the project. As I expanded the page, I continued to use the formatting. Should I delete the Chinese formatting or keep it?(Ghostexorcist 01:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC))

(undent) There may be something about this question in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (China-related articles)... Ling.Nut 03:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The article passed FA, but I feel it needs some copy-editing. (Ghostexorcist 20:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC))

CfD to delete Category:Chinese_scholars

People may well wish to comment at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_27#Category:Chinese_scholars which proposes to delete the Chinese scholars category, redistributing the contents among other categories. If there is a China-related discussions list, could someone please add it there. Thanks, Johnbod 01:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


Task Force proposal

I'm just wondering if there's anyone out there who'd be willing to help set up a Task Force on Chinese popular music (a.k.a. C-pop), which would encompass the three main areas of pop music (China, Taiwan, Hong Kong). - Pandacomics 06:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you see any editors that consistently edit Chinese pop music-related articles? You might want to message any editors like that directly, some of them may not be paying attention to this WikiProject. Editing Chinese pop music articles can be a hassle - there are basically no reliable sources on the musicians in my opinion. Everything out there are blogs, poorly-maintained fansites, and online gossip magazines. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
No reliable sources, eh? Well tell that to Jay Chou, who is now featured. There are actual news articles, such as ones in the Taipei Times, China Radio International (English), Sing Tao News, etc. etc. etc. But your # of users concern is fully valid, and yes, it is an incredible hassle, especially if you're doing it on your own. - Pandacomics 08:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Alright I'm just going by what kind of stuff I find when I do Google searches for Chinese pop stars. Some odd articles from online news sites, yes, but mostly blogs and fansites and forums. I admit I don't read the entertainment sections of Chinese news. But now that you brought up Jay Chou being featured, I would actually love to bring Leslie Cheung, Anita Mui, and Roman Tam up to featured status. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I suggest you go directly to the Chinese pop music articles to see if you notice any editors that have been editing across different articles within the Chinese music industry. Lots of people always sign their names as a participant on a WikiProject or TaskForce, but the only ones who actually actively participate are those who had always been editing those topics to begin with, before the WikiProject or TaskForce was started up. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

So do I basically run around to those editors and see who'd want to start up a task force? - Pandacomics 18:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
It's more fruitful than leaving a message here in my opinion. Look at the majority of the discussions here, there's almost never any discussion about Chinese pop music. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Missing Chinese history topics

I have a list is missing topics related to Chinese history, though many of them are about military history. Due to sources, at least some of the titles are based on the previous transliteration, so I don't know how many of them could be only worth of redirect. Feel free to check - Skysmith 08:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Technology of the Song Dynasty

After passing Good Article status, I have put this article up as a Featured Article Candidate. Please review it and provide input/comments/objections/support at this page. Thank You.--PericlesofAthens 17:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

On another note, I have recently put the article Tang Dynasty up for peer review.--PericlesofAthens 17:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Help needed! barnstar offered...

WP:3K has been in a long slow grind to bring the Battle of Red Cliffs up to the quality where it can be submitted to WP:FAC with at least a decent chance of approval for Featured Article status. To that end, we are currently working on a "Location of Red Cliffs" section (see the article).

The Chinese Wikipedia has what appear to be some excellent info on the topic in a subsection about the battlefield's location. Unfortunately, and no offense to its various authors, it is very inadequately sourced. If we copied it word-for-word and sent it to FAC, every copied word would be challenged (and very rightly so!).

If anyone can track down full and complete references to all the info in that section, I will gladly give them a barnstar, or at least my undying gratitude. Everything in the section is uncited, but questions include:

  • Where/when exactly did Wang Li and Zhu Dongrun say that Jiayu was their preferred location? Give title, book publisher & year, or journal name & volume/issue, with exact pages, etc....
  • Any proof of these archaeological finds in Puqi in the 1970s? Give full references.
  • What is this " 年湖北大学人文学院出版了《古战场蒲圻赤壁论文集》赞同上述观点 by Hubei University College of Humanities published in 1991.. full references, including page numbers, please!)
  • ... and everything else.

--Ling.Nut 16:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Zen Merger

It was proposed in September 2006 that Zen Teacher/Zen Master be merged into Zen, but no discussion was made of it. If you are interested, please discuss here. JohnnyMrNinja 17:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Template talk

I started a conversation for template discussion here. Please join in. We need to decide which template to use to standardize on. There are too many floating around. Benjwong 19:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Conversation moved to here.

Battle of Gaixia

I have this page on my watchlist, and the article's recent expansion from a stub looks very suspicious. The article now looks like a blend of half-truths and hearsays, as some of the details I can't find in Shiji or Zizhi Tongjian. I have approached the editor responsible for it, User:CCHIPSS, for sources, but he didn't respond. So, seeing that I'm not so familiar with the subject, can someone take a look at the article to see if anything needs to be done? Thanks. _dk 06:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Rfc

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jiejunkong. (Wikimachine 03:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC))

17th century Sino-Japanese Trade

Hiya. I've run into a serious stumbling block in my research, and I am hoping that you fellows could help.

We know that under the hai jin (海禁) policy, unofficial trade outside of the tribute system was (largely) banned as of 1557, if not earlier. In 1567, the ban was lifted for Southeast Asia - Chinese could now travel to, and trade in, Southeast Asian ports, but were still banned by the Ming government from traveling to Japan, or trading with Japanese in Japanese or Chinese ports.

Yet, as of the early 17th century (if not present as well in the late 16th century), there was a booming trade with Chinese merchants at Nagasaki; these merchants were not officially licensed nor officially representing the Ming court in any way, but as far as I am aware, they were not criminals, acting in outright violation of a ban.

So, what changed? and when? Is there a specific date or year at which the Ming court reversed their decision and decided to allow Chinese to travel to Japan? Thank you very much for your help. LordAmeth 12:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Pan Lei

This article is up for deletion, because it's a tiny stub with no information beyond birth and death dates and occupation. I was hoping someone from this WikiProject might be able to assist in finding out more about this person. Chubbles 23:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

more help with Red Cliffs (though no one replied to the earlier thread...)

Hey,

My poor thread a little higher on this page is sad & lonely... left all unanswered... so I'll post a new one to keep it company... Can anyone get electronic versions of any Chinese-language articles about the location of the Battle of Red Cliffs? Below are some that de Crespigny cites, but actually, anything would help:

  • Jiang Yongxing, [The site of the Red Cliffs of Zhou Yu], Lishi jiaoxue, Tianjin 1980.12, 50.
  • Shi Ding, [Some questions on the battle of the Red Cliffs], Shixue yuekan, Zhengzhou, 134 (1981), 8-17.
  • Shi Ding, [Examination of the Red Cliffs], Shehui kexue zhanxian, Changchun 13 (1981), 190-199.
  • Wu Yingshou and Zhang Xiugui, [Examination of the Red Cliffs], Fudan xuebao (shehui kexue) zengkan, Shanghai August 1980, 131-135
  • Wu Yongzhang and Shu Zhimei, [Discussion of the Red Cliffs], Jiang-Han luntan, Wuhan, 1979.1, 84-87.
  • Yang Guanyi and Ding Fang, [One opinion on the site of the Red Cliffs], Bulletin of the Chinese Historical Museum, Beijing 1979.1, 40-42
  • Zhang Zhizhe, [Discussion of mistakes on the Red Cliffs campaign], Xuelin manlu, Beijing, 1 (1980), 79-83.
  • Thanks Ling.Nut 15:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Dunno if this would help, but (I think) these are the Chinese names of the journals you're looking at:
历史教学; website: http://www.historyteaching.net/
史学月刊; website: http://sxyk.henu.edu.cn/
社会科学战线; an index and some articles at: http://cn.qikan.com/gbqikan/mag.asp?issn=0257-0246
复旦学报(社会科学版)增刊
江汉论坛; an index and some articles at: http://jhlt.periodicals.net.cn/gyjs.asp?ID=3304643
(dunno about the last two) --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
The last one is 学林漫录. Beware, though, coz I found this article [14] which says that your last source was plagiarised off the Fudan one. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Featured article review

Flag of the Republic of China has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Hadseys 01:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Standardizing Chinese Template

I would like to see if anyone has any last opinions on standardizing Template:Chinese as the main "graphical" template for Chinese articles. If you have any last minute comments please go here. We have fixed quite a number of issues over the past week. Benjwong 21:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

move

There is an ongoing poll for moving Senkaku Islands at Talk:Senkaku Islands. Mr. Killigan 04:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The latin phonetic method of Shanghainese proposed for deletion

Please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The latin phonetic method of Shanghainese if you are interested. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


Ask for intervention in the Korean War

I have a lengthy and fruitless dispute with some editors in this article.The core issue is about the in the infobox,someone prvide the American estimate of Chinese casualities,Which I found unecessary and innaccurate.Steps which I had tried follows,1),when I tried to point out the estimate from the enemy side is inable comparing their home roster number.People there cann't accept it.2),I found there's also the chinese estimate of american casualities,So I pose it in the info box,but it was quickly removed.So these editors cann't accept any sources they don't like.So following the NPOV policy,I am very curious about why the chinese estimate cann't be accepted,but no one can give a satisfied answer.Furthermore,when I found a more accruate chinese casualities figure link here[15],when I tried to replace it with the infobox one,men just revert it.3)And keep going on,when I found the failure of american sources about the amercian casualities,just looking at the Korean War Veterans Memorial which figure contradict the one in the infobox,they just tried to find excuse rather than accept the failure of american sources,the american casulities was miscaculated for 40 years without anyone notice,further more the american source about their allied was notorious invalid,some estimate ranges from 500K to 20000K,this sources cann't be seen as valid,because their internal absurdity.So I just pose the question why these invalid sources must be added in the infox?and why the chinese estimate cann't?4)Throughout the discussion,I perceived strong chaunvinist and nationalist views from some editors.Some editors claims the american sources are absolutely right,some editores votes for not pleasing the chinese and some claim Ksyrie,you have no place in english wikipedia.5)Final word,I tried to solve it in the wiki dispute precedure,but editors don't favor the mediation request,which I found strange,since we have disputed for so longtime,why not ask a mediation.And I want to ask a final arbitrition from the wiki board,which I found more neutral.They may follows more closely to the NPOV policy rather than the strong chauvinsit and nationalist experience which I perceive in the korean talk page.

I ask any of you look at the Talk:Korean War/Chinese Casualty Discussion and Talk:Korean War,and give me suggestion for whether or not,and how to make a valid arbition demand,and if possilbe,direct intervetion to the current talk page,which is full of biased statement.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 04:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

New Featured Article

Just to let everyone know, Technology of the Song Dynasty has passed the grueling and brutal gauntlet of spikes, axes, chains, and bats that is the FAC procedure these days. Hah. Check it out! It looks beautiful, like the Forbidden City lit up at midnight, or a supple young Chinese bride preparing to be deflowered on her wedding night.

Lol. I'll stop with the annoying similes now. Eric :) --PericlesofAthens 01:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and by the way, everyone needs to get off their *** and start competing with me, because so far I've passed 8 GA articles and 2 FA articles about China, and I've only been here since mid March.--PericlesofAthens 18:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, YOU forgot to put the FA star on your new FA! :) Congrats, man. I'm sorry I haven't been around to help more, I just haven't been in the Wiki-mood as much lately.--Danaman5 21:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Very impressive. Though the metaphor is rather inappropriate. I think I might take you up on that FA challenge... ;) -- 我♥中國 06:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I have one GA! YEAHHHHH!!! -___- Some of us aren't as natural as you are when it comes to writing. Pandacomics 17:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Modern Chinese music workgroup

If no one objects, then I'm going to be bold and start up the workgroup. There are three of us for now (me, Arsonal and Andrew Eng), but if anyone else wants to join, by all means, do. Pandacomics 20:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I've seen the work you've done in your Sandbox to set this up. Good job! I hope plenty of people join and stay active in the workgroup. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Ahhhhhh, something went wrong with the project banner. Can someone fix it? edit: Never mind. Fixed it. Pandacomics 03:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Chin Gee Hee

I recently started an article on Chin Gee Hee (陈宜禧). I can tell from a web search that there is a lot of material online about him in Chinese, if anyone feels like taking on a probably interesting project. (I do not speak or read Chinese.) Also, I believe that there is no article about him at all in the Chinese Wikipedia, which seems surprising. - Jmabel | Talk 07:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Rock Springs massacre

Hello everyone. The article Rock Springs massacre, while not tagged by this project probably falls within its scope. It is a current Featured article candidate, if anyone here has the time comments would be appreciated after reviewing the featured article criteria and comparing those to the article. You can see its entry and participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rock Springs massacre. This message is an attempt to jumpstart lagging discussion, talk page posts on WikiProject pages which have tagged the article went unnoticed as the three projects are less than active at this juncture. Thanks ahead of time. IvoShandor 09:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Yue Fei

I am the person who totally rewrote and expanded the Yue Fei page to its current status. I realize the page is no where near as good as it could be, but it's A LOT better than it was. The page was originally full of fiction presented as fact (not to say that the current page is totally free of that since even Yue's historical bios are steeped in myth). But since I have managed to pass Zhou Tong (archer), Yue's archery teacher, as FA-class I think more effort should be made to get this page up to standard. However, I don't feel like expanding the page myself since I have already done so much work to it. So, I hope that somebody here will take on the task.

I have in my possession a huge 621 page English language biography on Yue Fei written by Dr. Edward H. Kaplan. Here is the book's citation:

Kaplan, Edward Harold. Yueh Fei and the founding of the Southern Sung. Thesis (Ph. D.) -- University of Iowa, 1970. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International, 1970.

I'm sure someone can track this down. The only place to find it is in univeristy libraries, but I'm sure you can get it with an inter-library loan through your local library. I know of a website that sells a made-to-order unbound reprint of the book for $41. It's a bit costly, but it's definitely worth it.(Ghostexorcist 20:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC))

Article for addition to the project

I think this article Along the River During Qingming Festival should be included in this project. I am not familiar with the banner requirements for this project, if anyone can quickly brief me on it. --Voidvector 09:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

"Today's featured article" watch

Very shortly, the current featured article will be switched over to Zhou Tong (archer), which is linked to this project. I realize that the featured article of the day is usually heavily vandalized. I must admit since I was the sole author that I would hate to see this page ruined by immature people and not be reverted to its original state (barring constructive edits).

I must leave for work soon and will not be able to monitor the page. I therefore ask that fellow members of the project watch over the page and revert any vandalism done to it. On top of that, I will not be able to reply to any questions left on the article's talk page until I get home. --Ghostexorcist 23:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Very good work,even in the chinese wikipedia,there's less qualified ariticle like this.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 23:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


Flag of Hong Kong FAR

Flag of Hong Kong has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I've started working on this article. But it really needs lots of referencing. Please help. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of Chinese apartheid

A newly created article, Allegations of Chinese apartheid, has been nominated for deletion. Comments are invited on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Chinese apartheid. -- ChrisO 07:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Town deity (城隍) and its temple (城隍庙)

I recently stumbled upon the article Shing Wong which is classified under Hong Kong project. However, I want to point out that the concept covered by this article "town deity" or "town god" is not exclusive to Hong Kong. There are 城隍庙 in many major cities of China. In addition, there exists an article for Shanghai's 城隍庙 at City God Temple, even though the general concept is not explained in its own article. --Voidvector 00:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

As the major author of the current version of City God Temple, I'd be happy to work on a general article about city gods in general. The temple in Shanghai is fairly unique, in that it is literally the centre of the city. Did you know the Forbidden City has its own city god temple? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Kim Hambo

Has anyone seen this article yet. It claims the founder of the Jin Dynasty (which they call "Kim") was actually from the Korean Silla Kingdom. I have heard this was mentioned in the Jin Shi chronicle, but I've seen that many experienced Chinese editors greatly disagree with the assumption. The material covered in the Kim Hambo article has repeatedly been removed from the Jin Dynasty and Jurchen articles. Could somebody take a look at Kim's article and fix whatever may be wrong with it? --Ghostexorcist 07:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Everything, from hanzi (or should I say, hanja), chopsticks to Li Shimin was originally from Korea. *rolleyes* -- 我♥中國 17:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Daqing tower

Hi everyone, there's an ongoing discussion on AfD about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daqing Radio and Television Tower. I'm trying to defend the article because I think the tower deserves an article. Can anyone familiar with it have a look and comment? 谢谢! --Targeman 14:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

You might also want to leave a note with Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture, as the editors there might be more familiar with what makes a building notable. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I'll do it! --Targeman 15:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Article assessments

I just want to remind everyone that if you have nothing else to do, you might consider assessing some articles for WP:CHINA. I couldn't make a dent in the backlog even when I did a bunch of assessments every day, and now thanks to the tagging work of User:Aomen, the backlog of unassessed articles has increased to over 3000. I can't blame you for not focusing on it, as it gets quite repetitive, but it would be nice to have all of these articles assessed someday.--Danaman5 06:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I just did some. -- 我♥中國 22:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Huaxia nominated for AfD

I can't believe somebody actually nominated Huaxia for deletion.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Huaxia

Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Geez, I'm sorry. Not everyone grew up steeped in Chinese culture, you know. --Wang C-H 03:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, admittedly, the article needs a lot of work. I had worked on it a while ago, but I basically translated from two Chinese WP articles, zh:華夏 and zh:華夏族. Both are completely without sources, but the latter of the two seemed to have expanded a little bit since I last worked on the Huaxia article. The article is badly in need of sources. Unfortunately, when I try Googling for sources, they either use "華夏文化" or "華夏" in a way that they assume you know what it means already, without defining it. Googling for "華夏" is almost useless, because the term has been used to name a lot of modern-day things like companies and schools. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried using Google Scholar? That usually helps weed out the garbage a bit. I don't know if you have access to JSTOR, but I'm going to try using that to find us some reliable sources too.--Danaman5 15:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
No access to JSTOR, and didn't know there was such a thing called Google Scholar. But thanks for informing me about it. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Year format for the History of China template

There is an existing dispute on whether WP should use the BC/AD format or the BCE/CE format to represent years.[16][17][18][19] The dispute may exist on other Talk pages as well, aside from the four that I found. Unfortunately, the dispute has spread to Template:History of China, with a duplicate of the template being created - Template:History of China - BC - the duplicate is a copy-and-paste of the original, with the exception that all the BCE/CE were replaced with BC/AD. I've nominated the duplicate for deletion as WP is not a battle ground and duplicates of navigational templates can create fork problems.[20] I personally don't care which date system we use, but we shouldn't be creating POV duplicates and then having them mass inserted as minor edits[21], especially in the middle of an ongoing dispute about the very subject matter that resulted in the POV duplicate. Furthermore, we might be seeing the beginning of a revert war at the original template as well. So please discuss this matter and come to an agreement as to which date system we should use. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, there was no "battleground" with the other template. If anything it was a way to avoid a fight over the original template, so what with articles that used BC/AD they would not look out-of-place with the template.
However, from a personal point I think the template in question should use BC/AD. After all a majority of the Chinese history pages use that format, including the main History of China page. John Smith's 21:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I too have felt the bite of the CE/AD edit war. My article Zhou Tong (archer) was repeatedly vandalized by an anonymous editor that kept on switching I.P. addresses as he was blocked. Just see the talk page for the very first I.P. he used. Even though they both mean the same thing, I feel CE is more scholarly (if rendered as "Common Era" and not "Christian Era") since the latin words for AD stand for "In the year of our lord". It has less religious connotation. If your refer to the Common Era article, it mentions how many scholarly and even religious institutions are switching over to the BCE/CE system. --Ghostexorcist 21:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
The article isn't that impressive - it only really mentions a number of American institutions. Hardly a global consensus. John Smith's 21:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Please provide a reason for why you think the templates should use the BC/AD system (besides that some other Chinese articles use it). --Ghostexorcist 21:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I already have, if rather briefly. The main history pages use BC/AD. It looks rather ridiculous to have a template using the opposite style used by the article itself. Given the BCE/CE terms were added fairly recently and the history articles (bar I think one) have used BC/AD right from the start, I think the template should conform to the majority style in the articles it is used in. John Smith's 21:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Well the project ultimately has the final say so in the matter. Consensus is the key. Right now it's two for CE and one for AD. But I'm sure fellow members will join in the conversation. If the number of people wanting AD far out weighs CE, then I'm sure it needs to be changed. --Ghostexorcist 22:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Consensus is indeed the key. By the way currently it's just us two that have expressed a preference - Hong said he didn't mind either way. John Smith's 22:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I support the generalization of the BCE/CE system for China-related articles, as they have essentially no connection with Christianity. BCE/CE is the more scholarly alternative for such articles. PHG 22:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I support BCE/CE because they better represent the modern academic standard, especially in relation to China which has the most tenuous connection with Christianity and the "Judaeo-Christian tradition". What's more, the official method of year reckoning used in China is BCE/CE - 公元前/公元, not BC/AD. That said, I don't think using BC/AD is a problem because it is, afterall, more commonly used in English.
On the other hand, I don't believe in mass converting from one system to the other. The duplicate template should be removed from articles where it has been deliberately introduced as part of a mass-conversion campaign. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
As a general principle, I support using CE/BCE on all China-related articles and non-article pages, because BC/AD is based on Christianity, which is not historically a part of Chinese culture. Articles that use BC/AD can keep that system, to avoid bothersome mass conversion, but there is no reason to mess around with a perfectly good template or create a fork of it. The argument that it would be "aesthetically displeasing" to use a different system on the template in an article that uses BC/AD is weak, in my opinion. We underestimate our readers if we think that they are going to lose sleep over such a minor matter.--Danaman5 01:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I support the BCE/CE system because BCE/CE is used in Chinese history study instead of BC/AD

"The term "CE" is preferred by academics in some fields (e.g., by the American Anthropological Association).The Chinese use the term "Common Era" ("公元).
"On the mainland, era names were abolished with the adoption of the Common Era at the founding of the People's Republic in 1949."
"The Republic of China retains the era system, and uses the name "Republic" (民國) for its official dating. The 1st year of the "Republic Era" was 1912. Therefore, 2006 is "the 95th year of the Republic Era" (民國95年)."

As you can see, in serious study of Chinese history in modern times, BC/AD is never officially used. Plus, as others have stated, BC/AD system has religious connotations. Count de Chagny 15:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Support BCE/CE. I think consensus is pretty well established. And Hong is a she. --Ideogram 15:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

My mistake. --Ideogram 15:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Support era name system

  • ie 年號 when available
  • use name of emperor/king/supreme ruler/ruling entity when 年號 not available, followed by number of years since said individual/group assumed power
  • when identity of supreme ruler is in dispute, choose 年號/name based on area of control of said supreme ruler, eg. this year is 阿扁七年 on Taiwan and 錦濤五年 on the mainland.

-- 我♥中國 07:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

8 users have so far demonstrated their support of the BCE/CE system for China-related articles, against 1 who has opposed it. There seems to be a rough consensus i.e. a super majority in favour of the BCE/CE system for these articles.PHG 03:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Which articles? This was for a template. John Smith's 08:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

unicode rendering of chinese characters

Is (密意)(密語)(一切深密義) a correct unicode rendering of the characters shown here? Thanks! Calliopejen1 06:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

一切法深密義. You missed 法. -- 我♥中國 07:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

New question over the History of China template

There are now two questions in the context of this discussion.

1. Whether we should have an adaptable "History of China template" that uses BC/AD or BCE/CE according to the style of the article in question.

2. Whether we should have just one style (i.e. BC/AD or BCE/CE) for use in all Chinese history articles. John Smith's 16:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Per the above discussion, it is clear that a large majority of users want to keep the default BCE/CE format for the template. However, User:Mom2jandk has said here that she would be happy to add a perameter to the template so that it can adapt to whether an article in question uses BC/AD.

Is this ok, or do you want the template to use BCE/CE even on an article that uses BC/AD? Personally I think an adaptable template would be best. John Smith's 15:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I would be willing to have an adaptable template. --Ideogram 15:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems that most of the discussion on this date issue has taken place on Talk:Jesus. As a matter of relevance, editors may want to read this - [22]. John Smith's has a point about consistency. I think the matter goes beyond just the template. The duplicate template was originally inserted only into articles that use BC/AD, and not into articles that use BCE/CE.

So should we change the format usage across all Chinese history articles to use specifically one of the formats, instead of having some articles arbitrarily use one format and some other articles use the other format? I don't care which format they use, but perhaps they should be consistent with each other on using just one of the two formats. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

There is just one page (Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors) on the history section that uses BCE as far as I can see - all others use BC. Also it used BC from the start, but was changed somewhere down the line for no real reason. So in that respect it would make sense to change that page to BC, rather than change everything else.
However can people remain focused on the main question, which is whether we should have an adaptable template - we may not get consensus on whether to use just one term across all Chinese history pages. John Smith's 16:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Just establish a guideline that dates should be in BCE/CE format and change them as you run across them in your day-to-day wiki-operations. No need to go compulsively changing every single article with AWB or anything. -- 我♥中國 16:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

John Smith's - yes, the template should be discussed. But I don't see why we can't talk about the larger picture as well - which format we should use in the content of the Chinese history articles. Most of the comments in the earlier discussion above seem to refer to usage in Chinese history articles in general, and not specifically and only on the template itself. And obviously there is an ongoing discussion about this issue elsewhere in other Talk pages (with you supporting BC/AD everywhere) so we might want to come to a concensus here in regards to Chinese history articles and other China-related articles to avoid any possible edit wars that may occur (due to disagreements on which format to use) in articles relevant to this WikiProject. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I never said we can't discuss it. Just that we should not forget about the point I raised in case we can't get consensus on the point you raised. John Smith's 16:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Miborovsky - we need to come to a concensus first before establishing a guideline like that. If we can establish concensus here, we can bring it up in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (China-related articles) to see if there would be any objection there. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Judging from the discussion above, we already have a consensus. -- 我♥中國 20:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
On the template, not the usage across articles - that question was not asked. John Smith's 20:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Do we really have consensus on which format to use across all the Chinese history articles (as in the content)? If we really do, then we could start changing them, and it might also render the template question moot. If we use one format across all the articles, there's no need to modify the template at all. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

How can you have consensus on a question that was never asked? Maybe we should "close" this topic and start again (with both questions carefully laid out) to make it perfectly clear what's being discussed. John Smith's 21:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm talking about concensus for all Chinese history articles to use BCE/CE. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Please re-start conversation in the following topic

New questions concerning Chinese history articles

There are two questions for people to discuss here.

1. Whether we should have an adaptable "History of China template" that uses BC/AD or BCE/CE according to the style of the article in question. User:Mom2jandk has said here that she would be happy to add a perameter to the template so that it can adapt to whether an article in question uses BC/AD (though the default would still be BCE/CE).

2. Whether we should have just one style (i.e. BC/AD or BCE/CE) for use in all Chinese history articles. If you have a preference, please outline it.

1. Personally I think an adaptable template would make sense if we don't reach consensus on whether to exclusively use BC/AD or BCE/CE in Chinese history articles.

2. I don't feel the need to use just one term across all articles, but if others do want a uniform method I would choose BC/AD as it is established in all articles as far as I can see, apart from Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors. Even in this article, BC/AD was originally used and changed for some unexplained reason later down the line. John Smith's 21:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

1. I support having an adaptable template.

2. I believe we should recommend BCE/CE for Chinese history articles, but not edit existing articles solely for conformance. --Ideogram 21:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding comments below: I would not oppose editing existing articles for conformance if someone else wants to do it. As noted, this would remove the need for an adaptable template. --Ideogram 00:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Unless the editors of the original articles object, I'm all for switching all dating over to BCE/CE since even Chinese records (as mentioned above) have an equivalent of that system. Shouldn't all articles under the scope of this project conform? --Ghostexorcist 22:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no requirement for articles under a project to conform - they merely have to be consistent inside themselves (it's even debatable as to whether templates have to conform to the articles). Also I don't think one can form policy on a project page (though a change can be discussed) - I think you have to raise it separately on style guidelines as well.
Can I ask you leave feedback on question one, please? John Smith's 22:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

We can certainly both make the template adaptable and agree to use BCE/CE across all the Chinese history articles that the template links. But I see the former issue being basically moot if concensus is reached to use only one of the formats. And if concensus is reached to use BCE/CE across the articles, I'll bring this point up at the Talk page of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (China-related articles). If nobody objects over there, we can set that standard in the MOS. Once we've reached that point, I don't mind doing the work to convert existing Chinese history articles to BCE/CE. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thought about this for a little more, so let me state my official stance on it, as I'm sure John Smith's will be asking for it, but let me talk about #2 first:

2. I have no preference on which date format to use, but I think we should have one format across all Chinese history articles.
1. Seeing as I support having only one format across all Chinese history articles, I am against changing the template to make it adaptable. There's no point in doing so, if we are to ensure consistency across the Chinese history topics.

Not sure if we'll ever reach concensus. And if we don't, the obvious thing to do is not change anything at all - the status quo as it stands right now. If I'm reading correctly, that seems to be the conclusion at Talk:Jesus, where a great portion of the discussion on this date issue has taken place. They're going to move on from the discussion, and nobody is going to change things. Not a bad idea if you ask me. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

My preferred outcome:

  1. Use BCE/CE only in template.
  2. Use BCE/CE consistently through all Chinese history-related outcomes for the reasons stateda bove: tenuous connection with Christianity, academic standards, etc.

My bottom-line acceptable outcome:

  1. Adaptable template, but with the MOS preferring the use of BCE/CE.
  2. Use BCE/CE as much as possible, but no mass conversion in one direction or other without compelling reason. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I want to point out - making the template adaptable is basically pointless:

  • There are 40+ articles linked by the template. If John Smith's is correct, only one of those articles use BCE/CE (Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors).
  • Making the template adaptable would essentially mean that the template would appear as BC/AD across the 40+ articles.

What's the point in making the template adaptable if only one article uses a different format? And if I'm reading the initial discussion correctly, majority support is for the template to use BCE/CE. So in other words, making the template adaptable would go against majority preference. At this point, making the template adaptable is the same thing as changing the template to BC/AD.

In my opinion, we first need to come to a resolution about whether or not Chinese history articles should consistently use one standard. If I can be assured that we have majority support for BCE/CE here, I'll bring it up at the Talk page of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (China-related articles) to see if there are any objection to putting that down as part of the guideline. And for the purpose of reaching concensus, and also because I think the argument makes sense anyway, I'm changing my stance to use BCE/CE across all Chinese history articles. Again, I am willing to put in the work to change the Chinese history articles to use one consistent date format. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

If I'm correct, the template would only adapt where the article used BC/AD - where it used BCE or had no year tag it would still use BCE. John Smith's 07:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Well you said that BC/AD is being used in all articles except one. So essentially, modifying the template to take parameters would mean, for all practical purposes, that the template would appear with BC/AD in all articles except one. That, however, is against the preference of most of the editors that's commented here on this date issue. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
It may be that only one article uses BCE, but if you hadn't noticed many articles don't use either term - in that case the template would say BCE as it would be the default setting.
Also please let the editors make up their own minds as to whether they want an adaptable template or not. John Smith's 14:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The extremely vast (almost unanimous) consensus is obviously for BCE/CE in the Template as well as in China-related articles. This should be implemented through Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (China-related articles). PHG 23:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "almost unanimous consensus" - consensus is an agreement by all users to respect an outcome. There is no consensus yet on how to deal with the articles - especially as some users who expressed support for BCE/CE don't want to change existing articles to make them conform. John Smith's 10:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I believe I was the only one to say editing articles solely for conformance was not necessary, and I later clarified this to say that I would not oppose editing solely for conformance as long as someone else was willing to do it, and HongQiGong has volunteered. --Ideogram 10:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
PalaceGuard said he would accept no mass conversions if necessary - i.e. to gain consensus. John Smith's 10:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
That was not his preferred outcome so your statement of what he "wants" is incorrect. --Ideogram 10:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Where did I say he wants it? I said he would accept it if necessary to gain consensus. John Smith's 11:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I officially introduced this proposal on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (China-related articles). PHG 04:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

To clarify my position - I vote for a MoS preference for BCE/CE and, correspondingly, the template to use BCE/CE.
However, as I said, I don't believe mass conversion is a good approach. To quote WP:MOS on the topic: "While either of the two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying your position, PG. John Smith's 11:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this has all come about as I created a template using BC and AD notation based on a pre-existing one using BCE and CE notation for the history of China articles. This was purely to make the history of China articles that use BC and AD notation consistent within themselves. IE It is a presentational point. It is also supported by the MOS, which says articles should be consistent.

Unfortunately it seems that some people took exception to the template, and now others are going about trying to argue for a wholesale change of all China-related articles to BCE and CE notation. This seems somewhat extreme - and is certainly unnecessary.

Normally a publication adopts a house style so that its content is consistent - ie so that it looks good. This attracts people who like, or are comfortable with, that house style. This is a great advantage. On the other hand, people who don't like that house style are going to be put off: no-one subscribes to a magazine or watches a TV series that is presented in a way they don't like!

It seems that Wikipedia has taken a compromise approach. Some articles adopt one style, others another. This gives editors, and readers, who have a strong preference at least some articles in their preferred style - the alternative would be to lose some of them as editors and readers.

With this in mind, forcing through a mandatory change to BCE and CE notation should be strongly resisted. BC and AD notation is, by a long way, the more common notation - and the one that the overwhelming majority of readers (who can't be expected to be history experts) will be familiar with. Risking alienating the bulk of your audience hardly seems the right way to go.

Another option is to force through a mandatory change to BC and AD notation. This wouldn't be as bad as the previous option as considerably fewer people prefer BCE and CE notation to BC and AD notation. It still, however, would come with the downside that those who do will choose to contribute on and read about Chinese history elsewhere.

I imagine it is in the spirit of trying to keep everyone (or at least as many people as possible) tolerant of the style chosen that both notation styles are permitted. Why not let this practice continue?

This does still leave us with the problem of templates. I would still prefer to see templates with BC and AD notation for articles that use BC and AD notation, and templates with BCE and ce notation for articles that use BCE and CE notation. I'm really not persuaded by the arguments against. If this is not allowed, then surely the template should use the notation that is used by a clear majority of the articles on which it appears (if there is one)? At least then as few articles will look as mix-and-match as possible that way. Foula 12:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for assistance

We had an issue reported on WP:BLPN regarding List of Chinese dissidents. None of the names listed were sourced, so they have all been moved to the talk page pending verification. It was suggested that people involved with this project may have the expertise needed to help clear this one up. Thanks. - Crockspot 16:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, good point. I can't help myself, but hopefully some other editors can. John Smith's 16:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I've provided a source in the article Talk page.[23] Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

China-related MoS, date issue

Please note that the date issue has been brought up at the China-related MoS, on whether or not we should write the BCE/CE preference into the MoS.[24] Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Goku (DBZ) VS. Sun Wukong

Dear WikiProject China/Archive/2007, you are invited to join the move request for Goku. Your thoughts could really help in seeking the answer. Much thanks, Lord Sesshomaru 01:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe this is even debatable. Goku is based off of Sun Wukong. One is an anime character, the other is a mythical monkey king. Why is this even a debate? Pandacomics 15:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
It's a debate because WP is overran with Otakus. See Category:Pokémon species by generation. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Otakus who believe the rest of the world is just like them. Woe. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I just added the following info to the move request for Goku discussion ...

I input the Chinese characters for Sun Wukong into a Chinese dictionary which also gives a description of each character in Japanese and Korean. The following is based upon Japanese Onji:
Sun = Son
Wu = Go
Kong = Kuu
Onji is based upon the "sound" of the original characters. So, Sun Wukong was created some 375 years before dragon ball and the Onji name of Song Goku is based off the sound of the original Chinese characters. Therefore, Son Goku should stay the redirect for Sun Wukong!

--Ghostexorcist 00:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Harry's Legend proposed for deletion

Harry's Legend is an "Asian original" Famicom Harry Potter game made in China. 1UP.com, an affiliate of Electronic Gaming Monthly, a U. S. magazine covering video games, featured the game in an article about the NES's legacy. WhisperToMe 04:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Two new subpages

I've added two subpages to the WikiProject and added them to the project menu template (under the Tools subsection).

Please add FACs and FARs to them as articles are nominated. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I worry for them not seeing enough use. Unfortunately we don't churn out FACs and FARs at a rate which would necessitate a separate page for each. I think posting a message on the talk page has worked out well enough so far. IMHO. -- Миборовский 03:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Eh, they hardly take up any memory space. I just figured, why not? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
But if they don't get enough use, why yes? -- Миборовский 18:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, feel free to delete them if you like. But I think they could be useful. To me, if even a few members use them, then why not have them? Each FAC or FAR literally takes up one line on the page because they are transwikied to their own FAC and FAR pages. To be honest, there are dozens of subpages, workgroups and sub-WikiProjects that can be deleted if we're talking about not having enough traffic here. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Nonono, I'm not gonna delete anything. I guess I'm just a utilitarian. Sorry if I sounded like I disapproved. -- Миборовский 21:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Forbidden City peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Forbidden City/archive1

Hey guys, I've put Forbidden City up for peer review with a view towards WP:FAC. Your comments are welcome and much appreciated as always. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I've thrown a few quick observations in. John Smith's 13:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Chinese Alligator

I just recently found the article and added this project's navbox to it's talk page. I would like to see it expanded. A section on the cultural view of the alligator could be added. Is it involved in any favorite food? --Ghostexorcist 15:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't know much about it, but I've seen one at a zoo. At any rate, I've created Category:Reptiles of China and populated it. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for creating that category. I’ve looked around and found that some sources say the Chinese alligator is known as an "earth dragon" and "muddy dragon". The source of the earth dragon name came from a newspaper. The source for muddy dragon didn’t look to reputable. I think the alligator’s nickname should be added to the article. But I would like to find better sources (preferably Chinese) --Ghostexorcist 22:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Flying guillotine (weapon)

I know 血滴子 are the Chinese characters used to write 'Flying guillotine', but what is the literal English translation. Is it 'Blood-dripping child'? I have made some recent additions to the page, but it still needs major work. --Ghostexorcist 10:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

More like blood-dripping thingamajig -- Миборовский 18:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Don't know too much about it, but the word 子 is not always used literally to mean "child". It could be used as a diminuitive to refer to, well, anything, really. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Review request

If you can spare the time, please take a moment to peer review my newest work Army Groups of the National Revolutionary Army. The peer review location is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Army Groups of the National Revolutionary Army. Thanks! -- Миборовский 04:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Page watch

Ever since Zhou Tong (archer) was on the main page, an anonymous user keeps on vandalizing the article (and my user page on occasion). I will be on a short wiki break until the 24th and I wanted to know if any one could pop by and check the edit history from time to time. The biggest problem I have is that as the anon is blocked, he instantly appears on a different I.P. (but all of them beginning in "70"). Thanks. --Ghostexorcist 11:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I could put a semi-protect on it. -- Миборовский 23:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

GR on tomorrow's Main page

The article on Gwoyeu Romatzyh will be tomorrow's FA on the main page. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 17:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

FLG a Religion in China?

I've reverted twice the addition of a long section about the Falun Gong in the Religion in China article. I don't think a major section on FLG in that article is appropriate because 1) it is not clearly established nor viewed as a religion (see Falun Gong for the movement's self-characterisation), 2) the extent of its practice in China before the crackdown is disputed, and 3) surely after the crackdown its prevalence in China would be best described as "minimal"? My view is that FLG belongs with the other "sects" in the list of "Recent sects" in the Religion in China article.

In any case, I don't want to get overly involved with a FLG topic, so your opinions on the matter is appreciated. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Ads for WP:CHINA

We should consider making an ad to advertise our project - see Template:Wikipedia ads. -- Миборовский 22:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Five-Year Plans of China

This article needs a lot of work. Badagnani 02:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

New question over the History of China template

I'm asking this again because no consensus was reached as to whether Chinese-related articles should have one style regarding BCE/CE, BC/AD. I know people have already expressed an opinion, but I would appreciate it if they could reiterate their positions to clarify the situation.

So once more, do people here support an adaptable "History of China template" that uses BC/AD or BCE/CE according to the style of the article in question? The default setting, where no date is used, would be BCE/CE - this would be the case in the articles following on from and including Tang Dynasty. John Smith's 17:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

What would be the point of making the template adaptable? What we need to do is prefer the Chinese history articles to use one system, mainly BCE/CE. I see that you've been trying to make sure that Chinese history articles themselves use BC/AD (per your edits on articles like Xia Dynasty, Shang Dynasty, and Han Dynasty), so again, you are only trying to push BC/AD when you suggest that we make the template adaptable. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
The point would be that the template would fit with articles that use BC/AD. We tried to gain consensus over a prefered system but we could not.
I am not trying to push BC/AD, as I was merely restoring the system that had been used for a long time on the articles in question. You are trying to push BCE/CE by introducing it into articles that did not use it, so you should take the log out of your own eye first. John Smith's 17:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely I am trying to push BCE/CE - Chinese history articles are not Christian related, and I think that's what they should use. The question really is, if you really are not trying to push BC/AD, why do you care that I changed the articles to use BCE/CE? Why are you reverting my changes? I am trying to improve the articles. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I am not trying to push BC/AD because I am only reverting your edits where the articles were already using BC/AD before you changed them this month. That is merely maintaining the status-quo. John Smith's 17:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Why are we maintaining the status quo when the articles need to be improved? That makes no sense whatsoever. A status quo that is a bad state for the article should be changed. And why do you care that we maintain the status quo if you are not trying to push BC/AD? WP is not about letting the small minority or those who yell the loudest have their way either, you should consider how much support you really have for BC/AD, which is to say, next to no support. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I have never claimed there is nothing about the article that cannot be changed. However, on a simple style issue such as date terms I do not see changing from BC/AD to BCE/CE as being an improvement.
Who has majority support is not especially relevant to how wikipedia is edited. Also I remember certain users expressing support for China:MOS guidelines but not for changing articles already using BC/AD over to BCE/CE. So your talk of majority support and that I have next-to-none isn't quite true. John Smith's 18:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I will second that. -- Миборовский 18:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Hong Qi Gong is entitled to his personal views, but he should not push them upon others. The way he has tried to do this over the last two days has not been in accordance with what is normally considered acceptable Wikipedia practice. He has argued his point before, and failed to gain a consensus. He should accept that his proposal has failed. Foula 18:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm behind Hong Qi Gong. All articles should switch to BCE/CE system. It has not failed. --Ghostexorcist 18:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
It has failed according to Wikipedia's guidelines on consensus. If you want to run with it, you can always move the issue on to the next stage of dispute resolution. John Smith's 18:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
There will never be a resolution I'm afraid. Even when an overwhelming majority calls for BCE and CE, which there already has been, other people will object. Most of the people who formerly joined the discussion have been run off by the throwing around of egos. Hong is the only one that apparently has the time or drive to continue with the discussion. --Ghostexorcist 18:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Your claim that there "will never be a resolution" is not true. People may raise objections later, but the issue as it is now can be resolved through dispute resolution - all matters can. If consensus per wikipedia definitions cannot be reached then dispute resolution must be tried. John Smith's 18:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I can only hope that an amiable agreement can be reached. But, again, I doubt there ever will. --Ghostexorcist 18:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Offering (probably funerary)

Commons:Image:Seattle - International District - streetside offering 01.jpg
Commons:Image:Seattle - International District - streetside offering 01.jpg

Streetside offering seen in the International District, Seattle's Chinatown. I'm guessing this is a funerary offering or one on the anniversary of a death; it is certainly culturally Chinese (it was in front of a Chinese restaurant and the food is Chinese); I have no idea whether it would be Taoist or Buddhist. If someone knows more about this and can flesh out the photo description, it would be greatly appreciated. If there is a relevant article in the English-language Wikipedia, could you please mention that in the description? Also, an additional description in Chinese would be great (similarly on other things in Commons:Category:International District, Seattle, Washington). Thanks in advance. - Jmabel | Talk 04:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It could be offerings for anything Guan Yu the money god, a particular ancestor, ancestors in general (Qingming), the dead in general (Ghost Festival), or maybe Heaven.
Since the photo was taken recently (going by the date 27 August 2007), and we're in Ghost Month (see Ghost Festival), it is likely to be related to that. My experience is that offerings to a particular deceased is likely to be set up inside the home rather on on the street - so more likely to be something public/general.
The single incense on every food item is unfamiliar to me - is it significant? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The Rape of Nanking FAC

I've nominated The Rape of Nanking (book) for FA. Please take a look at the FAC and vote or leave a comment.

Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

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.

Cuju - Chinese soccer

I knew the Chinese had their own form of ancient soccer, but I didn't know the name of it until recently. I was happy to see that there was an article on it, but it is sadly undersourced and remains vague in the description of the rules. I imagine that someone has done an in depth study of the game's history since FIFA acknowledged it as the mother of modern soccer. Are there any books or journal papers out there that detail the game, especially during the Song Dynasty? You can find lots of info about it on the net, but I would trust the material better if it was published in a scholarly source. One website states info about it appears in this historical document. My Chinese is not so good, so someone here could probably find it. --Ghostexorcist 17:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I have checked for scholarly sources on JSTOR and Google Scholar, and found little. I'm going to keep looking.--Danaman5 21:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


Merge China International Trade Promotion Committee into China Council for the Promotion of International Trade

I spotted what appear to be duplicates of the same article and to set the ball rolling have tagged the pages for merger. One of the pages was already tagged by Wikiproject China, so perhaps the experts here might want to confirm that these are the same organisation (I've found external sources to back it up) and, if it's valid, carry out the merger. Cheers Saganaki- 01:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for Translation

I am currently working on creating an article regarding the Changsha conflagration, unfortunately I do not speak any Chinese dialect(s) (and the previous link is hosted on the Chinese Wiki). If anyone could contact me regarding a translation, I would greatly appreciate it.

I'd like to try and source any translation; unfortunately, information on the subject seems less than forthcoming (which seems to make me crave the information even more). Hoping you all could help (sources or translation - worst case, I'll reinvent the wheel w/ sources).

Much appreciated.--Curious brain 04:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Committee of 100 (United States)

Take a look Миборовский 00:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be looking for. :) Nice job removing the POV sections, but it still isn't well referenced.--Danaman5 05:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
It's in really, really bad shape. I removed most of the anti-Chinese POV, but now it reads like an advert. --Миборовский 06:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, it looks like some IP editors ran through that article making it their soapbox. Good job cleaning it up. It's in dire need of reliable 3rd party sources though. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Tibetan towns and villages

HI I need to know who to speak to about this. I am currently as you know adding all the towns and villages in Tibet. I want to create a standard infobox Tibetan settlement for all the towns and villages such as Infobox Tibetan settlement. Is there anyway we can have something like this: Domartang but with parameters to include the Tibetan/Chinese language section like on Deleg at the top so it all goes neatly in one box for settlements? PLease respond on this as soon as you can as I feel it very important thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 13:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC) Something like this:

{{#if: | {{#if: |


Domartang, Tibet
Tibetan name
Tibetan: {{{t}}}
Wylie transliteration: {{{w}}}
Tournadre Phonetic: {{{to}}}
pronunciation in IPA: [{{{ipa}}}]
official transcription (PRC): {{{z}}}
THDL: {{{thdl}}}
other transcriptions: {{{e}}}
Chinese name
traditional: {{{tc}}}
simplified: {{{s}}}
Pinyin: {{{p}}}
Location 30°53′N, 94°49′E
Region
 Tibet Autonomous Region, China
Prefecture-level division Qamdo Prefecture
County-level divisions Banbar County
Population
Approx. in a 7 km radius		 439
Major Nationalities Tibetan
Regional dialect Tibetan language
Area code
Postal Code

There's a WP:TIBET but it's not very active... And IMHO... villages of 500 people aren't really notable. --Миборовский 22:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

If you use the example of SmallTown USA (tm)... anything should have an article. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 22:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

New stub

I have just created the article on Baduanjin qigong. I have a lot of expansion in the works, but presently the article needs Chinese characters. Thanks, VanTucky Talk 01:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Y Done —O (说 • 喝) 01:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion nomination

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 September 20#Template:Shanghai Metro interchange note —O (说 • 喝) 03:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

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.

Understanding Heaven and Hell

Hi guys, can you help with this article? It is currently on Afd and the sources are in Chinese so we cannot verify it.--Lenticel (talk) 13:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the WikiProject Taoism can help you better, if it's still active. _dk 07:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok thanks!--Lenticel (talk) 08:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Jutoupi

Hi, I'm trying to fulfill an article request for a pop singer called Jutoupi. I think this, 朱約信, is his Chinese wiki entry, but I speak no Chinese, so I am asking here. If I am right and this is the correct person, I will put in a translation request, but could someone here let me know if I have the right fellow? Thanks. Chubbles 03:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! I've been informed that it is. A request is up at WP:TRANSL, in case anyone's not busy... Chubbles 03:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar templates

Hi, there are efforts to delete several barnstar templates, I think you might be interested and add your opinion here [25]. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 08:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Book or journal reference for Jiang Shi

Hi all, a few of us are working up vampire for a crack at FAC sometime soon. There is a mention of a Chinese vampire called a Jiang Shi. Was wondering whether anyone had a folklore book which could be cited as a reference with it in, which'd be good for both the vampire page and the Jiang Shi page.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

See here and here. -- Ghostexorcist 11:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

New Barnstar of National Merit

The Zhonghua Barnstar of National Merit
This is a test. nat Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?! 21:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Code: {{subst:The Zhonghua Barnstar of National Merit|message ~~~~}}

That actually looks pretty cool!--Jerry 21:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Just make two versions and give the awarder the choice... Миборовский 00:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Why should there be two versions of this award...I designed the image for the sole purpose of avoiding a pro-PRC POV as well as as avoiding a pro-ROC POV. If someone wants to award something with just an ROC barnstar, there is an award for that, actually there's two. nat Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?! 01:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
But who is this award supposed to go to? It reads now as an award for ethnic Chinese users who contribute to China-related articles, kind of an overly exclusive category. --Danaman5 04:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
What you just said is like saying the Australian Barnstar of National Merit can only be awarded to Australian editors, but that is not the point of these awards. It can go to anyone who has made significant edit to any China-related article, not only ethic Chinese editors. nat Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?! 05:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks interesting, though the idea of "national merit" is a bit political in my view. Could you rename it to something a bit less political? John Smith's 18:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd recommend calling it just the Zhonghua Barnstar. Meanwhile, it may be too cluttering, but if there is a way to squeeze in a DPP green stripe and the Hong Kong bauhinia blakeana, it would be nice. --Nlu (talk) 23:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
There's no need to add DPP in it. It should only be the Chinese National and Communist Parties.--Jerry 23:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Which are not the only political parties in China. Миборовский 23:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Zhonghua Barnstar of Merit
Changed per John Smith's and also to allow this award to be given to those who make significant contributions to articles about the Chinese civilization around the world. nat Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?! 23:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Stop making it so political. The flag is suppose to be a flag showing the co-operation between both sides of the strait; merging both national flags together, not political parties.
I'm not trying to make anything political, but just so you know, the ROC flag is KMT-based, and the PRC flag is CPC-based.--Jerry 21:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I understand where Jerry is coming from. You say you don't want this to be political, but it is true that the barnstar brings politics into it by having two flags based around two particular political parties. It's a bit like saying the CCP is China and the KMT is Taiwan. If you don't want it to be political you have to take the politics out of it. It may be unfortunate that both the PRC and ROC flags are dominated by two political groups whereas most countries flags aren't, but that's the way it is. John Smith's 22:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually I don't think the KMT represents Taiwan. And for that matter, I don't think the ROC represents Taiwan either. So I have no objection on the design of this award.--Jerry 22:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Nevermind then. John Smith's 21:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, the PRC flag doesn't have any communist symbols on it, except the colours red and yellow... But then, the US flag also has the same colours as Republican emblems. I daresay it happens quite often in many countries that a political party's symbols resemble national symbols in some way. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
The US political parties are formed after the formation of the nation, the ROC and the PRC, on the other hand, are formed after the formation of political parties.--Jerry 00:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The revised design is fine with me. I wasn't intending to block this award, I just didn't want it to be too exclusive.--Danaman5 02:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Outstanding work - well done, Nat. -- Folic_Acid | talk  04:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

These two flags are "national flags"（国旗） not "party flags“（党旗）.So there is no need to add DPP or Hong Kong flags in it.It is true that "the ROC flag is (or was)KMT-based, and the PRC flag is CPC-based" once, but they are flags of ROC & PRC not flags of KMT or CPC.

Nat, I like the job you did, really.--东北虎(Manchurian Tiger) 17:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Chinese opera on radio

Hello everybody, I know this is not the place to ask questions for personal use, but my question is so specialized that I figured it was hopeless to try at the reference desk. Can anybody tell me if there is a radio that broadcasts Chinese opera (of any variety)? Thanks in advance, --91.148.159.4 21:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Try here. --Ghostexorcist 19:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there is supposed to be a channel called "East radio Shanghai - folk opera" according to that list, but in practice I never hear anything like a folk opera on it. There is also a folk opera channel called CCTV-11, which is available online but, as with other CCTV channels, its streaming is almost always interrupted once per two seconds for me, so it's impossible to watch. Is it the same with you, or maybe it's different depending on where one lives? --91.148.159.4 20:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Opinion requested on Xiao Xi's categorization

I'd like people's opinion on this: should Xiao Xi be categorized in Category:Liang Dynasty emperors, and should related articles (e.g., Cen Wenben) be categorized in Category:Liang Dynasty? --Nlu (talk) 19:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Another request for outside views

I'm attempting to informally mediate a dispute between two users at Dano (Korean festival), but since I have limited factual knowledge of the subject, I wondered whether anyone here might be willing/able to add their perspective to things. Thanks! -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

If it was up to me, I would merge that article into Dragon Boat Festival. It's the same festival! Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
The main question up for discussion is whether Qu Yuan is included in the celebrations in Korea, as he is in China. Do you know whether this is the case? -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 17:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Chinese character on Swiss International tailfin

What is the Chinese character on this Swiss International Airlines tailfin? [26] WhisperToMe 19:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It is the first character of the chinese translation of Switzerland "瑞士" Pojanji 20:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you :) WhisperToMe 21:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Ghettos and Chinatowns?

In this article Chinatowns are mentioned as a kind of "ghetto" ... I think someone who knows a lot about american Chinatowns should have a look at this article to see if it's making sense. I was going to remove it myself, but I don't know that much. futurebird 22:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Base on the first sentence of that article I think Chinatown fits the definition of ghetto, but that section certainly deserves some clean up. Pojanji 23:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Chinese government

I guess you finally got your way and we no longer have an article on the government of China, just this mess. So when I want to find the State Food and Drug Administration of China, no place to naturally find a link to it. There is no excuse. Fred Bauder 13:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I don't see Government of the People's Republic of China deleted. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you are referring to. Could you be more specific?--Danaman5 23:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
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.

Question about Chinese characters in Avatar intro

I found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Avatar-TLAlogo.jpg

What characters are they? (As in what do they look like in text?) WhisperToMe 08:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

According to a google search, they are "降世神通" - though the second character in the logo looks nothing like itquite different from the print font.
Literally, it means something ilke "Descended [from heaven] unto the world" "supernatural abilities". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Dalian No.24 High School - request for article

I found this: http://www.dlhs24.com.cn/

Dalian No.24 High School is a sister school of a high school in Houston, but not much is available in English. So, does anyone wish to make an article about the school? WhisperToMe 22:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Renminbi or Chinese renminbi?

I've gotten myself into a bit of a revert wallwar at Renminbi over whether it should be titled "Renminbi" or "Chinese renminbi". My view is that Chinese renminbi is a neologism. Arguments drawing analogies with US Dollar etc are misconceived, since "dollar" is the currency unit, and US Dollar is the name of the currency, whereas with the Renminbi, the currency unit is the entirely different "Yuan". So my view is that it should be either Renminbi or Chinese yuan (which is currently about something else entirely) - not Chinese renminbi.

I draw support from the fact that Pound stirling is where it is and not at British Pound stirling - analogously, the currency is called "pound stirling" and its base unit the "pound" - so it's either Pound stirling or British pound, not British Pound stirling.

I'm wondering if you guys have an opinion on this? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree with you. We shouldnt be creating consistencies that do not exist in the real world. "Chinese renminbi" is redundant and follows neither common nor proper usage.--Jiang 11:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

This issue has started up again. One editor kept moving the article and it kept being reverted. Finally with the article move protected, there is a new discussion on the matter. Please discuss at the article Talk page if you have any opinion. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

New template

I've created a template specifically for actors/singers in the Chinese entertainment industry and I've added it to Maggie Cheung. Please take a look - Template:Infobox Chinese actor and singer. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

More Avatar characters

I found this image, with Chinese characters: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/39/Avatar_world_map.jpg

The accompanying caption reads: "A map of the four nations"

What are the characters and what do the characters say? WhisperToMe 00:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Across the top: 群雄四分 "the heroes divide [the world? the country?] in four".
Across the bottom: 天下一匡 "correct all things under heaven" - original phrase from the Confucian Analects is "一匡天下"; extended meaning is uniting the whole nation - see Chinese reunification.
top left 水善 "water - good"
top right 土强 "earth - strong"
bottom left 火烈 "fire - fierce"
bottom right 气和 "air (see Qi) - harmony". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I posted the info to Avatar:_The_Last_Airbender#Premise :) WhisperToMe 04:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Map of China on China

Dunno if anyone still watches the namesake of this project, but I've objected to the fairly recent map change on China (the picture is in the infobox which is in a separate template: Template:Chinese/China) on the grounds of NPOV, specifically because 1) it omits all disputed territories with other countries (which, in normal practice, is indicated by colour variations), and 2) its representation of PRC vs ROC represents the (official) view of neither governments nor many Taiwan independence supporters nor Chinese reunification enthusiasts, but rather presents only one strand of view. I have suggested Image:ROC PRC comparison eng.jpg as a (temporary) replacement for the current image Image:China map.png until those NPOV problems are fixed up.

Our good friend User:Bathrobe has weighed into the debate and has reverted me. If you have an opinion on this, please join the discussion at Talk:China. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Cenotaph of SAA295- What does it say?

I found: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/38/The_cenotaph_of_South_Africa_Airlines_295_accident.jpg

What does it say? WhisperToMe 08:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

南非航空公司空难纪念碑： South Africa Airlines Company Air Disaster Memorial Stone. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! How is it read in Hanyu Pinyin? WhisperToMe 22:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

南非航空公司空难纪念碑: Nánfēi Hángkōng Gōngsī Kōngnàn Jìnìanbēi? (I capitalised the last two words on the basis that they are part of a title: you know, like Air Disaster Memorial. If you think it should be "air disaster memorial", lose the caps on the last two words... --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Chancellor of China

I've been doing some work on the backlogs, and came across this article. It seems to be a fairly important topic, but has been tagged as unsourced/unreferenced for 16 months. Perhaps someone from this project would have the resources to provide citations for the article? Pastordavid 20:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Chinese Chess Championship

Recently, the List of national chess championships has grown considerably and now we cover all major nations, except for China (which is getting very strong at traditional chess). It would be nice to cover China as well. However, I can't find a list with winners in English. I found two lists in Chinese however: [27] (men and women) and [28] (men only). It would be great if someone who can read Chinese would be so kind to translate this list (men and women) and put it in the article Chinese Chess Championship. For an example of another national chess championship, see for instance Japanese Chess Championship or Spanish Chess Championship. Shouldn't be too much work for China since the championship started in 1957 (1979 for women), with a lot of duplicated names. Best regards, Voorlandt 09:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok I managed to translate the page myself, largely with the help of [29], [30] and the transliterations in wikipedia. I am pretty sure everything is correct, still would be grateful if someone could check it over. Voorlandt (talk) 19:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Debate on traditional and simplified Chinese characters

Hey guys, I seem to be getting into revert wars all the time these last couple of weeks... But could you take a look at [31]? I made some edits to the introduction and added a background section, which Benjwong is reverting wholesale. He thinks I'm writing with a "mainland POV". I disagree - but I might be blind to my own biases. Some outside commentary would be appreciated. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Chinese mathematics

This article needs help, badly. SchmuckyTheCat

It looks like I might be able to pull sources on this one. I'll see what I can do when I have time.--Danaman5 (talk) 23:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Emperor Taizong of Tang

Emperor Taizong of Tang was a featured article candidate long ago. Apparently, the main objection at the time was that it did not discuss his reign sufficiently, an objection that I think has been remedied. I'd like to, at some point, resubmit it for featured article status. It would appear that the only criterion that it may be lacking in, I think, is its lack of footnotes. For this, I would like to request that people look at the article and add {{fact}} where an assertion appears to call for a footnote. That way, I can tell how/where people think we should add footnotes. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 23:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

As an additional incentive, see Wikipedia:The Core Contest. If folks work this out so that the article wins, I am more than willing to forfeit any claim to the prize. --Nlu (talk) 07:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Tang Yuhan

Tang Yuhan is an article on a doctor from Hong Kong/China. The article is under discussion at AFD, and special attention is needed from editors who can evaluate sources written in Chinese languages. GRBerry 19:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

traditional Constellations

I just thought I'd let you know that there doesn't seem to be any input on traditional constellations (excepting Mediterranean and European ones) at the Constellation wikiproject. There should be, considering these are still in use. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Constellations Task Force 132.205.99.122 (talk) 23:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Chinese thought

Category:Chinese thought has been nominated for merging into Category:Chinese philosophy (an alternate suggestion was merge to Category:Chinese culture). See WP:CFD 132.205.99.122 (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

東北大學

東北大學 is up for deletion or merging at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/東北大學. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 22:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Initially I voted to merge to Northeastern University (disambiguation), but it was pointed out that Tohoku University is never referred to as "Northeastern University" while its name in Japanese kanji is "東北大学". So I switched my vote to merge to Northeastern University (Shenyang, China) and putting a disambig message at the top of the article to lead to Tohoku University, the reason being that Tohoku University is written as 東北大学, not 東北大學. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Li Ne or Li Na

I invite wikipedians to participate in the discussion on whether 李讷, a daughter of Mao Zedong, is pronounced as Li Ne or Li Na. I have requested to move Li Na (daughter of Mao Zedong) back to Li Ne. If anyone is interested, please discuss at Talk:Li Na (daughter of Mao Zedong). Thank you for your attention. --Neo-Jay (talk) 07:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

References needed

Chancellor of China has been unsourced for over a year, and desperately needs in-text citations added to the article. Pastordavid (talk) 18:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Help needed with Chinese-speaking new editor

I don't know if this is the best place to ask, but I'll do it.

I responded to an AIV report on User:Xixidoubao, whose first fifty edits have added a lot of incorrect information regarding flights and destinations to Beijing Capital International Airport. I have given him a final warning but am still assuming good faith, and wonder if he may be a Chinese-speaking editor with limited command of English who may not realize that he's adding incorrect information. I don't know if he's also active on the Chinese WP as I can't read the language. Could someone with strong Chinese skills (preferably a native speaker) be able to reach out to him either here or on zhwiki, if he's an editor there? I would very much like to do this before having to block him. Daniel Case (talk) 04:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

This user just registered in Chinese Wikipedia only couple days ago also. Commented on his talk page there, see what happens. Aquarius • talk 17:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Five articles for Mao Zedong's children nominated for AfD

Five articles for five of Mao Zedong's children have been nominated for AfD. Please comment if you happen to be knowledegeable about them - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Li Na (daughter of Mao Zedong). Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Names of Emperors

I've tried to open a discuss of the format to be used for the naming of articles on Chinese Emperors, both at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese) and at Wikipedia talk:History standards for China-related articles. Input would be appreciated. john k (talk) 22:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The Eve of Chinese New Year has been prodded

someone has WP:PROD proposed to delete The Eve of Chinese New Year. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 23:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for thoughts on article title for Emperor Zhongzong of Tang's daughter

I am planning to (soon) write an article on the daughter of Emperor Zhongzong of Tang and Empress Wei, personal name Li Guo'er (李裹兒) and title Princess Anle (安樂公主). I would like some comments on whether "Li Guo'er" or "Princess Anle" would be the more appropriate title. --Nlu (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say that "Princess Anle of Tang" or something similar should be used, because that follows the convention of naming this type of article with the formal name. Emperor Zhongzong of Tang is itself a formal name, isn't it?--Danaman5 21:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, although that's only because of consensus at WP:NC-ZH. Since other Tang princesses aren't referred to as "of Tang" in article titles (see Princess Taiping, Princess Wencheng, Princess Pingyang), I think, if we're going with formal titles, "Princess Anle" would be sufficient. --Nlu (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

With no other thoughts on this matter, I think for now (and I'm planning to write this article tonight unless something else ties me up) I'll go with Princess Anle as the title; it can always be moved later. --Nlu (talk) 23:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Fake airline... article in Chinese!

I found a Chinese article of Metis TransPacific Airlines, which seems to be a fake airline that is notable for creating a booking site and having speculation about its true identity.

Anyhow, there is an incomplete Chinese article. Does anyone want to finish and fill it? WhisperToMe 05:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Chinese swords

Chinese swords has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinese swords 132.205.99.122 (talk) 22:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Chinese name for Min Chen, killer of Cecilia Zhang?

I understand that Min Chen has a Chinese name, as he is a native of Shanghai. What is his Chinese name? WhisperToMe (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I have added the Chinese name to the article based on online reports in Chinese.--Danaman5 (talk) 05:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Japan was tributary state for China.

List of tributaries of Imperial China

Japan was tributary for China. 亲魏倭王. 汉倭奴国王. 大明属国日本国王.

not only Ashikaga Yoshimitsu but also 1596(Unified) Toyotimi recieved 册封 as Japanese King. Some Japanese want delete this.[32] so Chinese friend, watch out this page. HongKongriben (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Heh, good luck with that. Japanophiles significantly outnumber every other demographic group (except perhaps Americans) on Wikipedia. --Миборовский (talk) 04:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
What is 册封? That's obviously a Chinese-only term; what's it in English or Japanese? If it's some sort of seal/stamp of investiture, as the Chinese Emperors granted to the kings of Korea, Ryukyu, and their other tributaries, I'd have to say I doubt that Hideyoshi received it. I certainly could be wrong about that, but I imagine that if he did it would not only cause trouble in his relations with the Court (being a "King" under the Chinese Emperor while there's a separate Japanese Emperor who he's supposed to be loyal to, etc) but would also go against his own desires and plans to create a more powerful Japan, extricated from the Sinocentric model and acting as China's equal in diplomacy and trade.
That said, I for one would not oppose the listing of Japan as one of China's historical tributaries, as the Ashikaga did indeed pay tribute to China. LordAmeth (talk) 14:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned a while ago that what we really need is an article on Chinese imperial tributary relationships. I think this will clear up a lot of the confusion that some people have about such relationships. Mostly, editors coming and going don't want to think of their pet country as having been a tributary to China. But what I do know is:

  1. At times, they are more like trade relations.
  2. It is only by accepting a tributary relationship with imperial China that the Chinese court was even willing to have a working relationship with a foreign country.
  3. The system was used by China's neighbours in the context of their foreign relations with each other. They expected China's military support, and tributaries considered each other as equals - most of the time anyway, depending on the ruler.

I tried to do some online searching on the subject matter, but nothing very substantial came up as sources. Unless someone else can find some good online sources, this may be something that will require some book reading/researching. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks like there are sources out there, but I will have to wait until I get back to college to have access to most of them.--Danaman5 (talk) 06:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Ashikaga Yoshimitsu recieved 册封 as "日本国王", by china dynasty. Yoshimitsu united the Northern and Southern Court, then recieved 册封 by China. This 册封 represent to "Japan" country itself. and show China-Japan Diplomatic relation. moreover, after Ashikaga Yoshimitsu, this tributary relation succeeded. Japan recieved "日本国王印" 金印 from china.[33](Chinese) it represent to China-Japan relation. Japanese try to hide this truth... Japan was tributary state of China, since Han dynasty("漢"倭奴国王). Japan paid tibute to Han, Sui, Tang(master dynasty of Japan), Song, Ming... Japan recieved 册封 by China dynasty also send tribute to China. Toyotomi recieved 册封 by china in Ming dynasty 萬曆 24年. (1596 丙申 / 萬曆 24年) 12月 7日 " 倭將行長, 馳報秀吉, 擇於九月初二日, 奉迎冊命於大坂〔大阪〕地方受封。 職等初一日, 持節前往, 是日卽抵大坂〔大阪〕。 次日領受欽賜圭印、官服, 旋卽佩執頂被, 望闕行五拜三叩頭禮, 承奉誥命。"

Conclusion, In history, Japan Recieved 册封 by China. Japan send 朝貢 to China. It is reasonable for including tributary list. Clerkwheelzeon (talk) 19:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


Need help from JPOV

List of tributaries of Imperial China Need protect from edit war. Japanese want omit their country in List of tributaries of Imperial China. Clerkwheelzeon (talk) 05:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Really don't feel like diving into an edit war over that article. I've had discussions on the Talk page over there before. But what's ironic here is that I remember having an argument on Talk:Japan about Japan having been influenced by China and Korea in ancient history, and part of the argument I had to put up with was that "China" and "Korea" didn't really exist back then (which makes me wonder how it was that "Japan" existed). And now that we're talking about tributaries, apparently "Japan" didn't exist back then. The argument is ridiculous. Under the same logic, we might as well begin Japanese history articles on when the English term "Japan" became popular usage. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I am certainly not going to get involved in that. Honestly, I wonder sometimes if the list of tributaries of imperial China is really all that useful. Since all countries were required to officially be tributary in order to have relations with China at all, having this list is akin to having a List of countries with which the United States has diplomatic relations, or something like that.--Danaman5 (talk) 06:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah the article is very problematic. I'm not sure what to do with it. Maybe one day I will sit down with some books and write an article that's actually about tributary relations of imperial China - an article like that would be much better. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
If you would like to, you can edit the article on this subject that I have started in my userspace: User:Danaman5/Workshop/Chinese tributary system. Note that it is still very preliminary, because as I mentioned above, I won't have access to good sources for the next month.--Danaman5 (talk) 07:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

東北大學

東北大學 has returned to AfD. (didn't it just close?) 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Note that I'm not trying to get the page deleted. I'm trying to make it into a redirect page, as it is a dab page with only two entries, one of them being the main topic. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:Famous pandas

Category:Famous pandas is up for renaming/splitting. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 19:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Problem with Christian users and Christianity in China

Opinions by sinologists and Chinese people

Hi, can you help me with this issue? --Esimal (talk) 14:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The Rape of Nanking (book) for peer review

I've listed The Rape of Nanking (book) for peer review. Please take a look. There's already plenty of criticism of the book mentioned in the article, but one editor is insisting on inflating the article with even more criticism. And surprised! He's heavily into editing Japan-related topics. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Whether he is heavily editing Japan-related topics or you are heavily editing China-related topics is not relevant in this matter. I'll assume you didn't mean to insinuate anything negative by it, but you did appear to be saying that editing Japan-related topics is somehow a sign of prejudice in the subject area of the article.
If you do feel he is acting in bad-faith, etc then please discuss how he edits, not what the gepgraphical location of the articles he edits is. John Smith's (talk) 13:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
You understand the controversy around the book. And I'm sure you remember the article's last FAC. It received three votes, all oppose, and all of them from members of the Japan military history taskforce, with none of the concern being of MoS problems, but that they dislike the content of the article. Maybe I'm assuming bad faith, but yes, I'm concerned about that. Now I'm trying to improve it for a second FAC, and a Japanese or Japan-interested editor goes and inflate the article with more criticism. So admittedly I'm a bit frustrated. I know I've expanded the criticism section of the article. When was the last time a Japan-interested editor expanded on other aspects of the article other than the criticism section? Anyway, sure, maybe I'm wrong in particular about Saintjust, and I entertained that possibility until he wrote That an editor from China has been lucky enough to edit the article all he likes on his own for the past several months is quite amazing[34]. There's mutual mistrust between me and him, with him thinking I'm trying to somehow cover up the controversy around the book. Except that evidence would seem to contradict that by the simple fact that the version I like introduces the book as being controversial and having been criticised, and already had a criticism section which I personally expanded. And you'll notice that he's trying to get the article delisted as GA based not on GA criteria, but on some unfounded assumption that I'm trying to cover up the controversy around the book. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Article content is important when assessing FA standard - MoS isn't enough. But you missed the fundamental point with the last FAC, which is that it failed for lack of interest. You can't get FA status with just a nomination, AFAIK. Hopefully you will get some useful peer reviews in the next few weeks.
As for this guy, I have no comment to make on his motivations, behaviour, etc as I'd rather not get drawn into that. But as I pointed out, the geographical orientation of what articles someone edits is not relevant - it's how they edit them that is important. If you're getting to the point where you're making assumptions about people based on the former then you probably owe yourself a wikibreak. At the very least you could set up a RfC or something. John Smith's (talk) 19:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I know MoS isn't the only concern in a FAC - and I didn't say it was. What I said was that it got three votes, all opposing, all from members of Japan military taskforce, and all had only concerns about article content. Previous experience with FAC and FAR tells me that MoS are major concerns in FA assessment. I'm not so arrogant that I think I can produce an article free of MoS concerns, in fact I kept asking for MoS critiques. If the situation was different, like perhaps, others from Japan military taskforce voting to promote, or even opposing based on at least some MoS concerns, which are perfectly neutral, I wouldn't be concerned about the possibility of bias assessment. There were I think at least 2 other editors commenting that did not vote. Your average FAC is going to get about that many editors commenting and voting. The problem wasn't a lack of interest - there's plenty of interest from Japan-interested editors. Even having said that, I have improved upon the article since that FAC. I've put in a short summary of the book (one of the problems that you yourself pointed out), and I've expanded the criticism section since, based on the critique from the other two voters who thought there wasn't enough coverage on why the book was controversial. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Sun Bin

I've filed an RFC on an anonymous user's insistence that "Sun the Mutilated" and "Sun Tzu II" be included as alternative names for Sun Bin. If anyone has an opinion on this, please discuss on Talk:Sun Bin. --Nlu (talk) 19:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, I hope people can comment on this. --Nlu (talk) 17:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Article name for Wu Zetian's lover

I'd like some opinion on this: should an article on the first well-known lover of Wu Zetian -- a man named Feng Xiaobao (馮小寶) whom she later put into the disguise of a Buddhist monk, with the name Huaiyi (懷義), be entitled Feng Xiaobao or Huaiyi? (I am leaning toward the latter.) --Nlu (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Given a lack of comment on this, I'm going to go with Huaiyi. The article can always be moved later if necessary. --Nlu (talk) 05:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Huaiyi does sound better, since that's how he is referred on formal texts anyways. Aquarius • talk 22:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Lý Nam Đế

(Will also be posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vietnam.) There is an anonymous editor who insists on (without discussion) removing Chinese characters and pinyin of Lý Nam Đế. Now, before I am to treat this person as a vandal, I'd like to get some general feelings about this. If you can, please discuss the issue on Talk:Lý Nam Đế. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 05:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Overseas Chinese benevolent associations

I'm guessing that someone who knows Chinese could greatly improve the descriptions of pictures in Commons:Category:Overseas Chinese benevolent associations. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if there are pictures on Commons (or that should be on Commons) that belong in this category, but which I didn't find because I didn't know where to look. - Jmabel | Talk 21:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)