Talk:Douban

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 January 2021 and 29 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cccyzzz.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was no consensus. &mdash;harej (talk) 09:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Douban.com → Douban &mdash; I am extending the discussion so we can figure out what to do about the disambiguation page. &mdash;harej (talk) (cool!) 19:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

--Zhjul (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Reasoning? 『 ɠu¹ɖяy 』¤ 23:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Douban is more often used as a proper noun for douban, the website, even though douban is a varietal way of saying something like a peanut. It is similar to Yahoo.--Zhjul (talk) 15:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I support the move. If it is called Douban more often than Douban.com, then it should be moved to Douban. Exert 18:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a disambiguation page at Douban. Moving this page to "Douban" would suggest that the website is the primary usage. &mdash;harej (talk) (cool!) 19:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

additionally, we need something verifiable to use in order to support the assertions for change. This should be established by the article itself, through references. — V = I * R  (talk) 04:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * douban is a Chinese word which is used occasionally, it could refer to a condiment in Szechuan cuisine. The word 'douban' is highly exposed on the internet and being well-knowed in youth after the website adopted this name.Zhjul (talk) 09:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not that I don't believe you (I'm 99.999% certain that you're correct), it's just that Wikipedia relies on the principle of verifiability, meaning: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth&mdash;that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." More importantly though, I don't see anything being offered to really support the move. WP:COMMONNAME states we should rely on reliable third party sourcing to determine what a name is most often associated with. Since "Douban" appears to be a transliterated word for peanut(?), that obviously must be documented by translations, which is going to be near impossible to overcome. Since the ".com" suffix actually added immediately understandable information to the name (for which I could provide amble sources, if needed) as well, I don't see this movereq as being either supportable based on policy or wise to do based on needs. — V = I * R  (talk) 14:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Another option

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was moved to Douban. @harej 00:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Douban.com → Douban (website) &mdash; If the website is often called "Douban" and not "Douban.com" it could be moved to "Douban" but with the (website) appendage. &mdash;harej (talk) 09:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I prefer the .com style, personally. It's immediately clear that it is a website, without needing to use the addition of a "(generic class)" style disambiguator. More importantly though... I just don't understand the need for all of this. Some may prefer to drop the ".com" suffix, but it's a fairly self evident common practice in English... apparently "Douban" is actually Chinese (Mandarin?) for peanut or something, but there's no actual article about that. So, are we all just being overly pedantic here, or what? — V = I * R  (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Douban is more famous as a website brand in China, it is same as Yahoo. Zhjul (talk) 11:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So it is a primary usage, and so the existing Douban should be Douban (disambiguation)? @harej 03:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Move to Douban. There is no other article using the name. No need for any qualifier. The only thing besides Douban.com on Douban currently is Doubanjiang, which is already disambiguous as a title and at most will need a hatnote at Douban. Don't need a dab page for just two items. Station1 (talk) 20:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Neutrality issue
Per WP:V and WP:NPOV, I have removed the content which is both unimportant and not neutral.Whaterss (talk) 08:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * You are blanking an account of an event, reported in reputable news media, that has been presented here in a neutral tone. Why? WP:NPOV does not mean "censor anything that might reflect poorly on the article subject". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and Wikipedia is not censored. We report on notable aspects of the subject at hand. Notability is generally defined as something that is reflected in coverage by reliable secondary sources – for example, the content that you are blanking, which is cited to the BBC. Secondly it isn't your call to dictate whether something is "unimportant" or not – what matters is whether it has been covered by reliable secondary sources. Citobun (talk) 15:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * With all due of respect, how could you say BBC is both "reputable" plus "reliable". It's utterly nonsense. Probably you ought to read Criticism of the BBC and BBC controversies. Whaterss (talk) 03:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Still one more thing, according to WP:NNC, "The notability guidelines do NOT apply to article or list content ". Therefore, certain claims you have made previously are in vain. Whaterss (talk) 03:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I never referred to WP:NNC. Per WP:DUE, it is appropriate to cover a breadth of viewpoints on the article subject presented by reliable secondary sources. Censoring this content on the grounds that it is "political" is violating this policy. The text is not biased – it is written neutrally. If being "political" was grounds for deletion a significant chunk of Wikipedia would disappear. You have no basis in Wikipedia policy for censoring this. Citobun (talk) 05:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * For your fist point, it should be noted that you used the word "Notability " to prove your views which evidently is defined by a part of WP:N, i.e. WP:NNC. For the next one, per your edit note, you claimed my opinion to be "outright absurd". Again it's merely your personally thoughts that led to reverting my edit. Last, I only mentioned "political" for one time, you, however, continued to stress the point. Whaterss (talk) 03:27, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Underbar dk called your opinion of BBC "outright absurd", not me. You don't have consensus for censoring this content, nor any basis in Wikipedia policy, so stop. You clearly don't understand WP:NPOV. I bring up your use of the word "political" because that is apparently your rationale for considering this content "not neutral". Shall we delete everything on Wikipedia that you deem "political"? Citobun (talk) 03:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's not obvious to an armchair editor from Henan, but the BBC—while not completely beyond reproach— is one of the world's most prestigious news organizations in the English language. Any concerns with using the BBC as a source should be argued on the referenced article's own merits (providing sources to argue an opposing view), not smearing the organization as a whole. I stand by my edit summary. _dk (talk) 05:23, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't say we shall delete everything for being political. It's merely one edit. You may as well check it out. Whaterss (talk) 08:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Unreliable source
Per WP:RS. Whaterss (talk) 03:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Possible removal from list
Entries in List of colors: A–F contained links to this page.

The entries are :


 * Douban Blue
 * Douban Green
 * Douban Light Yellow

I don't see any evidence that these colors are discussed in this article and plan to delete them from the list per this discussion: Talk:List_of_colors

If someone decides that these colors should have a section in this article and it is added, I would appreciate a ping.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  16:34, 19 August 2018 (UTC)