Talk:Lhasa/Archive 4

Notice of requested move discussion
It has been proposed at that Lhasa (prefecture-level city) be renamed and moved to Lhasa City. Note that Lhasa City has redirected to Lhasa since 2008. – Wbm1058 (talk) 20:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Why only Lhasa
Ok,The english speaking guys, you made a decision of moving Lhasa to the Chengguan District and say it is done, i have to respect,ok, i respect,done is done, no problem, though i do not agree. But i am asking now there are at least 10 chinese prefecture-lever cities in China, like Shigatse Chamdo Hengshui Weinan Shangluo Turpan and more and more, why do you only move Lahsa, Can someone please explain me why, can i take this as a example to move the article of other cities. Thanks. And to be honest, i am very disagree of the move of Taiwan/China, i do not really agree what you have done.But once again, i come to discuss, and done is done, i respect. i just want to ask, is this a example, what's the different from Lahsa and Turpan or Shigatse. Thanks again. Of course if possible, reconsider the move. Jiangyu911 (talk) 21:09, 8 July 2015 (UTC) And, the first sentense of the article is not right. The capital of the tibet region is the prefecture-lever city of Lhasa, not the Chengguan-District. But as far as i know and as you said, this article is to describe the situation of Chengguan-District. What's more, the Lahsa airport is NOT located in the Chengguan-District. I really feel bad about this, but once more, yes, you made the decision, and, i have to respect, though i totally do not agree. Jiangyu911 (talk) 21:29, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * While the above user could have definitely presented his point of view in a more coherent way, I do have to say that the move has caused all manner of issues with the infobox - for example, the "mayor" of the city of Lhasa is not the mayor of Chengguan District, the mayor of Lhasa has jurisdiction over the enter prefecture... but if we move the "mayor" out of this infobox to the prefecture infobox, ordinary readers looking for this information will not be able to find it... For what it's worth, Chengguan District also has its own district governor. This is not to mention the mess of interwiki links this has caused - as all the links are pointing to Chengguan District! Colipon+ (Talk) 22:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I know what you mean, but I honestly don’t think it’s that much of a problem. “Who is the mayor of Lhasa?” is a question without a simple answer, any way you cut it. “Lhasa” to most people means the urban area that is governed by Chengguan District. The person who asks “who is the mayor of Lhasa” is probably not imagining that this person will be the chief executive of a geographically large prefecture-level entity, just as when someone asks “Who is the mayor of Chicago?” I don’t have in mind the president of the Cook County Board of Commissioners. But, in the PRC’s diji chengshi system, these offices have essentially been combined. In the case of Lhasa, unlike most other diji chengshi entities, there is also a single district that contains the entire urban area, so one could in principal think of the chief executive of that district (I don’t know for a fact that it has a chief executive, but I have no trouble imagining there is) as the “mayor of Lhasa”, but conventionally this isn’t usually done.


 * So, the situation is unavoidably a bit confusing, and we just have to work around that. When concision is needed, we’ll need to guess at the best approximation of what readers will be looking for; and where we have a little more space, we can present all the facts. I think it’s fine to describe Zhang Tingqing as the mayor of Lhasa … he is the mayor of the city in addition to heading a government entity that covers a much larger area (since it’s the same job). I’m guessing that handling municipal affairs for the urban area is a big part of his job. If we can find the name of the head of Chengguan District, I suggest also including that in the info box on the top right, but listing it after Zhang Tingqing’s name. – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 15:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Isn't Rahm Emanuel the mayor of Chicago Loop? Why doesn't it say so in the infobox? After all, "The Loop is the seat of Chicago's government. It is also the government seat of Cook County, Illinois and houses an office for the governor of the State of Illinois. The century old City Hall/County Building houses the chambers of the Mayor, City Council and County Board." Yet there's no Mayor Rahm Emanuel in the Chicago Loop infobox. I think Jiangyu911 has a point here, but this can be fixed by less radical measures than reversing the previous page moves. If the prefectural-level city is led by a mayor, we should say so there. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * If we expected reasonable readers to come to Wikipedia looking for an answer to the question "who is the mayor of the Loop?" and if Rahm Emmanuel's title were "Mayor of the Loop", then I think it would make a tonne of sense to list him as mayor on the Chicago Loop article. – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 20:48, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Right, but he's not "Mayor of the Loop", and the Loop proper doesn't have its own mayor. There may not be a mayor of Chengguan District either. What we are calling "Lhasa" (primary topic) is the ill-defined urban area (I've struggled with finding something to pin geographical boundaries to, without success) which we use Chengguan District as a rough equivalent, but a good part of Chengguan is not urbanized, while parts of neighboring districts are urbanized and are also part of the "Lhasa" urban area. So, the question is whether it's misleading to say this ill-defined urban area has a mayor. I think it's slam-dunk obvious to put the mayor in the Lhasa (prefecture-level city) article, if that is indeed an accurate description of the area that this "mayor" presides over. In other words, what the Chinese are calling a "mayor" here is something more like what we would call a "governor". Whether to also put the mayor in the "Lhasa" article as well is a judgment call, but I'm sympathetic to those who might say that's too misleading. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I am still very reticent about this entire arrangement. After all, let's face it, the article for Vancouver indeed only includes the city as is defined by the municipal boundaries set by the province of British Columbia, not the concept of "Vancouver" as we commonly understand it, whereby Richmond and perhaps especially Burnaby is essentially considered part of Vancouver. We have the "Greater Vancouver Area" as a separate article but keep in mind that it is a broad, general article that has defined parameters, again as set out by objective and official sources. Here we have "Chengguan District" essentially being defined as one in the same as "Lhasa" as is commonly understood which in my opinion still amounts to original research. Anyway, the "ship has sailed" on the page move but I don't think we have arrived at a stable consensus.  Colipon+ (Talk) 21:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No doubt we're boxed into an awkward choice here. I don't think Vancouver is a good analogy. The problem is we don't have any good precedents to go by. If I were to imagine an equivalent analogy for Canada, it might be something like this. Imagine that the Northwest Territories are renamed to Yellowknife. Further imagine that the "mayor of Yellowknife" is mayor of this area defined by the boundaries of the former Northwest Territories, and this area is called a "city". The "city" of Yellowknife now covers about a third of the Province of Nunavut-Yukon, which occupies most of the north of Canada. The "urban area" of Yellowknife (BTW, that's an impressive skyline for a city of nominally only 20,000 people) has no local government, but is rather governed by a "mayor" in charge of this vast swath of territory. When most people say, "I'm taking a business trip to Yellowknife", it's generally understood that they are likely traveling to this urban core of 20,000 people, not some unspecified location in the wilderness. Now, what do we make the primary topic for "Yellowknife", the small urban area or the former "Northwest Territories"? Wbm1058 (talk) 21:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that the government-defined "city" of Lhasa occupies an area about the same size as one-quarter of the US state of Ohio. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:44, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The best analogy I found when we discussed this last time was Honolulu. Note that the article there is about the CDP, which is the smaller urban core, rather than the administrative city, which covers the whole island. But Honolulu does list the mayor, even though he's mayor of the wider area. It may represent some sort of inconsistency, but the more important point is to aid our readers, and they will certainly want to know who the mayor is in the main article. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Right, and Talk:Honolulu shows that's not an easy one either. There's also Downtown Honolulu. There are just US Census Bureau definitions such as census designated place and census county division. The boundaries of these statistical constructs may be subject to change every ten years with each new census, and their boundaries aren't generally commonly understood to be the boundaries of the city. So the only difference here is that we don't even have government statistical constructs to hang on, all we have is the Chengguan District. Both Chengguan District and Honolulu CCD are imperfect approximations for the commonly understood boundaries of each "city" but are the best we can do, because the commonly understood city boundaries are themselves not something that can be precisely defined. Wbm1058 (talk) 19:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

For those searching for ideas on how to deal with city articles where the urban core or informal "city" and the administrative boundaries don't match could look at Halifax, Nova Scotia, London, Sydney, Tokyo or, closer to home, Chongqing. —  AjaxSmack  04:20, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

How do we define "city proper"?
Continuing the discussion theme of the previous two sections, by comparing the previous and current "Administrative divisions" sections of the Lhasa (prefecture-level city) articles. I believe that "template" of the old version is the format most commonly used in Chinese city articles, but the "template" in current use may be growing in usage in these city articles. The old version boldly declares that Chengguan District is the "City proper". I thought that the prefecture-level city was the "City proper". A more accurate description might be "the administrative division in which the seat of city government is located". It is true that the entire core of the old city is contained within Chengguan. Chengguan District is also labeled the "metropolitan area" in the map legend. I believe that this is misleading. Most of Chengguan is rural, so could arguably be considered as outside of the metropolitan area. More importantly, portions of the two counties labeled as "Suburban" are part of the metropolitan area, as is a portion of Lhoka (Shannan) Prefecture (specifically Gonggar County), which is where Lhasa Gonggar Airport is located. Generally, airports are considered to be part of the metropolitan area surrounding the city they serve. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think we should use the term "city proper" because it is ambiguous. Does it mean the government entity as such or does it mean the urban area as such? As far as defining the urban area of Lhasa, it seems to me that a working definition would be the urbanised parts of Chengguan District plus any urbanised areas that are contiguous with same.


 * Gonggar is an unusual airport. – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 22:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm reminded of Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport, which is not even in the same state as Cincinnati. Nonetheless, it's part of the Cincinnati metropolitan area. I agree that "city proper" is somewhat ambiguous, but its meaning might be understood in context. It may be preferable to use a better, more specific term in many cases, though. – Wbm1058 (talk) 22:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Please read the article at City proper and City. City proper is a confusing and often misunderstood and misused term that falls down readily when applied outside of the US. Chinese cities are readily used in examples of how the term 'city proper' fails to work adequately. Don't be mislead that proper equals correct, it doesn't. The very word 'city' is problematic. The US definition is at odds with the European usage (an urban area containing a university). The UK usage of having a 'royal warrant' or having a cathedral, cannot apply to anywhere outside the UK. Many Australian cities wouldn't even be considered a village if they were transplanted elsewhere. Lhasa is Lhasa shi not Lhasa city. The word shi is often translated as city but it is an imperfect and lazy translation because there are so many definitions of what city can mean and many definitions of what shi can mean, and the don't precisely map together. Rincewind42 (talk) 17:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Government and politics
Administratively speaking, Lhasa is a prefecture-level city that consists of one district and seven counties. Chengguan District is the main urban area of Lhasa. The mayor and vice-mayor of Lhasa are Doje Cezhug and Jigme Namgyal, respectively.

Administrative divisions
Lhasa prefecture-level city consists of one district and seven counties. Chengguan District contains most of the urban area of Lhasa, which lies in the Lhasa River valley floor.

Requested move 10 July 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 17:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

– I made two alternative proposal here.1. Since no one answered my question (yes, there are 2 people but you are talking about something else and did not answered my question why only Lhasa), i would see this your move as a example and request the move of all chinese prefecture-level cities with only one district to XX (prefecture-level city)and move the district article to the city, the list above (the first two not include) is not complete but it shows that there are a lot of chinese prefecture-level cities have the same situation as Lhasa, the reasons for such move are the same as you have said for Lhasa, like people just interest in the "small city" etc, this also goes for Xigazê and a lot of cities. Of course the cities are not same but we can discuss which is like Lhasa which not. 2. Otherwise,what if we undo your move(the first two proposal above), this could be more clear and set a common standard for Chinese prefecture-level cities. I am not a trouble-maker, i just want to see a common standard of wikipedia. Wish to discuss, and am willing to help for the chinese language materials. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 13:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC) Jiangyu911 (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Lhasa → Chengguan District, Lhasa
 * Lhasa (prefecture-level city) → Lhasa
 * Samzhubzê District → Xigazê
 * Xigazê → Xigazê (prefecture-level city)
 * Karub District → Qamdo
 * Qamdo → Qamdo (prefecture-level city)
 * Bayi District → Nyingchi
 * Nyingchi → Nyingchi (prefecture-level city)
 * Aigun District → Heihe
 * Heihe → Heihe (prefecture-level city)
 * Beilin District, Suihua → Suihua
 * Suihua → Suihua (prefecture-level city)
 * Ningjiang District → Songyuan
 * Songyuan → Songyuan (prefecture-level city)
 * Taobei District → Baicheng
 * Baicheng → Baicheng (prefecture-level city)
 * Taocheng District → Hengshui
 * Hengshui → Hengshui (prefecture-level city)
 * Mudan District → Heze
 * Heze → Heze (prefecture-level city)
 * Chengqu, Jincheng → Jincheng
 * Jincheng → Jincheng (prefecture-level city)
 * Yuci District → Jinzhong
 * Jinzhong → Jinzhong (prefecture-level city)
 * Yanhu District → Yuncheng
 * Yuncheng → Yuncheng (prefecture-level city)
 * Xinfu District, Xinzhou → Xinzhou
 * Xinzhou → Xinzhou (prefecture-level city)
 * Yaodu District → Linfen
 * Linfen → Linfen (prefecture-level city)
 * Lishi District → Lüliang
 * Lüliang → Lüliang (prefecture-level city)
 * Horqin District → Tongliao
 * Tongliao → Tongliao (prefecture-level city)
 * Jining District → Ulanqab
 * Ulanqab → Ulanqab (prefecture-level city)
 * Linhe District → Bayannur
 * Bayannur → Bayannur (prefecture-level city)
 * Dongsheng District → Ordos (City)
 * Ordos City → Ordos (prefecture-level city)
 * Liandu District → Lishui
 * Lishui → Lishui (prefecture-level city)
 * Jiaocheng District → Ningde
 * Ningde → Ningde (prefecture-level city)
 * Weidu District → Xuchang
 * Xuchang → Xuchang (prefecture-level city)
 * Hualong District → Puyang
 * Puyang → Puyang (prefecture-level city)


 * Oppose. We only disambiguate with "(prefecture-level city)" when disambiguation is necessary. Just taking one random selection from above, Bayi District and Bayi, Nyingchi are distinct names from Nyingchi – "Bayi" and "Nyingchi" are different enough that they don't require disambiguation. We do have Chengguan District, Lhasa redirecting to Lhasa, but perhaps a better compromise would be Lhasa, Lhasa. That kind of naming is used for some Japanese cities. But the problem with that is that we've got a situation where there is no government-defined boundary for what is commonly understood to be "Lhasa". The consensus has been that the common understanding for "Lhasa" is a small urbanized area. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Haha, Lhasa, Lhasa sounds interesting, i told my friend from Lhasa  is.ok, Chengguan District, Lhasa. And yes, you are right, the problem with that is that we've got a situation where there is no government-defined boundary for what is commonly understood to be "Lhasa". The consensus has been that the common understanding for "Lhasa" is a small urbanized area. I just want to ask, is there government-defined boundary for what is commonly understood to be "Samzhubzê". Can the consensus also be that the common understanding for "Samzhubzê" is a small urbanized area. Can we discuss the city one by one, i do not expect you are in favor of my proposal, i just want more people to come and discuss. Jiangyu911 (talk) 17:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I see: this diff is illuminating. Right, perhaps such a large multiple move request wasn't the best idea here; I can see where this particular city is a good one for discussion as it, like Lhasa, was recently "upgraded" from a county-level to a prefecture-level city, and it's also on the other end of a rail line from Lhasa. An argument for Lhasa being done that way was that, as a well-known "world-famous" city and tourist destination, it was of such significance as to be a valid exception to the general naming conventions. Perhaps Xigazê does not rise to that level of significant notability, but I see your point. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Chinese geo-political administrative boundaries do not conform to western concepts of city (urban centre), counties and districts. It is futile to try to rename everything in China to fit in with our way of thinking. It breaks the concept of common names as people generally use the prefecture name to refer to the whole prefecture and at the same time, to refer to the urban centre within that prefecture. Districts in China do not match up with urban centres either. Neither when there are several districts within a prefecture or when there is only one. The common name of the district is the district name, not the name of the urban centre within it. If you want to change this then you should petition the Government in Beijing not here. Our job is to duplicate what is used in the world, not to decide what the world should be like and attempt to impose that naming convention onto others. For example: Xigazê's urban centre is a small place within the considerably bigger Samzhubzê District. When people talk about Xigazê then either mean Xigazê Prefecture or Xigazê urban centre. They don't talk about Xigazê and mean Samzhubzê county and when they say Samzhubzê county they mean the county around Xigazê not the city. Confusingly people often talk about cities in China meaning both the Prefecture and the urban centre at exactly the same time. That is the difficult thing for a westerner to understand. To Chinese thinking, Xigazê Prefecture and Xigazê urban centre are not two different things, but rather two aspects of the same entity. There is only one Xigazê and thus no need to disambiguate it with anything. It is exactly the same with every other city/prefecture-level-city in China irrespective of how many counties or districts they might be divided into. Rincewind42 (talk) 09:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Is Lhasa not the same situation? Why Lhasa replace the name of the urban centre,Xigazê not. Jiangyu911 (talk) 17:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * BTW, can you please tell me which proposal you oppose, or both. Jiangyu911 (talk) 17:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I oppose Lhasa → Chengguan District, Lhasa, Samzhubzê District → Xigazê,  etc. as detailed in the proposal above. I have no idea what your proposal No.2 means. Who is referred to in "your move" and what was that move or would that move entail. No details are provided. Really, this requested move template should be used to make a survey of one proposal (though may cover multiple articles). You should open a discussion and gain a consensus on one of the two proposals before making a requested move template survey for one and only one proposal or, been explicit in detailing both proposals in full. I therefore oppose proposal 2 as it is inadequately defined in the current format. Without clear proposals I favour leaving this just as they are right now with no change. Also please note that WP:RMCM says "before requesting very large multi-moves, consider whether a naming convention should be changed first. Discuss that change on the talk page for the naming convention." Thus this discussion should be curtailed and restarted at Naming conventions (Chinese) where it will attract a significantly larger audience of interested and informed editors. Rincewind42 (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "Your move" refer to the move of Chengguan District to Lhasa and Lahsa to Lahsa (prefecture-lever city). I would like either to undo this or let all other "prefecture-lever cities" to follow this. I do not know if you have idea of what is a chinese "city", but in this case "Lahsa" is exactlly the same as Xigazê, Turpan, Weinan (which is my home city), Yan'an, and more than 20 other cities.The only issue here is that Lahsa is "famous" to you English-speaking community and you do not care where is Weinan or Zhumadian or Lishui. I would say Lahsa is just one of the many chinese prefecture-lever cities, just because its famous, you could say that "Chengguan District" is Lahsa. If Chengguan District is Lahsa, why is Linwei District not Weinan, why can i not do the move above(from the 3. move on). Can someone answer this. I think I have made myself very clearly, i now give up, I will not be involved in this issue any more, The English Wikipedia is too complicated for me as i do not speak and understand that well, i'd better go back to the Chinese Wikipedia to have fun. After all, thanks for discussing and welcome to visit Tibet, China. The place is fascinating. Jiangyu911 (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * In principle support In Chinese usage, a city name is used primarily for the urban centre, and less commonly for the much larger prefecture which usually contains some rural counties. I don't understand User:Rincewind42's argument of "Chinese thinking" being different from the west (in his word, "us"). On Wikipedia Detroit is reserved for the urban center, because it's WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. But when some Americans talk about Detroit they mean Metro Detroit, and what makes you think that Americans can all tell the difference between Detroit and Metro Detroit, while Chinese cannot tell the difference between Xigazê Prefecture and Xigazê urban centre? A person from urban Detroit will cheer for Detroit Pistons even though he is keenly aware the Pistons actually play in Auburn Hills, Michigan, a different city and virtually impossible for him to get to without transportation (~10 hours on foot, and many of the people who live in urban Detroit don't have cars.) Timmyshin (talk) 20:50, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The proposals above are akin to arguing that Wayne County, Michigan should redirect to Detroit. There is Detroit and there is Metro Detroit but neither of them coincides with Wayne County, Michigan. Similarly, no concept of Lhasa coincides with the bounderies of Chengguan District, Lhasa. No reputable sources refer to Chengguan District, Lhasa as Lhasa. In short, Chengguan District, Lhasa is not Lhasa. It is neither the prefecture nor is it the build up city centre, but something in between. The key difference between Lhasa and Detroit is that is that [Metro Detroit] is a loosely defined area with arguable boundaries where as Lhasa prefecture is precisely defined but Lhasa built up center is a loose concept with boundaries that would be defined only in the imagination of the wiki editor who wrote the article. It is precisely because the the concept of Lhasa as a build up center is loose that we are having this debate about changing that Lhasa means.


 * Since you want clarification about what I mean by "Chinese thinking" and "western thinking". What I mean, is you can't use examples of Western geographic conventions - such as how Detroit, London, Paris or New York names work - to understand how Chinese cities are named or defined. Discussing Detroit gets us nowhere in regard to discussing Lhasa. For example, If a plane crashed 20 km form Detroit city centre, you would write "a plane crashed near Detroit. However, if a plane crashed 20 km form Lhasa city centre, Chinese press would write "a plane crashed in Lhasa." If a plane crashed in the mountains of Chengguan District, Lhasa, outside the built up centre, you might write "a plane crashed in Lhasa," (meaning the prefecture) or, "a plane crashed Chengguan District near Lhasa," (meaning the built up centre) but you would not write "a plane crashed in'' Lhasa," while meaning the urban built up center because the plane didn't crash in the urban built center area. Thus I oppose the suggestion that Lhasa → Chengguan District, Lhasa because Lhasa =/= Chengguan District, Lhasa. Rincewind42 (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2015 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Lhasa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060813083109/http://www.lasa.gov.cn:80/gb1/index.php?option=com_content to http://www.lasa.gov.cn/gb1/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=30
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090706045322/http://lhasabeerusa.com:80/beer-d/the-brewery to http://www.lhasabeerusa.com/beer-d/the-brewery

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

IPA Pronunciation
Please add an IPA pronunciation as "Lhasa" has no obvious pronunciation. Dr. British12 (talk) 18:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It’s actually on the page, but it’s not in a place where most readers would find it: you have to scroll down the long series of boxes on the right hand to the bottom, where it says “Tibetan name”. Then, under transcriptions hit “Show”. The last item on the list is the IPA. That’s for the standard Tibetan pronunciation of the name (which has two variants). It’s pronounced differently in English or Chinese. Should we add one of the Tibetan pronunciations to the lede paragraph? – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 16:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)