Talk:Lianjiang County

-- Lianjiang and Lienchiang are just different romanizations for the same county, which is divided between two governments. I think it would be less confusing if the articles were merged, preferably to Lianjiang since there is already a Matsu Islands article, and Kinmen and Quemoy are not separate articles. --Jiang 22:00 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * This is what went thru my mind when I made the new article for Lianjiang not under the existing Lienchiang:


 * Lienchiang is Matsu and Lianjiang is not Matsu completely, so Lianjiang is not Lienchiang completely


 * The division of the county between 2 government leads to 2 articles is like China's division between 2 government leads to 2 articles (note that officially, they both call themselves China, it's just they have different official names).


 * ... (Rest moved to Talk:Matsu Islands)

Why is Lienchiang merged here? I thought we agreed to merge it into Matsu Islands. (As you suggested me to do in the above moved disc, after I said I would on your Talk.) --Menchi 01:02 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * I tried to merge whatever is relevant into both--some political information needed to be incorporated into Lianjiang to demonstrate that it is a divided county. Treating Lienchiang and Lianjiang as if they were counties with different names is misleading. I thought it would be better to slightly overlap... --Jiang 01:16 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * True, overlap of information is sometimes helpful, especially a reminder in a summary. But you just copy-&-pasted entire stuff here that is just repetition. They can be easily viewed on Matsu Islands. For example, some of them aren't even appropriate here:


 * Township list works only in ROC Lienchiang County. PRC Lianjiang County officially only recognizes Mazu Xiang, the Mazu Townships, not the four townships in the ROC Lienchiang.
 * Placing the ROC Lienchiang Official site here is like putting up the ROC website in the PRC article. Maybe it's for comparison, but you could've just go to the ROC article.
 * Traditional character isn't found on the PRC current political page, nor should it here. Those characters are in the ROC Lienchiang article (now Matsu).


 * --Menchi 01:21 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * My point is that Lienchiang and Lianjiang are the exact same name and this should be made clear. (The ROC and PRC have different names, and thus different acronyms and distinctions.) What counts is that the Chinese is same--the English romanization is non-official and depends on the person translating it. Although we can treat these two as separate counties because they function as such, saying that mainland=Lianjiang and Matsu=Lienchiang is misleading. It tells the reader that these two counties don't have the same name, which is not the case in Chinese--where it counts! I tried to incorporate some of ROC-side Lienchiang into the Lianjiang article to make it clear that it is a divided county (or two counties with the same name), not two counties with different names. This needs to be clear! --Jiang 01:38 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * Yes, the romanization is merely a coat that the characters wear. In PY, LJ = Matsu AND LJ = Mainland, in Wade, LC = Matsu AND LC = Mainland. But people don't use them like that. Whether the characters are the same or not is not of most English speakers' concerns. Whether they should be or not is another matter.


 * The very 1st sentence in the intro in both Lienchiang and Lianjiang state explicitly that LC is Wade and LJ is PY.
 * I think you missed the fact that ROC's English placenames are officially spelled in Wade-Giles. It's like a person calling Kaohsiung "Gaoxiong". That's why for Kaohsiung, it's Kaohsiung, not Gaoxiong.


 * In any case, now Lienchiang is merged both with Matsu and Lianjiang! It's like telling your teen to dress warm ten times a day and don't expect them to get annoyed.


 * --Menchi 01:50 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Actually, the ROC made Tongyong Pinyin the official romanization system so the official romanization would be the same as Hanyu Pinyin: Lianjiang. It is only spelled Lienchiang because this new system hasn't caught on yet. Will it ever? If the government website finally decided to switch over, we would send ourselves scrambling...

My point is that we need to emphasize that the two names are the same with just different romanizations and that it is a historic county divided into two. Since they are administered separately, they can be treated as separate counties (but there needs to be a note on both articles with a link to the other). In any case, treating Lienchiang and Lianjiang as different names is too confusing and misleading. I don't see any problem with noteing both sides on the Lianjiang article and devoting the Matsu article to just Matsu (and its governing county with overlap). Why leave things out? --Jiang 02:06 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * I guess having an entire township listed isn't common, but parallels do exist as the Canadian provinces listed both on Canada and on Canadian provinces and territories. I mean, in those places, it's actually different, one having more details than the other. My concern is overdo something by repeating it. But I suppose just a list of four item won't hurt. :-) --Menchi 02:15 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * Ok, so is Lienchiang going to redirect to Matsu Islands? --Jiang 08:45 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * That was what we agreed in the moved dicussion. --Menchi 13:30 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

-

Native terms & Romanizations
Made the Romanizations accurate and used the latest -- several month-old, however -- Korean format (e.g., Gang Hong-rip) because the original format became this:


 * Lianjiang (Traditional: &#36899;&#27743;; Simplified: &#36830;&#27743;; Pinyin: Liánji&#257;ng; Wade-Giles: Lien²-chiang¹) is a county...

As opposed to the Korean format, which makes this case more concise:


 * Lianjiang (&#36899;&#27743;; &#36830;&#27743;; Liánji&#257;ng; Lien²-chiang¹) is a county...

Other articles on China needn't be converted so in my opinion, since they actually already look quite concise the way they are now. (For Naming conventions (Korean) see more on the Korean system.)

--Menchi 23:47 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * Let's bring the issue at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese). there may be some confusion in the people don't necessarily put their mouse over the hyperlinked characters and won't know that one is traditional and the other is simplified. --Jiang 23:52 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * Sure, I was thinking we could collaborate with the Koreans and amature/professioanl Koreanologists on reaching, but currently, there's really not many of them at all. So I guess we are on our own... Me, you, kt2 (currently gone), and.. and... and?!?


 * Going to that Talk page and leave a note now.


 * --Menchi 00:01 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Call to rename:
So there are 2 Lianjiang counties: one under the PRC and the other under the ROC control: y dont we rename both?

Lianjiang County, People's Republic of China and Lianjiang County, Republic of China

Hanyu Pinyin is now the legal standard in the ROC, the same as in the PRC...

Mazu is not an official name, its just the common name...

We have Taiwan Province (ROC) and Taiwan Province PRC

Just now i watched: wiki this: "Taoyuan County": it shows 2 taoyuan counties: both reflect a geographical differentiator in their name (Taiwan and Hunan, shouldnt we follow that?

Gumuhua (talk) 18:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lianjiang County. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150206204915/http://www.fjfqsz.com/Article_Print.asp?ArticleID=1301 to http://www.fjfqsz.com/Article_Print.asp?ArticleID=1301
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030820085157/http://www.fjta.com/fuzhou/lianjiang/ to http://www.fjta.com/fuzhou/lianjiang/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC)