Talk:Xiandai Hanyu Cidian

Date of first edition
First published in 1978 (not 1977; in fact, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences itself was not established until May 1977). Would someone correct this, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.13.66.89 (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You've already done it! My 1983 edition says first published December 1978. The preface confirms the other changes you made -- thanks! BabelStone (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Xiandai Hanyu Cidian. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20120901105030/http://www.bbc.co.uk:80/zhongwen/simp/chinese_news/2012/07/120718_china_new_dictionary.shtml to http://www.bbc.co.uk/zhongwen/simp/chinese_news/2012/07/120718_china_new_dictionary.shtml
 * Added tag to http://english.cssn.cn/8204/820402/201207/t20120724_254033.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:51, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Xiandai Hanyu Cidian. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20100529071209/http://www.cp.com.cn:80/xh/ to http://www.cp.com.cn/xh/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Copying instead of moving to A Dictionary of Current Chinese
It seems this page was copied instead of moved to its new location which collides with our CC BY-SA 3.0 License, as there is now no attribution to all its original authors in the version history. Another negative side effect of this procedure is that the watchlists of the old page's watchers don't get updated. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, if there is consensus to move the article to a new title, the page should be moved according to Wikipedia procedure. I have therefore undone the copy move. BabelStone (talk) 18:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 14 January 2021

 * 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Relisted but not activity for past week; there is consensus to move, but not consensus on what the new title should be. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 14:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Xiandai Hanyu Cidian → The Contemporary Chinese Dictionary – It is the official English name. Konno  Yumeto  05:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. Natg 19 (talk) 10:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Move somewhere else, either to or . The leading "the" doesn't match up with reliable sources.  O.N.R.  (talk) 19:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support a move based on reliable secondary sources in English. Andrewa (talk) 18:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Also, “The” is part of the official title (see Naming_conventions_(definite_or_indefinite_article_at_beginning_of_name)%23Titles_of_works_and_publications). Jerm (talk) 15:51, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Contemporary Chinese Dictionary per I just provided an academic source that doesn't consider "The" in the title. Jerm (talk) 04:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose as proposed. The official name means little if anything here. We go by common names as used by secondary sources. Andrewa (talk) 18:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you provide secondary sources? The proposed name would be the official name but in English translation, and it would be a lot easier to search vs the current title which is just the pronunciation of the Chinese title rendered in English lettering. Jerm (talk) 23:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It is up to the proposer and supporters of a move to provide these. Perhaps I didn't make that clear above. Until and unless they are provided, there should be no move. I agree that a move of some sort is probably justified, but the current proposal gives no valid rationale, and nor does your !vote supporting it. Arguments based on the official name and other primary sources are discardable. Andrewa (talk) 02:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The amazon link provided by the RM initiator clearly provides the English translation along with the published English title and reference #1 in the article. This is clearly the English Wikipedia, not the Chinese Wikipedia. You got any legitimate arguments? Jerm (talk) 02:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is English Wikipedia, but article titles such as laissez-faire are still used too. So I think that line of argument collapses.
 * I think that the amazon link to which you refer is a primary source. You disagree I take it? On what basis? Andrewa (talk) 04:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The English translation is obviously going to be the English common name vs the original edition which is the common name for Chinese readers. Jerm (talk) 04:19, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Not true. It may also be the common name, but we need evidence. Andrewa (talk) 09:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll also add the following academic source that mentions the English title: — Jerm (talk) 04:38, 31 January 2021


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.