Talk:Zuowanglun

Unexplained changes
Hello,. My Watchlist shows that you've been editing many pages to which I've contributed, and thanks for your constructive edits such as adding short descriptions. However, I'm curious why you've been systematically changing Dao to Tao, and mutatis mutanda the related terms (all of which are free variants). Please explain why.

Also, as you probably know MOS:QUOTE and MOS:PMC require that quoted text should be faithfully reproduced. Would you please revert the changes from Dao- to Tao- in the quotes here (trKohn2008_1310 and Kohn|2010|p=61), here (Kohn|2010|p=1), and here (Kohn|2010|p=68). I'm not sure how many other misquotation examples there already are. Thanks, Keahapana (talk) 22:03, 15 December 2022 (UTC)


 * @Keahapana Taoism is more commonly use in English, I notice that many articles have mixture of Taoism and Daoism. I'm trying to standardise the usage. Dao can be use in Chinese direct translation like "Daoshi", and Taoism or Taoist can be use as more standard term. Dhammapala Tan (talk) 22:16, 19 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Consistency explains that WP conventions only require standardizing usage across article titles. Within an article, the only necessary uniformity is for the variety of English, date format, citation format, etc.; these conventions prevent endless edit-warring, such as changing "standardise" to the more common "standardize" and back again. In regard to Taoism and Daoism, MOS:CHINESE says "Consistency of language across all articles is not a requirement of Wikipedia. It is also not necessary that a single article use one term consistently over the other." Unfortunately, many of the WP articles you've changed to Taoism already regularly used Daoism, and should be restored back. For more information, see Daoism–Taoism romanization issue and the perennial requested moves on Talk:Taoism in 2006, 2008, and 2022. Best wishes, Keahapana (talk) 00:38, 21 December 2022 (UTC)