Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/Archive 11

Emperors' names (again)
I brought this up a few years ago and got mostly shot down, but I still find it irritating, so how about I try again. Emperor Wu of Han and similar is just an awful format. The form ought to be Han Wudi, and similar, for the emperors before the Ming Dynasty (using temple or posthumous names as appropriate). The only argument given against this is that this form does not make it clear that the person is an emperor, which still seems completely ridiculous to me - a vast number of article titles on monarchs do not make clear that the person is a monarch. Why is Saladin or Ashoka or Charles the Bold or Bhumibol Adulyadej acceptable, but Han Wudi is not? The place to make clear that someone is an emperor, or the meaning of their name, is the article itself, not the title. Emperor Wu of Han is awkward and ugly, and furthermore is an awkward partial translation which implies that "Wu" is a proper name, when in fact it is a posthumous description ("martial"). What is the advantage of this system, besides inertia? john k (talk) 12:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * 'Emperor Wu of Han' being 'ugly' or not is entirely up to your own views and POV, not everyone thinks of it as so. 'Emperor Wu of Han' is a fully appropriate translation for the Chinese name 'Han Wudi'.  The 'examples' you've given us are the said subjects' own actual names, nothing 'temple' or 'post-humous' about them.  'Emperor Wu of Han' would be the respective counterparts to 'Charles the Bold'.  The only 'post-humous' name of Wudi is 'Wu'.  'Han' signifies the empire's name, 'Di' means emperor, so 'Han Wudi' in English would be 'Emperor Wu of Han' or 'Han Emperor Wu'.Liu Tao (talk) 16:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a tricky case. Certainly I have not seen the convention "Emperor Wu of Han" used anywhere but Wikipedia, yet the names of most of these 'great' Chinese emperors are so obscure to most English speakers it seems as though that it doesn't matter that much what the "correct" transliteration is. I personally would opt for "Han Wudi" purely for the convenience of researchers and general interest readers. The current format certainly does not sit so well with non-Han Chinese run dynasties such as the Liao, Jin, and Yuan. Those rulers would probably flip in their graves if they found out that they were being named by some artificial Chinese standard which is subsequently translated literally into English. Colipon+ (Talk) 14:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Not really, I mean they're the ones who named their repective states 'Liao', 'Jin', and 'Yuan'. Actually, that's just the characters they used to name their respective states and blah blah blah.  Regardless, the Yuan Emperors don't exclusively follow this standard, take Temür Khan, Emperor Chengzong of Yuan, they listed his Mongolian title than his Chinese title as emperor.  As for Liao and Jin, well their names are in the 'Wu of Han' format with their true names listed below, but I don't think renaming 'Emperor Taizu of Liao' to 'Liao Taizu' and 'Emperor Taizu of Jin' to 'Jin Taizu' would make it any different.  Still means the same thing, just that the title is now a fully transliterated version instead of a translated version of the original Chinese title.  Liu Tao (talk) 15:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Part 1
I have had an interesting and friendly discussion with other editors on the talk page of the article now called "Standard Mandarin" in which I have asked for sources on what the language described in that article (the official language currently promoted in the mainland region of China, in Taiwan, and in Singapore) should be named in English. That is with a view of making the title of the article here on Wikipedia the common English term for that specific language, as fits the Wikipedia guidelines for naming articles. I am opening this discussion here as a courtesy to other editors to make sure all sources are discussed before deciding what to do with the name of the article. Thanks for any references to reliable sources that you can provide. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 14:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I mean they both refer to the same thing, I don't see a problem with either renaming or not. Both links to the same page.  Liu Tao (talk) 16:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The concern among some of the editors over on that article's article talk page has been how to edit the lede sentence of the article, to take into account varying names for the language. I think that issue may be easier to deal with if the article is named Modern Standard Chinese. If the change is made, I will check for redirects and explanatory sections of other articles that refer to the same article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 17:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Check course catalogs of major English speaking universities for RS to see what they call the language. Check the textbooks they use as well. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * Well, Modern Standard Chinese if you want to look at it literally refers to the current Standardised Chinese Language. It can refer to ANY of the currently standardised Chinese languages.  There's standardised Cantonese, Standardised Mandarin, etc etc.  Standard Mandarin refers to Standard Mandarin.  Now that you mentioned it, there actually is a difference.  Liu Tao (talk) 17:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Nobody with any knowledge of the issue would ever refer to Cantonese as Modern Standard Chinese. Cantonese may be standardized, and is a form of Chinese, but is not generally referred to as Chinese (singular). SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * Correct. The reference sources I have checked (which agree with the reference sources mentioned by another editor on the article talk page) use the term "Modern Standard Chinese" solely for the language described by the article, noting that it is a form of Mandarin Chinese. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That doesn't mean we should promote an inaccurate term. We all know that 'Standard Mandarin' or 'Standard Mandarin Chinese' works, and not only does it work, but it's also accurate.  There is no need to change 'Standard Mandarin' to 'Modern Standard Chinese'.  The change is pointless as well as being less accurate.  Liu Tao (talk) 23:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * What is your basis (that is, what sources agree with you?) for saying that it would be less accurate to name that article about that language "Modern Standard Chinese" rather than the name "Standard Mandarin"? Remember, this is an English-language encyclopedia that uses common English names for articles. (It may be of interest to note that the interwiki link from that article leads to http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%8F%BE%E4%BB%A3%E6%A8%99%E6%BA%96%E6%BC%A2%E8%AA%9E 現代標準漢語], which of course is the term "Modern Standard Chinese" in the Chinese language.) -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 04:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Renaming it to Standard Modern Chinese or Standard Chinese (See discussion, a user provided several linguistic sources that prefer the term "Standard Chinese") can still leave room for ambiguity. I slightly disagree with SchmuckyTheCat, in that I think many English speakers, when asked about "Chinese" as a language, do understand it could possibly be referring to Mandarin, or Cantonese or other varieties of Chinese.  However, when asked about the term "Mandarin" in English, 99% of the time, it is referring to this "Standard Mandarin".  So perhaps the more fitting argument is, why not move Standard Mandarin to "Mandarin Chinese"?  Because that maybe the most familiar term to most English speakers when it comes to this language.  There's a lot of room for arguments and there could be many different naming propositions on this case.  I don't think the article Standard Mandarin should be renamed to Standard Chinese, or others.  I think the best solution is probably WeijiBaikeBianji's original edit, move the title Standard Modern Chinese to the opening paragraph to emphasize on its relevance.--TheLeopard (talk) 10:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "many English speakers, when asked about "Chinese" as a language, do understand it could possibly be referring to Mandarin, or Cantonese or other varieties of Chinese."
 * many could understand that if they have ever been exposed to any descriptions of the Chinese language(s), but 'most do not, because they have not had that exposure. When a lay reader asks Wikipedia about "the language they speak in China" the first term they'll use is Chinese language. There may be some ambiguity about the meaning of Chinese language but that article is not about Mandarin. Modern Standard Chinese; however, is Mandarin. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * There is still not a strong enough reason to change the name of the article from 'Mandarin Chinese' to 'Modern Standard Chinese'. If they are trying to look up the 'Chinese Language' and get directed to the Chinese language article, they can deduce from the article that Mandarin Chinese or Standard Mandarin is what they're looking for.  I've taken a look at the article, and it is somewhat ambiguous on what is the 'Official Dialect', but that can be fixed with a simple hapnote.  We are not here to hold their hands and lead them to the articles that they are looking for.  We tell em what they're looking for, where it is, and have them go there themselves.  If they can't do that, then it means that they are inept or just plain lazy, neither of which is not our problem.
 * And your reasonings are based on the assumption that they don't know the different varieties of Chinese. Sure, it's true that many English speakers who don't know that there are varieties, but there are also many English speakers who do know of the varieties.
 * As for 'the language they speak in China', they speak dozens of languages in China. You've got Cantonese in Guangdong, Zhuang in Guangxi, Min in Fukien, Wu in Jiangsu, Guizhouhua in Guizhou, etc etc.
 * Sure, you have to read a couple paragraphs before you can dig out the sentence: Standard Mandarin is the official language of the People's Republic of China (PRC) and the Republic of China (ROC, also known as Taiwan), as well as one of four official languages of Singapore. I do agree that's a bit on the extreme side of having to do so much reading before finally finding the article you're looking for, but as I've said, a simple hapnote will do the trick.  Hapnotes are at the very top of the articles in italics explaining to people what the article they are at is talking about, if the readers fails to read the hapnote, again as I've said it's not our problem, they're the ones with poor reading methods.  Even if they choose to skip the hapnotes, it shouldn't take long before finding out that the article isn't what they're looking for, go back up and take a look at the hapnotes.  If they still fail to do that, I don't know what to say about them, we put up hapnotes and they just skipped them.  You don't blame traffic control for people ignoring the stop signs.  The fault is at the readers, not the editors.  If there is a problem, a hapnote should be sufficient.  Liu Tao (talk) 00:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * To answer TheLeopard's thoughtfully posed question, the basis for renaming the article Standard Mandarin to Modern Standard Chinese is to situate it among the other Wikipedia articles about various varieties of Chinese languages or language groups. If there were only an article Mandarin Chinese (as there is), then if that article discussed the particular variety of Mandarin Chinese that is now set as the standard language of China and other places, I don't think any editor would have a problem with that. It is the (useful, in my opinion) current condition of treating the standard national language in a separate article that prompts my interest in seeing that that article, which is interesting and well written, has the title that best fits Wikipedia rules on article titles. The Wikipedia rules on article titles refer to common English usage and also to usage in other encyclopedias and published reference works. Soon I should summarize the evidence Taivo and other editors have found both on this page and back on the talk page of the article, to verify the balance of the evidence on how that language is named in English. Thanks for your comments. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 17:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As everyone can see, I've been away from this friendly discussion for a week, so I didn't call for a wrap-up of the discussion. Now does anyone object, with some of the sources having been cited, to changing the name of the article to "Modern Standard Chinese," which would be parallel to the Chinese name of the corresponding Chinese Wikipedia article and in agreement with the majority of the English-language reference books on the subject? I can make the change, with appropriate redirects and very light rewriting of the article lede, if that matches the consensus here. And I'm willing to discuss further, if editors have other sources or other Wikipedia policies we should keep in mind. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 20:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. Objections.  No consensus have been made to move the article "Standard Mandarin" to "Modern Standard Chinese".  And definitely not enough editors' inputs, and none from editors of WikiProject China.  Many of the sources listed on this talk page (and stated by User:Taivo as well) equally mentions "Standard Chinese" as the common name used by these authors.  Ethnologue also listed on its page  that "Standard Chinese" is a common name, along with Mandarin, Putonghua, Guoyu, etc.  So shouldn't it be "Standard Chinese" if it needs to be renamed?   I think there should be major consensus if this article needs to be moved, as it can change many things on China related articles on English Wikipedia.--TheLeopard (talk) 00:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There have historically been several lects that served as Standard Chinese, which is why many authors add "Modern" to it. However, there probably isn't much chance of ambiguity here on WP, so that might not be necessary for us. (You often also see "Modern Standard Hindi", which AFAIK makes no difference at all.) IMO that's a 2ary question: (1) do we move to some form of SC, and if yes, (2) which form? — kwami (talk) 01:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, "modern" is probably not necessary for it on Wikipedia, as given in the example of "Modern Standard Hindi", which is simply Standard Hindi on Wikipedia.--TheLeopard (talk) 02:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, let's list sources here, and see what distinctions the sources are making. (In other words, depending on what other languages the sources are trying to distinguish from the language described in the article, there may be some differences in what specificity of terminology the sources adopt.) On the issue of whether "modern" is necessary, one thought is that if Classical Chinese is considered part of the historical context, it was plainly a standard form of speech (although only reflected in writings, fortunately including rhymed poetry and reference books on pronunciation, but not in sound recordings) and also very plainly a different language from the standard language of today, thus "Modern Standard Chinese" as the preferred term in several reference books to refer to the current standard language that the article is about. Here are some sources I have found that are different from those found by Taivo (mentioned on the article talk page):

Let's look at sources carefully and see what the sources confirm as the English name of the specific language mentioned in the article. P.S. I have just put a pointer to this discussion (and to the article talk page discussion) on the WikiProject China discussion page, as TheLeopard helpfully suggested. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 16:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And there are also sources that uses Standard Mandarin. Sure, sources that use 'Modern Standard Chinese' exists, but on the other hand sources that uses 'Standard Mandarin' exists as well.  It has also already been established within Wikipedia that 'Chinese' refers to the 'language family' as a whole.  To rename it as 'Modern Standard Chinese' would be to say that Mandarin is the Standardised language for the entire family.  This is an entirely different situation than Classical Chinese.  Classical Chinese is more a standalone 'language' within the Chinese family in the sense that it applies to each and every other 'language'.  Its unique syntax and vocabulary allows for it to 'represent' the script for all the other 'languages' as it can be read in any of the other languages yet still makes sense.
 * And BTW, there's an incorrect statement in the Standard Mandarin article where it says that Modern Standard Chinese is the most commonly used name for this language by English-speaking linguists, and that name also occurs in Chinese as 現代標準漢語 / 现代标准汉语. This is not true, as 漢語 does not equate to 'Chinese', 漢語 equates to 'Mandarin'.  中文 equates to 'Chinese', and 國語 means 'National Language' meaning it can refer to different languages depending on the context used.  Liu Tao (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't care terribly how this turns out (though I favor 'MSC' or 'SC'), but I don't agree with your objection. Mandarin is the standard for all of Chinese. It's the official language of China, Taiwan, and Singapore. When people say that all of Chinese is written the same, they really mean that all Chinese (usually) write in Mandarin. (And, AFAIK, Classical Chinese cannot be read sensibly in the modern languages without the listener being familiar with Classical Chinese. The grammar differs markedly--as much as Mandarin--in many cases.) As long as the official standard of China is Mandarin, then Mandarin is Standard Chinese, just as Roman is Standard Italian. — kwami (talk) 01:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Chinese is a language family composed of multiple languages, each with their own 'standards', it is not a single language. Standard Mandarin is the standard for Mandarin only, not for the entire Chinese languages.  It's the official language of the RoC, PRC, and Singapore, yes, but that just means it's an official language, it does nothing to signify it as the 'standard' for all the other Chinese languages.  Official Language just means it's the language of the state, not the language/family itself.  As for Classical Chinese, as I've said, it's a written language, yet its characters no matter read either in Mandarin, Cantonese, Korean, or Japanese makes the meanings any different.  It doesn't matter how you read it, it still means the same thing.  Obviously you don't understand the concept of Classical Chinese and how it was used throughout its history.  As for the official standard of 'China' being Mandarin, then take Singapore, that means the official 'standard' for the language 'Singaporean' is 'Mandarin' then.  Obviously there's not 'Singaporean' language, your logic makes of no sense.  'China' as the state and 'Chinese' as a 'language' are 2 entirely different things.  Chinese is not the language of China, Chinese is the language family composing of the multiple languages of China.  Liu Tao (talk) 21:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Dialectologically, you're correct. However, sociolinguistically, it's a single language for most Chinese speakers. Hell, even the Zhuang will tell you their language is a Chinese dialect, and it's not even in the same family! Putonghua is the standard for all of Chinese, not just for Mandarin. With the exception of Cantonese (but generally only in HK) and less commonly Taiwanese, written Putonghua is the common written form for speakers of all 'dialects'. — kwami (talk) 21:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Putonghua is the standard for Mandarin in the PRC. Standard MandarinＡＫＡ Guoyu is the standard in the ROC.  There's a difference between Putonghua and Standard Mandarin.  Putonghua is 'common speech', Guoyu is 'national speech'.  There is a difference.  And written mandarin is not a common written form for all 'dialect's, it the written vernacular form for Mandarin.  You can't understand it fully if you don't understand Mandarin.  There's a difference between writing in Mandarin and writing in Cantonese.  Sure, I can understand written Cantonese to a certain extent because I know what the words mean, but I would never be able to fully understand it because I don't speak Cantonese.  Only classical and literary Chinese can be called the 'common form of written Chinese'.  Classical Chinese is neutral in the sense that it means exactly what it says.  Its characters and character usage means the same no matter what 'dialect' or 'language' you read it in, be it Mandarin, Cantonese, Korean, or Japanese.  Liu Tao (talk) 21:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I see the statement, "漢語 equates to 'Mandarin'." Uh, no. Do you have a Chinese dictionary at hand that says anything of the kind? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 02:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It's common sense, ask anyone what hanyu equates to and they'll tell you. Liu Tao (talk) 21:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "Common sense" is not a WP:Reliable source. 漢語 means "Chinese", which is seen as a single language by most Chinese, even if I would personally disagree. — kwami (talk) 21:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * 'Common sense' is a reliable source if it's common knowledge, I don't need to find a source that says that there are 7 days in a week and 12 months in a year.
 * Anyways, sure people will translate Hanyu as Chinese, but that's just a generalisation, they know what they're talking about, they know the relationship between Mandarin and Chinese, but problem is that a lot of people don't. There are still a lot of foreigners who don't know that Chinese has multiple 'dialects' such as Cantonese and Mandarin and that the 'Chinese' the people speak in HK are different than the 'Chinese' they speak in Beijing.
 * Also, true, most Chinese sees 'Chinese' as a single language, but that's due to political and nationalism reasons. For 'Chinese' to be split into multiple 'languages' would be to 'split' the Chinese peoples.  However, linguistically speaking, most Sinologists and Linguistics will disagree with the notion that Chinese is a single language.  There is not a 'definite' definition for what a language or dialect is.  The 'traditional' notions of what's a language and what's a dialect is done by nations.  Nations who wants to make a 'greater unity' makes all the 'languages' under their rule into 'dialects' of a single 'language'.  Take Ukrainian and Belarussian for example, back in the Russian Empire they were considered to be 'dialects' of the greater Russian Language, now they're considered by the general populace as separate languages.  Take Romance languages, they've all descended from Latin, yet they're all considered to be separate languages, not a 'dialect' of a 'greater Latin language'.  Same with the Chinese 'dialects', they've all descended from a single Middle Chinese Language several hundred years ago, they're as similar to each other as French, Spanish, and Italian are to each other, yet they're regarded as 'dialects', not 'languages'.  Different people have different standards.  Get a Sinologist or a Linguistic Expert and 9 times out of 10 they'll tell you that Chinese is a Language family.  Liu Tao (talk) 21:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The definition of 漢語 can vary into anything. Generally speaking it refers to "Chinese language", which itself has varied definitions. In everyday talk, a Chinese-American mother could say "说汉语" to her son, to get him to speak Mandarin, as there is a national-ethnic blur between Chinese and Mandarin amongst common people, and so the term becomes almost synonymous with 國語. More unrelated, but in Japanese, 漢語 kango refers to the Sino-Japanese vocabulary. I don't see how arguing over the definition of a word denotes the outcome of this proposal; we should be talking about how sinologists and linguists actually classify Mandarin and Chinese instead. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 12:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You wrote, in agreement with another Wikipedian, "we should be talking about how sinologists and linguists actually classify Mandarin and Chinese instead." I am fully agreed with that statement, and that is what I have been doing. I was trained as a linguist and as a sinologist for my undergraduate degree and in post-graduate studies in the Chinese-speaking world. I have (uniquely, I think, in this thread) linked to standard reference books compiled by linguists and sinologists on the issue of what the current standard language promoted in China and elsewhere is called in English. I would be delighted to see citations to sourceswith full bibliographic information, verifiable right down to the page numberon this issue from any participant in this discussion. 學而時習之，不亦說乎？-- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Among English speakers, use of the term "Chinese" to refer to Mandarin is usually in contexts where it's being contrasted with some other (non-Chinese) languages. For instance, "our school offers French, Spanish, German, and Chinese", or "my trip to Shanghai wasn't too bad; I don't speak any Chinese, but everyone there could speak English anyway". In a more academic context, the term "Mandarin" is usually more appropriate&mdash;especially if it's being contrasted with other Chinese languages (as is the case in this encyclopedia, where there are disambiguation pages and stuff, and the article discusses its relationship--both linguistic and sociological--with other Chinese languages). r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 20:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * But we do call it "Mandarin": Mandarin Chinese, Mandarin dialects. I agree that those shouldn't be moved to "Chinese". The question here is rather different: Should the national standard of China be named after China, or after the variety of Chinese it is based on? Standard Italian, after all, is named after the country, not "Standard Tuscan" after the Tuscan language it's based on. That's because it was intended to be the standard language of all of Italy, not just of Tuscany. (Historically there was great rivalry between the various Italian "dialects"; some works are even bilingual.) If Shanghainese had been chosen as the official standard of China, then that would be Standard Chinese, not just "Standard Wu". — kwami (talk) 22:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We have to take Cantonese being called "Chinese" in Hongkong to account, that is the standard Chinese for them. Personally, i don't think a move would be any beneficial. --LLTimes (talk) 22:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Using "Modern Standard Chinese" implies that Mandarin naturally has superiority over all the other Sinic languages. Even though usage is widespread today, Standard Mandarin is based on the Northern dialects of Mandarin, which is a subcategory of Chinese, and was selected and promoted as a National Language (國語, guoyu) by the Republic of China Ministry of Education for political reasons. Denoting that Mandarin is the only correct and standard form of Chinese is borderline POV, and somewhat controversial to some. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 09:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * But it *is* the only standard form of Chinese! Can you give us another? There are a few other literary forms, but none have really been standardized. It's not a matter of superiority, but of political development. — kwami (talk) 09:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What I'm saying that such a rename would equate "Chinese" with "Mandarin", which is not the case. from a mathematical interpretation, the relationship between Chinese and Mandarin should be $$Mandarin \subseteq Chinese$$. But such a rename would instead imply that $$Mandarin = Chinese$$, which is incorrect. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 11:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That doesn't follow. Standard Italian is based on Tuscan, but that does not imply that all of Italian is Tuscan. Standard French is based on Parisian, but that does not imply that all of French is Parisian. Likewise, "Standard Chinese" would only mean the official variety of Chinese. If Shanghainese were chosen as the standard language, that would not create an identity between Wu and Chinese either. — kwami (talk) 12:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Tuscan and Parisian are undisputably dialects. The dialect/language status of Mandarin, Yue, Min, Wuu and Hakka are disputed though. Using "Standard Chinese" for the official variety of Mandarin may cause readers to assume that there is only one widely used variety of Chinese, namely Mandarin. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 12:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

To clarify what I am trying to convey, consider the following points: Where in all cases, $$x \in Sino-TibetanLanguages$$ (the Universal set), where $$x$$ denotes all values within the subset of Chinese as listed above. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 12:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * $$Standard Mandarin \subseteq Mandarin Chinese \subseteq Chinese$$
 * $$Beijing Dialect \subseteq Mandarin Chinese \subseteq Chinese$$
 * $$Standard Cantonese \subseteq Yue Chinese \subseteq Chinese$$
 * $$Yue Chinese \neq Mandarin Chinese $$
 * $$Mandarin Chinese \neq Chinese$$
 * $$Standard Mandarin \neq Chinese$$


 * I still don't think it follows:
 * Standard Chinese ⊂ Mandarin ⊂ Chinese,
 * or,
 * Standard Chinese ⊂ Chinese
 * There really isn't a standardized form of Cantonese, but regardless,
 * Cantonese ⊂ Yue ⊂ Chinese
 * Shanghainese ⊂ Wu ⊂ Chinese
 * So that doesn't equate Chinese with Mandarin, any more than
 * Mandarin ⊂ Chinese
 * equates Chinese with Mandarin. It's
 * Chinese ⊃ Mandarin
 * not
 * Chinese = Mandarin
 * regardless. After all,
 * Standard Italian ⊂ Tuscan ⊂ Italian
 * does not equate Italian with Tuscan, and
 * RP ⊂ Estuary English ⊂ English
 * does not equate English with RP. — kwami (talk) 22:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

This is straight from the CCTV manual. There is CCTV arabic, CCTV english, CCTV many languages. When it gets to CCTV chinese, it is assumed to be mandarin. Benjwong (talk) 02:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you have a link to that, or some published source that's readily available to Wikipedians looking on in this conversation? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 02:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Look into this (兩岸大辭典) instead. Mandarin is recently just beginning to standardize across the strait through a dictionary.  It's big news. You guys are claiming mandarin is standard chinese, when this dialect is not even fully standardized itself. Benjwong (talk) 03:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You do have a point there. But it is standardized within China. — kwami (talk) 06:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Mandarin is standardised alright, but there are two standards. There's the PRC 'putonghua' standard and the ROC 'Guoyu' standard, and the differences lies more amongst vocabularies (eg. tomato) and a few minor tones (eg. shenme vs sheme).


 * Yes, but that is true regardless of whether we call it "Standard Mandarin" or "Standard Chinese".
 * It's not that big a deal; we have two terms which are in common use. However, I don't understand some of the opposition, some of which is downright silly, such as "We are here to speak English". Huh? Several of the other arguments are utterly irrelevant. There are plenty of opinions on both sides; can't we stick to ones that actually address the issue? (Sorry, that wasn't addressed to you, whoever you are, just a complaint about the generally poor quality of the reasoning.) — kwami (talk) 20:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You refer to it as 'Standard Chinese', those of us who watches what we say and makes the distinction use 'Standard Mandarin' and 'Standard Chinese' with their respective and correct definitions. Sure, I know the fact that colloquially 'Standard Chinese' and 'Standard Mandarin' are the same thing, but I also know that 'Standard Mandarin' is the more accurate and correct term.  Liu Tao (talk) 13:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no difference between "Standard Chinese" and "Standard Mandarin" in English except that the language is nearly always called some combination of "(Modern) (Standard) Chinese". Wikipedia's WP:NCON requirements are quite clear--use the most common English terms for article titles.  --Taivo (talk) 15:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You mean there's no difference between 'Standard Chinese' and 'Standard Mandarin' in colloquial English. Obviously there's a difference when it comes to the terms 'Mandarin' and 'Chinese', so when you analyse the 2 terms, there's a difference.  Liu Tao (talk) 17:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes, of course there's a difference between the terms when we're talking about the spoken language--"Mandarin" is one of the constituent elements of the "Chinese" group in a linguistic sense. And, you are right, colloquially, the terms "Mandarin" and "Chinese" are identical in terms of the spoken language.  But the formal, standard language is overwhelmingly called "Chinese" in English.  This article is very clearly oriented toward the standardized national language, not the localized spoken variety called "Mandarin".  Thus, "(Modern) (Standard) Chinese" is a more appropriate title on that basis as well.  --Taivo (talk) 18:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Standard Mandarin is not a 'localised variety' of anything. Tell me exactly what local region speaks 'Standard Mandarin' as their mother-tongue?  What region is Standard Mandarin tied to?  Don't even think about uttering the words 'Beijing', because Standard Mandarin is not 'from' Beijing.  It's based off of the Beijing dialect, but there still are many differences between the two in terms of vocabulary, slang, word usage, and pronunciation.  Standard Mandarin is not a localised language, it is the standardised 'variety' of Mandarin and only mandarin, not the entire Chinese language/language family as a whole.  Cantonese has their own standardisation, Hokken has their own standardisation; by no means is Standard Mandarin is the 'standard' for Cantonese and Hokken.  And also, you have neglected to recall the fact that Cantonese and Hokken are also 'overwhelmingly' referred to as 'Chinese' as well in the context of them being a language/dialect of the Chinese language/language family.  Ask anyone if Cantonese is Chinese, and I'd bet you that 9 out of 10 of those who knows what Cantonese is will say 'yes', and two-thirds of them will say that it's a dialect or language of the Chinese language/language family, and of those who are Chinese will give you a lecture about how Cantonese is a 'dialect' or 'language' of the Chinese language/language family.  Liu Tao (talk) 18:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I never said that "Standard Mandarin" was a localized variety. Read my comment again.  "Standard Mandarin" does not equal "Mandarin".  I very carefully was talking about spoken Mandarin, not "Standard Mandarin".  "Standard Mandarin" is exactly the same thing as "(Modern) (Standard) Chinese", it is the national language, Putonghua.  In common English usage, per WP:NCON, the standardized national language is called "(Modern) (Standard) Chinese", not "Standard Mandarin".  "Mandarin" (without the "Standard") is the localized variety of spoken Chinese in the north.  --Taivo (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You said that Mandarin is a localised language, so by logic, Standardised Mandarin would be the standardised form of a localised language, that's the same thing as saying that Standardised Mandarin is a localised language except that you chose to approach it indirectly. Also, wrong again about Mandarin.  Mandarin is not 'localised', and it definitely is not only present in the north.  Every single region has its own 'dialect' of Mandarin.  The south has their own regional dialects (southwest, jiangsu, zhejiang, etc) and same with the north.  Putonghua is the name of the Standard Mandarin used by the PRC.  In common English usage, '(Modern) (Standard) Chinese' is not the 'only' common English term, 'Standard Mandarin' or 'Standard Mandarin Chinese' is also common as well.  Who's to say that whcih term is the 'standard' of common English?  Didn't we just previously establish that colloquially 'Standard Mandarin' and 'Standard Chinese' are used synonymously?  Liu Tao (talk) 21:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect about usage in English of "(Modern) (Standard) Chinese" versus "Standard Mandarin" in English. "Chinese" is found in the literature on Putonghua 10-20 times more commonly than "Standard Mandarin".  I put together a long list of references back at Talk:Standard Mandarin that illustrated this conclusively.  It's child's play to demonstrate.  The most common English name for the national language of China is "(Modern) (Standard) Chinese" and "Mandarin" is only used primarily for the variety of Chinese spoken outside the Wu, Min, Yue, etc. areas.  It is equal to the other varieties and is not used as a term for the national variety except in very hyper-correct formats.  Putonghua is overwhelmingly called "Chinese" in English.  --Taivo (talk) 03:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * And 'Cantonese' is also overwhelmingly called 'Chinese'. "What language is he speaking?  He's speaking Chinese".  The term 'Chinese' can be used to refer to any of the varieties of 'Chinese', it's done all the time.  If I have a square, I can call it a quadrilateral and it'd still be correct, despite the fact that in Geometry textbooks it tends to show a quadrilateral as a shape with different angles at each corner.  Also, Mandarin is spoken EVERYWHERE in China, including Wu, Min, and Yue areas.  If it's not, then nobody's gonna understand me if I speak Mandarin in Guangzhou.  Liu Tao (talk) 14:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Liu Tao, please explain what the difference between "(Modern) Standard Chinese" and "Standard Mandarin" would be. I'm not aware of any. — kwami (talk) 18:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Standard Mandarin is standardised Mandarin, hence the name. Standard Chinese can mean one of two things: it can refer to any of the 'standardised' dialects/languages of the Chinese language/language family (eg. Standard Cantonese), or it can refer to a standardised 'Chinese Language', which does not exist.  Liu Tao (talk) 18:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * In English, "Standard Cantonese" is just called "Cantonese", and a "Standard Mandarin" is just called "Mandarin". The national language, Putonghua, is called "(Modern) (Standard) Chinese".  --Taivo (talk) 19:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Putonghua is also called "Mandarin". — kwami (talk) 19:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see.
 * There are a couple problems with that, Liu Tao. First, "Mandarin" = putonghua is already a standard (originally the court language of Beijing), so "Standard Mandarin" is tautologous. "Mandarin" for beifanghua is a secondary usage.
 * Second, while Standard Cantonese is a (semi)standardized lect of Chinese, no-one, but no-one, calls it "Standard Chinese", because it does not stand in for all of Chinese.
 * Third, yes, there is a standardized Chinese language. That's exactly what Mandarin is, just as Florentine is the basis of a standardized Italian language. Speakers of Hakka write in Mandarin. Most speakers of Cantonese, at least on the Mainland, write in Mandarin. Speakers of Shanghainese write it Mandarin. It's the standard language. Parallels with Italy: an occasional author will write in Venetian, or Sicilian, or Lombard, but nearly all write in Florentine (Standard Italian), regardless of what they speak.
 * There is another Standard Chinese, Classical Chinese. It is the reason that about half of the authors I've seen have choosen the phrase "Modern Standard Chinese". — kwami (talk) 19:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * 'Putonghua' originally had a different meaning of 'common speech'. Now 'Putonghua' refers to the Mandarin Standard used by the PRC.  As for 'befanghua', it had different meanings depending on the person.  For some it was Mandarin as a whole, for some it was just the speech of those living in the north, regardless there was no 'definite' usage of the term.  Today, it's rarely used to refer to Mandarin, if you say 'beifanghua' people will probably think that you're referring to the northern dialects.
 * Only reason why Cantonese doesn't 'stand in' for 'all of Chinese' is because it was never made the offical language of either the PRC or RoC (though it lost by only 3 votes when they voted on what the national language was gonna be). However, there are indeed many instances when Cantonese has been referred to 'Chinese'.
 * There is no 'standardised Chinese language'. Aye, what you say is true about Florence, but problem is that the Italian Dialects are mutually intelligible (by dialects I'm referring to mainly the 'northern' dialects, not southern 'dialects' like Sicilian which is regarded as its own language separate of Italian.  The status of Chinese as language is still debated, some say it's a single language, others say its a language family, as far as I'm concerned Standard Mandarin is only the standard for Mandarin, not Chinese as a whole.  And even if speakers of Hakka writes in Mandarin, that doesn't mean written Hakka doesn't exist.  Written Hakka exists, but it's rarely used.  If the Hakka speaker doesn't speak Mandarin, then he wouldn't be able to write in Mandarin, would he?  Same with the Sicilian speakers, if they don't know Italian, they can't write in Italian.  The Hakka and Scilians are writing in Mandarin and Italian repectively, but that doesn't mean that Mandarin is the 'standard' of Hakka and Italian is the 'standard' of Scilian.  An ABC speaks Chinese but writes in English, does that mean that English is 'Standard Chinese'?  No it does not.  Doesn't mean if I speak and write in different languages that they're the 'same' language.  What about Cantonese?  If a Cantonese writes in Mandarin does that mean that Mandarin is the 'standard' for Cantonese?  If that's so, what has become of Standard and Written Cantonese?  Are they no longer the 'standard' for Cantonese?
 * And there is also a reason why Standard Mandarin would fit too, it's got nothing to do with Classical Chinese. Standard Mandarin will not 'confuse' with Classical Chinese like 'Standard Chinese' would as you claim would do.
 * Before you reply, make sure you have taken everything I've said into account. I don't want any bone pickers.  Liu Tao (talk) 21:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Regardless of why Cantonese is not the standard, the fact is that it isn't. Please find one English RS which refers to Cantonese as "Standard Chinese". I seriously doubt one exists.
 * You keep saying there is no standardized Chinese language, but you have not provided any evidence for that claim. Mandarin is treated as the standard for Chinese in China, in Taiwan, in Singapore, and in English-language descriptions. Your point about Sicilian is a good one: Sicilian may well be considered a separate language, yet Florentine is the standard language in Sicily regardless: Florentine is Standard Italian, whether you consider Italian to be one language or many. Another parallel is Arabic. Spoken Arabic clearly is not a single language, yet Modern Standard Arabic is the standard everywhere. Now, Egyptian Arabic is popular in the cinema, just as Cantonese is, but it's not the standard language.
 * Of course Hakka exists! Who ever said otherwise? You may "consider" Mandarin to only be the standard for beifanghua, but your opinion, and mine, are irrelevant. Of course, if you're not educated and don't know the standard language, you can't use the standard language, but so what? If a resident of Beijing--a Beijing-dialect speaker--never went to school and doesn't know how to write in Mandarin, then he can't write in Mandarin, but that has nothing to do with whether Mandarin is the standard. What does the Hakka speaker learn in school? Written Mandarin. What does the Shanghainese speaker learn in school? Mandarin. What does the Cantonese speaker learn in school? Mandarin (except in Hong Kong). They all learn Mandarin, just as the Sicilian learns Florentine and the Egyptian learns Modern Standard Arabic, because Mandarin is the official standard. That's not true of Chinese minorities, where the govt has promoted literacy in the local language, even if they also learn Mandarin ("Chinese") as the official language. Officially, Chinese is a "language" (even if you and I might disagree), while Mandarin, Cantonese, and Hakka are "dialects"; the prestige dialect of that "language" is Beijing dialect, and the standard form is the Beijing court language, Mandarin (in the narrow sense).
 * Standard Cantonese (if that's any different from Cantonese/Canton-Hong Kong dialect) is indeed the standard for Cantonese; Shanghainese is, if not the standard, then the prestige dialect for Wu, as is Amoy for Minnan. There are also literary developments for Venetian, Lombard, and Egyptian Arabic. But they are all local (sub)standards. Mandarin, St. Italian, and M.S. Arabic are not: they cover all that is considered "Chinese", "Italian", and "Arabic". That's why they're called (Modern) Standard Chinese, Italian, and Arabic.
 * If "Standard Chinese" would be confused for Classical Chinese, then we have the option of "Modern Standard Chinese". But "Standard Mandarin" is minority usage; it's not used at all in the premier encyclopedia of linguistics, the ELL, and it appears to be significantly less common than "Standard Chinese" elsewhere. — kwami (talk) 22:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If a term lke "Standard Europeanese" points only to English. That would be a serious problem.  Pretty much that is what you are proposing with Standard Chinese pointing to Mandarin.  Even rosettastone language products make it clear of a Chinese mandarin. Benjwong (talk) 00:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Kwami, I think you're confusing 文 wen (written language) with 语 yu (spoken language). Mandarin is not a "written language", I think you are referring to Vernacular Chinese (as opposed to the alternative, Classical Chinese). Keep in mind that other dialects have their own regional vernaculars as well. There is plenty of literature out there written in the vernaculars of Wuu, Hakka, Min Nan and Cantonese, to which a standard Mandarin speaker would not be able to understand. Your analogy regarding Egyptians learning MSA isn't entirely fitting IMHO. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 06:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, in before someone says "there's no such thing as a regulated regional vernacular". They are taught in schools, and are regulated. They are also significantly different from Modern Standard Vernacular Chinese; a standard Mandarin speaker would find great difficulty in understanding such vernaculars. Take the following for example:
 * Min Nan: 你那全然拢没讯息，像往南ㄟ燕子断翅. 不曾搁返来巢看厝边，为啥咪铁支路直直？火车叨位去？ (ly na zuan ren long veo siau si, chniu ong lam he yni a deng chi. m bad geo tngr lai siu knua lieg bni, wi snia mi, ti gi lo did did? heu chia deo wi ky? English: I have no news from you at all, just like a swallow heading south with broken wings, Never returned to the nest again. Why is the rail track so straight? where is the train heading off to?)
 * Standard Cantonese: 你喺嗰喥好喇, 千祈咪搞佢啲嘢. (English: You'd better stay there, and please don't mess with his/her stuff.)
 * Now, how many of you who are not familiar with the two "dialects" (note the quotation marks, I'm just using that word for the sake of it) are able to completely understand the above texts? As for "Mandarin-style" vernacular writing being taught in schools in areas of Mainland China where dialectals are used, this vernacular writing doesn't even match the local spoken language (as they were designed for Mandarin, in many cases the vocabulary, word ordering and sentence structure doesn't even match that of everyday speech, to the point where people think and speak in their local tongue, but write in a Mandarin-style vernacular), and there are many who consider this as linguistic imperialism to some extent (see A language is a dialect with an army and navy). In Taiwan, there is a common attitude amongst Hoklos that they are forced away from their 母語 mother tongue, in order to speak their 國語 national tongue (see this essay by Victor H. Mair). --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 07:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Vernacular Chinese is written Mandarin. Yes, most non-speakers would not be able to read your examples, but just about everyone can read Mandarin, because linguistic imperialism or not, that's what they're taught in school (even if the pronunciation doesn't always match).
 * What makes Mandarin/MSC different among Chinese lects than among all the languages of China is that the minority languages are recognized as such, but the Chinese lects are not. Officially, Chinese is a single language, and many Chinese agree. Actually, this is similar to many of the local "languages", which are identified by ethnicity and have a single standard form, even if they are not single languages dialectologically. — kwami (talk) 07:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * My point regarding linguistic imperialism is that such a move may be considered controversial to many people. Sure, there is a linguistic side to this, but there is also the sociological side as well. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 07:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree with kwami's statement above and User:Keahapana's statement below in the straw poll, regarding the comparison to Modern Standard Arabic.  The linguistic tree tells us that Modern Standard Arabic is an offshoot of Arabic (the "standardized" version of Arabic), while this lect (Standard Mandarin, Standard Chinese, Putonghua, Guoyu, etc.) is an offshoot of Mandarin (its "standardized" version), in which is a branch of Chinese.  Another, perhaps more "technically" appropriate comparison, would be Standard Hindi (Modern Standard Hindi), which is from Hindustani of Hindi languages, which is an offshoot of Indo-Aryan languages. But that article is not named "Standard Indo-Aryan".  Of course every situation is unique in itself, but Modern Standard Arabic may not be the most suitable comparison.--TheLeopard (talk) 03:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hindi is a language family dialectologically, but a language sociolinguistically. One of the languages is Western Hindi. One of its dialects is Delhi dialect. Modern Standard Hindi is an officially standardized form of Delhi dialect, and is the standard form of all of the Hindi languages, apart from a few which have developed their own standards (Maithili and Dogri are the most recent to be officially recognized as separate languages).
 * Chinese is a language family dialectologically, but a language sociolinguistically. One of the languages is Northern Chinese. One of its dialects is Beijing dialect. Modern Standard Chinese is an officially standardized form of Beijing dialect, and is the standard form of all of the Chinese languages, apart from a few which have developed their own standards (such as Dungan). — kwami (talk) 07:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If 'Modern Standard Chinese' is the 'standard' for the entire Chinese language family as a whole, then that means that Putonghua and Guoyu are the standard for Cantonese, Minnan, Mindong, and every other multiple Chinese languages. Hey, based on your logics, that's how it is.  Cantonese and Minnan are both 'Chinese varieties', and since Standard Mandarin is the standard for all of these 'varieties', than that means that it's the standard for each of the said variety.  A is the standard of B, C, and D, so that means that if we rename A as Z, then Z will be the standard for B, C, and D.  That's your logic, it's simple math right over there.  Unless you lads are gonna have the balls to specifically state that Standard Mandarin is the standard for Cantonese, the standard for Min, the standard for Wu, etc etc, this argument will not go anywhere as even you yourselves don't agree with your own logic.  Liu Tao (talk) 14:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, Liu Tao, you're confusing languages with their speakers. No one here is claiming that 普通话 is the standardized form of Cantonese. What people are claiming is that it's the "official language" for all Chinese people (or at least all educated ones in China), regardless of what additional languages they speak. Yue, Wu, etc., each have their own standard forms as well, so a white-collar worker in Guangzhou might speak both standard Mandarin/Chinese and "standard" Cantonese (as opposed to some form of Cantonese spoken in the countryside). r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 21:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, Rjanag, Liu Tao's description is not far from my position, which is supported by your next comment (below). As far as standardization goes, Chinese is a single language, even if I personally disagree with that assessment. Various 'dialects' are occasionally written, but none of them, not even Cantonese, are actually standardized, and Mandarin does act as the standard for all. (Not that Mandarin is literally standardized Cantonese, but that it's standardized Chinese, of which Cantonese is a dialect distinct from the standard.) This is not dissimilar from Italian, where various 'dialects' are occasionally written, though Florentine is accepted as the standard for all; or Hindi, where Awadhi may sometimes be written but standardized Khariboli acts as the standard for all; or Arabic, where MSArabic stands for all, even though 'dialects' are occasionally written as well. — kwami (talk) 22:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hm...the issue with that interpretation, though, is that not all Mandarin is "standard" Mandarin, since there are dialects like beijinghua, wuhanhua, tianjinhua, etc., which are generally considered Mandarin but are definitely not putonghua. And if we are forced to differentiate between "standard" Mandarin dialects and "non-standard" Mandarin dialects...well, I imagine that's the situation that got us into the current article title. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 00:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well yes, of course. It only makes sense with "Mandarin" in its original sense, since only that is the standard. (The first definition of Mandarin as a language given in the OED is "The language spoken in China by officials and educated people generally", and it gives putonghua as a synonym.) I don't think anyone would propose that Chengdu dialect is Standard Chinese. — kwami (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * An informational question here (here, even though it should be back at the article talk page): What form of writing do students in Guangzhou and in Hong Kong (and in Shanghai, and in Xiamen, and in Changsha) learn when they learn basic writing in school? Is it a form of writing with lexical and grammatical elements characteristic of nationwide newspapers and textbooks in China, or a form of writing with lexical items and grammatical patterns specific to the regional languages of each of those different places? (For example, are students in Hong Kong taught in their school textbooks to write "是不是他們的？" or to write "係唔係佢哋嘅？"?) -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 16:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The former, as far as I know, at least in Guangdong. Mandarin seems to be the only language that has currency in an academic setting like that. Cantonese is rarely written even in newspapers and stuff, much less school textbooks; Wu, Min Nan, and the others even less so. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 21:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * When HK people say "係唔係", they have to formally write "是不是". Tabloids might not care. But schools are the last place to allow you to write "係唔係". Part of it is upholding classical writing format and tradition.  The other part is to slowly merge into this Beijing-driven-harmonious-writing-speaking system that is practically written-mandarin. Northerners have the entire language, government, writing system bent their way (even down to simplified characters now with stroke of their choice). Benjwong (talk) 03:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "係唔係" is used in literature (novels, poetry, short stories, etc) when depicting human speech or thought. In all other cases, vocabulary such as "不是" can sometimes be used, although "唔係" is still used as well. 係 and 唔 are also used in music, film subtitles and scripts, Cantonese opera, and in tabloid newspapers. It is also the standard of communication via SMS, instant messaging and informal blogging. Standard vernacular must be used for formal occasions, such as academic papers, legal documents, scientific journals, etc., unless quoting human speech, where Cantonese vernacular can be used to represent Cantonese spoken words. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 08:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * A common complaint by people whose dialects are not reflected in the standard language. (I have friends who would prefer to, and do, write things like "I might should go".) It seems from your description that Mandarin is Standard Chinese, supporting our sources. — kwami (talk) 03:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * From a government-promotional-view Mandarin IS Chinese. But Kwami, you are not the government. Benjwong (talk) 04:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Obviously. So you're okay with moving this article to 'Standard Chinese' then? After all, standard languages are determined by governments, not by any of us. — kwami (talk) 05:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The Chinese government doesn't call this language "Standard Chinese" though. The name in China for this is "Putonghua" (common speech).--TheLeopard (talk) 08:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * True enough, though we're more concerned with English usage. It seems to me that '(Modern) Standard Mandarin' tends to be used when comparing Mandarin in the narrow sense with Mandarin in the broad sense (say, Xi'an dialect), or when comparing (standard) Mandarin and (standard) Cantonese etc. '(Modern) Standard Chinese' tends to be used when discussing the official standard of China per se. The primary orientation of this article seems to be the latter. — kwami (talk) 08:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Standard Chinese is an umbrella name to cover all the branches with Mandarin being a very large majority of the coverage. Benjwong (talk) 22:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you give a ref for that statement? From everything I've read, it is simply "Chinese" that is the umbrella term. "Standard Chinese" is a specific register: the official language based on (Beijing) Mandarin. — kwami (talk) 01:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * All of what is written above about logical arguments seems to boil down to the conclusion that the language described in the article is, like it or not, the modern standard language of China, so it's not surprising that the English-language sources predominantly refer to that language as "Modern Standard Chinese." When I write, "like it or not," I want to express my sincere sympathy with anyone who has a different opinion about language policy in China from what the policy currently is. I hope all onlookers notice that my focus in this discussion is a very narrow focus on Wikipedia policy on naming articles in English. I have referred to sources on that issue. I have not expressed an opinion on language policy, on political movements, on ethnic relations, or on any of the other contentious issues connected to the daily lives of the speakers and learners of that language. You might be surprised about what some of my opinions are. But Wikipedia workspace pages aren't for expressing opinions, they are for discussing sources and policies in order to improve articles. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 00:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That is scary. You are telling us you are purposely ignoring "language policy, political movements, ethnic relations etc" to promote that few narrow source you have. Benjwong (talk) 17:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "Language policy, political movements, ethnic relations, etc." have absolutely nothing to do with the English Wikipedia. Only common English usage per WP:NCON matters and the common English name for the national language of China is "Modern Standard Chinese" or just "Chinese".  You can't change that fact just because you don't like it.  --Taivo (talk) 06:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind that Western languages tend to have a fault of failing to distinguish between a written and spoken language. Modern Standard Chinese could therefore refer to Vernacular [Written] Chinese. Per the discussion and to avoid NPOV (like Mandarin is better than the other varieties of spoken Chinese), we Wikipedians have agreed to avoid erroneous "common usage", and what is a careless, often uneducated, mistake. We have agreed to follow the standard of linguists such as you. ---帝国主义夹着尾巴吓跑 (talk) 13:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, we Wikipedians have not agreed to avoid "erroneous 'common usage'". We have, instead agreed that common English usage is primary, per WP:NCON.  --Taivo (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * you are not listening. the editors of the naming conventions here have agreed not to equate Mandarin with Chinese and vice versa (snobbish and separatist respectively). the editors have agreed that such an action amounts to POV, which we Wikipedians have agreed to avoid. Do I have to explain why such an equating amounts to either the crimes of snobbishness or separatism? keep it up, and I will not be willing to work with you ever. ---帝国主义夹着尾巴吓跑 (talk) 14:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You don't understand, HXL49. That "agreement" is under debate right here, right now--nothing is now agreed to.  Perhaps in the past a group of Chinese editors wrote this "agreement", but, as with all things in Wikipedia, it is subject to change and changing that policy is the whole issue right here, right now.  To claim that "Wikipedians have an agreement", when we are discussing that very policy here, is circular logic and not convincing at all. Keep your personal attacks to yourself or I will recommend that you receive a block or ban. --Taivo (talk) 00:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * you did not read what I wrote. I wrote that there is a guideline on this page to avoid equating Mandarin with Chinese.

I don't see anyone claiming that Mandarin is better than any other language. The only claim I make is that when careful writers trained in sinology or linguistics use an English name for the language that is currently designated as a standard form of speech and writing among Chinese communities in mainland China, Taiwan, and southeast Asia, the English name they most commonly use for that language is "Modern Standard Chinese." (That is the language that the article we are discussing is about. The article also makes no claim about one language being "better" than another, but it makes clear that a particular language is officially promoted for both speech and for writing in a way other languages spoken in the same places are not.) Many of the writers who use that term have a deep appreciation for and a fluent command of other languages that are spoken by Wikipedians here. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 19:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

维基百科编辑，unless I wrote mistakenly or you did not read me carefully, I said that the title and the title alone would give that implication. This is the same view espoused by 李博杰. I assume that no editor on Wikipedia would be careless or malicious enough to include that snide remark "Mandarin is better than any other variety of Chinese" or something along that line. ---何献龙4993 (talk) 22:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

resolutely oppose per many of the talking points above, which I do not have the time to read now. Such a renaming can suggest that in the language world, "Chinese" is synonymous to Mandarin. Sorry to belabour, but: in China, to deal with people with heavy accents or who are otherwise snobbish enough to speak their home language (i.e. Shanghai people), we say "说普通话", speak [Standard] Mandarin. I was in Shandong the previous month, and I heard that phrase spoken by one of my friends (we were teaching). So... as far of a cry the Shandong dialect may be from Standard Mandarin, it is still Mandarin. Why? As long as I listen closely and patiently enough, I can still understand the speaker. It's like an accent. ---帝国主义夹着尾巴吓跑 (talk) 03:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Chinese sensibilities in China don't matter one whit to the English Wikipedia. All that matters here is common English usage per WP:NCON.  Until you change common English usage, then the language is called "Modern Standard Chinese".  --Taivo (talk) 06:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You argue WP:NCON as if it is the holy grail rule of article naming, as if everything else is all nationalism. In that case, why do we still have Tamil/Singhalese disputes for Sri Lankan articles? Why is it that in the South Korea article, we have usage "East Sea (Sea of Japan)", and not "Sea of Japan"? What happened to "no nationalism on the English Wikipedia"? "Sea of Japan" is the standard usage in English, is it not? WP:NCON is not set in stone; it is enforcable, but it is also flexible like latex, depending on the circumstances. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 05:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Western imperialist attitudes and actions towards other countries do not matter to the targeted countries, who cannot fall to the weakness as such. All that matters here is accuracy. Essentially only my second sentence mattered. Since much of this discussion diverged, I thought that typing the rest of it would not be so bad. You are reading my response too seriously. Until you give me a source that says what common usage is, I won't believe an ounce of your word. And doesn't Wikipedia tend to follow the romanisation patterns that other governments use? Like place articles are at pinyin for almost all places in mainland China, but WG for ROC-controlled, and whatever the HKSAR and MSAR governments use. ---帝国主义夹着尾巴吓跑 (talk) 13:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * There is sufficient evidence here and elsewhere on this page conclusively showing that "(Modern) (Standard) Chinese" is overwhelmingly the most common English name for the standard, national language of China. It's not even close.  --Taivo (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * So you are willing to sacrifice accuracy/reliability for the simple will of the ignorant English world? Wikipedia is not a democracy, and this is one of its policies. oh, looks like we have a conflict of policy here. ---帝国主义夹着尾巴吓跑 (talk) 14:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * HXL49, Wikipedia works on consensus and you don't seem to be aware of that. If the most common English name of the national language of China is "(Modern) (Standard) Chinese" then that is what the article should be named per WP:NCON.  You are now working on a consensus and "Wikipedians" have not agreed to your nationalism.  Wikipedia expressly forbids nationalism to be involved.  Just look at Kiev as an example.  Київ is the official Ukrainian name of the city in Ukraine's constitution and by Rada decree.  It is transliterated into English as "Kyiv".  But despite the near-universal yelling of Ukrainian nationalists here on Wikipedia, the evidence of common English usage must prevail and the article remains at Kiev, which is the Russian name of the city.  That's just the way that Wikipedia works.  I have proven at Talk:Standard Mandarin and others have proven here (in the "ELL" section, for example), that the most common English name for the national language of China is "(Modern) (Standard) Chinese".  This isn't subject to debate by you or other nationalists.  Per Wikipedia policy, the name of the article should therefore be Modern Standard Chinese, and not Standard Mandarin.  If you are offended by that, then use the Chinese Wikipedia.  But the English Wikipedia is guided by common English usage.   (And, as others have warned you, leave the personal attacks at home in China.  We avoid such things in the English Wikipedia.  If you persist in your personal attacks, then I will recommend that you receive a block or ban.) --Taivo (talk) 00:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia works on consensus and you don't seem to be aware of that - exactly. There is clearly no consensus to move the article, if there is an obvious opposition to it. If consensus is achieved through discussion, then it is done. Otherwise, there is no consensus at all. Also, you are either not reading what has been said, or interpreting it in the wrong way. This has nothing to do with nationalism. Nationalism would be supporting such a move, since it implies that China is linguistically unified, and hence motherland strong and powerful, etc. We are arguing based on common sense that such a move is wrong linguistically to some degrees, and is also a serious POV issue. I have no idea why you are threatening blocks or bans when no attacks are being thrown directly at you. "ignorant English world" to me seems obviously like a tongue-in-cheek remark. I could similarly be saying that I interpret "leave the personal attacks at home in China" as an attack, as it implies that in China we are barbarians that like to attack one another, unlike the rest of the world. It seems to me that hard feelings are forming on both sides - have some WP:TEA if that is the case. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 05:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) The personal attacks by HXL49 were edited out, so the context for my warning has been deleted. You are correct that there is no consensus for moving the article.  But you are also incorrect in not recognizing the importance of WP:NCON.  But you cannot avoid WP:NCON just because other stuff exists.  It is not a relevant argument to cite violations of WP:NCON as justification for violating it here.  The sources cited below are conclusive that common English usage is "(Modern) (Standard) Chinese".  There is no argument otherwise.  The distinctions you and the opponents of the move are trying to draw between "Standard Mandarin" and "Standard Chinese" are ephemeral and virtually non-existent in any practical sense.  And WP:NCON is policy, that's not subject to debate as it exists as policy.  Common English usage is the primary naming function of Wikipedia.  "Chinese" is not POV in English.  It is simply the fact of the matter.  Compare Kiev, where WP:NCON was properly applied in spite of the strong NPOV argument that "Kyiv" is the name of the city in Ukraine's national language and "Kiev" is not.  But "Kiev" is the most common name in English so that was the lynchpin.  --Taivo (talk) 06:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Bojie, I will admit that I slightly braved the red line with the gun TMD dan remark (sorry, too lazy to switch to Chinese now; I'm supposed to be sleeping) and the most direct remark was just calling him "imperialist attitude" (it wasn't even full-hearted; in fact, I was stressing the lack of response to something we Chinese consider to be common sense and in fact accepting a "foreign-given" name - Mandarin), in response to his usage of the NCON as holy grail. Yet I have gone further before and have not been threatened with a ban and/or block. I really only have hard feelings for Taivo, and that is due to the "holy grail" nature of his commentary when he could be contributing much more meaningful opinion, as he is a linguist, god-damn it. I am at worst ambivalent towards Kwami, and the rest... nothing. ---何献龙4993 (talk) 06:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * HXL49 (何献龙4993), You wrote, "I have gone further before and have not been threatened with a ban and/or block." The Wikipedia policy on civility is a core Wikipedia policy, and if editors here don't follow the good example of TheLeopard, kwami, rʨanaɢ, and others here who make clear their disagreements on the issue at hand without insulting one another, then I will report the violations of civility policy through the usual Wikipedia dispute-resolution channels. Nobody here of any cultural background appreciates people coming in with an insult of other people's mothersI'm glad that was refactored out of the earlier comment I saw, but it should never have happened in the first place. Similarly, accusing people of being "imperialists" because their usage of terms in linguistics agrees with that of linguists who live in post-"Liberation" China (among many other places) is beyond useless. That doesn't respond to the Wikipedia policies involved, and it even misstates the politics involved. This is not so much a political issue as an issue of English lexicography, and so far the editors who are taking care to cite  reliable sources in either the English language or the Chinese language are coming up with the same answer about the name of the language described in the very useful Wikipedia article that we are discussing here. 人不知而不愠，不亦君子乎？-- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * 维基百科编辑，I would rather you address most of that to me on my talk page and not here (even if I do see another orange bar of death), because most of that is about me and not the topic on hand. if you read my comment, the imperialist accusation was not made with 全心. Thanks ---何献龙4993 (talk) 17:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * and adding to Benlisquare, consensus depends on the weight of the arguments, not democracy. if it were for democracy Wikipedia would probably be far less quality than it is; this is one of the arenas where democracy cannot apply. Unfortunately for Taivo strict application of NCON is not as strong as avoiding POV. As I and others have stated countless times: "Mandarin = Chinese" implies Mandarin is above all other varieties of Chinese. "Chinese = Mandarin" invites separatism. ---何献龙4993 (talk) 06:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Those might be convincing arguments. Do you have any evidence that they are true? Any WP:RSs that 'Mandarin' is preferred over 'Standard Chinese' because the latter fosters misconceptions or other problems? To me, it would seem just the opposite: that 'Standard Mandarin' is the standard only for Mandarin, not for Chinese, which I would think would foster more separatism than the other. — kwami (talk) 06:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * HXL49, do you have any sources that verify what you have said in your reply above? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The weight of the arguments, however, is not in your favor, HXL49. Here is the weight:  1) In English, the vast majority of references to the national language of China are to "Chinese" sometimes with "Modern" and/or "Standard" as modifiers.  The evidence for that is overwhelming and cannot be denied.  2) Even specialists, who know that Mandarin forms the basis of the national language, call the language in their books and articles "Chinese".  Most of the examples of "Chinese" in my personal library (cited below) are scholarly works and the number of references from Google Scholar backs this up.  If scholars consistently used "Mandarin" as opposed to the non-linguistic public, then you would have an argument, but they don't.  English-speaking scholars overwhelmingly use "Chinese" for the national standard language as well.  3) There is no practical difference in meaning between "Standard Mandarin" and "Modern Standard Chinese".  Therefore WP:NCON applies to favor the most common English term.  Go to any bookstore and find a lay grammar or dictionary labelled "Mandarin".  They are all labeled "Chinese" without any confusion whatsoever on the part of Americans that this is the national standard language of China.  It is standard usage in the U.S. at least that the national language is called "Chinese" by the non-linguistic public, but "Cantonese" is called "Cantonese" (not "Cantonese Chinese").  "Mandarin" is just not used by the non-linguistic public with any meaning other than a type of orange.  Kwami is quite right--in normal, idiomatic English, "Standard Mandarin" implies a standard only for Mandarin, while "Standard Chinese" implies a national standard for all of China.  Calling Standard Chinese "Standard Mandarin" is like calling Standard British English "Standard London".  It focuses too much on the origin and not enough on the extent or function.  --Taivo (talk) 06:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * of course a person arguing in favour of his arguments would say that. in one sentence, the only argument that you use is what "laymen" and scholars who don't know any better vote. As for function, just because Mandarin is mandated as the national language does not mean it is the "standard". interpreting the word literally, you are going to assume the other varieties must follow that standard? Standard Mandarin pronunciation is spoken by such a low percentage of the population anyway. The comparison with "Standard London" is like saying Standard Mandarin is "Standard Beijing" when it is not. Beijing dialect, though the basis, is more fast-talking than the standard, adding ending R's where almost all speakers do not (much like the position NY English occupies within the US). Excuse me, but the pronunciation for Standard Mandarin draws on many sources within China. I would be more acceptable with "Modern Standard Spoken Chinese", but "Modern Standard Chinese" alone strongly implies a written component as well. And even the standard for writing, though based on Mandarin grammar, is often more concise than normal speech (you never write '的时候', but you speak it; you write '时'). and an "orange"...quite laughable of you. I would have expected more than to resort to such weak and lame of an argument. such a move would give added weight to Westerners joke that "all Asians look the same". it would add validity to the ignorance of the (especially US) Western public. And finally, I have used far worse personal attacks in the past. you should be aware of this. ---何献龙4993 (talk) 15:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * oh. I forgot to address this last point. that you continue to use the Kyiv argument just creates an Achilles heel for yourself. that you continue to use the "OMFG, they are extreme nationalists, almost fascist!" attack and characterise our arguments as being based on petite "nationalism"... for Kyiv the WP policy applies best, because neither is more correct than the other; they are synonyms, just like, as I will admit, Guangzhou and Canton. but the fact that there is debate over the accuracy and validity of such a name should give you a wake-up call. there is a difference. you are capable of recognising it but utterly refuse to. ---何献龙4993 (talk) 15:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Your borderline personal attacks and outright incivility continue to be a problem, HXL49. I again suggest you read the WP:CIVIL policy.  The issue is not at all what you think should be the truth, but what the truth actually is.  Scholars of Chinese linguistics regularly equate "Modern Standard Chinese" with "Mandarin" in a regular and straightforward way.  Look at the links below, especially those links that Kwami provided to the Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, and you will clearly see that scholars equate "Chinese" and "Mandarin" regularly and without comment.  "Modern Standard Chinese" is "Standard Mandarin" and you've provided no reliable scholarly sources that say anything otherwise.  The national language of China is called "Chinese" by the vast majority of English speakers, both lay and scholarly.  You've presented no verifiable evidence otherwise, only your own interpretation of Chinese words and no reliable sources that don't equate "Standard Mandarin" with "Standard Chinese".  --Taivo (talk) 15:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * that's not what I said. you are purposefully dodging the questions I am posing you. you won't admit that this is more of a "valid" (validity and truth are different) issue than the one with Kyiv. If I have toned down, then how do they continue to be a problem? you use my past, lone-gone mistake and treat it as if it were the present circumstance? ---何献龙4993 (talk) 17:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * HXL49, you have presented no evidence so how can anyone respond appropriately? The only evidence you have presented is your own personal interpretations of Chinese terminology and your own "authority" in argument.  You have presented no verifiable reliable sources to back up your claims that Standard Mandarin and Modern Standard Chinese are different things or that "Standard Mandarin" is a more common term in English than "(Modern) (Standard) Chinese".  Your only "proof" is your personal assertion.  I, on the other hand, have provided multiple reliable sources in different genres and all point to "Standard Chinese" and "Standard Mandarin" being synonyms and all point to the overwhelming preference in English of "Chinese".  --Taivo (talk) 17:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * are you equating yourself with "anyone"? have you seen Kwami's response??? you just majorly turned other people off there! I believe there is a reason, deep down, why other users' responses have been more substantive. So the only evidence/proof Benlisquare has presented is a personal assertion? Just trying to belittle at me to deride everything I say as invalid? By the way, proofs in mathematics involve logical statements that do not necessarily amount to evidence, so are we free to assume you have never received a proper education in Geometry? We are using the Chinese definition of language, and not statistics, here. Just because you do not believe it does not mean it is false. Your usage of this holy grail, as Benlisquare has belaboured, decreases your effectiveness. ---何献龙4993 (talk) 18:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I have read all of Kwami's responses and he has continually asked you exactly the same question that I have asked you repeatedly and you have continually ignored--do you have any reliable sources to back up your assertions? --Taivo (talk) 22:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * and Taivo, can you read Chinese? do you at least understand the more important terms used here? if you take the effort to at least learn the terms, you will be able to contribute more. we have stressed the meaning of 汉语 far more than you have the statistics, and just brush it aside as non-Roman, illegitimate writing? ---何献龙4993 (talk) 20:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter whether or not I can look something up in a Chinese dictionary. Wikipedia isn't about looking material up in foreign dictionaries, it is about verifiable reliable sources.  Do you have any that 1) state that "Standard Chinese" and "Standard Mandarin" mean substantially different things, or 2) that "Standard Mandarin" is more common in English than "Standard Chinese"?  You have not provided any.  --Taivo (talk) 22:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * More incivility and personal attack. Look at the bottom of the page for solid evidence, HXL49.  There I have listed an extensive bibliography and searches of news media from throughout the English speaking world proving that "Chinese" is the name of the national language of China.  Wikipedia does not run on your personal logic in language names or in mathematics even.  It runs on reliable sources, not original research, or, as you call it, "logic".  Prove that "Standard Mandarin" and "Standard Chinese" are different things in common English usage.  Prove it in the way that you are supposed to prove things in Wikipedia--using verifiable reliable sources.  You have not, you have not offered a single, solitary reliable source to prove your assertions.  I have offered solid evidence.  You have still offered nothing but insults and incivility and your personal assertions.  --Taivo (talk) 19:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * evidence that is useless; I explained why in the very bottom section. I am deliberately avoiding common English usage, because you continue to insist it is like the Kyiv case. Quoted from WP:Civil

1. Direct rudeness (a) Rudeness, insults, name-calling, gross profanity or indecent suggestions; (b) personal attacks, including racial, ethnic, sexual and religious slurs, and derogatory references to groups such as social classes or nationalities; (c) ill-considered accusations of impropriety; (d) belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgmental edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. "snipped rambling crap", "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen"); 2. Other uncivil behaviors (a) Taunting or baiting: deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves; (b) harassment, including Wikihounding, personal or legal threats, posting of personal information, repeated email or user space postings; (c) lying to mislead, including deliberately asserting false information; (d) quoting another editor out of context to give the impression they hold views they do not hold, or to malign them.

based on those standards, I have been quite mild in my last few posts. you, however, have pushed me to consider violating 2A. I have read some of your past comments on this discussion. the quality of your commentary has and continues to deteriorate. And I have already felt a belittling tone by you. and you just brush off Benlisquare for no reason? why do you wish to keep your attention focused on me? is there harassment in the air? I am more and more perceiving it to be such, and... ---何献龙4993 (talk) 20:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "leave the personal attacks at home in China. We avoid such things in the English [why just English? this is inter-wiki policy] Wikipedia." and no, I do not live in the Sinosphere and never have. do not comment on what you do not know. and Benlisquare explained how that could be a personal attack. a racist attack is worse than an ideological attack. keep them to yourself. you have already shown some of your darkest colours. ---何献龙4993 (talk) 21:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I was uncivil once earlier, but I left it behind. If you notice the timing of my comment, you will see that it was in response to your "imperialist" jabs.  --Taivo (talk) 22:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * that's it'. I've lost more patience with Taivo then I have with any other user and since I have already voted and provided my reasoning (sorry for the plethora of comments), I am scarily running away. ---何献龙4993 (talk) 21:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Taivo, I accept names such as "Peking opera" and "Kweichow wine" as Wikipedia article title names, because they are near-universally known in the Roman-alphabet world as such. However, I do not accept blind worship, indeed almost like giving it a cult of personality, of a policy and applying it to something as contentious and undecided as this. I am sorry for not clarifying my position earlier. I am just beyond irritated by those who think they are invincible and refuse to comment on others' talking points. I also am not patient with those who do not use the knowledge involved in their professions when it could most help: don't you shine in linguistics? ---何献龙4993 (talk) 02:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If we move the [Modern] Standard Mandarin article to "Modern Standard Chinese", let's move the article on Mandarin Chinese to "Chinese language". and also let's consider merging the article on Vernacular Chinese into "Modern Standard Chinese" as well. This is the core of my thinking. ---何献龙4993 (talk) 02:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Taivo: "this is not up to nationalists". I see that as subtly trying to bend it to "this is not up to ultra-nationalists" and painting me as an ultra-nationalist to use as an excuse to not properly respond to my or others' commentary. you are wasting other people's time, and even your own time. ---何献龙4993 (talk) 03:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If there were actually a difference in accuracy, for instance, like sponges still being called "plants", that would be a different matter. But this is purely a matter of wording and point of view: whether Mandarin is seen as the Chinese standard. Which it clearly is, since standards are legislated by governments. — kwami (talk) 00:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * thank you for actually responding to my point, unlike Taivo's commenting behaviour. I still think it is along those lines, and read my comment on Vernacular Chinese to see why. ---何献龙4993 (talk) 02:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * keep in mind that language is not just spoken. I think you should know this better than I do, seeing you are a linguist. If you are not going to comment on the validity of these namings and instead use WP Policy to bash around people, you might as well not participate. I'd rather see your knowledge than your flouting of policy. ---帝国主义夹着尾巴吓跑 (talk) 14:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear user, chill. This is a friendly conversation.  The last part is uncalled for.--TheLeopard (talk) 17:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I will request you to refactor your personal attack  uncivil comment, which has no place here on Wikipedia. And I will note for the record that I very much doubt that Western imperialism had anything at all to do with the decision of the Chinese-reading and Chinese-writing editors of Chinese-language Wikipedia to title two articles with the contrasting titles 現代標準漢語 and 官話, both of which are standard terms used by Chinese-speaking linguists, such as the linguists who taught me Chinese dialectology. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 19:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * it is the attitude wherein I smell imperialism. As has been contended above, what 汉语 translates to is... I need not repeat the "说汉语" remark. As I said above, "说普通话" is more commonly directed at snobs who continue to speak their home language at those who do not understand it (haven't encountered this before though, but this is what my mother tells me), or those with very thick home accents in their Mandarin. the first, I need not explain. The second, is just a request to more "standardise" someone's Mandarin pronunciation. I think the reason why ZH-Wiki is at 现代标准汉语 is because choosing 普通话, 华语, or 国语, over any of the other two (for all four varieties of the written language available there) implies POV. Yet I question why the ZH-CN version is not at 普通话, why the ZH-TW version is not at 国语, and why the ZH-SG (did I get it right?) is not at 华语, when those are the most commonly used terms in those places. I think it is ZH-HK version that should be at 现代标准汉语. ---何献龙4993 (talk) 22:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This is the English Wikipedia, HXL49. If you want English speakers to use your username then use a user name in the Roman alphabet.  Otherwise you will have to live with "hey, you".  It is considered to be simple courtesy to transliterate or transcribe foreign scripts into a Roman script when editing or discussing in the English Wikipedia.  Your use of Chinese characters is rude and exclusionary.  Anything that isn't written in Roman letters can be ignored in the discussion.  Pinyin is a fine system--use it.  --Taivo (talk) 02:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * ^^ says who? I ask you repeat this to User:BenliSquare. what is rude and exclusionary to you may not be for others... "anything that isn't written in Roman letters can be ignored in the discussion". this is actually rude and exclusionary. ---何献龙4993 (talk) 03:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * but I give you credit for addressing me as HXL49. All it takes is a simple hovering over the link to see what it actually is. the pinyin to my signature is in fact my username, minus the 93. but pinyin occupies more server space for something as worthless as a person's signature. ---何献龙4993 (talk) 03:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Part 2
Hey guys, for those of us who don't like to read, Naming_conventions_(Chinese). Says here specifically: In general, one should avoid using the term "Chinese" to be synonymous with the spoken Mandarin Chinese. There's more, but I'm not posting the entire section here, not when I've linked the page down to its very section. Have fun. Liu Tao (talk) 16:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This page is a discussion of whether Naming_conventions_(Chinese) is accurate or not, so you cannot cite it as an authority in this discussion on whether or not to change it. --Taivo (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks like someone has the rules set long ago. Benjwong (talk) 17:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It also says very clearly at the top of that section that the guideline is disputed. That doesn't mean that the policy is fixed in stone.  Wikipedia policies can and do change over time.  WP:NCON is not disputed and thus would have a greater force.  Common English usage will always prevail over national policy.  Just look at Kiev as an example.  National Ukrainian policy, enshrined in their Constitution and by acts of the Rada, is that the name of their capital city is the Ukrainian Kyiv, not the Russian Kiev.  Yet common English usage always prevails over national policy in Wikipedia, thus the article is at Kiev.  --Taivo (talk) 18:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * the redirect Modern Standard Chinese already points to the Mandarin article. Continuing to argue about usage of Chinese to refer to Mandarin is missing the point. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * The point is that the article Standard Mandarin should be renamed Modern Standard Chinese and "Standard Mandarin" should be the redirect per WP:NCON. --Taivo (talk) 20:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm a very avid reader, as has been demonstrated by standardized tests of reading ability in English and in Chinese, and I don't see anything in that section, which is disputed, that prohibits naming the article under discussion according to the best attested name, which is "Modern Standard Chinese," for the language discussed in the article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * There is more than enough comments from the other editors above to show Mandarin can be called Chinese, but is NOT Chinese entirely. Wu is more standardized Chinese in a major city like Shanghai. And if they don't count it as defacto Chinese, why should you? Benjwong (talk) 02:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Ben, what language do schoolchildren learn in school in Shanghai? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 03:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Alot of schoolchildren in Hong Kong learn english. That doesn't mean I would move English to Language of Hong Kong. Benjwong (talk) 04:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * But, Benjwong, if an English speaker is learning the language of Shanghai, they would never say, "I'm learning Chinese". They would say "I'm learning Shanghainese" or "I'm learning Wu Chinese" or "I'm learning Shanghai Chinese".  "I'm learning Chinese" always refers to the national standard--putonghua.  English speakers are well aware of the different varieties of "Chinese", but always use modifiers such as "Cantonese" or "Min Chinese", etc. unless they are talking about Mandarin, in which case, the most common phrase is simply "Chinese".  --Taivo (talk) 04:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * When Shenzhen citizens say they know Chinese, they really mean Cantonese. And they separately explain they know Putonghua. HK is the same.  I guess it depends on which city you want to go by. I do not believe a person from Shanghai will say they learn Chinese, and mean Mandarin everytime.  Benjwong (talk) 04:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * May I remind you, Benjwong, that this is not the Shenzhen Wikipedia, this is the English Wikipedia. What they say in China doesn't matter.  Only English usage matters and when English speakers say "Chinese", they only mean Modern Standard Chinese, not Shanghai Chinese or Cantonese.  --Taivo (talk) 04:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Then I suggest we move Yue back to Cantonese. I have yet to find one English speaker that use the word Yue in real life. They all say Cantonese overwhelmingly. Benjwong (talk) 03:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Because that is what sources say. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

ELL citations
I did an electronic search of the 12,000-page Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd edition (2006). This is a nice source because it contains thousands of articles written by different linguists, all respected in their fields. The string "Standard Chinese" occurred in several of these articles. The string "Standard Mandarin" did not occur at all. Rather, it appears that what we call "Standard Mandarin" is simply "Mandarin Chinese", with what we call "Mandarin Chinese" (the northern lect) being an extension of that primary meaning. The hits are the following (one per article)
 * "Modern Standard Chinese"
 * (1) Y Gu, "Chinese"
 * (2) C Meierkord, "Lingua Francas as Second Languages"


 * "Standard Chinese"
 * (3) M Bender, "China: Scripts, Non-Chinese"
 * (4) S Duanmu, "Chinese (Mandarin): Phonology"
 * (Duanmu says, "Standard Chinese (also called Mandarin Chinese) is a member of the northern [Mandarin] family; it is based on the pronunciation of he Beijing dialect. There are, therefore, two meanings of the term Mandarin Chinese, one referring to the northern dialect family and one referring to the standard dialect. To avoid the ambiguity, I use Standard Chinese (SC) for the latter meaning.")


 * "Standard Chinese; modern standard Chinese" (two phrasings used)
 * (5) K Bolton & ASL Lam, "Applied Linguistics in China


 * "Standard Chinese (Mandarin Chinese)"
 * (6) R Wiese, "Phonology: Overview"


 * "Modern Standard Chinese (Mandarin Chinese)"
 * (7) W Bisang, "Southeast Asia as a Linguistic Area"


 * "(Modern) Standard Mandarin (Chinese)"
 * (no matches)

— kwami (talk) 23:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a good point. "Mandarin" and "Mandarin Chinese" are often used to refer specifically to 普通话　putonghua, but don't work as article titles because those terms are already being used for 官话 guanhua, all the Mandarin dialects that are subsumed by the Mandarin "language", of which putonghua is just one variety. So I guess that's how this article eventually ended up at "Standard Mandarin", a term which few people use in other contexts (since they don't usually need to disambiguate like we do, and can just use "Mandarin"), and is basically just a literal explanation of what putonghua is (the standardized dialect of Mandarin). So there is an argument against "Standard Mandarin": it's not in common use and seems to have been more or less created to fit the needs of Wikipedia.
 * On the other hand, the argument against "Standard Chinese" (not necessarily for "Standard Mandarin"), as far as I can tell, is that it unintentionally implies that "Chinese" is a language and this is the standard dialect of it, thereby obscuring the fact that Chinese is actually a group of languages, Mandarin is a group of dialects, and what people speak on CCTV (and what foreigners learn in class) is just one dialect from that group. Kwami and others are correct, though, that most non-linguists wanting to know about this will just look for "Chinese", because that is what this dialect is known as in almost all non-specialized contexts.
 * So in short, we are discussing two naming options which both, for some reason or another, are not perfect. Are there any alternate options that can be considered (for example, using Mandarin Chinese (language) and Mandarin Chinese (language group) or something, and making Mandarin Chinese itself a disambiguation page explaining the difference between 官话／北方话 and 普通话)? Based on the massive Yue/Cantonese dispute this year, it seems this is a more widespread problem and may require some more general shuffling around. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This is then arguably the most inconsistent set of moves. When Cantonese had to be moved to Yue Chinese, we have to adjust to linguists.  When Mandarin move to Chinese, we have to adjust to non-linguists.  What is the trend next week? Benjwong (talk) 00:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh, I think the ELL citations adequately demonstrate that linguists use "Standard Chinese" as well as "Mandarin". — kwami (talk) 07:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * And linguists use "Cantonese" too. Why did Yue ever move away from that?? These moves do no show any consistency at all. If Yue is the linguistic name for the south, then Beifong is definitely the linguistic name for the north. But instead of proposing a move to Beifong, you guys want to move it to "Standard Chinese".  Come on. Benjwong (talk) 03:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * We're not here to discuss Yue, nor to make up words that we would like to see people use. These decisions depend on such things as WP:RS and WP:UCN. — kwami (talk) 03:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Straw poll
A lot of discussion back & forth, but most involving the same few people. How about a straw poll to see where we stand? Not a place for debate, just a place to hang your name. — kwami (talk)


 * Move (to 'Modern Standard Chinese' or to 'Standard Chinese')
 * Move. Based on sources and Wikipedia policies, move to Modern Standard Chinese -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 17:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Move. It was designed to be the standard language for all of China, not just for speakers of Mandarin. — kwami (talk) 22:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Move. Standard Mandarin's zh interwiki title is 現代標準漢語. Modern Standard Chinese is NPOV and consistent with names like Modern Standard Arabic. Keahapana (talk) 21:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Move. I support it, but the place for a poll is on the talk page of Standard Mandarin announced on WP:RM. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Move. Mandarin or Standard Chinese but not Standard Mandarin JWB (talk) 00:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC) Mandarin is the common English name for the Chinese national language, Standard Chinese is an accurate descriptive name with some academic currency. Standard Mandarin is neither, and I'm glad that kwami ("ELL citations" above) has satisfied himself of this, which I've been arguing all along. The "Mandarin Chinese" article needs to be renamed to "Northern Chinese" or something explicitly referring to dialect area. Etymologically, Mandarin = guanhua = official language, and is not a continuum of local folk dialects but defined in opposition to such. --00:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In view of what was just said above, I'll move the discussion back over to the article talk page, which SchmuckyTheCat has correctly identified as the preferred place for discussing such issues on Wikipedia. I'll note for the record that by Wikipedia guidelines  polling is not a substitute for discussion, so I treat the poll here as an opportunity to hear editors' rationales (which have not always been expressed in much detail) for doing one thing or another. I'll summarize several lines of discussion in a day or so back at the  article talk page. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 23:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Move. Overwhelmingly, the most common English name for this language is "(Modern) (Standard) Chinese", and per WP:NCON, some combination of that should be the title of the article.  --Taivo (talk) 03:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * OPPOSITION
 * Liu Tao (talk) 21:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 20:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Both terms "Standard Chinese" and "Modern Standard Chinese" can be emphasized in the article, as they are academic terms, but oppose moving the article "Standard Mandarin" to them.--TheLeopard (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 *  李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We are here to speak English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Even the most pro-Mandarin person would have a hard time with this proposal. Benjwong (talk) 02:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Reasons have been given sufficiently above. Colipon+ (Talk) 14:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Firmly oppose. Per my reasoning and that of others given above. And kwami, please delete all discussions beyond one sentence. that's what the above part was for. ---何献龙4993 (talk) 22:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, seems that most people don't much care one way or the other. — kwami (talk) 22:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * What Wikipedia policy cares about is sources. Logical arguments based on facts (and many of the people who disagree with the suggestion point to statements that I would consider facts) run up against another fact: English is a language whose speakers decide what words mean (as do speakers of any other language) sometimes without setting up a completely logical system of classification. Who has sources (sources, please, with specific citations right to the correct page) by reliable authors that show what the name of the language described in the article is in English? Let's look at published sources together. The Wikipedia core principle of verifiability is an important issue to keep in mind here. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 14:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure, but we have sources for both. GoogleBooks gives 396 hits for (Modern) Standard Mandarin, of which 424 date since 1990 (yes, the subset is larger than the superset: this is Google!), and 323 hits for (Modern) Standard Chinese, of which 324 date since 1990. — kwami (talk) 02:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not reproducing your results. What's your exact Google syntax? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 02:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Type in "Standard Mandarin" and "Standard Chinese", with quotes. Then go to the last page. You'll run out of hits long before you get to the number than Google first gives you. — kwami (talk) 23:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Part 3
The interwiki links for other language versions of Standard Mandarin and Mandarin Chinese are quite interesting, because they often don't distinguish between those two distinct English-language articles, and yet some of the other languages have had editors pick up the distinction between 現代標準漢語 and 官話 in much the same way that Chinese-language Wikipedia has long observed that distinction between two different articles. In general, a lot of the Wikipedias that are written in less commonly used languages copy a lot of content (including article titles) mostly from English Wikipedia or from some cognate language's Wikipedia, but the more carefully edited articles in the more frequently used languages show more use of verifiable sources and care in distinctions of vocabulary. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Sources supporting "Modern Standard Chinese" as Common English Name
I have culled these sources from the various places that they have occurred in the discussion:

(Items in Taivo's personal library) Modern Standard Chinese/Standard Chinese/Chinese
 * S. Robert Ramsey, 1987, The Languages of China, Princeton
 * Charles N. Li & Sandra A. Thompson, 1987, "Chinese," The World's Major Languages, ed. Bernard Comrie, Oxford, pp. 811-833.
 * George L. Campbell, 1995, Concise Compendium of the World's Languages, Routledge
 * William Bright, 1992, International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, Oxford
 * James A. Matisoff, 2003, Handbook of Proto-Tibeto-Burman, University of California Press
 * San Duanmu, 2007, The Phonology of Standard Chinese, 2nd ed, Oxford
 * Daniel Kane, 2006, The Chinese Language, Its History and Current Usage, Tuttle Publishing
 * Yip Po-Ching & Don Rimmington, 1997, Chinese: An Essential Grammar, Routledge
 * Jerry Norman, 1988, Chinese, Cambridge
 * Boping Yuan & Sally K. Church, ed., 2000, Oxford Starter Chinese Dictionary, Oxford

Putonghua
 * Graham Thurgood & Randy J. LaPolla, ed., 2003, The Sino-Tibetan Languages, Routledge

Standard Mandarin/Mandarin
 * Cliff Goddard, 2005, The Languages of East and Southeast Asia, Oxford (he often puts "Modern Standard Chinese" in parentheses behind "Mandarin Chinese" especially at the beginning of each section)
 * Hilary Chappell, ed., 2001, Sinitic Grammar: Synchronic and Diachronic Perspectives, Oxford

ELL citations I [kwami] did an electronic search of the 12,000-page Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd edition (2006). This is a nice source because it contains thousands of articles written by different linguists, all respected in their fields. The string "Standard Chinese" occurred in several of these articles. The string "Standard Mandarin" did not occur at all. Rather, it appears that what we call "Standard Mandarin" is simply "Mandarin Chinese", with what we call "Mandarin Chinese" (the northern lect) being an extension of that primary meaning. The hits are the following, with the articles numbered:
 * "Modern Standard Chinese"
 * (1) author: Y Gu, article: "Chinese"
 * (2) C Meierkord, "Lingua Francas as Second Languages"


 * "Standard Chinese"
 * (3) M Bender, "China: Scripts, Non-Chinese"
 * (4) S Duanmu, "Chinese (Mandarin): Phonology"


 * "Standard Chinese; modern standard Chinese" (two phrasings used)
 * (5) K Bolton & ASL Lam, "Applied Linguistics in China"


 * "Standard Chinese (Mandarin Chinese)"
 * (6) R Wiese, "Phonology: Overview"


 * "Modern Standard Chinese (Mandarin Chinese)"
 * (7) W Bisang, "Southeast Asia as a Linguistic Area"


 * "(Modern) Standard Mandarin (Chinese)"
 * (no matches)

Some of these sources also use "Putonghua", "Putonghua", "putonghua", "putonghua". Although common in other articles as well, the fact that it is commonly italicized suggests that it is often not seen as assimilated English.

Duanmu (#4), in explaining his choice of terminology, says, "Standard Chinese (also called Mandarin Chinese) is a member of the northern [Mandarin] family; it is based on the pronunciation of he Beijing dialect. There are, therefore, two meanings of the term Mandarin Chinese, one referring to the northern dialect family and one referring to the standard dialect. To avoid the ambiguity, I use Standard Chinese (SC) for the latter meaning."

(Items gathered by Weiji) --Taivo (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Usage in News Media

 * New York Times, searched over last year: Chinese language 401 results; Mandarin language, 64 results.  --Taivo (talk) 03:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The Times (of London), searched last 30 days: Chinese language, 22 results; Mandarin language, 9 results.  --Taivo (talk) 03:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sydney Morning Herald, entire site: Chinese language, 1033 results; Mandarin language, 138 results.  --Taivo (talk) 03:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Google Scholar, Google Books (English searches)

 * Citations between 2000-2010: Chinese language, 815,000 results; Mandarin language, 21,300 results.  --Taivo (talk) 03:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Standard Chinese, 982,000 results; Standard Mandarin, 66,900 results. --Taivo (talk) 19:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Google searches (on Chinese terms)
An exact phrase search on the Chinese term equivalent to "Modern Standard Chinese" (現代標準漢語) yields about 285,000 results, while an exact phrase search on the Chinese term equivalent to "Standard Mandarin" (標準官話) yields an order of magnitude fewer, about 3,910 results. Several of the results make clear that the term 現代標準漢語 is much more characteristic of personsof whatever ethnic or national originwho are familiar with linguistic scholarship.

Interwiki links to other Wikipedia language versions
Other Wikipedians in other languages have had to face the issue of how to title an article about the current officially promoted standard language of China and other places, on the one hand, and the broad dialect group in the north (and southwest) of China of which that language is one example. I didn't even bring up this issue until I checked Chinese-language Wikipedia and discovered that it has for a long time titled the article corresponding to the article under discussion as "現代標準漢語," that is as "Modern Standard Chinese." By contrast, the Chinese version of Wikipedia also has an article "官話" that corresponds to English Wikipedia's article Mandarin Chinese (they interwiki link to each other). Swedish and Turkish Wikipedia similarly make a distinction between two articles, one about "Standard Chinese" and one about "Mandarin." Icelandic, Indonesian, Japanese, and Russian Wikipedia make a similar distinction of having an article on the standard national language and a different article on the Mandarin dialect group, but call the standard language Putonghua after the name most often used in the P.R.C.

The German version of Wikipedia is the second largest in the world. It doesn't distinguish two different articles as Chinese Wikipedia and English Wikipedia do. It has one article that is interwiki linked from both of those articles, titled "Hochchinesisch," which points out that "Hochchinesisch" can also be called "Mandarin" in German. (The term "Hochchinesisch" is a rough German equivalent to "Standard Chinese.") Similarly, the Esperanto version of Wikipedia has one article interwiki linked from both of the two articles maintained in other languages, with the title "Norma ĉina lingvo."

Most other versions of Wikipedia gain much of their content by translation from English Wikipedia, and so far follow whatever titles and article distinctions English Wikipedia has. English Wikipedia, of course, ultimately has to be written in English (no matter what subject the article is about) and follow English usage. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Summary of Sources

 * There is no evidence that "Standard Mandarin" is a more common English term than "(Modern) (Standard) Chinese". The evidence gathered in accordance with WP:NCON's guidelines is conclusive.  --Taivo (talk) 03:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * the sources are comparing Chinese and/or one of its sub-parts in the context of learning a foreign language. it is not to be wondered what your sources would say. ---何献龙4993 (talk) 20:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No, the majority of the book sources I have cited are not in the context of learning a foreign language, but are either 1) linguistic reference works on the language, or 2) detailed scholarly analyses of the language. --Taivo (talk) 22:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * In addition, there is no evidence in any of these sources that I have found that indicates a difference between "Modern Standard Chinese" and "Standard Mandarin". In all sources they are treated as synonymous.  Therefore, if "Standard Mandarin" and "Modern Standard Chinese" are synonymous, then by the dictates of WP:NCON the most common English name must be used as the article title.  --Taivo (talk) 19:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * you continue to and relentlessly brush aside the fact that the written and spoken components of Chinese are wholly different. by your reasoning, Vernacular Chinese should also be Modern Standard Chinese. Would you mind addressing Benlisquare, or you dislike his commentary too much? I am not the only one with this, as you put it, usage of only "personal opinion". ---何献龙4993 (talk) 20:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No, the sources are all about "Chinese"--both spoken and written--and the books are all by scholars who know exactly what they are talking about. At no point do any of them make a distinction in terminology between calling the spoken standard by a different term than the written standard.  They are all specialists in Chinese and know what they are talking about.  I have looked through Benliquare's comments and have not found any reliable sources that he has cited.  He is, of course, welcome to add references to this list to 1) show that in English "Standard Chinese" and "Standard Mandarin" refer to substantially different things, or 2) demonstrate that "Standard Mandarin" is more common in English than "Standard Chinese".  --Taivo (talk) 22:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * In China, emphasis has long been placed on the distinction between speech and writing. I assume this is due to the historical fact that for centuries only the written form was a common language for China as a whole. However, in English this distinction is seldom made. It is very common for writers with a poor knowledge of the subject to state that all of Chinese has a common written form, not understanding that this is only because everyone writes in Mandarin (or, before 1920 or so, in the Chinese equivalent of Latin), but it's unusual in English for "vernacular Chinese" to mean specifically the non-Classical written language. I doubt one English speaker in ten thousand would understand "vernacular" in that sense. So yes, first of all, I would agree that as far as Vernacular Chinese is written Mandarin, it is Modern Standard Chinese; perhaps a move to Standard Written Chinese would be in order. Either that or to Vernacular written Chinese, where we would cover all of the written vernaculars, such as written Cantonese, and not just Mandarin.
 * BTW, does the phrase "Vernacular Chinese" not assert the superiority of Mandarin, or foster separatism? It is, after all, just written Mandarin, and so should have the same implications as the phrase "Standard Chinese" for the spoken standard. — kwami (talk) 23:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks to Taivo for so diligently analyzing sources. I will copy this entire section on sources over to the article talk page. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 04:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms Period rulers
I am proposing a major overhaul for the way they are to be referred to in article titles. Please see Talk:Emperor Taizu of Later Liang for more details and to provide your thoughts. --Nlu (talk) 17:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for a new naming convention
It is a common practice for English-language newspapers in Hong Kong to present names of persons with both English and Chinese names in the format of 'English first name + Chinese surname + Chinese first name' (e.g., 'Audrey Eu Yuet-mee'); and 'Chinese surname + Chinese given name' for those without any English name (e.g., 'Kam Nai-wai'). Such practice is also adopted on English-version Wikipedia.

I would like to propose the following changes to the 'naming convention for Chinese names in English':

1. Strictly follow the naming convention of English, i.e. given name(s) followed by surname

2. For people with both English and Chinese names, present their names in the format of 'English first name + surname' and place their transliterated Chinese name in the format of 'Chinese given name + Chinese surname' in brackets following the words 'also known as' (e.g., 'Audrey Eu (also known as Yuet-mee Eu)' or 'Audrey Eu (also known as Yuet Mee Eu)'). In the case of double-word Chinese first names like 'Yuet Mee', add an explanatory note at the beginning of the article to let non-Hongkongese readers know that such name is like the English name 'Mary Jane' which is a double-word name. Another explanatory note can also be added to allow readers to know that the person concerned in the article has names in both English and Chinese.

3. For people with Chinese name only, present the name in the format of 'Chinese given name + Chinese surname' (e.g. 'Nai Wai Kam' or 'Nai-wai Kam')

This is to bring the format of names of Hongkongers in English on Wikipedia in line with the normal naming convention of the English Language. Also, adopting suggestion 2 can avoid confusion to non-Chinese-speakers; although there are always explanatory notes at the beginning of articles letting readers know which part of the name is the surname, there is no note explaining to non-Chinese-speakers which part of the name do bits like 'Yuet-mee' belong to.

Douglas the Comeback Kid (talk) 16:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't entirely agree with this proposed change. Many people from Hong Kong (and Malaysia, Singapore and British Citizens) will legally be known by both names, with one or the other forming a middle name. That will be the name on their passports. Therefore the full name should appear in bold at the start of the article. This could be in conventional English naming order (Forenames Surname). However, where they are known as EnglishName Surname Chinese-name, perhaps the article should reflect this? Confusion can be avoided through use of the existing Chinese name hatnote: This is a Chinese name. The surname is Eu.


 * Incidentally, I feel you should rename this section. It is not "The naming convention adopted" but rather proposing a new convention.  J Rawle  (Talk) 17:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I also don't agree with Douglas proposal. To match real life situations the names need to match that culture's usage. Audrey Eu has never been called "Yuet Mee Eu". Benjwong (talk) 06:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * JRawle, thank you for your reply. I agree that we should use the full name of a person at the start of the article and follow the conventional English naming order. I think that if we were to avoid confusion while using the format of 'English given name + surname + Chinese given name', it is worthwhile to consider the introduction of a new hatnote which indicates clearly the Chinese given name of the person concerned. Douglas the Comeback Kid (talk) 15:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * BenjWong, thank you for your reply too. In real life situation, names in English follow the order of 'given name + surname'. I understand that the order in Chinese is the pother way round, but I think we have to respect the fact that we are writing in English, not Chinese; it is equally wrong to present names in the order of 'given name + surname' in Chinese. Douglas the Comeback Kid (talk) 15:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That is incorrect. When English names go into Chinese sources (website etc), most of the names are preserved exactly as is the same way. When Cristiano Ronaldo appears in Chinese sources, he is (基斯坦奴朗拿度).  He does not automatically become backwards with surname going first (奴朗拿度基斯坦). And that is the same in every other language. Benjwong (talk) 07:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Correct. No-one ever says "Zedong Mao" in English. A common convention to dab such uses is to put the surname in small caps: Zedong, Audrey  Yuet-mee. (Though, with short surnames like Eu, it might be necessary to use bold typeface or some other convention.) This isn't just a problem with East Asian names, but also with Hungarian names (here they generally are reversed in English) and also Spanish names, where there may be two surnames buried in the middle of a long string of other names. It's often impossible to use English order in the latter case, and even when we can, it may be opaque whether the name in the middle is a second given name or a first surname. Small caps solves that problem. — kwami (talk) 08:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal 1
This is what is currently stated about the names of emperors:

I propose rewording this to:

The fact that English readers are not usually familiar with any of the emperors is irrelevant to an English encyclopedia. Presumably some English readers are familiar, or want to be, with the emperors, and those are the ones most likely searching for these articles. So we should use the names they are most likely to encounter in other English reading about the emperors. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And English readers of the encyclopedia are likely not to be intimately familiar with any topic they look up; that's why they're here. We nevertheless want to use names they may have heard before - and will find again when they consult more reliable sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Mild oppose. In general, I agree with the logic.  Practically, I think the "most commonly used in English" phrase is difficult to determine properly.  It's difficult, for sure, in Chinese as well, but at least it's somewhat doable.  --Nlu (talk) 17:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Support I don't think we should necessarily use Google to determine such things, but histories of China as Sept. suggests below. We certainly should not refer to Google in the guideline! Editors need to be free to find the best sources for a particular debate. — kwami (talk) 23:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you read WP:GOOGLE? There is a big difference between finding sources to support content in an article and looking at usage in sources to determine what is commonly used to refer to a particular subject.  There are no sources that tell us that for the latter, so what we need to do is look at usage across a broad spectrum of sources, and web searches such as google are excellent for that.  --Born2cycle (talk) 00:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine, if Google is our best bet. But IMO we shouldn't prejudice the debate by putting it in our guidelines. — kwami (talk) 01:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Support: this is the general principle - and this page doesn't have to have implementation details. In any case, the original text is unacceptable; it is based on a falsehood about editors in general, and it inhibits verifiability. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: I would like to know what practical changes would be brought about by this change in the policy. I did not know this was the policy until now, and I was partly responsible for implementing many of the original articles. Historical scholarship itself is inconsistent, with Emperor Wu, Wudi, Han Wudi, Emperor Wu of Han, etc. all showing up depending on editorial preference. Without real world consistency, I can only support some sort of arbitrary consistency within dynasties.--Jiang (talk) 07:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Real English is indeed inconsistent, and we must choose among the possibilities it offers. We have long since discussed what is desirable in so choosing, but it depends on what's actually out there in English. Consistency within a dynasty would be one consideration. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support: The proposal needs tweaking, but it is a move in the right direction.  While we should not ignore non-English language sources, we should give preference to those in English. Blueboar (talk) 15:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Regretful oppose: I mostly agree with Blueboar's sage words; we should pay heed to English sources. However, I'm uncomfortable with the idea that we should only refer to English sources when we're looking for the most accurate name of a Chinese person - particularly bearing in mind which language will be used by all the primary sources. Therefore I cannot support the proposal as it stands. bobrayner (talk) 04:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposal 2
As with most other title determinations in Wikipedia, "most commonly used in English" can be established by looking at usage in English sources as determined by searching in Google Scholar and Google Books should be more than adequate in most if not all cases. We can modify the guideline to be specific about this.

--Born2cycle (talk) 17:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Still mildly oppose based on same argument as above (which I realize people don't have to agree with me on). It's still a situation where I think you get a distorted picture looking at just English sources, even if they're scholarly sources.  These are individuals who are discussed far more in the Chinese language context than in the English, and you get a better picture looking at the Chinese sources than English ones.  It might be different if/when these individuals are better known, better discussed, and better studied in the English language than they are currently, but currently, looking at the English sources only, the results are going to be, at best, skewed.  --Nlu (talk) 17:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "better picture" and "skewed"? By looking at Chinese sources, you certainly can get a "better picture" which is not "skewed" by English usage about how emperors are usually called in Chinese, but is that relevant to an English encyclopedia? Another way to ask this question is, how would another English encyclopedia name these emperors? How would they be called in an English book on Chinese history?  I suggest that's exactly the question that is answered when looking at usage in sources searched via Google Scholar and Books.   --Born2cycle (talk) 17:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This is what I mean by "skewed," as an example; back a couple decades ago, when very few people in the English-speaking world knew what "feng shui" was, the concept of "feng shui" would have been described using other words when needed to be in English (say, for example, "Chinese concept of placement harmony"); that doesn't mean that, even back then, had Wikipedia existed, that that would have made a more appropriate article title than "feng shui" because it would have been less precise, less correct, and less useful. Now that the concept of feng shui is better known, there would be no question that "feng shui" would be the better title.  That is what I feel about the emperors as well; using the Chinese usage has the advantage the article titles will not become outdated as time goes along and the Chinese personalities become better known in the English-speaking world.  --Nlu (talk) 04:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Not at all. When feng shui was little known, those reliable sources which discussed it in English still called it "feng shui" or some equivalent transliteration; that's why the phrase has been adopted. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps some day English usage will change to refer to the city in Italy as Milano, but unless and until that happens, that article about it will be at Milan. In English we used to refer to the city as Peking, but at some point we adopted Beijing.  Wikipedia article titles reflect actual current usage in English, period.  Had Wikipedia been around in the 1960s, the article would have been at Peking.  There is little if any consideration for what is "right" or "wrong", and we do not use a crystal ball.   --Born2cycle (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support, although Google Scholar and Google Books are not the best choices. Consult general works of reference in English for what they call the Emperors; I would start with the Cambridge History of China, now nearly complete. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose revision. Support general proposal, as above. — kwami (talk) 23:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * See the discussion of sources in WP:NCGN; these are one of the six choices there, and generally available. There are better tests - and they should be available to anyone writing a good article - but this is one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. We shouldn't tie our hands to a Google search. This is not to say a Google search can't be used, but that it should not be endorsed as authority. Our common names policy is commonly applied using a Google search, but it does not endorse a Google search.--Jiang (talk) 07:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments: (1) We have redirects, so I don't see what's the big deal. (2) I don't understand the formatting of this section. What is "revision a" supposed to mean. Please edit this to provide some context. (3) The "name which is most familiar to Chinese readers" is not the convention that is being followed, because article titles contain English, not exclusively Chinese or Chinese pinyin, words. --Jiang (talk) 04:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There was one proposal, then, based on input to that one, I created a second alternative proposal, called "revision a". --Born2cycle (talk) 05:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * formatted accordingly--Jiang (talk) 07:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Jiang, for what prompted this discussion, see Talk:Emperor Taizu of Later Liang. --Nlu (talk) 15:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: I won't oppose this, but I prefer the more generalized statement... google books and google scholar have their uses... but they also have their flaws. I think it best to omit mentioning them.  The key is that we base our article titles on what the reliable English language sources use... how we determine that is somewhat flexible. Blueboar (talk) 16:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose, as before. Firstly, I think it's unhelpful to specify google scholar and google books. They are merely a technical means of searching for secondary sources; in some cases (or in future) there might be better methods. There might be literature reviews that have been conducted by a professional rather than a simple search algorithm, or whatever... Secondly, I would still like to retain some room for Chinese-language sources, which are surely relevant to articles on Chinese history. bobrayner (talk) 13:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Characters
Any encyclopedia entries whose titles are Chinese proper names should include both the Chinese characters and the Hanyu Pinyin representation for their names in the first sentence. The article title itself is normally the pinyin representation with the tone marks omitted: "Mao Zedong", not "Máo Zédōng", unless another spelling is common (see below).

This is contrary to the new naming convention being discussed below (and other viable alternatives) and is also too much of a generalization to work with. I propose that this segment be removed while a new consensus is being reached.Nameless123456 (talk) 15:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Wade-Giles
Having chosen my authority. I checked it, to find that the CHC uses Wade-Giles; it is one of many modern reliable sources (the volume on the five dynasties was written last year) to do so. We should consider the use of WG for Chinese history: events long before pinyin was devised. For the turn of the twentieth century, this is particularly serious: contemporary sources used WG, as everybody did at the time, and the secondary literature has continued to use it.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Wade-Giles is no longer used officially by any governmental entity or international entity in the world due to its confusing nature.  We shouldn't go back in that direction.  --Nlu (talk) 10:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not Wikipedia practice to have our prose determined by governments, even English-speaking governments; compare WP:Official names for some reasoning on why. (But the fundamental cause is that anglophones as a whole don't support any Academy in which political appointees determine our language.) If Wade-Giles is clear enough for the Cambridge University Press and for the ongoing translation of Ssu-ma Chien (Sima Qian for the transliteration challenged), it is certainly clear enough for us.
 * On the merits, however, Wade-Giles is a unique coding of Mandarin phonemes, based on the actual value of English letters; pinyin, which combines a Polish c with a Spanish x and a q from somebody's imagination, cannot say even so much.
 * And I am not advocating a wholesale conversion; merely that editors should follow actual scholarly usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The usual reader-friendly thing to do in English-language reference books about Chinese topics is to show whatever transcription is in the underlying source, add an example of another transcription likely to appear in other sources (in the cases mentioned above, that would usually mean adding Hanyu pinyin spelling to Wade-Giles spelling an editor would find first), and in the best case, where necessary, take advantage of Wikipedia's support of Unicode to also add Chinese characters, especially for proper names. I don't think any Wikipedia guideline can or should be interpreted to ban helpful information for readers such as alternative standard written forms of terms used in article text. Especially proper names should be available for the reader to see in the commonplace forms that might be useful for further research, even if that is two or three different forms of writing. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Further Comment. Again, we need consistency here.  Wikipedia's general policy is to use Pinyin except in very-well known situations (e.g., Chiang Kai-shek) or if the person himself/herself has commonly used another romanization scheme (e.g., Lien Chan).  To be blunt, PMAnderson, I think you are stepping into an area that you don't know enough about.  --Nlu (talk) 17:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * An analogous situation can be found in the use of Korean romanizations on Wikipedia; the general policy here is to use Revised Romanization rather than McCune-Reischauer notwithingstanding the fact that M-R is used more in extant scholarly sources (due to RR's shorter history). Governmental adaptation is important because it shows where the trend is going.  Further, it simply creates more and more reader confusion to see multiple systems of romanization unless absolutely necessary.  --Nlu (talk) 17:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment while pinyin in undoubtedly a system of Romanisation not Anglicisation, I have to say that Wade-Giles isn't always intuitive for English speakers. I once knew a Taiwanese called Chia-chun, or more accurately Chia-ch'un, except that they always omit the apostrophes, which makes it ambiguious. Putting that aside, the average English speaker would still have far more of an idea of the pronunciation from the pinyin Jiachun. Another example is Taipei, which for English speakers has a pronunciation closer to the pinyin spelling. So when it comes to Romanisation for English speakers, it's rather a case of swings and roundabouts. I'd also add that Wade-Giles isn't that historic a system either, almost turn of the 20th century. So hardly any more appropriate for articles "long before pinyin was devised". The subjects of such articles wouldn't have used any Romanisation at all themselves, after all!  J Rawle  (Talk) 23:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but we don't need consistency with the literature in Chinese - in itself unattainable since the simplified character set; we could use consistency with the mass of English scholarship. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * what do you mean? it seems you clearly do not know enough about this subject. It's time for you to read articles such as Romanisation of Mandarin Chinese. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 22:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Read it, to see if this post had a point, as well as a personal attack; it says little of relevance. (Chiefly this: WG as often used does not represent tones; true, and neither does pinyin as Wikipedia employs it. So?) Wade Giles was the chief system for English writing on Chinese history for three-quarters of a century; it is still used in major works of reference; it is (on topics dating from before the twentieth century, and even the early years of that century) what is used in the majority of English treatments. We should feel free to use it.


 * But this guideline has always been a battleground; this is why it is so often and so justly ignored; it was a forlorn hope to expect mere evidence to storm it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * well your post at 22:02 UTC was not very clear, and my post in response pressed you for clarification of the sentence fragment "since the...". you haven't elucidated that. I ask you to do that immediately.
 * right, NLu launched the same accusation at you, so why don't you accuse him of a [warranted and objective] personal attack?
 * no one here is requesting that WG not be used within an article. it, in most instances (apart from things like the full name of the Sino-British joint declaration), is certainly fine to be included within the Template:Chinese that is commonly employed. But the literature has moved on, and so must Wikipedia. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 22:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose, per the reasoning Nlu gave above. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 22:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose, A unified standard is obviously superior to a split standard that is without any compelling basis. It's not like Pinyin is going away. Nor is any rule or general practice against using Pinyin for historical writing. Britannica has a lot of Chinese history in Pinyin, although it's still mostly Wade-Giles. (Perhaps they are converting?) Ray Huang used Pinyin in China: a Macro History. Here is book about the Han dynasty that uses Pinyin exclusively, despite the fact that it is directed very narrowly at a specialist audience. This book (which I helped edit) focuses on early 20th century China and also uses Pinyin. Pre-Pinyin transliteration was not so much a system as a big mess. Newspaper usage left off the apostrophes, which are a pretty important part of WG. The major place names were given, not in WG at all, but using unsystemic "Post office" transliteration. So the true WG system was something only specialists ever really used. Kauffner (talk) 15:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose Serves no purpose, requires readers to learn a 2nd transliteration system. — kwami (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Small change to names of emperors?
Current version:
 * 1) Emperors before the Tang Dynasty: use posthumous names, such as Emperor Wu of Han (漢武帝).
 * 2) Emperors of the Tang, Song, Liao and Jin (1115-1234) dynasties : use temple names, such as Emperor Taizong of Tang (唐太宗).
 * 3) Emperors of the Ming Dynasty and Qing Dynasty: use era names (same as reign names), such as Kangxi Emperor (康熙帝).

New version:
 * 1) Emperors from the Han Dynasty to the Sui Dynasty: use posthumous names, such as Emperor Wu of Han (漢武帝).
 * 2) Emperors of the Tang, Song, Liao and Jin (1115-1234) dynasties : use temple names, such as Emperor Taizong of Tang (唐太宗).
 * 3) Emperors of the Ming Dynasty and Qing Dynasty: use era names (same as reign names), such as Kangxi Emperor (康熙帝).

That way, Qin emperors (Shihuangdi, Er Shi, Ziying) and pre-Qin kings (such as Ping of Zhou, Tang of Shang, Jie of Xia, etc) can be removed.  Kayau  Voting  IS   evil 05:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem with including the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms emperors is that (as I think I pointed out on Talk:Emperor Taizu of Later Liang) most of them didn't have temple names. --Nlu (talk) 06:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Removed five dynasties. How is that now?  Kayau  Voting  IS   evil 15:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, there went my objection. I have no opinion on what to do with Qin emperors.  --Nlu (talk) 15:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Just continue to use Temple names, if they don't then use some other reign name or title, especially with the Qin Emperors. Qin Shihuang is almost never referred to as Ying Zheng, his son you hear his name from time to time, and the third emperor's real name is used pretty frequently, but any Chinese will know who you're talking about if you use Qin Shihuang, Ershi, and Sanshi.  Liu Tao (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Really? I've heard Ying Zheng lots of times, but never heard of San Shi, only Ziying. Regional differences, maybe.  Kayau  Voting  IS   evil 03:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I doubt that consistency between different articles should be high on our list of principles for article names. What names are used by reliable sources? If the schema above is a summary of the names used by reliable sources, then it's redundant as a naming schema. If it differs from names used by reliable sources, then I oppose it. bobrayner (talk) 11:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Xian Ren Qiao or Fairy Bridge
I'm looking for guidance as to whether then entry for the natural arch over the Buliu River in Guangxi should be under Xian Ren Qiao or Fairy Bridge (currently both entries exist). Kevink707 (talk) 23:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Whatever sources give. But in any case, "Xian Ren Qiao" is not an acceptable title because the last word is translatable and means "Bridge". Also, see the rules for Mandarin pinyin. -- HXL's Roundtable  and  Record  23:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Hyphenating compounds
Is it possible to clarify or establish rules for hyphenating compounds? This move was made, partially at least, on the basis of our statement that language names are not hyphenated. However, I assume that addresses words like Guanhua, Jinyu (not *Guan-hua, *Jin-yu). There are also compound language names, where the language or dialect is named after the extremes of its area, like Niger-Congo in English. Pinyin.info suggests hyphenating compounds like Jing-Jin for Bejing-Tianjin, I often see equivalent language/dialect names hyphenated in English, such as the iso names, where we have unhyphenated Huizhou Chinese but hyphenated Pu-Xian Chinese. This can be be useful: by hyphenating Lan-Yin Mandarin, the reader won't expect it to be named after some place called "Lanyin", and is more likely to remember that it's Lanzhou + Yinchuan. — kwami (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I added a description of hyphenation to the pinyin article, and gave examples here for proper names, which are the most likely to be found in an WP article title. — kwami (talk) 00:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd rather that you revert that addition yourself, as I believe it to be irresponsible for us to not be "describing reality". I.E., we should be heeding the guidelines at WP:NCON instead of setting rules for the rest of the Net. Also, consider, that the titles of articles on city-city expressways and most railways, excluding High-Speed Railways already use the non-hyphenated form. -- HXL's Roundtable  and  Record  00:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Kwami for clarifying the official Pinyin rules. Perhaps it is time to correct mistaken titles like Wu-Wo tea ceremony and Wu wei. Keahapana (talk) 01:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * HXL, I'll delete for now. However, it's odd to have different conventions for rail lines depending on how fast the train goes. I would think that is something we'd want to be consistent about. — kwami (talk) 02:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's what I removed, so we can discuss here:
 * Abbreviated compounds (luèyǔ) are hyphenated unless they are well-established as words in their own right. However, abbreviations of proper-name compounds should always be hyphenated: Běi-Dà (= Běijīng Dàxué "Beijing University"), Jīng-Jīn (Bejing-Tianjin).
 * Note that we merely parrot the LoC, which is a regional convention. IMO we should not adopt the conventions of any particular country, per ENVAR, esp. when they do not summarize official pinyin orthography very well. — kwami (talk) 02:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Dong Qu etc. - why not "Eastern District"?
Since there are quite a few places named 某市东区, would not it be more "euphonic", and easier for non-Chinese-speakers, to name the corresponding articles  "Eastern District (Some City)", rather than "Dong District (Some City)" or "Dongqu District (Some City)"? To see how it's done in articles about other countries, I've taken a look at Moscow's top-level districts (roughly similar to Chinese qu) and they are named Northern Administrative Okrug etc. (So over there they chose not to translate Okrug, to avoid confusion with subdistricts, Rayon, which are more or less on the zhen or jiedao level). -- Vmenkov (talk) 22:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you not see the thread "single-character districts" right above? I would certainly prefer "East District" or "Eastern District" over the redundant "Dongqu District", though East seems to be more common in searches. I am most tolerant of literally translating "东区" as opposed to other districts with descriptive names. However, to quote Pengyanan, I would also like to keep the spirit of NC-ZH, and this practise may well lead to ridiculous translations such as "Suburb District" (for 郊区) and "Middle Mountain District" (中山区), etc.
 * On another note, I occasionally take literal translations of some of the subdistricts at the "List of township-level divisions of _" series. The only cases I can think of are where 路 or 街 precedes 街道, and, in some cases, where 东西南北 is at the beginning. -- HXL's Roundtable  and  Record  23:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I saw the thread above, but thought that the "no qu" position was so obvious that I did not bother to comment. I've made a comment above now. As to "Eastern District" vs. "Middle Mountain District" - well, of course we should not literally translate everything, but a reasonable list of what can be translated (perhaps just "North", "South", "East" and "West", in the names of districts) can be arrived upon. I certainly would not be in favor of literally translating Dongxiang in "Dongxiang Autonomous County" as "East Village", for example; it's just not done in the existing literature, I think. -- Vmenkov (talk) 03:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Single-character Districts
There is absolutely no reason to not exclude 区/區 (qū) in the title of ANY district, mainland or Taiwan. Why? Because 区/區 is the word for District. Examples would include Cheng District and Jiao District. This would be similar to taking Huai River and naming it Huaihe River. Also, consider the single-character counties, e.g. Fei County, Shandong. Should it be "Feixian County"? Ran oddly chose to create 2 separate standards. This is beyond ridiculous. And once this is over, Pengyanan, I insist that I alone change all "_qu District" examples. -- HXL's Roundtable  and  Record  13:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I am neutral on this issue. But, please be patient and please wait for the result of discussion before you change the convention. This is not yet over. Thanks for your cooperation. --Pengyanan (talk) 14:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you explain how you are neutral? On another note, could you not simply copy the text of your response into the edit summary? I always believe there is more content (in the summary than the response itself), so the result is I waste time reading the diffs -- HXL's Roundtable  and  Record 
 * Neutrality means that I had no position on this issue. But after considering it, I have a position now (see below) and oppose naming 郊区/城区 as Jiao District/Cheng District. As for my edit summaries, I don't see any wrong with them. I reverted your mass moves and provided my reason and relevant links in the edit summaries. What do you expect me to say in them? --Pengyanan (talk) 08:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Poor reading is poor reading; it is obvious that that I was criticising your edit summaries on talk pages, not in general. And in many cases, all you did in your moves was 废话啰嗦, without clearly addressing the real reason (primary topic) behind the moves. Oh do I wish that I had started editing in earnest summer, not late, 2009. -- HXL's Roundtable  and  Record  16:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear boy, rude words do not make argument more convincing. Maybe you are too young to learn how to be civil. Thanks for your comment. --Pengyanan (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear sir, "rude words" that are not directly related to this discussion don't affect the strength of my argument(s). Dear sir, the comment about my age was overboard. -- HXL's Roundtable  and  Record  17:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, dear HXL49, I apologize if my comment on your age offended you. I hope both of us can discuss more civilly --Pengyanan (talk) 18:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I think I am more comfortable with "Jiao District" then "Jiaoqu District", since the former is both non-tautological and actually is closer to teh Chinese original (since "district" is our standard translation for 区). Even with counties, I think I'd rather have "Fang County" than "Fangxian" or "Fangxian County".

I'd note as an aside that, at least with respect to counties, Chinese map-makers do have a commonly used convention of treating 1- and 2-character county names differently. I am looking at my wall map and see that counties with 2-character names are always labeled with just the 2 characters of the county's names, e.g. 通山 for the county seat of Tongshan County, Hubei or 临夏 for that of Linxia County, Gansu (even though, pragmatically, writing 临夏县 would have avoided possible confusion with the nearby Linxia City. Meanwhile every county seat of county with a single-character name is also labeled with 2 chars, e.g. 费县 for Fei County or 房县 for Fang County. I guess they feel that labeling a map object with just 1 character is just "weird"! However, I believe there is no reason whatsoever for us to emulate this approach in naming encyclopedia articles - after all, it's just a map convention, and a Chinese reference book or encyclopedia would write all names uniformly: 房县, 临夏县, etc. -- Vmenkov (talk) 03:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * After considering this issue, I am not neutral now. I think 郊区/城区 should be translated as Jiaoqu/Chengqu because qu (区) in these two words does not refer to the specific administrative division level "district in China". It is instead part of the generic Chinese words jiaoqu/chengqu, which mean suburb/urban area. This is different from "single-character + xian" or single-character + he", in which xian/he refers to the generic term county/river and the single-character is the proper name of the county/river. In comparison, Jiao/Cheng is not the proper name of the administrative division district. On the contrary, Jiaoqu/Chengqu is the proper name of the districts. --Pengyanan (talk) 08:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If 区 does not refer to the administrative division level, then why would they be organised into or like formal districts then? I agree with you, in most cases (for now), that the names also refer to suburbs or urban centres, but  And also, for at least 山西长治, the pinpoints on Google Earth for 城区 (36.20352°N, 113.12309°W) and 郊区 (36.19919°N, 113.12653°W) are so close and are in areas with similar population density that it seems unlikely that they could truly represent the urban centre and suburbs. Since I have one example to disprove your claim, your claim obviously cannot be true for all cases, and so we should not be using the current standard. Also, to me, it seems like you are applying different standards on translation: what you are proposing is a psuedo-translation.
 * And could you give your input on 东区 (and other 依方位而分的行政区划/direction districts) below? -- HXL's Roundtable  and  Record  15:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So close? Similar population density? Please check article Changzhi. The density of its Chengqu is 6,964 people per km2, while density of its Jiaoqu is only 969. The one example you have does not disprove my claim, but obviously disprove yours. Thanks for your understanding. --Pengyanan (talk) 17:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you are the one who has turned outright WP:Incivil with "thanks for your understanding". Perhaps you are the one who needs to read more carefully (a simple request, that's all). I was only talking about the Google Earth pinpoints, and so my conclusion was based on those pinpoints. This is the second time you have mis-read my comments. -- HXL's Roundtable  and  Record  17:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I apologize if "thanks for your understanding" offended you. I hope both of us can discuss more civilly. I know you were talking about the Google Earth pinpoints. What I pointed out in my above comment was that your method is questionable. Districts cover large areas and cannot be seen as just points especially when we talk about the population density. The example you have, I mean the Changzhi case, clearly shows that Jiaoqu means suburb and Chengqu means urban areas. By the way, I updated the population density information of Changzhi Chengqu and Jiaoqu. Now they are 7,482 v. 1,017.5. They are still apparently not similar. Thanks. --Pengyanan (talk) 18:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Now, Pengyanan, can you address one of my key questions? "If 区 does not refer to the administrative division level, then why would they be organised into or like formal districts then?" -- HXL's Roundtable  and  Record  18:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Jiaoqu is suburb, but can also administrated as an administrative division qu. Why not? --Pengyanan (talk) 03:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Then why the "qu (区) in these two words does not refer to the specific administrative division level"? -- HXL's Roundtable  and  Record  05:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Because we don't need to say Jiaoququ. The second qu is omitted. --Pengyanan (talk) 05:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That is a given. Still does not answer my question: Why did you say that originally? -- HXL's Roundtable  and  Record  13:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have answered and don't want to repeat. Please check a Chinese dictionary. Thanks. --Pengyanan (talk) 13:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Offensive again. I know far more Chinese than what I have told you up to this point. Retract that comment. It's time you rid yourself of your condescending "母语是汉语，你当然比我差远了" attitude. -- HXL's Roundtable  and  Record  14:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you really think that asking someone to check Chinese dictionary offensive, why did you link words, like overboard and given, to Wiktionary, an English dictionary? Do you think that it's time you rid yourself of your condescending "I live in U.S., and my English is much better than you" attitude??? --Pengyanan (talk) 15:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * How many times have I seen you link "NOT" in your edit summaries? By providing links to Wiktionary, I was precisely mocking you for that. -- HXL's Roundtable  and  Record  15:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Linking not in edit summary is like boldfacing or italicizing it in text since we cannot boldface or italicize words in edit summary. How many times have I seen you boldface or italicize "no", "clearly", "not", "again", etc. in your comments? --Pengyanan (talk) 15:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * well I interpreted it as providing a definition. You could have typed it in CAPS. Anyway, I do not want to discuss anything with you for at least 1 week. Either nothing productive results, or you respond with a flared temper. -- HXL's Roundtable  and  Record  15:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Very well. Bye-bye. Have a nice week in good temper. --Pengyanan (talk) 15:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

"China" redirect
Why China doesn't redirect to People's Republic of China? Isn't that biased? In other wikipedia languages the term China redirects to PRC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.69.110.164 (talk) 13:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear Mr. Unhappy in SAO PAULO. Just get the PRC to announce that Taiwan is not part of China and we'll fix that right up for you. Hcobb (talk) 21:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That wouldn't actually help seeing as the ROC nominally claims China. --Cyber cobra (talk) 03:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That wouldn't make sense since Republic of China (Taiwan) claims all of mainland China (PRC + Outer Mongolia) as ROC national territory.Phead128 (talk) 20:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The current situation is that we have two governments who each claim to the legitimate government of all China and that they'll merge at some point in the unknown future. The opposition in Taiwan has called for a split, but they don't set policy. Hcobb (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, China is the PRC, and China is not ROC, for all intents and purposes. However, the main 'China' article talks about China as a continuous civilization, a nation-state, or a cultural unit or identity... so I like the way it is now. It is fine.Phead128 (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Political reasons within wikipedia. The redirect should send readers where most readers are expecting to go when typing china. This answer is for the original poster. 190.51.168.236 (talk) 13:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * For the last time, this is a NON-ISSUE, and will remain one so long as Taiwan is ruled by a government different from mainland China. Read Chinese naming conventions. -- HXL's Roundtable  and  Record  13:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * wikipedians are not a crystal ball and will remain like that as long as wikipedians are not a crystal ball policy is not overthrown by a new consensus.   Read wikipedians ain't a crystal ball 190.51.168.236 (talk) 13:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I DON'T need IPs to tell me about policy and to talk down to me like that. So long as the benefits of greater cross-strait interaction are apparent, reunification is inevitable. Besides, China has existed in some form for far longer than the PRC. Similarly, the Republic of China had significant history on mainland China before it hopped over to Taiwan. This is another reason why we don't even consider these merges and that this is a NON-ISSUE FOR THE LAST TIME -- HXL's Roundtable  and  Record  14:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

-- extracted from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:People%27s_Republic_of_China&diff=424862903&oldid=424862781.


 * I will just summarize what i said with: The redirect should send readers where most readers are expecting to go when typing china. But i guess wikipedians as well as people in real life tend to stick with the same opinion over and over, mentioning only what favours their opinion, forgetting that the decision shoud be based in a balance of the pro and cons, a balance that is subjective. 190.51.168.236 (talk) 18:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I concur with HXL49 rationale behind China and PRC. En Wiki is the most developed Wiki (1.6 million articles) and such all the other wikis need to catch up. China is a generic term which can be geographic, political or historical. Other wikis might not have the editors to actively contribute in the Sinosphere areas of their wikis. Should not be assuming the term China is exclusively reserved for the political entity; PRC at all. The political entities are the PRC and ROC which is commonly refer in mass media as Taiwan for easier consumption. The PRC is the correct entity state for mainland China. I suggest you read about the History of China to get your head around the issue. --Visik (Chinwag Podium) 02:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Also have a look at the Korea article. See the difference between the Republic of Korea and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. --Visik (Chinwag Podium) 02:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

For article names of Chinese railways, replace transliterated shorthand names with hyphenated full names
Under the current naming convention, Wikipedia English article names of Chinese railways (and expressways) follow the shorthand Chinese character names for these railways (and expressways) transliterated into English. For example, the Beijing-Shanghai Railway is named Jinghu Railway, after the shorthand of the Chinese name for this railway, 京沪铁路. Jing is the pinyin tranliteration for 京, the character used in Chinese as a shorthand for the city of Beijing. Hu is the pinyin transliteration for 沪, the character used in Chinese as a shorthand for the city of Shanghai. Beijing and Shanghai are the two terminal cities on the railway.

For ease of reference, let’s call Jinghu Railway the “transliterated shorthand name” and the Beijing-Shanghai Railway, the “hyphenated full name”. The transliterated shorthand name, while seemingly faithful to the Chinese naming method, is not helpful or effective for most English Wikipedia readers and fails to satisfy most of the objectives under Wikipedia’s article naming convention, which are recognizability, naturalness, precision, conciseness and consistency. This naming convention should be replaced by hyphenated full names of Chinese railways, which has the two terminal location references (usually cities but also could be provinces) of each railway fully spelled out and connected by a hyphen. This hyphenated name should be followed by “Railway”, capitalized because the name of each Chinese railway is a proper noun. The transliterated shorthand name could be mentioned in the article and could have a redirect link, but should not be the primary article name – for the following reasons:

Recognizability – an ideal title will confirm, to readers who are familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic, that the article is indeed about that topic. The names of most railways in China, regardless of naming method, are not familiar or recognizable to most English Wikipedia readers. When this is the case, the more descriptive name will make the railway more identifiable. For example, most English readers are unfamiliar with, say, the railway between Chengdu and Chongqing, but between Chengyu Railway and the Chengdu-Chongqing Railway, they’re much more likely to identify the latter as the railway between the two cities.

As of April 22, 2011, articles for only a handful of railways in China have been created and named with the transliterated shorthand name method. Most of these articles are for railways that many bilingual (Chinese and English) readers can recognize, such as the Jinghu, Jingguang, Jingjiu, Jingbao Railway, so the naming convention appears to be fine. Yet, once we expand the article coverage to railways that are less well-known, recognizability of names will diminish. Railways like the Funen, Kuybei, Qibei, Nenlin, are likely to be as obscure to the English reader as they are to the bilingual reader. As the number of articles proliferates, the article names will become progressively more difficult to recognize and tell apart. Try telling apart the following railways: Fuhuai, Fuxia and Funen.

Part of the difficulty is that the transliteration method obscures differences in Chinese characters and Chinese tones that help to pick apart some of those names, such as 阜淮, 福厦, 富嫩 in the riddle above. Compared to the shorthand names, Fuxin-Huainan, Fuzhou-Xiamen, and Fuyu-Nenjiang, are more recognizable. With pinyin transliteration from Chinese to English, considerable detail and discerning information is lost. Consider more examples:
 * Xiangyu, Xianggui, Xiangpu Railways all have different “Xiang” characters;
 * Baolan and Baocheng Railways have different “Bao” characters;
 * Jiaoji and Jitong Railways have different “Ji” characters;
 * Jiaoji and Jiaoliu Railways have different “Jiao” characters
 * Jitong and Tongpu Lines have different “Tong” characters;
 * Lanxin and Lanyan Lines have different “Lan” characters;
 * Qibei and Ningqi Lines have different “Qi” characters;
 * Tongjiu, Tongpu, Jitong Railways have different “Tong” characters
 * Xianggui and Guikun Lines have different “Gui” characters;
 * Yiwan and Wangan Railways have different “Wan” characters;
 * Yiwan, Yijia, and Xinyi Lines have different “Yi” characters;
 * Yuli and Licha Railways have different “Li” characters;

Many English readers may be unfamiliar with one-character abbreviations of Chinese cities and provinces that are commonly used in Chinese shorthand names for railways, Hu for Shanghai, Yu for Chongqing, Rong for Chengdu, Ning for Nanjing, Yong for Ningbo and Jiu for Kowloon. Compare Beijing-Kowloon Railway with Jingjiu Railway. Just when you thought Jing stood for Beijing, there is Jingsha Railway, between Jingmen and Shashi in Hubei Province.

Part of the difficulty is that the Chinese method itself is vulnerable to confusion due to the repetition of the same characters used to describe different location. Consider Changda (长大), Xinchang (新长), and Daqin (大秦) railways. These three lines have two pairs of Chang and Da characters in common but those two characters refer to four different cities: Changchun, Changxing, Dalian and Datong. When these homographs characters are transliterated into the English, the confusion they cause is compounded by their homophone characters. Joining the Da (大) railways, e.g. Daqin (大秦) and Dazheng (大郑), are the Da (达) railways – Dacheng (达成) Dawan (达万) Railway. Joining Chang (长) railways are other Changs such as (昌), as in the Changjiu (昌九) Railway.

Naturalness – refers to the names and terms that readers are most likely to look for in order to find the article (and to which editors will most naturally link from other articles). How are the names of Chinese railways referred to in English publications? A search in the English news articles for Beijing-Shanghai Railway yields hundreds of results. A search for Jinghu Railway yields few to no results. In everyday use, when an English writer wants to identify a Chinese railway in English prose to an English reading audience, he/she is much more likely to use the hyphenated full name approach than the transliterated shorthand name approach.

Precision – titles are expected to use names and terms that are precise, but only as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously. Not surprisingly, the hyphenated full name is more precise and less prone to confusion than the transliterated shorthand name. For example, does Xinyi Railway refer to the railway between Fuxin and Yi County (新义铁路) or the railway of Xinyi (新沂铁路), which goes to Changxing? What about the Ningwu Railway, is it one of the railways that originates from Ningwu or the Nanjing-Wuhu Railway, whose transliterated shorthand is also Ningwu?

Conciseness – shorter titles are generally preferred to longer ones. This is the only consideration where the transliterated shorthand name appears to have the edge. But this objective is far outweighed by others consideration. The hyphenated full name is hardly long by Wikipedia article name standards. Furthermore, as a rule, in Wikipedia, we do not use abbreviations as article names. Why adopt Chinese abbreviations as the official English names?

Consistency -  titles which follow the same pattern as those of similar articles are generally preferred. As noted, news articles about railways overwhelmingly follow the hyphenated full name approach. Among China’s high-speed railways, the majority also following the hyphenated full-name approach, because this approach delivers more identifying information and is less prone to confusion.

It’s time to make the English article names of Chinese railways consistent, clear and descriptive. The need for hyphenated full names for Chinese railways is more pressing than it is for Chinese highways. Whereas railway names are stable, highways in China frequently have their names changed as expressways are lengthened and numbering systems are adopted. As an encyclopedia, we want to present seemingly complex information to readers in a way that is clear and consistent and easy to understand and follow. Under the hyphenated full name approach, readers can tell right away, what the two terminal cities of any railway are, and if they can recognize one of the two cities, be able to orient the railway. They will be able to tell that the Nanjing-Xian (Ningxi), Nanjing-Wuhu (Ningwu) and Nanjing-Qidong (Ningqi) Railways do not originate from the same city as the Ningwu-Kelan (Ningke) and Ningwu-Jingle (Ningjing) Railways.

For consistency and clarity, Wikipedia article names of Chinese railways should always feature the full names. In-article references can use transliterated shorthand names. The only exception may be the Longhai Line, which has become a two-character word in itself. The reason for this lengthy argument is because prior attempts to convert transliterated shorthand article names into hyphenated full names have been reversed with reference to the naming convention. ContinentalAve (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I will refuse to agree to anything regarding railways unless something is done to expressways as well. Since expressways follow about the same convention, with the only conceivable difference being the addition of the "G__" numbering system, it makes little sense to have 2 separate conventions. Also, I am pretty sure that you fell for the pitfall of not using " " (i.e. exact phrasing) when doing Google searches. HSR, since they have been built only recently, are mentioned using the Terminus 1-Terminus 2 format in most media sources.
 * And with regards to "most English Wikipedia readers"... that's not the most important issue to be considered here, and probably should not be one. Precision far eclipses recognisability; you pointed this out. Full transliteration often creates disambiguation. -- HXL's Roundtable  and  Record  00:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * HXL:Appreciate your prompt response.


 * Regarding the highway naming convention: Sure, we can certainly adopt the same full-name approach for highways. i.e. G12 Hunchun-Ulanhot Expressway instead of G12 Hunwu Expressway.


 * Regarding the Google searches: the point here is that more English writers use the full-name approach than the transliterated shorthand approach because the former is more natural. This is true whether we are talking newly built HSRs or longstanding regular speed railways.  A search for "Beijing-Shanghai Railway" (in quotes) yields 269,000 results on Google, whereas "Jinghu Railway" (in quotes) yields only 77,000. The "Baotou-Lanzhou Railway" has 16,100 results and "Baolan Railway" has only 1,010 results.


 * Regarding most "English Wikipedia readers": I would not dismiss them so readily from our consideration of naming conventions. Wikipedia exists for their and our use.  Two criteria in Wikipedia's naming convention -- recognizability and naturalness -- are based on the reader's experience.  While it is true that many of the railway and expressways in China are currently unfamiliar to English readers (and therefore not recognizable to them), Wikipedia can help to change that through the creation of articles about them.  This is why it is important for the names of these articles to be helpful, descriptive and memorable.  Over time, many of the railways and expressways in China will become more recognizable.  How we name them can have quite a lot to do with how quickly they gain acceptance.


 * Precision versus Recognizability: If I read your last point sentence correctly -- Full transliteration often creates disambiguation. -- then you're in agreement with me that using the full-names of these railways and highways creates less ambiguity than the shorthand names, not just often, but almost always.


 * Thank you for your attention. ContinentalAve (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * To be clear, it is not that I am necessarily opposed to the proposal, but I am concerned about some of the wording of the rationale. Indeed, I will come out and say that full spelling is required in all cases where ambiguation with even one terminus is possible (i.e. Nanjing). -- HXL's Roundtable  and  Record  14:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I am fairly neutral on the proposal; but, as one data point, there were 455 results when searching on "beijing-hankou railway" on Google Books; 26 and 35 results when searching on "jing-han railway" and "jinghan railway", respectively. (Among them, there must have been a few "pseudobooks", created by a parasitic publisher from Wikipedia pages; but the number was small enough as not to affect the overall results significantly. There were also a few hits with "chinghan", "beiping-hankow", etc., but again to few too affect the overall ratios). -- Vmenkov (talk) 15:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I broadly support this. I am far from proficient in Chinese but recognise many place names, including most cities. But the short names really make no sense to me, i.e. on encountering them I would need to look for the longer full name to understand what is being referred to. I suspect only those proficient in Chinese would recognise the short names, and such people are unlikely to be using the English Wikipedia as a reference for the Chinese railway system. It seems that broader usage agrees with this, based on the searches done. There will still be redirects for those that are searching by the short names, but the full names are more appropriate for the article titles.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 16:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the helpful input from everyone. HXL, I understand your reluctance to change a long-standing policy but your proposed solution of spelling out the full name only when there is ambiguity with the abbreviated name will prove to be difficult to implement. For one, many writers will not be aware of ambiguities because they haven’t considered the whole galaxy of railway and expressway names. This is why I have gone through the effort of creating a very long post with many examples to illustrate the problem. Only when you consider the Ningwu-based railways will the Nanjing-based railway names seem ambiguous. Second, as we all know, China is undergoing extensive infrastructural expansion and the number of highways and railways will proliferate and create new ambiguities. For example, Hubei and Hunan are building a railway between Jingmen and Yueyang called the Jingyue Railway. The Jingyue along with the Jingsha Railway will start to erode the distinctiveness of Jing for Beijing in English. It will be more and more difficult to tell whether the Jingyuan and Jingzhang Railways are really obscure railways linked to Beijing or somehow related to the Jingyihuo Railway in Xinjiang. If Jing can be made ambiguous, no one is safe. Third, Wikipedia is the place where old knowledge finds new life. Many historical railways in China, like the Jinghan, will have articles created for them. Their inclusion will compound the potential for ambiguity. The earlier we adopt a clear and consistent policy, the less uncertainty and difficulty there will be for article creators going forward. After all, you were the one who opposed bifurcating railways from highways! :P

Set forth below, is my proposal of the revised naming convention for the transportation section:

Transportation
When naming articles of expressways, highways, railways, railway stations, or airports in China, use the common English name if it can be determined, e.g. Karakorum Highway. Otherwise, follow these naming rules for the article name:

For roadways, highways, expressways and railways whose names in Chinese consist of two- or three-character abbreviations of the terminal cities (or other location names), do not adopt the pinyin version of the Chinese abbreviated name as the English article name. Instead, spell out the full English name of each abbreviated Chinese place name and connect them with hyphens in the article name:

For the 宁芜铁路, use Nanjing-Wuhu Railway as the article name not, Ningwu Railway.

The {[full English spelling of terminus 1][hyphen][full English spelling of terminus 2] [Expressway/Railway]} article naming format is intended to identify expressways/railways with precision and avoid ambiguity. E.g. In addition to the Ningwu Railway, there are Ningwu-Kelan and Ningwu-Jingle Railways.

The pinyin version of the Chinese abbreviated name should be mentioned in the first sentence of the article as a secondary name of the expressway/railway, and should be made a redirect link to the article. Furthermore, the pinyin version of the Chinese abbreviated name can be freely used in the article itself and in other articles. The rule above applies only to article names. Where there is ambiguity in the pinyin version of the Chinese abbreviated name, create a disambiguation page for the ambiguous name.

Nanfu Railway may refer to:
 * Nanchuan-Fuling Railway, a railway in Chongqing under construction since 2008.
 * Nanping-Fuzhou Railway, a railway in Fujian built in 1959.

Please capitalize Expressway/Railway in the article name.

Railways

 * 京九铁路 - Beijing-Kowloon Railway not Jingjiu Railway
 * 宝成铁路 - Baoji-Chengdu Railway not Baocheng Railway
 * 皖赣铁路 – Anhui-Jiangxi Railway not Wan'gan Railway
 * 精伊霍铁路 - Jinghe–Yining–Khorgas Railway not Jingyihuo Railway

Where the pinyin spelling of a place name differs from the official English spelling of the place name (especially in the case of non-Chinese place names) use the official English spelling.
 * 滨州铁路 - Harbin-Manzhouli Railway not Haerbin-Manzhouli Railway

Use the same naming format for China's high-speed railways
 * 武广高速铁路 - Wuhan–Guangzhou High-Speed Railway not Wuguang High-Speed Railway

Exceptions to hyphenated full-spelling naming format:

Where the Chinese name is descriptive, use a brief translation of the descriptive name:
 * 北疆铁路 - Northern Xinjiang Railway not Beijiang Railway.

Where the abbreviations in the Chinese name are no longer considered abbreviations. This usually occurs when the abbreviated name has survived changes in the underlying names.
 * 陇海铁路 - Longhai Railway not Longxi-Haizhou Railway because Longxi is no longer used to describe eastern Gansu Province and Haizhou is now part of Lianyungang

Roadways
For [|expressways], add the expressway number as a prefix to the hyphenated expressway name in the article. The prefix and the hyphenated expressway should be separated by a space.
 * 京沪高速公路 - G2 Beijing-Shanghai Expressway
 * 京承高速公路 - S102 Beijing-Chengde Expressway

The pinyin version of the Chinese abbreviated name should be mentioned in the first sentence of the article as a secondary name of the expressway and should be made a redirect link to the article.

For National Highways that are numbered simply follow the format {China National Highway [number]}:
 * 国道102 - China National Highway 102

National Highways can be abbreviated with "G{no. of highway}", e.g. G105 as a redirect link for China National Highway 105.

Railway Station
Articles for railway stations in China should be named using the city's name (or in some cases the station's unique name&mdash; for example, 丰台火车站) followed by the English translation of the cardinal direction in the railway station name, if applicable (North, South etc.), and then [Railway Station]:


 * 北京站 - Beijing Railway Station
 * 北京西站 - Beijing West Railway Station
 * 丰台火车站 - Fengtai Railway Station

Abbreviated forms of the railway station name should be mentioned in the article's first sentence as secondary names and should have redirect links to the article name.


 * Beijing West
 * Beijing South Station

Airports
Airport articles should have the city's name followed by the [airport's name] if applicable, followed by [International Airport] or [Airport] as applicable: ContinentalAve (talk) 19:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC) Revised ContinentalAve (talk) 08:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 北京首都国际机场 - Beijing Capital International Airport
 * 上海浦东国际机场 - Shanghai Pudong International Airport
 * 广州白云国际机场 - Guangzhou Baiyun International Airport


 * I am not opposed to this proposal. Sounds sensible and reasonable for the large readership who doesn't understand the abbreviation used in Chinese. The short names are usually used in mass media. As such, I assume these will be redirects to the full hypenated names. --Visik (Chinwag Podium) 02:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This proposal sounds eminently sensible and generally excellent. Hear hear! Jpatokal (talk) 10:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with the proposal as well. It may be appropriate, however, to explicitly say in the policy that the "two-syllable" names of railways and highway (Jinghu Railway etc) should also be mentioned in the lede of relevant  article. -- Vmenkov (talk) 15:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for everyone's suggestions. I have incorporated your input about the need to mention the Chinese abbreviated name in the first sentence of the article and to have redirect links created for the Chinese abbreviated name.  ContinentalAve (talk) 08:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * By the way, you probably will need to clarify the new policy a bit once certain ambiguities are found. For one, I am not entirely supportive of reducing "Terminus A–B County" to "Terminus A–B". Secondly, cases where the article title of a terminus (i.e. X City or Y County) is not at X or Y County, respectively, due to the existence of other settlements of the same name, need to be dealt with. With romanisation, the reader cannot always know which "X" or "Y County" is being referred to. To begin with, a solution is to use "X City" in the title if there are no other officially-designated cities of the same name. I don't know about the other 2 cases for now. – HXL's Roundtable  and  Record  04:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Endorse, though of course, some wording needs to be changed. My experience with disambiguating town, township, and subdistrict divisions is frustrating enough; no two counties or county-level cities in mainland China share the same name in Chinese but then when romanising, many counties and county-level cities are "repeated" across provinces when fully romanised. Applying this sentiment here, the precision point alone is enough grounds for me to support the policy change. And sorry for the delayed response; have been busy with what I alluded to above...check my contribs if you wish to know. – HXL's Roundtable  and  Record  04:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * HXL49, thank you for the endorsement, thoughtful reply and questions.
 * In general, the Terminal A-Terminal B naming method should follow the unabbreviated Chinese place names used to identify the terminals in the name of the railway itself, even if those place names are different from the actual place names currently used to name the places in which the terminal is located. What do I mean?


 * Generally, there is no difference between the place name used to identify a terminal in the name of the railway and the place name in which the terminal is located. E.g. The Yingtan-Xiamen Railway refers to the railway between Yingtan and Xiamen.  However, consider the 临策铁路 Linhe-Ceke Railway.  The railway was planned when the eastern terminal city was called Linhe.  Linhe has since been renamed Bayan Nur, but the underlying railway name still uses the abbreviation for Linhe 临河.  Since we are naming articles of the railways, not the place names, we should adhere to the Chinese place name used in the railway name and maintain Linhe-Ceke Railway, not Bayan Nur-Ceke Railway.


 * There are instances where the terminals of a railway are not actually located in the place identified in the terminal place name. For example, the Qiqihar-Bei'an Railway begins in the station of Angangxi, near Qiqihar but not in the city itself.  Since the railway name uses Qiqihar as the terminal place name, the article name follows with Qiqihar-Bei'an Railway, not Angangxi-Bei'an Railway.  In the first paragraph of the article, there should be a clarification of any differences between the location of the actual terminal and the place suggested by the terminal name referenced in the name of the railway.


 * Consider an opposite example, 南福铁路 Nanping-Fuzhou Railway, was built in 1956 as a branch of the Yingtan-Xiamen Railway. This railway begins in the west at the 外洋 Waiyang Station on the Yingxia Line.  Waiyang is located in 来舟 Laizhou, a township of Nanping.  Initially, this was the only railway near Nanping and was called the Nanping-Fuzhou Railway.  Later as other railways were built into Nanping itself, the line took on 外福铁路 Waiyang-Fuzhou Railway and 来福铁路 Laizhou-Fuzhou Railway as alternate names. In English Wikipedia, an article name has been created for each of the three names.  Currently, Waiyang-Fuzhou and Laizhou-Fuzhou redirect to Nanping-Fuzhou because all three names are now considered to be historical names since most of the line has become part of the Hengfeng-Nanping Railway.  Nanping-Fuzhou was the first name for the line and remains the most intelligible.  The point here is that the article name should follow whichever Chinese place names are used in the Chinese railway name.


 * Quite a few railway terminals are named after and located in counties. See Ningwu-Jingle Railway.  If I understand you correctly, I don't think you are calling for this line to be named Ningwu County-Jingle County Railway, since there is no ambiguity with Ningwu or Jingle.  I think the more tricky scenario you alluded to is when one of the terminal names when romanized into English is itself ambiguous.  Consider the 新义铁路, which when translated under the general rule, becomes the Fuxin-Yi County Railway.  But there are several "Yi Counties" in China, and this could lead to some confusion.  I do not see a definite solution, but see several options:


 * (a) Fuxin-Yi County Railway. Leave it as is.  There may be several Yi Counties in China, but only one Fuxin-Yi County Railway.  When the reader clicks through, the first sentence of the article should explain which Yi County the railway connects to.


 * (b) Fuxin-Yi County (Liaoning) Railway. This approach completely disambiguates Yi County.


 * (c) Fuxin-Yi County Railway (Liaoning). This approach explains that the entire railway is located in Liaoning, which should dispel any ambiguity about which Yi County is being referred to, but might give the misleading impression that there is another Fuxin-Yi County Railway in another province.


 * I'm indifferent. What do you and others think? ContinentalAve (talk) 08:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree with comment. The titles should use En dashes instead of regular ones.  Therefore titles like Beijing-Kowloon Railway should actually be Beijing–Kowloon Railway.    –Nav   talk to me or sign my guestbook 13:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Who approved this new change? It was not like this before. Python eggs (talk) 01:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's the key idea behind "change". You can see through the history that a proposal was put into place back in April and nobody posted any oppositions for the entire two months that the discussion was open.  See this section.    –Nav   talk to me or sign my guestbook 01:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear Python eggs, on April 24, 2011, shortly after making this proposal, I posted a message on your talk page informing you of this discussion and inviting you to participate. I wanted to give everyone sufficient opportunity to discuss and make inputs and build a consensus before making the agreed to changes two months hence. ContinentalAve (talk) 05:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, I do not oppose (not support either) most names, but names like “Lanzhou–Xinjing Railway” really suck, even the Railways itself use “新建铁路兰州至乌鲁木齐第二双线” when it had to write in the long form. [Comment by User:Python eggs]


 * Dear Python eggs, can you explain your objection to the name Lanzhou-Xinjiang Railway more clearly? It is difficult for others to tell why you don't like this name.  ContinentalAve (talk) 14:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I would like to ask why User:Python eggs reverted some (or most) of my renamings of the articles, which were performed in order to fit with this new convention. Special:Contributions/Python_eggs and Special:Contributions/Heights. I would like to leave a message in light of this new discussion here before moving them back again because it seems some issue has arisen.  Heights (Want to talk?) 20:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Also sorry I must point up another issue. From the official chinese names of the high-speed railway lines, most of them are in the format of XY客运专线. Now I am not sure of the exact translation of this but it seems to be "Passenger Dedicated Line" or "Passenger Railway." The problem is even the larger lines which comprises of several smaller lines are also called 客运专线, for example Beijing-Harbin客运专线 encompasses Beijing-Shenyang客运专线, Harbin-Dalian客运专线, Panjin-Yingkou客运专线 (客运专线 used because I don't know what the name is). I made the effort of moving all of the larger lines to a "XY Passenger Dedicated Line" format such as Beijing–Harbin Passenger Dedicated Line and the smaller lines that are part of it, such as the Harbin–Dalian Passenger Railway, in the XY Passenger Railway format. I know this is inconsistent because in Chinese, they are both 客运专线, however one encompasses several smaller 客运专线. User:Python eggs reverted some of these back to XY High-Speed Railway such as Harbin–Dalian High-Speed Railway which I feel is incorrect because the Chinese name is 客运专线, which does roughly translate as "passenger dedicated line." Nowhere in those 4 characters do you see any reference to high-speed, albeit it is high speed. In contrast, the Beijing–Shanghai High-Speed Railway makes sense because in Chinese, the name is 京沪高速铁路, with 高速铁路 specifically meaning "High-Speed Railway Line." This is understandable and makes sense. I understand that Wikipedia is also about recognition and High-Speed would be more recognizable, but can we also come up with a consensus on how to name larger 客运专线s, smaller 客运专线, and 高速铁路, before I start moving articles again. Thank you,  Heights (Want to talk?) 20:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Harbin–Dalian High-Speed Railway and others
Can you please explain your rationale for moving Harbin–Dalian Passenger Railway to Harbin–Dalian High-Speed Railway. I moved all of the articles to a X–Y Passenger Railway format in order to maintain consistency. In Chinese, these lines are referred to as 客运专线, which roughly translates as "passenger dedicated line" or "passenger railway" but nowhere do I see the words "High-Speed." In contrast, the Beijing to Shanghai High Speed Railway is correct because in Chinese it is actually named 高速铁路, the words 高速 clearly indicating High-Speed.

Also, explain your rationale for reverting all of my moves for Qinshen Passenger Railway and such. Please take a read at NC-CHINA as the new naming convention is to name the articles with the termini stations, aka Qinhuangdao and Shenyang, not Qinshen.

Please explain your rationale and/or conform to naming conventions set by WP:NC-CHINA. Thank you  Heights (Want to talk?) 20:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No. In Chinese, it is controversy. If you search for "哈大高铁" on Google, tons of results will be returned, and many of them from official sites like xinhuanet or gov.cn. Chinese government is switching from "客运专线" to "高速铁路". Python eggs (talk) 03:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Python eggs is trying to say that in Chinese official usage, "客运专线" is giving way to "高速铁路". But see  using 客运专线 from yesterday's Heilongjiang Economic Daily.  It's difficult to create a consensus between "客运专线" and "高速铁路" when these lines are so new and often still not yet in operation.  I can't see why one is more correct than the other.  Maybe in a few years' time, one description will prevail over the other.  ContinentalAve (talk) 14:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, so I am taking this as all of the 客运专线 should be High-Speed Railway? I was just slightly confused because before I moved all of them to Passenger Railway, the Qinshen or Qinhuangdao-Shenyang article was Qinshen Passenger Railway but everything else was High-Speed Railway. I also find government sources and government sanctioned news sources using 客运专线 and also it is weird that Chinese Wikipedia still has everything as 客运专线  Heights (Want to talk?) 00:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest "XXX High-Speed Railway" for all 300+ km/h lines. Recently, all 300+ km/h lines are commonly known as "高速铁路" in China, like 郑西高铁, 武广高铁, 沪杭高铁, 广深港高铁, and etc. The exceptions are Beijing–Tianjin Intercity Railway and Shanghai–Nanjing Intercity High-Speed Railway which is formally referred as "沪宁城际高速铁路". For lines less than 300 km/h, use "XXX Passenger Railway", or simply "XXX Railway" if their no paralleled old railway. (i.e. Hening Railway, Hewu Railway, Wenfu Railway, etc.) [Python eggs]
 * Python eggs, I think it is premature to enact such a blanket policy on the naming of high-speed railways in China until more consistent usage patterns emerge. Heights was certainly within reason to use passenger railway to describe 客运专线.  The 300km/h threshold you propose creates an unclear distinction between high-speed railway and passenger railway (and passenger dedicated line)　based on speed of operation, which is not necessarily true.  The Wuhan-Guangzhou High-Speed Railway is still being mentioned in some Chinese press articles as the 武广客运专线.  Let's wait and see how naming conventions in Chinese evolve　before adopting a formal policy.  ContinentalAve (talk) 14:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Political NPOV
Currently articles relating to China are required to have "People's Republic of" added before them in article titles, and also for example on the main page lots of space has to be wasted with the addition of the words "People's Republic of" before the word China.

In a modern context it is obvious that I'm referring to the People's Republic of China if I use the word China and therefore there seems no good reason to use the longer form on Wikipedia in those cases. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 09:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with you. Reliable sources commonly use just "China" when referring to the PRC. Hot Stop (c) 13:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * And reliable sources such as the Associated Press are just as idiotic to omit the name of the province when referring to towns or even villages, e.g. "Xintang, China". Reliable sources are not always correct. &mdash; HXL's Roundtable  and  Record  14:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * There's a difference between getting a town name wrong occasionally, and getting the name you want to call a major country wrong every time you write about it. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * To begin with, the existence of separate articles 'Law of China' and 'Law of the PRC' is a case demonstrating why separate the two terms. In general, the reason for separation is that China as a civilisation, which is how we treat it, long preceded the PRC, and this case illustrates that point; also we are effectively treating PRC history as a subset of Chinese history, which is how it should be done. Equating the two terms (PRC and China or ROC and Taiwan) would be grossly recentist and inaccurate in both cases; in addition, equating PRC with China lends credence to the PRC's stance (over the ROC's) on the One China Policy. Please, per WP:DEADHORSE, so long as there exist two separate states with "China" in their names, leave the policy as it is.  &mdash; HXL's  Roundtable  and  Record  14:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I would presume in cases where having both terms makes sense, e.g. for the law example you bring up then using Law of the PRC is a useful disambiguator, as it is with the article People's Republic of China itself. But that doesn't apply to all articles, and often there isn't an article on the pre-PRC subject at all, e.g. History of transport in the People's Republic of China - actually by limiting the scope there you are making it more difficult to include any pre-1949 content on the subject, and clearly once there is a sufficient amount you'd then have to return to disambiguating it like you do with law.
 * The other point you've missed is that nobody refers to Taiwan as the Republic of China anymore - last week the Economist had a special report on China - it barely made any mention of Taiwan and certainly its focus was the PRC (along with cross strait relations).
 * I also don't think dead horse is legitimate - this was last discussed in 2008. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 14:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed. This section has never actually held consensus since about 2003 (which was so early in the project it is ancient history). There just has never been any overwhelming consensus to change it. It's always been in limbo. I've never held that article titles have to be titled with the formal name, particularly in redirect cases. It's just silly. The rest of the project, who don't care about sinology topics, do not pay any attention to this convention. In article text it is blatantly ignored. That is a strong indication this convention does not have project wide viability.
 * It's also very much the case that all of our RS use the China/Taiwan convention. Asserting that the RoC has legitimacy as "China" is a WP:FRINGE view outside of Taiwan itself. This convention doesn't stick to any of Wikipedia's other policies. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * Firstly, there's no question that the People's Republic of China is commonly referred to as "China" (including by reliable sources). Secondly, I'm confident that the Republic of China is almost always referred to as "Taiwan" in the United States.  If this is typical elsewhere (as I've seen claimed), it appears that there's little likelihood of confusion stemming from references to the People's Republic of China as "China."
 * But that isn't the only issue. Another concern is that Wikipedia might be perceived as taking a political stance.  I don't know how valid this is (and I'm very much an outsider), but it's something that should be addressed.  —David Levy 18:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * With regards to taking a political stance our current policy risks taking one as it implies that the Republic of China has a serious claim to the name China when other reliable sources specifically don't imply that with their naming. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Another approach to this is that most Western 'reliable sources' silently equate Taiwan with the ROC, which is a major fallacy considering there are more islands other than Taiwan... Since ROC != TW, in a modern context, we cannot have China and ROC side-by-side, so PRC and ROC it is. &mdash; HXL's Roundtable  and  Record  21:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * How many people live on those other islands? Less than a million? Less than 100 thousand? Calling the ROC 'Taiwan' doesn't mean it doesn't control any territory outside the island of Taiwan. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * But stating that Kinmen and the other small islands are part of "Taiwan" is very confusing. Calling the ROC 'Taiwan' essentially is equating the two. The convention will stand as it is because of the fact that the ROC and Taiwan are not and never have been the same. &mdash; HXL's Roundtable  and  Record  23:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really. Plenty of countries have outlying islands. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 08:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Your point? Since Wikipedia describes, not prescribes, it would be an insult to accuracy to prescribe a few islands just off the coast of mainland China (and part of Fujian Province, ROC) as part of a make-believe state of 'Taiwan'. That "no one refers to Taiwan as the ROC anymore" is because the outlying islands are not covered in media, giving people the impression the ROC only controls the island of Taiwan. A parallel case is that news sources overwhelmingly refer to the Republic of Ireland when discussing 'Ireland', yet look what we have there. &mdash; HXL's Roundtable  and  Record  14:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's because the whole island is called Ireland, and that includes Northern Ireland which contains about a quarter of the land and a third of the population of the island. Even so its obvious that if someone was referring to Ireland in a country sense that they were talking about the Republic of Ireland. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's clear that the People's Republic of China is referred to as "China" far more commonly than the Republic of China is, but that doesn't automatically mean that the latter has no serious claim to the name.
 * Based on your comments here and at Wikipedia talk:In the news, you seem to believe that only one country or the other can legitimately call itself "China." So in your view, our current convention implies a belief that perhaps the Republic of China is the one true China (and the People's Republic of China isn't), which is ludicrous on its face.
 * I, conversely, believe that both countries legitimately refer to themselves as "China" on a formal level (irrespective of their popular names), and I don't believe that our naming convention even addresses the possibility that one country's use of the name is illegitimate. —David Levy 21:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't believe that only one country can call itself China, but that is how they are treated today by the rest of the world. Because our sources are so one-sided and all use China to only refer to the PRC the current policy implies there is a controversy and that both claims are equal.
 * In contrast with Korea both Koreas control around half the territory and therefore both have a legitimate claim to the name Korea, additionally this means that sources when referring to a Korea will refer to either North or South Korea to disambiguate the two claims.
 * Additionally before 1971 (or shortly after) when the Republic of China controlled the China UN seat there would have been much more controversy about what China referred to, but that doesn't really apply today.
 * According to that article the Taiwanese tried to become UN members as simply 'Taiwan' in 2007. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the premise that using the name "People's Republic of China" implies that it would make as much sense for us to refer to either country as "China."
 * I haven't seen anyone propose that we begin referring to the Republic of China as "China." —David Levy 22:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * (outdent)
 * Those in the RoC can call themselves whatever they want. Their claim is legitimate to whatever name they choose - and even within the RoC it is rare, and usually a nationalist politician, who equates the RoC as China. Everyday citizens of the RoC may identify as Chinese, but not their country as China. China referring to the RoC is a very specific political POV even inside the RoC, yet here we are on Wikipedia demanding it be given equal claim.
 * Just because a claim is legitimate does not mean it is useful or equal for Wikipedia purposes. Wikipedia care about WP:NPOV based on WP:RS. Clearly by preponderance of reliable sources, including overtly political ones, equating the RoC as China is WP:FRINGE. Because on a global scale it is. NPOV does not mean we treat the two claims equally. This is where this naming convention fails. Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. We describe the world in article content and we describe the common practices of editors by guidelines and conventions. This convention prescribes specific names to be used. Generalist editors (who are writing for generalist readers) ignore it because it isn't describing how they write. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * I agree with the above, but I think that it would be more relevant if someone were proposing that we begin referring to the Republic of China as "China." —David Levy 22:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no proposal, but what is claimed is that this naming convention denies the use of the term China to the PRC because of the claims of the RoC. Which should not be the case. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * Perhaps not. I lack first-hand knowledge of the sociopolitical intricacies, so my position is only that the matter should be evaluated with great care.
 * You've cited ample reason to avoid referring to the Republic of China as "China" (not that there was any doubt), and I think that we can agree that referring to the People's Republic of China as "the People's Republic of China" — even if unnecessary — is significantly less problematic. —David Levy 02:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with Eraserhead's proposal. The preponderance of reliable sources refer to the PRC as "China" and the ROC as "Taiwan". It's simpler and everyone knows what it means. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * But it is far less accurate. Not everyone knows that the ROC controls more than just Taiwan. &mdash; HXL's Roundtable  and  Record  23:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * But we're only concerned with strict accuracy insofar as our reliable sources are concerned about it. If reputable publications are comfortable with saying "Taiwan" as a synonym for the RoC, we should be too. Our article on Taiwan explains that the RoC includes other islands in its first paragraph. That's really all the explanation we need and doesn't justify using the unwieldy "Republic of China" in every single article. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * But it doesn't justify using "Taiwanese president" or any other similar nonsensical terms. That reliable sources from the West throw out wording such as "China threatens Taiwan" is not an excuse for us to do the same. Indeed, equating the two in such a way could be interpreted as stating Taiwan is not a part of China, which is a much worse and far more relevant POV violation than saying either the PRC or ROC is the only legitimate government of China. &mdash; HXL's Roundtable  and  Record  23:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, the BBC, the NYT, Times of London, AP and UPI all use the term Taiwan President. Clearly English language sources do not think it is a nonsense term. But what we call Taiwan/RoC is kind of a tangent. The question presented is why the PRC should be denied use of the name China. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * It should certainly be 'denied' use of the name China when there is significant pre-1949 coverage on a topic, or with an article on a government/party arm such as the State Council. Otherwise treating the term China in a geographic sense (X in China) is more or less acceptable. &mdash; HXL's Roundtable  and  Record  03:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And in which case that can either be included in the same article as the PRC content, or if there is sufficient content in can be split off into multiple articles - possibly disambiguating them the with "People's Republic of China" as required. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 08:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If there is a solid consensus to equate PRC with China, which there seems to be, can someone please initiate a move request from People's Republic of China → China and China → Chinese civilization to settle this controversy once and for all? Changing the rules here is an ineffective way to end the annoying wikilinks that Eraserhead1 talks about, because very few people look at this page; most just see that the article that should be at "China" is at "People's Republic of China" and proceed to pipe the link in a way that disobeys the standards anyway. Quigley (talk) 06:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I dunno, I mean certainly China has existed as a largely single state for a long time before 1949, but also I'm certainly guilty of the incorrect piping. Probably the best answer is to make China a disambiguation page with dual primary topics (as with iOS) of the civilisation and the PRC, with the other things being in the full disambiguation list. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 10:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no solid consensus because the objective reality is that since 1949, there has been two political entities with "China" in their names. Both lay nominal claims to rule China.  In recent years, the claim of the smaller entity, the Republic of China (Taiwan), has been weakened by a political movement to declare independence as a "Republic of Taiwan", but this has not occurred, and is opposed by both the current ruling party on Taiwan and by the ruling government of the mainland.   The bigger entity, the People's Republic of China (PRC), has won broad international recognition as "China", insists in international relations that there can be but "one China", and officially denies any conception of "two Chinas" or "one China and one Taiwan", but it implictly acknowledges the former and is much more opposed to the latter.  To conflate the PRC with China is to obscure the two-China reality.  This distinction affects how people perceive reality.  Though U.S-. and British-based English sources routinely disregard the distinction, an encyclopedia should be more precise.  When readers see "China" in the title of a Wikipedia article, they ought to know which China it refers to.  Wikipedia is perhaps the only neutral and precise outlet for this distinction to be demonstrated.  See for example, President of China.  To the extent that articles about mainland China, such as railway transport, need to refer to pre-PRC matter, they certainly can -- by simply describing the state of the subject matter prior to 1949.  There can be redirects for "railway transport in China" to "railway transport in the PRC", but the title of the article should clearly indicate PRC.   ContinentalAve (talk) 07:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * When the Economist, BBC, New York Times etc. etc. refer to China they know which China it refers to - the People's Republic of China. We don't call Bill Clinton William Jefferson Clinton in an aim to be more precise.
 * If I say "China has some good museums" then we all know I am talking about the People's Republic of China, not Taiwan. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 08:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * But, again, if you say "China has some good museums", there is a strong possibility that that could be taken in a geographic context; you don't always talk about China in an exclusively political manner. Also, and I forgot to mention this until now, but a common practise is for people to equate 'China' with mainland China, which is not all of the PRC; this is one more reason why a move that Quigley suggested has zero chance of succeeding, and is almost a move that would invoke WP:SNOW. &mdash; HXL's  Roundtable  and  Record  14:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)




 * Well, the National Palace Museum in Taipei, a national museum of the Republic of China, is a very fine museum. The island of Jinmen has several terrific battlefield and fortification museums.  In my opinion, they're as good a museum as any in the other China.  We cannot use the limits our subjective awareness to define the overall objective reality in Wikipedia.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not common parlance.  Bill Clinton's White House web page and foundation all refer to his formal name William J. Clinton.  He does not have a famous namesake to require disambiguation.  George Bush on the other hand is a different story.  One of the drawbacks of the conflation of China with the PRC and ROC with Taiwan by the Economist, BBC, New York Times and other Anglo-American media organizations is that their reporting of Taiwanese independence cannot explain to readers that Taiwanese independence refers not to the declaration of independence of the ROC from the PRC (which so many incorrectly believe), but rather the declaration of independence of the Republic of Taiwan from both the ROC and the PRC.  This is why both the ruling Nationalists on Taiwan (Pan-Blue) and the Communists (Pan-Red) on the mainland are opposed to Taiwanese independence (Pan-Green).  The ROC has always been independent of the PRC and is so recognized by about two dozen countries.  To equate PRC with China on Wikipedia would deny the viability of the Republic of China and relegate that political entity to a non-China version of Taiwan and in so doing would unwittingly promote the political position of Taiwanese independence advocates that China is the PRC, Taiwan is not China.  Since Taiwan is not yet the Republic of Taiwan, we should respective the objective status quo, which is that there are two Chinas.  So long as the title of an article or category of which the subject matter can pertain to both Chinas, there needs to be disambiguation.  The best way to do so is to use People's Republic of China or Republic of China (Taiwan).  ContinentalAve (talk) 15:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * While it is true that a small number of countries, mainly small countries in central America, recognise the Republic of China none of them are particularly significant. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Someday, perhaps, Eraserhead, your arguments will be persuasive, but right now they are not. There are two Chinas in common English--one on the mainland and one on the island of Taiwan.  The usage "Taiwan" is becoming more and more common and in ten years, "China" may not ever be equated with it.  But it is premature for Wikipedia to remove "People's Republic" as a disambiguating term.  Indeed, the most common abbreviations for these two nations are PRC and ROC.  Until "CHI" becomes unambiguously associated with the mainland, then Wikipedia should follow suit and use "People's Republic" as the appropriate means of disambiguation.  --Taivo (talk) 18:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * (outdent)
 * ContintentalAve: To equate PRC with China on Wikipedia would deny the viability of the Republic of China - it is not Wikipedia that denies the viability of the RoC to be an equal claimant to the term China. It is the international community, the mainstream global press, academia, and common language. While you as an editor may believe in a Two Chinas POV, it is not Wikipedia's goal or policy to give equal weight to unequal claimaints. Our goal is to write neutrally based on the claims in reliable sources - which are nearly unanimous that the PRC is China. The RoC being an equal to the PRC for the title of "China" is a fringe view.
 * Taivo: There are two Chinas in common English. This does not require ten years to wait. Common english never uses China to refer to the RoC today. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * You must prove that statement about "NEVER". You're just blowing smoke when you make such a categorical comment.  Prove it.  "China" has been used for both Chinas for a very long time, so that is the status quo.  You must prove that the status quo is no longer the status quo.  --Taivo (talk) 18:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * At this point, the proponents of removing "People's Republic" have just flapped their jaws and provided no substantial evidence. They've made claims without backing them up with common English usage data.  here's the kind of data that is convincing--actual usage in media and other sources per WP:COMMONNAME.  Prove that "China" only refers to the PRC and you'll have a valid point to make.  But without putting in the work to prove that "China" no longer refers to ROC (there's that common abbreviation again) and that PRC is never used as an abbreviation for the mainland, then you're just arguing without evidence against the status quo.  Plus, there's always that pesky fact that Taiwan's official name for itself is "Republic of China", a name which predates the "People's Republic of China", thus giving it chronological priority.  --Taivo (talk) 18:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * From the Economist front page 1, 2, 3. And from last week's special report: 4, 5. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So you have one piece of evidence. Yawn.  One piece.  Gather the evidence, Eraserhead1, more than one piece (the Economist's usage), and present it here in an organized fashion so that it's convincing.  Again, look at  to see how to organize evidence that satisfies WP:COMMONNAME.  --Taivo (talk) 18:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * From a Google of the BBC's website there are 421 hits for "Republic of China" once you subtract off the ones for People's Republic of China, then there are 660 hits for "People's Republic of China". In contrast there are 247,000 hits for just "China" - from the first page of results they all refer to the People's Republic. There are also 49,200 hits for Taiwan. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that there is no standard on what is "significant" or not. It is inevitably original research if we tried to decide a standard. T-1000 (talk) 18:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:OR refers to article content. Doing a repeatable Google search with results over an order of magnitude apart (so 10:1) should be perfectly legitimate. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So how much google hit does ROC have to get to be "significant"? Who gets to decide that? you? Furthurmore, by moving PRC to China, we are saying ROC is not China, which is POV pushing. T-1000 (talk) 19:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No it isn't because noone outside of Wikipedia agrees with that position. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The Sources are the 23 countries that recognize the ROC as legitimate, of course. T-1000 (talk) 19:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * None of which is significant. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, who gets to decide that the 23 countries aren't significant again? you? Then is the claim, "Taiwan is a country", significant or not? T-1000 (talk) 19:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Of the top 100 results from news, books, and scholar on Google, for the term "China" not a single result was discussing the RoC. BTW, Taivo, it is up to you to show that in common English people mean the RoC when using the term "China". That's a positive claim, the evidence needs to come from you. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * (ec) It's not a question of deciding a "standard". It's a question of presenting evidence of common English usage.  There is no "standard" for English.  There is only usage.  Right now, the status quo is to consider both of these entities "China" and to disambiguate the names.  Those who wish to change this must provide evidence and not just hot air.  Right now, there is no evidence so the status quo prevails in the argumentation.  Ultimately, a consensus for change must still be built on whatever evidence is gathered--common usage, etc.  I don't care one way or the other how the consensus lines up at the end, but right now there is virtually no evidence for change.  Eraserhead may, or may not, actually do the work to gather the evidence.  But right now there is zero evidence.  --Taivo (talk) 18:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This is been discussed to death before, by moving PRC to China, we are saying ROC is not China, which is POV pushing. NPOV is non-negotiable. If the 23 countries are not notable enough, then the claim that "Taiwan is a country", which is not recognized by a single country, is also not notable. To preserve NPOV, we must not take side between PRC, ROC, or TI.  T-1000 (talk) 19:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It is de-facto recognised by the media (as you can see from the hit counts) and by all the countries who recognise the People's Republic of China, but have some sort of official relationship with Taiwan. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Which proves that all three views are notable, and we can't take sides due to NPOV. Furthurmore, the medias do not have a NPOV policy. T-1000 (talk) 19:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What do you think about the fact that the article for the parliamentary republic headquartered at Ulan Bator is named Mongolia? Is that POV pushing against the ROC's equally unrealistic and dormant claim to Mongolia's territory? Quigley (talk) 19:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * False analogy, Mongolia does not claim Taiwan. T-1000 (talk) 19:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, Schmucky, you are the one that needs to present the evidence that the status quo needs changing and then build a consensus for change. --Taivo (talk) 18:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Schmucky, simply making the claim about Google is not reliable (we all know that a Google search is highly problematic). Give us some links to your searches on Google scholar, on the New York Times website, etc.  You're just making claims without providing your actual evidence.  --Taivo (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1,730 hits on the New York Times for Republic of China (with the top hit referring to a shopping centre in Beijing), 5,600 hits for People's Republic of China, 3.6 million hits for China alone - all of the first page refer to the PRC, and 80,500 hits for Taiwan. How many more sites need checking? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Schmucky, Eraserhead, please learn how to present evidence. Google, by itself, is not a piece of evidence.  You should NEVER use Google in Wikipedia because there is too much crap on it.  Use Google Books, or better Google Scholar.  One or two media outlets are not the sum total of your evidence.  You've got to do better searches to convince anyone.  Learn how to do proper searches at the proper place and then you might have some evidence.  But, as T-1000 points out, searches are not the end of the discussion, if done properly (which yours have not been so far) they are one piece of the discussion.  You must still build a consensus.  --Taivo (talk) 19:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't just do a straight Google I did a site specific Google for some specific news organisations. And frankly theres no good reason to think that other news sources won't do the same as the elite news sources I've checked already. If you have a couple more you wish me to check name them. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You should go to those news sites and do a search there, not a Google search. The news organizations' sites are much more comprehensive.  Google searches are crap and WP:COMMONNAME all but says that.  And the Economist and the New York Times are not the sum total of English language news and print media.  Look at the link that I provided above and you'll get an idea of the places you can look.  And don't use Google as a shortcut.  Do your work on this and go to the sites without going through Google.  --Taivo (talk) 19:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And the BBC.
 * And while the New York Times, BBC and Economist may well not be the sum total of the English language media checking every source in existence shouldn't be necessary to prove the point. Additionally using the sites own search engine rather than Google (even though the Google search only searches the given websites) all you are trying to do is to win the argument by requiring overly pedantic requirements while not lifting a finger to justify your claim yourself.
 * And if you know of any English language sources which might prove your point you are more than welcome to name them. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have to prove anything. You're the one who wants to change the status quo, so you're the one who has to do the work and build a consensus for change.  I'm convincable, but if all you do are Google searches, I'm not.  Your evidence can't be just here and there, picking and choosing, it must be comprehensive.  You're just trying to win this argument without doing the work required to convince your opponents.  So far, all you've done is bludgeon them with words.  Try bludgeoning them with evidence instead and you might be more successful.  --Taivo (talk) 19:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * By any reasonable standard of debate you do. I've presented a reasonable selection of English language sources, all of whom use China to refer only to the People's Republic of China, and you have failed to even name a single source which might not do so. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In this discussion, Eraserhead, the status quo remains unless you develop a consensus to change it. That's why it's completely your responsibility to change minds.  I don't have to do anything and the article stays as it is as long as you don't build a consensus.  Don't try to shirk your responsibility for gathering proper and compelling evidence for your POV.  If you don't compel any minds to change, then you "lose" because the articles will stay as they are.  I don't have to do anything.  Eraserhead, I didn't have to say anything and you would continue to beat your head against the wall.  I'm actually telling you what it would take to change my mind and you're fighting against that.  I would think that if someone says, "Here's how to change my mind", you would jump on it as a gift.  But if you don't want to do the work, then you won't change my mind and you won't be able to build a consensus for change.  Your choice.  --Taivo (talk) 20:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What matters is how a neutral person weighs up the arguments, and if one side hasn't managed to produce any arguments that hold water then a neutral person won't weigh up the arguments in their favour.
 * Ultimately at least initially good arguments have been presented by both sides, but if you guys aren't prepared to accept a reasonable amount of evidence which shows the point that China is used pretty much exclusively to refer to the PRC and cannot find any evidence to counter the claim possibly mediation is a sensible way forward. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, if the ROC's claims, recognized by 23 countries, is not notable, is the "Taiwan is a country" claim notable or not? NPOV is non-negotiable. If you can't be neutral, why even worry about common usage? T-1000 (talk) 20:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Because I don't think its reasonable that we should be beholden to the foreign policies of 23 small countries mostly located in central America. And the idea that noone else recognises Taiwan as independent on China is crazy. Take the US Taiwan Relations Act for example. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's your own POV, you're entitle to it, but others don't agree. All countries either recognize the PRC or ROC as China, Taiwan has no recongination as a country by itself. And what about the UN labeling Taiwan as "Taiwan, province of China"? Go ahead, find a country that recognizes "Taiwan". Going to back my first point, who decides how many recongination is needed to become legitimate? Just your POV? T-1000 (talk) 22:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And where in the TRA does it show that US recongizes Taiwan as a country? T-1000 (talk) 22:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Eraserhead, you haven't presented "a reasonable amount of evidence". You've presented a couple of Google searches and WP:COMMONNAME is clear that Google searches are not really valid arguments.  And perhaps you need to reread WP:CONSENSUS to learn how Wikipedia works.  You obviously seem to think that just pushing your POV hard enough constitutes building a consensus for change.  It doesn't.  --Taivo (talk) 21:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What reasonable steps need to be taken to make it a reasonable amount of evidence? I'm happy to gather more evidence, but I'm not prepared to go through every English language source in the world to make the point. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I gave you a link above to what I consider to be a reasonable amount of evidence from English language sources to demonstrate common usage without using a single general Google search. But you have to be careful.  Your previous Google searches looked for "People's Republic..." and "Republic of..." and that's fine if you want to prove that there are more articles about PRC than about ROC.  But that doesn't prove that "China" isn't used for Taiwan anymore.  That's what you're trying to prove and your searches above did not address that issue.  It's harder to prove a negative, which you are trying to do.  It's not impossible, but you have to be very careful with your searches and what you claim those searches prove.  --Taivo (talk) 21:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I already showed you 300 results from specific media forms on Google (news, books, scholar) and could not find a single source that equated "China" with the RoC. I think it is time for those making the positive claim (the term "China" in common english usage refers to the RoC). SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Read my comments to Eraserhead, Schmucky. You haven't proven anything yet because you're still stuck in Google.  --Taivo (talk) 22:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If we make the assumption that the sources we are looking at aren't totally bonkers they are going either they are going to call everything relating to the ROC "Republic of China" or they are going to use "Taiwan" and for the PRC either they are going to use "People's Republic of China" or they are going to use "China".


 * What they definitely aren't going to do, as it would be ridiculously confusing, is to use China interchangeably to refer to both the ROC and the PRC without a qualifier. If you look through the first couple of pages for their uses of China all of them clearly refer to the People's Republic of China, thus they don't use China to refer to Taiwan. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * With regards to evidence you guys clearly over-argued the case with Kiev. Now you are entitled to do that, but you can't expect us to do that here. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * But the point is that by over-arguing the issue, we totally silenced the opposition and now whenever someone shows up to change things, we point them to that argument and it ends the discussion. If you notice, there was one or more Kyiv/Kiev move requests every single year until October 2009.  There has not been one since.  Do you want to gather the proper evidence here and silence the opposition or do you want to keep nickel and diming the issue for the next five years with no clear resolution.  If you properly gather evidence, then you can prove the issue without going to mediation.  It's only when people nickel and dime their arguments and don't do the work that things get strung out and have to go to mediation.  Actually prove your point instead of grandstanding and taking one thing and claiming that it is enough.  --Taivo (talk) 22:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Mediation will also achieve that goal, as will you guys being prepared to accept a reasonable amount of evidence. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Then I'll put it this way. Mediation will take about 6 months (that's the average of the ones I've been involved with) and involve ten times more work on your part than simply doing the research properly to begin with.  A Google search or two is nowhere near a "reasonable amount of evidence".  You can't even see the beginning of "reasonable amount of evidence" with the five minutes of Google searching you've done so far.  I spent about 3 hours putting together the Kiev evidence and it ended the discussion and has stood unchallenged for nearly two years (a lifetime in Wikipedia's time frame).  Your choice.  --Taivo (talk) 22:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If your concern is lack of evidence why not make an effort to help gather it? I also think that 6 months is totally over the top as an estimate, mediated discussions I have been involved have taken less than a month. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The real reason is that equating PRC with China will create countless edit wars and NPOV problems, and it's been discussed to death. The proposal has always been defeated, and people are probably tired of it. T-1000 (talk) 22:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Separating PRC and China already creates countless edit wars and conflicts with source material. The last big PRC-ROC discussion I can find is from 2008, so I think it's time to reopen the question and get the input of more uninvolved people. Quigley (talk) 22:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Really, care to show those edit wars? and let's just bring the question out. If PRC and China are merged, what do we do about Taiwan? T-1000 (talk) 22:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Refer to the article histories of and  for the countless times when a new editor makes what he or she thinks is an innocuous correction to the first sentence, gets reverted, and someone repeats the self-defeating mantra "This was discussed already, so we can't discuss it anymore!" Taiwan can stay at Taiwan, just as Holland does not need to be merged with Netherlands. Quigley (talk) 23:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, then Wikipedia would be saying that Taiwan is not part of China, which violates NPOV. T-1000 (talk) 23:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't follow your logic here. Quigley (talk) 23:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Then re-read the discussion from 2008. The debate points are exactly the same. T-1000 (talk) 23:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Although T-1000's point is not related to what you described about edit wars, Quigley, the point is... The worst effect of renaming PRC to China would be to treat Taiwan as not being part of China, thereby taking a side in that dispute. &mdash; HXL's Roundtable  and  Record  23:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all, we don't have to change the name or structure of RoC/Taiwan. Second, this does not imply Taiwan is/isn't part of China. Third, I'd be happy enough for now if this NPOV section removed or modified the so-called restriction from using China/Taiwan to be informal common names, without renaming any article. I don't see any actual proposal on the table, which is why the discussion is so easy to tangent. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * If we merge PRC and China, we're automatically saying that ROC is not China. T-1000 (talk) 00:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I reread T-1000's of the same point, and I still don't understand how renaming PRC to China would imply that Taiwan (or that the ROC) is not a part of China. The fact that Taiwan and China would have separate articles is no more significant than the fact that Shandong and China have separate articles. Yes, Taiwan is not governed by the PRC, but many people and organizations respect the PRC's claim to Taiwan. Wikipedia should not fortify the government on Taiwan's lackluster and contradictory claims about whether Taiwan itself is part of "China", whatever "China" means. I also do not understand why T-1000 wants the views of the Taiwan Independence movement equally represented with the PRC's and the ROC's, when the polling shows that independence is only supported by a tiny minority of the population on Taiwan. In reality, it is the warped view of "NPOV" that treats PRC, ROC, and TI claims as equals that treats Taiwan as not a part of China.
 * Taiwan's political status is a relatively minor part of what harm this absurd convention does to China's image (and you know which "China" I'm talking about). HXL, what is truly the "worst" effect of keeping PRC at PRC is that the PRC is treated as just some illegitimate communist dictatorship out of the 1950s that has no connection with the rich past and heritage of Chinese civilization. That's the real effect of forcing people on wiki to write "People's Republic" before "China" everyday. Because nobody is influenced against Taiwan independence by the fact that it takes two clicks instead of one to arrive at the article for the state with Beijing as its capital. But people are influenced by constantly reading People's Republic, an ugly term associated with the most repressive, genocidal, and backwards regimes, constantly and forcibly applied to China and no place else. Quigley (talk) 00:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll explain then. Merging China and PRC would make it that China is "just PRC". China is just PRC either implies that the ROC is a illegitimate government holding on the PRC land, or that Taiwan is not part of China. Of course both of those case violate NPOV. TI is a notable viewpoint because it's been mentioned by a notable source, the DPP chairwoman. As for the People's Republic being a ugly term, that is clearly a western-centric and anti-communist POV. The PRC government clearly have no problems with their own name. T-1000 (talk) 00:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I doubt you can find many truly uninvolved persons, i.e. those who hold a neutral opinion on the Cross-Strait Relations and do not deem one government's claim to be China more legitimate over the other's. Besides, this discussion could take more heed of TL;DR so it can be more productive, which an RM (yes, I mean it) would be. &mdash; HXL's Roundtable  and  Record  22:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by RM? Mediation or a move request? For clarity by mediation above I mean the Mediation Cabal, who are generally quick. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * FWIW I agree on TL;DR, sorry for my part in making it longer than it probably should have had to be. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Multiple issues
There appear to be a couple of different issues being discussed here. Firstly there is the matter of the location of the article on Chinese civilisation and secondly there is the matter of whether ROC has a legitimate claim to the name China. The first issue can be resolved with a move request, and I don't think that is particularly controversial. What we do is to move the article currently at China to Chinese civilisation/Chinese civilization and then make China into a disambiguation page with (for now) three primary topics of the ROC, PRC and Chinese civilisation.

The issue is that while Quigley has a good point if I was talking about China in the context of the East India company I would want to link to the article currently at China, whereas if I was talking about China in the context of High Speed Rail I want to link to the People's Republic of China. We include ROC as well as the current consensus is that that has an equal claim to the name China.

Secondly there is the matter of which the ROC has an equal claim with the PRC for the name China that I hope we can sort out separately from the first issue as that reduces the scope of that discussion to something more sensible.

Thoughts? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 06:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The only issue should be what do reliable sources call it. We shouldn't be the ones judging if Taiwan has a legitimate claim (whatever that means). Hot Stop (c) 07:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, but that needs to be discussed at some sort of mediation, and doing the move request separately reduces the scope of the mediation. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I admire your willingness to address this, but I think you're looking at it way too simply, as though these ideas haven't been debated over and over for years. You'll find them all in the archives and more. A simple move request won't bring any consensus. It'll be the longest move request in this site's history and it'll come to nothing. The naming practises go hand-in-hand with what the China article describes, they cannot be separated and you'll have parallel discussions in multiple threads. The current guidelines are the result of years and years of debate. If you want to get them changed you should create a centralised discussion. The cabal doesn't have enough authority, and won't act on something that obviously requires the consensus of the community at large. Compare WP:ARBMAC2, which was the result of WP:CD/M.  Night w   10:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

A proposal for the first issue
I agree that it is more sensible for us to focus on the first issue of how to make the current situation more workable for all involved. Let's start with china itself. Nowhere in the current China article is any mention of fine china, as in porcelain. That should be fixed in the disambiguation of China. The China (disambiguation) link is currently sandwiched between italicized disambiguation text for PRC, ROC and Chung Kuo. It could be made more prominent.

I think a proper balance between recognizing the nuances of China and the practical convenience of referring to the PRC as China is to (1) use the full People's Republic of China in titles and categories where the subject matter could well pertain to the Republic of China, and (2) within articles especially those whose titles do not involve China, the writer should be free to use China to refer to the PRC or in some cases to the ROC. Consider Note the use of (1) may also require titles of certain articles and categories about Taiwan (the subjec t of which may pertain to PRC) to have "Republic of China" or (ROC) added to their titles. ContinentalAve (talk) 15:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Constitution of the People's Republic of China -- "People's Republic of" is necessary in this instance to distinguish this article from Constitution of the Republic of China. The Constitution of China contains a nice disambiguation page laying out the various possible Constitutions of China that a writer might be referring to.   That page should be a model for us.
 * 2) In Jingdezhen, the article should be able to say, "Jingdezhen is a city in Jiangxi Province, China." The link in that China should go straight to the PRC, and if a writer is sloppy and sends the link to the general China disambiguation page, an editor should fix it.

Regarding #2, obviously if we were to link the country in some form, revealing the full link would be best. Otherwise, I generally regard linking to 'China' as unhelpful and a clear case of WP:OVERLINK. Since foreign sources so commonly write even the smallest county-level cities in the form of "X, China", it helps far more to indicate the region within China (i.e. East China). &mdash; HXL's Roundtable  and  Record  15:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't you think Jiangxi Province is sufficient to give readers a sense of where in P. R. China Jingdezhen is located? East China itself links to China, which would force readers to click on the People's Republic of China in China.  Now on to another consideration.  Let's say further down in the Jingdezhen article, it says "Jingdezhen is the porcelain capital of China."  In my book, that's fine.  No need to for "People's Republic of China" in this plain text example of China. ContinentalAve (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My idea with the first proposal was to move the whole disambiguation page from China (disambiguation) to China and to move China to Chinese civilization as a primary topic along with the PRC and ROC, that would mean that fine China would be linked prominently as China would simply be a disambiguation page.
 * I think your suggestion about how we refer to China as a "stage 2" solution is a good compromise, I think that puts us in a much better position than we are now, and I think a plain RfC on this page would probably be enough to get that added to the policy and any further changes can be discussed later. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The wording on the current China page is that "Two states with the name China", which means China currently is already pretty much a disambiguation page. Moving China (disambiguation) to China is just forcing the user to click one more time which is not helpful. T-1000 (talk) 21:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest we agree to disagree. You are more than welcome to state your position in the move request, and a link will be added here. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I support ContinentalAve's proposal, because it acknowledges both the de facto reality and NPOV. I also support Eraserhead1's idea for a move request to implement part of the proposal, because although "China" does serve as a disambiguation page in some sense, it is also a page for Chinese civilization in itself, which means that people who use China and mean the PRC are not required to clarify, or allowed to be clarified by bots and volunteers who do disambiguation. Quigley (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have opened the move request at: Talk:China. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)