Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/Archive 14

China and Taiwan naming issue
 I've seen continuing RMs on China ↔ "People's Republic of China". If WP:COMMONNAMES is insufficient, what else to do about it? --George Ho (talk) 01:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we could add something to this guideline to clarify this, on both China and Taiwan. The articles were moved to their current locations after very lengthy discussions, on China in 2011 and Taiwan in 2012. Since then it has only become clearer that those were the right decisions. There is more evidence now that those are the common names, such as in the media, and used by the countries themselves. Attempts to reverse the decisions have had little support and usually end very decisively. Other articles have been moved in line with the country names, such as List of political parties in the People's Republic of China -> List of political parties in China.


 * So perhaps we should add advice along the following lines:


 * thoughts?.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 12:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know, John. Now is not the time to make additions to the guideline. We still have open discussions: Talk:National Emblem of the People's Republic of China, Talk:Civil Service of the People's Republic of China, and Talk:Chinese political parties. Talk:Government of the Republic of China and Talk:Politics of the Republic of China prove how complicated the Taiwan vs. ROC issue is. Also, what about Two Chinas and Taiwan, China? George Ho (talk) 13:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * What do you think, CMD? George Ho (talk) 13:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If you don’t think it’s time to change this guideline then it’s unclear what you want doing. I do think some sort of guideline would be useful, even if radically different from the above, as many of the discussions seem to be invoking previous discussions, such as the ones on Taiwan and China. If many discussions are appealing to precedent then it might be time to write down that precedent in a guideline, so it is easier to find. And this is the right place for it, being the guideline on China-related article titles.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 13:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry; I didn't mean to confuse you about the timing. At the time of the OP, I thought the discussions would be ended with unanimous opposition or support. However, some opposition arguments to change from PROC to "China" were also convincing (to me), and the consensus in some discussions are divided. Well, the guideline can be amended... after those discussions are over. Changing the guideline while the discussions are ongoing would affect the discussions. Back to the proposal, "[...]countries should use 'China' and 'Taiwan'[...]" may be rephrased into "[...]countries generally use 'China' and 'Taiwan'[...]". "Should" looks too strong to me and would prompt people into enforcing it too much. Here are other related pages: titles containing "Taiwan", "Special:Search/intitle:China", "Special:Search/intitle:People's Republic of China", Special:Search/-People's intitle:"Republic of China", and Special:Search/intitle:"the Republic of China". George Ho (talk) 19:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The problem with having a raft of continuous discussions is that it does tire people out and the effect does vary based on participation. There's really too much focus on the article titles right now, which has overtaken the focus on the subjects themselves.
 * Regarding the guideline I agree with should use, as this reflects the overall trend in move request I've seen so far, but with the explicit note that exceptions found by consensus should also be maintained. I think proposed bullet three can simplified to cover all proper nouns, which are obviously a different case to descriptive titles. CMD (talk) 02:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Update: Renamed section to "China and Taiwan naming issue". Used  to anchor the former name. George Ho (talk) 02:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I think it's clear we some some stronger advice - at present far too many articles seem to be refighting the basic naming issue by proxy and having a clear steer would help. Articles should follow the country name by default but here that clearly needs stating. Timrollpickering 10:36, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * @JohnBlackburne, Timrollpickering, and Chipmunkdavis: Seems that the two RMs are nearing their ends, though updating the guideline is too soon until the RM officially ends. Back to the proposal, I think we should treat China/PROC issue and Taiwan/ROC separately. It's more to do with article scope than just mere titling issue. Also, History of Taiwan and History of the Republic of China are not similar to each other. Thoughts? George Ho (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
Twenty days later, Talk:National Emblem of the People's Republic of China and Talk:Civil Service of the People's Republic of China are closed as, respectively, "not moved" and "no consensus". The guideline needs update to reflect the typical outcomes with some mention of contentiousness toward the China/Taiwan issue. George Ho (talk) 22:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Guidelines should dictate content, not the other way around. Szqecs (talk) 05:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, Szqecs. It's our first encounter, isn't it? :) Anyway, WP:Policies and guidelines page explains how rules can be written and can change. The "Role" section explains what a policy, a guideline, and others do. --George Ho (talk) 05:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Almost forgot; the China/PROC and Taiwan/ROC matter has been endless and totally exhausting. Look at past RMs Talk:China and Talk:Taiwan and others. --George Ho (talk) 05:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I propose that for all current topics (including History of...), PRC be referred to as China, ROC be referred to as Taiwan, the island be referred to as Taiwan Island. Talk:National Emblem of the People's Republic of China, Talk:Civil Service of the People's Republic of China be reduced to "China". History of political parties in China should only contain PRC ones, ROC ones should be moved to that of "Taiwan". Talk:Government of the Republic of China and Talk:Politics of the Republic of China be that of "Taiwan". Chinese Taipei, Two Chinas and Taiwan, China are terms, so should be left as is. History of Taiwan should be that of "Taiwan Island" and History of the Republic of China be "Taiwan". Szqecs (talk) 05:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I thought the idea is too simplistic, isn't it? Why not allowing some exceptions per results at Talk:National Emblem of the People's Republic of China and Talk:Civil Service of the People's Republic of China? George Ho (talk) 06:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * On second thought, should be a general rule, not hard rule. George Ho (talk) 06:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Also I think the proposed rules don't belong here. This page is about Chinese language topics that don't have widely used English names. I think they belongs somewhere here WP:UCRN. Szqecs (talk) 06:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh... Can I move the whole discussion to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/China-related articles then? WP:UCRN redirects to WP:article titles, which is too general for the China/Taiwan matter. George Ho (talk) 06:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, the page says this better: If you disagree with any of the conventions, please discuss the issue within the talk page. --George Ho (talk) 06:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC) ; now I'm confused. We have zh:中华人民共和国 and zh:中國 as separate articles. 06:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia in other languages are unrelated. Szqecs (talk) 06:46, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There are already rules for this actually WP:NC-CN. It just needs to include ROC and Taiwan. Szqecs (talk) 06:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That is a redirect to an MOS subpage... Well, I'm unsure how it handles article titles well. BTW, there were past discussions about the similar matter at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/PRC vs ROC and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/Archive 13 Even the failed proposal Naming conventions (Chinese)/Taiwan was discussed. --George Ho (talk) 07:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * How about Naming conventions (China and Taiwan)? Szqecs (talk) 07:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need another failed proposal. Also, there are too many rules at this time. Hmm... there were past discussions at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/China-related articles about this, especially in the section "Request for Comment: Regarding WP:NC-TW". Why not broadening the scope of this guideline, "Naming conventions (Chinese)", by including China and Taiwan with or without changing the name of the guideline? George Ho (talk) 07:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't know why Naming conventions (Chinese)/Taiwan failed because it doesn't say. But it is poorly written. For example: "Text should not imply that Taiwan is either a part of China or not a part of China.", which is obviously impossible. I think there should be a well discussed Naming conventions (China and Taiwan) so that there need not be a discussion on every page. Szqecs (talk) 08:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems to have fallen as part of the big RM and related discussions from 2012 which got the Taiwan article to that location. The discussions were a bit all over the place and it was unclear if that was a title or content guideline but the RM closers determined it clearly did not have the consensus of the community. Timrollpickering 17:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * BTW, what's an RM? Szqecs (talk) 02:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * RM = WP:requested moves, where most RMs have occurred in article talk pages. George Ho (talk) 03:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2
Szqecs, after the deletion of the China subpage, I think we should focus on either updating this guideline or building User:George Ho/Naming conventions (China) and/or User:Szqecs/Naming conventions (China and Taiwan) (i.e. merge both at WP:REPAIR). George Ho (talk) 06:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If the goal is to create a policy, I suggest following WP:PROPOSAL. Basically we first need consensus on creating such a policy. Szqecs (talk) 06:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, no. We can update the existing guideline. How's that? George Ho (talk) 07:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe. This page, as it stands, is clearly written without Taiwan in mind, which also uses the language. So yes, I think it needs to be modified before naming of Taiwan articles fit here. The scope of this page needs to be defined first. For titling of China articles, yes they can be here. As for names within articles, this page is definitely not for it. The MOS again was written without Taiwan in mind. There should be a Taiwan counterpart. Szqecs (talk) 09:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you can go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Taiwan and then discuss Taiwan-related matters. Meanwhile, you may take a break from proposals until... you are prepared to propose Naming conventions (Taiwan) and/or Manual of Style/Taiwan-related articles. Meanwhile, the above parties and I can discuss the naming issue. Thoughts? George Ho (talk) 12:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure. Szqecs (talk) 12:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kaldari and RGloucester: Let's discuss John's proposal above. Therefore, we can resolve the main naming issue before another RM happens again. --George Ho (talk) 01:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, let's discuss how to amend the proposal based on the RM results at Talk:National Emblem of the People's Republic of China and Talk:Civil Service of the People's Republic of China. --George Ho (talk) 01:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't believe there is any reason to formulate a guideline on this matter. We shouldn't box ourself into "RoC" or "Taiwan". My opinion on which of those to use is clear, but I think that the flexibility to balance common usage and factuality is necessary regardless. RGloucester  — ☎ 02:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think titles should be decided case-by-case, as I have proposed. Text within articles I think there should be a guideline. Szqecs (talk) 03:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I won't be participating in this discussion any more due to personal attacks. Good luck with the rest of it. Kaldari (talk) 03:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * @Szqecs: Consistency in article titles, a supplement, already explains what you propose. It mentions China and Taiwan as examples. I think creating a separate guideline is more of an instruction creep than simply updating the guideline, isn't it? --George Ho (talk) 05:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you mean by "what you propose". Regarding article titles? I proposed that on my user page yes. I haven't come across Consistency in article titles until now, but if the consensus is to decide case-by-case, Consistency in article titles should be edited. If the consensus is to be consistent, we can just apply Consistency in article titles to RMs. Edit: You have mentioned that outcomes of discussion determine policy, which is why I think case-by-case is the way to go. Szqecs (talk) 06:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia:Consistency in article titles" is just a supplement, not a policy or guideline. Well... case-by-case method can sometimes lead to some inconsistencies, which the supplement mentions. Let's not treat it like a hard or soft rule, okay? --George Ho (talk) 06:34, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay. Sorry, I wasn't aware it was a supplement. I think you misunderstood me when I said "there should be a guideline". I didn't mean there should be a new project page, but add guidelines to one of the pages like you suggested and I agreed. Szqecs (talk) 08:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted. Maybe be careful of using the word "guideline(s)"; sometimes I would mistake it. --George Ho (talk) 14:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * More at my talk page. George Ho (talk) 14:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

My amendment to JohnBlackburne's proposal, which is underlined :

Feel free to comment about my amendment to the proposal. --George Ho (talk) 22:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I feel that the fourth point is unnecessary as it is already covered by the second point. However, the examples should be added to the second point to clarify what "distinct" can mean. Deryck C. 15:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Amended my amendment, Deryck. I think about starting an RFC on this soon. Thoughts? George Ho (talk) 16:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC); never mind for now. 08:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As mentioned above, "distinct" is vague. Is Civil Service of the People's Republic of China distinct from Civil Service of China? Szqecs (talk) 18:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * An article "civil service" mentions such in China in historical context. I started an RFD on civil service of China. --George Ho (talk) 18:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Do other countries treat their past as distinct from the present? Szqecs (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I wish others do, like Civil Service of the Russian Federation. However, as demonstrated in Template:Civil service, other articles don't do much distinction, or maybe I'm unsure. George Ho (talk) 20:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * World War II certainly uses modern names to refer to historical states. Szqecs (talk) 21:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I propose this:

Szqecs (talk) 19:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:CRITERIA already does that. Looks... essay-ish, honestly. George Ho (talk) 20:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * What you propose is essentially the same thing, which is why I don't think it is necessary to make additions at all. There is one difference: both of our proposals says that X of China/Taiwan are the preferred titles. Szqecs (talk) 21:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The proposal was originally done by JohnBlackburne, and I did some tweaks. Well... I guess both of the proposals are not easy to appease. I still want to start a proposal discussion with the below: "There have been multiple RM discussions on articles related to 'People's Republic of China' (now currently China) and 'Republic of China' (now currently Taiwan). Some articles use 'China'/'Taiwan' as part of the titles per RM results, some other articles remain using PROC/ROC as part of the titles, like History of Taiwan (separate from History of the Republic of China), Politics of the Republic of China, Civil Service of the People's Republic of China, and Incorporation of Tibet into the People's Republic of China. Creating more individual RMs on China- and Taiwan-related articles would spark more negative reactions, regardless of the results, so I'm creating a central discussion on the naming matter of China- and Taiwan-related articles. Should the Naming conventions (Chinese) be updated to handle those articles? Should a separate 'naming conventions' guideline be created? Why or why not?" I don't know whether to insert mine and yours or not as I fear making that proposed discussion messier. George Ho (talk) 22:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have started a central discussion, and you know how that ended. Apparently the admins think the issue should not even be discussed. If you think this continues to be a "big" issue, just take it to arbitration. Szqecs (talk) 07:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you misread the MFD discussion, which says that a subpage using "Wikipedia:Centralized discussion" is inappropriate or redundant because other venues exist, like this talk page. And the dispute hasn't reached to the level of needing ArbCom yet. I don't think admins disallow me or others to discuss the issue. If you don't believe me, ask the admin who deleted the page. --George Ho (talk) 07:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm sure that admins would be fine with me starting an RFC on this. Don't you think so? George Ho (talk) 07:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Pinging Szqecs. George Ho (talk) 07:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I got the idea of arbitration because some one brought it up on my talk page. There was certainly an arbitration case for Ireland, Macedonia etc. This issue isn't any less contentious so why not?

I don't think I misread anything. One user thinks other venues exist. All others think it doesn't even needs to be discussed. And the admins didn't say anything. Feel free to try it again here, it might just work I don't know. Szqecs (talk) 08:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I'll raise the issue again centrally if another or a few more RMs happen again. Okay? Still, as said before, best not to rush yet to ArbCom, which is the "last resort" venue. --George Ho (talk) 08:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * To answer your question more concisely: Should the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) be updated to handle those articles? Should a separate "naming conventions" guideline be created? Only if the issue can be discussed properly. There is evidence that it cannot, hence the best course of action is to use existing guidelines and decide case-by-case. Szqecs (talk) 08:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Timrollpickering, may you also try to talk sense to Szqecs about ArbCom? BTW, may I start an RFC on the China/Taiwan matter soon? George Ho (talk) 07:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC); never mind for now. 08:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Kaohsiung Subdivisions
OK, I think we should move discussion about the spelling for subdivisions in Kaohsiung here. The original discussion was at Talk:Fengshan District which is not appropriate as that should only discuss the page move specifically for Fengshan District vs. Fongshan District.

Szqecs says Wikipedia should use the naming convention according to what is listed on the Kaohsiung District Office website. AjaxSmack pointed out the ROC government issued guidelines in 2015 (PDF File) stipulating the use of Hanyu Pinyin for administrative divisions and street names which has not been challenged by Tsai Ing-wen, the current President (2016-present). Hanyu Pinyin has been Taiwan's official national standard for romanization of Chinese since 2009-present (replacing Tongyong Pinyin which was only voluntary from 2002-2009).

Table below are spellings for comparison. Green highlight means both Kaohsiung and ROC versions are the same. Red highlight means they differ in spelling. Yes, I'm crazy like that. I searched each one by one, at least 10 page results each to see how the spellings appear on Taiwanese websites with English addresses. &mdash; Czgsq (talk) 23:12, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your good-faith concerns about this, but let's wait until the RM is over, okay? We can't try changing the guideline yet to mention Tongying Pinyin. --George Ho (talk) 01:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The RM discussion is closed as "withdrawn". I don't see a point of using Tongyong Pinyin generally, but we can do case-by-case without doing a multi-nomination like before. The Romanization on Taiwanese personalities, like Liu Chia-chang, Tsai Ing-wen, Tsai Chin (singer), Richie Jen, etc., may be inconsistent but needs established widely used names for individuals. Same for Presidents and Vice Presidents of the ROC. As for place names, let's look at administrative divisions of Taiwan for ourselves. I don't know what else to tell you, but case-by-case would be our best shot until proven exhaustive, like the more exhausting China/PROC and Taiwan/ROC debates. --George Ho (talk) 20:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I've pointed this out already: Per WP:NCDAB, Natural disambiguation. When there is another term (such as Apartment instead of Flat) or more complete name (such as English language instead of English) that is unambiguous, commonly used in English (even without being the most common term), and equally clear, that term is typically the best to use.. Szqecs (talk) 13:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how "Natural disambiguation" is related to this. May you please clarify how related it is? George Ho (talk) 08:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Taoyuan District is ambiguous, Tauyuan District is not. Tauyuan District is more natural than Taoyuan District, Kaohsiung. It is "unambiguous", "commonly used in English" and "equally clear". Szqecs (talk) 08:47, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You mean "Tauyuan District" is more accurate than "Taoyuan District, Kaohsiung", right? George Ho (talk) 12:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Right. Szqecs (talk) 18:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Early 20th Century Chinese Ship names
Hi, I wanted to know what the general consensus would be on names of Chinese naval ships dating from the turn of the 20th century, up until the end of World War II would be. For example currently the article for the Chao Ho-class cruiser is in Wade-Giles, as is most of the references, in pinyin though the name of the class of ships would be Zhào Hé which will probably become increasingly more used as the years go on. Would early Republic of China Navy fall under the same, more common "cultural" usage, like the contemporary Chiang Kai-Shek or should they be moved to pinyin? Semi-Lobster (talk) 16:12, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

RFC on Chinese railway station title/style conventions
FYI, Village pump (policy). -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 10:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Related: Village pump (policy). -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 09:40, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * For those following these things and desirous of consistent results, see also WP:Village pump (policy).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  04:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Naming for Ming Dynasty emperors
It has been confusing after I saw the title "Emperor Xuanzong of Tang" and "Jiajing Emperor". The problem here is that mostly in informal ways and in text descriptions we could use the era name "jiajing" as a reference to this person because of there's only one era name used per emperor during Ming Dynasty. But essentially the era name does not represent the person himself. For example, I cannot use Veritas as the article name for Harvard University. Change those articles using era names as title into more representative and formal titles such as using Temple name or posthumous names would be better and more consistent without explaining difference saying share same characters while kings from Europe can use same names and differ with some roman letters. I just want to know how is it same if using correct addressing.-宋世怡 (talk) 00:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 明世宗（Emperor Shizong of Ming)
 * 金世宗 (Emperor Shizong of Jin)
 * Furthermore, if I am not wrong, in official historical records, no matter by the proceeding Emperor or Dynasty, temple names were used.
 * This part of our guideline is derived from WP:COMMONNAME, the most common name for the article subject used in English-language secondary sources. A quick browse through my sources shows about a halfie-half split for Ming dynasty emperors (Ming Taizu vs Hongwu Emperor), but for Qing dynasty emperors every source I know of uses the name of their regnal period rather than their temple name: e.g. always Kangxi and Qianlong, never Qing Shengzu or Qing Gaozong. We do have the redirects, as you can see.
 * From the Tang dynasty onwards the official histories use temple names; prior to that they use exclusively 諡.
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "I cannot use Veritas as the article name for Harvard University". Can you elaborate? Snuge purveyor (talk) 05:39, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

The point I am trying to say is that I think the division in naming these articles should not appear because of the common use of the era name even if they can be used to identify. In addition, I tried to understand how the community established these rules, so I went through the explanation here and also the articles of era names in Eng to confirm if there's any different understanding of the same object. But as far as I researched, even though era names were used commonly in English-language secondary sources, officially should be temple name or posthumous names in Ming Dynasty. I am not much into Qing Dynasty so I do not comment on it. The historical records I used to identify their official uses are “Mingshilu” and “History of Ming”， both were written by government of Ming and Qing, I will show you a few quotes from them in origin language(Chinese). Without saying, even the title of Mingshilu is combined with the temple name and the posthumous name but not era name; same in History of Ming, it used the temple names for every emperor.
 * 诏下，朝野号恸感激，比之杨廷和所拟登极诏书，为世宗始终盛事云
 * 世宗不豫时，给事中胡应嘉尝劾拱，拱疑阶嗾之 -《明史》列传第一百一
 * 世宗皇帝以宗藩入继大统乃祖宗以来未有之事其即位礼仪及赏赉之类亦与先朝不同皆备书一追上睿宗献皇帝尊号祔庙称宗并上慈孝献皇后徽号及改建庙制议迁陵寝诸大典礼皆世宗皇帝所亲定者备书一册立皇后皇妃 -《明实录》卷五百六十六
 * For Harvard, simply because the article for era name uses the word "motif\slogan", just so to compare(not really academic way but enough for imagery)
 * Prior to Tang, I will use 汉书 as example:“高祖，沛丰邑中阳里人也，姓刘氏”,“高祖以亭长为县送徒骊山，徒多道亡. ”-宋世怡 (talk) 15:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Also, most historical records used temple names rather than era names(Ming Dynasty), if you do have the interest and time, you can look through my ongoing editing "徐阶" article in zh wiki-宋世怡 (talk) 15:39, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

-宋世怡 (talk) 17:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * FYI(1): I do need to clarify the importance and why they would use such names instead of others, which was defined not by modern society but ancient society, as I don't have a English translation edition in hand, I have to post origin texts from Book of Rites.
 * “凡治人之道，莫急于礼. 礼有五经，莫重于祭. 夫祭者，非物自外至者也，自中出生于心也；心怵而奉之以礼. 是故，唯贤者能尽祭之义. ”&“是故：王立七庙，一坛一墠，曰考庙，曰王考庙，曰皇考庙，曰显考庙，曰祖考庙；皆月祭之. 远庙为祧，有二祧，享尝乃止. 去祧为坛，去坛为墠. 坛墠，有祷焉祭之，无祷乃止. 去墠曰鬼. ”
 * The idea is to use the article title that English-reading users will most likely recognise, not the most correct or most official name of the article subject. The explanatory supplement WP:OFFICIALNAMES begins "People often assume that, where an official name exists for the subject of a Wikipedia article, that name is ipso facto the correct title for the article… It's a very easy mistake to make, and a very common one." Our policy WP:COMMONNAME says "Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)".
 * The fact that the temple name for emperors is the proper one to use, and the name used exclusively by Chinese histories, is irrelevant to Wikipedia's article titles. Ming dynasty history is my weakest area of Chinese history, so I'm probably the least expert person here to talk to, but if you want Wikipedia to move its articles on Ming dynasty emperors to the titles using the official temple names (Ming Shizong for example, instead of Jiajing Emperor), you'll likely have to show that the preponderance of English-language sources use the correct, official term rather than using the era name as a shorthand to refer to the emperor. Snuge purveyor (talk) 19:55, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation about the difference, I have already read the policy and fully understand your statement, but I will still insist on my proposal until I have a better vision by researching more related English documents. Although I do agree with the point of using a commonly used name, the use of temple names of emperors during Ming Dynasty is preferred and common in many Chinese academic journals and books as far as I know. Thank you again for your help as I don't know how to start in Eng Wiki because of those naming problems confused me so much at the beginning.-宋世怡 (talk) 21:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This is part of an important, ongoing, and inconclusive discussion. We should thank for keeping it in front of the community, for instance in the extremely well-done article Translation of Han dynasty titles. However, I am both a scholar and a teacher, but my feeling is that Wikipedia should favor my students, who are easily confused, over my colleagues, who are better able to look after themselves! That is, I would not change the long-established WP:COMMONNAME policy even though it is sometimes awkward.ch (talk) 22:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Jiajing Emperor is more common than Shizong of Ming, but the common name for Hongwu Emperor is undoubtedly Zhu Yuanzhang. Timmyshin (talk) 04:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with Timmyshin. The name Hongwu Emperor usually throws up blank looks, but you immediately see a reaction when Zhu Yuanzhang is mentioned. In China, recognition of the former may be higher, but the same case of higher recognition of Zhu Yuanzhang applies. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 15:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Personal names for Southern and Northern Dynasties period emperors
If nobody objects, I will move all emperors from the Category:Southern and Northern Dynasties emperors Category:Northern and Southern dynasties emperors to their personal names. (Some emperors already use personal names, like Xiao Yuanming, but his predecessor is titled Emperor Yuan of Liang.) The guideline states "Emperors before the Tang dynasty: use posthumous names, such as Emperor Wu of Han (漢武帝)", but I'm not sure who came up with this and how. The Three Kingdoms/Sixteen Kingdoms emperors already use personal names, and I don't think anyone calls Sun Quan "Emperor Da of Eastern Wu". But how many people outside of WP use Emperor Gong of Western Wei or Emperor Jing of Western Liang (both 0 hits in GBooks)? I didn't do a thorough research but I think personal names are more common for emperors of this period. Timmyshin (talk) 03:53, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose - most emperors of "dynasties" (as opposed to "kingdoms" such as Eastern Wu) are not known by their personal names (which were taboo and rarely mentioned in traditional histories), with the major exception of the founding emperors, as they spent much of their adult lives as commoners. We should therefore stick with posthumous names, temple names, and reign names in general. This is especially true for the Southern Dynasties, as Liu Song has three emperors named Liu Yu. Using personal names would introduce unnecessary confusion. -Zanhe (talk) 04:15, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Can you please find some English-language sources supporting this usage? Timmyshin (talk) 04:29, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Google books search for "Emperor Wen" Liu Song -wikipedia returns 2,580 results, whereas "Liu Yilong" -wikipedia returns 493. Note that many sources add "the" before "Liu Song", or omit "Liu", or replace "of" with a comma, or add a hyphen between Liu and Song, but they are all minor variations of the posthumous name. -Zanhe (talk) 04:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Your first query returns too many false positives because there are 9 Emperor Wens, including a Han dynasty emperor with the surname of Liu. To use your example: ["Emperor Wen of Liu Song" -wikipedia] = 62 GBook hits, ["Emperor Wen of Song" -wikipedia] = 119 hits, ["Wendi of Liu Song" -wikipedia] = 2, ["Wendi of Song" - wikipedia] = 9, ["Wen Di of Song" -wikipedia] = 3. Total = 195. I'm willing to say it's similar to Liu Yilong's numbers because Ghits are unreliable, but this shows if anything Emperor Wen of Song is about twice as common as Emperor Wen of Liu Song. Timmyshin (talk) 05:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


 * You forgot "Emperor Wen of the Liu Song", another common usage. Besides, Liu Yilong is one of the more unique names. As mentioned above, there's also the more intractable problem of three emperors called Liu Yu. And there's Emperor Xiaowu, whose name Liu Jun is the same (in English) as Prince Liu Jun of Liu Song, not to mention King/Emperor Liu Jun of Northern Han and dozens of other Liu Jun's. The unambiguous posthumous names are not only more recognizable, but also better per WP:NATURAL. -Zanhe (talk) 05:36, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


 * These are all good arguments. However, I think either way you will have some naming inconsistencies within a given dynasty (just look at each subcategory in Category:Southern and Northern Dynasties emperors Category:Northern and Southern dynasties emperors). Anyway, I have notified User:Nlu and will defer to his opinion because he created and titled most/all of these articles. Timmyshin (talk) 06:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Also notice the issue of disambiguation also exists for emperors of other periods, e.g. Fu Jian, but personal names were still used. Timmyshin (talk) 06:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The Sixteen Kingdoms are different from the N-S dynasties. Many rulers (who were in reality no more than warlords) did not call themselves emperors, and even if they did, they were not accepted by historians. Hence the Sixteen "Kingdoms", not dynasties. -Zanhe (talk) 06:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Not all historians think like this. e.g. : "Despite the conventional English label 'Sixteen Kingdoms,' moreover, these regimes were also often really empires..." There are also quite a few of books calling them "dynasties", e.g., etc. Timmyshin (talk) 04:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. I don't think there is a logical reason to treat the Northern/Southern dynasty emperors any different than Three Kingdoms or Sixteen Kingdoms emperors.  Using personal names allows greater consistency and avoids personal judgments as to such emperors as Xiao Baojuan and Emperor Houfei of Liu Song.  (Also, some of the emperors had multiple posthumous names given by rival sides of civil wars – e.g., Emperor Xiaozhuang of Northern Wei.)  --Nlu (talk) 15:14, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The Northern/Southern dynasties are more similar to the Southern Song dynasty/Jurchen Jin dynasty division than to the Three Kingdoms or Sixteen Kingdoms. Traditional Chinese historiography clearly treats them differently, by calling the former "dynasties" (whose rulers are considered legitimate emperors) and the latter "kingdoms". Modern historians have adopted this nomenclature, and there is no good reason for us to abandon the millennia-old convention. And in the case of the Southern Dynasties, there's no real difference between them and the Eastern Jin dynasty in terms of territory, population, legitimacy, etc. They were essentially continuations of the Eastern Jin with a change in the ruling imperial family. Many historians actually consider Eastern Jin the beginning of the Southern Dynasties, and there's no reason for us to treat their emperors differently. -Zanhe (talk) 19:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That being said, there will always be exceptions that defy convention, especially the short-lived rulers and usurpers. In addition to the ones you named, the most extreme case is the Daughter of Emperor Xiaoming of Northern Wei, who does not even have a name. These need to be considered on a case-by-case basis. -Zanhe (talk) 19:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * As far as I am concerned, I'd rather than personal names be used for all emperors, but we don't have that consensus yet. But we can start with the ones who potentially can reach consensus on in terms of eliminating problems.  --Nlu (talk) 00:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, that's a terrible idea! Many emperors such as Emperor Wu of Han, Yongle, Kangxi, Qianlong are world famous names, but how many people would recognize Liu Che, Zhu Di, Xuanye, and Hongli? Remember WP:RECOGNIZABILITY is the number one criterion for deciding article titles. Besides, many emperors would require disambiguation when their personal names are used (such as Zhao Yun, Emperor Lizong of Song), which is against the WP:NATURAL principle. -Zanhe (talk) 05:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There needs to be some kind of a compromise: instead of dynasty-based conventions, we should examine each case individually. I am of the opinion that it's fine to call an emperor "Emperor XYZ" or "XYZ Emperor" only if his life and career is clearly defined by his years as a supreme ruler, and nothing else. When there's doubt, we should go with personal names. Hence Puyi, not Xuantong Emperor. Timmyshin (talk) 02:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the main factor to consider when comparing these dynasties is "duration and stability", not "territory, population, legitimacy" (who determines legitimacy anyway?). With the exception of Northern Wei the other N-S dynasties were short-lived and unstable, which makes creating a consistent non-personal naming system difficult. For example, with Category:Northern Qi emperors, it's a 50-50 split between personal names and posthumous names (including an "Emperor Fei", shouldn't it be translated as "Deposed Emperor"?). Is this hodgepodge what we want? Also, having read a little about the Five Dynasties in research, the traditional dynasty-kingdom distinction has been rejected by several modern historians as misleading and counterproductive. (The Five Dynasties emperors are all using personal names now.) Timmyshin (talk) 01:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned above, when considered as a whole, the southern dynasties were remarkably stable and durable. From the Eastern Jin to Chen, the country was stable for nearly 300 years, the main change being that of the ruling family. The northern dynasties less so, but still the Northern Wei lasted as long as the Northern Song. And I don't think the hodgepodge of names is a problem, as it simply reflects the chaotic nature of some successions. It's fine to use personal names for deposed emperors or usurpers who were not given proper posthumous names, but normal emperors with no legitimacy issues should be addressed by their traditional titles. What we shouldn't do is to strive for an artificial consistency when the historical realities are messy and chaotic. -Zanhe (talk) 05:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Off topic, but this discussion somehow reminds me of Bo Yang's version of Zizhi Tongjian, where he consistently used only personal names. I agree with the opinion that we shouldn't strive for artificial consistency, but rather to examine each entity in this period individually and adjust accordingly to changing norms in Chinese historiography (sorry for being unhelpful). Alex Shih (talk) 07:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a good observation and not unhelpful at all. Bo Yang, of course, is known for his iconoclasm. Most modern Chinese historians still follow the traditional naming convention. -Zanhe (talk) 01:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Using namespaces that include the word "Emperor" appears to be an anomaly. I do not see any reason why there should be so many articles about Chinese royalty in such namespaces. We don't see namespaces occupied by Queen Elizabeth II, King Felipe VI, Emperor Napoleon, Tzar Nicholas II – these are redirects. The only exception seems to be Queen Victoria, but it's not an exception that I can explain nor care to investigate. The Qin Shi Huang article seems to be "correctly" named in accordance with conventions (even though his pinyin name carries the word for "emperor"); Qianlong Emperor could easily reside at Qianlong without any need for disambiguation, as everyone knows who we are referring to. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 15:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That's because European royal names are far simpler (normally personal name + number), while Chinese rulers are commonly known by a variety of names: posthumous names, temple names, reign names, and rarely, personal names, which were traditionally taboo. When we do use personal names for Chinese emperors, we don't append their titles just like the European rulers, e.g. Wu Zetian and Puyi. And I also agree that "emperor" is usually not needed for temple names and reign names (as in Taizong of Tang or Qianlong). However, for posthumous names, the title is absolutely necessary, because there are only a small number of posthumous names used by a large number of rulers as well as nobles. For example, we have King Wen of Zhou and Duke Wen of Zhou, Marquis Wen of Jin and Duke Wen of Jin, Duke Xiang of Qi and King Xiang of Qi, Marquis Wu of Jin, Duke Wu of Jin, and Emperor Wu of Jin, etc. -Zanhe (talk) 00:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Renaming the last 3 Song dynasty emperors
The guideline says: "Emperors of the Tang, Song, Liao and Jin (1115–1234) dynasties: use temple names". But Emperor Gong of Song and Emperor Bing of Song are not temple names. Gong is a posthumous name (or is it? I'm not even sure about that, it certainly wasn't mentioned in the annals of History of Song ), and Bing is a personal given name. I'm also not sure that Emperor Duanzong is the best-known name for the 8-year-old fugitive "emperor". I propose using the personal names for the trio like Professor Richard L. Davis in The Cambridge History of China Volume 5, Book 1, Chapter 12. Timmyshin (talk) 04:20, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that at least, there should be no dispute that "Zhao Bing" would be appropriate given, as you pointed out, "Bing" was the personal name. My opinions about using personal names in general was noted above, but I will note that if there's no temple name, I do think posthumous name is as close as it gets.  --Nlu (talk) 02:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Which name is which?
Do we have any resources for determining which part of a Chinese name is the surname, and which part is the personal name?

I have a source ("The Great Tangshan Earthquake of 1976: Anatomy of a Disaster") with six Chinese editors, whose names the publisher presents as "Chen Yong, Kam‐Ling Tsoi, Chen Feibi, Gao Zhenhuan, Zou Qijia and Chen Zhangli", but without indicationg which order they are in. This work is variously cite as "Chen et al." and "Yong et al.", with the names sometimes inverted and sometimes not. (And my Chinese-speaking source says "Chen" can be either a surname or a personal name.)

Short of trying to contact these persons directly (the book is 30 years old), how can I sort these out? Do we have any Chinese librarians on tap? &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * With a few exceptions, if one part of a Chinese name is monosyllabic and the other is disyllabic, the monosyllable is the surname. That's no help if both are monosyllabic, but here the surname of the first author is Chen: .  Kanguole 23:41, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


 * That helps. Especially the reminder about VIAF. Thanks. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:27, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

RfC: "mainland China" or "China" in article titles
Hello everybody, there was a request to move "2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in mainland China" to "2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in China". There was a clear consensus not to move. Because arguments there doesn't necessarily constrain to the virus page only, I want to request for comments from the community if we can apply it to all pages

Should we use "mainland China" instead of "China" in article titles, given that the article covers area under the direct jurisdiction of the People's Republic of China only and excludes the special administrative regions of Hong Kong and Macau and the disputed Taiwan.

Please, have a say! -- Akira 😼 CA  01:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

A notification was placed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China at 01:17, 2 April 2020 (UTC). --MarioGom (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I think "China" is generally considered shorthand for "mainland China" and "Greater China" or "the PRC" can be used when one explicitly wants to talk about either entity as a whole. Kdm852 (talk) 07:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * support - use mainland China in titles if the article is dealing with post 1949 topics exclusively related mainland China and not involving Hong Kong, Macau and (disputed) Taiwan. Cinema of China, Video games in China seems like good starting points, as the thread starter had mentioned.Newslack (talk) 23:31, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose - use China in titles as the standard. The standard is to use the country name even if there are autonomous and/or geographically detached parts of the state with their own arrangements. e.g. articles on France use "France" not "Metropolitan France". There's no good reason to make an exception for China. Timrollpickering (Talk) 23:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The significant difference, however, is that nobody really confuses French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Mayotte, and Réunion with Metropolitan France, and it seems to be common understanding that the word "France" refers to Metropolitan France. The same connot be said of the word "China" though, which itself is an intense contemporary political debate, and thus a disambiguation such as the politically neutral "mainland China" is needed. –  PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 09:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * the analogy is invalid, as France's Outremer is an administrative and geographical exeption to France. Taiwan is under control of a rival state. A better analogy is between the DPRK and ROK, or the GFR and GDR, when talking about the cold war. Francis1867 (talk) 09:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Support per the failed pandemic article move request and WP:PRECISE (Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that.) on a case-by-case basis. Cinema of China is an excellent example because the first mainland Chinese film was until 1905 ( Dingjun Mountain ) and in Taiwan, was not introduced until 1901 with Toyojirō Takamatsu, when Taiwan had already been ceded to Imperial Japan. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 05:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Use China in the titles as standard, Macao and HK are also a completely different kettle of fish from Taiwan. We should treat Macao and HK the same way we treat something like Puerto Rico or the British Virgin Islands, why have a separate standard for China? Any discussion of disputed territories must include Aksai Chin, Arunachal Pradesh, etc so the wording of the RfC is questionable to begin with, why single out Taiwan? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 14:54, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear, to your last part: because this is not about disputed territory in general but only territories (disputed or not) related to the term "mainland China". "Taiwan" is mentioned 73 times in mainland China. "Hong Kong" is mentioned 24 times. "Macau" is mentioned 18 times. "Aksai Chin" and "Arunachal Pradesh" are mentioned 0 time. That's why I single out Taiwan. Regards. -- Akira 😼 CA  23:47, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Would you amend to include them? I don’t think that anyone would question that they are included under the official Chinese government definition of mainland China. I think most other uses would include them too. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:22, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Arunachal Pradesh is not included in the infobox image and according to the first sentence "geographical area under the direct jurisdiction of the People's Republic of China". You can amend if you find any reliable source (probably discuss in the talk page first), but I won't touch it. -- Akira 😼 CA  00:41, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Arunachal Pradesh isn’t however Aksai Chin does appear to be included. Can you explain why you will touch Taiwan but not other disputed territories? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't say I will touch Taiwan but not other disputed territories. Can't explain words I didn't say. but I won't touch it the pronoun "it" refers to the amendment, not territories. If I was referring to the territories I will use "them" not "it". -- Akira 😼 CA  23:02, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it's reasonable for the RfC to specifically focus on articles that explicitly exclude HK, Macau, and Taiwan. "Mainland China" is a term that is typically used to explicitly exclude them, independent of the status of Aksai Chin, Arunachal Pradesh, Sino-Bhutanese disputed areas, the Spratly Islands, the Senkaku Islands, the Paracel Islands, or a dozen other islands / mountains / relatively unpopulated areas. Also a rather pedantic note, but the official Chinese government definition of mainland China doesn't really exist per se. If one argues that their usage of it in cross-Strait relations is official, then the PRC government's usage technically includes both HK and Macau. — MarkH21talk 21:48, 11 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Support - it should be available and used when appropriate per WP:TITLE, determining case-by-Case. I think one cannot categorically go either way categorically, “it depends”.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:01, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – when articles on a topic have separate coverage for Hong Kong, Macau, and/or Taiwan, the use of "mainland China" would be a perfect natural disambiguation to distinguish the majority of China from the politically, culturally, and economically distinct island cultures of Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan. If not, readers may confuse a particular article as covering all of China including Hong Kong, Macau, and – for some readers – Taiwan, when the article does not. This would be especially problematic, and this natural disambiguation would serve as a good way to prevent such confusion –  PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 09:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Hong Kong and Taiwan have media independent of the Communist Party of China, and this treatment is entirely warranted. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 10:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong Support - Taiwan, Macau and Hong Kong are very different compared to mainland China in many aspects. Be it the history, people, government, law, media and/or politics among others. This treatment of separating articles by renaming them is not only required but also due. The move would provide readers particular insight and information on the related topics in the specific region as opposed to generalized knowledge, as is the current case. Such articles could also be expanded to contain more relevant facts and material for an overall comprehensive view and understanding of various topics.---Shawnqual (talk) 23:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Support - As much as I know, Taiwan, Hong Kong (and Makau) have independent media, law, people, history (and many other independent issues); and factually there seems to be remarkable difference(s) in comparison to "mainland China". As a result, applying the mentioned name (of "mainland China)" will logically be more helpful in presenting more precise/useful info. in regards to the mentioned issue. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 20:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose to such a massive and potentially disruptive change. Analogous situations can be found with the United States and Puerto Rico, the United Kingdom and British Overseas Territories, France and overseas collectivities. I'm not adding a strong oppose because some reliable sources frequently use "Mainland China" and some use just "China", they are usually divided on the convention. --MarioGom (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note that I'm not opposing to the use of "mainland China" for every possible case, I'm just opposing a mass change. I realize that a few other editors want to decide on a case-by-case basis even !voting support. --MarioGom (talk) 22:49, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose and could be in conflict with the MOS:. WP:COMMONNAME already covers most cases, and in most situations, mainland China is referred to as simply China, unless distinction from Taiwan/SARs is paramount. --17jiangz1 (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Support. While I see the logic behind omitting "mainland", there's still an assumption that Hong Kong and Macau (and at times Taiwan) are homogenous to the rest of China; among a few groups of editors "mainland China" has become WP:COMMONNAME. Currently over at Template:2019-20 coronavirus pandemic data a footnote was added to China to explicitly define the split, but China would probably have to have this footnote in almost every article it mentioned when the SARs and/or Taiwan are also somewhere in the article. Keeping it as "mainland China" is shorter and less of a hassle to consistently do. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  05:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Note that some guidelines already exist for this topic at MOS:NC-CN. Whatever the result of this RfC, this page is probably not the right place to implement it. --MarioGom (talk) 19:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose hard and fast rule, continue to deal with on a case-by-case basis. Use "China" when unlikely to cause confusion, but "mainland China" if it would make the statement more clear. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 19:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose since China is the formal name of the state this should be the formal name of China in titles and in lists of nations and territories. It should be a simplified naming protocol. For the same reason that we do not call the United States the Contiguous United States, it is in many ways redundant to call China, "mainland China". Note some people are calling it Mainland China, which is grossly incorrect, this is not a proper name, but rather a descriptive name and mainland in therm mainland China should not be capitalized. The more we have articles with mainland China the more confusing this makes it for the lay reader of Wikipedia. Perhaps falsely indicating that there is a state name "Mainland China" which there is not. Thus I propose that the standard name for mainland China simply be reduced to China to prevent confusion. Notes can be added to articles and lists to indicate that Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macao are listed separately as needed.  Krazytea  (talk) 21:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose Unless a distinction between mainland China and Taiwan has to be made for an article's information to be accurate, as is true with topics such as the 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic (where there is a different health agency in each location), the distinction should not be made just for the sake of uniformity. For an article like music of China, there is no need to rename the page to music of mainland China. As per WP:COMMONNAME, those looking for music in China are generally going to be looking for music in mainland China specifically. There is a separate article on music of Taiwan, and there is no need to make it into "music of mainland China", especially since "mainland China" is not any sort of official name or designation. Article titles should include "mainland China" only when it is necessary for accuracy, and a blanket change would likely only make things more confusing. Khu'hamgaba Kitaptalk 01:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Support (I'm not an autoconfirmed/confirmed user.) This is a disputed matter. It should not be treated like France or other countries that has overseas territories.
 * Maybe you would like to check out zh:WP:PB which is similar to MOS:NC-CN. Some points are listed here:


 * Wikipedia should reflect a neutral reality, meaning that the government representing China should not refer to either the Beijing Government or the Taipei Government, so the term China should not be treated as any single independent political entity or government, and should not be used particularly in the territory under the jurisdiction of the People's Republic of China, or Mainland China excluding Hong Kong and Macau.


 * Taiwan should not be described as an independent country or part of PRC, but rather as a part of ROC.


 * By convention, Wikipedia will not support or oppose the following two issues:
 * 1. The Constitution of the People's Republic of China declares Taiwan to be the territory of PRC.
 * 2. The Constitution of the Republic of China declares its(ROC) inherent territory includes mainland China.


 * It is worth noting that the above matters are not fully applicable to historical items, especially the historical part before [1945, when] the sovereignty of the government of ROC has not yet included Taiwan.


 * I apologize for my poor translation (even with the help of Google). ——羊羊32521 (talk) 04:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Actually, Wikipedia used to do just that prior to 2011. Back then the article on China was a hodgepodge trying to mesh some vague Greater China entity into one article. However, Wikipedians reached a consensus in September 2011 to treat the PRC as the default China when used without qualification. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Note to the closer: Please, note that some of the votes both as support and oppose advocate to continue using a case-by-case approach. --MarioGom (talk) 23:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Support. We should use the word Mainland China or China (PR), because the two chinese states have overlaping claims but separate control. The distinction is deeper than the one Between the two koreas. Therefore, unless the thing mentioned apply equaly to the Republic and People's Republic, a mention should be made of which country we are talking about. Francis1867 (talk) 09:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Apostrophe-link characters in titles
Just a note that the character used in Wade-Giles romanization seems to have changed. I haven't tried to distinguish which article titles use Pinyin, but some titles may need to be changed to use either a straight apostrophe or the character used by wg-apos, assuming that's correct. There are some articles that use that template where the character used by the template is now out of sync with the article title. If someone wants a list of all articles with a particular character in the title, feel free to ping me. -- Beland (talk) 22:11, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Historical names of Chinese places
(contributions) has been changing historic place names to the modern version. The naming convention does not seem to cover this. However, an important tenet on Wikipedia is that we do not rewrite history. This means that we should use the historically correct place names appropriate to the period. Thus in 1922, Niuzhuang was known as Newchwang, and should be referred to as such when writing about events in 1922. Can we please add something to NCZH stating that modern names should not replace historic names when it is appropriate to use the historic name? Mjroots (talk) 06:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, how are the linked contributions not in benefit to the reader? I reviewed several, and don't see User:SilverStar54 changing "Chang'an" to "Xi'an" or anything like that. Altering transliterations does not – to me – rise to the level of "rewriting history". The place mentioned redirects to Yingkou in both cases. Just one opinion, of course 🙏🏽 Folly Mox (talk) 08:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, let's take the most well known of these - Peking. Until the late C20th, nobody would have heard of "Beijing". Peking would have been universally known as having been the then Capital of China. We shouldn't be using Beijing in an article depicting events in the C18th, for example. Mjroots (talk) 09:35, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I certainly hope my edits do not constitute rewriting history, but if there's consensus that they do then I will undo them. I've been making changes based on my understanding of the policies on this page and the general ones for historical placenames at WP:NCGN. Both policies place a clear emphasis on following common English usage, and modern English scholarship in particular. Modern scholars of Chinese history have more-or-less reached a consensus on how to romanize Chinese. Even when writing about time periods when Wade-Giles (or another system) was standard, pinyin is used for almost all placenames and names of individuals. Exceptions include names that are romanizations of non-Mandarin languages (e.g., "Amoy", "Mukden," "Sun Yat-sen") or names that were exceptionally famous in English using their old-style romanization (e.g., "Chiang Kai-shek", "Treaty of Nanking", "Kuomintang"). The number of terms included on that latter list, though, seems to be ever-shrinking as pinyin becomes more widely accepted. Obviously, where genuine name changes have occurred (e.g., "Niuzhuang" -> "Yingkou"), the historically accurate name is used. Some examples that use this approach (for 1860s China, as an example):, , , , , ,
 * I think that the justification for this approach is pretty straightforward. Standardized romanizations of Chinese are a relatively new thing, historically speaking: even Wade-Giles wasn't finalized until the 1890s. Before the mid-1800s, the only sensible choice is to use pinyin. So it would be rather odd to say "Fuzhou" all the way up until the mid-1800s when we start having primary sources in European languages, and then use "Foochow" until European-language sources begin calling it "Fuzhou" in the 1970s and 80s. This would be especially odd given the fact that the name of the city never actually changed at all for the people living there. At least in theory, even the European name didn't really change. Correctly pronounced, "Foochow" "Fuchow", and "Fuzhou" should all sound the same. After all, they're just different romanizations, just ways of conveying to non-Chinese readers how to say the name. Shakespeare never signed any of his works with that spelling of his name, but we wouldn't be rewriting history to say Romeo and Juliet was by Shakespeare rather than "Shakspere" or "Shaksper". Shakespeare is just the way we've collectively agreed to render that name in modern writing. Is it rewriting history, then, to say that the Xuantong Emperor was crowned in Beijing rather than Peking?
 * As I said, if this is a misinterpretation of Wikipedia's policies or if the consensus is against me, I'm happy to undo my edits. I should mention that I had a similar conversation with a few other editors a couple months ago and we came to agree on this, with the caveat that articles should clarify the different spellings where necessary for verifiability. SilverStar54 (talk) 09:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * IMvHO, we should go with the source being used. Mjroots (talk) 11:25, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That does seem to be the convention in modern historical writing, e.g. China: A New History (Fairbank & Goldman):
 * "Since the pinyin system of romanization introduced some years ago by Beijing seems to have a lock on the future, it is used throughout this book for the transcription of Chinese names and terms. Where an older romanization is likely to be better known to the reader (for example, Chiang Kaishek instead of Jiang Jieshi, or Canton instead of Guangzhou), the familiar form is indicated in parentheses at ﬁrst use."
 * Similar conventions are used in the 6-volume Harvard History of Imperial China, the monumental Chinese History: A New Manual and others. The Cambridge History of China, begun in the late 60's, is standardized on Wade-Giles, but the more recent extension, The Cambridge History of Ancient China (1999) has switched to pinyin. Kanguole 11:39, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with User:SilverStar54's comment above. "Foochow"/"Fuzhou" is not a case of a city changing its name – those are two different transliterations of the same name. Like most modern English-language reliable sources about Chinese history, we should use hanyu pinyin regardless of the time period we're talking about. (There are exceptions for the unusual cases where a different transliteration is significantly more common in modern sources, like Sun Yat-sen or Hong Kong.) It would be very odd for Fuzhou to start out with the transliteration "Fuzhou", switch to "Foochow" in the 1800s, and then switch back to "Fuzhou".
 * In cases where the city has actually changed names like Xi'an/Chang'an, it may be appropriate to use the pinyin transliteration of the name that was applicable at the time (e.g. "Chang'an", but not "Ch'ang-an"). And in some cases it may be appropriate to give an alternative transliteration in parentheses, to help readers who might recognize the older transliteration or read older sources. But like modern RSs, we should use pinyin as our default regardless of what time period we're talking about. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * - Many people would not realize that "Foochow" and "Fuzhou" are pronounced the same. I certainly didn't until a couple of days ago, being zh-0. My issue was the changing of spellings away from what the source in question used to a more modern spelling. Hence my comment at 11:25 yesterday. Mjroots (talk) 06:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand your concern about verifiability/readers' confusion when an article relies mainly/exclusively on older sources. Do you think that such cases would be sufficiently addressed by including the sources' spelling in parentheses at the first instance of a pinyin name? For example, as is done here? SilverStar54 (talk) 07:48, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about edits such as this, where the source gave Newchwang, and you altered it to Niuzhuang. The wikilink Newchwang actualy goes to the article Yingkou. Whether that is correct, or not, I can't comment. We should stick with what the source says, and let the wikilinks take readers to the correct article if they want further information. Mjroots (talk) 16:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Mjroots My bad, I should probably have changed that to be "Niuzhuang (Newchwang, now Yingkou)". Niuzhuang's a tricky one because it actually did change its name. My excuse is that 1) I didn't have access to The Times casualty reports, and 2) I reasoned that brevity was the chief concern in the context of a list. If you think it necessary, I will go back and add those clarifying remarks (although I would appreciate some help, there are a lot of shipwreck pages).
 * But I strongly oppose defaulting to the RS from the specific source for a piece of information rather than using what is the general consensus among sources. The whole point of naming conventions is to spare Wikipedia's readers from having to wade through half a dozen systems of Chinese romanization. As you discovered, each system has wildly different pronunciation rules that the casual reader has no way of knowing about, but they're all trying to say the same thing. Keeping things simple with a single RS is clearer and easer to use. SilverStar54 (talk) 18:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * A parenthetical along the lines of "Niuzhuang (Newchwang, now Yingkou)" looks fine to me. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 19:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Is your view that we should always use the same spelling the cited source does? I don't think this makes much sense. The transliteration system used by a source is usually a function of when and where the source was written (not what time period it's talking about or any other factor relevant to our readers). If we cite three sources, all in the same paragraph about the same historical event, that use the spellings "Fuzhou", "Fu-chou", and "Foochow", would we switch spellings repeatedly within that paragraph? I think that would look sloppy and would confuse any readers who don't know that these are all transliterations of the same place name. It would also be a major departure from standard practice in reliable sources – I don't know of any reliable source that mixes transliteration systems so chaotically. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:41, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * where there are various spellings, one should be picked and stuck to in the article, with the variants either being covered in the lede, or by some other method, such as that employed at the Hadlow article. In the example you gave at 19:29 yesterday, I'd stick with the source's spelling in the article, so it would be "Newchwang (Niuzhuang, now Yingkou)", it that was how this would be done. Mjroots (talk) 06:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * – I broadly agree with this. In my view, that spelling should generally be pinyin (with exceptions such as Sun Yat-sen and Hong Kong), because pinyin is the standard system used in modern sources, including when they're talking about historical events. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * We should not mention alternate transliterations every time a name occurs for the first time. If you cite a source from the 1940s, it won't spell Chairman Mao as Mao Zedong, but that doesn't mean we have to burden the reader with the history of transliterations of Chinese when they want to read about the Chinese Civil War. Alternate transliterations belong in the article (and are usually there in a Chinese names box) but are generally a distraction elsewhere, especially as the consensus of modern scholarly sources is to use exclusively Hanyu pinyin transliterations when talking about Mainland China (in any period of its history). This does not apply to the rest of Greater China: people still commonly write Hong Kong (instead of Xianggang), Kaohsiung (Gaoxiong) and Taipei (Taibei), or use other established names like Macao (Aomen). —Kusma (talk) 06:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that 9/10 times they're cumbersome and unnecessary. That said, I also understand the argument for WP:VERIFY when the article is mostly or entirely based on sources that use something other than pinyin. Parentheticals can also be helpful if the article includes quotes from primary sources. I would oppose a hard requirement to use them (even on articles that have zero pinyin sources), but I support leaving the option open for editors to decide on an article-by-article basis. SilverStar54 (talk) 07:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Not to disagree with the reasoning above, just to note that some Chinese terms have an established base of English-speakers using them, e.g., the latter (Wade-Giles) being far the more popular spelling in both book titles and organization names. At this point WP:COMMONNAME in English-speaking countries would seem to apply. – •Raven .talk 23:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * For sure. I don't think there's any disagreement there. SilverStar54 (talk) 01:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

New section - Historical names
Since it seems like there is some consensus (excepting Mjroots) about what the policy here is/should be, but that perhaps it isn't entirely clear based on what's written now, I propose adding a new section. Here's a draft:
 * "Articles should use the pinyin version of historical names unless the clear majority of modern sources do otherwise. This applies even when contemporary English sources on a topic used a different romanization system. For example, older sources romanized "Fuzhou" in a variety of ways, such as "Foochow", "Fuchow", and "Foo-Chow". But because the consensus of modern sources is to use Fuzhou, so does Wikipedia. Using pinyin does not necessarily mean to always use the WP:MODERNPLACENAME. Use the pinyin version of the period-accurate placename: "Chang'an", not "Xi'an" when talking about the capital of the Tang Dynasty. The same goes for cities that changed their names at a time when a different romanization system was popular among Western sources. For example, Beijing was known as "Beiping" between 1928-1949, at which time the name was romanized as "Peiping". References to the city during these years should be to "Beiping" or "Beijing", but not to Peiping.


 * The same rules apply to the naming of historical individuals as for living persons. That said, note that non-pinyin versions of a name should only be used if that spelling has been adopted by the majority of secondary sources. For example, Wang Jingwei was known as "Wang Ching-wei" during his lifetime, but because the majority of modern secondary sources refer to him using the pinyin spelling, so does Wikipedia. On the other hand, "Chiang Kai-shek" is used over "Jiang Jieshi" because the former is far more widespread.


 * Common exceptions include where a name is especially famous in English using a different romanization (e.g., "Tongmenghui"), or where the romanization is of a language other than Mandarin (e.g., "Alfred Sao-ke Sze"). Moreover, even if historians use the pinyin version of a place name (e.g., "Nanjing"), a different spelling might be prevalent for a certain derived name (e.g., "Treaty of Nanking"). When in doubt, go with the name used by the majority of modern historians."

Thoughts? I've also linked to the above thread on a couple other discussion boards to attract more input. SilverStar54 (talk) 01:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It is out of place on this page, which contains guidelines for choosing titles of articles. The above deals with use of names within articles, a topic already covered by WP:PINYIN, which already says pretty much what you want. At the most, all that is needed is a few more words in WP:PINYIN saying that it applies even for historical articles. Kanguole 09:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link! I will move this suggestion there. SilverStar54 (talk) 19:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Concur with Kanguole. NC pages are not about in-article content.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC)