Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China/Archive 4

Task Force proposal
I'm just wondering if there's anyone out there who'd be willing to help set up a Task Force on Chinese popular music (a.k.a. C-pop), which would encompass the three main areas of pop music (China, Taiwan, Hong Kong). - Pandacomics 06:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you see any editors that consistently edit Chinese pop music-related articles? You might want to message any editors like that directly, some of them may not be paying attention to this WikiProject.  Editing Chinese pop music articles can be a hassle - there are basically no reliable sources on the musicians in my opinion.  Everything out there are blogs, poorly-maintained fansites, and online gossip magazines.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No reliable sources, eh? Well tell that to Jay Chou, who is now featured. There are actual news articles, such as ones in the Taipei Times, China Radio International (English), Sing Tao News, etc. etc. etc. But your # of users concern is fully valid, and yes, it is an incredible hassle, especially if you're doing it on your own. - Pandacomics 08:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright I'm just going by what kind of stuff I find when I do Google searches for Chinese pop stars. Some odd articles from online news sites, yes, but mostly blogs and fansites and forums.  I admit I don't read the entertainment sections of Chinese news.  But now that you brought up Jay Chou being featured, I would actually love to bring Leslie Cheung, Anita Mui, and Roman Tam up to featured status.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I suggest you go directly to the Chinese pop music articles to see if you notice any editors that have been editing across different articles within the Chinese music industry. Lots of people always sign their names as a participant on a WikiProject or TaskForce, but the only ones who actually actively participate are those who had always been editing those topics to begin with, before the WikiProject or TaskForce was started up. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So do I basically run around to those editors and see who'd want to start up a task force? - Pandacomics 18:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's more fruitful than leaving a message here in my opinion. Look at the majority of the discussions here, there's almost never any discussion about Chinese pop music.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Missing Chinese history topics
I have a list is missing topics related to Chinese history, though many of them are about military history. Due to sources, at least some of the titles are based on the previous transliteration, so I don't know how many of them could be only worth of redirect. Feel free to check - Skysmith 08:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Technology of the Song Dynasty
After passing Good Article status, I have put this article up as a Featured Article Candidate. Please review it and provide input/comments/objections/support at this page. Thank You.--PericlesofAthens 17:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * On another note, I have recently put the article Tang Dynasty up for peer review.--PericlesofAthens 17:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Help needed! barnstar offered...
WP:3K has been in a long slow grind to bring the Battle of Red Cliffs up to the quality where it can be submitted to WP:FAC with at least a decent chance of approval for Featured Article status. To that end, we are currently working on a "Location of Red Cliffs" section (see the article).

The Chinese Wikipedia has what appear to be some excellent info on the topic in a subsection about the battlefield's location. Unfortunately, and no offense to its various authors, it is very inadequately sourced. If we copied it word-for-word and sent it to FAC, every copied word would be challenged (and very rightly so!).

If anyone can track down full and complete references to all the info in that section, I will gladly give them a barnstar, or at least my undying gratitude. Everything in the section is uncited, but questions include:


 * Where/when exactly did Wang Li and Zhu Dongrun say that Jiayu was their preferred location? Give title, book publisher &amp; year, or journal name &amp; volume/issue, with exact pages, etc....
 * Any proof of these archaeological finds in Puqi in the 1970s? Give full references.
 * What is this " 年湖北大学人文学院出版了《古战场蒲圻赤壁论文集》赞同上述观点 by Hubei University College of Humanities published in 1991.. full references, including page numbers, please!)
 * ... and everything else.

--Ling.Nut 16:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Zen Merger
It was proposed in September 2006 that Zen Teacher/Zen Master be merged into Zen, but no discussion was made of it. If you are interested, please discuss here. JohnnyMrNinja 17:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Template talk
I started a conversation for template discussion here. Please join in. We need to decide which template to use to standardize on. There are too many floating around. Benjwong 19:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Conversation moved to here.

Battle of Gaixia
I have this page on my watchlist, and the article's recent expansion from a stub looks very suspicious. The article now looks like a blend of half-truths and hearsays, as some of the details I can't find in Shiji or Zizhi Tongjian. I have approached the editor responsible for it, User:CCHIPSS, for sources, but he didn't respond. So, seeing that I'm not so familiar with the subject, can someone take a look at the article to see if anything needs to be done? Thanks. _dk 06:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Rfc
See Requests_for_comment/Jiejunkong. (Wikimachine 03:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC))

17th century Sino-Japanese Trade
Hiya. I've run into a serious stumbling block in my research, and I am hoping that you fellows could help.

We know that under the hai jin (海禁) policy, unofficial trade outside of the tribute system was (largely) banned as of 1557, if not earlier. In 1567, the ban was lifted for Southeast Asia - Chinese could now travel to, and trade in, Southeast Asian ports, but were still banned by the Ming government from traveling to Japan, or trading with Japanese in Japanese or Chinese ports.

Yet, as of the early 17th century (if not present as well in the late 16th century), there was a booming trade with Chinese merchants at Nagasaki; these merchants were not officially licensed nor officially representing the Ming court in any way, but as far as I am aware, they were not criminals, acting in outright violation of a ban.

So, what changed? and when? Is there a specific date or year at which the Ming court reversed their decision and decided to allow Chinese to travel to Japan? Thank you very much for your help. LordAmeth 12:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Pan Lei
This article is up for deletion, because it's a tiny stub with no information beyond birth and death dates and occupation. I was hoping someone from this WikiProject might be able to assist in finding out more about this person. Chubbles 23:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

more help with Red Cliffs (though no one replied to the earlier thread...)
Hey,

My poor thread a little higher on this page is sad &amp; lonely... left all unanswered... so I'll post a new one to keep it company... Can anyone get electronic versions of any Chinese-language articles about the location of the Battle of Red Cliffs? Below are some that de Crespigny cites, but actually, anything would help:


 * Jiang Yongxing, [The site of the Red Cliffs of Zhou Yu], Lishi jiaoxue, Tianjin 1980.12, 50.
 * Shi Ding, [Some questions on the battle of the Red Cliffs], Shixue yuekan, Zhengzhou, 134 (1981), 8-17.
 * Shi Ding, [Examination of the Red Cliffs], Shehui kexue zhanxian, Changchun 13 (1981), 190-199.
 * Wu Yingshou and Zhang Xiugui, [Examination of the Red Cliffs], Fudan xuebao (shehui kexue) zengkan, Shanghai August 1980, 131-135
 * Wu Yongzhang and Shu Zhimei, [Discussion of the Red Cliffs], Jiang-Han luntan, Wuhan, 1979.1, 84-87.
 * Yang Guanyi and Ding Fang, [One opinion on the site of the Red Cliffs], Bulletin of the Chinese Historical Museum, Beijing 1979.1, 40-42
 * Zhang Zhizhe, [Discussion of mistakes on the Red Cliffs campaign], Xuelin manlu, Beijing, 1 (1980), 79-83.


 * Thanks Ling.Nut 15:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Dunno if this would help, but (I think) these are the Chinese names of the journals you're looking at:
 * 历史教学; website: http://www.historyteaching.net/
 * 史学月刊; website: http://sxyk.henu.edu.cn/
 * 社会科学战线; an index and some articles at: http://cn.qikan.com/gbqikan/mag.asp?issn=0257-0246
 * 复旦学报(社会科学版)增刊
 * 江汉论坛; an index and some articles at: http://jhlt.periodicals.net.cn/gyjs.asp?ID=3304643
 * (dunno about the last two) --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The last one is 学林漫录. Beware, though, coz I found this article which says that your last source was plagiarised off the Fudan one. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Featured article review
Flag of the Republic of China has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Hadseys 01:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Standardizing Chinese Template
I would like to see if anyone has any last opinions on standardizing Template:Chinese as the main "graphical" template for Chinese articles. If you have any last minute comments please go here. We have fixed quite a number of issues over the past week. Benjwong 21:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

move
There is an ongoing poll for moving Senkaku Islands at Talk:Senkaku Islands. Mr. Killigan 04:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The latin phonetic method of Shanghainese proposed for deletion
Please comment at Articles for deletion/The latin phonetic method of Shanghainese if you are interested. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Ask for intervention in the Korean War
I have a lengthy and fruitless dispute with some editors in this article.The core issue is about the in the infobox,someone prvide the American estimate of Chinese casualities,Which I found unecessary and innaccurate.Steps which I had tried follows,1),when I tried to point out the estimate from the enemy side is inable comparing their home roster number.People there cann't accept it.2),I found there's also the chinese estimate of american casualities,So I pose it in the info box,but it was quickly removed.So these editors cann't accept any sources they don't like.So following the NPOV policy,I am very curious about why the chinese estimate cann't be accepted,but no one can give a satisfied answer.Furthermore,when I found a more accruate chinese casualities figure link here,when I tried to replace it with the infobox one,men just revert it.3)And keep going on,when I found the failure of american sources about the amercian casualities,just looking at the Korean War Veterans Memorial which figure contradict the one in the infobox,they just tried to find excuse rather than accept the failure of american sources,the american casulities was miscaculated for 40 years without anyone notice,further more the american source about their allied was notorious invalid,some estimate ranges from 500K to 20000K,this sources cann't be seen as valid,because their internal absurdity.So I just pose the question why these invalid sources must be added in the infox?and why the chinese estimate cann't?4)Throughout the discussion,I perceived strong chaunvinist and nationalist views from some editors.Some editors claims the american sources are absolutely right,some editores votes for not pleasing the chinese and some claim Ksyrie,you have no place in english wikipedia.5)Final word,I tried to solve it in the wiki dispute precedure,but editors don't favor the mediation request,which I found strange,since we have disputed for so longtime,why not ask a mediation.And I want to ask a final arbitrition from the wiki board,which I found more neutral.They may follows more closely to the NPOV policy rather than the strong chauvinsit and nationalist experience which I perceive in the korean talk page.

I ask any of you look at the Talk:Korean War/Chinese Casualty Discussion and Talk:Korean War,and give me suggestion for whether or not,and how to make a valid arbition demand,and if possilbe,direct intervetion to the current talk page,which is full of biased statement.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 04:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

New Featured Article
Just to let everyone know, Technology of the Song Dynasty has passed the grueling and brutal gauntlet of spikes, axes, chains, and bats that is the FAC procedure these days. Hah. Check it out! It looks beautiful, like the Forbidden City lit up at midnight, or a supple young Chinese bride preparing to be deflowered on her wedding night.

Lol. I'll stop with the annoying similes now. Eric :) --PericlesofAthens 01:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, and by the way, everyone needs to get off their *** and start competing with me, because so far I've passed 8 GA articles and 2 FA articles about China, and I've only been here since mid March.--PericlesofAthens 18:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, YOU forgot to put the FA star on your new FA! :) Congrats, man. I'm sorry I haven't been around to help more, I just haven't been in the Wiki-mood as much lately.--Danaman5 21:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Very impressive. Though the metaphor is rather inappropriate. I think I might take you up on that FA challenge... ;) -- 我♥中國 06:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have one GA! YEAHHHHH!!! -___- Some of us aren't as natural as you are when it comes to writing. Pandacomics 17:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Modern Chinese music workgroup
If no one objects, then I'm going to be bold and start up the workgroup. There are three of us for now (me, Arsonal and Andrew Eng), but if anyone else wants to join, by all means, do. Pandacomics 20:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've seen the work you've done in your Sandbox to set this up. Good job!  I hope plenty of people join and stay active in the workgroup.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ahhhhhh, something went wrong with the project banner. Can someone fix it? edit: Never mind. Fixed it. Pandacomics 03:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Chin Gee Hee
I recently started an article on Chin Gee Hee (陈宜禧). I can tell from a web search that there is a lot of material online about him in Chinese, if anyone feels like taking on a probably interesting project. (I do not speak or read Chinese.) Also, I believe that there is no article about him at all in the Chinese Wikipedia, which seems surprising. - Jmabel | Talk 07:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Rock Springs massacre
Hello everyone. The article Rock Springs massacre, while not tagged by this project probably falls within its scope. It is a current Featured article candidate, if anyone here has the time comments would be appreciated after reviewing the featured article criteria and comparing those to the article. You can see its entry and participate in the discussion at Featured article candidates/Rock Springs massacre. This message is an attempt to jumpstart lagging discussion, talk page posts on WikiProject pages which have tagged the article went unnoticed as the three projects are less than active at this juncture. Thanks ahead of time. IvoShandor 09:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Yue Fei
I am the person who totally rewrote and expanded the Yue Fei page to its current status. I realize the page is no where near as good as it could be, but it's A LOT better than it was. The page was originally full of fiction presented as fact (not to say that the current page is totally free of that since even Yue's historical bios are steeped in myth). But since I have managed to pass Zhou Tong (archer), Yue's archery teacher, as FA-class I think more effort should be made to get this page up to standard. However, I don't feel like expanding the page myself since I have already done so much work to it. So, I hope that somebody here will take on the task.

I have in my possession a huge 621 page English language biography on Yue Fei written by Dr. Edward H. Kaplan. Here is the book's citation:

"Kaplan, Edward Harold. Yueh Fei and the founding of the Southern Sung. Thesis (Ph. D.) -- University of Iowa, 1970. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International, 1970."

I'm sure someone can track this down. The only place to find it is in univeristy libraries, but I'm sure you can get it with an inter-library loan through your local library. I know of a website that sells a made-to-order unbound reprint of the book for $41. It's a bit costly, but it's definitely worth it.(Ghostexorcist 20:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC))

Article for addition to the project
I think this article Along the River During Qingming Festival should be included in this project. I am not familiar with the banner requirements for this project, if anyone can quickly brief me on it. --Voidvector 09:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

"Today's featured article" watch
Very shortly, the current featured article will be switched over to Zhou Tong (archer), which is linked to this project. I realize that the featured article of the day is usually heavily vandalized. I must admit since I was the sole author that I would hate to see this page ruined by immature people and not be reverted to its original state (barring constructive edits).

I must leave for work soon and will not be able to monitor the page. I therefore ask that fellow members of the project watch over the page and revert any vandalism done to it. On top of that, I will not be able to reply to any questions left on the article's talk page until I get home. --Ghostexorcist 23:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Very good work,even in the chinese wikipedia,there's less qualified ariticle like this.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 23:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Flag of Hong Kong FAR
Flag of Hong Kong has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 02:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I've started working on this article. But it really needs lots of referencing. Please help. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of Chinese apartheid
A newly created article, Allegations of Chinese apartheid, has been nominated for deletion. Comments are invited on Articles for deletion/Allegations of Chinese apartheid. -- ChrisO 07:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Town deity (城隍) and its temple (城隍庙)
I recently stumbled upon the article Shing Wong which is classified under Hong Kong project. However, I want to point out that the concept covered by this article "town deity" or "town god" is not exclusive to Hong Kong. There are 城隍庙 in many major cities of China. In addition, there exists an article for Shanghai's 城隍庙 at City God Temple, even though the general concept is not explained in its own article. --Voidvector 00:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As the major author of the current version of City God Temple, I'd be happy to work on a general article about city gods in general. The temple in Shanghai is fairly unique, in that it is literally the centre of the city. Did you know the Forbidden City has its own city god temple? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Kim Hambo
Has anyone seen this article yet. It claims the founder of the Jin Dynasty (which they call "Kim") was actually from the Korean Silla Kingdom. I have heard this was mentioned in the Jin Shi chronicle, but I've seen that many experienced Chinese editors greatly disagree with the assumption. The material covered in the Kim Hambo article has repeatedly been removed from the Jin Dynasty and Jurchen articles. Could somebody take a look at Kim's article and fix whatever may be wrong with it? --Ghostexorcist 07:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Everything, from hanzi (or should I say, hanja), chopsticks to Li Shimin was originally from Korea. *rolleyes* -- 我♥中國 17:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Daqing tower
Hi everyone, there's an ongoing discussion on AfD about Articles for deletion/Daqing Radio and Television Tower. I'm trying to defend the article because I think the tower deserves an article. Can anyone familiar with it have a look and comment? 谢谢! --Targeman 14:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You might also want to leave a note with WikiProject Architecture, as the editors there might be more familiar with what makes a building notable. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll do it! --Targeman 15:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Article assessments
I just want to remind everyone that if you have nothing else to do, you might consider assessing some articles for WP:CHINA. I couldn't make a dent in the backlog even when I did a bunch of assessments every day, and now thanks to the tagging work of User:Aomen, the backlog of unassessed articles has increased to over 3000. I can't blame you for not focusing on it, as it gets quite repetitive, but it would be nice to have all of these articles assessed someday.--Danaman5 06:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I just did some. -- 我♥中國 22:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Huaxia nominated for AfD
I can't believe somebody actually nominated Huaxia for deletion.
 * Articles for deletion/Huaxia

Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Geez, I'm sorry. Not everyone grew up steeped in Chinese culture, you know.  --Wang C-H 03:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, admittedly, the article needs a lot of work. I had worked on it a while ago, but I basically translated from two Chinese WP articles, zh:華夏 and zh:華夏族. Both are completely without sources, but the latter of the two seemed to have expanded a little bit since I last worked on the Huaxia article. The article is badly in need of sources. Unfortunately, when I try Googling for sources, they either use "華夏文化" or "華夏" in a way that they assume you know what it means already, without defining it. Googling for "華夏" is almost useless, because the term has been used to name a lot of modern-day things like companies and schools. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you tried using Google Scholar? That usually helps weed out the garbage a bit. I don't know if you have access to JSTOR, but I'm going to try using that to find us some reliable sources too.--Danaman5 15:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No access to JSTOR, and didn't know there was such a thing called Google Scholar. But thanks for informing me about it.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Year format for the History of China template
There is an existing dispute on whether WP should use the BC/AD format or the BCE/CE format to represent years. The dispute may exist on other Talk pages as well, aside from the four that I found. Unfortunately, the dispute has spread to Template:History of China, with a duplicate of the template being created - Template:History of China - BC - the duplicate is a copy-and-paste of the original, with the exception that all the BCE/CE were replaced with BC/AD. I've nominated the duplicate for deletion as WP is not a battle ground and duplicates of navigational templates can create fork problems. I personally don't care which date system we use, but we shouldn't be creating POV duplicates and then having them mass inserted as minor edits, especially in the middle of an ongoing dispute about the very subject matter that resulted in the POV duplicate. Furthermore, we might be seeing the beginning of a revert war at the original template as well. So please discuss this matter and come to an agreement as to which date system we should use. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, there was no "battleground" with the other template. If anything it was a way to avoid a fight over the original template, so what with articles that used BC/AD they would not look out-of-place with the template.
 * However, from a personal point I think the template in question should use BC/AD. After all a majority of the Chinese history pages use that format, including the main History of China page. John Smith&#39;s 21:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I too have felt the bite of the CE/AD edit war. My article Zhou Tong (archer) was repeatedly vandalized by an anonymous editor that kept on switching I.P. addresses as he was blocked. Just see the talk page for the very first I.P. he used. Even though they both mean the same thing, I feel CE is more scholarly (if rendered as "Common Era" and not "Christian Era") since the latin words for AD stand for "In the year of our lord". It has less religious connotation. If your refer to the Common Era article, it mentions how many scholarly and even religious institutions are switching over to the BCE/CE system. --Ghostexorcist 21:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The article isn't that impressive - it only really mentions a number of American institutions. Hardly a global consensus. John Smith&#39;s 21:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Please provide a reason for why you think the templates should use the BC/AD system (besides that some other Chinese articles use it). --Ghostexorcist 21:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I already have, if rather briefly. The main history pages use BC/AD. It looks rather ridiculous to have a template using the opposite style used by the article itself. Given the BCE/CE terms were added fairly recently and the history articles (bar I think one) have used BC/AD right from the start, I think the template should conform to the majority style in the articles it is used in. John Smith&#39;s 21:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well the project ultimately has the final say so in the matter. Consensus is the key. Right now it's two for CE and one for AD. But I'm sure fellow members will join in the conversation. If the number of people wanting AD far out weighs CE, then I'm sure it needs to be changed. --Ghostexorcist 22:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Consensus is indeed the key. By the way currently it's just us two that have expressed a preference - Hong said he didn't mind either way. John Smith&#39;s 22:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I support the generalization of the BCE/CE system for China-related articles, as they have essentially no connection with Christianity. BCE/CE is the more scholarly alternative for such articles. PHG 22:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I support BCE/CE because they better represent the modern academic standard, especially in relation to China which has the most tenuous connection with Christianity and the "Judaeo-Christian tradition". What's more, the official method of year reckoning used in China is BCE/CE - 公元前/公元, not BC/AD. That said, I don't think using BC/AD is a problem because it is, afterall, more commonly used in English.
 * On the other hand, I don't believe in mass converting from one system to the other. The duplicate template should be removed from articles where it has been deliberately introduced as part of a mass-conversion campaign. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As a general principle, I support using CE/BCE on all China-related articles and non-article pages, because BC/AD is based on Christianity, which is not historically a part of Chinese culture. Articles that use BC/AD can keep that system, to avoid bothersome mass conversion, but there is no reason to mess around with a perfectly good template or create a fork of it.  The argument that it would be "aesthetically displeasing" to use a different system on the template in an article that uses BC/AD is weak, in my opinion.  We underestimate our readers if we think that they are going to lose sleep over such a minor matter.--Danaman5 01:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I support the BCE/CE system because BCE/CE is used in Chinese history study instead of BC/AD
 * "The term "CE" is preferred by academics in some fields (e.g., by the American Anthropological Association).The Chinese use the term "Common Era" ("公元).
 * "On the mainland, era names were abolished with the adoption of the Common Era at the founding of the People's Republic in 1949."
 * "The Republic of China retains the era system, and uses the name "Republic" (民國) for its official dating. The 1st year of the "Republic Era" was 1912. Therefore, 2006 is "the 95th year of the Republic Era" (民國95年)."

As you can see, in serious study of Chinese history in modern times, BC/AD is never officially used. Plus, as others have stated, BC/AD system has religious connotations. Count de Chagny 15:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Support BCE/CE. I think consensus is pretty well established. And Hong is a she. --Ideogram 15:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ha? No I'm not.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * My mistake. --Ideogram 15:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Support era name system -- 我♥中國 07:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * ie 年號 when available
 * use name of emperor/king/supreme ruler/ruling entity when 年號 not available, followed by number of years since said individual/group assumed power
 * when identity of supreme ruler is in dispute, choose 年號/name based on area of control of said supreme ruler, eg. this year is 阿扁七年 on Taiwan and 錦濤五年 on the mainland.

Which articles? This was for a template. John Smith&#39;s 08:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

unicode rendering of chinese characters
Is (密意)(密語)(一切深密義) a correct unicode rendering of the characters shown here? Thanks! Calliopejen1 06:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 一切法深密義. You missed 法. -- 我♥中國 07:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

New question over the History of China template
There are now two questions in the context of this discussion.

1. Whether we should have an adaptable "History of China template" that uses BC/AD or BCE/CE according to the style of the article in question.

2. Whether we should have just one style (i.e. BC/AD or BCE/CE) for use in all Chinese history articles. John Smith&#39;s 16:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Per the above discussion, it is clear that a large majority of users want to keep the default BCE/CE format for the template. However, User:Mom2jandk has said here that she would be happy to add a perameter to the template so that it can adapt to whether an article in question uses BC/AD.

Is this ok, or do you want the template to use BCE/CE even on an article that uses BC/AD? Personally I think an adaptable template would be best. John Smith&#39;s 15:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I would be willing to have an adaptable template. --Ideogram 15:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems that most of the discussion on this date issue has taken place on Talk:Jesus. As a matter of relevance, editors may want to read this -. John Smith's has a point about consistency. I think the matter goes beyond just the template. The duplicate template was originally inserted only into articles that use BC/AD, and not into articles that use BCE/CE.

So should we change the format usage across all Chinese history articles to use specifically one of the formats, instead of having some articles arbitrarily use one format and some other articles use the other format? I don't care which format they use, but perhaps they should be consistent with each other on using just one of the two formats. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There is just one page (Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors) on the history section that uses BCE as far as I can see - all others use BC. Also it used BC from the start, but was changed somewhere down the line for no real reason. So in that respect it would make sense to change that page to BC, rather than change everything else.
 * However can people remain focused on the main question, which is whether we should have an adaptable template - we may not get consensus on whether to use just one term across all Chinese history pages. John Smith&#39;s 16:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Just establish a guideline that dates should be in BCE/CE format and change them as you run across them in your day-to-day wiki-operations. No need to go compulsively changing every single article with AWB or anything. -- 我♥中國 16:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

John Smith's - yes, the template should be discussed. But I don't see why we can't talk about the larger picture as well - which format we should use in the content of the Chinese history articles. Most of the comments in the earlier discussion above seem to refer to usage in Chinese history articles in general, and not specifically and only on the template itself. And obviously there is an ongoing discussion about this issue elsewhere in other Talk pages (with you supporting BC/AD everywhere) so we might want to come to a concensus here in regards to Chinese history articles and other China-related articles to avoid any possible edit wars that may occur (due to disagreements on which format to use) in articles relevant to this WikiProject. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I never said we can't discuss it. Just that we should not forget about the point I raised in case we can't get consensus on the point you raised. John Smith&#39;s 16:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Miborovsky - we need to come to a concensus first before establishing a guideline like that. If we can establish concensus here, we can bring it up in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (China-related articles) to see if there would be any objection there. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Judging from the discussion above, we already have a consensus. -- 我♥中國 20:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * On the template, not the usage across articles - that question was not asked. John Smith&#39;s 20:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Do we really have consensus on which format to use across all the Chinese history articles (as in the content)? If we really do, then we could start changing them, and it might also render the template question moot. If we use one format across all the articles, there's no need to modify the template at all. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * How can you have consensus on a question that was never asked? Maybe we should "close" this topic and start again (with both questions carefully laid out) to make it perfectly clear what's being discussed. John Smith&#39;s 21:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about concensus for all Chinese history articles to use BCE/CE. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Please re-start conversation in the following topic

New questions concerning Chinese history articles
There are two questions for people to discuss here.

''1. Whether we should have an adaptable "History of China template" that uses BC/AD or BCE/CE according to the style of the article in question. User:Mom2jandk has said here that she would be happy to add a perameter to the template so that it can adapt to whether an article in question uses BC/AD (though the default would still be BCE/CE).''

''2. Whether we should have just one style (i.e. BC/AD or BCE/CE) for use in all Chinese history articles. If you have a preference, please outline it.''

1. Personally I think an adaptable template would make sense if we don't reach consensus on whether to exclusively use BC/AD or BCE/CE in Chinese history articles.

2. I don't feel the need to use just one term across all articles, but if others do want a uniform method I would choose BC/AD as it is established in all articles as far as I can see, apart from Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors. Even in this article, BC/AD was originally used and changed for some unexplained reason later down the line. John Smith&#39;s 21:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

1. I support having an adaptable template.

2. I believe we should recommend BCE/CE for Chinese history articles, but not edit existing articles solely for conformance. --Ideogram 21:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding comments below: I would not oppose editing existing articles for conformance if someone else wants to do it.  As noted, this would remove the need for an adaptable template.  --Ideogram 00:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Unless the editors of the original articles object, I'm all for switching all dating over to BCE/CE since even Chinese records (as mentioned above) have an equivalent of that system. Shouldn't all articles under the scope of this project conform? --Ghostexorcist 22:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no requirement for articles under a project to conform - they merely have to be consistent inside themselves (it's even debatable as to whether templates have to conform to the articles). Also I don't think one can form policy on a project page (though a change can be discussed) - I think you have to raise it separately on style guidelines as well.
 * Can I ask you leave feedback on question one, please? John Smith&#39;s 22:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

We can certainly both make the template adaptable and agree to use BCE/CE across all the Chinese history articles that the template links. But I see the former issue being basically moot if concensus is reached to use only one of the formats. And if concensus is reached to use BCE/CE across the articles, I'll bring this point up at the Talk page of Manual of Style (China-related articles). If nobody objects over there, we can set that standard in the MOS. Once we've reached that point, I don't mind doing the work to convert existing Chinese history articles to BCE/CE. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thought about this for a little more, so let me state my official stance on it, as I'm sure John Smith's will be asking for it, but let me talk about #2 first:
 * 2. I have no preference on which date format to use, but I think we should have one format across all Chinese history articles.
 * 1. Seeing as I support having only one format across all Chinese history articles, I am against changing the template to make it adaptable.  There's no point in doing so, if we are to ensure consistency across the Chinese history topics.

Not sure if we'll ever reach concensus. And if we don't, the obvious thing to do is not change anything at all - the status quo as it stands right now. If I'm reading correctly, that seems to be the conclusion at Talk:Jesus, where a great portion of the discussion on this date issue has taken place. They're going to move on from the discussion, and nobody is going to change things. Not a bad idea if you ask me. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

My preferred outcome: My bottom-line acceptable outcome:
 * 1) Use BCE/CE only in template.
 * 2) Use BCE/CE consistently through all Chinese history-related outcomes for the reasons stateda bove: tenuous connection with Christianity, academic standards, etc.
 * 1) Adaptable template, but with the MOS preferring the use of BCE/CE.
 * 2) Use BCE/CE as much as possible, but no mass conversion in one direction or other without compelling reason. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I want to point out - making the template adaptable is basically pointless: What's the point in making the template adaptable if only one article uses a different format? And if I'm reading the initial discussion correctly, majority support is for the template to use BCE/CE. So in other words, making the template adaptable would go against majority preference. At this point, making the template adaptable is the same thing as changing the template to BC/AD.
 * There are 40+ articles linked by the template. If John Smith's is correct, only one of those articles use BCE/CE (Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors).
 * Making the template adaptable would essentially mean that the template would appear as BC/AD across the 40+ articles.

In my opinion, we first need to come to a resolution about whether or not Chinese history articles should consistently use one standard. If I can be assured that we have majority support for BCE/CE here, I'll bring it up at the Talk page of Manual of Style (China-related articles) to see if there are any objection to putting that down as part of the guideline. And for the purpose of reaching concensus, and also because I think the argument makes sense anyway, I'm changing my stance to use BCE/CE across all Chinese history articles. Again, I am willing to put in the work to change the Chinese history articles to use one consistent date format. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If I'm correct, the template would only adapt where the article used BC/AD - where it used BCE or had no year tag it would still use BCE. John Smith&#39;s 07:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well you said that BC/AD is being used in all articles except one. So essentially, modifying the template to take parameters would mean, for all practical purposes, that the template would appear with BC/AD in all articles except one.  That, however, is against the preference of most of the editors that's commented here on this date issue.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It may be that only one article uses BCE, but if you hadn't noticed many articles don't use either term - in that case the template would say BCE as it would be the default setting.
 * Also please let the editors make up their own minds as to whether they want an adaptable template or not. John Smith&#39;s 14:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The extremely vast (almost unanimous) consensus is obviously for BCE/CE in the Template as well as in China-related articles. This should be implemented through Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (China-related articles). PHG 23:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as "almost unanimous consensus" - consensus is an agreement by all users to respect an outcome. There is no consensus yet on how to deal with the articles - especially as some users who expressed support for BCE/CE don't want to change existing articles to make them conform. John Smith&#39;s 10:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe I was the only one to say editing articles solely for conformance was not necessary, and I later clarified this to say that I would not oppose editing solely for conformance as long as someone else was willing to do it, and HongQiGong has volunteered. --Ideogram 10:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * PalaceGuard said he would accept no mass conversions if necessary - i.e. to gain consensus. John Smith&#39;s 10:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That was not his preferred outcome so your statement of what he "wants" is incorrect. --Ideogram 10:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Where did I say he wants it? I said he would accept it if necessary to gain consensus. John Smith&#39;s 11:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * To clarify my position - I vote for a MoS preference for BCE/CE and, correspondingly, the template to use BCE/CE.
 * However, as I said, I don't believe mass conversion is a good approach. To quote WP:MOS on the topic: "While either of the two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying your position, PG. John Smith&#39;s 11:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this has all come about as I created a template using BC and AD notation based on a pre-existing one using BCE and CE notation for the history of China articles. This was purely to make the history of China articles that use BC and AD notation consistent within themselves. IE It is a presentational point. It is also supported by the MOS, which says articles should be consistent.

Unfortunately it seems that some people took exception to the template, and now others are going about trying to argue for a wholesale change of all China-related articles to BCE and CE notation. This seems somewhat extreme - and is certainly unnecessary.

Normally a publication adopts a house style so that its content is consistent - ie so that it looks good. This attracts people who like, or are comfortable with, that house style. This is a great advantage. On the other hand, people who don't like that house style are going to be put off: no-one subscribes to a magazine or watches a TV series that is presented in a way they don't like!

It seems that Wikipedia has taken a compromise approach. Some articles adopt one style, others another. This gives editors, and readers, who have a strong preference at least some articles in their preferred style - the alternative would be to lose some of them as editors and readers.

With this in mind, forcing through a mandatory change to BCE and CE notation should be strongly resisted. BC and AD notation is, by a long way, the more common notation - and the one that the overwhelming majority of readers (who can't be expected to be history experts) will be familiar with. Risking alienating the bulk of your audience hardly seems the right way to go.

Another option is to force through a mandatory change to BC and AD notation. This wouldn't be as bad as the previous option as considerably fewer people prefer BCE and CE notation to BC and AD notation. It still, however, would come with the downside that those who do will choose to contribute on and read about Chinese history elsewhere.

I imagine it is in the spirit of trying to keep everyone (or at least as many people as possible) tolerant of the style chosen that both notation styles are permitted. Why not let this practice continue?

This does still leave us with the problem of templates. I would still prefer to see templates with BC and AD notation for articles that use BC and AD notation, and templates with BCE and ce notation for articles that use BCE and CE notation. I'm really not persuaded by the arguments against. If this is not allowed, then surely the template should use the notation that is used by a clear majority of the articles on which it appears (if there is one)? At least then as few articles will look as mix-and-match as possible that way. Foula 12:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for assistance
We had an issue reported on WP:BLPN regarding List of Chinese dissidents. None of the names listed were sourced, so they have all been moved to the talk page pending verification. It was suggested that people involved with this project may have the expertise needed to help clear this one up. Thanks. - Crockspot 16:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, good point. I can't help myself, but hopefully some other editors can. John Smith&#39;s 16:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I've provided a source in the article Talk page. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

China-related MoS, date issue
Please note that the date issue has been brought up at the China-related MoS, on whether or not we should write the BCE/CE preference into the MoS. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Goku (DBZ) VS. Sun Wukong
Dear, you are invited to join the move request for Goku. Your thoughts could really help in seeking the answer. Much thanks, Lord Sesshomaru 01:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't believe this is even debatable. Goku is based off of Sun Wukong. One is an anime character, the other is a mythical monkey king. Why is this even a debate? Pandacomics 15:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a debate because WP is overran with Otakus. See Category:Pokémon species by generation.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Otakus who believe the rest of the world is just like them. Woe. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I just added the following info to the move request for Goku discussion ...


 * I input the Chinese characters for Sun Wukong into a Chinese dictionary which also gives a description of each character in Japanese and Korean. The following is based upon Japanese Onji:


 * Sun = Son


 * Wu = Go


 * Kong = Kuu


 * Onji is based upon the "sound" of the original characters. So, Sun Wukong was created some 375 years before dragon ball and the Onji name of Song Goku is based off the sound of the original Chinese characters. Therefore, Son Goku should stay the redirect for Sun Wukong!

--Ghostexorcist 00:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Harry's Legend proposed for deletion
Harry's Legend is an "Asian original" Famicom Harry Potter game made in China. 1UP.com, an affiliate of Electronic Gaming Monthly, a U. S. magazine covering video games, featured the game in an article about the NES's legacy. WhisperToMe 04:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Two new subpages
I've added two subpages to the WikiProject and added them to the project menu template (under the Tools subsection). Please add FACs and FARs to them as articles are nominated. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * WikiProject China/Featured article candidates
 * WikiProject China/Featured article reviews


 * I worry for them not seeing enough use. Unfortunately we don't churn out FACs and FARs at a rate which would necessitate a separate page for each. I think posting a message on the talk page has worked out well enough so far. IMHO. -- Миборовский 03:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Eh, they hardly take up any memory space. I just figured, why not?  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * But if they don't get enough use, why yes? -- Миборовский 18:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, feel free to delete them if you like. But I think they could be useful.  To me, if even a few members use them, then why not have them?  Each FAC or FAR literally takes up one line on the page because they are transwikied to their own FAC and FAR pages.  To be honest, there are dozens of subpages, workgroups and sub-WikiProjects that can be deleted if we're talking about not having enough traffic here.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Nonono, I'm not gonna delete anything. I guess I'm just a utilitarian. Sorry if I sounded like I disapproved. -- Миборовский 21:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Forbidden City peer review at Peer review/Forbidden City/archive1
Hey guys, I've put Forbidden City up for peer review with a view towards WP:FAC. Your comments are welcome and much appreciated as always. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've thrown a few quick observations in. John Smith&#39;s 13:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Chinese Alligator
I just recently found the article and added this project's navbox to it's talk page. I would like to see it expanded. A section on the cultural view of the alligator could be added. Is it involved in any favorite food? --Ghostexorcist 15:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't know much about it, but I've seen one at a zoo. At any rate, I've created Category:Reptiles of China and populated it.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for creating that category. I’ve looked around and found that some sources say the Chinese alligator is known as an "earth dragon" and "muddy dragon". The source of the earth dragon name came from a newspaper. The source for muddy dragon didn’t look to reputable. I think the alligator’s nickname should be added to the article. But I would like to find better sources (preferably Chinese) --Ghostexorcist 22:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Flying guillotine (weapon)
I know 血滴子 are the Chinese characters used to write 'Flying guillotine', but what is the literal English translation. Is it 'Blood-dripping child'? I have made some recent additions to the page, but it still needs major work. --Ghostexorcist 10:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * More like blood-dripping thingamajig -- Миборовский 18:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't know too much about it, but the word 子 is not always used literally to mean "child". It could be used as a diminuitive to refer to, well, anything, really.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Review request
If you can spare the time, please take a moment to peer review my newest work Army Groups of the National Revolutionary Army. The peer review location is at WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Army Groups of the National Revolutionary Army. Thanks! -- Миборовский 04:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Page watch
Ever since Zhou Tong (archer) was on the main page, an anonymous user keeps on vandalizing the article (and my user page on occasion). I will be on a short wiki break until the 24th and I wanted to know if any one could pop by and check the edit history from time to time. The biggest problem I have is that as the anon is blocked, he instantly appears on a different I.P. (but all of them beginning in "70"). Thanks. --Ghostexorcist 11:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I could put a semi-protect on it. -- Миборовский 23:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

GR on tomorrow's Main page
The article on Gwoyeu Romatzyh will be tomorrow's FA on the main page. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 17:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

FLG a Religion in China?
I've reverted twice the addition of a long section about the Falun Gong in the Religion in China article. I don't think a major section on FLG in that article is appropriate because 1) it is not clearly established nor viewed as a religion (see Falun Gong for the movement's self-characterisation), 2) the extent of its practice in China before the crackdown is disputed, and 3) surely after the crackdown its prevalence in China would be best described as "minimal"? My view is that FLG belongs with the other "sects" in the list of "Recent sects" in the Religion in China article.

In any case, I don't want to get overly involved with a FLG topic, so your opinions on the matter is appreciated. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Ads for WP:CHINA
We should consider making an ad to advertise our project - see Template:Wikipedia ads. -- Миборовский 22:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Five-Year Plans of China
This article needs a lot of work. Badagnani 02:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

New question over the History of China template
I'm asking this again because no consensus was reached as to whether Chinese-related articles should have one style regarding BCE/CE, BC/AD. I know people have already expressed an opinion, but I would appreciate it if they could reiterate their positions to clarify the situation.

So once more, do people here support an adaptable "History of China template" that uses BC/AD or BCE/CE according to the style of the article in question? The default setting, where no date is used, would be BCE/CE - this would be the case in the articles following on from and including Tang Dynasty. John Smith&#39;s 17:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * What would be the point of making the template adaptable? What we need to do is prefer the Chinese history articles to use one system, mainly BCE/CE.  I see that you've been trying to make sure that Chinese history articles themselves use BC/AD (per your edits on articles like Xia Dynasty, Shang Dynasty, and Han Dynasty), so again, you are only trying to push BC/AD when you suggest that we make the template adaptable.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The point would be that the template would fit with articles that use BC/AD. We tried to gain consensus over a prefered system but we could not.
 * I am not trying to push BC/AD, as I was merely restoring the system that had been used for a long time on the articles in question. You are trying to push BCE/CE by introducing it into articles that did not use it, so you should take the log out of your own eye first. John Smith&#39;s 17:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely I am trying to push BCE/CE - Chinese history articles are not Christian related, and I think that's what they should use. The question really is, if you really are not trying to push BC/AD, why do you care that I changed the articles to use BCE/CE?  Why are you reverting my changes?  I am trying to improve the articles.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not trying to push BC/AD because I am only reverting your edits where the articles were already using BC/AD before you changed them this month. That is merely maintaining the status-quo. John Smith&#39;s 17:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Why are we maintaining the status quo when the articles need to be improved? That makes no sense whatsoever.  A status quo that is a bad state for the article should be changed.  And why do you care that we maintain the status quo if you are not trying to push BC/AD?  WP is not about letting the small minority or those who yell the loudest have their way either, you should consider how much support you really have for BC/AD, which is to say, next to no support.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have never claimed there is nothing about the article that cannot be changed. However, on a simple style issue such as date terms I do not see changing from BC/AD to BCE/CE as being an improvement.
 * Who has majority support is not especially relevant to how wikipedia is edited. Also I remember certain users expressing support for China:MOS guidelines but not for changing articles already using BC/AD over to BCE/CE. So your talk of majority support and that I have next-to-none isn't quite true. John Smith&#39;s 18:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I will second that. -- Миборовский 18:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hong Qi Gong is entitled to his personal views, but he should not push them upon others. The way he has tried to do this over the last two days has not been in accordance with what is normally considered acceptable Wikipedia practice. He has argued his point before, and failed to gain a consensus. He should accept that his proposal has failed. Foula 18:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm behind Hong Qi Gong. All articles should switch to BCE/CE system. It has not failed. --Ghostexorcist 18:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It has failed according to Wikipedia's guidelines on consensus. If you want to run with it, you can always move the issue on to the next stage of dispute resolution. John Smith&#39;s 18:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There will never be a resolution I'm afraid. Even when an overwhelming majority calls for BCE and CE, which there already has been, other people will object. Most of the people who formerly joined the discussion have been run off by the throwing around of egos. Hong is the only one that apparently has the time or drive to continue with the discussion. --Ghostexorcist 18:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Your claim that there "will never be a resolution" is not true. People may raise objections later, but the issue as it is now can be resolved through dispute resolution - all matters can. If consensus per wikipedia definitions cannot be reached then dispute resolution must be tried. John Smith&#39;s 18:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I can only hope that an amiable agreement can be reached. But, again, I doubt there ever will. --Ghostexorcist 18:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Offering (probably funerary)
Streetside offering seen in the International District, Seattle's Chinatown. I'm guessing this is a funerary offering or one on the anniversary of a death; it is certainly culturally Chinese (it was in front of a Chinese restaurant and the food is Chinese); I have no idea whether it would be Taoist or Buddhist. If someone knows more about this and can flesh out the photo description, it would be greatly appreciated. If there is a relevant article in the English-language Wikipedia, could you please mention that in the description? Also, an additional description in Chinese would be great (similarly on other things in Commons:Category:International District, Seattle, Washington). Thanks in advance. - Jmabel | Talk 04:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It could be offerings for anything Guan Yu the money god, a particular ancestor, ancestors in general (Qingming), the dead in general (Ghost Festival), or maybe Heaven.
 * Since the photo was taken recently (going by the date 27 August 2007), and we're in Ghost Month (see Ghost Festival), it is likely to be related to that. My experience is that offerings to a particular deceased is likely to be set up inside the home rather on on the street - so more likely to be something public/general.
 * The single incense on every food item is unfamiliar to me - is it significant? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The Rape of Nanking FAC
I've nominated The Rape of Nanking (book) for FA. Please take a look at the FAC and vote or leave a comment. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Featured article candidates/The Rape of Nanking (book)

Cuju - Chinese soccer
I knew the Chinese had their own form of ancient soccer, but I didn't know the name of it until recently. I was happy to see that there was an article on it, but it is sadly undersourced and remains vague in the description of the rules. I imagine that someone has done an in depth study of the game's history since FIFA acknowledged it as the mother of modern soccer. Are there any books or journal papers out there that detail the game, especially during the Song Dynasty? You can find lots of info about it on the net, but I would trust the material better if it was published in a scholarly source. One website states info about it appears in this historical document. My Chinese is not so good, so someone here could probably find it. --Ghostexorcist 17:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have checked for scholarly sources on JSTOR and Google Scholar, and found little. I'm going to keep looking.--Danaman5 21:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge China International Trade Promotion Committee into China Council for the Promotion of International Trade
I spotted what appear to be duplicates of the same article and to set the ball rolling have tagged the pages for merger. One of the pages was already tagged by Wikiproject China, so perhaps the experts here might want to confirm that these are the same organisation (I've found external sources to back it up) and, if it's valid, carry out the merger. Cheers Saganaki- 01:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for Translation
I am currently working on creating an article regarding the Changsha conflagration, unfortunately I do not speak any Chinese dialect(s) (and the previous link is hosted on the Chinese Wiki). If anyone could contact me regarding a translation, I would greatly appreciate it.

I'd like to try and source any translation; unfortunately, information on the subject seems less than forthcoming (which seems to make me crave the information even more). Hoping you all could help (sources or translation - worst case, I'll reinvent the wheel w/ sources).

Much appreciated.--Curious brain 04:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Committee of 100 (United States)
Take a look Миборовский 00:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be looking for. :) Nice job removing the POV sections, but it still isn't well referenced.--Danaman5 05:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's in really, really bad shape. I removed most of the anti-Chinese POV, but now it reads like an advert. --Миборовский 06:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, it looks like some IP editors ran through that article making it their soapbox. Good job cleaning it up. It's in dire need of reliable 3rd party sources though. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Tibetan towns and villages
HI I need to know who to speak to about this. I am currently as you know adding all the towns and villages in Tibet. I want to create a standard infobox Tibetan settlement for all the towns and villages such as Infobox Tibetan settlement. Is there anyway we can have something like this: Domartang but with parameters to include the Tibetan/Chinese language section like on Deleg at the top so it all goes neatly in one box for settlements? PLease respond on this as soon as you can as I feel it very important thanks  ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦       "Talk"? 13:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC) Something like this:

{{#if: {{{to|}}} | {{#if: {{{thdl|}}} |

There's a WP:TIBET but it's not very active... And IMHO... villages of 500 people aren't really notable. --Миборовский 22:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If you use the example of SmallTown USA (tm)... anything should have an article. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 22:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

New stub
I have just created the article on Baduanjin qigong. I have a lot of expansion in the works, but presently the article needs Chinese characters. Thanks, Van Tucky  Talk 01:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ —O (说 • 喝) 01:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion nomination
Templates for deletion/Log/2007 September 20 —O (说 • 喝) 03:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)