This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject China. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
There is more going on here than a single edit. Rather I am concerned you are pushing the WP:FRINGE POV that the Chinese Communist Party is a conservative party. This is happening across dozens of articles. In addition I'm a bit alarmed that this seems to extend generally to treatment of historical anti-western movements in China as de-facto conservative and pro-western movements both historically and in the present political clime as de-facto left-wing. Simonm223 (talk) 12:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
I finished a review of the section on China in that article. Two of the sources are properly represented. The rest vary from kind of WP:SYNTH such as equating a criticism of Xi Jinping as a criticism of the CPC to entirely irrelevant such as a page reference to an article about Li Zicheng. Simonm223 (talk) 13:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
There's currently a discussion to establish consensus on aspects including layout and sourcing on the Hokkien article. Input from folks would be appreciated. Remsense诉22:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Invitation to the 2024 Developing Countries WikiContest
Hello, everyone! I'd like to invite you all to sign up for the upcoming 2024 Developing Countries WikiContest. The event runs from July 1 to September 30 and signups close on July 15. The WikiContest focuses on developing countries, in which they have included China. The intention is to improve the English Wikipedia's coverage and comprehension of articles related to developing countries. For this reason, you may also expect that articles related to the China may be heavily edited during the contest. More information on how points will be awarded can be found at Wikipedia:2024 Developing Countries WikiContest/Scoring. For comments or suggestions, please don't hesitate to reach out to Wikipedia talk:2024 Developing Countries WikiContest. Thank you! (Copied with the permission of Chlod) CMD (talk) 12:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Currently, there is an edit dispute in a DAB article. DAB has long been marked "Centre-right" on infoobox, and its source is presented. However, Guotaian changed its political position to "Big Tent". The source presented by Guotaian explains the 'claim' of the DAB, so Guotaian's editing is WP:SYNTH. I want other users to keep an eye on this article. ProKMT (talk) 01:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
218.54.93.120 edits
Hello, I tried looking on the translation tab, but it was difficult to tell who was still active.
218.54.93.120, has been making changes to the zh template of a few pages recently. Seems to be interested in removing simplified Chinese and replacing with traditional characters. I want to check to see if these edits should be addressed or are they acceptable? Thanks, -- Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me.02:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
I took a quick look-see, and they seem to be adding traditional more than removing simplified. In any case, here's generally what we do:
In the lead sentence and {{Infobox Chinese}}, we include both forms save in very particular circumstances (i.e. China only has simplified in the lead)
In places like the native name of the infobox, we usually only include the form relevant to the individual. They seem to be making a mess of things in this regard.
@Remsense are there edits you think should be reverted? Unfortunately, since they have not edited in a few days (at least through this IP address), it might be futile to warn them. -- Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me.05:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
This article is in poor shape and I will try and improve it; however, I'd rather not put much effort into that if it ends up deleted due to lacking notability. I cannot speak Chinese which is what most of the sources appear to be in so I'd like conformation from anyone here that it meets GNG in Chinese sources. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Wanting to see articles on elections in China, I visited this template. But to my disappointment it only links various sessions of the National People's Congress. I don't think this then serves any purpose for the title it contains. Is someone willing to improve this? Or is a better template available to redirect or merge this?
Kindly direct your comments to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years#Chinese dating (WP:BIAS/WP:UNDUE) but our current year-by-year handling of the Chinese calendar is somewhere between amusingly bad and nonsensical misrepresentation. We should fix it. Some solutions are obvious (use imperial era numbering), others will require some consensus building (handling regnal dating before the Han, how to appropriately abbreviate dating by the supposed ascension of the Yellow Emperor, &c.). — LlywelynII22:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
So... this is awkward (ROC dating)
This project is probably more active and should have users able to answer the question. Like I just posted at WPTAIWAN,
(a) As noted since 2013, our actual article on the "Republic of China calendar" entirely omits discussion on how dates before 1912 are handled in the system. Presumably, they aren't handled at all and official practice is to just use BCE/CE Julian/Gregorian dating or the old imperial lunisolar eras. However, we currently have nearly every year of human history back to 719 BC tagged with a "Minguo calendar" equivalent using the form "NNNN before ROC" followed by "民前NNNN年". Is that actually based on anything real whatsoever? Is it the right phrasing in both languages? If it's real, how does it handle the Julian/Gregorian conversion? If it ain't, what was the last date officially using the old lunisolar months?
(b) Those 4000ish year entries are possibly the most prominent use of this system in the English language but, to the extent it can be figured out, is the actual WP:ENGLISHWP:COMMONNAME of the system "Minguo calendar" like the infobox has, "Republic of China calendar" like our page has (partially based on mistaken parallelism with North Korea), or "ROC era" like Ngram suggests it might be (although also based on lots of discussion of mainland topics during the period 1912–1949)? Whichever one it is, the page and the 4000ish applications of the infobox should both be correct and should both agree. — LlywelynII20:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
I think I can answer, though no sources: I haven't really seen Minguo calendar used nearly as much in English. It's not used to backdate at all, it's meant as a civil calendar and saying "前民國400年" or whatever would seem intensely strange, that's just not the point of it. Remsense诉21:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
@Remsense: I know you're too busy to hunt down specific sources now, but you mean you feel you have seen one of the other terms being used frequently in English? I've definitely seen Minguo as often as ROC (extremely seldomly for either but both in specific detailed contexts), versus absolutely never seeing anyone except Wikipedia writing out all of Republic of China in normal discussion of a date, but ymmv. — LlywelynII22:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
I've begun the copyediting process, but have to leave for work shortly. The article seems good, but I don't think the move to the current title was correct. From the lead sentence: Chinese prehistory refers to the culture of the Stone Age in China. No, the subject described in the prose of the article is "material cultures of stone age China" or similar. Prehistory is a much broader topic, and a more cross-disciplinary thing than strictly archaeology. Folly Mox (talk) 12:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Both might be valid topics, so the title might depend on whether the article is expected to be expanded to become more broad, or if the intention is that a broader Prehistory article be created at some later point. We do already have List of Neolithic cultures of China. The article looks ready for DYK (maybe expand the lead?), but there has been trouble with student editors in the past so they should only nominate if they are planning to stay engaged and answer potential questions from the reviewer. CMD (talk) 14:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
I have nominated Gwoyeu Romatzyh for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. George Ho (talk) 21:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Converting full-width punctuation and currency symbols in horizontal text
Greetings! Over the past few years, there have been no objections to converting Latin letters and Arabic numerals to ASCII from their full-width forms when they appear in horizontal Chinese, Korean, or Japanese text. I've raised it on MOS and Wikiproject talk pages and made many cleanup edits to articles. I'm making a push to finish that cleanup, and I've been noticing that punctuation, currency symbols, and spaces have the same problem. It looks weird to have the full-width versions mixed in, and they sometimes leak into English-language text. My plan was to start converting punctuation and currency symbols in horizontal text (except where the characters themselves are being discussed) when the July 1 database dump becomes available in a week or two. If you have any questions, objections, concerns, or suggestions, please let me know! Open-circle full stop is not included; the affected characters are: ＂ ＃ ＄ ％ ＆ ＇ ＊ ＋ － ／ ＠ ＼ ＾ ＿ ｀ ￠ ￥ ￦ ＜ ＝ ＞ ｜ ￤ and the space character. -- Beland (talk) 17:45, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
History of silk has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 19:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Would people be interested in joining a wikiproject on improving and creating articles about oral tradition? Wikipedia's coverage on this appears to be very poor Kowal2701 (talk) 19:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Misnomer in the name of the 1854–1856 Guangdong Uprising
Why is the 1854–1856 uprising referred to as the 'Red Turban Rebellion' when the Chinese name '广东洪兵起义' (Guangdong Hongbing Qiyi) makes no mention of 'Red Turbans,' and it is unrelated to the Red Turban Rebellion of the 1300s? Alexysun (talk) 23:09, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
I was wondering if anyone might have any insight into an issue I've found identifying a Dongshan (东山/東山). While writing M503, I found multiple sources refer to a Dongshan in Zhejiang, eg.[1][2]. There is a Dongshan subdistrict in Rui'an, Wenzhou, near the north side of the Feiyun River mouth. It's about the right place, but I can't figure out why it would be important enough to get such a prominent mention on these aviation maps. Thanks for any insight, CMD (talk) 16:19, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Running from October 1 to 31, 2024, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) edit-a-thon event with the theme Around the World in 31 Days! All experience levels welcome. Never worked on a GA project before? We'll teach you how to get started. Or maybe you're an old hand at GAs – we'd love to have you involved! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to women and women's works (e.g., books, films) during the event period. We hope to collectively cover article subjects from at least 31 countries (or broader international articles) by month's end. GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to earn a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.
The problem is: "Mayor" is clearly anachronistic for certain periods— Tang and earlier definitely, Ming haven't checked, Qing maybe not. Not all the categories in the container are anachronistic like this: Category:Mayors of Hangzhou is clean, all late Qing to present. I guess I have to look through all of them while we decide what to do.
My ideas are:
Remove all member articles where "mayor" is anachronistic, or
Rename the categor[y/ies] to something more general that can be applied across all historical periods, or
Split the categor[y/ies] into premodern and basically modern titles of governance and diffuse as appropriate
Anyone have any input? Anyone know when "mayor" goes from "wait wtf isn't it 720 CE why do they have a mayor?" to "sure that sounds right"? I brought this here since as mentioned there didn't seem to be a better venue. Folly Mox (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Hey, I'm broadcasting here that I'd like to swap the established citation style on Logic in China to use CS1 + shortcites, but the article doesn't have many watchers so I'm making sure people who might object can see it. Remsense ‥ 论03:35, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Aka Lepin, big Lego counterfaiter. Pretty underdeveloped article for what I am finding out was and still is a pretty famous (and controversial) brand in some circles (Lego fans). I am surprised there is no zh wiki article. But anyway, the article is written in the present tense but the company (or one of its subsidiaries, at least - Lepin) had major legal trouble in 2019. The article states the company is listed on Chinese stock market, etc. but it may be out of date - perhaps the company was shut down in 2019? Can this be clarified? I.e. was it just their Lepin subsidiary that was closed, or was it the entire Guangdong Loongon? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here12:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Reopened the move discussion with different proposed targets after the earlier one failed to gain consensus for specific change even though nobody likes the current title.
No {{rm}} template since multiple targets are proposed without preference. Noting with amusement that the talkpage of this article appears to consist entirely of move discussions (not much unlike this talkpage right here).
I'd like to be clear that these content removals were done among genuinely useful edits, and I've talked to the editor about the purpose of edit summaries.
The removed content seems to be stuff the PRC doesn't like; Ai Weiwei, and domestic political protest, and historic domestic ethnic diversity, and probably some content reflecting on national space programs, etc.. I'm not sure how far back the problem goes; not more than dozens to hundreds of edits are affected.
As these removals of controversial content haven't had the level of peer scrutiny that they would likely have had had they been correctly described, could these edits get some scrutiny now, please? Thanks! HLHJ (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
I'd like to hear from people who aren't necessarily experts in Korea or Korean history, but are familiar with Wikipedia style as a whole. This is a pretty major topic that would affect thousands of articles.
Many new accounts appearing to work on China-related articles?
I am not sure what's going on here, and it seems to be specific to China-related articles, particularly Chinese history—参见．Treaty of Nanking. Manchukuo, Opium Wars. Some lone editors go for articles like Chiang Kai-shek, but it seems most common that in a short period of time, several polite, explanatory, but similar edits to the lead come together to the same article, each for a brand new account. The edits are always attempting to be constructive but unfortunately not really improvements so far as I've seen. They are usually unsourced and entirely redundant or misplaced. Then, they disappear after their one edit. Does anyone know if a school program is behind this, or what else it could be? Remsense ‥ 论20:56, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
I noticed that there is an article for each of the radicals in the Kangxi Dictionary, like Radical 62, Radical 25, etc. None of these articles contain more information than is already available in Wiktionary. Has it already been decided that these articles deserve to exist, or should we just delete them? These articles exist in a lot of other languages too. Kzyx (talk) 21:11, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
The "Translingual" section of the Wiktionary page for 戈. It mentions that 戈 is Kangxi radical #62, though it does not mention that it is Simplified Chinese indexing component. In any case, all of these articles only exist to provide those 2 facts, which we can easily add to Wiktionary. Kzyx (talk) 14:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
As a counterpoint that is admittedly WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, we have articles for each letter of the alphabet and each Japanese kana, and so on. Based on the same logic we should be able to have articles for the building blocks of Chinese characters (since it is unfeasible to have an article for all Chinese characters). _dk (talk) 00:01, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, but each letter of the alphabet and Japanese kana have a unique history to them, and some of these articles are quite extensive, like N (kana) and Q. In comparison, the Kangxi radicals don't have a unique history and there really isn't much to say about them. If the articles are kept, at the very least their names should be changed. Kzyx (talk) 04:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Quite: I'm actually not sure if there's been significant diachronic analysis of radicals—e.g. identifying continuity of radicals in multiple epochal dictionaries over time—if there is, that would immediately make them having their own pages distinctly more reasonable, akin to having articles for letters or syllabograms. Remsense ‥ 论04:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
I think each Kangxi radical does actually have a unique history, insofar as each is or was at one point a distinct standalone logogram. It would be nice if, in addition to the stats from the Kangxi dictionary, we could include information from Shuowen Jiezi and some modern unabridged character dictionary (which I'm astonished I can't remember any of; the highest profile modern dictionaries tend to be the more useful word dictionaries).It might also be helpful to note (if not already present in the articles) which radicals have been merged in Simplified (Radical 162 does mention this; haven't checked the general case). Folly Mox (talk) 13:27, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Some of these do not have a lot of information, but especially the Variant forms are useful and interesting encyclopaedic information, for example at Radical 162 where an (unsourced) section provides some history. I can see no particularly good reason to delete these articles, though. Merging is not a great looking option either; it seems more useful to keep the present way of organising things (and perhaps to think of things to add to these articles; for example, content about individual characters could be added to the radical articles). —Kusma (talk) 08:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
The section is uncited, but doesn't appear to be unsourced: the article includes two general references under the ==Literature== subheading, either of which seem plausible as a source of the section in question. Folly Mox (talk) 13:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
In theory, yes. In practice, checking the addition here we have that it is not in the source. (And not the other one either). Bumm13's original (fairly bare-bones) pages do seem to be sourced using general references as you correctly point out. —Kusma (talk) 13:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
It certainly is odd, but I'm more concerned that it may be incorrect. I'm not able to access any of the sources to check the transliteration (although the 1940 one is certain not to have used pinyin), but: the article doesn't exist at zh.wp or baidu, there is no mention of 絃圖 anywhere at zh:周髀算經, and every ghit I get is for 弦圖, i.e. chordal graph.The feeling that I'm getting is that one or more of the sources cited by article creator Krishnachandranvn has mistaken a common noun used by later sources to describe this diagram as the Proper Name of the diagram, which applies to it and nothing else.I'm prepared to forgive 絃 for 弦, since the two words have similar meanings (絃 is later), and there could very well be sources that use the term 絃圖 for chordal graphs.Both Hsuan thu and Zhoubi Suanjing are short enough that the former could be merged into Zhoubi Suanjing § Contents, perhaps under its own lvl3 subheading. If we want to keep it as a standalone article, I'd prefer it at a name like Gougu theorem (currently a redirect to Pythagorean theorem) to avoid the common noun issue mentioned. The article has three mainspace inlinks, from Zhoubi Suanjing, Pythagorean theorem, and Bride's Chair. This may also be in play in this matter, but as mentioned I don't seem to have access to any of the sources (the Mathematics Magazine source cited, although hosted at Taylor Francis, is not accessible to the TWL account). Folly Mox (talk) 11:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Everything_Everywhere_All_at_Once#Evelyn_Quan_Wang_character_article, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Spinixster (trout me!) 02:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Template:Chinese conflicts has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page.
-- 65.92.244.143 (talk) 05:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Articles which may be of interest to members of this project—Sexagenary cycle, Heavenly Stems, and Earthly Branches—have been proposed for merging into Chinese cyclical signs. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Remsense诉 18:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
![[1]](https://imgcdn.cna.com.tw/Eng/WebEngPhotos/800/2024/20240420/1024x1024_62701008876.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](https://cdn2.ettoday.net/images/894/894752.jpg){kind=link}