Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:02, 27 February 2013

This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Taiwan This page is within the scope of WikiProject Taiwan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Taiwan on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TaiwanWikipedia:WikiProject TaiwanTemplate:WikiProject TaiwanTaiwan Hong Kong This page is within the scope of WikiProject Hong Kong, a project to coordinate efforts in improving all Hong Kong-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Hong Kong-related articles, you are invited to join this project.Hong KongWikipedia:WikiProject Hong KongTemplate:WikiProject Hong KongHong Kong Hong Kong To-do: edit history watch purge Attention needed (60) ...needing expert attention (4) • ...without infoboxes (33) Collaboration needed Recommend topic Improvement needed GA-Class articles (60) • B-Class articles (299) Cleanup needed C-Class articles (1,074) Image needed (347) Destub needed Start-Class articles (5,541) • Stub-Class articles (6,671) Deorphan needed ...orphans Page creation needed Requested articles Miscellaneous tasks ...maintain popularity • ...assess the un-Class (378) • ...assess the un-Importance (1,343) Macau This page is within the scope of WikiProject Macau, an attempt to better organize and improve articles related to Macau.MacauWikipedia:WikiProject MacauTemplate:WikiProject MacauMacau China This page is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related East Asia (defunct) This page is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.East AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject East AsiaTemplate:WikiProject East AsiaEast Asia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Naming conventions (Chinese) page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14Auto-archiving period: 45 days

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

• WT:NC-CHINA

Archives

/Names /monarchical titles /languages and dialects /PRC vs ROC /Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4 /Archive 5 /Archive 6 /Archive 7 /Archive 8 /Archive 9 /Archive 10 /Archive 11 /Archive 12 /Archive 13

This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

Proposed replacement for WP:NC-TW

Moved discussion to Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/China-related articles to reflect new location of existing guidelines. --Jiang (talk) 21:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The English Names of State Organs

I am not familiar with English translation of Chinese State Organs. I have spent some time googling for English names for these State Organs. I find some names on some private websites or blogs, but those url don't look very prestigious, and those names and lists look like they are copied from somewhere else. I list some lists that seem reliable here, and I hope people who are familiar with the matter can correct me and provide better source.

• sank0916 (2006-11-10 17:19). "国家机关翻译表". Baidu Zhidao. {{cite web}}: |author= has generic name (help); Check date values in: |date= (help); External link in |author= (help); Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
• "国务院机构英文译名" (MS DOC). Center of International Cooperation and Exchanges (Hong Kong, Macao & Taiwan Affairs), North China University of Technology Office. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)
• "单位及部门名称英译概述". junpengyuan (in Chinese). 2008-10-7 12:39. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help) This looks like an excerpt of a manual.

Proposed revision of township rules

Except in the case where multiple towns or townships exist within a single province, why are they currently disambiguated by county? In the case of "Guocun" – one of which is in Shanxi and one of which is in Hebei – it seems less helpful to differentiate based on county or municipality names few users (or even native Chinese) have ever heard of, rather than by the simple province names.

Vanceburg is distinguished by Kentucky, not Lewis County, regardless of how small it is. French villages don't even bother with disambigging in general but, when they do, they use departments. — LlywelynII 04:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

From the first sentence, I have it that you have no problem with subdistricts remaining where they are? Since they are urban, densely populated, and associated more with their governing cities, I see no reason to DAB subdistricts by province. GotR 05:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The reason would be for better recognizability to a larger audience (who would know Hebei but not Zhangjiakou), although I suppose that aim could be accomplished with a redirect, good hatnotes, and good disambiguation notes. Shrigley (talk) 15:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

That is why I don't oppose changing the guidelines for towns and townships. However, districts do not follow the rules in place for counties; they are automatically disambiguated by the city. Unless you are suggesting that districts change as well, (in terms of spirit) I don't see why subdistricts should be different from districts. GotR 04:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

While it may be better recognizability to disambiguate the townships by province, I think if we go up to that level, it would be very difficult to find only a single township in a province with it's specific name. Each province has an average of 832 towns and 636 townships, and many characters have the same pronunciation (as in Guocun). While it would be nicer to disambiguate by province alone, I believe it's nearly impossible.  –Nav  15:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not too fuss which way it goes. GoTR has done heaps of work and disambiguating by counties is practical. I can understand disambiguating by provinces looks a bit neater, follow the same conventions as those used in the US county articles but for as far as practicality goes, too many towns with similar sounding names. China is a hierarchy unitary state, so it make senses to disambiguate at one level up which for townships is the county. If two counties have the same name, then you disambiguate by the prefecture or the province.--Visik (Chinwag Podium) 01:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

If we were to start from scratch, I think it would be better to disambiguate by province first, and county second. Chinese administrative boundaries change frequently, and counties are often renamed or upgraded to cities or districts of larger cities, requiring renaming of all townships articles that use the county name for disambiguation. Province-level boundaries are far more stable and less likely to change. However, since so many articles have already been created under the current guideline, I think it's better to stick with it. What I don't like, however, is situations like Longmen, Fuyang, Zhejiang, when a simpler Longmen, Zhejiang would suffice. The guideline should be tweaked so that townships are disambiguated by county first, province second, and county+province as a last resort. --Zanhe (talk) 12:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

You are suggesting that if the county/county-level city is ambiguous (such as Fuyang), disambiguate by the province (if unique within the province)? Except for subdistricts, all should keep in mind that I am open to any options and will not mind enacting moves en masse to adjust to the new guideline. However, this means a delay in the addition of entries, so please work a new guideline out by next Wednesday. GotR 18:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

If you don't mind moving existing articles, I agree with LlywelynII that it's better to disambiguate by province (if unique within province), then county (if not unique within province), for the sake of consistency with other countries and long-term stability of article names. I further propose that if the county name itself is not unique (such as Fuyang), maybe the prefecture name (Hangzhou, in this case) can be used as the third choice.

BTW, thanks for all the work you've done creating the articles and dab pages. --Zanhe (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I take it that you prefer the subdistricts remain the way they are? And you and the project are certainly welcome. GotR 01:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, your reasoning wrt the subdistricts makes sense. --Zanhe (talk) 03:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Since the objections raised were over practicality, when I don't mind carefully redoing the work I have done, I will within a couple of days reformulate the guideline. Examples will come later, though. GotR 16:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

re-purposing of article

It appears that on 17 February 2012 one author rewrote the stated purpose of this set of naming conventions and moved a significant amount of content to a separate article (Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/China-related articles). Yet I'm unable to find any discussion of the move or a proposal for the move. Was this discussed? One the reasons for this article's title and usage was to avoid NPOV issues over what is "China". I'm concerned that the narrowing of purpose for this article and the movement of content appears to have been done unilaterally without discussion. Readin (talk) 20:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any discussion that authorized the splitting off of the content, other than the comments here that the existing setup was unsatisfactory and something needed to be done.--Jiang (talk) 02:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

A Proposal

I think that due to the long history of the names Peking, Canton, Nanking, and other Postal Map Romanizations in English, Postal Map Romanizations should appear as the other name in the info box. OttomanJackson (talk) 14:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Amendment to township rules

Unless someone raises total objection within 48 hours, the disambiguation guidelines for Towns/Townships will be amended to include the following exceptions: Harbin (*), Changchun, Shenyang (*), Dalian (*), Qingdao (*), Jinan, Nanjing (*), Wuxi, Suzhou, Hangzhou (*), Ningbo, Wenzhou, Fuzhou (福州) (*), Xiamen (*), Shenzhen (*), Guangzhou (*), Nanchang, Wuhan (*), Kunming, Chengdu (*), Xi'an (*), Lanzhou, Lhasa, and Ürümqi. These are nationally, and in many cases, internationally, known cities, so they won't take away from recognisability. Feel free to add or remove (except for the starred) from this list. For example, a location in Wuhan's Wuchang District will be at ] instead of ]. GotR 18:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I support these changes, since in many cases these cities are more recognizable to an international audience than their parent provinces. The exception list is pretty solid; the only entries which I would challenge are Jinan, Nanchang, and Ürümqi (however, these are based only on my personal impressions of recognizability). Shrigley (talk) 01:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Those won't be included, then. Also a no-brainer is Jilin City. Going ahead with the changes as stated now. GotR 21:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Regarding WP:NC-TW

I have opened a Request for Comment regarding WP:NC-TW, which was part of the policy regarding naming conventions related to Taiwan, and Republic of China, but since been removed and marked inactive. There is no current policy placed in place of WP:NC-TW, so the request for comment seeks a replacement for it. - Penwhale | 06:52, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Names of people

Most people are now identified by their names in Pinyin, except for few people like Sun Yat Sen and Chiang Kai Shek. But there are many people who had lived for extended period in countries where English (or any other language in Roman letters) was official. Other may had received honours before Pinyin became the de facto standard internationally. These people include Zhang Fakui, Zhang Xueliang, Liang Qichao, Liang Sicheng, Wu Tingfang, Wang Zhengting, to name a few. They probably never knew their names in Pinyin all through their lifetimes. Should the names that they were actually known by be mentioned and be used as titles of the articles? 116.48.86.50 (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The current guidelines are merely an extension of the WP:UCN policy. We look at recently published reliable sources - what do modern historians use? Misplaced Pages does not write an article about Chaucer in Middle English.--Jiang (talk) 06:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

If they were known by a different version of their name during their lifetime, but recently published reliable sources have settled on the Pinyin, then the article title should be in Pinyin, but the alternate version should be mentioned in the article.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 07:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

That's very true. We should use contemporary common names. But Pinyin has only become the de facto international standard for only two decades or so. We definitely have to include the old names or else readers can't look for the relevant information in slightly older publications. Further, for some of the above cases, Pinyin isn't actually relevant to them. Don't think modern historians would have to change those names into Pinyin given those people were already commonly known by their own names. 218.250.156.2 (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The Korean naming conventions (and de facto practice) prescribe the use of the later, basic-English-alphabet-compatible, and government-created Revised Romanization system over the older, apostrophe-and-diacritic heavy, and missionary-son-created McCune–Reischauer. This despite the fact that RR was promulgated in 2000, decades after pinyin. Although I had to get over some initial cognitive dissonance of writing in a romanization that didn't match what I read in sources, I rather like that system, since it makes it just that much easier to find articles. A lot of the opposition to pinyin comes from a retrograde and blanket opposition to the PRC government, to which some expiring sinologues and translators of "Taoist" (Daoist) texts will readily (proudly, and grotesquely) admit.

More and more high-quality texts nowadays are not only using pinyin names for Chinese historical figures, but also using correct and contemporary names for the era, for example "Sun Wen" rather than "Yat-sen" or "Zhongshan" before he was so christened. Redirects from older names are easily handled by redirects. The fact is that not many Chinese historical figures were household names in English-speaking countries. Careful Anglophone scholars in the 1940s transcribed Chinese characters into Wade-Giles, and if they were still publishing in the '80s and '90s, they would be using pinyin. The naming convention needs to more strongly come out on the side of the superior system for romanization that helps more readers find additional resources and reduces mistakes. Shrigley (talk) 01:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

FOLLOWING THE SUBJECT'S OWN CHOICE: To expand on the initial comments, naming is not a area where complete consistency is possible. But, as the guidelines in fact imply, if a Chinese who knew English well chose his or her own English names, even if in a weird romanization, and especially if they published works in English using them, then in these cases, which admittedly are not numerous, we need to follow the person's own preference, which will generally be the one used in recent work in any case. Examples include Yung Wing, V.K. Wellington Koo, and T.V. Soong, and Lee Teng-hui. ch (talk) 03:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Expressway naming

I've been working on expressway articles in China for awhile and have come to some dissatisfaction with the current naming conventions. Currently, for naming conventions, it states

For expressways, add the expressway number as a prefix to the expressway name in the article. The prefix and the expressway name should be separated by a space.

• 京沪高速公路 - G2 Beijing–Shanghai Expressway not Jinghu Expressway
• 京承高速公路 - S102 Beijing–Chengde Expressway not Jingcheng Expressway

I propose that we drop the numbered prefix from article names. Here is my rationale why:

• The expressways are readily identified by their names. There aren't multiple Beijing–Shanghai Expressways, so the article name Beijing–Shanghai Expressway would be sufficient. This is true for most if not all expressways in China - they are named based on their terminal locations, and expressways generally don't have the same terminal locations (even if so, like the case with the three expressways being constructed between Beijing and Tianjin, there are different names). In the Chinese Misplaced Pages for example, only the name is stated; no numbered prefix.
• The number in front of the expressway name doesn't make sense when you're dealing with expressways that cross provincial borders but have the same name. For example, one is the Shanghai–Jiaxing–Huzhou Expressway in Shanghai and Zhejiang. Some background: the expressway is designated S32 in Shanghai and S12 in Zhejiang. According to naming conventions, I would have to create two articles, one S32 SJH Expressway and one S12 SJH Expressway or some mess of one article name like S12/S32 SJH Expressway which is confusing. Under my proposal, it would simply be Shanghai–Jiaxing–Huzhou Expressway without any numbered prefix. In the article and the infobox in the article itself, we can mention the various provincial designations without having all the numerical clutter in the title.

Essentially, I'm proposing that we drop the number prefix from article names. They would still be mentioned in the infobox and in the article themselves. Heights 16:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I would think WP:COMMONNAME would apply here. I'm certainly not going to oppose this idea, but I will defer to other editors who are more familiar with Chinese articles. –Fredddie™ 23:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Your comparison to Chinese Misplaced Pages, is of course, not without merit, but sometimes the numbering prefix may be a helpful identifier. I will wait until others give their input before firmly coming on side or the other. I suggest you contact ContinentalAve, Vmenkov, and other users heavily involved with mainland Chinese transport. GotR 01:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. Although the number prefix may be helpful, in my opinion, it leads to redundancy and prevents/hinders searching (a user looking for information on highways would be unlikely to type something like G2 Beijing–Shanghai Expressway. I also think WP:PRECISE may apply here, since both the numbering prefix and the name makes the article title overly precise/redundant to a degree. I couldn't find any examples of other highways or roadways with articles named this way. I've already contacted ContinentalAve and other users that I have seen editing Chinese transport/expressway articles when I first wrote this proposal and have just left a message for Vmenkov. Heights 01:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I understand your rationale and see the need to avoid clunky prefix titles. Naming conventions for express highways in China remain somewhat unsettled as highways are extended and new naming and numbering schemes are implemented. In fact, S102 Beijing–Chengde Expressway now redirects to G45 Daqing–Guangzhou Expressway. The NTHS 7918 scheme does not account for many expressways. Looking around Misplaced Pages though, it appears that the naming schemes of most highways systems around the world have evolved toward numeral names as highway networks take shape. Older names based on the location of the endpoints most often re-direct to the numeral names. Santa Monica Freeway re-directs to U.S. Interstate 10 and the Long Island Expressway to I-495. But see: New Jersey Turnpike and Interstate 95 in New Jersey (two articles for the same highway using equally prominent names). See generally Numbered highways in Canada, German autobahns, Autoroutes of France, Russian federal highways, Brazilian Highway System (where numeral names predominate).

If China were to follow this trend, then it may be that the numeral names will outlast the location A-Location B names. For example, it may be that the G4 Beijing–Hong Kong–Macau Expressway, which used to be called the Beijing-Shijiazhuang Expressway, will simply become G4 or some variant of NTHS G4. Hence, it might be prudent to retain the numeral prefix in the highway name to ensure that the numeral name for a highway and the location name are in the same article.

An exception could be made where a given highway crosses provincial lines and changes numbers but is still predominantly referred to as a single highway. In those instances, the numeral prefix could be dropped from the title. ContinentalAve (talk) 01:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I understand and agree with your comment that over time, the naming schemes of expressway systems worldwide have become heavily based on numbers and that in many countries, people refer to highways by numbers and like the United States, some have dropped names altogether. However, in my opinion, it is unlikely that a Chinese system will become fully numbered, because of the prominent usage of highway names when talking about highways. This is simply due to the fact that in Chinese system of naming highways has always been two or three major termini points along the highway followed by Expressway or 高速. As we know, in Chinese, these termini points are abbreviated to one character, and when read out loud, is just as easy to read as a set of numbers. For example, 常台高速 can be said just as quickly as G15W, its numeric designation. In fact, some Chinese unfamiliar with English characters may have difficulty pronouncing G and W. However, with other Western expressway systems where the language is based on an alphabet, if we were to name Interstate 5 based on this naming scheme, it would likely be San Diego-Seattle Expressway or San Diego-Blaine Expressway. This is MUCH longer and much more tedious to say that simply I-5. Therefore, out of necessity, in these highway system with names, these names dropped out of favour because you're not going to say "Take the San Diego-Seattle Expressway to Los Angeles and then go east on the Los Angeles-Jacksonville expressway" you are going to say "Take the I-5 and then the I-10 east." One example of a language similar to Chinese, Japanese, in the Shuto Expressway system, each of the routes still has a number and a name (the name has not been dropped). My point here is (although a bit long-winded): at the moment, I don't see the number being favoured over the name in the Chinese expressway system and I don't see it becoming favoured over the name in the future; I think that if the number becomes favoured in the future or the name is dropped, we can re-evaluate the situation and change article titles to the number if necessary. And also, the number + name combination creates unnecessary complexity and confusion: expressways with the same name that cross provincial lines are numbered differently, and there are multiple expressways with different names but the same designation in a province (e.g. Zhejiang S1). By dropping the number, these can be easily solved; we would just use the expressway name, and mention the designation in the article/infobox. Heights 01:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay. What I wrote earlier seemed like an irrelevant rant, and I apologize if the argument was confusing to anyone. I was making a comparison between languages that was not relevant to this topic. So I decided to rewrite my response, and to be more organized in my efforts, I will respond to your points one by one.

• First, your point that expressway names and numbers remain unsettled and may change is true. This system was not the first system that China had in place, and if I remember correctly, it was changed several years ago. Your example about S102 Beijing–Chengde Expressway is correct; it has now been absorbed into the longer G45 Daqing–Guangzhou Expressway. When the new system was placed, many short expressways (you also mentioned, for example, the Beijing–Shijiazhuang expressway) "pieces" or "segments" were joined together to form longer expressways, and then renamed with one name. Their old names are still commonly known; for example, the stretch of G2/G42 going west from Shanghai is still known by some as the Shanghai–Nanjing Expressway, the name of the old "segment" or "piece" of expressway that was there before. On expressway signs, drivers often see signage such as G2 Beijing–Shanghai Expressway (Shanghai–Nanjing segment); G2 京沪高速 (沪宁段).
• I believe your argument that the NTHS 7918 scheme does not account for many expressways is untrue. All expressways (built) in China are now accounted for either through a national-level designation G, or some provincial level designation S. Of course, some city expressways in major urban centres, such as the Inner Ring Road are not part of this system and won't be numbered. But most, if not all "true" expressways are part of the national network or a provincial network. And each provincial network has its own system of numbering and naming expressways as well.
• Your point about how over time, highway systems have gradually evolved to favour the numbers and drop or disuse names is true, as seen in many countries you have pointed out. However, we are not a crystal ball and we can not assume that usage of the name of the expressway will fall into disuse in China. I personally do not believe that the numbers will outlast the naming scheme of Location A-Location B. I am actually supportive of de-cluttering either way: we could drop the number or the name. My issue is in the fact that there are both at the moment, leading to redundancy and unnecessary confusion/complexity. If the number does become in everyday use and the name is eventually dropped, I would support using the number in the article title. Heights 02:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• I agree that to have both the numerical and the final destinations in the article name is redundant, and we should go for one or another. Because much of it is still being built, I think it will be years before infrastructure nomenclature is settled. My preference would be for the number, because I think that's the direction of the likely evolution of names, although a more ambiguous 'local' naming will also coexist (because there is no ambiguity at a local level). Another advantage of using the numbering system is that it conforms to most other motorway nomenclature here on the project. -- Ohconfucius  03:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
• This is a fairly cumbersome issue. AFAIK, the "start"-"end" format is currently much more commonly used than their numerical designations. For example, even in Beijing traffic radio, the Beijing-Tibet Expressway is known as such, despite the fact that only a small segment of it is within the municipality, and never mind the full route isn't even near completion (there isn't even a plan for when it will be completed). As soon as this route took on its current name in 2009, all segments of this expressway (which were previously known by disparate names) are referred to as such, regardless of where you are in the country. Similar case happened with the Beijing-Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong High Speed rail, which was previously known by the names of its numerous segments. In the United States, the numerical forms of interstate highways is the norm. Personally, I also favour numbers, but this baldly contradicts WP:COMMONNAME. We are a long way from seeing numbers in highway designations being used as the norm in China. Colipon+(Talk) 15:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Heights, your comments (both original and revised) are well taken. This discussion reminds me of the confusion I feel driving out of Pudong Airport in recent years when I see new highway signs with unfamiliar designations. Have the preexisting highway names changed? Or just the just numerals changed? Or have new highways been built? In contemporary China, all three scenarios are plausible. Given all the naming changes that have occurred and will occur, we should strive to maintain an article naming system that is both (1) precise in describing the particular highway about which the article is written because once a highway is built it is likely to remain (regardless of how the highway is named or renamed) and (2) be flexible enough that the article name can adapt to future, unknown changes in the highway nomenclature system, so as to reduce the confusion of Misplaced Pages readers. When they come upon an expressway article, they should not have to ask the same questions -- is this article about an expressway that I previously knew to be X and numbered # or is it an article about a whole new highway? To maintain this flexibility, I still believe that is worth the extra verbiage to retain both the numeral prefix and LocA-LocB name in the title of the article, when doing so does not create an internal ambiguity in the name. The redundancy reduces the likelihood of wholesale name change. So long as one part of the name is retained, the retained portion will help reader orient themselves. Just to elaborate on that a bit more, expressways are built in sections and LocA-LocB names tend to follow the section's endpoints and when a highway is extended to LocC, the whole highway name changes to LocA-LocC. But if the numerical prefix remains the same, the reader will be able to tell that LocA-LocB has simply been extended and that LocA-LocC is not a wholly new highway. Similarly, when A30 Shanghai Expressway Outer Ring Expressway became G1501 Shanghai Ring Expressway, the text portion of the highway helps readers identify the highway.

Now, when a trans-jurisdictional highway has different numerals in each jurisdiction, it's okay to leave off the numeral prefix. I do not purport to know how often such instances would occur, but there is evidence that provinicial authorities are working together to reduce confusion. The Beijing-Tianjin-Tanggu Expressway, for example, is numbered S40 in both Beijing and Tianjin, though the Misplaced Pages article doesn't yet reflect that.

Of course, this naming system will have longer titles, but writers need not write the full title each time they make in-text citations. Each article will have a good number of alternative names feeding into it such as the expressway's abbreviated name(s), constituent section names, numeral names, past numeral names, etc. The goal is to keep related content feeding into the same article so that should the highway's official name or number change, only part of the article title will change. This avoids someone else starting an overlapping article (say, with the numeral name) and creating greater confusion. Even if numeral names remain underused in common parlance in China for the time being (although I recall lots of people in Shanghai giving directions based on the A-numeral system), the numerals, besides being easier to remember and easier to identify on maps, can also contribute to the understanding of the LocA-LocB part of the name. Take the G18 Rongcheng–Wuhai Expressway for example. Most readers of English Misplaced Pages are unlikely to know where Rongcheng and Wuhai are. But if they have some familiarity with the NTHS naming system (which is hardly a model of cartesian rationality), they can tell from the G18 that the highway is (1) part of the National expressway system, (2) runs roughly east-west because the numeral is double-digit even and (3) oriented north of the G40 Shanghai–Xi'an Expressway because routes in the north have smaller numbers.

The broader objective is to make sure that the article names don't get in the way of article creation. For while there's lots of unknowns about what the future highway system will look like, there are greater gaps in Misplaced Pages's coverage of existing expressways. To the extent we can future-proof article names and organization, all the better.

The reason why I said the NTHS system is incomplete is that there are expressways under construction for which there are no apparent numbers -- e.g. the Wuzhou-Guigang Expressway. In such cases, simply create the article without the prefix, which can be added later. Does that make sense?ContinentalAve (talk) 00:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense and I agree with your point. I think at this moment, I am fine with the status quo. I made this proposal originally after realizing that the Shanghai–Jiaxing–Huzhou Expressway, a inter-provincial expressway in Shanghai and Zhejiang, was designated differently (S32 in Shanghai and S12 in Zhejiang), and thought it would be confusing/unnecessary to have two different articles for different sections of the same expressway. I also thought putting both numbered prefixes in the article title wouldn't work. Then I looked around and came to the conclusion that the number wasn't really needed at all and made this proposal, but I can see your points about why the numbers can help readers understand the system better, with the rapidly-changing and expanding network that China has. So below I have rewritten the Roadways section; no major change, just better rewording to take into account cases that may arise.

Roadways

For expressways, add the expressway number as a prefix to the expressway name in the article. The prefix and the expressway name should be separated by a space.

• 京沪高速公路 - G2 Beijing–Shanghai Expressway not Jinghu Expressway
• 大广高速公路 - G45 Daqing–Guangzhou Expressway not Daguang Expressway

For provincial-level expressways that cross provincial boundary lines but have different numeral designations, or for expressways with no numeric designation, do not include a numeral prefix in the article title. For example:

• 沪常高速公路 - Shanghai–Changzhou Expressway for the expressway between Shanghai and Changzhou, in Jiangsu province, designated S26 in Shanghai and S58 in Jiangsu.

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

For China National Highways that are numbered, the article title should be China National Highway followed by the number.

• 国道102 - China National Highway 102

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

Heights 16:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Heights, for understanding my explanation and agreeing to the more limited modification of the rule that numerical prefixes should appear in the title of highway articles when the highway has a single numeral name. I am calling the prefixes a "numerical name" because it is an alpha-numeric designation. Below, I've made slight adjustments to your proposed revisions. Let's give others some time to comment.

Roadways

For expressways that have a single numeral name, add this numeral name as a prefix to the expressway name in the article title. The numeral name and the expressway name should be separated by a space.

• 京沪高速公路 - G2 Beijing–Shanghai Expressway not Jinghu Expressway
• 大广高速公路 - G45 Daqing–Guangzhou Expressway not Daguang Expressway

Note: some provincial-level expressways that cross provincial boundary lines carry different provincial highway numeral designations. In these cases, leave out the numeral name prefixes from the article title. For example:

• 沪常高速公路 - Shanghai–Changzhou Expressway for the expressway between Shanghai and Changzhou, in Jiangsu province that is numbered S26 in Shanghai and S58 in Jiangsu, not S26/S58 Shanghai–Changzhou Expressway.

The Chinese abbreviated name for the expressway should be mentioned in the first sentence of the article as an abbreviated/secondary name of the expressway and should be made a redirect link to the article. Any numeral name designations should also be mentioned in the lede and redirects created as applicable.

For National Highways that are numbered simply follow the format {China National Highway }:

• 国道102 - China National Highway 102

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

ContinentalAve (talk) 00:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Strong wording in Place names

No, it is not my decision alone to discourage ridiculous titles such as "Changjiang River" or using ", China" to disambiguate. Rules regarding the naming of two-character rivers/lakes/mountains/etc as well as the wording "use the province and alike" at WP:NCGN#China were all in place well before I began editing extensively here. At this point, with the correction of awful titles such as Taihu Lake (to Lake Tai) and Qinling Mountains (to Qin Mountains), "expressly prohibiting" carries more symbolism, and, if anything, codifies what we (i.e. those of us who are competent) have already been doing for years. Both of these two points are in line with WP:PRECISE as well. Therefore ANY obstructionism to these prohibitions is against policy and long-standing consensus. GotR 22:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Even so, it was expressed and formatted in a way that is out of place in a naming guideline. Also, instead of just saying not to disambiguate with ", China" it might be useful to suggest an alternative (the province?). Kanguole 23:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe the section "Administrative" covers the alternatives thoroughly (if you disagree, please elaborate), and saying not to disambiguate with ", China" was to discount that possibility once and for all. GotR 23:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Very few things are "expressly prohibited" in Misplaced Pages. The only things that come readily to mind are threats and things to do with biographies of living persons. Kangoule's modification is much more in keeping with the tone of Misplaced Pages guidelines.
• Discouraging the use of redundant terms seems fine, as long as it doesn't conflict with WP:common name or reliable source usage. I used to feel strongly that redundancies (or tautologies if you prefer) in naming were simply incorrect English, but that was really just my opinion. Table Mesa, for example, is the name of a geologic feature in Arizona, regardless of my opinion. A Misplaced Pages article on the feature should be called Table Mesa, in spite of the fact that mesa is Spanish for table. (I don't see an article on Table Mesa in the English Misplaced Pages at present). (When I was learning geography in school, Tian Shan was called the Tien Shan Mountains. This can be useful in helping remember what the Tian Shan is for people who don't speak Chinese, but in a way it's good to see that the redundant "Mountains" has been dropped, at least by some).
• The guideline on ", China" disambiguation is not very clear to me as written. Is it meant to discourage article titles like "Changsha, China" because Changsha is not in any other country (as a hypothetical example)?
• As for being unilateral, it looks like GOtR added the provision here , strengthened it to a prohibition here , and re-added it after it had been removed by another editor here . The edit summary on the last one, which reads in part, "I'm not going to put up with this tomfoolery" didn't help to dispel the impression that it was a one man show, nor did GOtR adding the provision a third time after a second editor (me) removed it and asked him to discuss it. Bringing it to the talk page has generated some easily-seen support for discouraging tautologies (but not for prohibition), so I'm glad GOtR brought it to the talk page.--Wikimedes (talk) 05:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• The only Chinese example of a tautology/redundancy that has wide common-name acceptance and that I can readily think of is "Bohai Sea". The proliferation of others, such as "Haihe River", on this site is almost exclusively the problem of those editors with lower English proficiency; during last summer's floods in Beijing and Tianjin I even heard a CCTV reporter making that error.
• Regarding the ", China" provision, it is meant to discourage titles such as "Anshan, China" (instead of "Anshan, Liaoning") or, worse, "Sinan County, China" (instead of "Sinan County, Guizhou"). It has the effect of forcing readers who don't know China's provincial divisions to learn them: I suppose the title "Anshan, Liaoning" will bring the question "what/where is Liaoning?" into readers' mind, and once they open the article, the answer to that question will be more instantaneously ingrained in their mind; under the title "Anshan, China", Liaoning's identity may be more susceptible to becoming 'passing information', so to speak. GotR 05:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

My own reasoning for Sinan County, Guizhou instead of Sinan County, China would be that China is a big place and it's nice to narrow the location down further. I can see good reasons for either one, but as long as both Guizhou and China are mentioned early in the article or disambiguation page (they are), it doesn't really matter to me which is used. Looking at the entries of the first page of Bing searches of Hai River and Haihe River leads me to believe that Haihe River is the more common term. But this is pretty superficial evidence and I don't intend to pursue the matter further.--Wikimedes (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Request for clarification of Languages/Dialects section

In the section that discusses when to use "language" or "dialect", I'm not sure what "xxx" is supposed to represent. Is it supposed to be an adjective? Noun? Please provide an example. –Temporal User (Talk) 01:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• Project-Class Taiwan pages
• NA-importance Taiwan pages
• WikiProject Taiwan articles
• Project-Class Hong Kong pages
• NA-importance Hong Kong pages
• WikiProject Hong Kong articles
• NA-Class Macau pages
• NA-importance Macau pages
• WikiProject Macau articles
• Project-Class China-related pages
• NA-importance China-related pages
• Project-Class China-related articles of NA-importance
• WikiProject China articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics