Jump to content

Talk:Guangzhou

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Melop~enwiki (talk | contribs) at 00:00, 17 November 2009 (Sources). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconCities B‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
WikiProject iconChina: Cities B‑class Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Chinese cities workgroup (assessed as Top-importance).

Template:WP1.0

Including traditional name and Pinyin name in title

Because the origin of the name "Canton" in English as well as other European languages can be traced back to the 15th century, well preceded any formal romanization methods for Chinese, and due to its wide usage prior to 1970s, it is necessary to list both Canton and Guangzhou in the title. Melop (talk) 23:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why? What policy or guideline or manual of style or naming convention suggests that that is how to address such an issue? There is no necessity for the title of an article to reflect previous names of the subject. olderwiser 23:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Look at Mumbai. It's not Mumbai (Bombay). --NeilN talkcontribs 00:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But also see how Rome, Athens, Naples, Macao & Hongkong not being listed under Roma, Athenae, Napoli, Aomen and Xianggang. Naming convention should not be treated rigid and should allow users to locate entries with ease. Listed both names in title will allow ease of search. Redirection is an inappropriate way to handle this situation, because it implies what's written in the title is a more proper way to express the concept instead of the keyword chosen by the user. The problem here is associated with the sociopsychological condition of the people of Canton who wishes to maintain the conventional usage as oppose to adopting a mandarin romanization for their city's name. Using "Guangzhou" only will render this party of opinion largely ignored. In order to achieve a balance between the two views and thus maintain a neutral stance, both names should be listed in the title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melop (talkcontribs) 00:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The articles you cited do not have their "old" or local names as part of the article title. However, I have no objection to Canton being added to the infobox below Guangzhou. --NeilN talkcontribs 00:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For synonyms under contention listed simultaneously in title, see Cantonese (Yue).Melop (talk) 01:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Melop First, where is the evidence that the city is more commonly known today as Canton than Guangzhou? Second, why is redirection inappropriate? That is precisely where redirection is correct? Again, what is the evidence users might be unable to find the article if Canton is not part of the title? What is this supposed sociopsychological condition of the people of Canton? Is that verifiable? olderwiser 00:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For advocacy of resurrection of the English name "Canton" by the people of Canton, see http://big5.xinhuanet.com/gate/big5/news.xinhuanet.com/fortune/2006-11/02/content_5282023.htm. Also see this paper : http://www.rddlzz.com/admin/downfile.aspx?id=3689. Melop (talk) 01:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If Melop can show that Canton is in common use then I think it should be part of the infobox, following the style of Mumbai and Rome. --NeilN talkcontribs 00:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Google returns 4,510,000 results for "Guangzhou", and 6,550,000 for "Canton". The latter, of course, might include toponyms named after Canton, China. For advocacy of resurrection of the English name "Canton" by the people of Canton, see http://big5.xinhuanet.com/gate/big5/news.xinhuanet.com/fortune/2006-11/02/content_5282023.htm. Also see this paper : http://www.rddlzz.com/admin/downfile.aspx?id=3689. Melop (talk) 01:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You all forget about Dairen (Dalian), Pekin (Beijing), Nanking (Nanjing), Chungking (Chongqing), Dihua (Ürümqi), etc. "Canton" is no longer official in English plus Canton is already mention in the article. Rome is different because Roma is the native name in Italian not sure about Mumbai. Be I do know Pekin is very common in Europe but it is not use in the infobox. — ASDFGH =] talk? 00:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The toponyms you mentioned emerged at least 1 century later than Canton (see the above paper I cited), and the two spellings are different merely in romanization schemes but same in etymology. However, as Macao, Canton came from a different etymology than "Guangzhou", making it difficult to recognize. The official name for Hongkong is Xianggang, and that for Macao is Aomen. One should alter these two entries too. Melop (talk) 01:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a link to a well-recognized English atlas that shows these names? Also, referring to what you posted above, Wikipedia does not list what advocates want, it lists placenames according to what appears in current reliable sources. --NeilN talkcontribs 01:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you refer me to this wikipedia policy? But how about its policy of Neutral point of view?
I think the Bombay-Mumbai situation parallels this one. Mumbai was the local term, Bombay the English one, used it atlases. A few years ago, the city "officially" changed its English name to Mumbai to match what the locals called it. --NeilN talkcontribs 00:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, I forgot "Gwong Zau" is the local language (Cantonese) name in Romanization.— ASDFGH =] talk? 00:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, that's why people of Canton are unsatisfied with the name "Guangzhou", which is neither the pronunciation of the locals nor the conventional name of the city in English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melop (talkcontribs) 01:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But, I hope you know "Canton" is not even local language at all. In the PRC all non-autonomous cities names uses pinyin are official. — ASDFGH =] talk? 01:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please read my contribution on the etymology of Canton. It has an etymology in Cantonese.

National Geographic lists the place name as Guangzhou, with Canton appearing below in a smaller font [1]. This is a reliable source. --NeilN talkcontribs 01:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your source is indeed a prove of Canton being used as a synonym in a modern English atlas. Does the smaller font mean Canton is "subordinate" to "Guangzhou"? It is merely a way to list the synonym according to appearance of time. The junior synonym is listed above the senior synonym. If you search "Beijing" in the same map, would it show "pekin" under "Beijing"? Try "Dalian" and "Urumqi" too. Furthermore, it also display Amoy for Xiamen, suggesting that the entry for Xiamen should be renamed Amoy (Xiamen). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melop (talkcontribs) 02:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the smaller font denotes the secondary, not primary name. Therefore, the article is correctly named Guangzhou. --NeilN talkcontribs 02:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Please give reference to your claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melop (talkcontribs) 02:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC) . Please also justify the reason why Pekin is not listed under Beijing, why Napoli not listed under Naples, why Roma not under Rome in National Geographics. Melop (talk) 03:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC) What's more, listing BOTH names follows the convention of your source. Why only one name should appear in the title?[reply]
Common sense I suppose. You still haven't provided any current source that lists Canton at the top. Napoli and Roma were never used widely in English. Bombay was and that's why it's listed under Mumbai now. It's pointless arguing unless you can provide some sources that the English speaking world regards Canton as the primary official name. --NeilN talkcontribs 03:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which guideline explicits that only when a city's name is "at the top", or "by common sense it's "primary"" can it be included in the title? National Geographic listing both names for the city is the best prove that both names should be included in this wikipedia title.
For what I know Han Chinese cities in PRChina have rules how to name cities articles readWikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) it very well established Hanyu Pinyin are only used in Han Chinese cities.— ASDFGH =] talk? 03:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly urge you not to over-interpret guidelines as laws: "These conventions are guidelines only, and there are examples of exceptions, so please use your discretion. As always, all discussion is welcome on the talk page." Canton is obviously such exception which has been fully explained in the article. It has also been proved by the National Geographic map provided by Nei1N, in which Pekin, Roma, Napoli are not listed under Beijing, Rome and Naples, but Canton is listed as a synonym as Guangzhou. I am not opposing the usage of Guangzhou, because I intended to list BOTH synonyms in the title. Listing Canton in the article's title only adds clarity to this language version of wikipedia instead of "breaking the rule". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melop (talkcontribs) 03:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As of now the rules are

"Mainland China place names should be in Hanyu Pinyin. Place names in Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan, and overseas (such as Singapore) should be romanized in whatever way is commonly used for those places. Same goes for non-Han Chinese place names. So use Hohhot, Kashgar, and Shigatse, not Huhehaote, Kashi and Rikaze. (呼和浩特、喀什、日喀则)"

The guideline does NOT prohibit listing synonyms in addition to Pinyin names in title. Melop (talk) 03:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As :NeilN mention "the smaller font denotes the secondary, not primary name." — ASDFGH =] talk? 03:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But is does not justified "Canton (Guangzhou)." — ASDFGH =] talk? 03:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no consensus to do that and I've explained why Roma and Napoli don't appear in the atlas. You've already broken WP:3RR - any further reverts will be looked upon dimly by admins. --NeilN talkcontribs 03:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Canton" is already mention on the article it does not need to be the name of the article it also clarity the name "Canton" in the introduction which is a secondary name. — ASDFGH =] talk? 03:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see any sentence in the article implying Canton to be a "secondary name" of the city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melop (talkcontribs) 03:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way I don't see "Roma (Rome)," "Napoli(Naples)," nor "Bombay (Mumbai)."ASDFGH =] talk? 03:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the National geographics map provided by Nei1N, Roma and Napoli are not listed with Rome and Naples at all. Therefore the titles for these cities are appropriate in wikipedia. Nevertheless, this map listed Bombay as synonym of Mumbai, suggesting that listing Bombay in the title might be appropriate. Nevertheless, it depends on data on the sociopsycology of the people of mumbai on nomenclature of their city. If reference can be found on disagreement, Bombay (Mumbai) can be adopted to reach balance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melop (talkcontribs) 03:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First of all there is only one source not multiply sources/evidences claiming "Guangzhou (Canton)" find more source first another thing Guangzhou is currently the official name not Canton. "Guangzhou" is official since the PRC adopted Hanyu Pinyin in 1982. — ASDFGH =] talk? 04:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Romans invented the Latin alphabet 2000 years ago. Since then Roma has been spelled as Roma, not Rome. Why not make Rome more "official"? Please explicit the wikipedia guideline for forbidding listing a well-established English name written together with the name adopted by the country's current government in the title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melop (talkcontribs) 04:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Rome" is official in English name even the the Italian official Rome Tourism website writes "Rome" on its title in the English version but not in Roma [2] compare to the Italian version (Roma) [3]. — ASDFGH =] talk? 04:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because the Italian government respects the established English use. But what if they change it to "Roma"? So the ENGLISH wikipedia version should also use "Roma"? Listing both alternative names could not be worse than listing only one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melop (talkcontribs) 05:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to the current article it lists both alternative names "Guangzhou" and "Canton" also a bonus "Kwangchow" in the introduction. Case closed.— ASDFGH =] talk? 05:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Kwangchow" was a much less used romanization for the city. It is why this name was not used by National Geographics. Kwangchow is merely a rominization as Guangzhou, which did not enter the English lexicon as did Canton. Obviously, consensus cannot be reached. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melop (talkcontribs) 05:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please read it again has both "Guangzhou" and "Canton" also "Kwangchow" was official during ROC era in Mainland based on Wade–Giles rominization. That clearly shows all the alternate names including "Canton."— ASDFGH =] talk? 05:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neither Guangzhou nor Canton were based on Wade-Giles. "Kwangchou" was. Canton was a romanization brought to Europe by the Portuguese in circ. early 1500. It had entered the English, as well as other European languages' lexica well before 1800. Therefore, Canton can be treated as a native English word as "Rome" and "Naples". Please also refer to the wikipedia versions of other European languages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melop (talkcontribs) 06:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More source on Guangzhou for its Official English name— ASDFGH =] talk? 04:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yahoo Local Maps: Guangzhou only [4]
  • Google Maps: Guangzhou only [5]
  • Multimap from bing: Guangzhou only [6]
  • Mapquest: Guangzhou only [7]
  • CIA- The World Factbook: Guangzhou only [8]
But search of "Canton, China" in google returned 10,400,000 results while "Guangzhou, China" returned only half - 5,270,000. Compare Bombay, India - 5,020,000; Mumbai, India - 20,600,000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melop (talkcontribs) 05:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Try "Guangzhou" - 16,300,000 but you can't get the same result with "Canton" because of multiple cities with the same name.— ASDFGH =] talk? 06:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you use "Guangzhou" vs. "Canton, China", you'll see that they do not diverge much: 1.56:1. But if you compare Mumbai, India vs. Bombay, India, you'll have 4.1:1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melop (talkcontribs) 06:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay but it does not really matter read Wikipedia:No original research find real sources first. — ASDFGH =] talk? 06:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NOR. You still have provided no sources. --NeilN talkcontribs 06:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neither Guangzhou nor Canton were based on Wade-Giles. "Kwangchou" was. Canton was a romanization brought to Europe by the Portuguese in circ. early 1500. It had entered the English, as well as other European languages' lexica well before 1800. Therefore, Canton can be treated as a native English word as "Rome" and "Naples". Please also refer to the wikipedia versions of other European languages. There was no "official names" during the ROC period. English conventions were followed. The only official name of the city now, is 廣州/广州, written in Chinese characters and independent of pronunciation. Hanyu Pinyin is used by the Chinese government to spell place names. But it has no power to turn over the established English name. If official names are strictly followed, China should be more appropriately called Zhongguo, of course, with the characters beside. Have you realized that many of these Cantons in the U.S. are named after Canton, China? Without listing Canton for the original city, the etymology for these U.S. cities will largely be blurred. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melop (talkcontribs) 06:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still no sources. Without providing anything besides your own opinion that Canton is equally as official as Guangzhou in the English-speaking word today, no one is going to agree to your proposed change. --NeilN talkcontribs 06:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have never claimed that Canton is "as official as Guangzhou". You have not provided any information on wikipedia's guideline on city names should only contain an "official name". And you have never provided information on the definition of "official". I claim, however, Canton is in wide usage in English, which I had demonstrated by the search data from google. A wide and established usage constitute its placement in the title. Another information to consider: The Baiyun international airport of the city is abbreviated as CAN, short for Canton.
Point to another article which has two place names in the title not required for disambiguation purposes. And I don't know how many times I have to say this so I'm going to yell: You have provided NO sources which are not original research. --NeilN talkcontribs 06:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, also look at some the airports exist that was assign with IATA airport code before Hanyu Pinyin was created

All the pre-existing Hanyu pinyin name airport's IATA airport code has not been updated into Hanyu pinyin and the all the other "Canton" came from Canton (administrative division). — ASDFGH =] talk? 07:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Kwangchou" and Kwangchow" are Wade–Giles but the different is the time when it was romanize. "Canton" is Portuguese transliteration of "广东 / 廣東" not romanization, while "Guangzhou" is official romanization (Hanyu Pinyin) use today in the PRC. I noted that all the name are already listed in the introduction. So what you point it has all the name.— ASDFGH =] talk? 06:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting for protection

Serious it getting annoying can any administrators lock the page for now?— ASDFGH =] talk? 01:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's one user. I've reported him for edit warring. --NeilN talkcontribs 01:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Book published in 1994: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canton-Lonely-Planet-Travel-Survival/dp/0864422474. Hongkong, Macau and CANTON. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melop (talkcontribs) 06:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Monograph published in 1997: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hong-Merchants-Canton-Sino-Western-monographs/dp/0700703616/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258354641&sr=1-12
Joined use of Guangzhou and Canton: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Historical-Dictionary-Guangzhou-Guangdong-Dictionaries/dp/0810835169/ref=sr_1_16?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258354671&sr=1-16 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melop (talkcontribs) 06:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canton-Trade-Enterprise-China-1700-1845/dp/9622098282/ref=sr_1_32?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258354815&sr=1-32
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Heaven-High-Emperor-Far-Away/dp/0195927443/ref=sr_1_36?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258354815&sr=1-36
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Foreign-Mud-Account-Imbroglio-Canton/dp/1417976004/ref=sr_1_35?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258354815&sr=1-35

The above sources at least showed that recent publications in English still use Canton to refer to the city.

Nope, we need recent sources, not ones that are 10+ years old. The official name has changed (like Bombay). --NeilN talkcontribs 07:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nei1N had intentionally ignored the second to last and the last reference published in 2002 and 2004 respectively. Note that the DATE OF PUBLICATION is listed under the publisher, instead of the title.

Product details Paperback: 348 pages Publisher: Kessinger Publishing Co (15 Oct 2004) Language English ISBN-10: 1417976004 ISBN-13: 978-1417976003 Product Dimensions: 22.6 x 15.2 x 2.8 cm