This disambiguation page 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.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all
disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the
project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the
discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles
Requested move 9 August 2017
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Not moved. Whatever the outcome of the Move Review will be, there is clear consensus that the dab page at base title is not the preferred option.
No such user (
talk) 11:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose. In my experience,
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is often over-enforced, resulting in a page collecting large numbers of bad links. I only like it when one meaning is overwhelmingly the main one. This is one such case: Lhasa is the capital of Tibet. The only question for me is whether
Lhasa should redirect to
Chengguan District, Lhasa or to
Lhasa (prefecture-level city), but that is outside this discussion.
Narky Blert (
talk) 10:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose and send prior move to
move review seeking Overturn. The central Chengguan District is the dominant subject for "Lhasa" and should retain the simpler title. —
JFGtalk 17:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose. This case rhymes with
New York, which might lend support to the idea that there's no primary topic. But, while
Lhasa (prefecture-level city) is the rough equivalent of
New York (state), it is definitely not the case that the
Chengguan District is equivalent to
New York City. That would be like taking a government entity whose boundaries were all of
Long Island and every borough of New York exceptThe Bronx, and calling that the primary topic article about New York (in my analogy,
Doilungdêqên District is like Bronx, albeit west of the center rather than north of it). As with New York, most people living outside the prefecture view the urban core as the primary topic. I was thinking it possible, that, as with those living Upstate in NY, Chinese readers might view the "City" (actually more like a
city-state) as the primary topic, but hey, look at the
Japanese "ambiguity avoidance" page: neither the
"City" nor the
Chengguan District is primary topic. Rather the Japanese primary topic at the base title
ja:ラサ is about the "ancient capital of Tibet established in the seventh century". Maybe we can follow Japan's lead and get most of the content of the
Chengguan District article split to an article at the base title that gives a broad overview of the metro area, even though we can't define specific political boundaries for it? A trout to those who made the recent move that JFG wants to overturn, without notifying the participants in past discussions about this.
wbm1058 (
talk) 18:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Compare this with
Chongqing (Chung King), a major "city" in southwest China that covers 82,403 km2 (almost as big as
South Carolina). That article is filled with skyline photos showing lots of tall buildings, including
this photo that is also included in the
Yuzhong District article. So far, I don't believe that there's been any push to redirect Chung King to Yuzhong District. It's odd that the article specifically about "downtown Chongqing" has so little information about the urban center, while the article about the great "city-state" with lots of surrounding countryside seems to have an unbalanced focus on its relatively small-sized urban core.
wbm1058 (
talk) 19:26, 9 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Very interesting information, thanks. What Chinese people call a "city" seems very different from what English speakers call a "city". Per
WP:UE, we should focus on what an English reader considers a city. I would support a split of the
Chengguan District, Lhasa article into one about the historical city center "Lhasa" and another about the larger district. But let's settle the present debate first. —
JFGtalk 08:08, 10 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose this proposal. Support a relisting/revisit/overturn of the
recent RM of the Lhasa article. That discussion was closed poorly as it left "
Lhasa" hanging as a redirect creating this problem here.
User:Wbm1058 makes good points above that should be considered. —
AjaxSmack 01:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
This disambiguation page 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.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all
disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the
project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the
discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles
Requested move 9 August 2017
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Not moved. Whatever the outcome of the Move Review will be, there is clear consensus that the dab page at base title is not the preferred option.
No such user (
talk) 11:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose. In my experience,
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is often over-enforced, resulting in a page collecting large numbers of bad links. I only like it when one meaning is overwhelmingly the main one. This is one such case: Lhasa is the capital of Tibet. The only question for me is whether
Lhasa should redirect to
Chengguan District, Lhasa or to
Lhasa (prefecture-level city), but that is outside this discussion.
Narky Blert (
talk) 10:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose and send prior move to
move review seeking Overturn. The central Chengguan District is the dominant subject for "Lhasa" and should retain the simpler title. —
JFGtalk 17:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose. This case rhymes with
New York, which might lend support to the idea that there's no primary topic. But, while
Lhasa (prefecture-level city) is the rough equivalent of
New York (state), it is definitely not the case that the
Chengguan District is equivalent to
New York City. That would be like taking a government entity whose boundaries were all of
Long Island and every borough of New York exceptThe Bronx, and calling that the primary topic article about New York (in my analogy,
Doilungdêqên District is like Bronx, albeit west of the center rather than north of it). As with New York, most people living outside the prefecture view the urban core as the primary topic. I was thinking it possible, that, as with those living Upstate in NY, Chinese readers might view the "City" (actually more like a
city-state) as the primary topic, but hey, look at the
Japanese "ambiguity avoidance" page: neither the
"City" nor the
Chengguan District is primary topic. Rather the Japanese primary topic at the base title
ja:ラサ is about the "ancient capital of Tibet established in the seventh century". Maybe we can follow Japan's lead and get most of the content of the
Chengguan District article split to an article at the base title that gives a broad overview of the metro area, even though we can't define specific political boundaries for it? A trout to those who made the recent move that JFG wants to overturn, without notifying the participants in past discussions about this.
wbm1058 (
talk) 18:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Compare this with
Chongqing (Chung King), a major "city" in southwest China that covers 82,403 km2 (almost as big as
South Carolina). That article is filled with skyline photos showing lots of tall buildings, including
this photo that is also included in the
Yuzhong District article. So far, I don't believe that there's been any push to redirect Chung King to Yuzhong District. It's odd that the article specifically about "downtown Chongqing" has so little information about the urban center, while the article about the great "city-state" with lots of surrounding countryside seems to have an unbalanced focus on its relatively small-sized urban core.
wbm1058 (
talk) 19:26, 9 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Very interesting information, thanks. What Chinese people call a "city" seems very different from what English speakers call a "city". Per
WP:UE, we should focus on what an English reader considers a city. I would support a split of the
Chengguan District, Lhasa article into one about the historical city center "Lhasa" and another about the larger district. But let's settle the present debate first. —
JFGtalk 08:08, 10 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose this proposal. Support a relisting/revisit/overturn of the
recent RM of the Lhasa article. That discussion was closed poorly as it left "
Lhasa" hanging as a redirect creating this problem here.
User:Wbm1058 makes good points above that should be considered. —
AjaxSmack 01:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.