This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Our Lady of Joy Abbey article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is written in Hong Kong English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, travelled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Kiwifilm 06:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC) I removed the reference to buffalo and changing..
Around the monastry some of the last free roaming buffaloes in Hong Kong can be seen.
to
Around the monastry some of the last free roaming feral cattle in Hong Kong can be seen, being the descendents of the cattle released after the closure of the dairy farm.
and shifted this para to after the reference to the dairy farm.
I hike in this area frequently and have yet to see any buffalo, but free roaming dairy cows and the occassional bull are to be seen.
As per WP:NCZH, place names should generally be in pinyin. Hong Kong place names are an exception, but Hebei (Hopeh), Xuanhua (Hsüanhua) etc, are not. If anyone has questions or objections, please, let's discuss. SilverStar54 ( talk) 22:50, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Addendum: Historical articles are not an exception to Wikipedia's policy on Chinese romanization. Even if English sources from the time use Wade-Giles and/or postal romanization, what matters is the romanization used in reliable modern sources. Sometimes, modern sources do continue to use the old romanization, but that is not the case for place names. Please stop reverting edits without a discussion, but I welcome a discussion on this talk page. SilverStar54 ( talk) 17:20, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
No one disputes that Xianggang and Aomen are not countries,Then many "scholarly sources" have been wrong. 182.239.77.128 ( talk) 13:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Once more, I am raising this issue. If I don't see any discussion I'm going to seek a third opinion to resolve this dispute. As of this writing, the article references place names from the early 1900s as "<Wade-Giles> (now <pinyin>"). This does not follow WP:NCZH for several reasons:
As I explained above, I oppose changing all Chinese-language names to pinyin, I only want to change those for which pinyin is the standard English-language romanization. SilverStar54 ( talk) 10:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
As per WP:NCZH, place names should generally be in pinyin."; "
Sometimes, modern sources continue to use the old romanization, but that is not the case for place names.". This is apparent not the case. Look at Peking University, Kweichow Moutai, Tsingtao Beer, Canton Fair, Szechwan sauce, Treaty of Nanking, just to name a few. Meanwhile you have certainly misinterpreted the consensus from Talk:Nanjing Massacre/Archive 10, which focussed almost entirely on the common names of the event in modern sources. There's no conclusion on whether Pinyin should generally prevail for toponyms. 182.239.77.128 ( talk) 13:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia follows the lead of modern English sources.The fact that Pinyin has become the so-called UN standard for topics about the People's Republic is not an excuse to take a revisionist approach and to ignore how works published in the English language have dealt with these topics and other topics that have gone through somewhat similar paths of spelling changes. We also have to bear in mind that undue weight should not be given to resources available on the internet. We need to have a balanced view with printed publications in mind too. 182.239.77.142 ( talk) 14:47, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
A notice for users who have been involved in this thread: a discussion on whether to make the use of pinyin in historical articles an explicit policy is ongoing at WT:MOSCHINA#Suggested new section - historical articles. Please participate if you want to make your voice heard. SilverStar54 ( talk) 20:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 03:03, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Our Lady of Joy Abbey article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is written in Hong Kong English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, travelled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Kiwifilm 06:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC) I removed the reference to buffalo and changing..
Around the monastry some of the last free roaming buffaloes in Hong Kong can be seen.
to
Around the monastry some of the last free roaming feral cattle in Hong Kong can be seen, being the descendents of the cattle released after the closure of the dairy farm.
and shifted this para to after the reference to the dairy farm.
I hike in this area frequently and have yet to see any buffalo, but free roaming dairy cows and the occassional bull are to be seen.
As per WP:NCZH, place names should generally be in pinyin. Hong Kong place names are an exception, but Hebei (Hopeh), Xuanhua (Hsüanhua) etc, are not. If anyone has questions or objections, please, let's discuss. SilverStar54 ( talk) 22:50, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Addendum: Historical articles are not an exception to Wikipedia's policy on Chinese romanization. Even if English sources from the time use Wade-Giles and/or postal romanization, what matters is the romanization used in reliable modern sources. Sometimes, modern sources do continue to use the old romanization, but that is not the case for place names. Please stop reverting edits without a discussion, but I welcome a discussion on this talk page. SilverStar54 ( talk) 17:20, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
No one disputes that Xianggang and Aomen are not countries,Then many "scholarly sources" have been wrong. 182.239.77.128 ( talk) 13:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Once more, I am raising this issue. If I don't see any discussion I'm going to seek a third opinion to resolve this dispute. As of this writing, the article references place names from the early 1900s as "<Wade-Giles> (now <pinyin>"). This does not follow WP:NCZH for several reasons:
As I explained above, I oppose changing all Chinese-language names to pinyin, I only want to change those for which pinyin is the standard English-language romanization. SilverStar54 ( talk) 10:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
As per WP:NCZH, place names should generally be in pinyin."; "
Sometimes, modern sources continue to use the old romanization, but that is not the case for place names.". This is apparent not the case. Look at Peking University, Kweichow Moutai, Tsingtao Beer, Canton Fair, Szechwan sauce, Treaty of Nanking, just to name a few. Meanwhile you have certainly misinterpreted the consensus from Talk:Nanjing Massacre/Archive 10, which focussed almost entirely on the common names of the event in modern sources. There's no conclusion on whether Pinyin should generally prevail for toponyms. 182.239.77.128 ( talk) 13:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia follows the lead of modern English sources.The fact that Pinyin has become the so-called UN standard for topics about the People's Republic is not an excuse to take a revisionist approach and to ignore how works published in the English language have dealt with these topics and other topics that have gone through somewhat similar paths of spelling changes. We also have to bear in mind that undue weight should not be given to resources available on the internet. We need to have a balanced view with printed publications in mind too. 182.239.77.142 ( talk) 14:47, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
A notice for users who have been involved in this thread: a discussion on whether to make the use of pinyin in historical articles an explicit policy is ongoing at WT:MOSCHINA#Suggested new section - historical articles. Please participate if you want to make your voice heard. SilverStar54 ( talk) 20:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 03:03, 18 February 2023 (UTC)