![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Hmm...this title sounds a bit weird. How's Postal system pinyin or Postal system Chinese romanization? -- Jiang 07:01, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Moved from Pinyin of Postal System to Postal System Pinyin. -- Menchi 00:17, Aug 20, 2003 (UTC)
Postal System Pinyin is not a good name for this page, I will go and check the library and get back with a suggestion.-- Niohe 15:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Here is a link to the page this article is a sloppy translation of.-- Niohe 15:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
The most appropriate English term that I have found so far is Postal Spelling System. I believe a move to a more appropriate English term is urgent, because a lot of web pages apparently quote Wikipedia as an authority, I will continue checking.-- Niohe 17:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
The Cambridge History of China calls the spelling system "Imperial Post Office romanization". Please give feedback soon, or I effect a move soon.-- Niohe 16:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Another alternative would be "Chinese Postal Atlas romanization", a term which is widely in use.-- Niohe 22:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps "Chinese Postal Romanization" would be the best? I don't see how this system is exclusive to maps only. -- ran ( talk) 00:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I think one source of confusion is the Chinese language article that this article ultimately is a translation of. It gives the impression that the primary name of the romanization is youzheng shi pinyin and that an English term should somehow refect that name. I am actually against having the term youzheng shi pinyin at the heading of this article for that very reason. It invites objections from character-by-character translation purists, who are numerous here on Wikipedia.
The basic problem, of course, is that the word pinyin did not exist when this "system" of romanization was invented. Instead people have been referring to these romanizations as based on the "Chinese postal map/atlas/guide" for a hundred years or so. So, I think there are good reasons for including the word "map" in the heading of this article.-- Niohe 15:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I just moved the page, I have also changed the romanization template accordingly. Please let me know if this move has caused any double redirects or broken links, and I will take care of it.-- Niohe 20:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I have started to fix possible double redirects and I'm planning to replace "Postal system pinyin" interwikis with something shorter than "Chinese Postal Map Romanization". I will probably use "Postal map" or "Postal map spelling". Any suggestions welcome.-- Niohe 15:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I have located the original source for this article; there is a Chinese article on the "postal system spelling" in the volume on language and writing in the great Chinese encyclopedia, Zhongguo da baike quanshu. Unsourced transcripts of this article has circulated on-line for a while, and eventually ended up here.-- Niohe 15:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
The reference to Zhongguo da baike needs tone marks, at the very least, if not characters; & an English version of the title would certainly be useful! And the publisher should probably be translated as well: how on earth is a non-specialist reader meant to understand "chubanshe"?
Incidentally, it would be a good thing if citation templates were used for the references. NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 16:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I find this article dissatisfying in several ways. The most serious problem is that there is no image of the actual map. So what was on it? According to Harris, who is cited at the bottom of the article, postal Romanization was based on a system called "Nanking syllabary" which was created by Herbert Giles (of Wade-Giles fame). Harris doesn't mention the French EFEO system, although this article does make an unsourced claim in this regard. Here is some more information I dug up that's not currently in the article: The first edition of the postal map was the China Postal Working Map published in 1903. This was followed up in 1907 and 1919 with a China Postal Album. [1] The literal Postal Map of China was an enclosure published as part of an annual Postal Guide in 1918-1921. (I gather Harris went to the archive and found maps for other years as well.) The Nationalists published a China Postal Atlas in Nanjing in 1933 and 1936. Any modern reference to a postal map likely refers to one of these two editions. Earlier editions are much harder to get access to.
Examples of irregular spellings given on the postal map:
Examples of regular spellings:
Does anyone off Wikipedia call this subject "Chinese postal map romanization"? In Encyclopedia of China (2013), Perkins calls it "postal system of romanization." [2] Harris calls it "Postal Romanization" right in the title of his article. [3] The 1961 ROC book, which I take to be the finalized version of this standard, is titled Postal Romanization. [4] I don't see a reason to call it anything else. From looking the discussion above, I gather that the current name is not based on English-language sources, but is rather a loose translation of the Chinese name. This seems a poor way to pick a name. The Chinese version of the name doesn't use the word "map" anyway. Tasty love salad ( talk) 06:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
No consensus to move, after much-extended time for discussion. BD2412 T 18:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Chinese postal romanization → Postal romanization – More WP:CONCISE title, since this is the postal romanization. I cannot find any refs to any other romanizations that can be called "postal romanization". If editors oppose this move with a cited ref, then I shall happily withdraw it. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 17:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. Jerm ( talk) 14:14, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
There's a public domain copy of these books. They've been in the public domain for decades. — LlywelynII 02:09, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
This is such a good article, good work everyone 🙏🏻 toobigtokale ( talk) 18:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Can we remove this template from the top of the page? I believe that there is no remaining non-English content that doesn't use an appropriate template.
![]() | This article should specify the language of its non-English content, using {{
lang}}, {{
transliteration}} for transliterated languages, and {{
IPA}} for phonetic transcriptions, with an appropriate
ISO 639 code. Wikipedia's
multilingual support templates may also be used. |
Kilvin the Futz-y Enterovirus ( talk) 22:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
{{
zh}}
and related template pages, don't use these templates in citations—you have to specify language in the citation itself. if you want to know how to do this, let me know. cheers!
Remsense
诉
00:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
|script-title=
(etc.) instead.
Remsense
诉
00:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Can I remove the additions of fou to the city names in the D'Anville column of the Comparison table? Those just stand for 府 - ancient administrative divisions or capitals of prefectures; such information belongs into the articles about these administrative divisions. In one case - 西安 - the 府 may have had a reappearance from 1919 to 1947, according to our table, if that is even true. (The map given as reference just shows “西安市”, and our Chinese sister project, in its article zh:西安府, says it was abolished in 1913. So I think we should delete that as well.) Still, conceivably an argument could be made for at least mentioning that one. At any rate, that's worth no more than a footnote.
Back to D'Anville: Was that even really a postal romanization? In that case, we would have to change the introduction, according to which they were not developed until the late 19th century. Otherwise, it probably can remain in the table, but it should be clarified that that's only for the sake of comparison. ◅ Sebastian Helm 🗨 14:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Hmm...this title sounds a bit weird. How's Postal system pinyin or Postal system Chinese romanization? -- Jiang 07:01, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Moved from Pinyin of Postal System to Postal System Pinyin. -- Menchi 00:17, Aug 20, 2003 (UTC)
Postal System Pinyin is not a good name for this page, I will go and check the library and get back with a suggestion.-- Niohe 15:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Here is a link to the page this article is a sloppy translation of.-- Niohe 15:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
The most appropriate English term that I have found so far is Postal Spelling System. I believe a move to a more appropriate English term is urgent, because a lot of web pages apparently quote Wikipedia as an authority, I will continue checking.-- Niohe 17:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
The Cambridge History of China calls the spelling system "Imperial Post Office romanization". Please give feedback soon, or I effect a move soon.-- Niohe 16:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Another alternative would be "Chinese Postal Atlas romanization", a term which is widely in use.-- Niohe 22:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps "Chinese Postal Romanization" would be the best? I don't see how this system is exclusive to maps only. -- ran ( talk) 00:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I think one source of confusion is the Chinese language article that this article ultimately is a translation of. It gives the impression that the primary name of the romanization is youzheng shi pinyin and that an English term should somehow refect that name. I am actually against having the term youzheng shi pinyin at the heading of this article for that very reason. It invites objections from character-by-character translation purists, who are numerous here on Wikipedia.
The basic problem, of course, is that the word pinyin did not exist when this "system" of romanization was invented. Instead people have been referring to these romanizations as based on the "Chinese postal map/atlas/guide" for a hundred years or so. So, I think there are good reasons for including the word "map" in the heading of this article.-- Niohe 15:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I just moved the page, I have also changed the romanization template accordingly. Please let me know if this move has caused any double redirects or broken links, and I will take care of it.-- Niohe 20:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I have started to fix possible double redirects and I'm planning to replace "Postal system pinyin" interwikis with something shorter than "Chinese Postal Map Romanization". I will probably use "Postal map" or "Postal map spelling". Any suggestions welcome.-- Niohe 15:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I have located the original source for this article; there is a Chinese article on the "postal system spelling" in the volume on language and writing in the great Chinese encyclopedia, Zhongguo da baike quanshu. Unsourced transcripts of this article has circulated on-line for a while, and eventually ended up here.-- Niohe 15:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
The reference to Zhongguo da baike needs tone marks, at the very least, if not characters; & an English version of the title would certainly be useful! And the publisher should probably be translated as well: how on earth is a non-specialist reader meant to understand "chubanshe"?
Incidentally, it would be a good thing if citation templates were used for the references. NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 16:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I find this article dissatisfying in several ways. The most serious problem is that there is no image of the actual map. So what was on it? According to Harris, who is cited at the bottom of the article, postal Romanization was based on a system called "Nanking syllabary" which was created by Herbert Giles (of Wade-Giles fame). Harris doesn't mention the French EFEO system, although this article does make an unsourced claim in this regard. Here is some more information I dug up that's not currently in the article: The first edition of the postal map was the China Postal Working Map published in 1903. This was followed up in 1907 and 1919 with a China Postal Album. [1] The literal Postal Map of China was an enclosure published as part of an annual Postal Guide in 1918-1921. (I gather Harris went to the archive and found maps for other years as well.) The Nationalists published a China Postal Atlas in Nanjing in 1933 and 1936. Any modern reference to a postal map likely refers to one of these two editions. Earlier editions are much harder to get access to.
Examples of irregular spellings given on the postal map:
Examples of regular spellings:
Does anyone off Wikipedia call this subject "Chinese postal map romanization"? In Encyclopedia of China (2013), Perkins calls it "postal system of romanization." [2] Harris calls it "Postal Romanization" right in the title of his article. [3] The 1961 ROC book, which I take to be the finalized version of this standard, is titled Postal Romanization. [4] I don't see a reason to call it anything else. From looking the discussion above, I gather that the current name is not based on English-language sources, but is rather a loose translation of the Chinese name. This seems a poor way to pick a name. The Chinese version of the name doesn't use the word "map" anyway. Tasty love salad ( talk) 06:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
No consensus to move, after much-extended time for discussion. BD2412 T 18:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Chinese postal romanization → Postal romanization – More WP:CONCISE title, since this is the postal romanization. I cannot find any refs to any other romanizations that can be called "postal romanization". If editors oppose this move with a cited ref, then I shall happily withdraw it. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 17:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. Jerm ( talk) 14:14, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
There's a public domain copy of these books. They've been in the public domain for decades. — LlywelynII 02:09, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
This is such a good article, good work everyone 🙏🏻 toobigtokale ( talk) 18:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Can we remove this template from the top of the page? I believe that there is no remaining non-English content that doesn't use an appropriate template.
![]() | This article should specify the language of its non-English content, using {{
lang}}, {{
transliteration}} for transliterated languages, and {{
IPA}} for phonetic transcriptions, with an appropriate
ISO 639 code. Wikipedia's
multilingual support templates may also be used. |
Kilvin the Futz-y Enterovirus ( talk) 22:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
{{
zh}}
and related template pages, don't use these templates in citations—you have to specify language in the citation itself. if you want to know how to do this, let me know. cheers!
Remsense
诉
00:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
|script-title=
(etc.) instead.
Remsense
诉
00:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Can I remove the additions of fou to the city names in the D'Anville column of the Comparison table? Those just stand for 府 - ancient administrative divisions or capitals of prefectures; such information belongs into the articles about these administrative divisions. In one case - 西安 - the 府 may have had a reappearance from 1919 to 1947, according to our table, if that is even true. (The map given as reference just shows “西安市”, and our Chinese sister project, in its article zh:西安府, says it was abolished in 1913. So I think we should delete that as well.) Still, conceivably an argument could be made for at least mentioning that one. At any rate, that's worth no more than a footnote.
Back to D'Anville: Was that even really a postal romanization? In that case, we would have to change the introduction, according to which they were not developed until the late 19th century. Otherwise, it probably can remain in the table, but it should be clarified that that's only for the sake of comparison. ◅ Sebastian Helm 🗨 14:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)