Jump to content

Talk:Beijing/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Too long

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2014

I am sorry for my written English. But I want change Text under one photography, about huge air pollution. "Heavy air pollution has resulted in widespread smog. These photographs, taken in August 2005, show the variations in Beijing's air quality." On that photo it is shown not pollution air, but also simple fog. In Beijing it is very often fog. But you can see very often the same picture in the villages and mountains around Beijing. IVDmitriy (talk) 15:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a source that its not smog?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I just return from Beijing. I spent 8 days in there and 7 days it was fog. Also I visited village (6 hours from Beijing), Beidaihe (4 hours from Beijing) and Mountains (2 hours from Beijing). Everywhere it was fog. I can sent photo. That photos in Wikipedia definitely can't be used for describe pollution in Beijing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by IVDmitriy (talk • contribs)
Simply because you had an experience with fog does not mean that the city is not beseiged with smog.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but people who live in Beijing say, that it is typical whether (fog and white sky). On that pictures definetly is fog (may be with pollution). And we can ask people from Chinesse Wikipedia, people who live in Beijing all time, Ok?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.55.156.146 (talk • contribs)
There is simply no evidence that this information needs to be changed at this time. This request has been declined.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Air Pollution

This section including a lot without a fair data to show us the exact air quality level. Some harzardous days and some doubios reports were listed to describe how terrible Beijing is. All of these are not scientific attitudes. Just as I said in the article, compared with other cities in east China, Beijing's air quality is more changeable and polarized, and very sensitive to the wind direction, so both very good days and very bad days of Beijing are much more then such as Nanjing, Xi'An and even if Guangzhou(Canton). Due to the mountain-valley breeze, each level's percentage measured by hours can show this character best. However, nearly all the official statistics are measured by days or average, so I had to publish my personal calculation using the official initial data. BeijingCup (talk) 06:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The content you are adding is not reliably sourced and therefore cannot be used on Wikipedia. It just appears you want to debunk the claims that Beijing's air pollution has been bad. Wikipedia is not here to post annual reports. It's for general facts. Do not add the content, again, because you are using pages that do not meet Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
It's ridiculous to refuse my post just because it's not "general"(if you are not just for the content list). In this item, I can see "in 2011", "In January" etc, so if you say my post is "annual" but not "general", why these examples for just a few specially chosen bad days (such as 886 micrograms per cubic meter, even it's not a day but an hour in a chosen area, neither "time" or "space" are general) are "genaral"?
About the source, it's acceptable to refuse the second for it's my personal calculation. But the first one that show the annual mean value of the concentration (89.5 micrograms per cubic meter) is official doubtless, so you should admit it.
I'm not here to say Beijing's air quaility is not bad——absolutly it's much worse than cities like Tokyo, New York, Sydney etc, I just want you to stop giving reader's impression that most days are "hazardous" or "beyond index". Air qualities of New Delhi, south of Hebei Province, part of Henan, Shandong, Anhui and Hubei Province etc has been worse than Beijing, especially New Delhi.
BeijingCup (talk) 02:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Simply do not add the section to the article again. You cannot use your own personal calculations for Wikipedia. There is no need to report on an annual pollution report on this project. If you add it without a consensus again, you may be blocked for edit warring.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I had already abandoned to post my personal calculations, and please note that the density of 89.5 micrograms and that of 70-100 for last ten years are all OFFICIAL and I had already posted the doubtless reliable links from Beijing Environmental Protection Bureau. There is also some qualitative description such us "often bad, especially winter", how can you see these are"reliably sourced"?BeijingCup (talk) 06:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
simply do not post the content again until there is someone established here who agrees with your proposed changes.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm NOT posting the content again(though I wouldn't break the Three-revert rule as I would change my post everytime), but you didn't answer my question in the last post at all. Instead, you just use the word "simply" to block me. I'm wondering if there will be other editor visit this talk. I can hardly accept your attitude, so if you refuse to give me a persuasive reply, I may lose some respect to the wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeijingCup (talk • contribs) 07:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
You don't get out of WP:3RR by slightly changing what you added each time. And the article just does not need this extra paragraph to attempt to debunk the previous statement that the air quality has been poor.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)\
I didn't just slighty change it but completely give up the data based on my personal calculation. I have emphasized that I was just to correct the wrong data but not to debunk any statement（exactly on the opposite, on the last post I said the air quality "continue to deteriorate", "changeable, and often bad"), you are not reading what I said. By the way, it will be you to first break the 3RR(if you are not the official editor), the wiki never suggested editor to remove other's post rudely. Please note again that the density of 89.5 micrograms and that of 70-100 for last ten years are all OFFICIAL and I had already posted the doubtless reliable links from Beijing Environmental Protection Bureau, you have no right to judge whether these sources are "needed", an average data is much worthy than that of the special chosen bad hours(and even be misinterpreted). BeijingCup (talk) 15:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if you completely changed it. You are still attempting to restore content that another editor has removed. And I do not know if the websites that you are providing qualify as reliable souces under Wikipedia's rules as I cannot personally read Chinese. Not to mention that this website seems to suggest that right now the air quality is "unhealthy". Your contributions do not belong on this page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:14, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
You said I'm attempting to restore content that you has removed, but in other word, you are doing the same things——remove content that I has posted. So if it's me to break the rules but not you, is it the correct understanding that it's because you have more permission or administration privilege? At least I tried to change my word to mee the requirement, while you were just removing them.
My English is poor so that I cannot understand what's your meaning by mentioning the right now air quality(for just one hours). Chinese resources have already been cited in this topic for many places, while there is one page for English: http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2014-01/03/content_17212783.htm that also mentioned the data of 89.5 micrograms per cubic meter, shall I use it? BeijingCup (talk) 17:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
You added the content first. It was removed. At that point you should not have put it back in any form and began the discussion here to advocate for its inclusion. It does not matter if you changed anything. You were still edit warring. And we do not need to give such exact measurements. It is not relevant for a general article.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but the rule says "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert.", so why it was not you who did the first reversion? You undid my actions.I just added the content and that may not be called an "undo". BeijingCup (talk) 17:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Your constant re-insertions of the contested content, despite it being in a new form subsequent times, still counts as undoing another editor's actions. But this is not relevant. Read WP:BRD: you made a bold edit to add the information, I reverted you, that means a discussion begins instead of you trying to add the same information back, but in a slightly different way.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

OK. But if both you and me do not invite other person to join the discussion, there won't be a consensus version. Therefore, could you read the page for English: http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2014-01/03/content_17212783.htm or invite some volunteers that can read Chinese and then re-evaluate my post? BeijingCup (talk) 03:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Another editor addressed your concerns in a manner that is allowed.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Does it mean that it is my responsibility(but not yours) to invite another editor to join the discussion? BeijingCup (talk) 03:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
You can request such a third person at WP:3O.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request:
@Ryulong and BeijingCup: Reading the above discussion and if I understand it correctly, I agree that para should be removed. Though there seems to be weakly sourced content there I don't see how a specific instance warrants adding "changeable" to the first para. This seems like original research to me and I don't feel that specific instance example warrants inclusion here too. What is needed is valid reliable sources specifically refuting the statement, "Beijing air quality is often poor...". Hope this helps and watching this page, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern. I wonder why you just mentioned a single word. The whole section should not have been removed just for the dispute of a single word. The other parts of my post has been reliably resourced, including the annual(and decade) mean value and the trend of air quaility in last 14 years (ex. http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2014-01/03/content_17212783.htm ).

The conclusion of "changeable" can also be drawed from one website of Chinese http://bjwb.bjd.com.cn/html/2014-01/02/content_139456.htm which I posted before, where the number of good days (daily mean value, moderate for US standard) was published. Although it was not a strong evidence compared with the calculation of hourly mean. Though won't be accepted as an evidence, I would also like to show you my personal research as I'm a Beijinger: Among 2013, the daily highest visibility reached above 50 km in about 60 days , above 80 km in about 24 days, above 100 km in about 10 days. We have north wind normally once three days at winter, which can quickly reduce the air pollution index in 1-2 hours (then usually mentained for 1-2 days) as Beijing located very near the little pollution area of Mongolia Plateau. In Feb 28, 2013 and Jan 18, 2014, I was surprised to saw that a clear bound over the sky seperating it into 2 parts with yellow color and blue color, with the air quality index jumped up and down in several hours.

Please attentioned that my post was NOT for refuting the statement "Beijing air quality is often poor...".On the cantrary, it was quite neccessary for describing how poor it was exactly and showing us the trend in last 14 years（released first but detoriorated again in recent 4 years). BeijingCup (talk) 08:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Have you thought about creating a separate article on Beijing air quality? You could then present more of the details found in the references.--Nowa (talk) 10:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Does it really deserve a main topic? Anyway a good advice despite my poor English. BeijingCup (talk) 10:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Nowa, do not encourage this. BeijingCup, you've been told that your proposed addition does not work here. Xinhua and Chinese media, which have very little freedom of the press, can say one thing about air quality, while we have evidence of the contrary. It is not necessary to provide an "annual report" or anything beyond what the article already says about the quality of the air.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Shall I remind you to stand neutral ? There are even no contradiction at all. Yes, Chinadaily gives an average value of 89.5 from BJEPB, but please tell me what it cantrary to? Do you consider it too low? You have no idea of what this value mean at all for you are not really concerned about Beijing's air quality. You are just a volunteer of Wikipedia with too much confidence to edit every page you see regardless of the lack of your knowledge. The title of the website I sited said "Beijing sees LITTLE improvement in air quality in 2013", which is a negative evaluation and didn't contradict to anything "you" know. What I have posted was not just an annual report, it also included the one-decade trend of the air quality. I insist that it was quite neccessary for describing how poor the air quality was precisely and showing us the trend in last 14 years（released first but detoriorated again in recent 4 years). BeijingCup (talk) 13:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
There's just no need to expand or add onto what's here if it's nothing new.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Please show me what is "of the contrary" with my post by give an assertion. You don't have to show the evidence, BeijingCup (talk) 13:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
You got your third opinion. I'm done discussing this.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for my poor reading comprehension if you were referring the article rather than the talk page, I think "no need" should be an professional advice or from an amatuer: It's not suitable for a volunteer of Wikipedia to involved in such a deep discussion. You volunteers have little chance to have common interests with me "by coincidence". Previous third opinion was from a outsider Ugog Nizdast who said "I just participated there via WP:3O so my involvement in minimal", I will further request opinions from amatuers and one day I may bold again for a much better edition. BeijingCup (talk) 14:09, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Peking in table

The table on the right side has three names for this city: Beijing, 北京市 and smaller font size "Peking". I don't understand why "Peking" is listed there too. Mentioning the old transcription in the introduction is enough. Look at articles like Inner Mongolia. Every spelling is official. Beijing is Pinyin, 北京市 are the Chinese characters and "Peking" has no status at all. It should be removed from that table. If you want to list older transcriptions, you should add them to Nanjing and many other cities as well. --2.245.115.194 (talk) 22:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I maintain that Peking should be in this table. First, Peking is a historical English name of this city. It is still used even today - Peking University, Peking Restaurant... Second, Chinese is not just used in mainland.--Qijiang ok (talk) 21:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Historical names of Beijing? Please add Khanbaliq/Dadu, Youzhou, Beiping/Peip'ing and many other names as well. They already have own articles. Why do you insist on using the old spelling with horrible pronunciation? Your account name is even in pinyin. --2.245.209.202 (talk) 20:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't use official names for articles, it uses common names. Like it or not, Peking is still a commonly used name for Beijing within the English speaking world an so should be represented within the article. Rincewind42 (talk) 14:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Pinyin is a disaster

Jin 晋国 and Jin 金国。 They are Romanized in the same form. We'd better make a distinction in any mention of them. That is, Later Jin or Jurchen Jin.--Qijiang ok (talk) 21:18, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Gate and moat

Someone please check to see whether it is worth adding [1] to this article.-.@Photnart. (talk) 21:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC).

Religion section

The developing religion section was removed by Curtisen who claims "It gives undue weight to ... Christianity in the article, especially since Christians only constitute 0.78% of the city's population." I've restored this developing section for the following reasons. (1) The previous religion section was woefully inadequate in content. So restoration is most definitely a step backwards. (2) The statistic that Christians constitute 0.78% almost certainly undercounts the Christian population because it does not take into account Christian growth in recent years, expatriates and adherents of underground churches. Note, that the Beijing Subway extends operating hours on Christmas eve to serve those attending Christmas mass. (3) The number of Christians today is not indicative of the influence and impact of Christianity and missionaries on the city. As the restored section notes, many of the city's most important schools and hospitals were founded by Christian missionaries. Curtisen proposes moving the material to another article but does not do so. The creation of new articles usually grows organically from a section in broader category article. The city of Beijing is richly endowed with religious institutions and much more content will be added to describe the city's Buddhist and other temples. ContinentalAve (talk) 03:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Restoring better phrasing in lede

This had previously been emended per an editor who objected that "Peking" was not a "former" usage. In fact, it was formerly officially Peking (too major to omit from the lede); it no longer is anywhere in the world (too major to omit from the lede but too fraught to go into detail above the #Name section). Postal Romanization isn't actually a thing anymore and we shouldn't just present it as an equally valid alternative. There may be idiosyncratic foreigners who like to reference it as Cambaluc but that doesn't change the COMMON ENGLISH practice. People still eat Peking duck and fly into PEK but the place is now Beijing. — LlywelynII 22:47, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, I remember reading about Peking University. So when did they change the name? I was just reading a newspaper article (sort of an obituary) about a newspaper editor who went to Peking when it was still Peking.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Beijing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Education

I think the article should have a section on Education in Beijing. - JesseW900 (talk) 06:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree, most cities have a section on Education, and there used to be one here as well Huaiping (talk) 21:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree as well -- Beijing is the educational center for China, so it definitely needs a page... Will start one sometime soon and people can add on. Picrazy2 (talk) 21:44, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Cuisine

I think there should be a subsection in the culture section for cuisine. Picrazy2 (talk) 03:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Separate Tourism Section

Perhaps it would be better to take "places of interest" out from the culture section (or perhaps shorten it significantly) and add an entire section for tourism? Beijing's Baidu page is a good example to follow. Picrazy2 (talk) 03:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Society section

I think we could move the contents of the media section into a society section with media as a subsection (media is currently a short section anyway) -- then we could also add healthcare and perhaps other subsections. Picrazy2 (talk) 03:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Missing pronounciation

What is the correct English pronounciation of the name of this city? Wicki (talk) 21:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Good point. Beijing is widely mispronounced as bay-zhing whereas the correct pronunciation is bay-dzhing. (sound clip). --Macrakis (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
"Bay-dzhing" would be [beɪˈdʒɪŋ]; however, the correct pronunciation in Standard Chinese, as in the sound clip, is [pèi̯.tɕíŋ], as noted in the infobox. Standard Chinese (pinyin) b is not pronounced like b in bay, nor like p in pay, but like p in spay. Granted, Wicki was asking for the English pronunciation, but since you, Macrakis, referred to the sound clip, which shows the Chinese pronunciation, I must point out that your description is misleading as the speaker obviously does not say "bay-dzhing". --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:34, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Eh, I won't say it's a bad point—although pronunciations are what Wiktionary is for—but I will ask fertheluvvagod that any future inclusion of the Chinese IPA go in the infobox and the English IPA go in the Name section and not the lede. Also, the English isn't "widely mispronounced"; it's English (well, borrowed French). It's a separate language and we use a separate register of sounds. [beɪˈdʒɪŋ] is still "wrong" if only the native name is considered correct. — LlywelynII 22:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree that neither English pronunciation is really incorrect, but [beɪˈdʒɪŋ] is the best English approximation of the Chinese pronunciation, while [beɪˈʒɪŋ] is a better approximation of the hypothetical word *beiring [pei̯.ɻiŋ]. — Eru·tuon 23:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

So what is the English pronunciation, written in English (not IPA, please)?173.91.88.197 (talk) 03:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Beijing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:28, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Beijing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Beijing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Beijing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:56, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Peking

Right at the start, the article says that Beijing was "formerly Romanized as Peking." This is incorrect. Peking (in English) and Pékin (in French) are not Romanizations of Beijing: they are exonyms. As pointed out in the article's Etymology section, this spelling is based on Southern Chinese pronunciation. "Peking" is not and never was a romanization of "Beijing": nobody was or could be that inept! Peking is an exonym in that it was used by English speakers and was not intended to provide an accurate (or even an inaccurate) representation of the name of the Chinese capital as pronounced by its inhabitants. The word "China" is an exonym for Chongguo: would you describe it as a "Romanization"? I suggest that this be changed to "formerly known as Peking." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.190.66.23 (talk) 06:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Technically, I believe that's the spelling in the "Chinese postal romanization", which was a romanization of Southern Chinese. "Peking" may not be a romanization of "Beijing", but it is a romanization of "北京". "China", on the other hand, is probably a romanization of "秦", and not of "中国".
Justin Kunimune (talk) 12:30, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2018

Please change

|subdivision_name = People's Republic of China

to

|subdivision_name =  China

because MOS:INFOBOXFLAG states: Human geographic articles – for example settlements and administrative subdivisions – may have flags of the country and first-level administrative subdivision in infoboxes. This sentence has apparently justified the use of the Chinese flag. 123.161.169.67 (talk) 10:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done Waddie96 (talk) 10:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 Not done Obvious WP:QUACK. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 14:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Religion categories

The pie chart in section Beijing#Religion has the majority labelled "Chinese religion or not religious and atheists". This makes no sense, not least because there is no obvious distinction to be made between "or" and "and" - both imply that the categories on either side are both included. I would just delete the "and atheists", since this can only effectively refer to people with no religion. (Buddhism is in at least some sense an "atheist" religion, since it does not have the concept of an all-supervising supreme 'god'.) But these link to three different articles: Chinese folk religion, Irreligion in China, and State atheism. Are these really helping anything? Please comment. Imaginatorium (talk) 07:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Beiping as a standalone article

I don't think Beiping, the name of Beijing between 1928-1945, deserves to be a standalone article.--20:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Source for the map of Beijing Districts

I am looking for the source of the map of the Beijing districts. The citations in the chart appear to not be working anymore, and the map image does not have the same interface as the other images when you click on them. I am looking for the source myself, but also interested in the practices and citing of maps on Wiki. Not a regular editor, so apologies for any missteps. --Sasbrown (talk) 16:52, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

we

dddfd — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.63.125.8 (talk) 22:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

"Pékin" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Pékin. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 18#Pékin until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 18:00, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

"Beijing!" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Beijing!. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 26#Beijing! until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 14:57, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

"Peip'ing" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Peip'ing. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 27#Peip'ing until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 12:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

"Northern Peace" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Northern Peace. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 27#Northern Peace until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 12:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

"Beijingnese" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Beijingnese. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 27#Beijingnese until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 12:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

new record high

a rumor swirling around twitter says that Beijing, China 25.6 °C (78.1 °F) recorded on February 21, 2021. i cant find a non-Twitter news source .... doesnt mean its wrong, since there could be a language barrier .... but I wanted to preempt this in case anyone puts it in with no new link (as we often do) and we wonder where its all coming from. i asked Maxcrc, one of the people who has done the most work for us at compiling climate statistics and especially temperature statistics, though there may be others already on the case. thanks, —Soap— 20:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dy1001.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 May 2019 and 2 July 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Stella0716.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Adding Beijing Intangible Cultural Heritages under culture subsection

Adding Beijing Intangible Cultural Heritages acknowledged by the UN and/or the Beijing Municipal Bureau of Culture and Tourism. Overall summary and short descriptions about influential cultural heritages will be provided.--Mr.goudan (talk) 00:55, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Beijing/Archive_4&oldid=1210776884"