Jump to content

Talk:Guangzhou/Archive 3

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

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)

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. older ≠ wiser 23:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Agree. Look at Mumbai. It's not Mumbai (Bombay). --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 00:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
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 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
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 talk ♦ contribs 00:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
For synonyms under contention listed simultaneously in title, see Cantonese (Yue).Melop (talk) 01:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
@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? older ≠ wiser 00:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
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 talk ♦ contribs 00:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 talk ♦ contribs 01:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
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 talk ♦ contribs 00:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I forgot "Gwong Zau" is the local language (Cantonese) name in Romanization.— ASDFGH =] talk? 00:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
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 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
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 talk ♦ contribs 01:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

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 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the smaller font denotes the secondary, not primary name. Therefore, the article is correctly named Guangzhou. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 02:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. Please give reference to your claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melop (talk • contribs) 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?
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 talk ♦ contribs 03:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
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 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
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)

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

But is does not justified "Canton (Guangzhou)." — ASDFGH =] talk? 03:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
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 talk ♦ contribs 03:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
"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)
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 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
By the way I don't see "Roma (Rome)," "Napoli(Naples)," nor "Bombay (Mumbai)."— ASDFGH =] talk? 03:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
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 (talk • contribs) 03:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
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 (talk • contribs) 04:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
"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)
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 (talk • contribs) 05:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
"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 (talk • contribs) 05:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
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 (talk • contribs) 06:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
More source on Guangzhou for its Official English name— ASDFGH =] talk? 04:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
  • 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 (talk • contribs) 05:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
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 (talk • contribs) 06:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay but it does not really matter read Wikipedia:No original research find real sources first. — ASDFGH =] talk? 06:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
See WP:NOR. You still have provided no sources. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 06:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
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 (talk • contribs) 06:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
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 talk ♦ contribs 06:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
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 talk ♦ contribs 06:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
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)

ASDFGH had not cited correct etymology for the Canton cities in the US. For example Canton (town), New_York : "Canton is a town in St. Lawrence County, New York, USA. The population was 10,334 at the 2000 census.[1] The town contains two villages: one also named Canton, the other named *Rensselaer Falls. Canton is located near the center of the county. The town is named after Canton in China. " ; Canton, Ohio : "Bezaleel Wells, the surveyor who divided the land of the town, named it after Canton, China. The name was a memorial to a trader named John O'Donnell, whom Wells admired. O'Donnell had named his Maryland plantation after the Chinese city, as he had been the first person to transport goods from there to Baltimore." . As a matter of fact, canton (from Latin canthus) is rarely used as a geographical division in English speaking countries. Please check these US. names on their official website for etymology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melop (talk • contribs) 05:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
"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)
ADSFGH had confused the concept of romanization and transliteration. Given that Chinese are not recorded in an alphabetical language, transliteration can never be performed. Cantão(masculine in gender) is romanized from 廣東 according to the Cantonese pronunciation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melop (talk • contribs) 05:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Requesting for protection

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

It's one user. I've reported him for edit warring. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 01:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

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 (talk • contribs) 06:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
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 (talk • contribs) 06:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
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 talk ♦ contribs 07:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melop (talk • contribs) 00:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

And the following one was published in 2008: 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

Paperback: 284 pages Publisher: Hong Kong University Press (1 Feb 2008) Language English ISBN-10: 9622098282 ISBN-13: 978-9622098282 Product Dimensions: 22.6 x 15.4 x 2.8 cm Average Customer Review: No customer reviews yet. Be the first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melop (talk • contribs) 00:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

PLEASE REFER TO REFERENCE 3 : http://books.google.ca/books?id=D37ijXG-FykC&pg=PP11&lpg=PP11&dq=guangzhou+china+romanization&source=bl&ots=OdXZcEKYlG&sig=4QCtFsuxQ5vDjL4bQ8421p7_Z9g&hl=en&ei=mKC7Som9MIqKMaGooLcO&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=35#v=onepage&q=guangzhou%20china%20romanization&f=false .

This book was published in 2007 (2 years from now, if Nei1E has to argued that it's "old source"). In the page I showed above reads: "The names of the treaties, which are especially significant for Hong Kong's history, are listed according to contemporary standards (for example, the Treaty of Nanking), with pinyin (Nanjing) in the index. With the exception of Canton as it was written in colonial documents and the Hong Kong press and until very recently would have been known to English-speaking Chinese." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melop (talk • contribs) 00:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

No, the books are about the past history of Guangzhou, when it was called Canton. The article lists what is the current name. It's like insisting the province of Ontario, Canada be called Upper Canada because books about the history of Canada refer to it as "Upper Canada". --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 05:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for proving my point with that source BTW. "...the cities known today as Beijing and Guangzhou..." --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 06:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
The publication dates of these sources are recent. If these authors retain such usage, it means Canton is a current usage. This source spells Beijing, Nanjing using Pinyin, but use Canton for Guangzhou. It has clearly explained the necessity of retaining its usage. With the exception of Canton as it was written in colonial documents and the Hong Kong press and until very recently would have been known to English-speaking Chinese. Be mindful of the fact that the official language of Hongkong includes English, which is not an official language of other parts of China. Therefore, English usage in Hongkong, at least in recent publications like the one listed, retains such tradition. Nei1N proved to confuse users by a false analogy: Upper Canada is a political body existed during 26 December 1791 to 10 February 1841, which differs from Canton, which is neither a political body per se nor has it ceased to exist. Nei1N had also ignored the fact that Upper Canada has its dedicated wikipedia article. Nei1N, although being advised multiple times to explicitly cite wikipedia policy regarding "only official names instead of widely used names can appear in title", he continued to mislead readers by claiming "only the official name can be used". Since Nei1N is opinionated and blatantly rejecting a current English usage being listed in the entry's title of the English wikipedia, he has violated the neutral point of view policy of wikipedia and is dimly looked upon by its users. His adminship

should thus be called into question. Melop (talk) 06:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, no. If a book published today had the title of "History of Peking" we would not change the article name to Peking or Peking (Beijing). I have asked you to point to other articles that follow your proposed naming convention - you have provided none. I have not violated any policy as all I'm doing is insisting on relevant references (which other editors and myself have provided in favour of Guangzhou). Lastly, I'm not an admin and the only user who looks dimly upon me is you (and probably vandals but that doesn't apply here). --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 13:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Nei1N had again used another false analogy: the book's title is "History of Hong Kong", not "History of Canton". The fact that names in mainland China are all spelled with Pinyin in this source EXCEPT Canton highlights an exception. This website http://www.planetware.com/china/canton-guangzhou-chn-gd-c.htm lists Canton in its title. Nevertheless, it is obviously not "old" because it acknowledges the Pinyin name of Canton in its URL, as well as the names for Sun Yat-sen (Sun Zhongshan) and Sun Yat-sen University (Zhongshan Daxue). Nei1N et al. failed to explicit any wikipedia policy regarding the rigid requirement for only one name to be listed in title , while ignoring the written wikipedia policy that exceptions can be made according to the editor's discretion. Therefore, Nei1N et al. are expressing their own opinions as wikipedia policy. Also refer to this source: http://books.google.com/books?id=NK23N3tlv68C&pg=PA24&dq=Canton+China&lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=1999&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=2009&as_brr=0#v=onepage&q=Canton&f=false ; http://books.google.com/books?id=NK23N3tlv68C&pg=PA24&dq=Canton+China&lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=1999&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=2009&as_brr=0#v=onepage&q=Canton%20China&f=false. The authors listed Guangzhou in the index as Canton (Guangzhou) - the same style adopted by Melop for the wikipedia title. Please note carefully, that although in the main text, the author included statement like "formerly known to the westerners as Peking/Canton", the style for the title of these two cities is different. Only Beijing is listed instead of Peking in the title. The index, as suggested by the name of the book, is ranked alphabetically. Therefore, in this book, Canton is the primary name for the city considering the fact that it came before "Cars" in the index. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melop (talk • contribs) 02:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Nei1N et al. are also suggested to read this: http://books.google.com/books?id=DMy8ANLFJPoC&pg=PA105&dq=Canton+China+-%22history%22&lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=1999&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=2009&as_brr=0#v=onepage&q=Canton&f=false , which, was published in 2000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melop (talk • contribs) 02:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Also see Microsoft Encarta Dictionary: http://books.google.com/books?id=ICylixhKK4QC&pg=PA208&dq=Canton+China+-%22history%22&lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=1999&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=2009&as_brr=0#v=onepage&q=Canton&f=false . Definition for Canton is: = Guangzhou. While definitions for Peking and Bombay are former name for Beijing and former name for Mumbai, suggesting that Canton is EQUIVALENT with Guangzhou, in the English language. Canton and Guangzhou are used side-by-side in the definition of Cantonese and Canton ware, in the form of Canton (Guangzhou) or Guangzhou (Canton). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melop (talk • contribs) 03:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
And I can easily provide sources that primarily use Guangzhou with little or no mention of Canton: [9], [10], [11]. Even the official site of the city uses Guangzhou: [12]. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 04:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Melop is aware of this, due to the fact that he is from Canton and has studied this problem by reading available literatures & surveying people from Canton himself, and thus is likely to be more competent to judge the title of this entry. The fact that the above recent sources treating Canton differently than they do to names such as Peking and Bombay suggests that this constitute an exception, which deserves seriously consideration. The sources which you (will) cite, are resulted from, ironically, unfamiliarity with these authors' own mother tongue's lexicon, or, as Nei1N et al., unduely interpreting a recent convention of romanization as rigid laws. The Chinese government's spelling system does not have any power over established foreign proper nouns. Just as Bok Choi, Ketchup etc. must not be spelled as Baicai & Qiezhi. Many other wikipedia language versions retaining the use of Canton(or its cognate in that language) show that such "limitation of using only the official name only" is purely imaginative. Certain wikipedia versions, such as the German one, adopts "Guangzhou" despite the fact that the general consulate of German at Canton continues the usage of "Kanton"(http://www.kanton.diplo.de/Vertretung/kanton/zh/Startseite.html). This is a glaring mistake made by the editors of that language version by overinterpretation. From melop's experience, U.S. custom in Aug. 2009 continued to accept "Canton, China" being used equivalently as "Guangzhou, China" in the declaration form of personal fund. As a matter of fact, he was told by the officer that the officer, who immediately recalled the city's geographical proximity to Hongkong and related Canton to Cantonese, is familiar with the name "Canton" and had never heard of "Guangzhou" , which is printed on the visitor's passport from which the officer struggled to pronounce. A responsible editor must keep in mind that wikipedia is intended to serve the readers to the broadest spectrum, including English speakers who are unfamiliar with Pinyin Romanization of the city but not so to the established English proper name Canton, by explicitly displaying these in a side-by-side manner in the title. Many entries in wikipedia have to use "Canton" to clarify the etymology of the derivations. E.g. Canton Fair, Canton System, Canton porcelain, Canton Crepe, Cantonese (Yue), Canton Dialect and the Cantons in the U.S. named after Canton, China, which are otherwise confusing with only "Guangzhou" displayed. A large portion of the wikipedia entry for Canton deals with its history, which is conventionally written with the name "Canton" even in recent literature. By listing both names in the title can only increase clarity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melop (talk • contribs) 06:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Do you always refer to yourself in the third person? It's pretty strange. Anyways, it doesn't matter where you're from or what you've studied - see WP:NOR. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 13:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Nei1N again blatantly ignores how the consulate of US at Canton use "Canton" together with Guangzhou when it first appeared in the main text.

Throughout the past two centuries, dating back to the presidency of George Washington, Consulate Guangzhou (Canton), as America’s oldest diplomatic post in China and one of America’s oldest posts in the Far East, has played a pivotal role in promoting America’s relationship with China.

United States diplomatic presence in the Guangzhou area dates back to the founding years of the American republic. In 1784, the American merchant ship Empress of China reached what was then known as the port of Canton transporting ginseng to trade for Chinese black tea. The ship also carried on it Major Samuel Shaw, a 29-year old former Revolutionary War artillery officer, who served as the business agent for this first American trade effort to the “Middle Kingdom.” Shaw wrote to Secretary of Foreign Affairs John Jay, recommending that the young United States appoint a consul and vice consul to Canton. “Such officers,” he noted, “would have a degree of weight and respect which private adventurers cannot readily acquire, and which would enable them to render essential services to their countrymen.” Major Shaw was appointed the first American consul to China, although he would serve “with neither salary nor perquisites but with the confidence and esteem of the United States.”

At that time, Chinese authorities limited trade with the outside world to the port of Canton. All foreign traders were further restricted to living and working on factory compounds established on the banks of the Pearl River. American trade with China increased steadily throughout the early decades of the nineteenth century, although there were long periods during which the office of the U.S. Consul at Canton was unoccupied, and Americans serving at the consulate typically did not speak Chinese. In the wake of the Opium War between China and Great Britain, however, the Chinese government was compelled to expand trading opportunities beyond Canton. After the conclusion of the hostilities, the first U.S. formal mission to China, led by former Congressman Caleb Cushing, brokered the 1844 Treaty of Wangxia, an agreement which secured trading privileges for American merchants and opened new Chinese ports to American vessels. In addition to protecting the interests of United States merchants, American consuls enjoyed greater authority granted by Congress; in 1848 the Consulate was allowed to arraign U.S. citizens charged with offenses against the laws of China. The Canton consulate was burned down in 1856, but U.S. diplomats continued to support an expanding American presence in the region throughout the nineteenth century.

While life on Shamian was peaceful and stable, life off of the island for the Chinese was not. Increasing dissatisfaction with the Qing Dynasty led to protests and its eventual overthrow. The Second Sino-Japanese War precipitated the withdrawal of consulate personnel in Fuzhou(<- THIS IS IN PINYIN!!!) in 1934 and Canton in 1938. Subsequent to Japan’s surrender to the Allies, many U.S. Consulates in China reopened. For several months in 1949, after the Chinese Nationalist government moved its headquarters from Nanjing to Guangzhou, Shamian Island served as the site of the State Department’s “Office of Embassy.” As the civil war raged between Chinese Nationalist and Communist forces, the Nationalist government decided once again to move the seat of government to Chungking (Chongqing) and the Office of Embassy followed. Consulate Canton itself was closed in August, 1949, and diplomatic relations between the communist government of mainland China and the United States ceased shortly thereafter.
In the wake of the landmark visits of Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and President Richard Nixon, the United States and China formally re-established diplomatic relations on January 1, 1979. According to an agreement, each country was allowed to set up two consulates. The United States chose Shanghai and Guangzhou (China chose San Francisco and Houston). On August 31 1979, almost 30 years to the day that Consulate Canton had been closed, Vice-President Walter Mondale unveiled the seal for the new U.S. Consulate Guangzhou on the 11th floor of the Dongfang Hotel at 120 Liu Hua Road. Richard L. Williams was appointed the first Consul General in China since 1949. There have been 11 Consul Generals since then. In April 1990, the Consulate returned to Shamian Island when the current Consulate Tower, built on reclaimed land near the Pearl River, was completed at 1 Shamian South Street, next to the White Swan Hotel.
Also see legend of map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melop (talk • contribs) 06:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm done here. I've provided stronger sources to show why the article name should remain Guangzhou and you have not pointed out any articles that conform to the naming style you propose. Plus, no one else agrees with you. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 13:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
See the archive. This issue had been brought up earlier by several users already. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Guangzhou/Archive_1#Romanizations . The German WP also has a similar discussion on the issue http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Guangzhou#Artikelname_Kanton. Melop (talk) 04:42, 20 August 2010 (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): Yguo50. Peer reviewers: Yguo50.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Administration section changes

I kinda like the former version of Administration divisions section before the changes, but the new one is nonetheless, informative too. Can someone merge the two? [13] [14] --LLTimes (talk) 00:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll try and see what I can do, but do not expect great speed in accomplishing the task. --HXL 何献龙 00:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh thanks! not so much about speed but if someone is willing to try then it's all good :) --LLTimes (talk) 00:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
ok great. what I am aiming at (and I will most likely require the assistance of others) is the re-integration of the "total by section"（如：市区，郊区，等）as well as moving the map from the hideous position it is in atm. although there isn't really any way to combine colours and numbers; it "defeats the purpose" and is pointless. --HXL 何献龙 02:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Not necessary merging the two image to one but I was thinking of putting both images together on this article.--LLTimes (talk) 22:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
then that raises redundancy concerns... --HXL 何献龙 23:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Merging into mega-city

From the telegraph China to create largest mega city in the world with 42 million people. 24 Jan 2011:

China is planning to create the world's biggest mega city by merging nine cities to create a metropolis twice the size of Wales with a population of 42 million.
City planners in south China have laid out an ambitious plan to merge together the nine cities that lie around the Pearl River Delta. The "Turn The Pearl River Delta Into One" scheme will create a 16,000 sq mile urban area that is 26 times larger geographically than Greater London, or twice the size of Wales. The new mega-city will cover a large part of China's manufacturing heartland, stretching from Guangzhou to Shenzhen and including Foshan, Dongguan, Zhongshan, Zhuhai, Jiangmen, Huizhou and Zhaoqing. Together, they account for nearly a tenth of the Chinese economy. Over the next six years, around 150 major infrastructure projects will mesh the transport, energy, water and telecommunications networks of the nine cities together, at a cost of some 2 trillion yuan (£190 billion). An express rail line will also connect the hub with nearby Hong Kong.

Is this true? Yosh3000 (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, no. See here. What was actually proposed was functional integration of the said cities rather than a merge of administrative divisions. Kxx (talk | contribs) 08:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

First sentence of lede

"What was polemical about referring to it as a sub-provincial city? seems like relevant information" Yes, it is clearly relevant; more important facts are relevant, too. So that's not the issue here. For example, in the current version of the lede of Beijing, or any of the other three municipalities (Tianjin, Shanghai, Chongqing) we don't begin immediately with "is a direct-controlled municipality" or something similar. We refer to what those cities are best known for. Regardless of that, the fact that Guangzhou is the provincial capital of Guangdong is far more well-known than the fact that it is a sub-provincial city. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 05:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Then wouldn't it make more sense to re-order the first sentence rather than removing the info completely? Or did I miss something and you did do that? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Taking a side interpretation of your wording, I did not remove the info completely. It is still in the lede... Besides, many more city articles begin immediately for what the city is best known for, e.g. the Washington, DC article and those four municipality articles I gave you, though I had already altered the lede of the Chongqing article.
And BTW, I had originally mis-used "polemical". I am a high school student, and still have many things to learn, you know... --HXL's Roundtable and Record 05:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Ah, it does not. I misread your edit. The diff was kind of hard to read when it came up. Anyway, I've mostly reverted back to yours now that I see. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Remove lists of secondary schools and international schools?

I do not see that secondary schools and international schools quite meet the bar of importance for inclusion in this page. The international schools are certainly less notable. As for the secondary schools, there are just too many of them in the city to make any particular one stand out in a page about the city. These two lists also kinda attract indiscriminate addition of entries. They are of little interest to the general audience as well. Kxx (talk | contribs) 22:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

This list problem is common to many city articles, and Shanghai is perhaps the clear exception. We should purge these lists on the main articles and create "List of schools in X". I posted a similar thread on the talk for WikiProject China but no one responded. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 00:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the lists per WP:BOLD. Kxx (talk | contribs) 06:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Guangzhou/Archive_3&oldid=1217155740"