Jump to content

Talk:Leased Territory of Guangzhouwan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Guangzhouwan)

[Untitled]

[edit]

The name of the territory had never been spelt Guangzhouwan throughout its existence. It was handed back to China decades before Pinyin was introduced. Qaka 19:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's becoming standard practice in the English language to transliterate Chinese names in Pinyin, even for people and places who were around before Pinyin was developed. See for example Empress Dowager Cixi (instead of Tz'u Hsi). --Cam 20:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cixi herself did not have any English names. This is not the case for documents, people, entities, etc., that had official names in English before the introduction of Pinyin. We don't change the spelling of the name of a person who died before a spelling reform. Qaka 21:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see what you mean (although a French territory probably didn't have an official English name). Maybe the French name would be appropriate unless there is a more common English alternative out there. --Cam 07:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kwang-Chou-Wan is much more common in English than Guangzhouwan. The former is also spelt as Kwangchowan and Kwangchowwan. Qaka 09:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
English articles from that time would probably use some variant of Kwangchowan. However, are you aware of a lot of present English literature that uses Kwangchowan? Mlewan 07:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Present literature neither calls it Guangzhouwan. Qaka 21:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When I wrote the original article for this, it was under "Kwang-Chou-Wan" bbut was moved to this title some time later. I personally think returning to the original title would be the best result. --Roisterer 00:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My question was not primarily what present English literature uses. It was if you have examples that use non-pinyin spelling. If so, please list them.
There is a big advantage with the pinyin spelling and that is that it is unique. If we use non-pinyin we and up with all the variants Kwangchowan, Kwangchowwan, Kwang-Chou-Wan, Kouang-Tchéou-Wan and we have to make up our minds which one is slightly more common than the others. Mlewan 04:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If we do stick with the pinyin, though, we have to choose between the variants Guangzhouwan and Guangzhou Wan. I think the latter may be the technically correct one (minus diacritics of course) since you're supposed to separate the geographic feature-word from the name, e.g. Maxie He and not Maxiehe. --Cam 05:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that almost nobody calls it Guangzhouwan or Guangzhou Wan except on Wikipedia. This name never exists ever since Pinyin was invented. Kwang-Chou-Wan and the like exist only before Pinyin was invented. We don't respell names of people after spelling reforms. To change topographical names as a result of spelling reforms orders or directives are normally issued by governments. Qaka 06:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True. That is a problem, but is it a big problem? I do not think so. The place is in China. The Chinese call it 广州湾 which using standard contemporary (pinyin) transcription is Guangzhouwan. All the logic is there. I cannot find any compelling argument for any of the alternatives, French or English, even if it would solve the "respelling" issue. Unless, of course, you can actually list a lot of contemporary literature which uses one and only one of the alternatives. Mlewan 08:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it had never had an English name, the usual and acceptable way is to transcript its name by Pinyin. Yet the former French territory in question did have an English name, and had never been known in English by Pinyin. By the way, it had never been called 广州湾 throughout its existence. It was 廣州灣. Qaka 10:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One more point to note, we don't rewrite history. Qaka 13:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Second World War

[edit]

The section dealing with the second world war is good. It seems to be mainly accurate, although there is one issue which doesn't quite tie up. French Indo-China was under Vichy French control. I read once that Kwangchowan was treated by the French as an outier of Indo-China. How come that Kwangchowan ended under the control of the Free French after 1940? Something doesn't quite add up. I do know that the Vichy French administration handed Kwangchowan to the pro-Japanese Chinese puppet government in 1943. But something doesn't quite tie up here regarding the period between 1940 and 1943. The Free French were at war with the Japanese. If Kwangchowan had been under the control of the Free French, would the Japanese have just stood back and ignored it, and only intervened to enforce the new treaty between Vichy France and the Chinese puppet government in 1943? This may well all be correct but I'd like to hear a few more opinions on the matter. David Tombe (talk) 17:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's described as an escape route to Free China. But if you had already got as far a Kwangchowan, then according to this article, you'd already be in Free France and you wouldn't need to go on to Free China. I can't imagine that the Japanese didn't occupy that particular stretch of the Chinese coast, and if they did, and you got to unoccupied Free Kwangchowan, then would you have wanted to go through another gauntlet to get to Free China?
This all needs to be much better explained. David Tombe (talk) 17:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a web link which would tend to back up the existing article. It's nevertheless a surprising fact, bearing in mind that Free France declared war on Japan after Pearl Harbour. I have also just seen the map of Japanese occupied China, and Kwanchowan is not beside an occupied zone. Here is the web link, [1]. The article is clearly fine as it is. David Tombe (talk) 20:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surface ??

[edit]

See that : http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/geo_0003-4010_1925_num_34_187_8102

Very interesting book about the econimic situation of Kwang Tchou Wan and we learn too his surface is 100 000 km², this figure is right no ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Picaballo (talk • contribs) 21:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kwangchowwan

[edit]

This variant spelling, with its double 'w', already noted up above, is used by the Collins Atlas of Military History (2006), pp. 130, 131.
Varlaam (talk) 14:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Guangzhouwan. 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) 21:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Leased_Territory_of_Guangzhouwan&oldid=1195004375"