Talk:Nanshi District, Baoding

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus here is that this is not the primary topic for the term "Nanshi District"; the one in Shanghai is probably a better contender, if any. The clause at WP:AT, "Wikipedia describes current usage", I think means what do people mostly use the term for now, not what current thing uses the term. In other words, this clause does not mean we generally favor contemporary subjects over historical ones. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nanshi District, Baoding → Nanshi District — The reason why this district title is not at "Nanshi District" at the moment is because there once was a Nanshi District of Shanghai, but as stated at WP:AT, current usage takes priority over former usage. The Chinese and Japanese Wikipedias (zh:南市区, and ja:南市区, respectively) seem to agree with this assessment. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 05:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose On Google books, there are 378 hits for the Shanghai district, including references in up-to-date guidebooks. There are only 23 hits for the district in Baoding, and all except one of these is a company or institutional address. Kauffner (talk) 10:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moot issue, because SH is on many orders of magnitude better known than Baoding. WP:AT describes current usage. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 16:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. A most peculiar argument. Andrewa (talk) 18:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The old Nanshi District, Shanghai is extremely significant historically. It is far more notable than Nanshi District, Baoding, which is a stub and in dire danger of staying one until long after we have many more articles on various Nanshi districts, as there are likely to be many more areas worthy of articles and best described as Nanshi District but relatively unknown outside of China. So the undisambiguated name should remain a redirect to the DAB at Nanshi. Andrewa (talk) 05:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any place that does not have the term "区" is not a district, period. It is quite clear that you don't know enough, at all about the Chinese language or China. But that is beside the point. The history of pre-1949 Shanghai is just as, if not more, well-known to Chinese on both sides of the strait as it is to the outside world. Yet the ZH-Wiki gives the DAB to the SH former district, which is an actual article. As a simple Google Search for the former Nanshi District (上海南市区) and current one (保定南市区) in Chinese gives 6.3 million and 2.7 million results, respectively, the editors on ZH-Wiki have clearly brushed away historical usage and have stuck to "current usage" policy at WP:AT. It makes little sense how a district that was abolished even before WP was created would be able to prevent an existing one to hold the primary title.

And had I known about CSD G6 (making way for move), I would have applied it immediately here. Pengyanan/NeoJay have already done enough DAB damage, with his poor judgment, that I have to clean up after him occasionally. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 12:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being willing to clean up, but I do hope you are discussing such changes and getting consensus rather than doing it unilaterally. I find the whole tenor of that last post, and of this move request generally, rather worrying.

Frankly, I think you have failed to even attempt to address the arguments.

Please refrain from personal attacks, for several reasons. Of course, it's against policy, but more important there are very good reasons for this policy. For example, it tends to give the impression that you have no better argument to put. This may be true but it's best if this assessment is based on the relevant arguments, rather than on the question of whether I or the other editor you mention are entitled to work on articles and participate in discussions.

I'd suggest that you read or re-read WP:AGF and WP:OWN as well.

Feel free to nominate articles for G6 speedy deletion where you feel it is warranted, but please do so only when the article meets the criteria. In this case it could easily have succeeded IMO, but that would have been in error, as it's obviously not uncontroversial. Andrewa (talk) 17:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.