Jump to content

Talk:National priority protected site

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The title

[edit]

I know "Major Site to Be Protected for Its Historical and Cultural Value at the National Level" sounds bad, I don't like it either. But that is the official name, defined by the English versions of the Law of the People's Republic of China on Protection of Cultural Relics and Regulation for the Implementation of the Law of the People's Republic of China on Protection of Cultural Relics. I Googled a lot for that title, I can't find a phrase more proper or more common. It may sound like some kind of Chinglish, but it doesn't matter considering it is a very Chinese style and local phrase. If the title changes to something like "Important Site to Be Protected for Its Historical and Cultural Value at the National Level", which only replaced "Major" by "Important" and which is not official, not common, not indexed by Google or used by any article, like something mixed by the official name and editors' own inspiration, it'll be WP:OR and doesn't fit WP:TITLE and WP:ON. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 12:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does sound bad... Is it used as a proper noun in English?
  • major historical and cultural sites protected at the national level
  • major sites to be protected for their historical and cultural value at the national level
  • major site protected for its historical and cultural value at the national level
  • major sites protected for their historical and cultural value at the national level
These are the variations I've found skimming through the first given link. --Cold Season (talk) 14:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, so that is "major" rather than "important". The second one from Art 3 is the first occurrence and most definitive one. The forth phrase omits "to be". The third phrase is the singular form of the forth one. The only name actually differs from the others is the first one, which is mentioned as an alternative name in the beginning of our article. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 16:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You know, even in Chinese, especially for Chinese speaking people outside the mainland, "全国重点文物保护单位", literally "National Key Cultural Relic Protected Unit", is a little weird, grammatically or verbally. "全国重点保护文物" (literally "National Key Protected Cultural Relic") or "全国重点保护文物单位" (literally "National Key Protected Cultural Relic Unit") may be grammatically better. So no need to worry if the English translation is weird: the original Chinese word itself is weird, and it's faithful to pass the weirdness to the English translation. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 05:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An important question is, given that this is English Wikipedia, does this program of protected sites have an official English language website? Because this title Major Site to Be Protected for Its Historical and Cultural Value at the National Level is just simply atrociously and laughably translated. It gives one a headache just by reading it. Is this the actual English title? There should be an official website or portal right? An above user mentioned that there are several variations found from one of the links above. Thus I changed the title a bit, removed the redundant "to be", which unfortunately only adds comedic value to this, and the name "major" is still in it.--Balthazarduju (talk) 06:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think "Major Historical and Cultural Sites Protected at the National Level" is the most forward of all the above mentioned titles. That's probably the only title of the above mentioned that doesn't sound slightly comical, and it is straight to the point.--Balthazarduju (talk) 06:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK I'm moving it to "Major Historical and Cultural Site Protected at the National Level". --Tomchen1989 (talk) 09:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does the short name "Site Protected at the National Level" sound comical? Someone created {{National Heritage Sites in China}} along with these WP:LIST articles, they should be renamed to "List of ??? in Beijing" per WP:LISTNAME, and should also be properly categorized into a Category with a proper name like "Category:Sites Protected at the National Level". But I'm not sure if "List of Site Protected at the National Level in Beijing" is OK, maybe "Cultural Site Protected at the National Level"?. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 09:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think "List of Site Protected at the National Level in Beijing" sounds okay. Maybe "List of Historical and Cultural Sites Protected at the National Level in Beijing" or List of Nationally Protected Historical and Cultural Sites in Beijing" if a more elaborate title is desired.--Balthazarduju (talk) 09:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In The Atlas of Chinese Cultural Relics (Zhejiang) (中国文物地图集.浙江分册. ISBN 978-7-5010-2395-0), "全国重点文物保护单位" is translated as Cultural Heritage Sites under State-level Protection.--zh:User:Zhangzhugang (:zh:talk)Zhangzhugang (talk) 11:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all, having discovered this major, majorly important article I made a few lists based primarily on those in German by User:Reiner Stoppok; obviously best of all would be to work from the source lists, but there's a question of time; as for naming, succinct might be good if there's no standard English translation - but the above "Cultural Heritage Sites under State-level Protection" does seem both apt and less of a mouthful than some, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 11:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Heritage site" may be better and shorter than "cultural heritage site". If really need one where we consider less about fidelity but more about shortness and smoothness, "National Heritage Site" can be used. So, for those list articles (as well as the template) you created, are you ready to rename? Obviously they'd better be "List of xxx in Beijing" without any parentheses, the problem is just what the "xxx" should be. I think "List of Historical and Cultural Sites Protected at the National Level in Beijing" would be good, what you think? --Tomchen1989 (talk) 14:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Major Historical and Cultural Site Protected at the National Level. 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) 15:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

[edit]

I see nothing here which indicates that this subject passes WP:GNG nor have I been able to locate the necessary in-depth coverage in independent sources elsewhere. Any help which could be offered in this regard would be greatly appreciated. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:National_priority_protected_site&oldid=1259464751"