This is an archive of past discussions about Shishapangma. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
This image was uploaded to Wikipedia on December 20, 2004 by Jonathancamp who copied it from [1]. I listed it as a copyright violation on January 22, 2005. I contacted the image owner (using info off summitpost.org) about obtaining permission for use on Wikipedia. He responded on February 6, 2005, declining permission (see User:RedWolf/Image permissions). Thus, I removed the image from the article and will be deleting it from Wikipedia. RedWolf20:59, 6 February 2005 (UTC)
Admin help requested for move: p not b
Hello. This article has been through a few name changes lately before being put back to almost where it was. I've tried to change it from the present title back to the "original" Shishapangma, but I get a page already exists error. I believe it's because the Shishapangma --> Shishabangma redirect page now has more than one line of history, and therefore requires an administrator to usurp the page name. Could an admin put this article back to Shishapangma pending consensus for a name change? Thanks.--Wikimedes (talk) 01:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Requested move
Requested Move Discussion - Close as No Consensus
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: No Consensus The discussion below does not come to a clear consensus for a move at this time. Further discussion at WikiProject Mountains seems like a wise option at this time. Mike Cline (talk) 15:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, but can we make the move. Another editor tried to move the page but was not allowed because of multiple redirects or something. The current state of the article is not a result of any consensus but rather the result of a series arbitrary attempts to fix the original undiscussed page move. See edit history of this page, and discussion at User talk:Wikimedes and User talk:虞海 Thank you very much.--Racerx11 (talk) 03:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
It's not directly because of a double redirect. WP has a safety mechanism to preserve article history ---- you cannot move over an existing article or redirect if it has non-empty history. Unfortunately, the current redirect Shishapangma has been edited by robots twice since it was created, so we non-admins are stuck.
The instructions at WP:Requested moves indicated that if the move is at all controversial that we should discuss and come to a consensus before an admin will intervene. Judging from the discussion at User talk:虞海, it looks like we have not yet come to consensus. We'll just have to live with a somewhat arbitrary article title until then. I'll ping 虞海 and ask if he or she can join the discussion here. —hike395 (talk) 07:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
More information
I found that Britannica does call this peak Xixabangma.
Google scholar yielded the following number of papers published since 1993 that mentioned...
Shishapangma: 411
Shishabangma: 0
Xixabangma: 292
Google books yielded the number of books pbulished since 1993 that mentioned...
Shishapangma: 2550
Shishabangma: 0
Xixabangma: 378
So, "Xixabangma" is at least a good second choice, although "Shishapangma" still seems more common. I found that I could move the article to "Xixabangma", so I did. I propose that we leave it with that title until we come to consensus. —hike395 (talk) 08:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Facing this result, my point is: we cannot determine which is the most common name, and that's not surprising at all because few English speakers know the mountain. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi)✍14:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. Even though a name is rare, we can still sort alternatives by how rare they are. Good point about quoted string, we should distinguish between "Shishapangma" and "Shisha pangma". See #Broader Google test, below. —hike395 (talk) 15:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep (use Xixabangma), for the following reasons:
The United Nation has suggested that exonym should be discouraged if possible. For place such as Mt. Everest is too well known to introduce the endonym (name in the Tibetan language or the Sherpa language). However, the case in Xixabangma is different: few native English speakers know the mountain, and it follows that few people know the name Shishapangma, so the “common name” costum does not apply here.
If the UN explicitly discusses the term "Xixabangma", we could take that into consideration. In any event, we should follow the WP convention that has been designed to resolve disputes much more difficult than this one. —hike395 (talk) 15:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
The “common name” varys from time to time and may be influenced by the native community. Before 1972, Ceylon is definitely the common name for Sri Lanka, but the native community prefer the name Sri Lanka, so Sri Lanka is used and then become popular. Beijing was once called Peking in English, but now it becomes Beijing. Now we turn to the case of Xixabangma: since the country of Sri Lanka and the city of Beijing has introduced their endonyms, why can't Xixabangma introduce its endonym (espc in the case that few people know the term "Shishapangma")?
Yes! The WP guidelines explicitly say we should examine usage since 1993. But, we should follow WP:NOR and examine the evidence for different names objectively, rather than imposing our own ideas of what the name should be. —hike395 (talk) 15:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
This is irrelated to WP:OR, since Xixabangma is well-sourced. The Chinese government stands on the side of indigenous people and promote the local name "Xixabangma", not the Chinese one "Xixiabangma". But anyway, what is 1993 (why not 1994, 1995, etc.)?Ok, if some one may draw a link line from Xixabangma to the cold war... ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi)✍16:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Notes Actually the Chinese name Xixiabangma surpass the Tibetan name Xixabangma by 39,300 vs 12,500, but following a strong sense that we should respect the natives and that UN suggestion (to reduce exonyms), I do not recommend the Chinese name. For the same reason I do not recommend the Nepali name. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi)✍14:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Broader Google test
Performed with quoted strings, books and papers restricted to after 1993, search restricted to English. —hike395 (talk)
Shishapangma
Shisha pangma
Xixabangma
Xixiabangma
Gosainthan
Google
318,000
64,800
18,000
13,500
29,100
Google Books
1090
1040
284
98
384
Google Scholar
92
332
290
207
49
Google News Archive
420
1610
44
4
Did you see that the search result of Shishapangma included Shisha pangma as its second and third result? Google analysised Shishapangma and Shisha pangma and transcluded each other included. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi)✍16:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I think the more resonable one is narrow test in Google Scholar and Google Books. But anyway, that would only result in failure in the common test, so we have to introduce the other way, i.e. the exonym-endonym test. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi)✍16:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
No, I used quoted string search, which forces exact match. First column only counts Shishapangma, while the second column only counts "Shisha pangma". See for yourself: [2] and [3] —hike395 (talk) 16:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
[6]. An equivalent Google Books search yielded no atlases that use "Shishapangma" or "Shisha pangma" or "Xixiabangma"—hike395 (talk)
Discussion
Support move to Shishapangma --- I think that the evidence points to "Shishapangma" as the most common English name, although it is not as overwhelming as I had originally indicated. —hike395 (talk) 15:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Your result actually has shown that there's no significant difference between them in usage in that different search returns contradict results. Plus, Google analysised Shishapangma and Shisha pangma and transcluded each other included; however it did not transcluded Xixabangma and Xixiabangma. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi)✍16:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Believe me - this (either Shishapangma or Xixabangma) is a unpopular term in English. If you intercept someone in New York and ask "Excuse me, but do you know Shishapangma?", they will answer nothing but "What is Shishapangma anyway?" or even "Shi-sha-what-ma?" So ther's nothing common. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi)✍16:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
As I explained above, the WP guidelines don't require that people in New York know of the peak, but that we should choose the most accepted (i.e., least rare) term. I would like to know how other editors interpret the guidelines and the test. Also, see above: the quoted search strings force Google to return documents that have the exact phrase in them. —hike395 (talk) 16:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Nope, the common test (WP:PLACE) requires a result not only most accepted but also widely accepted. When the common test failed, we have no choice to verify which one is local name. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi)✍17:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Objection! Shishapangma is in wide and common usage among mountaineers. Now that the Alpine Club has moved to Golden, CO, yes, you might be hard-pressed to find New Yorkers that recognize it - but is not that the case for 99% of wikipedia items? Surely New Yorkers would be hard-pressed to identify the Uintah Mountains, but those in Utah would not. (Hmm, difficult to come up with an equivalent example, except perhaps in mountaineering. Nanga Parbat, Minya Konka, Mustagh Tower, Chogolisa - widely known names in mountaineering, unknown to the man on the street). Perhaps you will disagree, Yú Hǎi, but what there is to say about Shisha is mostly about climbing/mountaineering - there is very little encyclopedic information about it in other realms. The mountaineering content is likely to grow - other aspects are complete as they are. Thus, I suggest, the article should use the name most commonly applied in English, which is Shishapangma. I'm unclear why there is much debate on this matter - I only see one editor making a case for a different spelling of the same name (is it not?), over and over again, as if repetition makes it true. So, to be clear, I do not think the common test failed, I think it indicated Shishapangma. A name WIDELY accepted in the English-speaking mountaineering community. Ratagonia (talk) 21:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry I was aware of your partipation. Actually, you misinterpret the representativeness of mountainers and overestimated it by assuming the topic to be "mostly about climbing/mountaineering" and "mountaineering content is likely to grow - other aspects are complete as they are". These are fallacy because:
If you knew more about Tibetan culture, you would realize that few Tibetan mountain are named in a term like "XXX Mountain" or "Mount XXX" in Tibetan language. This would be bestly attributed to the Tibetan concept of a mountains - many of them are not mountains, but gods, trinities (and of course generally they won't allow you to climb a god, eventhough they didn't always succeed to ban you), and enourmous amount of legend, thangkas, oral relics, arts are about them. So the realm is mostly about eco-cultural contents and mountaineering is only a rather unimportant content.
With the rapid developement of indigenous movements in recent years, mountaineering doesn't seem to be likely to grow and may even become something that no one wants to mention. In 2001, China officially banned any mountaineering activities in Nyainqên Kawagarbo, and Bhutanese goverment, who did better, does not issue any forms of many mountains inside Bhutan. Instead, the indigenous movements ensured the growth of cultural contents and environmentalists will be responsible tothe growth of ecological contents of them.
Plus, foreign language learning is still active in China. Many natives, during their secondary education stage, would learn how to express their opinion about mountain-gods in English (and of course, the mountain-name would be directly transcripted from their native language via SASM/GNC). As a consequense, the majority of English-speakers who know Xixabangma know it as Xixabangma, and this can be far more than the total amount of mountainers. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi)✍09:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
It is not very charming, Yú Hǎi, to categorically dismiss many of the editors interested in this article off-hand. Your case would be more convincing if you provided some DATA to support your claim, but throughout this discussion you browbeat other editors (excuse my incivility) by emphatically stating your opinion as fact, and dismissing other's opinions. Even when FACT is presented, you dismiss it as being inconsistent with your opinion, therefore unimportant.Ratagonia (talk) 17:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
But, as I charge you with not having facts, I feel the need to do a little research: How many books in the Shishapangma domain are about mountaineering? Google Books search, not limited in time, simple search not limited by text-string exclusiveism:
Shishapangma, 4660 hits, of the first 10 books: 6 = climbing/mntring; 2 = geology; 1 = trekking (1 eliminated as a repeat).
Shisha Pangma, 12,500 hits, of the first 10 books: 7 = mntring; 2 = geology; 1 = art/culture.
(diatribe continues) - 1. That some time in the future there will be an huge influx of Chinese English-speakers using the English Wikipedia for information on Xixiabangma is perhaps interesting; at that point in the future the then-editors can have this discussion again. 2. You have no idea what my background in Tibetan Culture is, but thank you for the schooling anyway. Again, though interesting, these ideas are not all that important in discussing the English wikipedia ARTICLE on Shisha. 3. You dismiss mountaineering as not that important to Shisa (I agree), but mountaineering is VERY important to the ARTICLE - currently holding 71.5% of the word count of the article (551 words out of 770 total, in however MS Word counts words, applying the count to the article content, x citations, infobox and end material). Calling my statement that mountaineering is the bulk of the article a fallacy is in-civil and factually inaccurate. 4. A claim that Shisha will stop being climbed or at least not reported is fanciful and also beside the point. We work on the article as it relates to current reality, not to future conditions. Also, trekking and climbing in the area is important to the economy and to the occupying Chinese government financially; and takes place through Kathmandu, thus avoiding the contention centered on Lhasa that the Chinese would like westerners to not know about.Ratagonia (talk) 17:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Allow me to support my claim of your browbeating behavior with evidence: Again using MS Word word count (which dealt poorly with a simple cut and paste), I see on this talk page the following editors providing X% of words: Yu Hai - 37.4%; Hike395 - 26.7%; Wikimedes - 19.4%; Racerx11 - 5.9%; ratagonia - 5.3%; Nat Krause - 4.9%; Kauffner .4%. While I appreciate your enthusiasm for the subject, may I suggest that your argumentation style would be more effective if you used facts and citations, rather than mainly emphatically stating your viewpoint as "right", dismissing other editors out of hand and repeating your arguments several times.Ratagonia (talk) 17:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep at Xixabangma --- I did further research, shown above. I've now found two very reliable sources (Britannica and Library of Congress) that use Xixabangma, and I did a search of the Google News archive, and found the "Shisha pangma" was most common in news articles. Therefore, as Yú Hǎi says above, the overall Google test is inconclusive, and we should go with the WP:RS that agree. What do other editors think? —hike395 (talk) 17:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
While the Britannica and Library of Congress usages favor Xixabangma, it seems to me that the Google test favors Shishapangma (perhaps with a space). Xixapangma is less prevalent than one of the two Shishapangma variants in every category (much less in 3 of 4 categories) and less prevalent than both in 3 of the 4 categories. Should we disqualify Shishapangma just because it is sometimes spelled with a space and sometimes without?--Wikimedes (talk) 18:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
(@hike) Thank you! Even if still you did not jumped out from the "common-test always work unless equally common" viewpoint. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi)✍15:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Take an extreme example: if one term hits 1 result while one hits 0. Then mathematically the former is overwhelmingly common than the latter (1:0=inifinity), but actually this is not true, because both are not widely accepted even though the former might be the most accepted. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi)✍15:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I think that "Shishapangma", "Shisha pangma", "Xixabangma", and "Xixiabangma" are all equally good approximations to theTibetan name, and that we shouldn't lump any of them together, because they are all alternate spellings. Further, WP:PLACE says that if one spelling is 3 times more common than any other, then it is widely accepted. I think none of the spellings is dominant, so we have to say the Google test is inconclusive. The only avenue we have left is to consult ultra-reliable sources, such as those listed in WP:PLACE. So far, those agree on "Xixabangma". —hike395 (talk) 05:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Looks like a case of vote splitting to me. However Shishapangma and Shisha pangma are each 3 times more prevalent than either Xixibangma or Xixiabangma in 3 of the 4 categories (single exceptions are allowed in WP:PLACE). It seems odd that we would choose one of the overwhelmingly less prevalent names, but that depends on the Voting system. It also seems odd that if every source referenced in the article uses one of 2 names, we should use a different name for the article. BTW, thanks for all your work tracking down reliable sources, doing Google searches, etc. - it definitely adds to the discussion.--Wikimedes (talk) 15:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
@Hike395 Actually THDL might be (I'm not familiar to this system) good for Western Archaic Tibetan but honestly it does not match the Standard Tibetan based on Lhasa dialect. That similar to be a system used for Middle Chinese does not match the Standard Mandarin. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi)✍15:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Objection - there are few names on wikipedia that are known outside their field. Shishapangma is well-known to mountaineers. Perhaps you consider all mountaineers to be specialists? May I suggest: No true Scotsman for your entertainment. Ratagonia (talk) 21:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, mountainers are not the majority who know the mountain. The natives who speak English as a second or foreign language are the majority who know the mountain, who know it as Xixabangma. FYI, expert mountainers are specialists, while for those dabblers, who may climb one or two 2000 meters mountain(s), we aren't sure if they know Xixabangma. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi)✍09:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Comment It seems that everyone is agreeing that we use the local name, we're just discussing how to transliterate (spell) it into the Roman alphabet. On the one hand, there is the official transliteration that has been put forth by the Chinese Government, and on the other hand there is the one most commonly used in the English Language. Another consideration (maybe not Wikipedia policy): Shishapangma will be easier to pronounce for an English speaker not used to the Chinese way of spelling. (For my own education, how does one pronounce the "x"s in Xixabangma?)--Wikimedes (talk) 18:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Support moving back to Shishapangma Per Google searches above. Also, all the sources (and external links) used in the article use Shishapangma or Shisha Pangma:
The "common"-test (WP:PLACE) requires a result not only most accepted but also widely accepted. So it does not works here.
Even if the "common"-test may be used here, WP:PLACE never pointed out to use Google. It recommend use Google Scholar and Google Books instead.
The external link is determined by Wikipedia editors, i.e., the choose of external links is somewhat original research (even if we have some trandition to determine what to be choosed and what not to be choosed). If you want, I may add many external links using Xixabangma.
Well, a "mostt" common, but still not widely accepted one. Plus, all the 4 terms are English term, so don't define English as "what is in my mind is English, what I don't know is not English". ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi)✍06:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
WP:PLACE defines widely accepted in a relative way (i.e., 3x more common than the alternatives), it doesn't describe an absolute threshold for wide acceptance. I think for purposes of this discussion, we should stick with the established relative guideline. If you want to bring up this issue to a wider audience, I recommend starting a discussion at WT:PLACE about the definition of wide acceptance and put in a pointer back here: it may draw in some different perspectives. —hike395 (talk) 23:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Should we lump "Shishapangma" and "Shisha pangma" together?
I think what the disucussion boils down to is whether we combine "Shishapangma" and "Shisha pangma" together for determining English usage. If we decide "yes", then the common English usage is "Shisha[ ]pangma" and we have to decide whether to include the space in the title or not. If we decide "no", then do other editors agree that there is no single form that is most widely used? Does anyone have any suggestions of how to decide the lump/split issue? I've looked through the guidelines, and cannot find anything relevant.
Here's my current thinking --- at some point, we have to decide whether the article title should have a space or not. That decision needs to be driven by the WP:PLACE guidelines of current English usage and consulting tertiary sources, like atlases and encyclopedias. But, that is exactly the process we are using to decide with all of the names... Why are we doing the whole process twice? Why is the choice of "Shishapangma" vs. "Shisha pangma" different from "Shishapangma" vs. "Xixabangma"? As far as I can tell, they are just alternative choices for titles: we have to choose one at the end. I would propose simply applying the guidelines once, and stick with the results. (Whatever we choose is fine with me!) —hike395 (talk) 05:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
It depends on how we define a "term":
If we define them by their origin, then half of Shishapangma results should be lumped into Xixabamgma while the other half should be lumped into Shishāpāngmā and Hsihsiapangma should be lumped into Xixiabangma;
If we define them by what they look like, then either Shishabangma should be lumped into Shisha pangma and Xixabangma should be lumped into Xixiabangma or All of the 4 should be lumped together.
I see that this detail has been answered a couple of times, but that Yú Hǎi keeps asking for a definition of the "term". Allow me to explain my viewpoint on the matter, which is not a WP:RS for sure. The contention is between several different romanisations, rendering into written English, of a native name. I am surprised to learn that the names in contention (4) have different origins, because to my native-English eye and ear, they look the same, but are just different romanisations of the same oral sounds. Is this incorrect?
I know that the romanisations have changed over the years from one system to another; and are probably different when viewed from different countries - in this case Nepal, Tibet and China. Thus we have different versions of the same name, do we not?
In which case, I can say for myself, my American eyes see almost zero difference between Shishapangma and Shisha Pangma. A space between syllables in a phoenetic transcription of a native name has zero significance in English. On the other hand, I take the (newer?) Xi spelling and the (older?) Shi spelling to perhaps indicate that when my mouth speaks Xi the sound is closer to the native pronunciation than when my mouth speaks Shi. I am aware that the native languages in the area contain subtleties in this sound domain that my English-trained ears do not pickup.
But our goal here is not to make the Wikipedia phonetically accurate. We seek the most common usage in written English, as the English wikipedia is a written document in English. Therefore, I think the rules of English apply, in which case Shishapangma and Shisha Pangma are in essence the same, and I would go with Shishapangma (but probably because that is the name I learned the name of the mountain under).
Which brings me back to the question - the definition of "term". I have lost the origin of that question - perhaps Yú Hǎi if you wish a tighter explanation of it, you should reference it back to where it is used; ie, where the question comes from in the first place. Ratagonia (talk) 18:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Yu Hai - I've never understood your splitting of Shishapangma into Xixabangma and Shishāpāngmā based on "origins". Pseudois' comment in Talk:Xixabangma#Confusion_Pinyin_versus_English that Shishapangma has an independent origin from Xixabangma that predates common usage of Xixabangma makes me wonder further. Could you explain what you think the origins of the words are and why you think it leads to your grouping?--Wikimedes (talk) 22:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
If we decide that Shishapangma and Shisha Pangma are essentially the same, then it really doesn't matter which we choose - might as well leave at Shishapangma. If this results in a huge outcry from a pro- Shisha Pangma camp, we can reevaluate.--Wikimedes (talk) 19:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
"If there are several common spellings of a term with only minor variations between them, such minor variations do not indicate a lack of primary romanisation. One of the variants should be used as the primary romanisation. For instance, bka’-brgyud can be spelled Kagyu, Kargyu, Kagyud, Kagyü, Kargyü, or Kagyüd – the first spelling is the primary romanisation, however its variants may be mentioned when appropriate."
The question then becomes "Do we lump Xixabangma and Xixiabangma with Shishapangma and Shisha Pangma?" For me, there is a natural split between the names spelled with "x" and the names spelled with "sh", but is it minor? Not sure.--Wikimedes (talk) 20:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for finding that! It's quite helpful. I think the example shows that if two romanizations are different by one character, or a diacritic, then the difference is minor. This agrees with your sense that "Shishapangma" and "Shisha Pangma" should be lumped, and "Xixabangma" and "Xixiabangma" should be lumped. This was also proposed by Yú Hǎi as lumping by "what they look like". If we redo the Google tests assuming that lumping, adding -wikipedia to take care of Yú Hǎi's objection about usage independent of WP, restricting to English documents when possible, restricting to post-1993 documents when possible, we get:
"Shishapangma" OR "Shisha Pangma"
"Xixabangma" OR "Xixiabangma"
Google
506,000
28,000
Google Books
2160
405
Google Scholar
408
491
Google News Archive
3190
49
So, indeed, Shishapangma is a widely accepted English term by Google Books and Google News (even if we discount main Google).
After some more thought, and Hike395's new Google results, I see it like this: Usage of variations of ཤི་ཤ་སྦང་མ། (Shishapangma, Xixabangma, et al.) predominate over Gosainthan. In deciding which ཤི་ཤ་སྦང་མ transliteration to use, there is a natural division between the clade Shishapangma-Shisha Pangma (English spelling of the sh sound) and the clade Xixabangma-Xixiabangma (Pinyin spelling of the sh sound). Of these two clades, Shishapangma-Shisha Pangma usage predominates. I don’t see a clear way to choose between Shishapangma and Shisha Pangma, and maybe the difference is so small at this point that it doesn’t really matter, so leave the article where it was at Shishapangma.
I’ve also put a note on the Tibetan naming conventions talk page asking for input. Some of the contributors there probably have a more informed opinion of how to interpret "minor variations".--Wikimedes (talk) 06:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I wrote the "minor variations" section of the Tibetan naming conventions. To be honest, the application is somewhat vague. It was intended to encourage lumping and especially to discourage an argument along the lines of, "Look, some sources write Kagyu and others write Kargyu, so neither can be said to predominate, so we have to use some kind of systematic spelling which doesn't resemble either of those." Counterintuitively, I would not lump "Xixabangma" together with "Xixiabangma", because the latter is clearly intended to represent the Chinese name while the former is the Tibetan. I don't have a strong preference as to what this article should be called, but I would be inclined to lump "Shishap..." and "Shisha P..." together per "minor variations" and on that basis move back to Shishapangma. I would also be inclined that, when in doubt, we should stick with the spelling the earlier authors of the article used, as with American vs. British English. I don't like undiscussed moves like this and I think this discussion should default to restoring the old title unless a clear consensus is built for the change.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?)05:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I do also think Xixabangma (tib.) is not Xixiabangma (chn.), but I'm do not use double standard - I support to lump 50% of Shishapangma (tib.)+Shisha Pangma into Xixabangma while 50% of Shishapangma (nep.)+Shisha Pangma into Shishāpāngmā. For more, see my comment "It depends on how we define ..." ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi)✍15:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Comment:
@hike:
You did not define what a "term" is but used my second difinition by default, without explain the reason.
Plus, even if using the second difinition, we still need a reason why not lump all three together?
If all above explained, there's still an issue: Google Web Search and Google News Search are not a valid test in WP:PLACE#Widely accepted name, which validate only Google Book Search and Google Scholar Search.
And I doubt whether the Google News Search is post-1993.
@Wikimedes:
It's not sh-sound (ʃ/ʂ) but ɕ-sound! There's no ʃ-sound in Tibetan language.
You mentioned the Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Tibetan), but never mentioned Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Place names, which says “For places without a well-established English name and have competing names from transliterations of pinyin vs. ethnic minority languages, which is often the case in Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia, and Tibet, use the name preferred by Xinhua or similarly authoritative organs. ”
(Even though I don't completely like this ststement personally, e.g. I moved Shannan to Lhoka, it is still a strong opposition voice which is sufficient to balance the "Shishapangma more common" claim)
Yu Hai points out that this does not filter pre-1993 results. —hike395 (talk)
"Name follow native" and "must widely accept" (WP:PLACE) viewpoint
Since Xixabangma or Shishapangma is not widely-known in English-world, according to WP:PLACE#General guidelines––#1 does not suits (since many encyclopedia does not have such an entry), we should get a translation from Tibetan ཤི་ཤ་སྦང་མ། (Xixabangma) or Sherpa (not known now), instead of Nepali शिशापाङ्मा/गोसाईथान (Shishāpāngmā/Gosainthān) or Chinese 希夏幫馬/高僧赞 (Xīxiàbāngmǎ/Gāosēngzàn).
Currently SASM/GNC romanization is the best to describe Central and Southern Tibetan, while THDL preserves the Western Anchaic Tibetan better. (Agree?) Since both Standard Tibetan/Lhasa dialect and Xixabangma located in Central and Southern Tibetan area, SASM/GNC romanization is to be used.
Suggested by Yu Hai, disputed by Pseudois. —hike395 (talk)
Just to make my point clear. I was not discussing whether Pinyin is better than THDL, in fact I agree with Yu Hai that Pinyin is pretty accurate for Tibetan pronounciation (the only problem is that you have to know Chinese language or learn Pinyin to understand how Tibetan words should be pronounced in Pinyin, reason why the Tibetan Pinyin is practically not used outside China, and is not very meaningful for use in an English encyclopedia). My point is that Shishapangma (alternatively Sisha Pangma) is widely-known and commonly used in English. See Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Tibetan)#General_guideline.--Pseudois (talk) 19:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
WP:PLACE#Country-specific guidance leads us to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Chinese)#Place_names, which advices"For places without a well-established English name and have competing names from transliterations of pinyin vs. ethnic minority languages, which is often the case in Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia, and Tibet, use the name preferred by Xinhua or similarly authoritative organs..."
So Xixabangma should be used, which is preferred by Xinhua or similarly authoritative organs.
I read "With regard to the names of places in Tibet, for many more obscure locations, our main sources will usually be government publications or UN maps, which tend to use Tibetan Pinyin spellings. Therefore, in many cases, those will be the spellings used for those place names.
But this is only my personal read or interpretation.
"By Ethnic" viewpoint
Just the same as the "name follow native" section.
FYI, THDL romanisation does reflect Central Tibetan, just like Tibetan Pinyin does. It is less precise: it includes some older distinctions between sounds which are no longer distinguished by Standard Tibetan speakers (although perhaps by other closely related Tibetan dialects), and it combines some sounds which are pronounced differently in order to make the spelling simpler for Western readers. It is not at all an accurate description of conservative Western Tibetan dialects like Ladakhi.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?)05:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Welcome, Nat Krause! You are someone who does really know Tibetan. In Central-Southern Tibetan, Old Tibetan voiced consonants (Wylie ba, ga, etc.) are splitted into aspirated and unaspirated, which THDL failed to demonstrate. Tibetan pinyin and Roman Dzongkha, however, succeed demonstrate the distinction. Why? Because they are made by natives or with help of natives (it is said that Roman Dzongkha was made with the help of van Driem or someelse, but I believe it's still mainly made by natives). ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi)✍15:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Also, I don't think it brings convienience to western readers: perhaps it does make the spelling somewhat “simpler” for Western readers, but a native English can hardly pronounce it accurately. For example, བཀྲ་ became "Ta", with a fortis stop [tʰ], but this does not make sense at all because Tibetans would read [ʈʂ˭] or [ɖ̥ʐ̥] (the ring refers to voiceless in IPA) and can be far more accurately rendered in English phonology as a lenis zh/j/ch/dzh [ʤ̥] (the ring refers to either voiceless or slightly voiced). ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi)✍04:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I would like to add that two respectable online sources, Peakbagger.com and Peaklist.org both list the mountain as "Xixabangma Feng" [8] and [9]. Although these two sources are not used in this article, they are frequently referenced on many other mountain articles as trusted sources in general. I myself use them both quite often. Undecided before, based on this and the disussions above, I am now leaning towards "Xixabangma".
My concern initialy was that since the initial move to Xixabangma was undiscussed, we should have moved it back to Shishapagma while we have this discussion, and move it to Xixabangma if and only after we reach a concensus to do so. However, while trying to move the page back to its original state, I made a serious mistake and it became difficult to return the page to Shishaapagma. In fact no one was able to move it back despite several attempts. I appologize for that mistake, but it brings me to my point: User:虞海, I think I left message on you talk page at the time, but its worth repeating because I noticed you have done this several times before. Please do not move pages until after you have raised the issue on a talk page and only after a concensus has been reached to make such a move.
Keep current name Xixabangma. Respected English-language publications use this systematic transliteration; no old ad-hoc transliteration seems to be much more common. Quigley (talk) 01:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
A few final (I think) thoughts:
Usage: While I lack a great deal of experience with Google Books, 1000 or 2000 Google Book hits seems to indicate that Shishapangma and Shisha Pangma are common and widespread enough. The fact that all sources used to write the article use Shishapangma or Shisha Pangma is important. The fact that many reliable English Language sources also use Xixabangma (my own atlas, for example) means that this state may change. I agree with Yu Hai that the External Links section is easily manipulated to favor one name over another and should not be counted.
Minor spelling variations and grouping: I’ve explained my rationale on this already, and if sh and x represent different sounds, that seems only to support my grouping. I also respect Nat Krause’s opinion that Shishapangma and Shisha Pangma should be grouped.
I’d like to echo racerx11’s request that Yu Hai discuss page moves before carrying them out. I see that your (Yu Hai’s) favorite Wikipedia policy is BRD, but perhaps for moves, you could boldly suggest a name change instead?
Though I now appreciate the case for Xixabangma, I still lean towards Shishapangma, and I will keep my vote as supporting the change back to Shishapangma. I also feel strongly that in the absence of a strong consensus for any name, the article should revert back to where it was (Shishapangma) before the undiscussed name change.
While peakbagger and peakware are fine websites, and are referenced in various places on the wiki, both are websites run by an individual and not even close to being Reliable Sources.Ratagonia (talk) 17:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
(Quote) I do also think Xixabangma (tib.) is not Xixiabangma (chn.), but I'm do not use double standard - I support to lump 50% of Shishapangma (tib.)+Shisha Pangma into Xixabangma while 50% of Shishapangma (nep.)+Shisha Pangma into Shishāpāngmā. For more, see my comment "It depends on how we define ..." ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi)✍15:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I predict that we are not going to reach consensus. There are perfectly good arguments on both sides, and editors seem split, with no clear majority in favor of one or the other.
Now what? If this had been a normal WP:BRD cycle, the page would be at Shishapangma after a revert, and discussion would just end. But, now it's at Xixabangma, due to technical limitations of Mediawiki. Perhaps the simplest thing is to leave it at Xixabangma? I know that's unfair to the Shishapangma supporters, but are there any guidelines for asking an admin to revert a WP:BOLD edit without consensus? —hike395 (talk) 18:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh, hello hike395! I was looking forward to your opinion about those viewpoints. I'm not sure if it was biased or fairly summarized everyone's opinion. Could you give your opinion here? ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi)✍19:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I also think that we are not going to reach consensus, and that as a result, procedurally speaking the name should be Shishapangma but it’s more convenient to leave it at Xixabangma. This gives us a number of paths forward (e.g. continue to discuss, solicit the project pages for more opinions, ask for admin help reverting, agree to leave the name as is, etc.). I favor asking for admin help reverting to Shishapangma. I don't know how much work it would take for an admin to usurp the Shishangma redirect page. If admins think it’s not worth the trouble, or that it’s improper, we can leave it at Xixabangma.--Wikimedes (talk) 04:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I asked User:Quigley if he'd like to rejoin the discussion.
I don't see any support in any guideline to splitting Google test results in half between two alternatives, nor in using ethnic origin to change Google test results. To me, the alternatives are lumping "Shsiapangma" and "Shisha pangma" or splitting them. —hike395 (talk) 18:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Name preference - JUST vote - all editors please
I think a consensus HAS been reached, with an enthusiastic holdout. In this section, perhaps we could have editors just vote, without extensive discussion, which has been done to death above. Ratagonia (talk) 16:04, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
If you want a polling, just counting votes above, needless to put everyone to do samething again:
Shishapangma
Kauffner
Wikimedes
Ratagonia
Pseudois
Weak Shishapangma
Nat Krause
hike395
Neutral
Racerx11
Xixabangma
Yu Hai
Quigley
Result
(6:1:2)
So do you think this is consensus?
Discard what you and I think about the result, however, Wikipedia is not Anarchopedia, which is based on polling. In consensus based Wikipedia, I advise you to write objections to the Xixabangma-supproters' opinion, which do good to consensus reaching, rather than curse the discussion to death. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi)✍07:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Yú Hǎi, here. Racerx11 originally asked me to help out in the discussion, and after all of the discussion, he thought Xixabangma was the best. Quigley also thought XIxabangma was the best. That's why I think we are stuck: it is not just one editor supporting Xixabangma, and there are good arguments for both sides.
It seems to be against the culture of WP to revert due to no consensus (see the essay at WP:DRNC), so I doubt if an admin will revert. The only plausible choices, I think, are a) settle on the status quo of Xixabangma, or b) widen the discussion further, perhaps by soliciting opinions at WP:WikiProject Mountains? The latter would only work if almost all of the new editors evaluated the data the same way, or came up with new data that would be very convincing. —hike395 (talk) 08:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
P.S. I think if you read Nat Krause's comments, you'll see that he supports Shishapangma —hike395 (talk)
Do you even think that we won't have a consensus here? I saw there was not a consensus, but noticed that the discussion is approaching to a consensus. Could you please offer your opinion to the 2 enging problems to solve - your difinition of "term".
Nat Krause didn't express his idea about the title, however he gave us his definition on term: terms from one language can be lumped and those from different languages shouldn't be lumped, nevertheless he ignored the fact that Shishapangma itself is from 2 languages and so I suggested to lump half of them to Shishāpāngmā and another half to Xixabangma. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi)✍08:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Nat Krause did express his opinion about the title. He said
I don't have a strong preference as to what this article should be called, but I would be inclined to lump "Shishap..." and "Shisha P..." together per "minor variations" and on that basis move back to Shishapangma. —hike395 (talk) 18:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I now think my vote should be Neutral. After rereading all the arguments above and doing a little more research, I am just not sure. Take my example of peaklist.org refering to the peak as "Xixabangma Feng". Is the word "Feng" untranslated "Peak". If so, wouldn't that suggest the site simply chose not to translate the entire name to the common English name? I dont know and because of my limited knowledge of Chinese translation, my position should be best considered no vote or neutral.
Now if there is no consensus here do we have another problem? I tried very early on (within hours of the initial undiscussed move) to get an admin to step in and get the article moved back to "Shishapangma" - the page name before the undiscussed move. I even placed a help template on my page, but the only reponse I got was:
You have already the 'requested move' template at the correct place. so let it and wait. from user:Mabdul.
I am unsure if this user understood, nor did I at the time, the consequences of just leaving it as is.
So if there is no consensus, what do we do? It wouldn't seem right to me to default to Xixabangma in light of the roundabout way this page became Xixabangma. Nor does it seem right to default to Xixabangma just because it would be easiest, simplest etc.--Racerx11 (talk) 15:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Given that you flipped to neutral, I think we are closer to consensus on moving to "Shishapangma". Unfortunately, I just don't see a way to force a move without consensus. I'm sorry that I moved the article back to Xixabangma --- I thought this would be a simple discussion!
I would be very much in favor of soliciting more opions at Wikiproject Mountain. Good idea. Thanks for your help Hike395. I really wouldn't mind either way - Shishapangma or Xixabangma. I just want to make sure it is for the right reasons and that everyone understands how this page came to be in its current state. Another thing to consider if we decide to leave it Xixabangma and then a few months or years later we have another discussion and decide it is best to move back to Shishapangma. We would still have the same techinical problem of being unable to make the move without an admin, assuming an admin can fix it then, right? I don't like the idea of moving on from this with the bridge burning behind us, you know what I mean?--Racerx11 (talk) 18:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Confusion Pinyin versus English
This whole discussion makes no sense. Xixabangma is the Pinyin spelling, while Shishapangma (altertatively Sisha Pangma) is the common name in English, used well before Tibetan Pinying started to be broadly use in China. Should we change Shishapangma to Xixabangma, then we should also change "Shangri La" to "Xianggelila"... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pseudois (talk • contribs) 12:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Nope,
"Xianggelila" is the Chinese name of Shangri-La, not SASM/GNC transcription of Tibetan (Tibetan pinyin)
Shangri-La is a well-known concept in English, so should not be changed (just like nobody propose change from "India" to "Bharat", but many people propose change from "Bombay" to "Mumbai").
Plus, SASM/GNC system is not confusing at all, however THDL is really confusing, for its transcribe Tibetan lenis affricate [ʈʂ˭] or [ɖ̥ʐ̥] (which should be transcribed into English lenis affricate [ʤ] as j in jack) to fortis plosive [tʰ] (as t in tank). ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi)✍13:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
You seem not to have understood my point. Whatever transliteration system you use for Tibetan names (pinyin, Wylie, THDL), this doesn't make it the reference spelling in ENGLISH. "Xixabangma" is Tibetan Pinyin, "Shi sha sbang ma" is Wylie, "Shishapangma" is ENGLISH. This is ENGLISH Wikipedia, not Pinyin or Wylie Wikipedia.
It is possible to use Tibetan Pinyin in English when there is no previously existing spelling, but this is not the case for Shishapangma, which existed in English as "Shishapangma" long before "Xixabangma" made its first appearance in English texts (basically bad translations not respecting the previous established spelling). BTW, the advantage in using the traditional English spelling for these names is that you can more or less reproduce the correct sound; Tibetan Pinyin is useless for non-Chinese speakers to render the correct sound of Tibetan names.
This is not a forum, and the current discussion regarding the spelling of Shishapangma has nothing to do with the naming of Mumbai. To my knowledge, no official name change has ever taken place for Sishapangma, as it is the case for Mumbai. In any case, Sishapangma and Xixabangma do both correspond to the same name, the first one being Tibetan Pinyin while the second one is the long established English spelling. Pseudois (talk) 15:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
This is a terrible section title. Neither Xixabangma nor Shishapangma are more "English" than the other; they're both transcriptions of a Tibetan name. Shishapangma existed before Xixabangma, but that does not mean ipso facto that it is "established English"; in fact it's rather obscure. Xixabangma is the official transcription; it is also a more scientific transcription that is faithful to the sounds of the original Tibetan.
The spelling Shisha Pangma (or Sishapangma) was well established in English language long before the emergence of Tibetan Pinyin. Furthermore, for English speakers, the pronounciation of Shishapangma is much closer to the original Tibetan sound than Xixabanga. I agree with you that Xixabangma is more systematic and scientific, but you have to speak Chinese or learn Tibetan Pinyin in order to pronounce it correctly. The majority of readers of the English Wikipedia don't.--Pseudois (talk) 19:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Xixabangma is used more in scholarly sources and in reference sources like Britannica and the Library of Congress, the ranks of which Wikipedia strives to join. Xixabangma's use rivals or exceeds Shishapangma in present usage, and is growing, discounting books that were written before the emergence of standardized Tibetan place names like Xixabangma. Also, wylie cannot be equated with "Tibetan pinyin", because wylie replicates the poorly phonetic Tibetan alphabet, while "Tibetan pinyin" transcribes speech, which is exactly what someone did when they created "Shishapangma", except better. Quigley (talk) 18:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I guess this is where we will have to disagree regarding the predominace of one spelling over the other in relevant scholar sources. Britannica is by the way a poor example in this particular case, as it mentions both Xixabanga and Shisha Pangma.--Pseudois (talk) 19:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Just a last point. Would we rename "Sishapangma" (traditional English spelling) to "Xixabangma" (Pinyin spelling), then we should also change the pages for "Lhasa" to "Lasa", "Cho Oyu" to "Qowowuyag", "Lhotse" to "Lhoze", etc. This would create an unfortunate precedent.--Pseudois (talk) 18:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
You are confused. Lhasa is the correct Tibetan pinyin. "Lasa" is the Chinese pinyin. Xixabangma is an authentic replication of Tibetan sounds; it is not Chinese. Anyway, your preference for spellings like "Lhasa", which is much more non-intuitive for English speakers than is "Lasa", demolishes your argument that you prefer "Sh..." over "X..." for its ease of use. There is no such thing as "precedent" on Wikipedia; page moves are considered on their own merits. There are many Tibet article titles that use systematic official transcriptions, and many article titles that use older ad-hoc transcriptions. It is really the cases of the latter that are "unfortunate", because those names are usually arbitrary, unscientific, and insensitive to the local cultures. Quigley (talk) 18:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand your remark: Xixabangma is an authentic replication of Tibetan sounds; it is not Chinese. I don't think that anybody said something different in this paragraph. I also don't don't understand your point about insensitivity to local cultures. The issue is about which spelling to use in ENGLISH for a widely used Tibetan word. Whatever spelling you use, this will remain a Tibetan word and is respecting the local culture. The point is that "Shishapangma", respectively "Shisha Pangma", has a much wider use in English. If there is a cultural insensitivity, it is the attempt to arbitrarily change established spelling conventions in foreign languages (in this case English). Consistency is also wishful in Wikipedia, and there are numerous pages using the spelling "Shishapangma". Please check Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Tibetan)#General_guideline--Pseudois (talk) 19:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial title to another is strongly discouraged. If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed.
Reference: Wikipedia:TITLECHANGES#Considering_title_changes
In the present case, the title has been stable for 8 years. A consensus should be reached before any title change. --Pseudois (talk) 19:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Since the title wasn't changed or discussed before, it was difficult to anticipate how "controversial" such a change would be. The mover thought he had good reasons. The wikilawyering going on for Shishapangma exposes the fact that there aren't many good independent reasons for that title anyway. Quigley (talk) 20:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I do not think user:虞海(Yú Hǎi) cared to anticipate one way or another how controversial the change would be. Yú Hǎi has moved dozens of pages in the past, all without discussion, at least one time while there was already a discussion regarding a page move, without bothering to even check if there was already a debate. Yú Hǎi has been advised several times over the past couple years to not do this and yet Yú Hǎi continues to unilaterally move pages at will. Both you and Yú Hǎi have made several good points on why the article should be named Xixabangma, but right or wrong the move may be, the method that Yú Hǎi uses is undesirable and I wouldn't defend this move as something Yú Hǎi overlooked as being uncontroversial.--Racerx11 (talk) 00:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
I think that calling the current discussion wikilawyering is not helpful. As far as I can see, editors who disagree all have their own valid reasons: the Shishapangma supporters look at the Google results and at the article history, while the Xixapangma supporters look at the more scholarly sources, and at the Tibetan transliterations. Everyone is right -- sadly, we have to make a choice. That's why I think that consensus will be difficult to reach: there's no easy way to compromise. —hike395 (talk) 06:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
A few necessary precisions and corrections:
I just noticed than while I was typing my comments in MS Word, the talk page has been changed and discussion closed. I think it still makes sense to add the following two paragraphs which were typed before noticing this change.
It might be a dead end to continue discussion the different arguments, as it seems we are simply opposing different arguments without aiming at finding a consensus. I'll make a trial for consensus finding in the next chapter, but due to my late arrival in the discussion, there are a few points in the previous chapters that I would like to rectify or give additional precision:
1) Exonym / Endonym
Contributor Yu Hai suggested several times that Shishapangma is an exonym, while Xixabangma is the endonym (local name), and made several analogies such as Ceylan / Sri Lanka. This is simply incorrect. Both variations do correspond to the same Tibetan name. The issue is about spelling.
2) "The majority of English-speaker who know Xixabangma know it as Xixabangma" (Yu Hai)
This undocumented claim is more than curious. See Google books, the ration is 10:1 in favour of Shisha Pangma. This is just an anecdotal evidence, but in my personal experience, the ratio would rather approach 100% knowing about Shisha Pangma and less that 5% aware of the Xixabangma spelling.
3) Grouping Sisha Pangma / Shishapangma / Xixabangma / Xixiabangma
Thank you for all your efforts in doing these calculations with the Google counts. I however object about the last grouping made. Shisha Pangma and Shishapangma do indeed both correspond to the "traditional" English spelling, and should be lumped together. Xixabangma and Xixiabangma Feng should however not be confused, even though very similar: the first one is the Tibetan Pinyin for ཤི་ཤ་སྦང་མ།, the second one is the Chinese Pinyin for希夏幫馬峰
4) Google / Google books / Google scholar
The use of google to test the "popularity" (amongst general public or amongst scholars) of the different spellings may content some important bias. Yu Hai mentioned himself that the Chinese Pinyin spelling getting thrice more hits than the Tibetan Pinyin spelling. A problem with Google scholar is that an important part of the publications may be related to geology / geography research using Chinese maps, which are often not consistent in the romanisation protocols. That might explain the reason why you get almost as many results with the Chinese Pinyin spelling than the Tibetan Pinyin spelling. Just one or two maps are sufficient to radically alter the statistics. In addition, I suspect that many scientific publications are using both spellings. It is also important to note that most of these publications do not focus on naming/spelling issues, so they just use the naming they will find in the maps. Google books may be more reliable, as you will get more books where the author has made a deeper research on naming.
Even if we accept Google results, I cannot see how contributor Yu Hai can say that Xixabangma is the most common, here again the data compiled by hike395 (not including Chinese Pinyin spelling Xixiabangma Feng, the inclusion would alter number 3 only):
a) Google hits:
Shishapangma / Shisha Pangma: 382,800 (96%)
Xixabangma: 18,000 (4%)
b) Google books:
Shishapangma / Shisha Pangma: 2,130 (88%)
Xixabangma: 284 (12%)
c) Google scholar:
Shishapangma / Shisha Pangma: 422 (59%)
Xixabangma: 290 (41%)
5) Widely accepted name (see Wikipedia naming convention)
Shisha Pangma (or Shishapangma), contrarily to Yu Hai opinion, is clearly the most widely accepted name. Widely not only in terms of quantity (see Google hits 96% versus 4%), but also in terms of geographic diversity, the term Sishapangma being common all over the English speaking world.
6) "Shishapangma had no well established English name" (Yu Hai)
This is a recurrent claim (never sustained) by Yu Hai in order to reject the application of the existing Wikipedia naming convention. Let me politely disagree on this point too. Many authors (including Chinese authors) have referred to Shisha Pangma since many decades, while the term "Xixabangma" has emerged much later. A simple Google search gives some good hints about it.
7) Using Encyclopaedia Britannica as reference
On this point, I fully agree that the main article name is Xixabangma(with no reference on the etymology). It is however interesting to see that the spelling Xixabangma is only used once (in the title), while the article is mentioning twice Shisha Pangma: "Tibetan Shisha Pangma" & "while the Tibetan name, Shisha Pangma, means “range above the grassy plain." It is therefore unfair to use that single reference as a one-way argument in favour or one spelling rather than another one.
8) Discussion on the advantage of one romanisation system over the others
This whole discussion is irrelevant for the current article in English Wikipedia. To my knowledge, "Athens" will remain "Athens", "Vientiane" will remain "Vientiane" and "Mecca" will remain "Mecca" in English regardless of which romanisation system is used. And I don't think this is an issue in Greece, Laos or all over the Arabic world.
9) The "cultural sensitiveness argument" (used by both Yu Hay and Quigley)
To be honest, I just don't understand to what these remark can refer. I have meanwhile noticed that Yu Hay as attempted to change the article name of Cho Oyu to Qowowuyag (changed immediately reverted by one other editor) with the following aggressive and displaced comments: "be respective to the native Tibetan and Sherpa there" and "please respect the indigenous people there". If this self-proclaimed defender of the "Sherpa" would know a little bit about Sherpa culture, he would have known that Tibetan Pinyin is not taught in schools on the Southern slopes of Cho Oyu where a majority of Sherpa live. ALL Sherpa (100% to be clear) knowing the roman script will refer to Cho Oyu as Cho Oyu. Thank you for learning about local cultures before bringing the "cultural sensitivity argument" in future.
10) "Xixapangma is faithful to the sound of the original Tibetan" (Quigley)
As previously said, this is valid only if the reader is fluent in Chinese or has learned Tibetan Pinyin. This is ENGLISH Wikipedia and for the average English speaker, pronouncing "Shishapangma" is the closest you can get to the original Tibetan sound. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pseudois (talk • contribs) 16:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
An attempt to summarise the pro/contra arguments:
Arguments in favour of Shisha Pangma / Shishapangma:
1) Wikipedia guidelines for naming geographical places
2) Wikipedia guidelines regarding title change
3) Wikipedia naming conventions (Tibetan)
4) Anteriority of Shishapangma versus Xixapangma in WP (consensus should have been made before reverting)
5) Consistency (all other WP articles mentioning Sishapangma use the original spelling)
6) Traditional and well established spelling in English
7) Most widely used spelling in English (including books)
8) Pronunciation does correspond to the name in Tibetan
Disputed:
1) Which spelling is most commonly used by scholars? (see anterior paragraphs, some editors interpret the data as favourable to Sisha Pangma, other to Tibetan Pinyin Xixabangma, other to Chinese Pinyin Xixiabanga Feng)
Arguments in favour of Xixabangma:
1) Does respect the official romanisation ("Tibetan Pinyin) in use in China
2) Is the emerging spelling
I must admit that I am probably more trusted with Shishapangma history than with Wikipedia policies, but I would like to express my surprise by seeing that as a result of no consensus (there was a 6 to 2 majority in favour of reversing to the original title in use during 8 years), the decision is to accept the title change made unilaterally and without prior discussion by one single editor.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pseudois (talk • contribs) 16:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry I forgot to add my signature but the last two paragraphs were written by me (user: pseudois). --Pseudois (talk) 16:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
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.
I intended to be back at Wednesday, but the topic surprisingly developed far fast than I thought. Seemingly many Wikipedians have more free time at weekdays. Perhaps it'd take me long time to read this. Even though I'm not authorized to add in comments into, I'd like to add some opinions here:
This first thing I's say is I personally do not recognize Pseudois's summarize of my opinion:
What is disputed is not only "Which spelling is most commonly used by scholars?" but also "What is the commonly English term used all over the world". As what I have mentioned, foreign language learning in different countries might be taken into consideration. With Ratagonia's blame of "not based on facts and citations", I may try to find an English textbook used by billions of Chinese children (incl. both Han Chinese and Tibetan). That's also the reason why I say "The majority of English-speaker who know Xixabangma know it as Xixabangma".
I'm somewhat concerning with potential Anglo-American focus, for Google Books and Schloars are a little bit failed to covering English-language publications published in developing countries. But I'm not sure about this now.
I think there's many a few other points not covered in Pseudois's summarize that may be seen from my summarize (sure enough there's also some ommission in my summarize, and that's why I pinged hike and Wikimedes to put opinions there).
Whether Shishapangma is an exonym or not is disputed, for we don't know if Shishapangma is from Tibetan or Nepali Khas.
Now, I even suspect if Shishapangma may be a Tibetan transcription or not, in that seemingly Shishabangma is the correct THDL of ཤི་ཤ་སྦང་མ. I'm not sure, perhaps Nat Krause may be familiar with the THDL system and Tournadre system.
Again Pseudois used double standard of lumping. I kindly ask him to read my opinion about "double standard" because I do not want to repeat it to annoying people.
I do not very catch the idea of WP:TITLECHANGES. It not very easily-understoodable, I need a further reading later.
Generally, when I successed to persuade my self that a page should be moved, I move it. Sometimes I think more and sometimes less. I'm a little bit confusing that sometime my move was seen as uncontroversial while sometimes as controversial, and there is no clear clue when it would be viewed as controversial. If the 2010 Yushu earthquake hadn't happened, I would perhaps have moved it to Yushu to Yüxü following Tibetan tradition, but the deadly earthquake happened and makes Yushu too well-knowned, and the proposal no longer practical.
I admit I was some too confident to believe that few people know or care naming of mountains not in the top 3 highest. And I underestimated the difficuty to draw a consensus to the mov Shishapangma->Xixabangma. I now suspect that the top 10 highests are rather well-knowned.
Mike Cline wrote: "The result of the move request was: No Consensus The discussion below does not come to a clear consensus for a move at this time. Further discussion at WikiProject Mountains seems like a wise option at this time. Mike Cline (talk) 15:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)"
Thank you Mike Cline - I presume you are from the management. Now that the result of "No Consensus" has been reached, I assume the article will change back to the stable name of Shishapangma, although there are technical issues involved in producing that result. Do you take care of this, or do we need to contact someone else? Ratagonia (talk) 23:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
I was under the assumption that it would be unlikely that an admin would revert to Shishapangma in the event of no consenses, but considering how this all went down, I would think a move back to Shishapangma would make the most sense. I would at least like to see the technical issue addressed. If nothing is done now, what if we decide in the future to move the page to Shishapagma? Would that be difficult or impossible then?--Racerx11 (talk) 23:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Mike Cline is an admin (a volunteer, not an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation). I think he won't move the page. In the future, if we get consensus to move, we can go though the RM process again: if we get consensus, I'm sure an admin will be happy to move the page.
Mike left me with good piece of advice: editors get very passionate about title changes, but the actual title does not impact readers very much, due to redirects. Our readers will still find information on the peak, including the alternative names. So, we should put the disgreement in perspective --- perhaps we don't have the perfect title, but the article is still useful. —hike395 (talk) 02:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Comment I closed this as no consensus to move X back to S at this time, so moving back to S is not the defacto result. As far as correcting the technical history issue, if editors don't muck around with the current redirects, everyting is salvagable if a move to S is needed. I have two suggestions for the group of editors concerned about this article's title. 1) Given the complexity of the various languages involved, first come to a consensus as to what google search terms and sites (news, scholar, etc.) you want to use to determine the title via WP:COMMONNAME criteria. With google, you get what you search for and where yor search for it, so getting everyone on board with an agreed set of search terms makes it easy for the next step. Try to reach this consensus on the article talk page or one of the project pages. Next step, run the searches, tabluate the results and make a titling decision. Leave the emotions and rationalizations out of it. If you can demonstrate that you have strong consensus on either X, S or ?, I will be happy to help you move the article if necessary. Remember we write article for WP users to read, not editors to bicker about.--Mike Cline (talk) 11:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Alternate spellings in lead
I added the Shishapnagma and Shisha Pangma spellings to the lead (with references). Alternate names and spellings now take up the first 2 lines of the lead, which is kind of bulky. It might be better to reduce the first sentence of the lead to "Xixabangma, also known as Gosainthān (see below for alternate spellings), is the fourteenth-highest mountain in the world and, at 8,013 m (26,289 ft), the lowest of the eight-thousanders." and then put the alternate spellings in the body. I'm not sure if this would strictly adhere to guidelines, but it would make the lead much more readable. I also changed the titles of the web citations to reflect the titles of the web pages they reference.--Wikimedes (talk) 07:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Thus leaving the most-commonly-used spelling out of the lead? I agree that starting the article with a long list of alternative spellings is not very kind to Wikipedia readers. Yu Hai is well versed in the different versions, perhaps he would put together a paragraph on alternative names, to be placed in the body somewhere. But the lead sentence should be (I suggest): Xixabangma, also known as Shishapangma, is... I do not think an alternative names and spellings needs to be called out in the lead, especially if it is the FIRST paragraph of the body, or at least, near the top.Ratagonia (talk) 03:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I was thinking that mentioning a different name for the mountain early might be more useful for readers than an alternate spelling of the title, but mentioning the most commonly used spelling early also has its merits. I’ve noticed in the last week that lots of other articles begin with 2 lines of alternate names and spellings, so we could also just leave it as is. Or wait until the article name discussion dies down. It’s probably not that important.--Wikimedes (talk) 05:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
