Talk:Viceroys in China

China: History High‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Chinese history (assessed as High-importance).

Move

This page should be moved to governor-general (China), zongdu only makes sense to Chinese speakers.--Niohe 22:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. It makes perfect sense to me, since I read the article. You may as well argue that Tsar should be at Emperor (Slavic). Incidentally, it would be good to have the literal translation of Zongdu on the page also. FiggyBee 09:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Changed to Support as per argument below. Governor-General with capital Gs please. FiggyBee 14:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but that's not the point. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. As a matter of fact you are hard pressed to find a single source in English that uses the word "zongdu" at all, whereas czar is a very commonly used English word. Almost any work on Chinese administration, including the work I quoted, uses the term "governor-general."--Niohe 13:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I take your point that Zongdu is not commonly used in English (although I don't think WP:NOT a dictionary is really relevent; it's more like WP:OR if wikipedia is using a word that isn't in common usage). FiggyBee 14:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I advocate more philological accuracy- I think Viceroy is not used anymore these days by scholars, it is governor-general now. There was a complaint about this that Wikipedia uses antiquated terminology. And it is Viceroy is a) inaccurate- it‘s 总督 and not 副王 or something like that b) needlessly archaic and generally not in use anymore- at best of historical interest; after all we're living in the 21 century and this is not some 19th Century missionary publication! Look at Rowe or all recent scholarship on the Qing, or the definite source for government titles, Hucker. 131.111.184.11 (talk) 13:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]