Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China

HomeDiscussionMembers

C/e required at Guangdong Loongon

Aka Lepin, big Lego counterfaiter. Pretty underdeveloped article for what I am finding out was and still is a pretty famous (and controversial) brand in some circles (Lego fans). I am surprised there is no zh wiki article. But anyway, the article is written in the present tense but the company (or one of its subsidiaries, at least - Lepin) had major legal trouble in 2019. The article states the company is listed on Chinese stock market, etc. but it may be out of date - perhaps the company was shut down in 2019? Can this be clarified? I.e. was it just their Lepin subsidiary that was closed, or was it the entire Guangdong Loongon? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@Folly Mox @TheLonelyPather Any chance either of you could do me a favor and find few minutes to look into that? I am somewhat curious to know the answer... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Longoon appears still to be operating, although apparently they recorded a modest net loss during the first half of this year. Folly Mox (talk) 03:55, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I think the Lepin subsidiary is notable due to the legal cases, but Guangdong Loongon itself is not. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 12:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Chan Sze Chi - notable?

This was declined by the reviewer, who thinks GNG is not met. I am not sure. Perhaps someone could take a third look and perhaps rescue this from the draftspace, if possible? _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 03:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Responded at Draft talk:Chan Sze Chi § Notability. Folly Mox (talk) 11:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Rescued Folly Mox (talk) 16:49, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:CITESTYLE on Logic in China

Hey, I'm broadcasting here that I'd like to swap the established citation style on Logic in China to use CS1 + shortcites, but the article doesn't have many watchers so I'm making sure people who might object can see it. Remsense ‥ 论 03:35, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense to me—the current ones seem unnecessarily unwieldily. Aza24 (talk) 04:44, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, most seem to be spiritual shortcites already. CMD (talk) 05:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Wen Junhui#Requested move 26 September 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Wen Junhui#Requested move 26 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RachelTensions (talk) 22:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

The Three Visits

I started this, seems like a notable topic, but most sources seem to be in Chinese. Perhaps someone interested in this could expand it into a DYK in the near future? Seems like a fun topic _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Cantonese Pinyin#Requested move 1 October 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Cantonese Pinyin#Requested move 1 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Remsense ‥ 论 03:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Draft Article for Battle of Muddy Flat U.S., U.K., and Taiping vs. Qing 1854

Hi everyone I just made this draft article and I was wondering if someone could review it for me. Thanks.

Draft:The Battle of Muddy Flat Historyguy1138 (talk) 23:29, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Articles for Kangxi Radicals

I noticed that there is an article for each of the radicals in the Kangxi Dictionary, like Radical 62, Radical 25, etc. None of these articles contain more information than is already available in Wiktionary. Has it already been decided that these articles deserve to exist, or should we just delete them? These articles exist in a lot of other languages too. Kzyx (talk) 21:11, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I personally don't think they should exist, no. Remsense ‥ 论 01:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Kzyx, where are you finding e.g. Radical 62 at Wiktionary? There's no Wiktionary entry connected to the Wikidata item. Folly Mox (talk) 01:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

The "Translingual" section of the Wiktionary page for 戈. It mentions that 戈 is Kangxi radical #62, though it does not mention that it is Simplified Chinese indexing component. In any case, all of these articles only exist to provide those 2 facts, which we can easily add to Wiktionary. Kzyx (talk) 14:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

As a counterpoint that is admittedly WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, we have articles for each letter of the alphabet and each Japanese kana, and so on. Based on the same logic we should be able to have articles for the building blocks of Chinese characters (since it is unfeasible to have an article for all Chinese characters). _dk (talk) 00:01, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, but each letter of the alphabet and Japanese kana have a unique history to them, and some of these articles are quite extensive, like N (kana) and Q. In comparison, the Kangxi radicals don't have a unique history and there really isn't much to say about them. If the articles are kept, at the very least their names should be changed. Kzyx (talk) 04:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Quite: I'm actually not sure if there's been significant diachronic analysis of radicals—e.g. identifying continuity of radicals in multiple epochal dictionaries over time—if there is, that would immediately make them having their own pages distinctly more reasonable, akin to having articles for letters or syllabograms. Remsense ‥ 论 04:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I think each Kangxi radical does actually have a unique history, insofar as each is or was at one point a distinct standalone logogram. It would be nice if, in addition to the stats from the Kangxi dictionary, we could include information from Shuowen Jiezi and some modern unabridged character dictionary (which I'm astonished I can't remember any of; the highest profile modern dictionaries tend to be the more useful word dictionaries).

It might also be helpful to note (if not already present in the articles) which radicals have been merged in Simplified (Radical 162 does mention this; haven't checked the general case). Folly Mox (talk) 13:27, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Some of these do not have a lot of information, but especially the Variant forms are useful and interesting encyclopaedic information, for example at Radical 162 where an (unsourced) section provides some history. I can see no particularly good reason to delete these articles, though. Merging is not a great looking option either; it seems more useful to keep the present way of organising things (and perhaps to think of things to add to these articles; for example, content about individual characters could be added to the radical articles). —Kusma (talk) 08:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

The section is uncited, but doesn't appear to be unsourced: the article includes two general references under the ==Literature== subheading, either of which seem plausible as a source of the section in question. Folly Mox (talk) 13:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

In theory, yes. In practice, checking the addition here we have that it is not in the source. (And not the other one either). Bumm13's original (fairly bare-bones) pages do seem to be sourced using general references as you correctly point out. —Kusma (talk) 13:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for looking more deeply and correcting my misimpression! Folly Mox (talk) 20:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

If the articles aren't deleted, at the very least I think they should be renamed to something like Radical 戈 or 戈. Kzyx (talk) 04:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Republic of China (1912–1949)#Requested move 22 September 2024 2

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Republic of China (1912–1949)#Requested move 22 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 03:19, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Qi (Henan)#Well, that didn't work. Let's retry

Reopened the move discussion with different proposed targets after the earlier one failed to gain consensus for specific change even though nobody likes the current title.

No {{rm}} template since multiple targets are proposed without preference. Noting with amusement that the talkpage of this article appears to consist entirely of move discussions (not much unlike this talkpage right here).

Anyway may be of interest to this WikiProject etc. Folly Mox (talk) 16:20, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Substantial omissions in edit summaries

An editor has failing to mention content removals in edit summaries. These edits added substantially to article wordcounts, so it is not obvious from the page history that content has been removed.

I'd like to be clear that these content removals were done among genuinely useful edits, and I've talked to the editor about the purpose of edit summaries.

The removed content seems to be stuff the PRC doesn't like; Ai Weiwei, and domestic political protest, and historic domestic ethnic diversity, and probably some content reflecting on national space programs, etc.. I'm not sure how far back the problem goes; not more than dozens to hundreds of edits are affected.

As these removals of controversial content haven't had the level of peer scrutiny that they would likely have had had they been correctly described, could these edits get some scrutiny now, please? Thanks! HLHJ (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Korea-related articles has an RfC

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Korea-related articles has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.

I'd like to hear from people who aren't necessarily experts in Korea or Korean history, but are familiar with Wikipedia style as a whole. This is a pretty major topic that would affect thousands of articles.

The topic is on what romanization system to use for Korean history articles. seefooddiet (talk) 21:52, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Many new accounts appearing to work on China-related articles?

I am not sure what's going on here, and it seems to be specific to China-related articles, particularly Chinese history—参见．Treaty of Nanking. Manchukuo, Opium Wars. Some lone editors go for articles like Chiang Kai-shek, but it seems most common that in a short period of time, several polite, explanatory, but similar edits to the lead come together to the same article, each for a brand new account. The edits are always attempting to be constructive but unfortunately not really improvements so far as I've seen. They are usually unsourced and entirely redundant or misplaced. Then, they disappear after their one edit. Does anyone know if a school program is behind this, or what else it could be? Remsense ‥ 论 20:56, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh no. Duh. It's a weird automated sockpuppet botnet of sorts, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Caoshuo. Remsense ‥ 论 01:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Weird article name

Hsuan thu has quite an odd name. Should we change the article name to the pinyin name Xuan tu? Kzyx (talk) 04:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

It certainly is odd, but I'm more concerned that it may be incorrect. I'm not able to access any of the sources to check the transliteration (although the 1940 one is certain not to have used pinyin), but: the article doesn't exist at zh.wp or baidu, there is no mention of 絃圖 anywhere at zh:周髀算經, and every ghit I get is for 弦圖, i.e. chordal graph.

The feeling that I'm getting is that one or more of the sources cited by article creator Krishnachandranvn has mistaken a common noun used by later sources to describe this diagram as the Proper Name of the diagram, which applies to it and nothing else.

I'm prepared to forgive 絃 for 弦, since the two words have similar meanings (絃 is later), and there could very well be sources that use the term 絃圖 for chordal graphs.

Both Hsuan thu and Zhoubi Suanjing are short enough that the former could be merged into Zhoubi Suanjing § Contents, perhaps under its own lvl3 subheading. If we want to keep it as a standalone article, I'd prefer it at a name like Gougu theorem (currently a redirect to Pythagorean theorem) to avoid the common noun issue mentioned. The article has three mainspace inlinks, from Zhoubi Suanjing, Pythagorean theorem, and Bride's Chair. This may also be in play in this matter, but as mentioned I don't seem to have access to any of the sources (the Mathematics Magazine source cited, although hosted at Taylor Francis, is not accessible to the TWL account). Folly Mox (talk) 11:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Provincial infoboxes

I'd like to implement some decluttering in the infoboxes for Chinese provinces, possibly integrating the {{Infobox Chinese}} into it and removing most of the redundant parameters. Am I getting out ahead of my skis here? Remsense ‥ 论 19:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, I'm curious if we can start phasing out the SVGs of characters, which I assume is there in case there wasn't any font support? Remsense ‥ 论 19:06, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

White whirlwind introduced many of the character images to {{Infobox Chinese}}. We had a discussion about it several years ago (I was against), but I can't find it now. Kanguole 19:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the context! I may go looking later. Remsense ‥ 论 19:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

The SVGs had dual rationales: One, I thought them aesthetically pleasing; two, they fix the problem of the huge discrepancies in how Chinese fonts are displayed across different browsers, operating systems, and devices. In all likelihood, they are best used only on articles whose titles are Chinese names or words. Kanguole is correct that he objected to them (here, I think) back when I first added them, but nobody joined him.  White Whirlwind  19:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I am only trying to weigh the pros and cons given my experience with the articles in question here, thank you for the further explanation. Remsense ‥ 论 19:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Semiconductor companies considered State-owned enterprises?

I've been making quite few articles on publicly listed Chinese semiconductor companies recently. I noticed many of them have China Integrated Circuit Industry Investment Fund investing in them. Or they are supported by government related entities like Chinese Academy of Sciences because they were originally projects that commercialized into full companies. Since they are now listed, government ownership for many of them is in the minority region.

So the question is do I just say these companies types are Public? Or do I have to also say they are also State-owned enterprises? Technically speaking many China publicly listed companies you will find some government related entity having a small ownership. But I don't know does that mean we have to go around putting the SOE label for almost everyone one of them. Imcdc Contact 03:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Even private corporations can have national or public entities as investors. I wouldn't consider them to be state-owned solely on that basis. CurryCity (talk) 12:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree, a minority government stake doesn't make a company state-owned. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Noodles

There is a discussion which may be of interests to members of this project. SerialNumber54129 13:02, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Expelled members of the Chinese Communist Party category

In light of the ongoing anti-corruption campaign under Xi Jinping, many articles in the then-very large Expelled members of the Chinese Communist Party category have recently been diffused to yearly categories. However, there are a number of articles that could not be "dated" because there is no information on when they were expelled: they need information on when they were expelled, with reliable sources whenever possible. Also, some older expulsions may need to be combined into a category called "People expelled from the Chinese Communist Party before 1990" or something but I have trouble making {{Category series navigation}} detect the "cut-off" category. --Minoa (talk) 19:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:EVE Energy § Article title

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:EVE Energy § Article title. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

EVE Energy is a newly created article that needs to be assessed. Perhaps someone from this WikiProject could take a look at it, and also assess whether the article's title should be "EVE" or "Eve". It's possible that EVE is a translation of the company's Chinese name,but it's also possible that capitalization is just for stylistic reasons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Chinese Buddhist history

Hi I am wanting to make contact with another editor that has a good understanding of Chinese Buddhism.🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼 Foristslow (talk) 02:38, 9 November 2024 (UTC)