Talk:Namcha Barwa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Mountains (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Mountains, a project to systematically present information on mountains. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Contributing FAQ for more information), or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Elevation[edit]

As far as I am aware, all modern sources agree on 7782 m. I do not know for certain if it is more accurate than 7756 m, but in the absence of any modern information in support of 7756 m being more accurate, I do not think we should use it. Viewfinder 07:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on a revision of this article in my sandbox. Can you please provide sources showing 7782m? LADave (talk) 00:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: revert to orginial spelling[edit]

Namcha Barwa is the most commonly used English spelling. The article title was changed without discusssion by user 虞海 without previous discussion.

I propose to have the title moved back to Namcha Barwa for the following two reasons:

You may do a research. Namjagbarwa, by far is well-established, well-presented, and common English term. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) 17:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Plus, Naming conventions on Chinese territory says for places in Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia, and Tibet, the name preferred by Xinhua or similarly authoritative organs may be used. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) 17:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Namcha Barwa is the traditional English spelling since at least one century. Namjagbarwa is not common English spelling. Please read again the naming convention you have been citing: "use pinyin for place names in China unless another form is more well-established in current English usage." Pseudois — continues after insertion below
You were mostly right but the "Namjagbarwa is not common English spelling" claim is wrong. Neither the name is more well-established than the other. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) 05:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
For the same reason, Taklamakan Desert is called Taklamakan Desert in English, and not Tǎkèlāmǎgān Shāmò or Täklimakan qumluqi. We should refer to Xinhua and other sources only if there is no common spelling in English, which is not the case here, the naming covention says it clearly. And by the way, Xinhua is also using the spelling "Namcha Barwa", see here (but I wouldn't use this point as an argument, as the use of Namcha Barwa in English is clearly established). You will also notice that the same Xinhua source is using the spelling "Gang Rinpoche" and "Chogori", two other amongst your recent edits.--Pseudois (talk) 07:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Comment:
  1. Following Place_names_in_China, this article should be named Namjagbarwa Peak, not Namcha Barwa.
  2. Xinhua does use "Namcha Barwa" (or "Gang Rinpoche" and "Chogori"), and that's completely fine because it's no different than Vietnamese usage of Saigon. This is called a historical usage or a styled name, not a formal addressing. None of these example can prove one to be more well-established than the other. Similar case is "Seoul, Soul of Asia", where Sŏul being the McCune-Reischauer romanization of the city's name this means nothing to the official accurate name of the entity.
  3. BTW, Taklamakan Desert is also often known is Taklimakan Desert, Teklimakan Desert or sometimes even Taklimakan Shamo. I'm not sure which one is more common.
––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) 05:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support reversion to Namcha Barwa. Incidentally, the user who is making the changes is only making changes to the title of the articles, leaving a nasty inconsistency between the title and the main text of the article. This article is a case in point. Ericoides (talk) 16:00, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I mentioned its name in "officially: Namjag Barwa". It was my fault not to mention the exact same name in the article, but this means nothing on choosing the name. Now it's ok. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) 05:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)