User talk:Timmyshin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

September 2014[edit]

Information icon Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing an article on Wikipedia, there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" shown under the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)


I noticed your recent edit to European Go Championship does not have an edit summary.Please make sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

The edit summary appears in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Trafford09 (talk) 09:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Second warning[edit]

You started off with being welcomed, by me included, it's unfortunate that you're now making edits such as "much facts you can distort" etc. I note that you have adopted similar language with other editors. In the long run this isn't welcome. Please take it down a notch. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Fair use[edit]

Concerning File:Aidigfspeaks.png, can you tag it {{db-g7}} and replace it with a link to the image on a site like imgur? The screencap is copyright. While there's no question you can post it online and link to it in the discussion under fair use for your future reference Wikipedia is not a place to host fair use and non-encyclopedic images. (Otherwise, I'll put it on WP:FFD.) Thanks, —innotata 21:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


Hello, Timmyshin. In March of this year you turned Jianzhou into a disambiguation page (DAB). DABs are not articles, though; they are just navigation guides to get readers to the correct Wikipedia article. At present, there are no articles on the various places formerly called 建州. Therefore, I have restored the redirect to Jianzhou Jurchens. Once articles are created describing some of those prefectures, the DAB page will have to be restored or re-created. Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 07:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Shila Amzah Entertainment Berhad[edit]

As respectively, I kinda agree with the deletion of Shila Amzah Entertainment Berhad page. Therfore,some content of Shila Amzah Entertainment Berhad will be emerged with Shila Amzah. Thanks . Aiman851 (talk) 08:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Li Siyuan[edit]

Are you planning on revising/expanding the article any further? If you have any plans to do so, I am thinking about getting back to the article myself sometime after New Year's Day (after an expected flurry of edits, if I have time (I may be in trial around that time), to deal with Taoyuan's status change). Please let me know what your plans are. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 17:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Please go right ahead; as I find myself incapable of expanding it. Very sorry for the hold back. Timmyshin (talk) 22:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Please do feel free to participate regardless. Again, I'm probably not going to get back to it until sometime after New Year's. --Nlu (talk) 23:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
No problem. Happy holidays. Timmyshin (talk) 00:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The Wives of Li Yu[edit]

On another issue we discussed a while ago - I have another thought and wanted your opinion. What about "Zhou Ehuang" and "Lady Zhou of Zheng"? --Nlu (talk) 03:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I am personally against given names in titles for imperial women, because I don't think they are notable in historical writings or secondary/tertiary sources in English. (For males, I generally agree with you in preferring given names in titles.) Plus, a number of these female given names, especially those listed on Chinese wikipedia, seem to have been made up (by Bo Yang?). I'm leaning towards adopting posthumous titles for imperial women rather than surnames, as #1 they seem to appear more often in serious historical scholarships in both languages, #2 to reduce disambiguation (maybe?); #3 to be consistent with titles of "princesses" (daughters of emperors), #4 cultures like Khitan, Jurchen/Manchu or Mongols that have adopted Chinese imperial systems don't use or think of surnames the same way, e.g. Khitans empresses are almost all Empress Xiao if we use surnames in titles (or their equivalents). But I am aware that some consorts like Younger Zhou don't have any meaningful posthumous names, and I haven't really spent the time to tabulate all of the consorts to see about the feasibility. What's your opinion on this? Timmyshin (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
On this issue, I tend to still think given names should be used where practical (and, I'll agree, reliable - I do now see that some of the names may not be reliable). I think using posthumous names completely has the problem of 1) not giving even the family names immediately, and thus making the reader having to dig for names in the article - and while more accurate, thus making the article title less useful and 2) perpetuating the male/female gender bias. (I know, we're not going to be able to fix that with Wikipedia article titles, or ever, but we shouldn't help to perpetuate it.) Women's names might have been considered insignificant back then, but we shouldn't inherit that attitude. --Nlu (talk) 16:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
"Lady Zhou of Zheng" seems like a strange hybrid of a calque + a disambiguation word (surname), and I've never seen anything like that in either language. I know you have a problem with the word "Queen" as it seems degrading, but isn't "Lady" ("Madame"?) even worse? In my opinion, whatever the choice, the two Zhou's should have similar titles, as I think their importance both derive from Southern Tang and I don't think a Song title properly addresses that. Timmyshin (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
"Lady Zhou of Zheng" would be a direct translation of "鄭國夫人周氏," which I think is not an artificial hybrid as such as it certainly would have been used for her after surrender. You are correct that it is not satisfactory, either. Another possibility is to not translate the title at all and use something like, "Zhou the Younger, Guohou of Southern Tang"? --Nlu (talk) 16:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
While a genuine concern for sexism is honorable, this approach runs counter to the Wiki guideline of WP:Commonname. At the very least, in my opinion given names should not be accepted for titles as they were too insignificant and not applicable to most women anyway. From a practical standpoint, using given names create inconsistencies, such as naming one consort sister Zhou Ehuang and the other something else with a description of her position. It's also hard to judge whether a given name is reliable. Certainly given names listed on the 24-25 historic books are to be trusted, but what about a given name from another source, such as another history book, a genealogy book, a semi-history book, a 筆記, a tomb epithet, or an artifact — where to draw a line? There's a claim, for example, that Cixi's given name is Xingzhen by her brother's descendent (according to the article), and who is to say that's untrustworthy, but it would be utterly nonsense (to me at least) to title her page Yehe Nara Xingzhen based on that. Another example is Liang Hongyu (although not a consort), which contains a widely-known given name that never shows up in history books (according to the article).
I feel that in the long run, perhaps a middle ground is needed in that depending on the dynasty, some consorts can be titled based on their surnames, while others should be based on their titles like currently is the case for Qing empresses. But I do believe give names should never be used in titles of imperial women if only because of WP:Commonname. However, at the moment I don't have the time or energy to come up with a workable convention for all the consorts. As for the topic I still think Queen Zhou the Younger is the best solution. Timmyshin (talk) 18:31, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
By the way, I remember you once mentioning that you had proposed to use given names for Wiki titles of emperors but the proposal was not accepted. I cannot seem to find the discussion, could you direct me there? I have similar inclinations but am somewhat undecided. Timmyshin (talk) 18:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
I couldn't find it myself a while ago. I would think it has been long enough such that if you are interested in proposing it, a new discussion would be in order and would not necessarily be bound by the old one. --Nlu (talk) 22:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


Chinese Unity Barnstar of National Merit.png Zhonghua Barnstar of Merit
for your work developing Stories Old and New and the others in the Sanyan group!! I've touched things up and am going to make some further suggestions, but you have done the hard work of bringing the articles up to maybe even "B" Class.
this WikiAward was given to Timmyshin by ch (talk) on 08:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

ch (talk) 08:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks... a lot needs to be done on them though. I haven't a lot of time for these articles, please help! Cheers Timmyshin (talk) 08:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)