This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taiwan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Taiwan 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.
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Withdrawn.Szqecs (talk) 07:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
– As with Tamsui, where the local government has chosen not to name its district by Hanyu Pinyin, the Kaohsiung City Government also does not name its districts by Hanyu Pinyin, but Tongyong Pinyin instead. Per WP:PLACE#Use_English: "If no name can be shown to be widely accepted in English, use the local name." Also per WP:UCRN, a search of "Fongshan" yields the following results from secondary sources: . They greatly outnumber those of "Fengshan".
Support Oppose: The names of these pages should reflect the spelling that is used in the real world, which appears to be Tongyong Pinyin. Phlar (talk) 20:10, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Switching my opinion to Oppose---given the lack of agreement between the Kaohsiung and national governments on this issue, it's better to follow the Wikipedia standard, which is Hanyu Pinyin. Phlar (talk) 20:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:PINYIN. The local name is 鳳山區 so that's not really relevant. While local authorities in Taiwan use a variety of spellings for placenames, the national standard (with a few notable exceptions) is hanyu pinyin. The same pinyin is Wikipedia's house style. This central government document provides all of the official spellings of district/township level entities in Taiwan and these match the current titles of the articles. These spelling are also prominently used on road signs throughout Kaohsiung as seen on the images to the right (note also Google Maps) and appear in quality secondary sources. With such mixed usage, Wikipedia should stick with the standard; having a city-by-city ad hoc system of titles based on what appears on the district office building is not tenable. — AjaxSmack 00:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
@AjaxSmack: At the top of WP:PINYIN it says it only applies to China, because it was written for China which only uses Pinyin. WP:CHINESE#Place_names deals with places in China as well. Since there are no guidelines for Taiwan, the more general guidelines apply. The "local name" in WP:PLACE#General_guidelines is not explained but it is reasonable to take it as "the most local" name, which apart from what locals call it (unclear), would be what the local government calls it. If there are quality secondary sources please provide them. Szqecs (talk) 02:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
@AjaxSmack:WP:PLACE#General_guidelines: "If neither of these English names exist, the modern official name". The list you posted is just a list whereas the each district has a website with entire introduction articles in Tongyong. That is sign that it is more official. Szqecs (talk) 02:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
@AjaxSmack: A quick search of "fongshan" yields Focus Taiwan and Taipei Times. A search of "fengshan" yields non. Szqecs (talk) 02:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Neutral - The government website uses its transliteration system. So do other sources: Fongshan, Cijin, Nanzih, some others, etc. However, I'm uncertain whether "Cijin" is more helpful than "Qijin". This multi-nom RM isn't helpful as discussing all titles at once would be difficult to do. --George Ho (talk) 06:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
See my new vote below the "Relisting comment". --George Ho (talk) 18:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Comment: With the exception of Taoyuan District, Kaohsiung, all of these articles were renamed from the Tonyong Pinyin spelling to the Hanyu Pinyin just over a month ago, so the changes proposed here could be considered reversions. Phlar (talk) 16:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Um... no? Fongshan was moved in 2009. Szqecs (talk) 16:18, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure it was just moved with this revision dated 27 February 2017 (Ro128473 moved page Fongshan District to Fengshan District over redirect: In accordance with Taiwan's official translation name of "鳳山"). Note that the Fongshan > Fengshan redirect was created at the same time. There are similar 26–27 February entries in the revision histories of most of the other pages in your proposal. I'm certain the Nanzih > Nanzi move happened at that time, because I noticed it and commented on the talk page. Phlar (talk) 17:11, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Strong oppose. The Tongyong Pinyin versions are not local official names. The local official names are in (unchallenged) Chinese. The transcription system for English is not decided by any Chinese authorities, but by the English-language community, in our case WP:PINYIN. --T*U (talk) 14:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
@TU-nor: Going to WP:PINYIN: "English Wikipedia uses pinyin ..., except where a non-pinyin form of a word is used by modern reliable secondary sources." I have already demonstrated that Tongyong is used more than Hanyu in this case. Szqecs (talk) 14:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
You have not "demonstrated that Tongyong is used more than Hanyu". You have shown that Tongyong is used, at least by two news media and one local government. What could override WP:PINYIN would be if you found reliable sources originally written in English (not English versions from Taiwanese media etc.). None such has been shown so far. --T*U (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
@TU-nor: I don't think those articles are translated from Chinese. But if you must here you go: . Szqecs (talk) 17:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Support Edit: Oppose. I would prefer to use Hanyu Pinyin but I think Wikipedians need to remember we can't dictate such matters. It is best to follow what is being used by the Taiwan (ROC) government as per the government website: Kaohsiung City Government Administrative Districts. This would be tantamount to insisting Taibei, Gaoxiong, Taizhong, Xinzhu instead of Taipei, Kaohsiung, Taichung, Hsinchu. — Czgsq (talk) 13:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
The "Taiwan (ROC) government" uses Hanyu Pinyin. This central government document provides all of the official spellings of district/township level entities in Taiwan. Taipei et al. that you listed are exceptions also noted in that document. — AjaxSmack 00:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing that document. I did a bit of research and I've found that China Post, Central Weather Bureau and even Google Maps have switched to Hanyu Pinyin. Particularly regarding the above locations in question. There are still some websites mainly educational, events, Hakka, and some regional government websites that continue to use Tongyong Pinyin spelling. As an example "liouguei" continues to be used outside Taiwan (particularly tourism). So it seems it is still in the process of adoptance. Given that the new administration of Tsai Ing-wen does not appear to make any statement or change from Hanyu Pinyin, then it would be appropriate to use Hanyu Pinyin for the namespace and mention the other spellings on the article itself. — Czgsq (talk) 10:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
@Czgsq:Central Weather Bureau and Google Maps are not reliable sources per WP:NOTRELIABLE. The majority of reliable sources use Tongyong as I have demonstrated. The appropriate name should be determined by Wikipedia policy. Szqecs (talk) 11:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
@Szqecs: Oh, sorry. I made a mistake, it's not China Post, it's Chunghwa Post, the national postal system. I had used Liouguei District vs. Liugui as a sample to see which spelling is more prominent.
Both spellings are in use but it seems Hanyu Pinyin is dominating most spellings and is currently the official system from 2009-present. Tongyong Pinyin does not seem to have been reinstated by the current administration of Tsai Ing-wen. The only way to resolve the name is to get confirmation from authorities in charge of those towns regarding the official spelling. — Czgsq (talk) 19:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘@Czgsq: More than half of the sources you listed are not reliable. Hanyu being official does not mean the names as a result are official. Is Fongshan Station not an official station name of KMRT? The "authorities in charge of those towns" would be KH City Government and the district offices, which use Tongyong as I have shown. Szqecs (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
@Szqecs: All sources are legitimate, they are governmental, academic, charity, or mass media (they are just examples for purposes of spelling usage). If you use KMRT as the basis for spelling, what about TRA using Fengshan Station? Also Republic of China → Executive Yuan → Ministry of Transportation and Communications → Central Weather Bureau uses Fengshan. Are you saying the Executive Yuan which has oversight has made a mistake? — Czgsq (talk) 07:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
@Czgsq: Wikipedia has policies. I have linked relevant policies many times, and I doubt you have ever read any. So I'll just quote them. "Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest." per WP:NOTRELIABLE. Central governmental agencies fall under "apparent conflict of interest" because they have a policy of using Hanyu. What they call them does not reflect how the public calls them. You could argue that KMRT falls within this too, to which I have something to say, but it is pointless to further the discussion unless you start reading policies. Szqecs (talk) 07:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
@Szqecs: You're suggesting the Republic of China government has a conflict of interest for using Hanyu Pinyin? That doesn't make any sense. Ovid Tzeng VP of Academia Sinica is quoted as saying (before Hanyu Pinyin was adopted) " all nations in the world, except Taiwan, adopted the Hanyu Pinyin system and there is no need for Taiwan to invent a separate system to create confusion for everyone" China Post 2008/09/18.
Also, Guidelines for Transliteration of Chinese, Ministry of Education: "A.) The Guidelines are set up to establish a unified system for users to follow so as to avoid confusion in transliterating Chinese characters.; B.) Hanyu Pinyin is the system that has been officially adopted for the romanization of Chinese, unless otherwise regulated.; C.) Transliteration of names of places, streets, and roads shall be based upon the regulations governing standard romanization of place names and promulgated by the Ministry of the Interior." — Czgsq (talk) 16:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
What "conflict of interest" means is this: If I write on my website about the districts using Tongyong, my website is not a reliable source. I have a conflict of interest because I am involved in the decision to use one system or another outside of my website (Wikipedia).
Again, you disregard Wikipedia policy and try to apply other policies directly. There's no point in discussion if that is the case. Szqecs (talk) 17:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
"Disamiguation" criterion: per WP:PLACEDAB, "If a place is the primary topic for the title that is most appropriate by these naming conventions, then its article should carry that name without disambiguation tag". The Tongyong ones don't have disambiguation tags.
"Local" criterion: per WP:PLACE#Use_English, ""If no name can be shown to be widely accepted in English, use the local name." I consider the Tongyong ones local.
Switch to oppose - The RM is relisted, but the majority of consensus opposes the proposal here, whose arguments I find more convincing. We should not alter the article title to appease political motivations and pride. Also, the Tongyong Pinyin would not benefit most readers, especially no widely established names for the districts are found. Also, transliterating the language has not been easy; neither has been romanizing it. Our best bet is using Hanyu Pinyin either indefinitely or as a stopgap. If someone disagrees with using the Hanyu Pinyin, probably best to contact the Taiwanese government (or the Wikimedia Foundation, which operates Wikipedia), not at Wikipedia. Then again, I'm not confident that they would change their minds about Hanyu Pinyin. --George Ho (talk) 18:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Is there a basis for your "benefit most readers" argument? To me, more English readers are going to use some public transport there such as KMRT, than readers who know pinyin and would try to write the characters. Szqecs (talk) 03:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Well.... I meant readers of English Wikipedia, which is not a government's website or anything operated by a government or a rapid transit system. Also, WP:AT#Deciding on an article title says: "The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists." Most of us Wikipedians oppose the change, and your rebuttals won't help change our minds. --George Ho (talk) 03:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I meant English Wikipedia too. If you say you're not changing your mind then whatever I guess. Szqecs (talk) 03:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Guys, I think this page should only be to discuss whether or not this particular page should be Fengshan District or Fongshan District. Let's not muddy the discussion by talking about other pages which is outside this scope. I will create a new discussion for the spelling of Kaohsiung Subdivisions on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Kaohsiung Subdivisions. Since such discussion will need a general consensus, let's not rush to a decision without careful consideration and allow time to better process and understand from multiple angles and reach an agreed upon solution even if it may be temporary. I admit I find spellings in Taiwan to be annoying and frustrating especially when you can find say 3-6 different ways to transliterate a Chinese name. I also admit it wouldn't be fair for me to insist on Hanyu Pinyin if there is substantial case that it is not being used. I invite all to share your inputs. We should also allow ourselves a break to think about what has been said to process the information rather than insisting on something without considering other points that are just as valid. — Czgsq (talk) 19:26, 21 April 2017 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.