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

          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Cities (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject China / Cities (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article is supported by the Chinese cities workgroup (marked as Top-importance).
WikiProject East Asia (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of East Asia 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Note icon
This article is within of subsequent release version of Geography.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Administration section changes[edit]

I kinda like the former version of Administration divisions section before the changes, but the new one is nonetheless, informative too. Can someone merge the two? [1] [2] --LLTimes (talk) 00:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll try and see what I can do, but do not expect great speed in accomplishing the task. --HXL 何献龙 00:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh thanks! not so much about speed but if someone is willing to try then it's all good :) --LLTimes (talk) 00:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
ok great. what I am aiming at (and I will most likely require the assistance of others) is the re-integration of the "total by section"(如:市区,郊区,等)as well as moving the map from the hideous position it is in atm. although there isn't really any way to combine colours and numbers; it "defeats the purpose" and is pointless. --HXL 何献龙 02:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Not necessary merging the two image to one but I was thinking of putting both images together on this article.--LLTimes (talk) 22:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
then that raises redundancy concerns... --HXL 何献龙 23:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Merging into mega-city[edit]

From the telegraph China to create largest mega city in the world with 42 million people. 24 Jan 2011:

China is planning to create the world's biggest mega city by merging nine cities to create a metropolis twice the size of Wales with a population of 42 million.
City planners in south China have laid out an ambitious plan to merge together the nine cities that lie around the Pearl River Delta. The "Turn The Pearl River Delta Into One" scheme will create a 16,000 sq mile urban area that is 26 times larger geographically than Greater London, or twice the size of Wales. The new mega-city will cover a large part of China's manufacturing heartland, stretching from Guangzhou to Shenzhen and including Foshan, Dongguan, Zhongshan, Zhuhai, Jiangmen, Huizhou and Zhaoqing. Together, they account for nearly a tenth of the Chinese economy. Over the next six years, around 150 major infrastructure projects will mesh the transport, energy, water and telecommunications networks of the nine cities together, at a cost of some 2 trillion yuan (£190 billion). An express rail line will also connect the hub with nearby Hong Kong.

Is this true? Yosh3000 (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, no. See here. What was actually proposed was functional integration of the said cities rather than a merge of administrative divisions. Kxx (talk | contribs) 08:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

First sentence of lede[edit]

"What was polemical about referring to it as a sub-provincial city? seems like relevant information" Yes, it is clearly relevant; more important facts are relevant, too. So that's not the issue here. For example, in the current version of the lede of Beijing, or any of the other three municipalities (Tianjin, Shanghai, Chongqing) we don't begin immediately with "is a direct-controlled municipality" or something similar. We refer to what those cities are best known for. Regardless of that, the fact that Guangzhou is the provincial capital of Guangdong is far more well-known than the fact that it is a sub-provincial city. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 05:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Then wouldn't it make more sense to re-order the first sentence rather than removing the info completely? Or did I miss something and you did do that? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Taking a side interpretation of your wording, I did not remove the info completely. It is still in the lede... Besides, many more city articles begin immediately for what the city is best known for, e.g. the Washington, DC article and those four municipality articles I gave you, though I had already altered the lede of the Chongqing article.
And BTW, I had originally mis-used "polemical". I am a high school student, and still have many things to learn, you know... --HXL's Roundtable and Record 05:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Ah, it does not. I misread your edit. The diff was kind of hard to read when it came up. Anyway, I've mostly reverted back to yours now that I see. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Remove lists of secondary schools and international schools?[edit]

I do not see that secondary schools and international schools quite meet the bar of importance for inclusion in this page. The international schools are certainly less notable. As for the secondary schools, there are just too many of them in the city to make any particular one stand out in a page about the city. These two lists also kinda attract indiscriminate addition of entries. They are of little interest to the general audience as well. Kxx (talk | contribs) 22:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

This list problem is common to many city articles, and Shanghai is perhaps the clear exception. We should purge these lists on the main articles and create "List of schools in X". I posted a similar thread on the talk for WikiProject China but no one responded. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 00:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the lists per WP:BOLD. Kxx (talk | contribs) 06:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

2011 edition of Eight Sights of Guangzhou not notable[edit]

(I do not accept the translation of "羊城八景" into Eight Views of the Ram City. Nobody uses that. But this is a minor issue.)

I do not believe that the 2011 edition of Eight Sights of Guangzhou meets the bar of notability for inclusion. Other than being the result of a New Express Daily PR stunt, they have not been widely recognized and accepted by the public. The sights that "科城锦绣" and "湿地唱晚" that are referring to may not even be well-understood to local residents.

I think that the list should be removed. Long-recognized sights that warrant inclusion can be integrated in better ways. Kxx (talk | contribs) 16:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Not in this article itself, but we can certainly integrate the attractions nevertheless. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 04:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
It should be noted at the page on lists of 8 sights that are a trope in Chinese culture. No, it doesn't actually merit mention unless it becomes more notable. — LlywelynII 14:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Boat people?[edit]

The use of "boat people" in the following section seems inconsistent with the definition of boat people. Unless a citation can be provided, I think we should at the very least remove the link, if not the entire sentence. Thoughts?

Communist forces entered the city on October 14, 1949. This led the nationalists to blow up the Haizhu Bridge as the major link across the Pearl River and to the acting president's leaving for New York, whereas Chiang Kai-shek set up the capital for the Nationalist government in Chongqing again. The urban renewal projects of the new communist government improved the lives of some residents. New housing on the shores of the Pearl River provided homes for the poor boat people. Reforms by Deng Xiaoping, who came to power in the late 1970s, led to rapid economic growth due to the city's close proximity to Hong Kong and access to the Pearl River.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fistoffoucault (talkcontribs) 20:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The term "boat People" must be the same term as what we called the 鄧家人. 鄧家人 was used to be the lowest members of the society. What defines 鄧家人 as who they are, was that they do not live on the land in houses, but insed they were forbidden to leave the boats of which were also their home to come ashore. It was used as a method to keep them is their places, that is being the lowest members of the society and prevent them to rise from their proper places. Yes, welcome to the real world. Where some people can be very nasty to some members of their society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Canton dab for namesakes[edit]

Good call. tho' I'd prefer to see Canton dab'd in the hatnote. --Pawyilee (talk) 15:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Incomplete sentence in "Early History" section[edit]

The page October 30 shows that in 758, "Guangzhou is sacked by Arab and Persian pirates." But in this page, "October 30, 758" is mentioned, but the event is omitted. This makes the sentence incomplete. Please add the details. -- Ymir000 (talk) 16:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Translation needed[edit]

Can some please try to translate the following information from

广州 (古代)
至民國才正式成立廣州市政府,將當時的廣府(現時的廣州老四區)定名為「廣州市」。1949年10月14日,中華人民共和國成立廣州市人民政府。 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Translation is doable, but references are needed for such additions, which are unclear in the original page. Kxx (talk | contribs) 17:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Historical sites[edit]

"The Muslim's Loyal Trio" are the tombs of Ming loyalist Muslims who were martyred while fighting in battle against the Qing in the Manchu conquest of China. 1. Rajmaan (talk) 06:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Old 'criticism' section[edit]

I have removed the old criticism section under Transport ([3]) since neither (Isidor's Fugue, South China Morning Post (SCMP)) source present corroborated most of the claims on Guangzhou municipal public transport, instead speaking on the Guangzhou–Zhuhai Intercity Railway alone (Isidor's) or high-speed rail (SCMP). In addition, Isidor's Fugue is a self-published website, falling under WP:USERGENERATED. TLA 3x ♭ 04:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Population correction ?[edit]

In the second paragraph, it mentioned that the Pearl River Delta has around 44.5 million. When you click the link to go to the Pearl River Delta, that article mentions around 65 million. So which is it, 44.5 million or 65 million people ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gizziiusa (talkcontribs) 05:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

@Gizziiusa:: I can't provide much help as sources differ. I think the definition of the Pearl River Delta varies in different contexts (some may, say, include the entire urban or populated area surrounding the river while others only consider the settlements in proximity to it). Differing sources are something virtually everyone hates to see when editing Wikipedia articles. They damage the already-not-so-accurate information available on the website. Wishva de Silva (talk) 13:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Timeline of Guangzhou[edit]

What is missing from the recently created city timeline article? Please add relevant content. Contributions welcome. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 17:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Political correctness[edit]

When you are so PC that you can't even name Canton Canton in an English speaking encyclopedia. Jesus Christ. -- (talk) 07:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide reliable contemporary sources that Canton is its English name today? Certainly it was so historically, but most modern sources I've seen use "Guangzhou". So I'm not seeing any evidence of this being more political correctness. (And am seeing even less of what Jesus Christ has to do with it.) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


From : Physic Street and Wah Lum Chu, Canton - 1869 John Thomson

John Thomson, Wah Lum Chu, Canton, 1869.


Is Guangzhou still known as Canton or Kwangchow? I don't think so[edit]

I know the name Canton was commonly used for centuries before the spread of Pinyin, especially in historical foreign media. Pinyin, however, has officially replaced this spelling some ~60 years ago, I have hardly ever heard of this name being used anymore -- currently its only existence are probably just on old maps or the entrance of historical buildings for nostalgia. The other name, Kwangchow (I am not sure but I presume its the Wade–Giles spelling) is something I have NEVER heard of before, even after living nearby for most of my life. I mean, even Hong Kong newspapers in English would probably use Pnyin, at least Jyutpin. So I personally consider this to be VERY biased. Any opinions or suggestions about this? Wishva de Silva (talk) 13:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, it didn't use to say that. It appears that it dates back to this revision. I'm not really a fan of the wording prior to that, "former common romanisation", which just seems to sound a bit wonky to me. Prior to this revision, it said Guangzhou was "historically known as Canton", which seems like good wording to me since it expresses the fact that it was historically the name of the city, and also reflects the fact that some places continue to use the historic name (such as Hotel Landmark Canton and the Canton Tower). So I would favour a return to something along those lines. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
"Canton" has just been added to the infobox as an "other name". What do we think, is that a good idea? I'm leaning no, that it's not really current enough to be used today. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:50, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
"Canton" is still an important name in the context of the Opium Wars and the Raj. Its use in this context I think justifies its inclusion on the article to avoid any confusion. Malinion (talk) 11:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Definitely belongs in the article. I'm not so convinced about the infobox, though. I looked at other articles and didn't find similar things; for example, no "Danzig" in the infobox for Gdansk, nor "Leningrad" in the infobox for Saint Petersburg. "Canton" also already has a place in the lede, so it's not like we're completely ignoring it. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:27, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
With all due respect to Ms/r De Silva's worldliness, Kwangchow is the Postal Map Romanization of Guangzhou and was listed as the "correct" form of the name for both the EB9 and EB11. It belongs in the article whether she has heard of it or not. Now, that said, I'm curious what the official postal map actually used for the city. If it used Canton regardless of its general rules, then Kwangchow belongs in the Chinese infobox but not the lead; if it was the official Postal Map form, it's notable enough to appear in the lead to inform others who similarly haven't yet heard of it but might encounter it in historical documents.
That said, tourist campaign slogans like "City of Flowers" certainly doesn't belong anywhere near the lead. Also Jyutping is not a language and we don't really need to mention Chinese twice... — LlywelynII 14:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree about removing City of Flowers in the lead, but I've restored the wording "known historically as Canton" rather than "formerly romanized as Canton" as it's more in line with the source. The cited source, Britannica, says "conventional" spelling is Canton, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's still not used. Obviously it's not used as widely as it was before but it is still used (e.g. the annual Canton Fair). Even modern history/non-fiction books that use pinyin for place names will often use older romanisations for places of historical significance in English, including Canton. Spellcast (talk) 08:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
When Wikipedia was founded, there were definitely arguments to be had about the COMMON ENGLISH name of Beijing and Guangzhou. I don't think that's the case any more at all. Even Washington and Taipei use Hanyu Pinyin romanizations for most mainland cities (exceptions include Harbin, Urumqi, Kashgar but those aren't Chinese names in the first place). What you're seeing is, essentially, that the people who grew up learning the old forms of those names are dying off. When people say, "I'm going to...", the sentence is going to be Guangzhou, Hangzhou, and Beijing, not Canton, Hangchow, or Peking. Canton, as a name for the city people visit or live in, is a thing of the past.
Now, that said, you have a point about the adjectival uses... but we now have a #Name section to discuss that.
I think "formerly romanized" with a link to the system (Postal Map Romanization) and general field (romanization of Chinese) is far more useful than anything unlinked and nebulous, Mr Laeufer's complaints about "wonkiness" to one side. The problem is [see below]that Canton is not a former name. It is a former way for Europeans to write the exact same Chinese name. Once you start clarifying that "...historically known to Europeans as..." or "...also historically known in English as...", that phrasing is far wonkier and "awkwarder" even before getting to the loss of helpful links. Still more damning, in its continued life as an adjective, "Canton" and "Cantonese" don't usually refer to Guangzhou particularly but to all of Guangdong generally. — LlywelynII 09:33, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Canton refers primarily to the province? I don't think so. Sure, "Cantonese" is when referring to a language and perhaps a cuisine, but not "Canton" itself, nor is "Cantonese" when used for people. Furthermore, with several editors supporting the use of the word "historically" rather than "formerly", I don't think your edit is in accordance with consensus. Still, the use of a link really does improve things, so I'm going to try a compromise and see if that might hold. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:20, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Let's establish the wording before deciding on links. I hate splitting hairs on semantics but here we go. If you say Canton is not a former name, we could say "also known as Canton". But that's misleading because it implies Canton is used as much as Guangzhou today but it doesn't seem to be, which you also admit. To me, "known historically as Canton" is more informative than "formerly romanized as Canton" because 1/ It's still used in modern romanisation. In addition to the places/events Heimstern and I gave, the Guangzhou Baiyun International Airport uses the IATA code CAN for the city. (Not the full spelling but it adds to my point about not just being a former romanisation). And 2/ It's self-evident in the wording that "Canton" is an older romanisation . Now you may think you can use the same arguments against my preferred wording by saying "Canton isn't only used historically". Perhaps but I think we can agree that in general, it's overwhelmingly used in a historical context. And 3/ Imagine a new user reading about this city for the first time. The phrases "also known as Canton" and "formerly known as Canton" are too black and white; the former misleadingly implies Canton is used as much as Guangzhou today while the latter implies that it's not used in modern romanisation. But "historically known as" is more nuanced and best encapsulates the balance between being the conventional name and not being a totally unused/dead name that the word "former" would imply. So basically, it communicates everything that "formerly romanised as" does but more. Oh and it complies with what the source actually says ("conventional", with the word "historical" being virtually synonymous in this context).
As for the links, I think having two surprise links is wp:overlinking. Linking to Chinese postal romanization is misleading because the spelling precedes that system by a LONG time. That leaves us with Romanization of Chinese. I'm not saying I'm opposed to links but they're meant to expand or clarify our understanding. And I don't see how a general article on the history of Chinese romanisation helps in our understanding of the etymology behind the word Canton. Only the Name/Etymology section does that in which case we don't need a link but I'm open to suggestions. Spellcast (talk) 14:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
There are some misconceptions on this thread. Canton is not an older romanisation for Guangzhou, the two terms are romanizations of different words despite both meaning the city. Canton is a romanization of 廣東, which generally refers to the whole province of Guangdong, but in this case it is a short form of 廣東省城, "the provincial capital of Guangdong". The older generation of Cantonese people still refer to Guangzhou as simply "provincial capital" 省城 sometimes. "Guangzhou", is, as you know, a romanisation of 廣州. As such, I have no issue with saying Guangzhou was historically known as Canton. This is not an issue with differing romanizations. _dk (talk) 01:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
a. Linking every word unhelpfully is WP:OVERLINK. Linking things helpfully, neither of which is a surprise, is not overlink but WP:READER service, which shouldn't need reminding but sometimes does.
b. That said, per the sources in the new #Names section, it does seem that Canton was originally based on the province name and therefore not a romanization issue, except insofar as Postal Code formerly made it official. It is now officially Guangzhou to, I believe, every government on Earth. We still mention Canton, but it is not actually current. IATA uses CAN precisely because that airport has 80 years of history and is carrying on its preexisting code.
c. With respect, most of the misconceptions are on Mr Cast's side of the aisle. At best, "historically" is a tony synonym for "formerly"; at worst, it's ambiguous as to whether it means "formerly" (which is being objected to), "based upon its history" (which doesn't apply), or "in historical contexts" (the last of which isn't actually a definition for the word but seems to be what he thinks it means). It's not self evident that Canton has any relation to the Chinese language, and was retained for the Postal Map precisely as a historical exception to the transcription of the Chinese language.
d. If you actually have a source for that derivation of Canton (from 廣東省城), I'd love to add it to the article. I didn't see that myself when I was looking for sourcing one way or the other as to Guangzhou/Guangdong and, while I ended with adding the M-W cite, I don't actually trust them much. The OED dodges the whole issue and leaves the etymology of Cantonese as "from Canton".
e. If you guys are actually watching the page and have enough time to bicker about this at paragraph length... could I note that it's much more productive to actually do something productive like the Name section I added, the expansion of history I'm doing, the picture formatting and proofreading I went through? I'm not saying you have to do the whole page: just finding one better source or one additional fact is great. But edit warring over misunderstood definitions of words and removing links and adding nothing to the article while you do... I mean, why do that? If expanding the text of this article isn't interesting, go find another one to love on. If you really get your rocks off on grammar and formatting issues, go over to WP:MOS and establish a consensus there that's binding on everyone and more lasting and productive than the three of us bickering at each other. — LlywelynII 16:45, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
It's true the previous citation didn't support the 'former' status of "Canton", though. How does this compromise look? It seems to address everyone's concerns, including continuing minor use of "Canton". — LlywelynII 08:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

(outdent) A response came 2 weeks after my comment, so I wasn't aware of the recent edits. Expanding articles is all well and good but has no bearing on the merits of the arguments. The recent "formerly and informally known as Canton" is self-contradictory. It should be as least convoluted as possible. Like Underbar dk (talk · contribs), I too support "known historically as Canton", which is what I put in this article in 2011 and has been the stable wording until recently. Heimstern (talk · contribs) also favoured that wording and the only reason he put "historically romanised as Canton" was in response to LlywelynII (talk · contribs) changing it to "formerly". But no other editor has yet supported "formerly". I welcome more third party opinions regardless. The "conventional" vs. "historical" meaning is way overthinking it. Like I said, historically has that extra little nuance that formerly doesn't have. You call it ambiguous but it's only the first sentence. You're trying to make a black and white statement on something that isn't. That's why there's a name section. I could easily find a source saying "historically" (just as you can easily find one saying "formerly" or "also known as", which is why there has to be compromise). That being said, I wouldn't mind saying known/romanised "conventionally as Canton" or "conventional: Canton" to use the exact Britannica wording. I suspect those who support "historically" would also support "conventional". But what's clear is that "formerly" has no consensus. Also, deciding how much a name/spelling is still used seems anecdotal to some extent. IMO, I wouldn't put Canton in the same category of unused names/spellings that other Chinese places may have. The Encyclopedia of China: History and Culture (2013 ed.) has "formerly known as" in its entries for Beijing (Peking), Nanjing (Nanking), and Xiamen (Amoy), but "also known as Canton" for Guangzhou. Maybe one day Guangzhou will overtake Canton to the extent Beijing has over Peking, especially when describing (pre-pinyin) history, but right now that doesn't seem to be the case. Spellcast (talk) 10:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

"The tens of thousands of foreign residents included multiple women over the course of two centuries"[edit]

Eh, seriously? I know someone apparently went to some trouble to find sources individually mentioning them, but doesn't that go without saying? A community of a few thousand merchants might possibly be exclusively male but beyond that, of course some are bringing wives, daughters, &c. Pending something they actually did or some cultural importance they actually had, is there any reason to mention this at all except possibly at Islam in China or the historical section of Demographics of China? — LlywelynII 00:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Similarly, the overview of Christians in Guangzhou is not at all the place for details about the curriculum and alumni of a single medical school simply because it was founded by a woman. A single link more than suffices. — LlywelynII 03:57, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


This edit used American English but the article was still pretty stubby. This was the first edit to clearly use one form of English once the article was fleshed out and that was British English. Kindly maintain it pending a new consensus to the contrary. Probably just as well, since the region's English speakers are still likely to be influenced by Hong Kong. [FWIW, though, a lot of the Guangzhou placename links seem to use American spellings. If the city's administration has a preference one way or the other (as in their metro system), we should adjust the article to that.] — LlywelynII 10:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)