Jump to content

Talk:Shishapangma/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Some WP internal data to feed future discussion about a possible revert to the original title

I understand that the decision of the administrator not to move back Xixabangma to its original title is related to the lack of consensus and impossibility to agree on Google search parameters. In order not to overload this talk page with unproductive discussions, I have answered user:虞海 last comments directly in his talk page I'm sorry also for my insistence but would like to provide the following (hopefully objective) data to feed future discussion regarding a possible revert to the original title.

Supporters of the "Xixabangma" spelling have mentioned the following points that I would like to analyse in the light of Wikipedia internal data (upon which I hope everybody will agree, without suspecting manipulation):

1) It has been suggested that the WP naming convention for Tibetan names does not apply for the traditional English naming of Sishapangma (Shisha Pangma) as it is not sufficiently known.

Food for thoughts: the article is rated Top Importance on the project importance scale for the WikiProject Mountain since 2007. Only 269 (1.6%) out of 16,026 mountain articles are rated "Top Importance". Out of these 269 top important articles, only 2 are located fully inside Tibet (Mount Kailash and Shishapangma). Question: how can Shishapangma lack sufficient "notoriety" to apply the above-mentioned naming convention for Tibetan names, while it belongs to the very few mountains in the World considered "Top Importance" (the highest on the scale)?


2) It has been suggested that the WP title change policy (extract: "editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial title to another is strongly discouraged. If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed") does not apply, as the editor who changed the title could not anticipate how controversial it would be.

Food for thoughts:

a) The talk page of user:虞海 shows that he has repeatedly made similar controversial changes over the past three years, and that several WP editors (not involved in the current Shishapangma naming controversy) raised his attention about the need to first discuss a proposed moved and reach consensus before proceeding to the move.

b) On the same day (26 October), user:虞海 changed the title name of 5 mountain pages, all of them very significant mountains in the region. 4 out of 5 name changes were reverted by another editor, without contestation from user:虞海. If my understanding is correct, reversion to the Shishapangma original name failed due to technical issues.

c) The German Wiki had a similar dispute in 2007 regarding the naming of Shishapangma. The issue was settled with keeping the traditional name. Argument pro/contra were basically the same as discussed in the current controversy. (I not saying that the persons involved in the current controversy should have known about the German WP)


3) It has been suggested that "Shisha Pangma / Shishapangma" is the old / outdated naming, current naming in English is "Xixabangma".

Food for thoughts: as we couldn't agree on which parameter to select for a Google search, I have been checking the Wikipedia traffic statistic for the whole year of 2010. Shishapangma 34,260 (93 per day)

Shisha Pangma 5,965 (16 per day)

Xixabangma 380 (1 per day)

I guess the first number is not comparable as this might include all redirects from other WP pages linking to Shishapangma original page.

But comparing Shisha Pangma (16 search per day) and Xixabangma (1 search per day) might be a very good indicator for the current spelling usage amongst English speakers (both spelling do redirect to the "Shishapangma" page). The ratio of 16 to 1 is eloquent.


Is consensus finding possible?

See also: User talk:虞海

While doing the present research, I have noticed that beside making on 26 October the five controversial title changes mentioned above (beside all other controversial changes over the past 3 years), user:虞海 has the same day made some other controversial changes on the Mount Kailash page, which is probably the most famous mountain worldwide and one of the holiest worship place. In English, the mountain is traditionally known as Mount Kailash, and accessorily as Gang Rinpoche. In the infobox, the name Kailash has been relegated to the second place, while the traditional Gang Rinpoche has been totally removed by user:虞海 to be replaced by the Pinyin Kangrinboqê (note that I am fully favorable to have the Pinyin spelling included, as it was already the case). Once again, user:虞海 has deliberately removed some important WP content without adding new content.

Based on these observations, I am expressing doubts that User user:虞海 is genuinely interested in consensus finding. Unilateral controversial edits and systematic opposition rather seem to be the rule. In such case, how is it possible to have a constructive discussion regarding the naming of Shishapangma, when objective remarks and data are systematically ignored or rejected? --Pseudois (talk) 16:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

(Inserted) You'd point out what the "deliberately removed some important WP content without adding new content" is, or I don't think it to be worthful to discuss with you for you just point what in your mind without hearing anything I said. Also, you'd better clarify what "objective remarks and data are systematically ignored". Actually, I may point out what objective remarks you have ignored. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 17:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
For your accuse of "systematically rejected", I admit I reject them, but debate always push forward the discussion and make things clearly. This is an umbrella term, I can also accuse you that if you have simply one refute. I discuss with those who want to discuss with me, debate with me, but won't discuss with a accuser who accuse anyone he/she don't like. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 17:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Inserted: see my answer in your user talk page (Kailash chapter), there is absolutely nothing personal. --Pseudois (talk) 20:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree entirely with Pseudois's observations. Yu Hai is a disruptive editor with a long history of unilateral and controversial moves, and he has never shown the slightest interest in reaching consensus. BabelStone (talk) 20:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Funny this same scenario has now stated at the page Gompa now Goinba. Yu Hai made an undiscussed move. A couple moves with two additional names actually. Several editors attempted to move it back to Gompa, but were unable. Now if a discussion such as this is initiated, the default action in the event of no consensus would be to keep at Goinba. Thats right Goinba, not Gompa, the stable name before, but Goinba, the name that started the controversy in the first place. I am starting to wonder if my error at this page had anything to do with our inability to move it back. It is perhaps something Yu Hai is doing in these page moves, intentionally or not, that is causing the techinical problems. It could even be a way of gaming the system, to force a page move against all others will. I don't know. But I can say that based what I have seen of Yu Hai's edit history, the above editors estimations of Yu Hai are spot on.--Racerx11 (talk) 23:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
The problem with the way that page moving is set up is that it is easy for anyone to move an established article to a novel name, but hard to move it back again unless you're an admin, which gives a seriously unfair advantage to an unscrupulous editor who wants to push their own POV against consensus. Pre-emptive moves without discussion certainly seem to work for Yu Hai most of the time. BabelStone (talk) 23:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
The talk page of goinba shows that Yu Hai is acting in good faith and simply didn't know that "gompa" is relatively known in English. I don't think the term "stable name" is meaningful for a title that hasn't been moved or discussed before. In both cases, Yu Hai did not "push POV against consensus" because there was no consensus for the previous name; it was just undiscussed. Besides, "gompa" is clearly well-established in English, while pre-Xixabangma spellings are not; let's not get carried away with the comparison. It should be relatively easy and quick to get a consensus for "gompa" and move it back; Yu Hai could even help. Also, this talk page is not the place to raise up a lynch mob against Yu Hai (or to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear in general). Just talk to him and pursue normal dispute resolution. Quigley (talk) 00:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Just for the record I am just as happy with our current page name as I was with the previous one. I will address your comments one by one:
The talk page of goinba shows that Yu Hai is acting in good faith and simply didn't know that "gompa" is relatively known in English.
I can agree with that now that I have closely reread Yu Hai's comment.
I don't think the term "stable name" is meaningful for a title that hasn't been moved or discussed before.
Disagree. I think a page name that has remained the same, uncontested, discussed or not, is "stable" IMO for what its worth.
In both cases, Yu Hai did not "push POV against consensus" because there was no consensus for the previous name; it was just undiscussed. Besides, "gompa" is clearly well-established in English, while pre-Xixabangma spellings are not; let's not get carried away with the comparison.
I can agree with those statemants except one could argue there was a consensus since there was no change for several years.
It should be relatively easy and quick to get a consensus for "gompa" and move it back.
Another editor said nearly these same words very early on in the Shishipanga issue and look how that turned out.
Yu Hai could even help.
Perhaps, and I hope so, but based on his history I wouldn't count on it. Hope I'm wrong.
Also, this talk page is not the place to raise up a lynch mob against Yu Hai (or to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear in general).
Very much agree. Sorry, that was not my intent. Looking over the comments above, it does read like that. Thank you for reminding us to remain civil and assume good faith.
Just talk to him and pursue normal dispute resolution.
I intend to do that. Thank you. --Racerx11 (talk) 01:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
For the record, I’m not as happy with Xixabangma as with Shishapangma, but I don’t think Xixabangma is a bad choice either. I did want to elaborate on one thing Quigley said:
“Yu Hai is acting in good faith and simply didn't know that "gompa" is relatively known in English”
It’s probably true that Yu Hai did not know that gompa is relatively well known in English. I would go so far as to say that that his incorrect assumption that gompa is not widely known is the reason he made the edit. He also made the assumption that Shishapangma, Cho Oyu, and Lhotse were not well known, which also turned out not to be true. (Shishapangma is also known by other names.) These are 3 of only 14 mountains in the world over 8000m high. The “eight-thousanders” have their own Wikipedia article. Books have been written about them for popular consumption.
Also, these 3 mountains are rated top importance on Wikiproject Mountains. Importance ratings can be arbitrary and something may be important and still not well known, but it should be a clue that other editors care about the article and he should extend these editors the courtesy of discussing a name change before making it.
Yu Hai said above that he now thinks that the 10 highest mountains may be well known. (Xixabangma is 14th.) This is a very poor criterion, for example Mount Washington (New Hampshire) is less than 2000m, and is not even the highest mountain on the East Coast of the United States, but is very well known.
Since the controversy over Xixabangma began, and requests from at least one editor to stop moving articles without discussing first, Yu Hai has made another poorly informed decision to move an article because he thought the name was not well known (gompa –> goinba).
I agree that “this talk page is not the place to raise up a lynch mob against Yu Hai”. But it might be a good place for Yu Hai to agree to stop making undiscussed moves. Thank you.--Wikimedes (talk) 04:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
@Quigley: as an occasional contributor to WP, I have never been involved in any kind of controversy before. I disregard "lynch mob" as much as yourself, my objective being solely to bring my own contribution at improving WP in a true spirit of NPOV.
To reply to your point regarding 虞海, he has been making several controversial edits (deleting commonly used English spelling from articles, moving titles as in the case of Gompa, etc.) after the Shishapanga controversy started. So it is difficult to see how he could have been unaware of the potentially controversial nature of his edits.
To take the Gompa example, the article clearly states that Gompas can be found in China, Nepal, India and Bhutan. How can an editor like 虞海 assume that a Pinyin spelling would be understood in Nepal, India and Bhutan? So:
- either 虞海 is good faith, but he a) lacks sufficient general knowledge about the topics he is editing, b) lack sufficient knowledge in English, and/or c) lacks sufficient knowledge about Wikipedia and its rules.
- or 虞海 is just blindly and aggressively pushing for his own POV with a total disrespect of other editors.
In both cases it is not helping to improve WP quality. Would 虞海 show a cooperative and consensus-oriented attitude, I would be more than glad to revise my thoughts.
PS. In defense of 虞海, I am not sure that it is not possible to revert the "Gompa" title. I did not dare to try to rename it in order not to create a similar mess as for the Shishapangma page, so if no other editor has tried it is maybe possible to simply revert the title.--Pseudois (talk) 07:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
(Inserted)
  1. Your example "Pinyin spelling would or would not be understood in Nepal, India and Bhutan" makes nonsense because whether pinyin spelling-system being popular in Bhutan/Nepal does never matter, for:
    1. Regardless where there is a gonpa/goinba, Tibet is the originate place of gonpa/goinba and the main culture-taker. E.g. you may build 10 gonpas/goinbas in Arctic and say "Pinyin would not be understood in arctic so Yu Hai is disturbing us delebrately!" But does that make sense? Arctic wouldn't be the main cultural-taker nor the originate place, and neither do Nepal/Bhutan.
    2. Even if it matters, does popularity of pinyin in Nepal/Bhutanmatters the common use in English?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 虞海 (talk • contribs) (splitted by Pseudois' edit, I supplement this sign)
      Inserted: no, and I totally agree with you on that point. I actually never said something different.--Pseudois (talk) 20:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
      I meant "does the popularity of pinyin in Nepal/Bhutan affect the answer of the question 'is Goinba common in English'". ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 16:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
    Pseudois, I'm confused, why you do that subtle change in object, from naming convention to the popularity of pinyin? To make an accuse at me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 虞海 (talk • contribs) (splitted by Pseudois' edit, I supplement this sign)
    Inserted: you have in the past changed article names by justifying that we should respect the "official" spelling. In your talk pages, I explained that the concept of "official" spelling makes little meaning for the English language as strictly spoken English is a non-regulated language (but we have some WP conventions instead). In the case of objects like gompas which apply to countries like India, Nepal and Bhutan where Pinyin spelling is unknown, a title move makes even less sense (see also the Cho Oyu and Lhotse renaming), even though I agree with you that this is not the most relevant argument (see above). --Pseudois (talk) 20:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  2. Your two cases in the either-or statement are simply the same if you do not add your subjective definition "blindly", "aggressively" and "total disrespect".
    1. One who lack "the three" may pushing for one's own POV to the community, but that never matter because you may convince him/her, but if you feel not able to convince, that would be:
      1. either, you lack enough knowledge to convincing him/her
      2. or, you failed to get his/her idea and you just insist on what you said and he/her just insist what he/her said
      In both cases it is not a good reason for you to blame one being "systematic opposition".
      (You can, however, if systematic is not a derogatory, but that doesn't seems to be the case, and that's the reason why I asked you what did you mean by saying "systematic")
    2. One who always tried to oppose someone or "push their own POV against consensus" is simply one who follow the consensus because if one is doing opposing work, that would must because one's not being convinced. (Once one's being convinced, he/she will never think worthful to do resultless job. People always do thing when they have hope, i.e. when they see there's others' fallacy to makes them able to correct them and others will eventually change their opinion.) Well, this put use back to the "if you feel not able to convince" cycle. So the two are simply the same.
––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 18:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, seems you're not some undifferentiated accuser, and I think I may offer a example.
When Racerx11 changed his vote to Neutral, he said "that suggest the site simply chose not to translate the entire name to the common English name". I intended to persuade him with the Da Hinggan Ling Prefecture (rather than Greater Hinggan Peak Prefecture or Greater Hinggan Range Prefecture) example to prove it's well-translated. However, I noticed that "simply chose not to translate the entire name" isn't his sole concern even though he didn't say "and I have some other concerns", etc. (I.e., even if he is convinced that "Xixabangma Feng" is well translated he might still vote "Neutral".) Such vague things is often not very helpful to the discussion and if I didn't find out the fact that he voted "Neutral" not simply because he saw "Xixabangma Feng", the discussion would be even more longer, and someone will accuse me for "Oh you systematically objection!" earlier. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 19:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
It is not possible to simply move the page back to Gompa, by a non-admin that is. I tried myself shortly before entering my first comment in this section. I also left a message there at Talk:Goinba about getting an admin to make the move back before any formal discussions get started, otherwise the same thing that happened here could occur again.--Racerx11 (talk) 11:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
And I have not tried to contact an admin to do this. Hoping someone else can bring it to an admin's attention. I tried early on after discovering the problem at this page, way back when it was at "Shishabangma" with a "b" not a "p". I was kindly brushed off and dismissed by the responding admin. I guess I just have a way with people.Racerx11 (talk) 11:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the history of this and moved Goinba back to Gompa for you all hoping that you all can work things out with 虞海. --Mike Cline (talk) 12:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Another attempt to find consensus

As it seems that both "Shishapangma" and "Xixabangma" will never get consensus, what about simply renaming the page "Shisha Pangma" as mentioned previously by an editor.

Here an objection previously raised that hasn't been answered with objective facts:

Besides, "gompa" is clearly well-established in English, while pre-Xixabangma spellings are not; let's not get carried away with the comparison. Comment by Quigley 00:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

In order not to be accused by 虞海to have an Anglo-American bias, I would like to mention this book published in China (Science Press) by Chinese authors, dating back to 1966:

A photographic record of the Mount Shisha Pangma Scientific Expedition

I would be very interesting to see anterior English language sources for the spelling "Xixabangma". I hope that this will answer satisfactorily your interrogations. I also hope that consensus-oriented editors will not start challenging the renaming to "Shisha Pangma" with new objections that haven't been mentioned so far, as the discussion is already two weeks old.

I think that the overwhelming majority of other objections raised in this talk page against "Shishapangma" or "Shisha Pangma" have already been answered, but would an issue not be solved yet, I would feel very obliged to try to give a precise, scientific and objective answer to any clearly formulated objection.--Pseudois (talk) 16:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand, why someone uses Xixabangma. Noone uses it: no webpage, book or climber. The normal english name is Shishapangma or Shisha Pangma. --PietJay (talk) 19:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


In order to structure the discussion (if discussion we should have), I would like to quote again my previous attempt to summarise the pro/contra. It could be useful if objecting or supporting remarks do point out to which number it is referring.

Arguments in favour of Shisha Pangma / Shishapangma:

1) Wikipedia guidelines for naming geographical places

2) Wikipedia guidelines regarding title change

3) Wikipedia naming conventions (Tibetan)

4) Anteriority of Shishapangma versus Xixapangma in WP (consensus should have been made before reverting)

5) Consistency (all other WP articles mentioning Sishapangma use the original spelling)

6) Traditional and well established spelling in English

7) Most widely used spelling in English (including books)

8) Pronunciation does correspond to the name in Tibetan

Disputed:

1) Which spelling is most commonly used by scholars? (see anterior paragraphs, some editors interpret the data as favourable to Sisha Pangma, other to Tibetan Pinyin Xixabangma, other to Chinese Pinyin Xixiabanga Feng)

Arguments in favour of Xixabangma:

1) Does respect the official romanisation ("Tibetan Pinyin) in use in China

2) Is the emerging spelling--Pseudois (talk) 12:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


Ok, you told me not to discuss here but continue to posting your own ideas as summary of "Arguments in favour of Xixabangma", so my reply to your “05:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)” will be here.
However, before refute your understanding to "Arguments in favour of Xixabangma", I want to reply one of your point you have emphasis for long: the difference between naming and spelling.
The first time you mentioned it was in 15:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC) and was immediately replied by Quigley, I thought it was solved, but now it seems it's not. Since you're in favor of quote examples, I may also explain it by examples: the example “Bombay is also a previously existing spelling which exists long before Mumbai”, as I used, WAS a naming issue, however, Simla/Shimla, Peking/Beijing, etc. - all these examples I didn't cite are spelling issues. These examples have bestly shown that the only difference between naming and spelling is no difference, and overthrowed your point that where there was a previously existing spelling, it should be used.
And then reply your comment on my user talk page:
1.1 "Billions of kids" was a wrong number. I didn't thought more but China has some 1300000000 people. I didn't calculate how many Chinese children (incl. both ethnics) are learn English textbook published by PEP. Neither did I taken non-native English speakers into consideration when I said the mountain is almost unknown in English community, and I think it should be corrected as "the mountain is not known to most native English speakers".
1.3 Why?: Wikipedia naming conventions (Tibetan) is not an argument in favor of Shisha Pangma / Shishapangma because it simply advise to use a common name while it's not sure which one is common. Those in favor of Shishapangma think Shishapangma more common by Google Book, those in favor of Xixabangma think Xixabangma by authority encyclopedia and Google Scholar.
2 I'm not sure, you may ask Nat Krause or BabelStone. sbang in shi sha sbang ma is likelier to be transcribed as bang rather than pang in THDL, so I said I suspect if Shishapangma is from Tibetan language.
3
At last a summary of Arguments in favour of Xixabangma:
––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 16:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Yuhai is right, the correct THDL or Tournadre spelling would be Shishabangma (or maybe Shisha Bangma, since those systems don't give specifics on how to split up words). The p in Shishapangma is ad hoc. Modern Standard Tibetan no longer distinguishes between voiced/tenuis/aspirated stops except at the beginning of a word, so conventional English spellings sometimes confuse them, viz Ngabö (should be Ngaphö) or Reting (should be Radreng).—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 10:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
@ Yú Hǎi:
a) I didn't say you should not discuss here. I wrote that I would continue the discussion on your talk page, in order not to fill the present page with unrelated discussions.
b) Saint Petersburg / Petrograd / Leningrad is a naming issue. Shishapangma / Xixabangma / Shisha Pangma is a spelling issue. I don't know how more clearly I can explain it. The original name "ཤི་ཤ་སྦང་མ།" has not changed over the years.
c) "It's not sure which one is common". ALL data provided so far do show that Shishapangma / Shisha Pangma is more common, even Google scholar. But if you read my summary, you will see that I included this point under "disputed".
d) About exonym/endonym: please provide any reference asserting that Sisha Pangma is not etymologically related to Xixabangma. Several editors have already asked you to do so.
@ Nat Krause: Thank you for bringing your expertise on the different Tibetan romanisation systems. I hope however that your point will not be recuperated either as a "pro" or "contra" argument, as it is hardly relevant for the discussion (nobody disputed this point regarding THDL anyway). "Shigatse" does not fit with any of the romanisation systems, but is still the common English spelling.--Pseudois (talk) 14:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


“sbang in shi sha sbang ma is likelier to be transcribed as bang rather than pang in THDL, so I said I suspect if Shishapangma is from Tibetan language.” Are you (虞海 (Yú Hǎi)) saying that Shishapangma is not of Tibetan origin because the “p” in Shishapangma would be more properly transcribed as “b”?--Wikimedes (talk) 14:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Now things are weird, since ང་ཕོད may even became Ngabö, one would never succeed to investigate whether Shishapangma is from Tibetan or Nepali. So there seems to be some difficulties in lumping if we decide “etyminology” as the standard of lumping. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 17:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
@Pseudois: Oh, dear, you may not claim something to be more common without lumping standard and scale of measurement defined. See my comment on Wikimedes belowing. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 18:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
@虞海: I'm not sure what you are meaning exactly. Anyway, have a look at this table posted earlier by another editor:
Shishapangma Shisha pangma Xixabangma Xixiabangma Gosainthan
Google 318,000 64,800 18,000 13,500 29,100
Google Books 1090 1040 284 98 384
Google Scholar 92 332 290 207 49
Google News Archive 420 1610 44 4
--Pseudois (talk) 13:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

In the case of most articles, the polices explained at WP:ENGLISH will resolve such disputes. Here, the issue is not what Chinese children learning English in China do, the issue is what people who speak English as their first language do. I do not view this as anglocentric bias, I view it as a simple lingistic difference. In similar disputes, I point to the example of Munich, spelled München by Germans themselves (who call themselves Deutschlanders, also). I tend to follow that example where there are differences of opinion on such matters. Where a name variation makes something completely incomprehensible to the average reader who has heard a different name, it is best avoided as a title, though the name variations can and often should be discussed in the text where appropriate. For example, Mount Everest. Now, if a name or word is considered disrespectful or gives offense (such as inuit being preferred over eskimo or not calling ANYTHING squaw this-or-that), that sort of name change should be respected by all. But for geographic names in various languages, absent flat-out offense, it is a bit trickier. In the case of Beijing/Peking, it was a request by a national government to rename their own capital, made without significant controversy (I remember the switch, there was some discomfort for 4-5 years, but eventually the change was solidified). Cases such as Mumbai/Bombay or Myanmar/Burma are tricker, as there IS some opposition, but where we are talking major cities or nations, it can become very awkward to resist the flow. But here, in the case of these mountain names, I believe that it would violate WP:NOR to swap over to a name that few would understand. There is a tendency here to either stick with Tibetan-influenced romanization and show respect to this older form due to the ongoing human rights issues, OR there is "Munich/München issue that the English-speaking world has simply adopted an anglicized form and would have no clue if it were altered. (I suppose if the Germans really threw a worldwide fit about "Munich" the world would go along with München, even if no one but the Germans would pronounce it properly!) Montanabw(talk) 03:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm giving up the "taken non-native English speakers into consideration" proposal but it's never due to WP:ENGLISH. On the contrary, WP:ENGLISH did never claim "only English as a first language can be called English"; "taken non-native English speakers into consideration" may be a good point but I don't think I will use it here because it is applicable to the specific situation of Xixabangma. Nor did it violate NOR, since all is well-sourced. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 17:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Comment on consistency with other articles (point 5). I think that what we decide to name this article should determine how the other Wikipedia articles refer to the mountain. Although there are many debates on proper wording of text in articles, the article naming discussion should control, yes? (I realize there are exceptions for articles on periods of history when the topic was referred to by a different name (Danzig vs. Gdansk, etc.), but that doesn’t apply here.)--Wikimedes (talk) 10:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Disposing of 3 arguments for Xixabangma:

The argument for using Xixabangma as the article's title is stated, then refuted.

  1. The mountain is not well-known.
    1. Including the different names for the mountain, there are over 2500 Google Book hits. Even if a few of these hits are duplicates, a topic that is included in this many books is well-known.
    2. (Previously mentioned) All eight-thousanders are well known, with books written about them for popular consumption (e.g. Potterfield, Peter; Viesturs, Ed; Breashears, David (2009). Himalayan Quest: Ed Viesturs Summits All Fourteen 8,000-Meter Giants. National Geographic. p.137 ISBN 142620485X.).
  2. Shishapangma and Shisha Pangma are no longer in use and have been replaced by Xixabangma.
    1. There are 332 post-1993 Google Scholar hits for Shisha Pangma, more than any other spelling of the mountain. Shisha Pangma is still being used.
    2. Several web sites use Shishapangma and Shisha Pangma, including the web sites used as references in this article. Both of these spellings are still being used.
    3. English Wikipedia traffic in 2010 for Shisha Pangma was 16:1 more prevalent than Xixabangma. Clearly, among English Wikipedia readers, Shisha Pangma is still being used and Xixabangma has not replaced Shisha Pangma.
    4. The above cited 2009 book about Ed Viesturs’ climbs of the 8,000 meter peaks uses Shishapangma – another example that Shishapangma is still being used.
  3. It is unclear whether Shishapangma derives from Xixabangma (Tibetan) or Shishāpāngmā (Nepali) therefore Shishapangma hits should be divided evenly between Xixabangma and Shishāpāngmā.
I have to admit that this claim has never made any sense to me, and I had hoped (and requested) that 虞海 would explain further. Although I am not an etymologist and I speak neither Tibetan nor Nepali, it is obvious that Xixabangma and Shishāpāngmā share a common origin. Nepal and Tibet share a common border. There is frequent contact between the two populations, including extensive trade (perhaps not in the last few decades) and occasional conquest. The two words are spelled (and I presume sound) very much alike. In such a case, absent very clear evidence to the contrary, there should be a strong presumption that the words share a common origin. It is also obvious that Shishapangma shares the same origin. Splitting it between Xixabangma and Shishāpāngmā based on different word origins simply makes no sense when all three words share the same origin.--Wikimedes (talk) 05:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Comment: Wikimedes made a direct pushforward to the discussion.
  1. I was considering whether to give up the “not well-known” argument even before the discussion - when I saw its WPMountain template rated as top-importance and WPTibet rated as low-importance, I was shocked and wanted to change it to WPMount=mid;WPTibet=mid. Later I realized what silly-things I did: that's no difference to pull the tiger's teeth from his mouth because Xixabangma really seems to be somewhat "top-importance" in some western peoples' eyes.
    However, before evaluate the rationality of “not well-known” argument, I want to ask hike395 about his "WP:PLACE defines widely accepted in a relative way (i.e., 3x more common than the alternatives)" comment - where was that exactly in WP:PLACE?
  2. The
  3. You didn't quite get my argument. My argument was do not use double standard, not Shishapangma and Shisha Pangma must be splitted. In other words, if you do not lump Xixabangma and Xixiabangma together due to different language origin, you should also split Shishapangma and Shisha pangma because of "looks similar".
    • If you use "looks similar" as the standard of whether to lump or not and consider Shishapangma and Shisha Pangma should be lumped, then Xixabangma and Xixiabangma should also be lumped; if you use "same origin" as the standard of whether to lump or not and consider Xixabangma and Xixiabangma should not be lumped, then half of Shishapangma and Shisha Pangma should be lumped into Shishāpāngmā while half of Shishapangma and Shisha Pangma should be lumped into Xixabangma, and Hsi-hsia-pang-ma should be lumped into Xixiabangma. In no standard you may do lump method you used in "08:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)" comment should never be taken into consideration for its double-standards and unfairness - with that method, I suggest you to directly say: "Lump every Shishapangma-related but never lump any Xixabangma-related!"
    • However, things are not that simple. We have only take one factor about lumping - lumping standard. Still, there's an additional factor after lumping standard decided - scale of measurement (just as what I wrote in "05:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)"). E.g.
      • if we decide to use "looks similar" as the standard, it still remains to define "how similar they should be", result in
        either - lumping "Shishapangma" and "Shisha Pangma", and "Xixabangma" and "Xixiabangma";
        or - lumping "Shishapangma", "Shisha Pangma", "Xixabangma" and "Xixiabangma", i.e. lumping all four together.
      • if we decide to use "same origin" as the standard, it still remains to define "what is 'same'", result in
        either - half of Shishapangma and Shisha Pangma should be lumped into Shishāpāngmā while half of Shishapangma and Shisha Pangma should be lumped into Xixabangma, and Hsi-hsia-pang-ma should be lumped into Xixiabangma;
        or - lumping all six together (you should not apply your comment {There is frequent contact between the two populations, including extensive trade (perhaps not in the last few decades) and occasional conquest} to the relation between Khas and Tibetan without applying it to the relation between Han and Tibetan - that's double standards).
    • The previous argument makes nonsense in that they attempted to discuss which is more common without define lumping standard nor scale of measurement, and result in they always lump whatever they want to lump and split whatever they want to split. My summarize in "13:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)" mentioned different scale of measurement (though incomplete) in "looks similar" lumping standard, that makes things rather equally-treated.
  4. P.S. I'd like to link Talk:Lop Lake#Requested move as analagy and Merriam-Webster's Geographical Dictionary (which use Xixabangma Feng as main entry) as additional evidence. Another analogy case: Ghulja was moved back to its common name "Yining", but later moved to Ghulja again.
––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 17:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Progressing
1) “where was that exactly in WP:PLACE?” Number 2 here. It’s probably best if I just let you work through this on your own for now, but one bit of advice: Whether the mountain is well known, whether a name for the mountain is well known, and which name for the mountain is most widely known are three different things. Point 1 only addresses whether the mountain is well known. Point 2 addresses whether Shishapangma and Shisha Pangma are well known names, and whether they have been replaced by Xixabangma. The 3x criterion addresses which name is most widely known.
2) Did you mean to say something here? It looks like your edit got cut off.
3) “You didn't quite get my argument.” An understatement. I finally understand what you mean by double standards, so we’re making progress. But I still don’t understand your splitting argument. There are a number of ways to group things. The first is by the word itself (equivalently by origin):
a) Variants of ཤི་ཤ་སྦང་མ། (Tibetan origin) go in one group (ཤི་ཤ་སྦང་མ།, Xixabangma, Shishapangma, Shisha Pangma, shi sha sbang ma, Xixabangma, शिशापाङ्मा, Shishāpāngmā, 希夏幫馬峰, Xīxiàbāngmǎ Fēng, Xixiabangma, Hsi-hsia-pang-ma)
b) Variants of गोसाईथान (Nepali origin) go in another group (गोसाईथान, Gosainthān, Gosainthan, 高僧赞峰, Gāosēngzàn Fēng).
I think everyone agrees on this grouping.
The question is, how do we further group the spellings of the Tibetan word? The 3 proposals have been (ignoring some little-used spelling variations):
By transcription type (equivalently language group or “looks alike”) (my original proposal):
i) Shishapangma + Shisha Pangma – “Common” English transcription (i.e. not Wylie, which is not in common usage for Shishapangma), easily understandable for English speakers (English language, uses sh and p)
ii) Xixabangma + Xixiabangma – Pinyin (without diacritics), easily understandable (I presume) to Chinese and Tibetan speakers (Sino-Tibetan language group, uses x and b)
iii) Shishāpāngmā – Nepali, easily understandable (I presume) to Nepali speakers (Nepali language, uses macrons) (I could just as easily ignore the macrons and lump this with Shishpangma/Shisha Pangma, but this spelling is not commonly used in English, so it doesn’t matter)
By language (favored by Nat Krause and others):
i) Shishapangma + Shisha Pangma - “Common English” (not Wylie)
ii) Xixabangma – Tibetan
iii) Xixiabangma – Chinese
iv) Shishāpāngmā – Nepali (my addition: Shishāpāngmā has been pretty much ignored since it is not commonly used)
By “same origin” (proposed, and I think only understood, by Yu Hai):
i) Shishāpāngmā + ½*Shishapangma + ½*Shisha Pangma – why?
ii) Xixabangma + ½*Shishapangma + ½*Shisha Pangma – why?
iii)Xixiabangma – Chinese Pinyin origin?
A minor thought: Han-Tibetan interaction does apply equally as well as Nepali-Tibetan interaction when determining word origins, which is why I say that Xixabangma, Xixiabangma, and Shishāpāngmā are all spelling variations of the same word. The same applies to British-Tibetan interactions, so Shishapangma and Shisha Pangma are other spelling variations of the same word. Your comment about “lumping all six together” is the first indication I’ve seen that you understand this, so again we are making progress.
Another request for clarification: What do you mean by “scale of measurement”? Usually this would mean something along the lines of using meters to measure a mountain height vs. kilometers, or light years to measure astronomical distances rather than feet (different scales). This does not appear to be what you mean, though.--Wikimedes (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
4) Merriam-Webster's Geographical Dictionary does appear to support Xixabangma. We should take this into account when thinking about how to weight the different arguments on “widely accepted name”. Loose analogies (Ghulja-Yining) probably aren’t relevant. Either way, could we reach agreement on groupings first? I'm particularly interested in your reasoning on grouping by "same origin".--Wikimedes (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Comment:
  2. The second point is a little bit confused to me due to undetermined standard, so I think I'll raise this after the third to be solved.
  3. You summarized four proposals, raised a question about “scale of measurement”, and argument the difference between Tibetan-Han relation and Tibetan-Nepali relation. I believe this reflect some difference between us.
    • 4 proposals
      The first proposal (by origin), is, for sure, accepted by everyone, even though I argue that it should be called "by etymology" or "by eventual origin"
      If this is determined by what it looks like, I agree. But as it claimed to be by transcriptions,the second proposal has a flaw: when we do lumping jobs, we lump them in order to find out which one is common, so it's not resonable to lump all "common transcription" together.
    • scale of measurement
    • Tibetan-Han relation and Tibetan-Nepali relation
UNFINISHED COMMENT DRAFT, NOT FOR REPLY NOW. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 14:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Just some short comments regarding Merriam-Webster:
1) Merriam-Webster is a subsidiary of the Encyclopaedia Britannica and is therefore possibly using the same single source. Encyclopaedia Britannica's case has been discussed above, and is very unclear (the title is Xixabangma but the article says "Tibetan Sisha Pangma")
2) The entry "Xixabangma Feng" is a very poor choice as it is mixing Tibetan Pinyin (Xixabangma) and Chinese Pinyin (Feng). Feng does not exist in Tibetan. So it should be either Xixiabangma Feng (Chinese Pinyin) or Xixabangma (Tibetan Pinyin), but the confusion between both just shows that the Merriam-Webster editors just took over the naming from another poor source. I am sure that at least on this point 虞海 will agree.
3) Encyclopedia Britannica has a very poor track record regarding naming of Tibetan geographical features. For example, this page says that Mount Everest is called Chomolungma in Tibetan and Qomolangma Feng in Chinese. The Chinese pinyin for Everest is not Qomolangma but Zhumulangma. I am sure that 虞海 will also agree on this point.
4) The summary made at the beginning of this section is already giving its due weight to the Britannica/Merriam-Webster entry by saying that the most common naming under scholars is disputed (google Scholar gives preference to Shisha Pangma)

I haven't seen so far a clearly formulated objection regarding any of the 8 point in favor of Sishapangma or Shisha Pangma (see beginning of the section). Shall we conclude that we can proceed to a title change?--Pseudois (talk) 13:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

    • Dispose: Even though your commment never make any sense to me, I'll still dispose these five claims:
  1. Any evidence? I believe even if I list 1000 encyclopedias use Xixabangma, you'll blame them for "subsidiary of the Encyclopaedia Britannica". If such ad hoc blame is not systematic blame, what is a systematic blame?!
    Even if Webster copied the title "Xixabangma" from British Encyclopedia, we should not omit this phenominen because the editor must have a reason to choose it. If you're to omit it simply because it's being influenced by Britannica, I can also blame that many book authors listed in Google Book Search is influenced by Wikipedia. — 虞海 , — (continues after insertion below.)
    Inserted: any evidence? Merriam-Webster own website.--Pseudois (talk) 13:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
    Reply to insertion: Be specific. I did't see anything on merriam-webster.com stating "our contents are copied from Britanica" or something like that. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 04:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
  2. This claim ("mixing" = "poor choice") is completely out of logic because many common English term is combining different language - e.g. Dalai Lama, Da Hinggan Ling Prefecture, Da Qaidam, etc. Many more. Xixabangma Feng is actually an official name used by Chinese government (while Xixabangma Peak is coofficial and Xixabangma an abbr.), if you're familiar with 中国地名汉语拼音字母拼写规则. I'm surprised you evaluate it as "poor" simply because it's "mixing", I doubt will you evaluate all source using the term "Dalai Lama" as poor and propose to correct them to "Gyamco Lama". — 虞海 , — (continues after insertion below.)
    Inserted:I am surprised. You have voiced loudly in favor of native naming and againgst the use of foreign language terms in the past. Is this what you call "double standards". In any case this plays no role at all, as we are discussing here the ENGLISH naming of the mountain. --Pseudois (talk) 13:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
    Reply to insertion: I didn't say I prefer the name "Xixabangma Feng", but that "Xixabangma Feng" is a FINE ENGLISH name, just like Da Qaidam, Da Hinggan Ling Prefecture, Dalai Lama, etc. are FINE ENGLISH name. So don't misinterpret my comment. My comment was to dispose your weird "mixing" = "poor choice" claim. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 04:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
  3. Indeed, Brittanica may make mistakes (everyone may make mistakes), but this should not be an excuse for you to use Google, a completely WP:unreliable source, instead of a mostly reliable source. Till now, Brittanica is still the most reliable source in the world. — 虞海 , — (continues after insertion below.)
    Inserted:I didn't make any google search, and I agree with you that this is not a very good choice for reliable references. BTW, "Brittanica" is spelled "Britannica", I hope we won't engage in another spelling controversy about "Britannica".--Pseudois (talk) 13:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
    • You're blaming Brittanica to be a "poor source", then you'd better remove it from WP:PLACE. Your selective use of WP:PLACE is more and more disruptive. I wonder if you are really someone who want to investigate which name is more common or someone who simply imposing one's own opinion override the existed consensus. — 虞海 , — (continues after insertion below.)
      Inserted: Disruptive? This is a serious accusation. Can you please point out where exactly I have been disruptive? I also don't know what consensus you are referring to. --Pseudois (talk) 13:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
    • You're blaming Brittanica for its mistake, but you didn't show us that pages in your Google Search made fewer mistakes. Actually, in the Google search used by you, the nineth result "Project Himalaya | Our 2011 Everest, Cho Oyu, Shishapangma", made a even more severe mistake: "Our 8000m expeditions; we specialise in Cho Oyu and Shishapangma (Xixapangma) and Everest".
  4. ①. In WP:PLACE, "Consult English-language encyclopedias" comes before "Consult Google Scholar", so again please do not imposing your opinion override the existed consensus; ②. Whether Google Scholar supports Xixabangma or Shishapangma is disputed - Wikimedes and I are working out this problem and have had some progress. You may choose not to participate, but don't assume your own evaluation is accepted by everyone. — 虞海 , — (continues after insertion below.)
    Inserted: if you look at my summary, you will notice that this point is place under "disputed". I don't see how my opinion would be overrinding the existing consensus. Again, I don't know which consensus you are referring to. --Pseudois (talk) 13:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  5. Your "8 point in favor of Sishapangma or Shisha Pangma" are facing some common problems, one of them has to be revealed after the Wikimedes and I finish the group method, while one other of them may be clearly stated now:
    Your "8 point in favor of Sishapangma or Shisha Pangma" make use of Google Web Search, which is neither advised by WP:PLACE (WP:PLACE advise Google Scholar and Google Books only) nor a evaluating method that makes any sense because on one hand it's completely original research on the other hand one who support the name "Shishapangma" may list arbitrary many "Shishapangma"-result if one have several website and pays Google enough money to list them.
––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 11:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Inserted: Only half of point 7 is reffering to the results of google search carried out by other editors. Points 1,2,3,4,5,6, 7(concerning books) and 8 do not rely on google search.
Again, I would appreciate if you could be specific in your comments and objections.--Pseudois (talk) 13:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
DEAR ME! Again you blocked my comment by spliting them. Would you not split my comment unless I signed my name in each items? This is really confusing and hard to be notified! I will be specific after my discussion with Wikimedes about lumping standard finished.
P.S. Your comment has been rearranged. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 14:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, my bad. I have added the template "Interrupted" to avoid any possible confusion. Thank you in advance for being specific in your argumentation, as I couldn't unterstand to wich poin in my summary you were referring.--Pseudois (talk) 15:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Advice to conduct very specific poll

Having originally closed the move discussion, I've been following this consensus building discussion with interest. I would suggest constructing a very specific poll asking editors to choose one of the many available titles for this article. Editors would get one choice, and should be free to defend it. This would give a much clearer idea of where the consensus lies. --Mike Cline (talk) 02:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

2 questions:
Is it necessary to restrict the poll to a single choice? Some editors (including me) think Shishapangma and Shisha Pangma work equally well and don’t see them as being different.
How do we count editors who have recently expressed an opinion, but don’t respond to the latest poll? (By recently, I mean since the discussion began; the discussion is only a few weeks old.)--Wikimedes (talk) 05:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Same comment as Wikimedes and Nat Krause (earlier in the discussion). Shishapangma and Shisha Pangma are basically the same, or just minor spelling variations (an issue which is discussed in the spelling convention). Both variations have more or less the same frenquency in English texts. In a previous poll (see closed move discussion), there was a 6:2 ratio. Since then, two additional editors have voiced some preferences, backing what was at that time a majority in favor of Shishapangma. If preferences haven't moved, there would be now approximately a 8:2 ratio. --Pseudois (talk) 07:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Good questions. I would approach them this way. 1) on the poll, giving editors more than one choice can actually muddy the water because the poll might not give you discrete information. What if 10 editors chose Shishapangma and those same 10 chose Shisha Pangma? Which name would you go with? But if 8 editors chose Shishapangma and two editors chose Shisha Pangma (barring any other inputs), you'd have a good consensus for Shishapangma. 2) As far the previous opinions of other editors, it is risky from a consensus standpoint to transfer previous inputs to a new poll. You can always be accused of misrepresenting an editor's position and introducing your own bias. (I know this from experiences at many RFCs) Consensus building is hard work, so using care as regards WP:CANVASS, I would notify all the other editors that have previously participated in this discussion that a poll is underway and they are invited to participate. 3) Structure the poll in an unbiased manner, without leading questions or implied results, with clear instructions, and then work with the results when they come in. --Mike Cline (talk) 12:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
1) Grouping of minor spelling variations have been part of the discussion since nearly the beginning, even if no consensus has been reached on the exact details. IMHO we should allow editors to vote for whichever group of minor spelling variations they think is appropriate. If this results in a consensus for Shishpangma/Shisha Pangma (or another grouping), we can have a runoff poll to choose between them. If, in spite of allowing editors to vote for groupings, the votes are relatively evenly split, then this would be evidence that there is no consensus. My concern is that if we use a First past the post scheme by requiring editors to vote for a single spelling variation, several editors who think Shishapangma and Shisha Pangma are equally good would randomly choose between them, resulting in perhaps 4 for Shishapangma, 4 for Shisha Pangma and 2 for Xixabangma. This would give the illusion of no consensus even though there would really be an 8:2 consensus in favor of Shishapangma/Shisha Pangma.
2) If I interpret Mike Cline correctly, he is suggesting that we just look at the results of this poll and not try to interpret previous statements made by editors to determine their !votes. This works for me. Notifying all previous discussion participants of the poll is also good advice--Wikimedes (talk) 23:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Fully agree with the above two remarks.
I have been revising several reference books and archives dealing with the Himalayan region, 8000ers and Shisha Pangma in particular, and found a small majority in favor of "Shisha Pangma" versus "Shishapangma". I don't think however that this small difference is sufficient to justify a name change from the original title "Shishapangma". It is also important to keep consistency in WP articles, and there are more WP articles currently using the spelling "Shishapangma" (65) than the spelling "Shisha Pangma" (43) (to compare there are 5 WP articles using the spelling Xixabangma, including the main mountain page).
My proposal is to remove "Shisha Pangma" from the poll and only have "Shishapangma" or "Xixabangma" as possible alternatives in the poll.--Pseudois (talk) 08:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I addressed using consistency with other articles’ text as a criterion for choosing an article’s name up in the main section of “Another attempt to find consensus” above (find it using the edit history).--Wikimedes (talk) 10:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Pseudois' proposal would certainly simplify things, and might get us to the same result more quickly, but it might not be quite right to ask editors which name they would like for the article and then tell them they can only pick certain names.

How about if we ask editors to respond to this question: “On 26 October 2011, this article was moved from Shishapangma to Xixabangma without discussion. Now that there has been discussion, do you support or oppose moving the article from Shishapangma to Xixabangma?” I realize that this would also be more restrictive than Mike Cline’s proposed poll, but it seems to me that this would put the article-move procedure back on track.--Wikimedes (talk) 10:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Fully agree with your proposal Wikimedes (even though I do also think that a poll is a strange way of solving the issue).--Pseudois (talk) 13:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
"Xixabangma" is the pinyin romanization for the Tibetan name (ཤི་ཤ་སྦང་མ།), while Xixiabangma is the pinyin romanization form for the Chinese name (希夏幫馬峰). This point was discussed three weeks ago between you and Nat Krause, and you seemed to agree at that time that it corresponded to the romanization from two different languages (below a copy/paste of earlier discussion):--Pseudois (talk) 05:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I wrote the "minor variations" section of the Tibetan naming conventions. To be honest, the application is somewhat vague. It was intended to encourage lumping and especially to discourage an argument along the lines of, "Look, some sources write Kagyu and others write Kargyu, so neither can be said to predominate, so we have to use some kind of systematic spelling which doesn't resemble either of those." Counterintuitively, I would not lump "Xixabangma" together with "Xixiabangma", because the latter is clearly intended to represent the Chinese name while the former is the Tibetan. I don't have a strong preference as to what this article should be called, but I would be inclined to lump "Shishap..." and "Shisha P..." together per "minor variations" and on that basis move back to Shishapangma. I would also be inclined that, when in doubt, we should stick with the spelling the earlier authors of the article used, as with American vs. British English. I don't like undiscussed moves like this and I think this discussion should default to restoring the old title unless a clear consensus is built for the change.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 05:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I do also think Xixabangma (tib.) is not Xixiabangma (chn.), but I'm do not use double standard - I support to lump 50% of Shishapangma (tib.)+Shisha Pangma into Xixabangma while 50% of Shishapangma (nep.)+Shisha Pangma into Shishāpāngmā. For more, see my comment "It depends on how we define ..." ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 15:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Right, I said Xixabangma is not Xixiabangma, GIVEN 50% of Shishapangma is not other 50% of Shishapangma. Now that Shishapangma itself is not splitted, Xixabangma and Xixiabangma should not be splitted either.

I proposed a poll here, which Pseudois has seconded. Yu Hai’s comments and their responses do not appear to address this poll, and since there has been no further discussion on the proposal in the last few days, I am going ahead with it. I modified the wording slightly to be more neutral and more explanatory.
Within the next few hours I will put the following message on all editors’ talk pages who have been involved in the discussion (with the appropriate link):

"You have been involved in the recent naming discussion at Talk:Xixabangma. There is a new poll to determine support for the move from Shishapangma to Xixabangma. If you are interested, please provide your opinion here."

I have identified these editors as having previously participated in the discussion:

Mike Cline
hike395
Racerx11
虞海 (Yú Hǎi)
Ratagonia
Kauffner
(Wikimedes)
Nat Krause
Pseudois
Quigley
BabelStone
PietJay
Montanabw

If I have missed someone, let me know, or give them this notice yourself. Given Mike Cline’s advice on canvassing, it’s probably better if we don’t invite anyone else, although anyone is of course welcome to join in.

Since wikiproject Mountains was notified earlier about the naming discussion, I think that it’s only fair to put notifications on the China, Tibet, and Climbing project pages as well. Within the next few hours I will post the following message on all 4 project pages (with the appropriate link):

"There is a naming discussion at Talk:Xixabangma. There is a new poll to determine support for the move from Shishapangma to Xixabangma. If you are interested, please provide your opinion here."

--Wikimedes (talk) 22:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

in fact I told that I'll be back to reply every weekend. But now it seems not that important to reply since you posted a poll. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 09:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Effort on eliminate partisan convass influences

I'm notifying some people to join, following a discussion (User talk:Mike Cline#Will we finished the discussion with a poll?) regarding previous partisan convass. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 07:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding project invitation

Existing partisan notifications
Correspongding invitation to rectify the partisan notifications
––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 07:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding personal invitation

1 Mountaineering-related rarticipants invited (may have votestacking effect)
  • Hike395 (partisan - hiking-field; non-native)
1 transwiki invitation
  • PietJay (with campaigning message)
––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 07:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


Note Esiymbro use IP sock and multiple accounts

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/170.78.75.25

12:38, 30 January 2018: Vituzzu (meta.wikimedia.org) globally blocked 170.78.72.0/22 (expires on 30 January 2023 at 12:38) (hosting service with open proxies such as 170.78.75.32)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/113.65.131.181

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/67.188.179.66

02:44, 13 May 2018 Bbb23 (talk | contribs) blocked 67.188.179.66 (talk) with an expiration time of 3 months (account creation blocked)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shishapangma/Archive_2&oldid=1146627346"