Talk:Songshan

Clean up

• Sections are only needed in long lists; short lists can be more quickly navigated by the reader without sections
  • Which Chinese characters were transliterated "songshan" is not a useful grouping for most Wikipedia users
• Red links must be linked from the article space before being added to the disambiguation page
  • Red links must have a link in the description that links to an article that gives encyclopedic information about the list; typically, this would be the article that uses the red link

Please discuss instead of threatening other users. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

relocated from User talk:JHunterJ

I prefer my last revision of the page vastly to yours, for several reasons: 1) The configuration "Songshan (松山) or (嵩山) may refer to" fails to distinguish clearly which terms are written as which. 2) Your revision cherry-picks, and chooses to link to the List of township-level divisions of X series instead of, more logically, the parent county. 3) Your revision, except for Songshan, Guizhou, fails to mention the parent county which is crucial identifying information. 4) You and Ryulong failed to explain the removal of ≥two entries. GotR ^Talk 16:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

1) Your configuration is not NPOV, and implies Taiwan is not a part of China; this is a geographic DAB page. 2) It is useful to some users to distinguish between entries; anything else seems to be WP:IDON'TLIKEITATALL. 3) If that were true, pages like Chengguan Town would be obliterated. Almost all of these locations exist, and the only reason a few of these aren't linked from mainline article space is because I haven't reached the relevant List of township-level divisions of Foo list.

You know very well that I alone, can't make this happen, so I implore both you and Ryulong to please quit making a point out of this. GotR ^Talk 16:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

(ec) (1) If the reader is searching for "Songshan", how is the original Chinese text useful in navigation? (2) The links, as explained above, link to the Wikipedia article that uses the red link; the parent county articles do not always mention Songshan. (3) You could add additional information to the articles, or you could expand the cleaned-up descriptions to include the parent county. (4) The entries I removed had no mention on Wikipedia that I could find. Please start with the cleaned-up version and add any missing entry to it, along with links to the Wikipedia article where the disambiguation reader could go to find information about the new Songhan. (New 1) AFAIK, Wikipedia uses the shorthand "China" and "Taiwan", as they are commonly referred to in English. (New 2) I don't know what you're talking about. (New 3) OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Disambiguation pages are for navigating to existing WP information on topics that have ambiguous possible titles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

And I implore you to quit making a point out of this. You know very well that you are reverting more than one other editor, which will run afoul of 3RR faster. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

1) You never know whether someone would know only the original Chinese, and it doesn't detract. 2) While what you state about parent county articles may be unfortunately true in large part, most of them have their government websites, which invariably have short descriptions for each of the constituent towns. 3) You should have done so yourself. 4) They exist on Chinese Wiki, and I am just about to churn those two out. (New 1) WP:NPOV trumps WP:UCN, which applies to titling only. Here we have a situation where the two sides of the Taiwan Strait are mentioned simultaneously; the consensus is to use any of the following: "mainland China/Taiwan", "PRC/Taiwan", "PRC/ROC". Obviously the first of these is the most concise, after expanding the two acronyms. (New 2) Same as Old #1. GotR ^Talk 16:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Dude your version is not going to pass anymore. We do not need to split things up into the PRC/ROC designations particularly when the PRC is universally called "China" and the ROC is "Taiwan" on Wikipedia.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

"We do not need to split things up into the..."—There are so many counterexamples to that statement that calling it absurd is a severe understatement. I should note, for the thousandth time, that the six closing administrators in BOTH move requests (that is of the PRC and ROC) warned against using the outcome of these moves to force (often harmful) complacence with the main article titles. Again, NPOV/accuracy in text trumps WP:UCN; "the following locations in China and Taiwan" is almost entirely geographic and has little to do with the states themselves. I should not have to elaborate why this is not in the least sense NPOV. I tell you what—it would be much better to make no mention of the parent states at all, as I just did. GotR ^Talk 04:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

How is the statement "These places are in China and Taiwan" biased such that it's not neutral?—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

In a geographic context (i.e. here), it is not at all uncommon for sources to avoid "China and Taiwan" and defer to "mainland China and Taiwan", for the simple reason the former implies "China" and "Taiwan" are disjoint geographically, running counter to the official view of most governments that Taiwan is a subset of Taiwan. 7) And quit claiming that I "am treating the mountain as special again". Unless you have proof the Songshan Road Subdistrict, Zhuzhou is named after the mountain, you have no basis for that claim, and it is what it is, and my version already makes more concessions than Chamberlain or Molotov combined ever did to Hitler. GotR ^Talk 04:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

It's 嵩 in each instance isn't it? Also, I was under the impression in Wikipedia discourse that from a geopolitical standpoint, the PRC is commonly referred to as China while the ROC is Taiwan, because no lay person refers to them by their full appelations.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

That's coincidental, and stating place A is named after B, especially when A is hundreds of kilometres away from B, is WP:OR. No one seriously doubts what the common names are; in separate usage they each are *normally* optimal, but in contexts such as these, when there is a clear NPOV issue, they are not optimal at all. GotR ^Talk 15:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Still, why should we label them with the 嵩? It's not necessary on this page to inform people of the CJK characters in use.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I won't fuss as much over this, but conversely, it doesn't hurt to display it. GotR ^Talk 04:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The articles are for elaborating on the topic. The dab entries are just to get the reader to the topic after they searched on "Songshan". It doesn't help to display 嵩. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Displaying characters helps those who can read them, and doesn't hurt anyone else. It may not be "necessary", but it is useful to disambiguate both by sound and character. —Kusma (t·c) 13:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe those who can read them but searched without them can find the topic they're seeking via this description: "Mount Song or Songshan, one of the Five Sacred Mountains of Taoism, on the south bank of the Yellow River in Henan". Or less. More is unnecessary. Those who searched using the characters would find it faster, but wouldn't reach this dab. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)