From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Food and drink (Rated Stub-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink 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.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject China (Rated Stub-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis 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.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Proposed move[edit]

This article should be moved to Tanghulu (proper Wikipedia capitalization). Badagnani 02:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

What you're proposing has nothing to do with capitalization, but the division of words. Can you please link to the relevant MoS entry to support your proposal, and also provide some evidence? Google gives about twice as many results for "tang hu lu" as for "tanghulu". Thanks. --SigPig |SEND - OVER 22:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. The word is not a proper noun (and the dish's name is not derived from a place name or name of a person), so "hu" and "lu" should not be capitalized. That's a given, and uncontroversial. In Chinese romanization/pinyin conventions, a word such as "tanghulu" "sugar gourd" is usually written as a single word. Another way of doing it would be "tang hulu" ("tang" meaning "sugar" and "hulu" being a two-syllable word meaning "gourd." Most of the Chinese editors here prefer using no space in such words, but either would be preferable to the current title/capitalization. Badagnani 22:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. I'm not familiar with Pinyin conventions, but my knee-jerk monolingual anglophone reaction is to favour the two-word version: tanghulu looks like it would be pronounced like "tan-ghulu" due to English pronunciation conventions, and I assume tang hulu isn't. That being said, Google prefers the three-word variant over the one 2:1, with the two-word being a minor blip. I'd like to see some support for the one-word variant being the most common usage in English (per WP:UE) over the three. --SigPig |SEND - OVER 05:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Good thoughts. It doesn't matter which version is used, as there will be redirects. I see that "Tanghulu," "Tang hu lu," and "Tang hulu" all show up on Google. All three words capitalized isn't correct, in any case. Badagnani 06:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the page to Tang hu lu, per the above discussion, and per WP:UE and WP:COMMONNAME. -GTBacchus(talk) 10:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Photo request[edit]

Move proposal[edit]

Move proposal[edit]

Move proposal[edit]

Move to tanghulu[edit]

Why was this page just moved to "bingtanghulu" (not the most common name in English)? Badagnani (talk) 01:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Move without prior discussion[edit]

Why was this page just moved to "Tang hu lu" without prior discussion?

Google search results:

Please don't continue to move pages before engaging in thoughtful and careful discussion (leading to consensus), as asked several times previously. Thank you for this consideration.

Badagnani (talk) 16:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Because "tang hu lu" is the best possible way to romanize the term. Before you start bringing up irrelevant discussions like this, make you understand other people can make bold edits and can sometimes have a better understanding of Chinese. It is clear from your userpage that you know very little about the language in question. For such small numbers of Google hits, it shouldn't be brought up either and should never be the sole choice of "consensus". Your failure to participate in these discussions also may very well be a reason why moves are not discussed beforehand. GraYoshi2x►talk 01:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Why would the page have been moved, without any prior discussion, to a title that is not the most commonly used in English? To do so would have been very wrong, per our WP conventions. Badagnani (talk) 02:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Leave out the dramatized exaggerations. This is not "very wrong" nor is it violating any of Wikipedia's "conventions". (People have complained about these exaggerations on RFC, just so you know). The fact is this candy isn't even talked about in English, and just because it has a few more blog post hits does not mean it is "not commonly used". In fact, this the correct way to romanize the subject so there should be no reason to complain. GraYoshi2x►talk 22:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Kindly refer to the above Google search results, which indicate that "Tanghulu" is the most commonly used romanization for this item. Badagnani (talk) 04:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Google is a search engine, not some kind of tool of magical wisdom. Just because it can find links to a few more blog posts and Flickr photos does not mean it is a "common romanization." Please come up with another PROPER reason why it should be moved back, and then we'll talk moving. In addition, look at your Google search tags. Why is "China" even included as a search term? Not all people write "China" somewhere in their blog post/site page/whatever just because it's a Chinese candy. Do not assume everyone is identical and use the exact same style and manner of writing as you or maybe somebody else. GraYoshi2x►talk 01:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

That is not the issue; the issue is the moving of a page without prior thoughtful, considered discussion, in this case based on Google search results, which are used as one of the standard measures in situations such as this. Such a move represented poor editing practice and should not be done again.

Google search results (without the term "China"):

Badagnani (talk) 01:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

There is little need, if any, for "thoughtful, considered discussion" on a page move that is undisputed by everyone except maybe you. Such unneeded requests can be found quite irritating and people have already posted complaints about these issues on your RFC. And please stop with the Google search results. They are handy for a few quick checks but the measly number of search results (probably influenced by Wikipedia/Wiktionary's wording) makes it irrelevant for all intents and purposes. GraYoshi2x►talk 01:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

A move to the least commonly used spelling in English, however, simply is and was not appropriate. This only heightens the need for the use of thoughtful, considered discussion in the future prior to such a move (please do so), rather than guessing at a probable best title. We must be as encyclopedic as possible in all cases, and adhere to our page naming guidelines, not base our page naming on guesses. Whether or not you believe it, Google search results are used as one of the standard measures in situations such as this. Badagnani (talk) 01:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Google is rarely used in such situations where there are few hits (less than maybe 10,000). I am sticking to the guidelines as strictly as possible, as it is Chinese we're discussing here, not some most commonly used English spelling. When there's no clear margin for any search result (which is not commonly used in the first place), we stick to correct romanization and spelling. GraYoshi2x►talk 01:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

As mentioned earlier, guessing at the most commonly used spelling in English (which is "tanghulu") simply is not permissible when selecting a page title. More importantly, however, the move of a page (let alone many insistent page moves) prior to thoughtful, considered discussion, in this case which is backed up by evidence should not be engaged in in the future. Please don't. Badagnani (talk) 01:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I have explained everything to you, and you have exhausted every last good reason out of me. I have certainly not 'guessed' (a word that I deem slightly offensive given the thought I put into this move) the title as I actually have an understanding of Chinese, whereas you seem to have very little. Instead of recklessly imposing this opinion on others without actually reading what other people have to say, try thinking this through and consider opinions on all sides. In such a case, ignorance is not bliss. GraYoshi2x►talk 02:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Kindly use thoughtful, considered discussion before moving a page in such a manner in the future. If you believe we should title pages using logic derived from the Chinese language, "hu lu" would not have been used, as the single two-character word meaning "bottle gourd" is "hulu," not "hu lu." Moving a page, not once, but again and again, without first engaging in thoughtful, considered discussion is simply not helpful to our project; please do not engage in it in the future. Badagnani (talk) 02:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I have repeated again and again that it is clear that you lack fluency in Chinese. Tang hu lu is the correct way to romanize the term and Chinese is not Japanese, where you can combine several syllables and it would still be correct. So why do you continue these constant unneeded arguments? Your behavior is not helpful to this project either (as detailed in your RFC and right here on this page). Stop with the dramatizations and snide comments. GraYoshi2x►talk 00:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
"Hu lu" does not literally mean "bottle gourd" in "tang hu lu" either so your argument doesn't make sense either way. Anyways, I'm done here. I've tried countless times to explain to you that names of food are names, like the way English has the phrase "hot dog". GraYoshi2x►talk 00:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The page should not have been moved, without discussion or consensus and repeatedly, to a spelling that is not the most commonly used in English. Yes, "hulu" means "bottle gourd" in Chinese. Please see . Badagnani (talk) 02:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I find it ironic that your evidence is a dictionary entry while I am actually fluent in the language. "Hu lu" does not literally mean "bottle gourd" in this context. I suggest you reread what I said as I made it very clear. GraYoshi2x►talk 04:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing ironic about a page that was moved repeatedly and insistently, without prior thoughtful, considered discussion. Please do not do so again. "Hulu" does, indeed, mean "bottle gourd."[1] Badagnani (talk) 04:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is getting nowhere, and my patience is being exhausted as you are not reading what I have to say. Let's just end this. GraYoshi2x►talk 23:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was PAGE MOVED per discussion below, in which no one actually opposed the move. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Tang hu luTanghulu — Per WP:COMMONNAME and evidence provided at this discussion page — Badagnani (talk) 04:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support per WP:NC-CHINA: "In general, Chinese entries should be in Hanyu Pinyin" and pinyin rules call for nouns, including prefixes, to be written as one word (see the first three sections of this). The current title is incorrect pinyin and even appears to be less common than the correct form. — AjaxSmack 05:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


Any additional comments:

WP:COMMONNAME does not say anything about this (Google searches don't prove anything), and the evidence is that you are only ignoring my comments. A bit humorous too that you insist on a dictionary entry to support your claim (and names of Chinese food should never be taken literally). Should hot dog be moved to hotdog or maybe hot sausage between two buns then? GraYoshi2x►talk 00:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Look at baidu's link it uses the long name. Then look at hudong's link it uses the short name. Benjwong (talk) 04:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
The short name seems more commonly used than the longer, at least in romanized form; the question is whether it should be spelled "tanghulu" without spaces," or "tang hu lu" with spaces. Badagnani (talk) 04:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Should the article name Wangfujing?[edit]

Saying you can find tanghulu at Wangfujing is like saying you can buy hotdogs on Broadway in New York. You can, it is true. But tanghulu is hardly special to Wangfujing. Colin McLarty (talk) 01:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tanghulu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)