Template:Did you know nominations/Nüwa Imperial Palace
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 23:55, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Nüwa Palace
[edit]- ... that the Chinese began honoring their creator goddess Nüwa near Phoenix Mountain in Hebei as early as the Han dynasty?
- ALT1:... that China's Wahuanggong in Hebei honors Nüwa, the snake-tailed goddess who supposedly created mankind and repaired the sky?
- ALT2:... that the goddess who repaired China's skies is honored at Nüwa Palace in Hebei?
- ALT3:... that the Nüwa Palace is a nationally-protected AAAAA tourist site in Hebei, China?
- ALT4:... that Nüwa—the goddess honored at Hebei's Wahuanggong—supposedly repaired China's skies by ripping the legs off a sea turtle?
- ALT5:... that the carving of 130,000 characters of Buddhist scriptures into the mountains around Hebei's Nüwa Palace began under the Northern Qi dynasty?
- ALT6:... that some Chinese consider the palace honoring the creator goddess Nüwa in rural Hebei to be an ancestral shrine for all mankind?
- ALT7:... that her palace in Hebei is supposedly the place where Nüwa created mankind and repaired the sky?
- Reviewed:
Will do.Arlinda Locklear
- Reviewed:
Created by LlywelynII (talk). Self-nominated at 01:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC).
- Note to reviewers: Don't worry. You only need to check the cites for whichever hook you find the most interesting. — LlywelynII 01:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Article is new enough, long enough, and well referenced. However, the article title seems to be original research. The place is commonly called in English "Wahuang Palace" or "Wahuanggong", or occasionally "Nüwa Palace" or "Palace of Nüwa". I've never seen it translated as "Nüwa Imperial Palace", and google returns nothing for that term. -Zanhe (talk) 05:58, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- It doesn't show up in English enough for anything to be its "common name". "Wahuang Palace" is the official name,
but that seems to be provincial Chinglish since huanggong seems more likely than [Nu]wa the Huang[di] both to me and the native Chinese whom I've shown the name and Baidu Baike articles to. Fair enough that I tried to include the "imperial", but we can go with the terser form that omits it. — LlywelynII 13:53, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Moved. Anything else? Does this nomination template need to be moved? Any preference among the hooks? — LlywelynII 14:04, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- It doesn't show up in English enough for anything to be its "common name". "Wahuang Palace" is the official name,
- No, "Wahuang Palace" is not Chinglish. Wahuang (Wa the Empress) is the reverential name of Nüwa (Women/Lady Wa) (see dictionary), and Wahuanggong is correctly translated as "Wahuang Palace", which is both the official name and the common name. This is clear from the palace's other name: Wahuang Shengmu Miao, or "Temple of Wahuang, the Holy Mother". The article should be titled "Wahuang Palace" (but the nomination template does not need to be moved). -Zanhe (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Will apparently need a new reviewer, since the page has already been moved to a sourced, WP:COMMON, WP:ENGLISH title and the nomination is still not being processed, based on the current reviewer's preference for a half-Chinese form of the name instead of its common English translation. — LlywelynII 16:25, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Added ALT6 and ALT7 since I found a few English sources for the idea that Nüwa's actions occurred at the site of the palace. — LlywelynII 17:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Now that's a bit rich coming from an editor who often label other translations as "Chinglish", merely based on their own less than perfect understanding of Chinese. "Nüwa Palace" is way better than the earlier WP:OR title, but it's far from the common English translation. Google returns 880 results for "Wahuang Palace", but only 214 for "Nüwa Palace". "Wahuang Palace" is indisputably the common English name (as well as the official one). And calling "Wahuang Palace" a "half-Chinese" form is ridiculous. Nüwa and Wahuang are both Chinese names for the same deity, the only difference is that the second is more deferential than the first. -Zanhe (talk) 18:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- I have adjusted the template boilerplate, all of the hooks that didn't already do so, to use the name of the article as it currently is, and piping as necessary. We shouldn't be using redirects in hooks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. — LlywelynII 13:33, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- As above, the former reviewer has a bee in their bonnet about their own difficulties with English ("once" ≠ "often"; "an editor... label"; &c.) and inability to understand raw Google result scores are literally meaningless except as a rough guide to orders of magnitude. For example, Google actually has fewer than 120 results for "Wahuang Palace" (not "880"); a large chunk of even those results are Chinese tourist sites repeatedly copying a few (yes, sorry) Chinglish pages (the "...located on the Tangwangjiao Mountain..." article is 7 of the results; the "...biggest and earliest ancient building for offering sacrifice to Goddess Nvwa..." is 10; &c.); many of the "English" results are actually on Chinese ("中國民族建筑第三卷...涉縣媧皇宮天王殿Heavenly King Hallin Wahuang Palace..."), Viet ("...ve-may-bay-di-ham-dan-2. Wahuang Palace. Thường được gọi là..."), or Thai ("...Wahuang Palace ในประเทศจีน. ถ้ำหิ่งห้อยในประเทศนิวซีแลนด์...") language pages; and numbers from reliable sources like Google Trends and Ngram are unavailable because this place is so uncommonly discussed in English. Zanhe is usually a fine person and might learn from the mistakes being made here, but this has already reached the point of personal bias and a new reviewer is patently needed to finish the DYKN.
A page move can be mooted on the article's talk page, but the current form of the name is already cited, admittedly common, and easily debatable as the COMMON ENGLISH form of the name. My opinion is that there is no policy violation here worth holding up the DYK nomination over; I'm willing to listen to other reviewers who disagree with that; but in any case we need to hear from some fresh voices. — LlywelynII 13:30, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
I have disregarded the previous discussion and am reviewing this afresh. The article is new enough and long enough. The article is neutral and seems to be free from policy issues. The hook I like best is ALT5, and I am also approving ALT7 and ALT2. QPQ has been done and this is good to go. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
