Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:22, 29 March 2023

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Naming conventions (Chinese) page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14Auto-archiving period: 2 months

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the English Misplaced Pages article titles policy and Manual of Style, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Hong Kong This page is within the scope of WikiProject Hong Kong, a project to coordinate efforts in improving all Hong Kong-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Hong Kong-related articles, you are invited to join this project.Hong KongWikipedia:WikiProject Hong KongTemplate:WikiProject Hong KongHong Kong Hong Kong To-do: edit history watch purge Attention needed (60) ...needing expert attention (4) • ...without infoboxes (33) Collaboration needed Recommend topic Improvement needed GA-Class articles (60) • B-Class articles (298) Cleanup needed C-Class articles (1,069) Image needed (347) Destub needed Start-Class articles (5,533) • Stub-Class articles (6,679) Deorphan needed ...orphans Page creation needed Requested articles Miscellaneous tasks ...maintain popularity • ...assess the un-Class (380) • ...assess the un-Importance (1,343) Macau This page is within the scope of WikiProject Macau, an attempt to better organize and improve articles related to Macau.MacauWikipedia:WikiProject MacauTemplate:WikiProject MacauMacau China This page is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related East Asia (defunct) This page is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.East AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject East AsiaTemplate:WikiProject East AsiaEast Asia

• WT:NC-CHINA

Archives

/Names /monarchical titles /languages and dialects /PRC vs ROC /Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4 /Archive 5 /Archive 6 /Archive 7 /Archive 8 /Archive 9 /Archive 10 /Archive 11 /Archive 12 /Archive 13

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

RfC: "mainland China" or "China" in article titles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello everybody, there was a request to move "2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in mainland China" to "2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in China". There was a clear consensus not to move. Because arguments there doesn't necessarily constrain to the virus page only, I want to request for comments from the community if we can apply it to all pages

Should we use "mainland China" instead of "China" in article titles, given that the article covers area under the direct jurisdiction of the People's Republic of China only and excludes the special administrative regions of Hong Kong and Macau and the disputed Taiwan.

Please, have a say! -- Akira😼CA 01:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

A notification was placed on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject China at 01:17, 2 April 2020 (UTC). --MarioGom (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I think "China" is generally considered shorthand for "mainland China" and "Greater China" or "the PRC" can be used when one explicitly wants to talk about either entity as a whole. Kdm852 (talk) 07:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

• support - use mainland China in titles if the article is dealing with post 1949 topics exclusively related mainland China and not involving Hong Kong, Macau and (disputed) Taiwan. Cinema of China, Video games in China seems like good starting points, as the thread starter had mentioned.Newslack (talk) 23:31, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - use China in titles as the standard. The standard is to use the country name even if there are autonomous and/or geographically detached parts of the state with their own arrangements. e.g. articles on France use "France" not "Metropolitan France". There's no good reason to make an exception for China. Timrollpickering (Talk) 23:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@Timrollpickering: The significant difference, however, is that nobody really confuses French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Mayotte, and Réunion with Metropolitan France, and it seems to be common understanding that the word "France" refers to Metropolitan France. The same connot be said of the word "China" though, which itself is an intense contemporary political debate, and thus a disambiguation such as the politically neutral "mainland China" is needed. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 09:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@Timrollpickering: the analogy is invalid, as France's Outremer is an administrative and geographical exeption to France. Taiwan is under control of a rival state. A better analogy is between the DPRK and ROK, or the GFR and GDR, when talking about the cold war. Francis1867 (talk) 09:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support per the failed pandemic article move request and WP:PRECISE (Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that.) on a case-by-case basis. Cinema of China is an excellent example because the first mainland Chinese film was until 1905 (Dingjun Mountain) and in Taiwan, was not introduced until 1901 with Toyojirō Takamatsu, when Taiwan had already been ceded to Imperial Japan. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 05:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - Use China in the titles as standard, Macao and HK are also a completely different kettle of fish from Taiwan. We should treat Macao and HK the same way we treat something like Puerto Rico or the British Virgin Islands, why have a separate standard for China? Any discussion of disputed territories must include Aksai Chin, Arunachal Pradesh, etc so the wording of the RfC is questionable to begin with, why single out Taiwan? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 14:54, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Dear @Horse Eye Jack:, to your last part: because this is not about disputed territory in general but only territories (disputed or not) related to the term "mainland China". "Taiwan" is mentioned 73 times in mainland China. "Hong Kong" is mentioned 24 times. "Macau" is mentioned 18 times. "Aksai Chin" and "Arunachal Pradesh" are mentioned 0 time. That's why I single out Taiwan. Regards. -- Akira😼CA 23:47, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Would you amend to include them? I don’t think that anyone would question that they are included under the official Chinese government definition of mainland China. I think most other uses would include them too. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:22, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye Jack: Arunachal Pradesh is not included in the infobox image and according to the first sentence "geographical area under the direct jurisdiction of the People's Republic of China". You can amend if you find any reliable source (probably discuss in the talk page first), but I won't touch it. -- Akira😼CA 00:41, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Arunachal Pradesh isn’t however Aksai Chin does appear to be included. Can you explain why you will touch Taiwan but not other disputed territories? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye Jack: I didn't say I will touch Taiwan but not other disputed territories. Can't explain words I didn't say. but I won't touch it the pronoun "it" refers to the amendment, not territories. If I was referring to the territories I will use "them" not "it". -- Akira😼CA 23:02, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable for the RfC to specifically focus on articles that explicitly exclude HK, Macau, and Taiwan. "Mainland China" is a term that is typically used to explicitly exclude them, independent of the status of Aksai Chin, Arunachal Pradesh, Sino-Bhutanese disputed areas, the Spratly Islands, the Senkaku Islands, the Paracel Islands, or a dozen other islands / mountains / relatively unpopulated areas. Also a rather pedantic note, but the official Chinese government definition of mainland China doesn't really exist per se. If one argues that their usage of it in cross-Strait relations is official, then the PRC government's usage technically includes both HK and Macau. — MarkH₂₁ 21:48, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support - it should be available and used when appropriate per WP:TITLE, determining case-by-Case. I think one cannot categorically go either way categorically, “it depends”. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:01, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support – when articles on a topic have separate coverage for Hong Kong, Macau, and/or Taiwan, the use of "mainland China" would be a perfect natural disambiguation to distinguish the majority of China from the politically, culturally, and economically distinct island cultures of Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan. If not, readers may confuse a particular article as covering all of China including Hong Kong, Macau, and – for some readers – Taiwan, when the article does not. This would be especially problematic, and this natural disambiguation would serve as a good way to prevent such confusion – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 09:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support - Hong Kong and Taiwan have media independent of the Communist Party of China, and this treatment is entirely warranted. -- Ohc  10:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• Strong Support - Taiwan, Macau and Hong Kong are very different compared to mainland China in many aspects. Be it the history, people, government, law, media and/or politics among others. This treatment of separating articles by renaming them is not only required but also due. The move would provide readers particular insight and information on the related topics in the specific region as opposed to generalized knowledge, as is the current case. Such articles could also be expanded to contain more relevant facts and material for an overall comprehensive view and understanding of various topics.---Shawnqual (talk) 23:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support - As much as I know, Taiwan, Hong Kong (and Makau) have independent media, law, people, history (and many other independent issues); and factually there seems to be remarkable difference(s) in comparison to "mainland China". As a result, applying the mentioned name (of "mainland China)" will logically be more helpful in presenting more precise/useful info. in regards to the mentioned issue. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 20:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose to such a massive and potentially disruptive change. Analogous situations can be found with the United States and Puerto Rico, the United Kingdom and British Overseas Territories, France and overseas collectivities. I'm not adding a strong oppose because some reliable sources frequently use "Mainland China" and some use just "China", they are usually divided on the convention. --MarioGom (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Note that I'm not opposing to the use of "mainland China" for every possible case, I'm just opposing a mass change. I realize that a few other editors want to decide on a case-by-case basis even !voting support. --MarioGom (talk) 22:49, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose and could be in conflict with the ]. WP:COMMONNAME already covers most cases, and in most situations, mainland China is referred to as simply China, unless distinction from Taiwan/SARs is paramount. --17jiangz1 (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support. While I see the logic behind omitting "mainland", there's still an assumption that Hong Kong and Macau (and at times Taiwan) are homogenous to the rest of China; among a few groups of editors "mainland China" has become WP:COMMONNAME. Currently over at Template:2019-20 coronavirus pandemic data a footnote was added to China to explicitly define the split, but China would probably have to have this footnote in almost every article it mentioned when the SARs and/or Taiwan are also somewhere in the article. Keeping it as "mainland China" is shorter and less of a hassle to consistently do. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• Note that some guidelines already exist for this topic at MOS:NC-CN. Whatever the result of this RfC, this page is probably not the right place to implement it. --MarioGom (talk) 19:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose hard and fast rule, continue to deal with on a case-by-case basis. Use "China" when unlikely to cause confusion, but "mainland China" if it would make the statement more clear. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose since China is the formal name of the state this should be the formal name of China in titles and in lists of nations and territories. It should be a simplified naming protocol. For the same reason that we do not call the United States the Contiguous United States, it is in many ways redundant to call China, "mainland China". Note some people are calling it Mainland China, which is grossly incorrect, this is not a proper name, but rather a descriptive name and mainland in therm mainland China should not be capitalized. The more we have articles with mainland China the more confusing this makes it for the lay reader of Misplaced Pages. Perhaps falsely indicating that there is a state name "Mainland China" which there is not. Thus I propose that the standard name for mainland China simply be reduced to China to prevent confusion. Notes can be added to articles and lists to indicate that Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macao are listed separately as needed. Krazytea(talk) 21:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Unless a distinction between mainland China and Taiwan has to be made for an article's information to be accurate, as is true with topics such as the 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic (where there is a different health agency in each location), the distinction should not be made just for the sake of uniformity. For an article like music of China, there is no need to rename the page to music of mainland China. As per WP:COMMONNAME, those looking for music in China are generally going to be looking for music in mainland China specifically. There is a separate article on music of Taiwan, and there is no need to make it into "music of mainland China", especially since "mainland China" is not any sort of official name or designation. Article titles should include "mainland China" only when it is necessary for accuracy, and a blanket change would likely only make things more confusing. Khu'hamgaba Kitap 01:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support (I'm not an autoconfirmed/confirmed user.) This is a disputed matter. It should not be treated like France or other countries that has overseas territories.

Maybe you would like to check out zh:WP:PB which is similar to MOS:NC-CN. Some points are listed here:

Misplaced Pages should reflect a neutral reality, meaning that the government representing China should not refer to either the Beijing Government or the Taipei Government, so the term China should not be treated as any single independent political entity or government, and should not be used particularly in the territory under the jurisdiction of the People's Republic of China, or Mainland China excluding Hong Kong and Macau.

Taiwan should not be described as an independent country or part of PRC, but rather as a part of ROC.

By convention, Misplaced Pages will not support or oppose the following two issues:

1. The Constitution of the People's Republic of China declares Taiwan to be the territory of PRC.

2. The Constitution of the Republic of China declares its(ROC) inherent territory includes mainland China.

It is worth noting that the above matters are not fully applicable to historical items, especially the historical part before the sovereignty of the government of ROC has not yet included Taiwan.

I apologize for my poor translation (even with the help of Google). ——羊羊32521 (talk) 04:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually, Misplaced Pages used to do just that prior to 2011. Back then the article on China was a hodgepodge trying to mesh some vague Greater China entity into one article. However, Wikipedians reached a consensus in September 2011 to treat the PRC as the default China when used without qualification. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• Note to the closer: Please, note that some of the votes both as support and oppose advocate to continue using a case-by-case approach. --MarioGom (talk) 23:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support. We should use the word Mainland China or China (PR), because the two chinese states have overlaping claims but separate control. The distinction is deeper than the one Between the two koreas. Therefore, unless the thing mentioned apply equaly to the Republic and People's Republic, a mention should be made of which country we are talking about. Francis1867 (talk) 09:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Apostrophe-link characters in titles

Just a note that the character used in Wade-Giles romanization seems to have changed. I haven't tried to distinguish which article titles use Pinyin, but some titles may need to be changed to use either a straight apostrophe or the character used by {{wg-apos}}, assuming that's correct. There are some articles that use that template where the character used by the template is now out of sync with the article title. If someone wants a list of all articles with a particular character in the title, feel free to ping me. -- Beland (talk) 22:11, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Historical names of Chinese places

SilverStar54 (contributions) has been changing historic place names to the modern version. The naming convention does not seem to cover this. However, an important tenet on Misplaced Pages is that we do not rewrite history. This means that we should use the historically correct place names appropriate to the period. Thus in 1922, Niuzhuang was known as Newchwang, and should be referred to as such when writing about events in 1922. Can we please add something to NCZH stating that modern names should not replace historic names when it is appropriate to use the historic name? Mjroots (talk) 06:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Respectfully, how are the linked contributions not in benefit to the reader? I reviewed several, and don't see User:SilverStar54 changing "Chang'an" to "Xi'an" or anything like that. Altering transliterations does not – to me – rise to the level of "rewriting history". The place mentioned redirects to Yingkou in both cases. Just one opinion, of course 🙏🏽 Folly Mox (talk) 08:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

@Folly Mox: OK, let's take the most well known of these - Peking. Until the late C20th, nobody would have heard of "Beijing". Peking would have been universally known as having been the then Capital of China. We shouldn't be using Beijing in an article depicting events in the C18th, for example. Mjroots (talk) 09:35, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I certainly hope my edits do not constitute rewriting history, but if there's consensus that they do then I will undo them. I've been making changes based on my understanding of the policies on this page and the general ones for historical placenames at WP:NCGN#Use modern names. Both policies place a clear emphasis on following common English usage, and modern English scholarship in particular. Modern scholars of Chinese history have more-or-less reached a consensus on how to romanize Chinese. Even when writing about time periods when Wade-Giles (or another system) was standard, pinyin is used for almost all placenames and names of individuals. Exceptions include names that are romanizations of non-Mandarin languages (e.g., "Amoy", "Mukden," "Sun Yat-sen") or names that were exceptionally famous in English using their old-style romanization (e.g., "Chiang Kai-shek", "Treaty of Nanking", "Kuomintang"). The number of terms included on that latter list, though, seems to be ever-shrinking as pinyin becomes more widely accepted. Obviously, where genuine name changes have occurred (e.g., "Niuzhuang" -> "Yingkou"), the historically accurate name is used. Some examples that use this approach (for 1860s China, as an example): , , , , , ,

I think that the justification for this approach is pretty straightforward. Standardized romanizations of Chinese are a relatively new thing, historically speaking: even Wade-Giles wasn't finalized until the 1890s. Before the mid-1800s, the only sensible choice is to use pinyin. So it would be rather odd to say "Fuzhou" all the way up until the mid-1800s when we start having primary sources in European languages, and then use "Foochow" until European-language sources begin calling it "Fuzhou" in the 1970s and 80s. This would be especially odd given the fact that the name of the city never actually changed at all for the people living there. At least in theory, even the European name didn't really change. Correctly pronounced, "Foochow" "Fuchow", and "Fuzhou" should all sound the same. After all, they're just different romanizations, just ways of conveying to non-Chinese readers how to say the name. Shakespeare never signed any of his works with that spelling of his name, but we wouldn't be rewriting history to say Romeo and Juliet was by Shakespeare rather than "Shakspere" or "Shaksper". Shakespeare is just the way we've collectively agreed to render that name in modern writing. Is it rewriting history, then, to say that the Xuantong Emperor was crowned in Beijing rather than Peking?

As I said, if this is a misinterpretation of Misplaced Pages's policies or if the consensus is against me, I'm happy to undo my edits. I should mention that I had a similar conversation with a few other editors a couple months ago and we came to agree on this, with the caveat that articles should clarify the different spellings where necessary for verifiability. SilverStar54 (talk) 09:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

IMvHO, we should go with the source being used. Mjroots (talk) 11:25, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

That does seem to be the convention in modern historical writing, e.g. China: A New History (Fairbank & Goldman):

Since the pinyin system of romanization introduced some years ago by Beijing seems to have a lock on the future, it is used throughout this book for the transcription of Chinese names and terms. Where an older romanization is likely to be better known to the reader (for example, Chiang Kaishek instead of Jiang Jieshi, or Canton instead of Guangzhou), the familiar form is indicated in parentheses at first use.

Similar conventions are used in the 6-volume Harvard History of Imperial China, the monumental Chinese History: A New Manual and others. The Cambridge History of China, begun in the late 60's, is standardized on Wade-Giles, but the more recent extension, The Cambridge History of Ancient China (1999) has switched to pinyin. Kanguole 11:39, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I fully agree with User:SilverStar54's comment above. "Foochow"/"Fuzhou" is not a case of a city changing its name – those are two different transliterations of the same name. Like most modern English-language reliable sources about Chinese history, we should use hanyu pinyin regardless of the time period we're talking about. (There are exceptions for the unusual cases where a different transliteration is significantly more common in modern sources, like Sun Yat-sen or Hong Kong.) It would be very odd for Fuzhou#History to start out with the transliteration "Fuzhou", switch to "Foochow" in the 1800s, and then switch back to "Fuzhou".

In cases where the city has actually changed names like Xi'an/Chang'an, it may be appropriate to use the pinyin transliteration of the name that was applicable at the time (e.g. "Chang'an", but not "Ch'ang-an"). And in some cases it may be appropriate to give an alternative transliteration in parentheses, to help readers who might recognize the older transliteration or read older sources. But like modern RSs, we should use pinyin as our default regardless of what time period we're talking about. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mx. Granger: - Many people would not realize that "Foochow" and "Fuzhou" are pronounced the same. I certainly didn't until a couple of days ago, being zh-0. My issue was the changing of spellings away from what the source in question used to a more modern spelling. Hence my comment at 11:25 yesterday. Mjroots (talk) 06:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mjroots: I understand your concern about verifiability/readers' confusion when an article relies mainly/exclusively on older sources. Do you think that such cases would be sufficiently addressed by including the sources' spelling in parentheses at the first instance of a pinyin name? For example, as is done here? SilverStar54 (talk) 07:48, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@SilverStar54: I'm talking about edits such as this, where the source gave Newchwang, and you altered it to Niuzhuang. The wikilink Newchwang actualy goes to the article Yingkou. Whether that is correct, or not, I can't comment. We should stick with what the source says, and let the wikilinks take readers to the correct article if they want further information. Mjroots (talk) 16:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mjroots My bad, I should probably have changed that to be "Niuzhuang (Newchwang, now Yingkou)". Niuzhuang's a tricky one because it actually did change its name. My excuse is that 1) I didn't have access to The Times casualty reports, and 2) I reasoned that brevity was the chief concern in the context of a list. If you think it necessary, I will go back and add those clarifying remarks (although I would appreciate some help, there are a lot of shipwreck pages).

But I strongly oppose defaulting to the RS from the specific source for a piece of information rather than using what is the general consensus among sources. The whole point of naming conventions is to spare Misplaced Pages's readers from having to wade through half a dozen systems of Chinese romanization. As you discovered, each system has wildly different pronunciation rules that the casual reader has no way of knowing about, but they're all trying to say the same thing. Keeping things simple with a single RS is clearer and easer to use. SilverStar54 (talk) 18:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

A parenthetical along the lines of "Niuzhuang (Newchwang, now Yingkou)" looks fine to me. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 19:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Is your view that we should always use the same spelling the cited source does? I don't think this makes much sense. The transliteration system used by a source is usually a function of when and where the source was written (not what time period it's talking about or any other factor relevant to our readers). If we cite three sources, all in the same paragraph about the same historical event, that use the spellings "Fuzhou", "Fu-chou", and "Foochow", would we switch spellings repeatedly within that paragraph? I think that would look sloppy and would confuse any readers who don't know that these are all transliterations of the same place name. It would also be a major departure from standard practice in reliable sources – I don't know of any reliable source that mixes transliteration systems so chaotically. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:41, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mx. Granger: where there are various spellings, one should be picked and stuck to in the article, with the variants either being covered in the lede, or by some other method, such as that employed at the Hadlow (1814 ship) article. In the example you gave at 19:29 yesterday, I'd stick with the source's spelling in the article, so it would be "Newchwang (Niuzhuang, now Yingkou)", it that was how this would be done. Mjroots (talk) 06:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

where there are various spellings, one should be picked and stuck to in the article, with the variants either being covered in the lede, or by some other method – I broadly agree with this. In my view, that spelling should generally be pinyin (with exceptions such as Sun Yat-sen and Hong Kong), because pinyin is the standard system used in modern sources, including when they're talking about historical events. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Not to disagree with the reasoning above, just to note that some Chinese terms have an established base of English-speakers using them, e.g. Chinese: 太極拳; pinyin: Tàijíquán; Wade–Giles: T'ai chi ch'uan, the latter (Wade-Giles) being far the more popular spelling in both book titles and organization names. At this point WP:COMMONNAME in English-speaking countries would seem to apply. – _•Raven  23:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

For sure. I don't think there's any disagreement there. SilverStar54 (talk) 01:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Project-Class Hong Kong pages
• NA-importance Hong Kong pages
• WikiProject Hong Kong articles
• NA-Class Macau pages
• NA-importance Macau pages
• WikiProject Macau articles
• Project-Class China-related pages
• NA-importance China-related pages
• Project-Class China-related articles of NA-importance
• WikiProject China articles