Talk:Jilu Mandarin

Untitled

The article says Ji Lu Mandarin and Beijing Mandarin are very different. As a native speaker of Beijing Mandarin, I must say this is absolutely untrue. The classification of Ji Lu Mandarin which includes Tianjin, Baoding-Tangshan and other northern part of Hebei was a political one, not a lingustic one. It was first drafted in late 1970's and early 1980's, and the main reasons was Beijing and the 3 North-eastern provinces are separate olitical units. This classification of Ji Lu Mandarin has a fundamental fault: In the lingual line of that runs from Baoding to Tianjin, the words that belonged to Qing-Fraction of the Inner Tone in Pre-Qin Classical Chinese have shfited to all four modern tones. This is the same as in Beijing Mandarin and Northeastern Mandarin. In China modern linguists do not follow this anymore.

Karolus 2009/12/14 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.102.77.228 (talk) 19:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 1

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: Moved per consensus, and consistent with Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Chinese)#Hyphens. R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Ji–Lu Mandarin → Jilu Mandarin — There was no justification given for the move to the dash form, and I say absolutely not to the dash. The dash would be appropriate if the dialect group were actually called by its full name, "Hebei—Shandong". For one, Oxford, which appears to be the basis for WP:ENDASH, gives no mention as to special abbreviations derived from foreign languages, as occurs in this case. There is a parallel at Jingshi Expressway (Beijing—Shijiazhuang), among others; a search for "Jing–shi Expressway" on Google leads to "did you mean: Jingshi Expressway?".

Secondly, under pinyin rules, these would be "combined meanings". Since we have chosen to maintain the abbreviated name, apart from tone marks, we need to follow spacing rules. See, for example, Xiàndài Hànyǔ Chángyòng Zìbiǎo.

Lastly, the dash suggests some sort of a terminus, much in the manner of "Beijing—Shijiazhuang", when such a terminus does not exist... Indeed this map makes it clear that speakers of this group extend beyond those two provinces alone. HXL's Roundtable and Record 06:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• Jiao–Liao Mandarin → Jiaoliao Mandarin
• Lan–Yin Mandarin → Lanyin Mandarin

• Oppose proposed destination, support hyphenation This is merely a matter of formatting style. Different sources treat these differently. The en dash does not imply any kind of terminous, but rather just that Ji and Lu are two independent names, which they are. Read WP:ENDASH.

Jilu Mandarin falsely implies that it is Mandarin from "Jilu", along the lines of Beijing Mandarin. Since the typical reader would not be surprised at a Chinese name they'd never heard before, they would not be able to easily judge. Similarly, we'd be implying that there are Mandarin-speaking areas called "Jiaoliao" and "Lanyin". Ji-Lu Mandarin with a regular hyphen might work, as long as it's doubly capitalized; "Ji-lu" would be problematic because it's so common to hyphenate all polysyllabic Chinese words. I don't think I'd have any problem with moving these to Ji-Lu, Jiao-Liao, and Lan-Yin Mandarin. — kwami (talk) 06:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, neither is "Beijing Mandarin" a commonly used form of that (efficient) dialect. This would be a matter of perspective; I still think abiding by pinyin rules should be our guideline. Otherwise we would have to change the pinyin in the lead to reflect our modification, and pinyin rarely, if ever, uses dashes. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 15:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

As I said, I think hyphens are adequate, so I'd have no objection to that. But I have no idea what your first sentence means. — kwami (talk) 08:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The meaning of my first sentence is that in that case, "dialect" is more commonplace than "Mandarin". --HXL's Roundtable and Record 22:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Neutral Kwami is right that "Jilu" makes it look as it "Jilu" is the name of something, rather than two names mashed together. But HXL is right that there is some precedent, both on Wikipedia and elsewhere for this kind of perhaps misleading romanization (another example is the Jingzang Expressway, written that way both on-wiki and in some signage I've seen in Beijing). I guess it comes down to whether we want to choose clarity or consistency. rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support per pinyin rules / WP:MOSCHINA ("We usually use Hanyu Pinyin; see this discussion on meta.") since there doesn't seem to be much in the way of English references to guide us. —  AjaxSmack  04:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support, subject to later review if more specific WP guidelines are developed for such names. This is a very difficult case, located at the confluence of several issues in English punctuation practice and various cross-linguistic accommodations. In the end I am swayed by Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Chinese)#Hyphens, which determines (following Library of Congress Guidelines) that language names are not hyphenated in their pinyin representations. (A fortiori, and in accord with standard punctuation in pinyin, an en dash is not to be used.) Since the names for these languages are direct borrowings from Mandarin, and since each refers to a singular language despite its being spoken in two distinct areas, the Chinese usage represented in pinyin appears to carry most weight here. –_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 08:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Move? 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

---

• Ji-Lu Mandarin → Jilu Mandarin

– A move request was closed, but an admin who had participated in the discussion then reverted the move without any explanation (see discussion of admin actions). The admin was then desyoped for making other undiscussed moves against the result of move requests, see arbcom case. Please move also Jiao–Liao Mandarin → Jiaoliao Mandarin, and Lan–Yin Mandarin → Lanyin Mandarin. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC) Enric Naval (talk) 12:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Speedy move as technical request - revert disruptive move counter an RM decision (plus as discussion above and sources show, this is the normal rendering) In ictu oculi (talk) 02:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support a speedy move of this and the related pages. This should be a technical request. It's ridiculous that RMs should have to be rehashed and reconfirmed every two years. The burden should be on those seeking to overturn the previous decision. —  AjaxSmack  03:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 3

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 moved. This should not be moved again without a full RM; thanks to SlimVirgin, it probably won't be. --BDD (talk) 23:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• Ji-Lu Mandarin → Jilu Mandarin
• Jiao-Liao Mandarin → Jiaoliao Mandarin
• Lan-Yin Mandarin → Lanyin Mandarin

– Restore previous RM results, in line with English print sources, yet again. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Why bother. User:Kwamikagami has moved this article 5 times in 5 years to various titles (including strangely enough the current title and the proposed title) all the while ignoring previous RM discussions.[1][2][3][4][5] The latest was less than 24 hours after a RM closure. S/he appears to own the titles of numerous language articles so just let it stay at this title since it will end up back here anyway. It's less disruptive. —  AjaxSmack  01:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Kwamikagami moves these things all over the place. There's been so many notices at so many wikiprojects about closures against consensus, not using common names, using names not used by bilingual-English speakers of the languages, so the article names are not the names recognizable to the speakers of the language, etc, that Wikipedia is just a personal fiefdom. I'm surprised he kept his sysop bit for any length of time. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 03:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Doesn't pasting User:Kwamikagami cause an alert notification to let him/her know there is a concern? But there are so many ANIs about this problem search ANI 81 results it's difficult to find the most recent ones and work out what sanction is in place. In any case I take both of the above comments are in fact Support and Support for restoring RM results if the bigger problem is addressed. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per MOS. (I looked at the first article moved with the claim that the move was "uncontroversial", and since it was controversial and there was no discussion on the talk page, I reverted.) These dialects are not named after e.g. " Lanyin", but are abbreviations of e.g. Lanzhou and Yinchuan. As compound names, they should be hyphenated in an encyclopedia, even if the hyphen is often dropped in practice. The hyphens are retained in sources such as Language and National Identity in Asia,[6] which in turn refs several sinologists. Hyphenation is also used in more specialized contexts, such as "The Evolution of Nasal Final in Lan-Yin Dialect"3[7] Where usage is divided, there's no reason not to follow the MOS. — kwami (talk) 02:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Kwamikagami

• I take it by "the first article" you mean Lanyin Mandarin. 9 June 2013‎ User:Anthony Appleyard moved page Talk:Lan–Yin Mandarin to Talk:Lanyin Mandarin: Requested at Wikipedia:Requested moves as uncontroversial which states as reason "restore RM result, see Talk:Ji-Lu Mandarin" - but you didn't notify the admin User:Anthony Appleyard, and didn't look at Talk:Ji-Lu Mandarin. You also ignored the page history 10 April 2011‎ User:R'n'B (moved Talk:Lan–Yin Mandarin to Talk:Lanyin Mandarin: per Talk:Ji–Lu Mandarin#Requested move)
• and then the same for Jiaoliao Mandarin
• And then the same for this article Jilu Mandarin ignoring the 2 RMs here.

Does this strike you as appropriate editing behaviour for someone who has been warned so many times about moving articles counter RM results and ignoring Talk page consensus? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Did you just make that up? It says no such thing at the edit you linked to. The edit summary I saw was:

Anthony Appleyard moved page Lanyin Mandarin zxcvbnm to Lanyin Mandarin without leaving a redirect: and back
Anthony Appleyard moved page Lanyin Mandarin to Lanyin Mandarin zxcvbnm without leaving a redirect: temp to get deleted parallel history out from under
Anthony Appleyard moved page Lan-Yin Mandarin to Lanyin Mandarin

and

Anthony Appleyard moved page Jiaoliao Mandarin zxcvbnm to Jiaoliao Mandarin without leaving a redirect: & back
Anthony Appleyard moved page Jiaoliao Mandarin to Jiaoliao Mandarin zxcvbnm without leaving a redirect: temp to get deleted parallel history out from under
Anthony Appleyard moved page Jiao-Liao Mandarin to Jiaoliao Mandarin

BTW, the objection to the punctuation in the original RM was to the en dash, not to a hyphen. I agree that an en dash is probably not warranted here, but a hyphen is. — kwami (talk) 03:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Kwamikagami

No I did not make it up: Anthony Appleyard moved page Talk:Lan–Yin Mandarin to Talk:Lanyin Mandarin: Requested at Wikipedia:Requested moves as uncontroversial //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves Technical_requests&oldid=550299829 mover... Do you seriously not know how to read an edit history?

How could you not see:

16:26, 9 June 2013‎ Kwamikagami moved page Lanyin Mandarin to Lan-Yin Mandarin over redirect: correct punctj

05:06, 9 June 2013‎ Anthony Appleyard moved page Lanyin Mandarin zxcvbnm to Lanyin Mandarin without leaving a redirect: and back)

21:44, 23 July 2012‎ Kwamikagami moved page Lanyin Mandarin to Lan-Yin Mandarin over redirect: objection was to the dash, not the hyphentext here

11:44, 22 July 2012‎ Shrigley moved page Lan-Yin Mandarin to Lanyin Mandarin over redirect: It was moved to "Lanyin" via RM, but reverted without explanation by a retired desysopped user.

06:54, 25 July 2011‎ Kwamikagami moved Lanyin Mandarin to Lan-Yin Mandarin

13:31, 10 April 2011‎ R'n'B moved Lan–Yin Mandarin to Lanyin Mandarin: per Talk:Ji–Lu Mandarin#Requested move

You managed to see on your watchlist that 3 articles you have moved several times had been moved by admin Anthony Appleyard, but you couldn't see the RMs in the edit history? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't review each of the six page histories. I looked at the first one, saw that the edit summary was false, and reverted. — kwami (talk) 22:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that excuse won't work for your reverts of 2011 (you had just participated in the RM) and 2012 (in all two page stories it said "It was moved to "Jiaoliao" via RM, but reverted without explanation by a retired desysopped user."). And in the 2013 revert you only say "correct punct", without mentioning anything about false edit summaries. And you didn't ask Appleyard before reverting him, you just assumed that the edit summary was "false", you didn't think of asking him, you didn't even leave him a message saying that you had reverted his moves. And you already used a really poor edit summary in your 2012 reverts (you said "objection was to the dash, not the hyphen" when you were the only commenter in the RM who made such a distinction).

Never mind that a few days ago you were move-warring over another hyphen..., see Traffic light vs Traffic-light and the history of the article[8].

Or that other editors have complained to you for not gathering consensus when moving lots of pages[9]

Or that you were desysopped for performing this type of moves against consensus.....

Calm down, pick the moral high ground, and start a RM instead of reverting again..... --Enric Naval (talk) 23:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support restoring it per previous results. That move was beyond bold.--Cold Season (talk) 00:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support per previous RMs. One disruptive user shouldn't be subverting again and again the results of RMs just because he disagrees with the results. This damages the RM system and encourages more disruptive behaviour. (Oh, and WP:NC-CHINA#Hyphens discourages hyphens except for certain cases, and this name doesn't fall under any of the cases, and this argument was already mentioned in the first RM) --Enric Naval (talk) 23:09, 13 June 2013 (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.

Page protection

Following a request on RfPP, I've protected the page against further moves, except for uninvolved admins closing RMs, including Anthony. I protected on the version that I found it; that should be reverted if appropriate. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

kanji!

how can u have an article like this -- and spend months arguing about the DASH between the pinyin for the characters -- without even ONCE stating the characters!!!!

they should be given with the very FIRST mention of the term, as well as for all of the related/further listed dialects. a bunch of them finally do down bottom, but not all, and not UP TOP, where it counts! 66.30.47.138 (talk) 17:01, 23 August 2021 (UTC)