User talk:White whirlwind/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Oops

Sorry, a careless reversion of mine undid your edit at Liu An. Fixing now. Cheers, Basie (talk) 02:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your Economic inequality edit.

@White whirlwind:  Done - Thank you for suggesting a supporting reference re the Economic inequality article - hope the noted reference helps in some way - in any case - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

File:David Nivison.jpg

Regarding your image David Nivision.jpg, three comments here: (1) if you are in contact with content creators and are seeking their permission to use their work on Wikipedia, please see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for information about the kind of permission we request and WP:CONSENT for a sample statement of permission that we ask the copyright holder to submit. (2) We do not accept images with "Wikipedia-only" permission or which are licensed for "non-commercial use" or anything like that unless we are fully confident that we could have used the image under a claim of fair use, even if we lacked that permission. If you are saying that we cannot use this image without the copyrightholder's permission, then we should not have been using it under our fair use rules to begin with. (3) Since you are the uploader and have requested deletion, request granted. --B (talk) 21:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Xunzi RM

I relisted your move request at Talk:Xunzi. If there is no further comment, I will withdraw my opposition to your request. Thank you for all of your work on these topics. —  AjaxSmack  02:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

@AjaxSmack: Ok, thanks for letting me know.  White Whirlwind  咨  03:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Tsien Tsuen-hsuin

Hi White whirlwind, thanks for your work on Tsien Tsuen-hsuin. I've added you as a contributor to the DYK nomination. Cheers, -Zanhe (talk) 22:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 3 May

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Guo Pu page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Fixed.  White Whirlwind  咨  00:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Tsien Tsuen-hsuin

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 07:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox Chinese

Template:Infobox Chinese has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 10:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

IPA in China related articles

I'm still at a loss to understand why we need IPA at all, since most English readers don't understand it and pinyin provides enough of an indication of what something sounds like. Sure, there are some exceptions, Xi'an for example, but these are few and far between. Maybe we need to have a centralised discussion resulting in the addition of a some words to the Chinese style guide covering IPA inclusion. Best,  Philg88 ^♦talk 05:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

@Philg88: It's certainly not widely understood at present, but I think it's still helpful; editors have recently added it to most France-related articles and it is a huge boon to me personally. I agree that we ought to have a centralized discussion on the Chinese MoS page about it.

While we're on the subject, we also probably need to have one regarding the inclusion of characters in leads when the Chinese infobox is also used, as an ancient edit (2007, not long after the China MoS was created) to the China MoS states that characters shouldn't be included in that situation, and there is a user who has very strong feelings about that and is implementing it with great vigor. I think it's an incorrect policy, as the reliable sources all do it and Chinese infoboxes tend to get buried under other ones.  White Whirlwind  咨  05:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I seem to recall that infobox usage came about to avoid cluttering the lead with every Romanisation known to man. In some cases there were two lines of crap before the content started by which time most readers had probably expired from boredom. I'm all for including simple, traditional and pinyin in the lead and nothing else, although there would be not unreasonable objections over Taiwan and Hong Kong related articles requiring alternative Romanizations. I'm not sure whether this is a matter for discussion at Wikiproject China or as an RfC. Thoughts?  Philg88 ^♦talk 05:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi White Whirlwind -- I'd like to second Philg88's concern to say that I don't see any need for IPA since pinyin is pretty much OK by now with most readers and that I myself find IPA unintelligible. Looking through the Chinese style guide I don't see that IPA is mentioned, much less required, and I certainly don't think it would be a good use of your valuable time to add it systematically to all China articles. I would even suggest that the IPA be removed from the lead of Tsien Tsuen-hsuin. But renewed thanks and admiration for all your good work! ch (talk) 05:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

@Philg88: Yes, in fact I'd shorten it further — one form of characters (probably not both) and some pinyin/YaleCanto/Tai-Lo/POJ (as appropriate) if the English term is significantly different therefrom, that seems very reasonable to me.

@CWH: Ok, I'll cease changing the IPA's and just delete them for now until we have a proper discussion. Thanks for sharing your bona fide concern.  White Whirlwind  咨  06:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we're coming at this from the wrong angle. Since the Chinese style guide makes no mention of IPA, we have consensus in absentia that it should not be included. Until someone provides a valid rationale to change the status quo with the appropriate supporting consensus then IPA should be removed. The Infobox issue remains a separate bete noir.  Philg88 ^♦talk 06:25, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

@Philg88: That sounds a lot like argumentum ex silencio to me, I wouldn't take its absence to mean anything.  White Whirlwind  咨  06:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Quite possibly, but don't forget Wikipedia is not a democracy.  Philg88 ^♦talk 06:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for your understanding, WhiteWhirlwind, and thanks once again to Philg88 for helping to keep our eye both on the horizon and on the pesky details in front of us. I think we are still feeling our way in regard to the China articles. This discussion is very helpful in seeing what the problems are in balancing professional precision against accessibility to general readers. There was an article (not a MOS or other policy), which I can't find right now, that advised editors to write to one level below what they thought the primary audience of an article would be. That is, for a grad student type topic, to write at an undergrad level, and for a college level topic to write so that high school people would find it clear. Hard to say exactly what this means in particular cases, but probably a good principle to keep in mind. Cheers! ch (talk) 17:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for efforts - Kimball article

Thanks for your continuing efforts on the Spencer W. Kimball article. I have no concerns about the updates or corrections you made. Thank you. At least on the initial use of Andrew, so you're aware - I understand the typical full name use on first instance, but it had not been shown that way previously. It just said "Andrew" there when first referring to his father, with the full name and link much later in the article. I should have included the full name, but given the amount of time and effort that you in particular have put on the article, I figured the "consensus" to this point had been that it be shown with just the first name there, so I added the lacking link. In a similar way, the lack of nbsp on the pm existed before, that was the real issue, as yes - either pm or p.m. is acceptable. Glad to see the update on their son's name, since it would have seemed natural for what he was known as to have always been listed that way in the article before. Thanks again for your efforts. ChristensenMJ (talk) 05:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

@MJChristensen: Understood, thanks. The rest of your edits, especially the capitalizations, were needed and helpful, I think, so thanks for making them.  White Whirlwind  咨  05:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Yep, I also didn't mean to have so many in one big block like that, I'd noticed a couple of the capitalizations, etc. and started reading through it and it kind of just happened. I know it's a lot harder to follow and see things that way. ChristensenMJ (talk) 05:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Christopher Cullen

Noticed you nominated this for AFD, but the template you placed at the top of the article leads to a discussion that closed in 2013. Would you consider replacing that template with one that links to the correct discussion? Everymorning talk 23:47, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@Everymorning: If I knew how to, I would. Never encountered such a situation before, sorry.  White Whirlwind  咨  23:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• Hi. I came to your page out of curiosity after taking part in your AFD of Julia Lovell. I want to urge you to look carefully at WP:BEFORE and consider looking for reviews of Cullen's books before staring another AFD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@E.M.Gregory: So, just to confirm: if a person writes a book and it gets some reviews in major periodicals, they then automatically satisfy the notability requirement for a Wikipedia article under WP:AUTHOR?  White Whirlwind  咨  22:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Pretty much.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@E.M.Gregory: Wow. Well, thanks for enlightening me.  White Whirlwind  咨  22:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Once in a while the decision is to have an article on the book but not on the author. And those reviews do have to be in major places.Cheers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

{{Infobox Chinese/Chinese}}

Hi, may I know why you reverted my edit? Thanks Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 13:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@Abjiklam: It broke the template, so that Xiaoerjing was appearing all the time even when not called.  White Whirlwind  咨  19:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Oops my bad. Could you tell me on which article you noticed that? I'd like to see if I can fix it. And please leave a short edit summary next time :) Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 15:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

@Abjiklam: I noticed it on a number of articles that called the template, I can't recall which one, sorry.  White Whirlwind  咨  18:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Rhotic

Non-rhotic accents don't lose the R "after a vowel" (compare words like carry, sorry), they lose it when it's not before a vowel (a subset of the cases where it comes "after a vowel"). That many sources use "postvocalic" for this subset is perhaps unfortunate, but in any case we need to define it correctly - this use of "postvocalic" is not correctly and fully explained by saying "after a vowel". I note we actually have a stub called postvocalic consonant - although unsourced, that seems to define the term correctly for our purposes, and "after a vowel" is only one half of the definition. W. P. Uzer (talk) 06:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@W. P. Uzer: Hi there: I think your confusion comes from the fact that "postvocalic" seems to be used in the scholarly literature in its narrow sense, so "carry" and "sorry" would not fit that definition (they'd be "intervocalic"). I'm open to some elucidation for unfamiliar readers (as WP policy makes clear is our duty as editors), but I'm very cautious about cluttering up the lead and/or altering the wording of directly sourced material, which in my estimation your edits have done. I think this still needs work.  White Whirlwind  咨  01:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there is any confusion on my part - I know that "postvocalic" has this narrow sense, and that is what I wrote above. It is because it has this narrow sense, that we mustn't imply to readers that it has a wider sense, which is what we were doing before I made my edits. If the source being cited mistakenly defines it as having the wider sense, then we should simply not use that particular source, but use one of the countless other available sources that does not make that mistake. I also don't agree that my edits "clutter up" the lead - I just added some examples to make it clear in what cases non-rhotic speakers do use the /r/, to go alongside the existing examples showing cases where they do not use it. W. P. Uzer (talk) 05:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Position's strength

Re this edit summary: I don't think your position's strength is very robust at all. As MOS:U.S. says, "In American and Canadian English, U.S. (with periods and without a space) is the dominant abbreviation for United States". It's not unanimous, of course, but certainly it is dominant, and given that Richard G. Scott is an American person, the usual way of formatting the article would be to adhere to American English. It doesn't have to be that way, I just found your insistence that you were not technically incorrect to be a bit of a silly game, that's all.

I think it should be noted, though, that the guideline also says that "Use of periods for abbreviations and acronyms should be consistent within any given article and congruent with the variety of English used by that article", and before you made your additions of using "US", the article already used the abbreviation "U.S." a number of times, so now the usage in the article is not consistent, as recommended by the guideline. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@Good Olfactory: It was *relatively* robust, though, as evinced by your ad hominem that you slipped in the edit summary, and that's what counts! ;) Your two positions from the edit summaries were: 1.) that "US" was "incorrect punctuation"; 2.) "U.S." is "recommended for American topics", yet neither of these positions were supported by the Manual of Style, as we have clearly seen. There is a very significant difference between a thing being a general practice and it being "recommended" in some ontological sense. I have no problem with having my additions questioned, but I do take exception to them being labelled "incorrect" based on spurious reasoning.

I see that "U.S." is indeed previously used in the article (I think that's actually an old addition of mine!) and I am perfectly happy to change it based on the "consistently" basis, which is completely valid! Was that so hard?  White Whirlwind  咨  02:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Relatively robust—no, not in my opinion. Pretty weak, all in all. The "ad hominem" comment was a result of surprised frustration at the perceived pettiness of your reverts of my edits, not a reflection on the strength of my own position or yours. Some users like playing word games and focusing excessively on the precise meaning of (typically hastily) typed edit summaries as opposed to the substance of the matters in question. These editors can usually be spotted using words like "ontological" in their criticism of other users' summaries. Anyway, I'm not one of those editors, and in this regard, this conversation has been one that generally yucks me out (which is why I have to remember to generally avoid discussing edit summaries, even when prodded into doing so). Best, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@Good Olfactory: "[your] perceived pettiness", "some users like playing word games", "these editors can usually be spotted using words like 'ontological'" — this is the textbook definition of ad hominem, and I rest my case. I'm sorry my reverts bothered you.  White Whirlwind  咨  18:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Article upgrade assistance request (Pre-translation stage)

Seasons Greetings,

This is in reference to a relatively new umbrella article on en-wikipedia named Ceremonial pole. Ceremonial pole is a human tradition since ancient times; either existed in past at some point of time, or still exists in some cultures across global continents from north to south & from east to west. Ceremonial poles are used to symbolize a variety of concepts in several different world cultures.

Through article Ceremonial pole we intend to take encyclopedic note of cultural aspects and festive celebrations around Ceremonial pole as an umbrella article and want to have historical, mythological, anthropological aspects, reverence or worships wherever concerned as a small part.

While Ceremonial poles have a long past and strong presence but usually less discussed subject. Even before we seek translation of this article in global languages, we need to have more encyclopedic information/input about Ceremonial poles from all global cultures and languages. And we seek your assistance in the same.

Since other contributors to the article are insisting for reliable sources and Standard native english; If your contributions get deleted (for some reason like linguistics or may be your information is reliable but unfortunately dosent match expectations of other editors) , please do list the same on Talk:Ceremonial pole page so that other wikipedians may help improve by interlanguage collaborations, and/or some other language wikipedias may be interested in giving more importance to reliablity of information over other factors on their respective wikipedia.

This particular request is being made to you since your user name is listed in Wikipedia:Translators available list.

Thanking you with warm regards Mahitgar (talk) 05:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

WAM Review

Hi White - I'm Kevin, one of the organizers of the English Wikipedia Asian Month. Thanks for participating, and awesome work so far. Just letting you know that I've reviewed and accepted all the articles you've submitted so far. Thanks! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 08:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Laozi

Hello. There is no indication in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/China-related articles that IPA transcriptions of the English pronunciation of Chinese names is prohibited. Omnipaedista (talk) 22:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

@Omnipaedista: that's right, we haven't added it. However, favoring Mandarin IPA is a trend we've been following for some months now.  White Whirlwind  咨  23:17, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, what does "favoring Mandarin IPA" mean exactly, where are the relevant discussions, and how does all this relate to how English-speaking people pronounce Omnipaedista (talk) 00:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)Chinese names? Omnipaedista (talk) 23:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

@Omnipaedista: oh, they're around in various places, to my knowledge no formal summit has yet been done on it. I think the general consensus was that since IPA is so rarely known in the English-speaking world, when we use it we may as well actually be accurate to the native term.  White Whirlwind  咨  00:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but the following claims are not substantiated: (a) there is no official Wikipedia policy yet regarding the removal of IPA transcriptions, (b) there is no basis for the claim that the IPA is not used in the English-speaking world (just browse any authoritative English dictionary there is or just browse the English Wikipedia), (c) you cannot seriously suggest that you (or any other Wikipedian) are in position to dictate native English language-speakers how to pronounce words—this constitutes linguistic prescriptivism (see WP:NPOV) and original research (see WP:NOR). The basic rule of Wikipedia is that editors should follow what reliable sources say (see WP:V and WP:RS); editors are not supposed to propagate their personal truths or conduct original research. Omnipaedista (talk) 00:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

@Omnipaedista: I never claimed either A) or B) as you characterized, please take the time to actually read and understand what I write before responding, please. I don't waste time dealing with trolls anymore, sorry.  White Whirlwind  咨  01:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

@Omnipaedista: If you feel that strongly about the prudence of adding Anglicized-form IPA for Chinese terms, please start a discussion at an appropriate talk page, such as the Chinese MoS.  White Whirlwind  咨  01:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

(outdent) Please avoid personal attacks. I did not troll you; I did not say that you personally made the IPA popularity claim. You cited it and I just remarked that—whoever made it—it is unsubstantiated. I also remark that you edited repeatedly the 'Laozi' article based on some discussions which you cannot explain clearly, which you cannot actually cite (since they are in "various places"), and which are not adopted policies, while I edit based on official policies. Omnipaedista (talk) 02:34, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Bao Zhao

Hi White whirlwind, thanks for your new article Bao Zhao. I've nominated it for DYK, see nomination page. It's a bit past the deadline, but hopefully it'll be accepted. Always enjoyed reading your articles! -Zanhe (talk) 08:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@Zanhe: thanks, friend.  White Whirlwind  咨  16:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Asian Month Barnstar
	Thanks for your great contribution in Wikipedia Asian Month 2015! --AddisWang (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Bao Zhao

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry

this was wrong of me. Saw what you were doing and self-reverted here. can't strike an edit note. sorry. Jytdog (talk) 01:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: No worries.  White Whirlwind  咨  02:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Peter A. Boodberg

This isn't a big deal, but I'm curious: why did you revert my change? Even if it's true that "it is fairly common to repeat this info at the opening of body," there are lots of things that are "fairly common" in Wikipedia articles that aren't ideal. Do you really think the article is improved by repeating that information, which any user of Wikipedia will expect to find where it always is, in the first line? If it's important to have it in the bio as well, should I start going through articles adding it? If not, why (I ask again) was it worth your taking the time and trouble to revert my change, which I thought was a real if minor improvement? Languagehat (talk) 18:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@Languagehat:

> "Do you really think the article is improved by repeating that information"

Yes: if I didn't, I wouldn't have done it.

> "...should I start going through articles adding it?"

That's up to you. I believe it is a prudent practice, especially when an article is nicer and more fleshed out and its lead is substantial enough to put quite a bit of space between the first line of the lead and the first line of the body. This is the case on many biographical FAs.  White Whirlwind  咨  18:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

OK. Clearly we have a difference of opinion, but it's certainly not worth fighting over. Thanks for replying. Languagehat (talk) 19:00, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Chinese/Sinhalese

Please help to create my language

Template:Infobox Chinese/Sinhalese

Thank you! Pasindu ^{(✉ • ✐ • ✍)} 12:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@පසිඳු කාවින්ද: your edit here broke the template. Please do not edit templates unless you understand them. You may test out your edits in a sandbox if you aren't sure what effect they will have.  White Whirlwind  咨  20:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Translation from English to Chinese

Hello User talk:White whirlwind. I would like to request if it is possible to create a page on chinese wiki based on an English article. It is a very short article and here is the url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabio_Mancini

I would appreciate it very much if you could help me. Do not hesitate to contact me if you need any information or details. Thank you, Irene000 (talk) 11:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

@Irene000: A page can be created on any Wikipedia, as long as it meets that Wikipedia's notability requirements. If you're asking for me to translate it for you, I must decline, as I only translate from Chinese into English.  White Whirlwind  咨  18:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

User talk:White whirlwind, thank you for letting me know. Do you know of anyone who can do the translation from English to Chinese? If so, that would be helpful. Irene000 (talk) 19:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Tibetan/Chinese

Rather than reverting Potala Palace yet again, I am trying to understand why you keep insisting on placing the Chinese name and script before the Tibetan one. I fully agree that both should be represented, but articles like Basque Country always list the native name first. Why not here? Mhoenig (talk) 10:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

@Mhoenig: If you "fully agree that both should be represented", why did you delete the image twice instead of simply altering it?  White Whirlwind  咨  21:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

@White whirlwind: Because the SVG seemed redundant, the infobox already lists the name in the various scripts and I didn't understand why the Chinese was above Tibetan. I will gladly generate one but I don't know how to. Can you help? Mhoenig (talk) 12:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Foot binding

I'm wondering if using that infobox with the Chinese characters so prominent is a good idea. To the general readers, how the word is written in Chinese is of little significance, making the characters so prominent seems odd. I would suggest replacing the Chinese character with the image at the top, do you think that would be better? Hzh (talk) 19:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@Hzh: I've gotten a lot of real-world feedback regarding the varying quality of the Chinese infobox across various browsers and mobile devices, especially when it contains less common language text but also with regular Chinese. It's a linguistic infobox and having a linguistic-oriented image makes sense, and those from whom I've gotten the feedback were very pleased with the SVG's. The issue with the foot binding article is how small the lead image currently is: it makes the SVG a bit jarring. If a larger image could be found (preferably one that's not too disgusting, given the subject matter), I think it would be a big improvement.  White Whirlwind  咨  19:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

The quality of the SVG is good, I'm just wondering about the appropriateness of the characters being so prominent, because to the general readers the characters do not really illustrate the subject. It would be like an article on the Moon, where the main image in the infobox is the word "moon". Perhaps a different infobox may be used if you think a photo is not appropriate for the infobox, although I think it works fine for articles like Oracle bone. The top image used to be the lotus shoe (a bit more tasteful I think, and less unpleasant), but someone else moved it down. Hzh (talk) 19:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@Hzh: Don't misunderstand me: the SVG should never be the main image for the article, but only for the Chinese infobox on a specifically China-related article where a Chinese name or term is notable.  White Whirlwind  咨  10:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

There are a number of images in the commons here that might be OK, the second from top left would be fine once it is trimmed to remove the wording at the bottom, or the fourth one. Hzh (talk) 19:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of SVG, I'm wondering if you can make some for some articles on Chinese surnames, for example Song, Deng, Cao and others. If they haven't been made already that is. Hzh (talk) 20:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@Hzh: That is easily done. I'll get on it in the next week or so.  White Whirlwind  咨  10:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

That'll be excellent. There is a list of characters in Wikimedia, but probably not all that are available have been put into that category. I should also thank you for your good work, and I hope this discussion won't give you the impression that I'm not being appreciative. In the case of foot binding, however, the problem for me is precisely that I don't think the term in Chinese is notable or particularly significant (it simply says what it say, foot binding or foot wrapping). I can see that it would be appropriate to put the Chinese characters prominently in articles where the word is the subject (e.g. surnames), or it is the proper name of a place/person/dynasty or titles (e.g. China, Mao Zedong, Tang dynasty, Shijing), or words that has some significance in Chinese and also borrowed into English (e.g. Qi), or where the etymology of the word is discussed (we could do with probably do with one in Etymology of tea). Other than that, there is a sliding scale of whether the word in Chinese is important enough to be displayed prominently. I'm a little dubious about the use of the Chinese word in porcelain, although it is not prominent enough among all the other images to be distracting. Maybe it's because there is no other infobox at the top of the Foot binding article that made the Chinese term so prominent that I find it distracting. It could be just a personal thing, although I'm wondering if large display of Chinese characters is something worth discussing by the wider community in WP:WikiProject China. Hzh (talk) 12:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@Hzh: You're probably right regarding "foot-binding" and "porcelain". I think it's still a good idea for qi or tofu, though, as you mentioned. I'll remove it from those first two and be more judicious in the future. Kanguole isn't crazy about this practice of mine, but everyone else seems to generally be fine with it.  White Whirlwind  咨  12:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I have added an image in the infobox, but if you feel that it is inappropriate for the infobox, let me know and I'll change it. Hzh (talk) 12:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@Hzh: In the meantime, you may be able to use some of the ones I made for Chunqiu/Zhanguo era states, as quite a few of those became surnames, such as Chen (state), Song (state), Zheng (state), and so forth. They have the seal script versions, but that might be still be useful.  White Whirlwind  咨  22:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you. There are already Chen and Zheng (but Zheng probably needs a regular script) but there are others that I can use. Hzh (talk) 00:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

{{Infobox Chinese historical biography}} and {{Infobox Chinese}}

Since some people keep moving the Chinese characters and pronunciations from {{Infobox Chinese}} to {{Infobox Chinese historical biography}} (like here for example), I am thinking it might be a good idea to merge these infoboxes somehow. Do you have any suggestions on how I should go about this? (Or if this is a good idea?) _dk (talk) 21:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

@Underbar dk: Some guidance definitely needs to be formulated and codified on this subject, I think. The biographical infoboxes need to be pared down, and if they are going to include all of an individual's names (which I have no objection to) that list needs to be collapsed by default, otherwise we end up with situations such as currently exists for Three Kingdoms figures where the infobox is an enormous mess. {{Infobox Chinese}}, as I've said in other places, is for purely linguistic information, and I myself am increasingly of the opinion that we probably shouldn't be adding courtesy names to them just to keep them simple. In short, I'm not sure how we would go about merging the infoboxes, as it would involve a great deal of nesting, but maybe we could formulate some clearer guidelines for infobox usage.  White Whirlwind  咨  09:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Another direction we can go is to make {{Infobox Chinese historical biography}} obsolete by switching to the generic person infoboxes (for example {{Infobox officeholder}} and {{infobox writer}}), and put the person's names and their linguistics in prose under a "Name" section. Then {{Infobox Chinese}} would only cover the simple first and last names. This would align with what the rest of Wikipedia does (for example in Sun Yat-sen). Though I imagine the resistance to this proposal would be higher. _dk (talk) 10:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

@Underbar dk: That seems like a reasonable move to me. I don't see the point of having such an infobox specific to China.  White Whirlwind  咨  09:29, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Invitation from Wikipedia Asian Month 2016

Wikipedia Asian Month

Thanks for partipating Wikipedia Asian Month last year, and I hope you enjoy it. Last year, more than 7,000 articles contribute to Wikipedia in 43 languages in Wikipedia Asian Month, making us one of the largest event on Wikipedia. We will organize this event again in upcoming November, and would like to invite you join us again.

This year, we are lowering down the standards that you only need to create 4 (Four) articles to receive a postcard (new design), and articles only need to be more than 3,000 bytes and 300 words. We are also improving our postcard sending process, e.g. making the postcards right now, and collecting the address after the event ends without waiting other languges.

Wikipedians who create the most articles on each Wikipedia will be honored as "Wikipedia Asian Ambassadors". We will send you both digital copy, and a paper copy of the Ambassador certificate.

Sign up now

Thank you for considering! --AddisWang (talk)
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Thioacetone

I would be glad to discuss thioacetone with you, but the report that was cited in the recent edition appeared very old and it is very unlikely that these workers knew what they had. Also the comment that the compound (or any compound) can be detected downwind in seconds is not convincing as the detection would depend on wind velocity. The compound has been lightly studied because it is fairly useless. Many awful smelling compounds have been examined in great detail. In any case, if you want to discuss organosulfur chemistry, feel free to contact me. --Smokefoot (talk) 02:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

@Smokefoot: I don't think I added any new material, I just moved the notable stuff to the lead. If you doubt the sources, go ahead and look into them, it's not my area of expertise.  White Whirlwind  咨  04:38, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, White whirlwind. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Translation help

The "Mazu Cultural Palace" in Songjiang's Fangta Park, where you can get free soy milk and youtiao if you show up at the right times.

Since you were kind/foolish enough to have your name on this list, here's a note that I could use some help with the mess of Mazu temples in Shanghai. There were three; the first two were destroyed; the third got moved to Songjiang and rebuilt; and then as of 2014 Zhabei was considering rebuilding their old one. So:

• The Shanghai Archives has an article on the history of the Zhabei/Songjiang temple whose citation I've already formatted for you but whose facts need to be translated and added to the Songjiang Tianfei Palace article and tagged with {{sfnp|Feng|2008}}.
• The article is wrong on the date of the move to Songjiang but might be right that it was built in 1883 rather than originally demolished then as claimed here. It'd be nice if you had time to see if there was another official source. The temple's own official site doesn't mention it.
• The archive article and this article and (obliquely) this "About Us" page suggest that Zhabei District is rebuilding or has already rebuilt a fourth Mazu temple near the site of their former one. It would be nice if you had time to poke around and see if you can find anything official on the subject that I could use to create an article on it.
• Ditto any information about the other two original Mazu temples in Shanghai.

If you have time and interest for any, some, or all of that, great and please leave a note here saying so. I'm asking all the listed Chinese translators for help, so we wouldn't want anyone needlessly duplicating work. — LlywelynII 02:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Rhoticity in English

Well, I'm not sure if you do know how reverting works because you also returned unnecessary boldface to the phrase "butter and jam" as well as an error to one of the works cited. I don't just make simple or willy-nilly edits. Anytime you feel there are problems with edits, you can always speak with the other editor one-on-one, as I'm doing now. Thanks. Wolfdog (talk) 18:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

@Wolfdog: the change to the "butter and jam" one I meant to do, actually, but not the error to the work, sorry about that.  White Whirlwind  咨  00:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Nihongo template

It is not, and has never been, deprecated. Please do not remove it again. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

And please explain your edit summary. What does Keahapana have to do with it? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:23, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Nihonjoe: no need for rustled jimmies there, hōyū. I'll remove it whenever I feel like it, though. I prefer to understand the reasons behind commands from editors, if you don't mind.

As far as the deprecation comment, see the discussion at MOS:CHINA talk, specifically Keahapana's comment here.  White Whirlwind  咨  07:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The template has nothing to do with MOS:CHINA, so any discussion there is irrelevant. If you continue to remove the template, you will be blocked for disruptive editing. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 15:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Nihonjoe: No, I don't think Wikipedia works that way, even for admins and 'crats. If an article will be better formatted without the template (in the judgement of myself and any other editors working on the article) it will be removed.  White Whirlwind  咨  01:49, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Follow-up: unless there is some official policy mandating its use? If there is, please enlighten me.  White Whirlwind  咨  03:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

There is an official guideline (MOS:JAPAN) and over 10 years of de facto policy where it is is used. If you continue to remove it, you will be blocked because your only purpose here seems to be disruptive. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Nihonjoe: ok, thanks for letting me know. I see you gave no refutation for Keahapana's points, so I would encourage you or whoever maintains the templates to take his advice. I'll use the template at Japan-related articles from now on, though I think we'll continue to be agnostic on its use over at China-related articles. A word to the wise: I've been a productive editor for quite a few years now, and am disappointed to see such quick-on-the-draw and asinine blocking threats from a 'crat.  White Whirlwind  咨  04:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Follow-up: next time, just share the policy info in the first place and omit the silly blocking threats.  White Whirlwind  咨  05:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's not designed to be used on China-related articles. I have never once said so. Keahapana didn't make any "points" about its use on Japan-related articles, though, other than to state an opinion that it was outdated, so there was nothing to respond to. {{Nihongo}} should only be used on Japan-related articles. MOS:JAPAN doesn't apply to China-related articles. Soka Gakkai is a Japan-related article, not a China-related article, so that's why MOS:JAPAN applies.

As for the "threats", you were being disruptive, and multiple people explained why you were being disruptive. Disruptive editors are often blocked. Me being a 'crat has nothing to do with anything in this discussion. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Nihonjoe: again, instead of making a blanket statement on my talk page with no reasoning/justification, try a simple explanation such as the one you just gave. We could've avoided a lot of unpleasantness.

I'm confused by your statement that there are "multiple people" who explained that I was being disruptive? I don't see anyone else here on my talk page, nothing at Talk:Soka Gakkai, or anywhere else? If there is such a place, I'd like to be made aware of it.  White Whirlwind  咨  05:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

.... Yeah, I didn't think so.  White Whirlwind  咨  00:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)