Home

Discussion

Members

	This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
China This page is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 60 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 6.

Anybody else interested in forming a task force for topics related to Xinjiang / East Turkestan? Yue🌙 23:00, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a not strong area of interest of mine but I highly recommend China and Russia for this topic. Czarking0 (talk) 03:01, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to pitch in, Yue. - Amigao (talk) 20:04, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eurasian Land Bridge has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 17:35, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Ancient histories. Jumpytoo Talk 17:14, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sino-Latin America relations#Requested move 22 November 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 06:49, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For WikiProjects that participate in rating articles, the banners for talk pages usually say something like:

• "This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale."

There is a proposal to change the default wording on the banners to say "priority" instead of "importance". This could affect the template for your group. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Proposal to update wording on WikiProject banners. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 19:39, 6 December 2025 (UTC) (on behalf of the WikiProject Council)[reply]

Liao dynasty has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:16, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Dinosaur Baby Holy Heroes has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced for 15 and 1/2 years. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. The excessive detail makes this a case for WP:TNT.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. Bearian (talk) 08:43, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please find a reference to verify this article? Thank you.4meter4 (talk) 12:29, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found these two: [1] and [2]. For some reason they don't appear when clicking on the JSTOR search link. I'll try to figure out where or how to best add them to the article. AwerDiWeGo (talk) 14:30, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Shen Buhai § On translating his name. —*Fehufangą (✉ Talk · ✎ Contribs) 07:51, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Lurou Huoshao#Requested move 3 December 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 10:11, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there — I’m seeking guidance on an unanswered COI edit request.

On the article’s Talk page, I submitted a request using {edit COI} proposing limited changes to address accuracy/clarity and to add citations from independent sources. The request has been pending without response for two weeks. I made a follow up but received no answers.

Would someone be willing to take a look and let me know whether the request is suitable as written or how I should improve it? Here is the link to the Talk page request: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Huagong_Tech

Paperweight8395 (talk) 16:50, 19 December 2025 (UTC) [reply]

At Template:Use Hong Kong English I recommend finding dictionaries and evidence of key features on government websites and/or newspapers of record on how Hong Kong English (for formal, written purposes) is different from British English. WhisperToMe (talk) 09:52, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Communist state#Requested move 23 December 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 12:42, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many pages for commanderies in Chinese history are currently written in an Upper Case format (i.e. Henan Commandery). However, it is stated in MOS: Dynasties that specific dynasties are not to follow such format as it is not actually part of the dynastic name (i.e. Ming dynasty, not Ming Dynasty).

Similarly, I think commanderies should follow suit as well as prefectures for consistency. However, since commanderies are much fewer in number and less controversial, I suggest we start with it first. Asieon『✉』 17:48, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A commandery was a division of land; it's not obvious that it should be capitalized the same way as a historical period or ruling dynasty. For comparison, American counties are typically written with the word "county" capitalized: Cook County, not Cook county. What do English-language reliable sources do when talking about Chinese commanderies? —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 19:40, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the guidance at MOS:Dynasties applies here, since the type of subdivision was part of the name of these subdivisions. In your example, it was 河南郡, not just 河南. However, if you find evidence that sources do not consistently capitalize the word "commandery", we could lowercase them per WP:NCCAPS and WP:COMMONNAME. Toadspike [Talk] 19:47, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are frequently interchanged depending on the source.

A lot of the commanderies don't have much papers written about them, but more relevant ones such as the Lelang commandery don't use upper casings.

Source #1

Source #2

Source #3

Source #4

Source #5

Source #6

Source #7

Source #8

Source #9

Source #10

and so on...

I'm also a little skeptical as to deeming "commandery" as part of a particular name. Names such as the Japanese archipelago, written as 日本列島 (Nihon Retto/にほんれっと) is not capitalized despite being part of a specific placename. Asieon『✉』 19:58, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I threw "Lelang (C/c)ommandery" into Ngrams [3]. Surprisingly, the result there is not as clear as your evidence. I will do some more digging...

"Japanese archipelago" is a geographical term, not an administrative subdivision. (We also do have a bunch of archipelagos still capitalized, e.g. Malay Archipelago and Arctic Archipelago.) I wouldn't take those as guidance for this either way. Osaka Prefecture or Gyeonggi Province would be more comparable, as they are administrative subdivisions created by government. Toadspike [Talk] 22:13, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking elsewhere in Asia on wiki currently, the Russian oblasts, Myanmar states, Nepal provinces, Kazakh regions, Afghan provinces, and Mongolian provinces are capitalized. Thai, Lao, and Vietnamese provinces are not. The Phillipines drops the word province but then uses Province of (X) in text.

From this I think it's generally more standard to capitalize the administrative type, and I'd be happy to standardize it that way. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:03, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess Wikipedia has not yet provided a clear standard for placenames such as this. With that being said, I believe leaving them as is for now is the best decision. Asieon『✉』 05:30, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Communist state#Requested move 23 December 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vestrian24Bio 04:04, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again?! @Vestrian24Bio we've already had the misfortune of being notified of this mess above, no need to remind us of it... Toadspike [Talk] 14:13, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:League (China)#Requested move 27 December 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:14, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A topic that recurs is how to characterise birth/death locations in the Biography infoboxes for modern Chinese figures whose lives spanned multiple sovereignties. Obviously there are a huge number of such articles. Although there are various permutations of these edits, often an editor is wanting to make the infobox indicate that someone was born during the era of the Qing Dynasty (some of these are more objectionable like replacing "China" with "Qing Dynasty", others are less objectionable like retaining "China" and wikilinking to something Qing era-related, but there are many variations).

I am under the impression that our consensus for several years has been to simply state "China" in the infobox, and leave the sovereignty to the body (for example, Mao Zedong page does this). This is what I favor. Following a discussion raised by @RegularboyA, however, I have been unable to find the earlier discussion or style guide direction I thought I remembered on this. I am also becoming more oriented to this issue and seeing that our modern Chinese bios are not as uniform as I thought they were.

Am I wrong about the consensus? And what should our approach be to become more consistent? Although it is not strictly necessary for articles to be consistent, it would be nice if there is a clear consensus and we could move in a consistent direction.

I seem to remember @The Account 2 addressing this issue recently so ping that editor as well in addition to RegularboyA.

JArthur1984 (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To give a bit more elaboration on my own view and rationale, I think what the infobox is really asking is where a person was born or died, not what the sovereign was, and I think the latter point is for the article body not the brith/death infobox fields. I would simply say "China". JArthur1984 (talk) 18:22, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Infoboxes should be kept simplified. To give an example from another country, Charles de Gaulle's page says he was born in France, not the French Third Republic. The Account 2 (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think stating that someone is born in "Qing dynasty" is incorrect, but I think "Qing China", "Ming China", "Republic of China" etc. is good context for them (we often refer to figures by what dynasty/ies they lived in, and this could be unclear as you go further back in time. Additionally, China as a region might not necessarily line up with the borders of the Chinese state at any given time.

This would also fit what we do in other areas of the world: George Washington was born in "British America" and died in U.S. Joseph Stalin was born in Russian Empire and died in Soviet Union, etc Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 23:21, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a mismatch between the article Shuishiying on the English Wikipedia and the corresponding articles in other languages.

The English-language article which describes it as a name for Qing-era naval camps (according to Google, "水师营" translates as "naval camp") has a single source, a book excerpt pasted to a apparently defunct Chinese-language Internet forum that is now only available on archive.is.

According to machine translation:

• The Chinese Wikipedia appears to describe a specific place in Liaoning Province, China.
• The Japanese Wikipedia article appears to be about Qing dynasty naval bases.
• The Bahasa Indonesia article appears to describe one specific Qing dynasty naval base in Liaoning Province.

Is this a failure of disambiguation, a hoax, or (as I suspect) just a case of a kind of thing and one specific example of it, or someting named after it, being conflated?

Can someone actually familiar with China and the Chinese language literature help, please? — The Anome (talk) 07:04, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The enwiki article for Lüshunkou, Dalian has a red link for a subdivision Shuishiying Subdistrict (水师营街道), which would seem to correspond to the zhwiki article, and confirm your suspicion. Kanguole 09:42, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this looks like two related topics with the same name that have accidentally been combined in one Wikidata item. I found zh:八旗水师 – could that be the article corresponding to the English article Shuishiying? —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:36, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed the creation of {{Infobox Chinese/auto}} and {{Chinese/auto}}, which are based on both {{Infobox Korean/auto}} and {{Korean/auto}}. It was for the first time when Grapesurgeon created two automatic transliterations on English Wikipedia. Absolutiva 03:20, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a proposal anywhere. The Korean templates perform romanizations of the Hangul alphabet. Is your plan to generate Wade-Giles, Bopomofo and Gwoyeu Romatzyh from pinyin? Kanguole 08:56, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How would this work? Chinese characters are not phonetic. Toadspike [Talk] 13:26, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Since its creation of {{Ko-translit}} that can automatically transliterate McCune-Reischauer and Revised Romanization. I suggest that {{Pinyin}}, can also automatically transliterate Wade–Giles, Postal romanization, Yale system, Jyutping and Hanyu Pinyin. Absolutiva 23:42, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone help with function for italic from Module:Pinyin for {{Pinyin}}, based on Module:Ko-translit. Absolutiva 23:55, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Postal romanization is not systematic enough to be automatically derived. Jyutping and Cantonese Yale are for Cantonese, and cannot be derived from pinyin. Deriving Wade–Giles, Bopomofo and Gwoyeu Romatzyh from pinyin is certainly possible, but it's not clear that running that code all the time is a good idea. Maybe a subst'ed template would be sufficient, if needed. Kanguole 23:57, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Absolutiva, I'm sorry, I still don't think you understand the difference between Hangul, which is an alphabet that represents sounds, and Chinese characters, which are logographs that represent meanings. I also don't think you understand the function of the Pinyin module, which converts from "lazy" Pinyin (ni2hao3) to Pinyin with proper diacritics (níhǎo). That's not transliteration or romanization, that's just find-and-replace. It's infinitely simpler than what Ko-translit does. Toadspike [Talk] 16:10, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I may have misunderstood your point. You want an editor to input Pinyin, which the module would convert to other romanization formats? That makes more sense, but as Kanguole pointed out it would really only work between three romanization systems, one of which (Gwoyeu Romatzyh) is completely obsolete and the other of which (Wade–Giles) is on its way out. If someone wants to put in the effort to code a module that turns Pinyin into Wade–Giles and vice-versa, I wouldn't stop them, but it seems like a waste of time. This would also only be useful for TM:Infobox Chinese, not TM:Pinyin – we shouldn't really have more than one romanization inline (in article text). Toadspike [Talk] 16:24, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed what would really be valuable is automation to convert characters to pinyin (with a way to specify when characters have multiple readings). There is tech for this at Wiktionary; I don't know if we have any similar things here at English Wikipedia. On Wiktionary you can write {{zh-l|中國}} to get '中國／中国 (Zhōngguó)'. (Observe that the same template also has automation for traditional/simplified conversion. Again, with a way to specify when it's not 1-to-1.) See wikt:Template:zh-x or wikt:Template:zh-l or wikt:Module:zh. Internally, there's a big, centralized lookup table, as you might expect.

In my estimation, the greatest hurdle isn't "can it work" or "is it a good idea" but the implementation. The implementation takes someone with the effort and time and skill in hooking up templates and modules, a software system which is rather arcane for most editors. Once done, though, it would be easier to use and easier to maintain than the manually entered transliterations spread across tens of thousands of articles. Adumbrativus (talk) 04:22, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think "can it work" and "is it a good idea" are hurdles. I didn't even have to open that table to see a critical flaw: it only produces one reading for homographs (多音字) like 长, which is only listed as "cháng" and not "zhǎng". That table also only contains eleven thousand entries, which is lots, but probably not sufficient for Wikipedia, where we often deal with archaic characters. Further, Chinese characters are used by a huge variety of languages and dialects, such that Mandarin pronunciation is often completely irrelevant. I don't want to create a mindless tool that causes editors to think they can simply plug and chug without verifying the output.

The Hangul tool is far more accurate than the average Wikipedian. In addition to the fact that Hangul is phonetic and Chinese characters are not, this is due firstly to the extraordinary efforts of those who built it and secondly to the arcane and complicated rules of Korean romanization. I cannot see a Pinyin tool (aside from, perhaps, an LLM) reaching similar levels of accuracy and I expect such a tool to cause more harm than good. Toadspike [Talk] 16:05, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, Wiktionary's templates already provide a way to specify the reading. For instance, {{zh-x|长{zhǎng}长了|grew long}} produces '长长了 ― zhǎngchángle ― grew long'. And, though Pinyin is a sensible default as it is by far the most-used, common case here on Wikipedia, the template documentation shows there are options to specify other transcriptions, e.g. Jyutping for Cantonese. Of course, nothing absolves editors of due diligence like checking the preview of rendered output and understanding the content of their own edits.

You originally asked, "how would this work?". I had the same skepticism in my mind too, and looking into this helped broaden my perspective. What I found was news to me, and I think it'll be news to some other editors reading this too. Of course if one were to begin with the premise that Hangul romanization is the benchmark and nothing short of that level of phoneticness is acceptable, then there would be no question left in their mind in the first place. Otherwise, the good news I can share is, there is a project which shows how to do it. Adumbrativus (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, this is very reassuring. I withdraw my opposition on technical grounds. I remain concerned that editors will not be careful enough when using such a tool, but as long as it's possible to generate a correct output in all cases, that becomes a behavioral issue and not a technical one, which means we can deal with it on a case-by-case basis. Toadspike [Talk] 20:26, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I still think it's wasteful to run this code repeatedly, when it always gives the same result. And if it doesn't give the same result, because someone has updated the table to change which of the alternative readings is assigned to some character, that will silently change what could be many pages to an incorrect form. It wouldn't be enough to check the output when the template was first added.

But to take a step back, what problem would this template solve? It couldn't be safely used by people who don't know what the pinyin should be, because they need to check that the output is correct and whether they need to manually supply the correction. And if it does have a use, is that not served at least as well by a subst'ed template (which would avoid the issues above). Kanguole 00:01, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps all this talk about customizations is distracting from the common case, which is that most characters have only one reading, and even among characters with multiple readings, most of them have one reading which is much more common than the others. So for instance, let's say you're writing an article about Xi'an Museum, which is 西安博物院. If you're an editor who doesn't know the characters, then you'll have to fret about it just as much as you do today. But if you're an editor familiar with these characters, then to you it'll be obvious that they're pronounced the familiar way and not with some alternative reading. An auto-conversion template saves the trouble of inputting the pinyin and tones manually.

If the value of this sounds like a convenience we can live without, rather than a burning problem – yeah. A great many templates are merely conveniences, and yet they are valuable.

For the performance concern about running code repeatedly, I'm not sure if that concern comes from technical expertise (which I'd love to hear more about – I'm no expert) or from technical naivety (e.g. not knowing about caching, or ignoring Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance and prematurely optimizing). As for table updates, they are rarely needed; and, among the rare updates, even fewer are "primary reading swaps" rather than additions or unambiguous error corrections. In any case I wouldn't mind a subst template which would be useful too. Lastly, I'm sorry to Absolutiva for side-tracking their topic which was really about something different. Adumbrativus (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the use case is an editor who knows both the characters and their SC pronunciations, to save them from typing the pinyin. Would that not also be achieved by subst'ing the template? That would also produce a result that is easier to maintain.

The performance concern is not based on measurement but general principles. I am not proposing an optimization, just objecting to adding useless repetitive work. Kanguole 11:54, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

On your example: If you don't know what the characters mean, you shouldn't be using this hypothetical automatic romanization template. (This is also true for the automatic Hangul template.) For the Xi'an Museum, you'd have to know that Xī'ān is capitalized and needs an apostrophe, and that Bówùguǎn is a separate word and also needs to be capitalized. So, the hypothetical "editor who doesn't know the characters" should consult a dictionary or, better, another editor who does know the characters, regardless of whether we have an automated tool. Toadspike [Talk] 12:24, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

but just because a tool does not do everything is not reason to not have it. Stoplights do not prevent all people from running reds but they mostly do. This would be useful in the vast majority of cases for modern chinese language. Czarking0 (talk) 00:34, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in fact, in most cases showing the romanization of a Chinese term is not really necessary.

• Those who know Chinese can pronounce a Chinese term correctly even without any romanization.
• Those who don't know Chinese do not necessarily need to know how a Chinese term is pronounced (and won't be able to pronounce it correctly anyway).

Using 西安博物院 as an example:

• Those who know Chinese can pronounce this correctly as "Xī'ān Bówùyuàn" even without any romanization.
• Those who don't know Chinese do not necessarily need to know how this is pronounced (and even when they see the romanization "Xī'ān Bówùyuàn", they won't be able to pronounce this correctly anyway).

Wikipedia is not a website for teaching or learning Chinese – it does not have to show how a Chinese term is pronounced. ~2026-37809-5 (talk) 06:53, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't agree with your arguments. First off, there is no Chinese speaker who can "correctly" pronounce every single one of the 100,000+ Chinese characters in existence, insofar as there even is a "correct" pronunciation for archaic and obsolete characters. Sure, the vast majority can read "西安博物院", but most would struggle to get through this list without making a few mistakes. Second, it is absolutely imperative that an English-speaker can read foreign-language terms appearing on the English Wikipedia in some way, even if their pronunciation is poor. (Not to mention that most Chinese speakers don't have impeccable Standard Chinese pronunciation either.) This is so important that it is required by our manual of style. Third, there are many folks at intermediate levels of Chinese fluency who benefit greatly from romanization, even of simple terms. While teaching Chinese is not our primary goal, if we can help readers learn new languages while following good encyclopedic practices, there is no reason to avoid doing so. Toadspike [Talk] 14:59, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

1. In fact, showing pronunciation (whether accurate or approximate) itself is not really important to begin with. Wikipedia is written, not pronounced. When reading a written language with eyes, you don't really need to know how the text is pronounced.
2. What I wrote is about the romanization that is shown right next to Chinese hanzi text (like the "Xī'ān Bówùyuàn" in the Xi'an Museum article). It is not about English-language use (article titles, running text, etc.).
3. Since teaching Chinese is not Wikipedia's primary goal, editors do not need to put extra effort on showing romanizations. Readers who want to improve their levels of Chinese fluency should use something else.

~2026-38881-5 (talk) 01:52, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to raise this issue at a wider venue, like the Village Pump. We cannot form consensus to change encyclopedia-wide practice here. But I assure you that would be a waste of your time. Toadspike [Talk] 09:54, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, everyone. If anyone is interested, Yuan Shikai coinage is currently at Featured Article Candidacy and needs a source review. This would be ideally done by someone with some experience in Chinese, as it would require some digging to ascertain if hits the mark of comprehensive coverage of the subject or not. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:18, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I came across the Macanese cuisine (Q1045260) and Macau's cuisine (Q77983315) Wikidata items which appear to be for the same topic: the cuisine of Macau. Both of these Wikidata items have articles in Chinese (although I'm unsure which variety of Chinese is used on the zh.wikipedia), and am wondering if any Chinese speakers could help me understand the difference (if any) between the two separate articles: 澳門土生葡菜 [zh] in Macanese cuisine (Q1045260) and 澳門菜 [zh] in Macau's cuisine (Q77983315). The second article is much shorter so I assume the first one should take precedence, but I wanted to make sure. BaduFerreira (talk) 05:07, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@BaduFerreira The first article is specifically for food of the Macanese people, which are a specific ethnic group from Macao. The second article is probably supposed to be about food in/from Macao more broadly, though it's too short to really do that. Toadspike [Talk] 12:16, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Cuisine": the question about Inner Mongolia (Tibet).

Just Yakutia natural gas , - via the Mongolian government.

A little more expensive than initially stated.LaBohemeDeParis (talk) 10:53, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Try avoiding objectionable expressions in Chinese-related MoS. Toadspike [Talk] 21:59, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This stub could use some TLC. Bearian (talk) 03:00, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested section move discussion at Talk:Manchurian nationalism#Section move proposal that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TansoShoshen (talk) 21:35, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't there an article? Do better Wikipedia ~2026-35271-3 (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-35271-3 The pose would need to meet our general notability guideline, which generally requires significant coverage in three reliable sources. A cursory web search turned up zero reliable sources. Unless you can find some, this pose is not suitable for an article at the moment. Toadspike [Talk] 21:36, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a requested move at Talk:National Office for the Fight Against Pornography and Illegal Publications#Requested move 19 January 2026, which could use the help of someone with some Chinese language competency to provide an assessment of whether there is a less cheeky translation of the name. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:18, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]