This poll may be closed after 14 days of being opened, if consensus has been reached.
On October 26 2011, this article was Bold moved from Shishapangma to Xixabangma without discussion. Due to technical difficulties, it could not be moved back (without administrator assistance) to Shishapangma as per the normal BRD cycle. Now that there has been discussion (here to here), do you support or oppose moving the article from Shishapangma to Xixabangma?
- Oppose move to Xixabangma (=Support Shishapangma or Shisha Pangma). Wikipedia:COMMONNAME and Wikipedia:PLACE#Widely_accepted_name favor Shishapangma or Shisha Pangma and all sources referenced in the article use either Shishapangma or Shisha Pangma. Details follow: (Many of the links to the talk page are not working in my sandbox; see the web address for the location.)
- First, I believe that Shishapangma and Shisha Pangma are minor spelling variations of each other, and that they are significantly closer to each other than to other spelling variations (e.g. Xixabangma or Xixiabangma). (see here or #3 here.)
- Evidence in support of Shishapangma/Shisha Pangma:
- Google Books and Google News Archive hits for Shishapangma and Shisha Pangma are each more than 3x more prevalent than hits for Xixabangma or Xixiabangma and each more than 2.8x more prevalent than hits for Gosainthan (thanks Hike395). (See 3.1 Broader Google test - I can't get the link to work.)
- Looking at 3 of the most reputable English Language newspapers, all have predominantly used Shishapangma or Shisha Pangma since 1993:
Newspaper search results
|
|
Shishapangma
|
Shisha Pangma
|
Xixabangma
|
Xixiabangma
|
Gosainthan
|
| Washington Post[1] |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0
|
| New York Times[2] |
4 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
*
|
| BBC[3] |
1 |
4 |
1 |
0 |
0
|
- The BBC has used Shisha Pangma exclusively since 2001. The New York Times uses either Shishapangma or Shisha Pangma, depending on the article, further support for grouping them together. (One of the NYT articles that uses Shisha Pangma mentions that Gosainthan is an alternate name.) (Searching the Wall Street Journal [4] reveals no hits for any of the four spelling variations or Gosainthan in its 2 year search history.)
- 3. Wikipedia searches for Shisha Pangma in 2010 outnumbered Wikipedia searches for Xixabangma by a ratio of ~16:1 (see point 3 –thanks Pseudois). (Shishapangma statistics are skewed by the fact that it was the article’s title?) There was no naming controversy at that time so it is unlikely that anyone conducted searches for the purpose of affecting these results. (See 11.3 on the talk page - I can't get this link to work either.)
- 4. All sources referenced in the article use either Shishapangma or Shisha Pangma.
- Neutral Evidence:
- A Google Scholar search (thanks again hike395) slightly favors Shisha Pangma over any other spelling. The sum of Xixabangma and Xixiabangma hits is slightly larger than the sum of Shishapangma and Shisha Pangma, and running the search with grouped terms gives almost identical results. IMHO, neither of these differences is significant. A detailed look at the entries may break this tie, however such an analysis will necessarily be long and involved, and I prefer not to introduce it here unless consensus depends on the results.
- The Library of Congress has Xixabangma Peak as its subject heading for the mountain with several alternate names listed (thanks again Hike395). However, searching in the catalog under the various names yields 2 books that use Shishapangma and 1 that uses Xixabangma (post 1993, English Language). (Xixiabangma yields a book that appears to be in Pinyin and Gosainthan comes up empty.) I am a bit puzzled why the Library of Congress, which was long reputed to have the largest book collection in the world, should have so few books on the mountain (at least in its digital catalog) when Google Books clearly indicates that many more books exist. But based on the available information, I have to classify the Library of Congress as neutral.
- Peakbagger.com’s webpage on the mountain is titled Xixabangma Feng (thanks racerx11), but the descriptive text uses Shisha Pangma, not Xixabangma. This makes it neutral IMHO.
- Evidence in Support of Xixabangma
- 28 of 28 Atlases in this Google Book search use Xixabangma or Xixabangma Feng and none use Shishapangma, Shisha pangma, or Xixiabangma (thanks Hike395). IMHO, Xixabangma and Xixabangma Feng both support Xixabangma, and this is the strongest evidence in favor of Xixabangma.
- Encyclopedia Britannica uses Xixabangma (thanks Hike395). IMHO, the fact that it lists “Shisha Pangma” as the Tibetan name for the mountain does not diminish its support for XIxabangma.
- Merriam-Webster’s Geographical Dictionary has “see Xixabangma Feng” (and nothing else) under the Gosainthan entry (thanks Yu hai).
It apparently does not actually have an entry for Xixabangma Feng, but searches for other spelling variants come up empty, so I consider this weak support for Xixabangma. The lack of a Xixabangma entry appears to be an artifact of the search see here.--Wikimedes (talk) 07:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Although there is some evidence in support of Xixabangma, I believe that in balance the evidence favors Shishapangma/Shisha Pangma, and there is definitely not sufficient reason for the move to Xixabangma. (The above summary of evidence is my own. I do not claim that it is the consensus view of the previous discussions.)--Wikimedes (talk) 20:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- Support Shishapangma (or Shisha pangma) - Good summary Wikimedes. Ratagonia (talk) 01:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC) (update) Ratagonia (talk) 04:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- Neutral - Thanks for your efforts, Wikimedes. To summarize my position: 1) When Wikimedes and I first discovered Yu Hai's bold and undiscussed move to Xixabangma we immediately tried to move the page back to Shishapangma (like we did with several of other moves at the time), but were unable to do so in this case, due to techinical issues. 2} A formal discussion was initiated, proposing to move the page back to Shishapangma. 3) What should have happened, and I have raised this point several times, is that we should have moved the page back to Shishapangma before starting the requested move discussion. This did not happen because it was in fact impossible to do so by a non-admin and my request early on to an admin to do precisely this was ignored. 4) The discussion took place and a "no-consensus" was reached, but because the article wound up at Xixabangma the result of the "no-consensus" was to default keep at Xixabangma. 5) I think both names are fine for the article, but my problem was primarily the way the current name was decided. The disussion should have started at Shishapangma, the stable name for years, and then with a "no-consensus" the default action would have been keep at Shishapangma. This would have happened had it not been for the technical problem of our inability to move the page where we wanted it. 6) In only this sense would I support Shishapangma, but since this is only due to my objections to the procedure, it has nothing to do with my actual naming preference. 7) For the purposes of this poll, my preference remains neutral. --Racerx11 (talk) 02:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- Support Shishapangma (or Shisha pangma) This poll is poorly worded, the current name appears to be Xixabangma, the former name was Shishapangma. The "support/oppose" is a bit confusing. Either way, per WP:ENGLISH, supported by the New York Times and BBC samples above, it is clear that Shishapangma/Shisha pangma is the historic and preferred name by native speakers of English, and I also support a Tibetan naming style over a Chinese one in this situation. Montanabw(talk) 02:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- Support Shishapangma --- I think Wikimedes summarized the data well: while there is scholarly support for Xixabangma, I think that the majority of the usage data supports Shishapangma. There is not enough compelling evidence to support the move away from Shishapangma. —hike395 (talk) 06:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose move to Xixabangma (=Support Shishapangma or Shisha pangma ), as the evidences in favor or Shishapangma/Shisha Pangma outweight the reasons that could have justified a move to Xixabangma. In addition to the arguments developed by Wikimedes, the pronuciation of "Shishapangma" does correspond fairly accurately to the original Tibetan name for the average English reader, while "Xixabangma" doesn't and can only be correctly pronouced by Pinyin readers. A last point in favor of "Sishapangma/Shisha Pangma" regards the consistency with other Wikipedia articles, with 65 internal references to Shishapangma, 43 to Shisha Pangma, and 5 to Xixabangma.--Pseudois (talk) 07:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- Wikimedes' argument made sense, but this argument didn't made any sense to me - Xixabangma also fairly accurately to the original Tibetan name for the average English reader - see words what English speakers made - Xanadu, this is the evidence that average English speakers may process x as sh, and as Shishabangma sounds more accurate than Shishapangma, Xixabangma sounds more accurate than Shishapangma, too. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 17:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose Shishapangma (=Support Xixabangma or Xixiabangma since the lump).
- Wikimedes' summary is relatively neutral and well-presented, nevertheless in the third argument of pro-Xixabangma he used concession clauses. The claim "It apparently does not actually have an entry for Xixabangma Feng" is completely ORIGINAL RESEARCH (I think he used Google preview of that book, but Google preview does not cover page 1321 ~ 1323 of that book).
- IMHO, the third and fourth arguments of pro-Shishapangma should be removed since Wikipedia itself is personal-published (thus not a reliable source) and this argument is a self-reference.
- I'd like to point out one argument, that is, Wikipedia:PLACE#Widely_accepted_name favors Xixabangma
in that Consult English-language encyclopedias is the most important one while Consult Google Scholar and Google Books hits and Consult major news sources being the 2nd and 4th important. So PLACE#WAN1 and #WAN6 supports Xixabangma, #WAN2-Scholar remains disputed, while #WAN2-Books and #WAN4 support Shishapangma. — 虞海 — continues after insertion below
- The wiki guideline you cite SPECIFICALLY says the options are not listed in order of importance, therefore PART of your argument is not supported by the source: 'A name can be considered as widely accepted if a neutral and reliable source states: "X is the name most often used for this entity". Without such an assertion, the following methods (not listed in any particular order) may be helpful in establishing a widely accepted name (period will be the modern era for current names; the relevant historical period for historical names):' Ratagonia (talk) 16:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- Ok. Get it. So what do you think of other parts? pro-Xixabangma gets 2 criterions here while pro-Shishapangma gets only 1.5 criterions (in fact I don't know what people are doing here). ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 18:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- Why Washington Post, NYTimes, and BBC are the “3 of the most reputable English Language newspapers”? Is there any guideline that we should use them? I argue that we should use XNA. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 08:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- That would be BBC. It is possible to select other "most reputable English Language newspapers" - LA Times, Chicago Tribune, Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, Christian Science Monitor come to mind, but the NYTimes and Wash Post are the newspapers of record in the USA, and the BBC in the UK. XNA is the house mouthpiece of the Chinese government, not a reputable English-language paper. Ratagonia (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- Precisely. The Chinese do not dictate what English speakers do, they can express their opinions and preferences, which may be followed, or not. The reason I cited to the BBC and the NYT is that these two news outlets also tend to be the most highly respected arbiters of what the most correct forms of written English are for each dialect (UK and US English). Montanabw(talk) 01:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- However, that's your original researches. No Wikipedia guideline says Chinese people do not dictate what English speakers do, and the statement "no Chinese people are English speakers" is simply wrong (As far as I know, CCTV9 broadcasters are excellent English speakers and they pronounce Xixabangma as shee-sha-bang′-ma). ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 13:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- @虞海: not that I would consider this as a decisive argument, but if you want to consider XNA as the ultimate reference for broad usage within the English speaking world, then please do it consequently: Xinhua English has a total of three articles referring to Sishapangma, the oldest one from 2005 uses the spelling "Xixabangma", while the two most recent from 2007 and 2009 use the spelling "Shishapangma". I hope this may help you to join the emerging consensus.--Pseudois (talk) 14:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Initially I didn't really want to use Xinhua as an ultimate reference. But since you told me it's ok, then I think it's ok, too. In the past, Xinhua English have four article about Xixabangma ([5], 2005, 2009, 2002, 2008) while one about Shishapangma ([6], 2009). Now it's clear that Xinhua usage of Shishapangma was not different to Vietnamese usage of Sàigòn and Korean usage of Sŏul. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 13:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Given the fact that you mentioned an XinhuaNews on Shishapangma not covered by Google Search (2007), note that XinhuaNews on Xixabangma not covered by Google search was not counted in Google Search (e.g. Bilingual Xinhua Photo News: Researchers explores on the mount Xixabangma in China’s Tibet Autonomous...). ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 13:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Your link doesn't work, at least in my location. Why don't you go directly to Xinhua website, which is only listing three article as I mentioned above?--Pseudois (talk) 13:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- 2005-08-29 Xinhua News: Superlative Tibet
- 2009-06-16 Xinhua News: Summit of Chinese adventurers
- 2002-08-19 3 Xinhua News: missing students' bodies found in 6700-meter high snow field
- 2008-04-09 Xinhua News: Feature: Shakespeare in a robe: a Tibetan's ardor in folk arts
- ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 13:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
(Tip): So Pseudois, when making arguments don't stack yourself in. You intended to weaken my argument by making me self-contradict, but eventually it's my turn to say "not that I would consider this as a decisive argument, but if you agree Xinhua may be an ultimate reference for broad usage within the English speaking world, then I'm happy!" –– 虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 16:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- I think that if you examine Psuedois’statement, you will see that he is not advocating using Xinhua. Pseudois is an active participant and it is easy enough to ask him what he meant. I think you will also find that no one made the statement, “no Chinese people are English speakers.” Though I believe that this is a straw man argument rather than a misquote, I will nevertheless offer the following advice: To avoid misquoting people, I sometimes find the phrases “it looks like you are saying”, and “saying in effect” to be helpful. For example, it looks like Yu Hai is saying “Pseudois, you fool! You fell right into my trap! Muahhahahahahaha!!!!!” Because I used the phrase, “it looks Like”, (and the 5 exclamation points at the end) no one would think that I am quoting Yu Hai directly. Someone could then respond: “Wikimedes, your attempt at humor is unhelpful (and unfunny). Deciding how to spell ཤི་ཤ་སྦང་མ is serious business, and you are in effect saying that we should not take ourselves so seriously.“ And so on.--Wikimedes (talk) 23:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Well I didn't mean that. But thank you! The “it looks like”-structure is good and useful. I think I'll use it, instead of saying “You intended to”, etc. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 17:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- Support Shishapangma (or Shisha Pangma) --PietJay (talk) 11:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- Support Shisha Pangma per BBC (Shishapangma 2nd pref) - in addition I think the Google Scholar results may be slightly over representing the number of PRC abstracts of Chinese-language papers, do absracts count as same weight as hits of papers wholly in English? But the clincher is the confusion between xa (impossible in pinyin, even though I realise that it probably is correct in Chinese romanization for Tibetan if such a thing exists) and xia standard pinyin (hence the division of Chinese-English sources). Given that the article title as it stands isn't the official pinyin naming anyway, going back to the "Western" BBC one makes sense. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- User:Hike395's Google Scholar Search is restricted to English by editing "Scholar Preferences" (see it yourself), and no Chinese-language paper included. So you do not need to worry that, and Xixabangma is western name. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 13:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- However, at least in one point you are correct: Shisha Pangma seems to be better than Shishapangma. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 16:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Support Xixabangma as this is the correct name in the official transcription system for the Tibetan language in the People's Republic of China which is where the mountain is located. I personally prefer Shisha Pangma or Shishapangma as this has been the common name of the mountain in English for many years, but Xixabangma is inexorably gaining ground, and Shisha Pangma cannot be considered well known enough amongst the general readership to justify favouring it over the official name in the country where the mountain is located. NB I support Xixabangma as it is a transcription of the Tibetan ཤི་ཤ་སྦང་མ, but oppose Xixiabangma as this is a transcription of the Chinese 希夏幫馬 (which is a phonetic approximation of the Tibetan name in Chinese characters). BabelStone (talk) 13:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- I perfectly understand your points, but I would only disagree regarding "Shisha Pangma cannot be considered well known enough amongst the general readership". I guess you are referring to the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Tibetan) and other naming conventions which foresee to use the conventional spelling most familiar to English-language readers instead of the Pinyin when a place is sufficiently known. I made a random check for the following WP pages which use the traditional non-Pinyin spelling, and found the following page views during 2010:
- Lhatse: 5,227 views, Tashilumpo: 10,608 views, Shigatse: 24,691 views, Shishapangma: 34,269 views
- Shishapangma gets 1.4x more page views than Shigatse, 3.2x more than Tashilumpo and 6.6x more than Lhatse. Shigatse if for example mentioned in the naming convention as an example where to use the primary romanization (traditional English).
- If Xixabangma is preferred to Shishapangma, then almost all name places within Tibet using the traditional English spelling in WP should also be renamed under the same argument as not being well known enough.
- I agree with you that the Pinyin spelling is "gaining ground" amongst the English speaking world (I use myself Tibetan and Chinese Pinyin for many Tibetan locations), and that the naming will need to be reassessed periodically to reflect the most common usage. But for Shishapangma this use is still extremely low, at least amongst the WP readership. Looking at the statistics for the whole year 2010: 3,182 page views were made entering the name "Xigaze" or "Xigazê", while only 380 page views were made entering the name "Xixabangma".Cheers,--Pseudois (talk) 15:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- I have to say that this argument is the best argument Pseudois ever made (previously Pseudois's comment never give me any sense). But may I ask you how to check page views? ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 16:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- However, to me, I've given up the "not well known enough" argument (17:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)) ever since I saw Xixabangma a "top-importance" Mountain in the importance scale. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 16:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Along the same lines, please see Disposing of 3 arguments for Xixabangma points 1 and 2 (section 12.1 on this page). Also, it's probably better to make decisions based on what the current usage is, rather than on what the future usage may be, which is difficult to predict.--Wikimedes (talk) 16:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- I would even argue that the question of "official spelling" should not be taken into account for Tibetan names at all due to serious political controversies. I don't think there's a solution that is genuinely politically neutral. That said, the political issue does seem less pressing considering that the place in question is neither a person nor a populated place, so it doesn't really have a "native name" per se.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 23:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Dear friend, there's also a serious political controversies of Dakota. Will you also take that into consideration? If so, the name "Great Plains" will be no longer official. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 05:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Your concern was raised by Wikimedes in 17:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC) - #2. This would also be my reply to him. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 05:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think that's really a serious controversy, but I would agree that there is no objective standard to determine which controversy is serious and which is not. The conclusion I draw from this is that "official names" generally should not be taken very seriously.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 05:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Should_we_respect_official_spelling? ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 19:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- Support Shishapangma. Ericoides (talk) 14:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- Comment. I don't have time to read the entire discussion, so I will neither support nor oppose, but let me submit a Google Books "ngram" that traces the use of Shishapangma, Shisha Pangma, Xixabangma, and Xixiabangma from 1950 (before which there are almost no hits) to 2008 (the latest possible end date for all ngrams). Taken on its own, this ngram would seem to support "Shishapangma," but I know this kind of search needs some contextualizing. I'll let other editors take care of that. Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 03:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose move to Xixabangma (=Support Shishapangma or Shisha Pangma). As per all of the above. Qwrk (talk) 14:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Differences between fields
Seeing that supporter of Shishapangma do not give any substantial argument than Wikimedes' list of evidence in support of Shishapangma, I venture to state a phenomenon:
So should we conclude Shishapangma is the widely-accepted name in mountaineering field (see BBC, etc.) while Xixabangma is the widely-accepted name in geographic and linguistics (see those altas and Google Scholar, etc.)? ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 17:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- This page is about the mountain and the aspects related to mountaineering. It's not about linguistics, so IMHO the title of the page ought to be reverted to Shishapangma and maybe in the lead you could mention the fact that there are several alternative ways of spelling for it. Qwrk (talk) 08:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- I agree, and it is always appropriate to provide the additional names in the lead and as redirects in a case like this one. Montanabw(talk) 23:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Poll summary
I find the following explicit positions in the above poll. Alternative and vague position comments not considered.
- Shishapangma - 8 supporters
- Shisha Pangma - 1 supporter
- Xixabangma - 2 supporters
- Neutral - 2
It would seem from the above poll results that a move back to Shishapangma has the greatest consensus. Does anyone disagree with the numerical summary above? (not the conclusion, but merely the numbers). Before this poll is closed, lets all agree on the raw results.--Mike Cline (talk) 03:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- The summary is correct, as far as I can tell. Qwrk (talk) 06:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- As far as I know, the 8 supporters of Shishapangma do not have an explicit favor between Shishapangma and Shisha pangma; while 1 supporter prefer Shisha pangma. So if we count the consensus by numbering, the article should be moved to Shisha pangma. I do not oppose to do that, unless the mover claim it's a consensus moving. Indeed I think this will be a democracy moving, leaving consensus to be reached.
- However, there's something to be discussed - should we mention the mountain solely as Shisha pangma? Or do it like “Burma (Myanmar)” and “Myanmar (Burma)” In my opinion (see #Differences between fields), a divide-and-counqer should be induced, i.e.
- When talking about mounterneering, use Shishapangma
- When talking about linguistics, use Xixabangma
- When talking about geography, use Xixabangma
- When talking about geology, use Shisha pangma
- ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 09:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- One more addition to your perfect and concise little report here. Early this year I've been involved in the correction process for Bernadette McDonald's book "Freedom Climbers". At the end of the book an index was added with the ascents that have been made by the Polish climbers listed in the book. Where Bernadette [and most of us, for that matter] are used to the name 'Shishapangma', the Polish contributor to the index preferred to use his East European way of referring to the mountain as 'Shisha Pangma', i.e. the usual spelling also depends on where you originate from. Qwrk (talk) 10:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- @虞海: I think your hasty move is giving little consideration for the procedure proposed by Mike Cline. Your strange insistance to link "Shishapangma" with mountaineering only and your very personal conclusions do also not reflect the discussions above, and your recent edits are once again highly disruptive and bordering vandalism. Please have a look at Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. I wondered why you create the page "Shisha pangma" a few days ago, now it seems it was in prevision of doing such move. Please do note that NOBODY is using the word "Shisha pangma" (with small "p"), the common spelling being either "Shishapangma" or "Shisha Pangma". Please consider these explanations as a justification to revert your recent edits.--Pseudois (talk) 14:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Addition: I just noticed that the edits have been reverted meanwhile by another editor, so I haven't made any revert myself. Thanks. --Pseudois (talk) 14:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- I simply found Shisha pangma is the only available target to be moved to, and thought they're the same since Google News, Books, and Scholar result does not distinguish between them even with the quotation mark added. I apologize for my hastiness. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 15:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Mike Cline seems to be very unhappy about my move (though till now I dont know why). I think I should temporarily move it back to Xixabangma and leave the discussion to the end and let Mike deal with it (shouldn't I?). ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 14:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Locked, now I'm even unable to revert my own edits. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 14:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Why don't we revert it to Xixabangma and continue the discussion, as if nothing happen? Does that really matters? ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 15:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Continue the discussion as if nothing happen? To discuss about what? Please note that the talk page (including archive) was already about 30,000 words long! Now the archived talks are gone or at last not accessible for the average editor. I don't think this is very respectful to ask for further discussions when everything has been explained over and over, and is not any more accessible on this talk page due to, I presume, your latest hasty move.--Pseudois (talk) 15:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- I mean, revert the last move and continue the discussion about the poll as if no "Xixabangma -> Shisha pangma" move happened... ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 16:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Closing Comment An uninvolved admin has moved this article to Shishapangma at my request and the article is move protected for 30 days. Lets all go find something productive to do. --Mike Cline (talk) 17:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.
|
