275:
are pronounced in
Chinese in the talk page or even in the article itself. The information was useful and of interest and I am utterly disappointed. Was there a consensus? Why was it deleted despite the votes against? Should I have just deleted the templates? I don't know the procedure exactly myself. There is a big number of city lists and lists of exonyms, which can be easily checked in dictionaries, still they don't become candidates for deletion. I brushed you off? How would you react if I say your article is unencyclopedic and suggest its deletion. There was a lot of room for improvement, no doubt. Don't think I don't understand the rules how Japanese names SHOULD be read in Chinese and I understand you point about them being true exonyms. Still renaming the article or clarifying your point would be a far better choice. --
293:-- This exchange of views isn't strictly necessary because a new article which builds from the old one is easily achieved. The effective "restoration" is immediately within your grasp. As I understand it, the focus of any "new" article -- as suggested by a "new" and slightly altered or revised title -- needs to be somewhat broadened; and at such point, the full text of the now-deleted text can be re-introduced as a rough draft template for whatever seems best to you. Rather than pursuing a potentially fruitless line of inquiry here, it would seem more profitable and ultimately more effective to post your thoughts on the talk page of a new article which has yet to be created. Do you see my point? --
237:
expansion idea. First he said that there's other monolingual lists in wikipedia, but that really has nothing to do with this debate. And then he said that
Vietnamese and Korean exonyms shouldn't be listed together with C-J exonyms, in effect voting against a more inclusive East Asian exonyms list. He cites the fact that V and K don't have kun'yomi, but that has nothing to do with what should or should not be considered exonym, either.
80:: The articles you listed are useful and encyclopedic because they address pertinent topics. The problem with this article in question is that 1. per TakuyaMurata, why Chinese? And 2. since the overwhelming majority of Japanese kanji has its correspondance in Chinese, and that the overwhelming majority of Japanese placenames are written exclusively in kanji, there is virtually no "real" Chinese exonym for Japanese places. I'd
784:
711:
638:
385:
I see your point, and admittedly I had not read the article carefully when I added Port Royal. However Port Royal certainly belongs to the same category as
Carthage, Xanadu, etc. Furthermore, while the general location of Port Royal was known, exact location of the original old city had been lost.
274:
Hello, yes, I am the author of the article you initiated the deletion of. I think you are not ready to listen to the arguments I and Tenmei have suggested. First of all, why did you pick it? I see you have some knowledge of
Japanese and Chinese and you could explain the reality of how Japanese names
38:
I am concerned that no one who worked on this page was notified that it was being considered for deletion. A template was placed on the deleted page, yes; however, a conventional follow-through which would have involved notifying each of the contributors about the proposed deletion was only assumed
254:
Ultimately, I have nothing against reopening the debate. Indeed I think there should be more debate on the issues specifically concerning what should be considered note worthy exonyms. But I maintain that the article contained no information worth keeping and that, in the end, deletion was the
236:
Yeah, I would have welcomed a debate but someone deleted the article before it could have happened. FYI I was not the one who actually deleted the article; in fact I don't even know how. However
Atitarev did not actually respond to my concerns nor did he respond positively to the refocus and
723:
is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before
Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
231:
I don't understand why it is not construed as significant that one of the article's contributors did argue to keep; and there was a modest response to the suggestion that the article could be re-focused and expanded in light of the general comments of those who saw no value in the work,
796:
is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before
Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
347:
Maybe I should mention that this is only the second AfD in which I've participated ...; and so it would appear that both you and I are stumbling somewhere on a similarly steep learning curve. Perhaps this just proves that some things can only be learned the hard way, I guess.
650:
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.
215:
I admit that I may not have followed all the procedures properly. I apologize for that. But there was only one major editor to the article and I did initiate the debate in the articles talk page long before starting the deletion process.
225:
The person you quoted was me, and you misunderstood my point. I was saying that the topic itself (Chinese exonym for
Japanese places) is indeed worthy, but the article was not worth keeping as there was no encyclopedic information in it.
25:
242:
I was struck by the fact that the arguments to keep were thoughtful, considered, informed. In contrast, the fact that editors arguing for delete offered only cursory comments. I am persuaded that these becomes relevant
824:
751:
678:
593:. 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
314:-- As nearly as I can tell, you did nothing wrong. According to the administrator who actually handled the mechanics of deleting this article, I was mistaken in my notion that contributors to an article
808:. 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
735:. 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
662:. 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
31:
While I have no particular interest in the substance of this page, I was inclined to keep it because of its categories, which were so unfamiliar to me that I was still exploring its cohort when
86:, and listing placenames in China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, etc., all of which used the Chinese writing at one point, making real exonyms (e.g. Seoul) of particular encyclopedic interest.
111:; and there was a modest response to the suggestion that the article could be re-focused and expanded in light of the general comments of those who saw no value in the work, e.g.,
178:
To summarize for redundant clarity: I'm not trying to argue that the result was ultimately wrong, only that closing off discussion was too rushed. I rarely disagree with
119:, who initiated the deletion: There is a big number of monolingual lists in the Knowledge (XXG). You might to review them before trying to delete someone's efforts. You
221:
I am also concerned because there was at least one suggestion that the content could be retained if it were re-cast in the context of a re-titled article, e.g....
73:
I am also concerned because there was at least one suggestion that the content could be retained if it were re-cast in the context of a re-titled article, e.g.,
54:
templates seem to have not been completely applied to this AfD -- I've attempted to fix them, but if a full-time wikignome could check my work, that'd be wise.
190:
did favour deletion. My reservations focus solely on what seemed to me the premature nature of that closed discussion .... which could have remained open. --
547:
502:
417:
433:
533:
488:
429:
174:
As a general rule, the significance of unfamiliar categories should not be too casually dismissed as appears to have been done in this instance.
543:
498:
413:
838:
765:
692:
618:
168:
406:
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to
834:
761:
688:
614:
817:
744:
671:
540:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.
495:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.
410:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.
605:
describes the
Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
829:
756:
683:
610:
407:
532:
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited
487:
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited
83:
805:
732:
659:
164:
A reasonable amount of time should be allowed for comment by the editors who constructed this article ... AND
211:
I am concerned that no one who worked on this page was notified that it was being considered for deletion.
606:
121:
suggested to improve, why not instead of being destructive be productive and improve the article instead?
28:. I'm not trying to argue that the result was wrong, only that closing off discussion was too rushed.
61:
386:
Anyway, it's really more of the problem of the article as a whole, so let's take the discussion there.
375:
792:
719:
646:
628:
582:
573:
801:
728:
655:
602:
586:
425:
280:
136:
123:
I suggest Korean and Vietnamese may be a candidate for a separate article, as they don't have a
563:
518:
473:
127:
concept, which makes Japanese and Chinese so different (more different than modern Chinese vs
813:
740:
667:
598:
590:
353:
298:
195:
57:
32:
816:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
809:
743:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
736:
670:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
663:
601:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
594:
371:
161:
This deletion should be reverted, and the discussion thread should be re-opened ... AND
150:
were thoughtful, considered, informed. In contrast, the fact that editors arguing for
554:
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these
509:
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these
464:
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these
290:
276:
185:
179:
154:
offered only cursory comments. I am persuaded that these becomes relevant factors.
132:
559:
555:
514:
510:
469:
465:
783:
710:
637:
338:-- ergo, your conduct in this instance was entirely above reproach. Not to worry.
26:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of Chinese exonyms for places in Japan
440:
349:
294:
191:
387:
311:
256:
116:
89:
107:
construed as significant that one of the article's contributors did argue to
456:
124:
88:
But in any case there's nothing in this article now that's worth keeping.
128:
820:
describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
747:
describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
674:
describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
589:
is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Knowledge (XXG)
43:
done, despite the fact that the anomaly was specifically noted, e.g.,
492:
842:
769:
696:
622:
567:
522:
477:
395:
379:
357:
302:
284:
264:
199:
140:
97:
65:
16:
lets work togather to fix the problem with the king abdullah page
452:
448:
823:
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review
750:
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review
677:
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review
537:
157:
In my view, the following alternatives should be considered:
444:
370:
As we know the location of Port Royal, I've reverted you.
167:
This article might be proposed for consideration by the
804:
is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the
731:
is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the
658:
is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the
536:, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page
491:, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page
39:
to have been done. As your talk page shows, this was
330:
eletion) thread is commenced. This notification is
247:But did you considered the fact that the only two
581:You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
146:I was struck by the fact that the arguments to
528:Disambiguation link notification for August 29
483:Disambiguation link notification for August 22
8:
402:Disambiguation link notification for June 10
20:List of Chinese exonyms for places in Japan
24:I disagree with the too hasty deletion of
534:Royal and noble ranks of the Qing dynasty
489:Royal and noble ranks of the Qing dynasty
169:Knowledge (XXG):Article Rescue Squadron
7:
793:2018 Arbitration Committee elections
720:2017 Arbitration Committee elections
647:2016 Arbitration Committee elections
806:Knowledge (XXG) arbitration process
733:Knowledge (XXG) arbitration process
660:Knowledge (XXG) arbitration process
82:suggest changing this article into
777:ArbCom 2018 election voter message
704:ArbCom 2017 election voter message
14:
607:review the candidates' statements
782:
709:
636:
827:and submit your choices on the
754:and submit your choices on the
251:votes were you and the author?
613:. For the Election committee,
583:Arbitration Committee election
574:ArbCom elections are now open!
98:13:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
66:22:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
1:
843:18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
697:22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
623:13:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
184:in such matters as this; and
103:I don't understand why it is
790:Hello, O not. Voting in the
770:18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
717:Hello, O not. Voting in the
644:Hello, O not. Voting in the
84:List of exonyms in East Asia
35:closed the deletion thread.
681:and submit your choices on
609:and submit your choices on
568:09:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
523:09:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
358:02:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
303:02:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
285:23:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
265:01:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
200:16:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
141:06:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
860:
835:MediaWiki message delivery
762:MediaWiki message delivery
689:MediaWiki message delivery
679:the candidates' statements
615:MediaWiki message delivery
396:20:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
380:10:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
478:08:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
318:be notified when an AfD (
439:added links pointing to
391:
260:
270:Reply to your deletion
802:Arbitration Committee
729:Arbitration Committee
656:Arbitration Committee
629:ArbCom Elections 2016
587:Arbitration Committee
556:opt-out instructions
511:opt-out instructions
466:opt-out instructions
408:disambiguation pages
591:arbitration process
434:fix with Dab solver
818:arbitration policy
745:arbitration policy
672:arbitration policy
631:: Voting now open!
603:arbitration policy
546:• Join us at the
501:• Join us at the
426:Nara (Manchu clan)
416:• Join us at the
551:
506:
421:
334:, of course; but
851:
786:
713:
640:
541:
496:
430:check to confirm
411:
188:
182:
859:
858:
854:
853:
852:
850:
849:
848:
847:
846:
787:
779:
774:
773:
714:
706:
701:
700:
684:the voting page
641:
633:
611:the voting page
577:
548:DPL WikiProject
530:
503:DPL WikiProject
485:
418:DPL WikiProject
404:
368:
272:
207:
186:
180:
22:
12:
11:
5:
857:
855:
825:the candidates
788:
781:
780:
778:
775:
752:the candidates
715:
708:
707:
705:
702:
642:
635:
634:
632:
626:
580:
576:
571:
529:
526:
484:
481:
462:
461:
460:
459:
403:
400:
399:
398:
367:
364:
363:
362:
361:
360:
342:
341:
340:
339:
306:
305:
271:
268:
206:
203:
176:
175:
172:
165:
162:
144:
143:
101:
100:
71:
70:
69:
68:
21:
18:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
856:
845:
844:
840:
836:
832:
831:
826:
821:
819:
815:
811:
807:
803:
798:
795:
794:
785:
776:
772:
771:
767:
763:
759:
758:
753:
748:
746:
742:
738:
734:
730:
725:
722:
721:
712:
703:
699:
698:
694:
690:
686:
685:
680:
675:
673:
669:
665:
661:
657:
652:
649:
648:
639:
630:
627:
625:
624:
620:
616:
612:
608:
604:
600:
596:
592:
588:
584:
575:
572:
570:
569:
565:
561:
557:
552:
549:
545:
539:
535:
527:
525:
524:
520:
516:
512:
507:
504:
500:
494:
490:
482:
480:
479:
475:
471:
467:
458:
454:
450:
446:
442:
438:
437:
435:
431:
427:
424:
423:
422:
419:
415:
409:
401:
397:
393:
389:
384:
383:
382:
381:
377:
373:
365:
359:
355:
351:
346:
345:
344:
343:
337:
333:
329:
325:
321:
317:
313:
310:
309:
308:
307:
304:
300:
296:
292:
289:
288:
287:
286:
282:
278:
269:
267:
266:
262:
258:
252:
250:
245:
244:
238:
234:
233:
227:
223:
222:
217:
213:
212:
204:
202:
201:
197:
193:
189:
183:
173:
170:
166:
163:
160:
159:
158:
155:
153:
149:
142:
138:
134:
130:
126:
122:
118:
114:
113:
112:
110:
106:
99:
95:
91:
87:
85:
79:
76:
75:
74:
67:
63:
59:
55:
51:
50:Administrivia
48:
47:
46:
45:
44:
42:
36:
34:
29:
27:
19:
17:
828:
822:
799:
791:
789:
755:
749:
726:
718:
716:
682:
676:
653:
645:
643:
578:
553:
531:
508:
486:
463:
405:
369:
336:not required
335:
331:
327:
323:
319:
315:
273:
255:right move.
253:
248:
246:
241:
239:
235:
230:
228:
224:
220:
218:
214:
210:
208:
177:
156:
151:
147:
145:
120:
108:
104:
102:
93:
81:
77:
72:
53:
49:
40:
37:
30:
23:
15:
830:voting page
757:voting page
441:Jin dynasty
58:Quasirandom
33:David Fuchs
814:topic bans
741:topic bans
668:topic bans
599:topic bans
558:. Thanks,
513:. Thanks,
468:. Thanks,
372:Dougweller
332:preferable
810:site bans
737:site bans
664:site bans
595:site bans
542:Read the
497:Read the
457:Later Jin
412:Read the
366:Lost city
291:Atitarev
277:Atitarev
243:factors.
133:Atitarev
125:Kun'yomi
115:To user
560:DPL bot
515:DPL bot
470:DPL bot
322:rticle
232:e.g....
171:... AND
129:On'yomi
78:Comment
585:. The
493:Darhan
350:Tenmei
295:Tenmei
192:Tenmei
152:delete
52:: The
312:O not
205:Reply
839:talk
800:The
766:talk
727:The
693:talk
654:The
619:talk
564:talk
519:talk
474:talk
455:and
453:Laha
449:Ming
392:talk
376:talk
354:talk
316:must
299:talk
281:talk
261:talk
249:keep
240:Re:
229:Re:
219:Re:
209:Re:
196:talk
148:keep
137:talk
131:. --
109:keep
94:talk
62:talk
579:Hi,
544:FAQ
538:Han
499:FAQ
414:FAQ
326:or
187:日本穣
181:日本穣
105:not
41:not
841:)
833:.
812:,
768:)
760:.
739:,
695:)
687:.
666:,
621:)
597:,
566:)
521:)
476:)
451:,
447:,
445:Li
443:,
436:)
432:|
394:)
378:)
356:)
348:--
301:)
283:)
263:)
198:)
139:)
96:)
64:)
837:(
764:(
691:(
617:(
562:(
550:.
517:(
505:.
472:(
428:(
420:.
390:(
388:o
374:(
352:(
328:D
324:f
320:A
297:(
279:(
259:(
257:o
194:(
135:(
117:o
92:(
90:o
60:(
56:—
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.