Talk:Shishapangma

Image:ShishaPangma.jpg

This image was uploaded to Wikipedia on December 20, 2004 by Jonathancamp who copied it from [1]. I listed it as a copyright violation on January 22, 2005. I contacted the image owner (using info off summitpost.org) about obtaining permission for use on Wikipedia. He responded on February 6, 2005, declining permission (see User:RedWolf/Image permissions). Thus, I removed the image from the article and will be deleting it from Wikipedia. RedWolf 20:59, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

Admin help requested for move: p not b

Hello. This article has been through a few name changes lately before being put back to almost where it was. I've tried to change it from the present title back to the "original" Shishapangma, but I get a page already exists error. I believe it's because the Shishapangma --> Shishabangma redirect page now has more than one line of history, and therefore requires an administrator to usurp the page name. Could an admin put this article back to Shishapangma pending consensus for a name change? Thanks.--Wikimedes (talk) 01:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

Requested Move Discussion - Close as No Consensus

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. The result of the move request was: No Consensus The discussion below does not come to a clear consensus for a move at this time. Further discussion at WikiProject Mountains seems like a wise option at this time. Mike Cline (talk) 15:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC) Xixabangma → Shishapangma – Following the guidelines for naming geographical places, we should name the article after the common English name of the mountain. While the Google test is inexact, it yields: Shishapangma, 1,170,000 hits Shishabangma, 6,490 hits Xixabangma, 12,500 hits The usage of "Shishapangma" is so overwhelmingly more common that we should move the page. Thanks! —hike395 (talk) 03:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC) Indeed, but can we make the move. Another editor tried to move the page but was not allowed because of multiple redirects or something. The current state of the article is not a result of any consensus but rather the result of a series arbitrary attempts to fix the original undiscussed page move. See edit history of this page, and discussion at User talk:Wikimedes and User talk:虞海 Thank you very much.--Racerx11 (talk) 03:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC) Not exactly, see #XixabangmaMoreCommon. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 15:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC) It's not directly because of a double redirect. WP has a safety mechanism to preserve article history ---- you cannot move over an existing article or redirect if it has non-empty history. Unfortunately, the current redirect Shishapangma has been edited by robots twice since it was created, so we non-admins are stuck. The instructions at WP:Requested moves indicated that if the move is at all controversial that we should discuss and come to a consensus before an admin will intervene. Judging from the discussion at User talk:虞海, it looks like we have not yet come to consensus. We'll just have to live with a somewhat arbitrary article title until then. I'll ping 虞海 and ask if he or she can join the discussion here. —hike395 (talk) 07:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC) More information I found that Britannica does call this peak Xixabangma. Google scholar yielded the following number of papers published since 1993 that mentioned... Shishapangma: 411 Shishabangma: 0 Xixabangma: 292 Google books yielded the number of books pbulished since 1993 that mentioned... Shishapangma: 2550 Shishabangma: 0 Xixabangma: 378 So, "Xixabangma" is at least a good second choice, although "Shishapangma" still seems more common. I found that I could move the article to "Xixabangma", so I did. I propose that we leave it with that title until we come to consensus. —hike395 (talk) 08:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC) Understood--Racerx11 (talk) 10:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC) Support. I get 2,350 post-1990 English-language Google Book hits for "Shishapangma", 361 for Xixabangma. Kauffner (talk) 11:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC) Comment: Actually I searched Google Scholar, "Xixabangma" hits 390, "Shishapangma" hits 119, and "Xixiabangma" hits 267. So by far Xixabangma is the most common name in scholar usage. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 14:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC) Facing this result, my point is: we cannot determine which is the most common name, and that's not surprising at all because few English speakers know the mountain. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 14:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC) I respectfully disagree. Even though a name is rare, we can still sort alternatives by how rare they are. Good point about quoted string, we should distinguish between "Shishapangma" and "Shisha pangma". See #Broader Google test, below. —hike395 (talk) 15:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC) Keep (use Xixabangma), for the following reasons: The United Nation has suggested that exonym should be discouraged if possible. For place such as Mt. Everest is too well known to introduce the endonym (name in the Tibetan language or the Sherpa language). However, the case in Xixabangma is different: few native English speakers know the mountain, and it follows that few people know the name Shishapangma, so the “common name” costum does not apply here. To make you believe this, see proof in #XixabangmaMoreCommon. If the UN explicitly discusses the term "Xixabangma", we could take that into consideration. In any event, we should follow the WP convention that has been designed to resolve disputes much more difficult than this one. —hike395 (talk) 15:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC) But the "common" test failed. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 16:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC) The “common name” varys from time to time and may be influenced by the native community. Before 1972, Ceylon is definitely the common name for Sri Lanka, but the native community prefer the name Sri Lanka, so Sri Lanka is used and then become popular. Beijing was once called Peking in English, but now it becomes Beijing. Now we turn to the case of Xixabangma: since the country of Sri Lanka and the city of Beijing has introduced their endonyms, why can't Xixabangma introduce its endonym (espc in the case that few people know the term "Shishapangma")? ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 14:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC) Yes! The WP guidelines explicitly say we should examine usage since 1993. But, we should follow WP:NOR and examine the evidence for different names objectively, rather than imposing our own ideas of what the name should be. —hike395 (talk) 15:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC) This is irrelated to WP:OR, since Xixabangma is well-sourced. The Chinese government stands on the side of indigenous people and promote the local name "Xixabangma", not the Chinese one "Xixiabangma". But anyway, what is 1993 (why not 1994, 1995, etc.)?Ok, if some one may draw a link line from Xixabangma to the cold war... ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 16:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC) Notes Actually the Chinese name Xixiabangma surpass the Tibetan name Xixabangma by 39,300 vs 12,500, but following a strong sense that we should respect the natives and that UN suggestion (to reduce exonyms), I do not recommend the Chinese name. For the same reason I do not recommend the Nepali name. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 14:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC) Broader Google test Performed with quoted strings, books and papers restricted to after 1993, search restricted to English. —hike395 (talk) Shishapangma Shisha pangma Xixabangma Xixiabangma Gosainthan Google 318,000 64,800 18,000 13,500 29,100 Google Books 1090 1040 284 98 384 Google Scholar 92 332 290 207 49 Google News Archive 420 1610 44 4 Did you see that the search result of Shishapangma included Shisha pangma as its second and third result? Google analysised Shishapangma and Shisha pangma and transcluded each other included. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 16:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC) See "Failure to represent independent usage of the name:" in WP:PLACE. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 16:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC) I think the more resonable one is narrow test in Google Scholar and Google Books. But anyway, that would only result in failure in the common test, so we have to introduce the other way, i.e. the exonym-endonym test. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 16:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC) No, I used quoted string search, which forces exact match. First column only counts Shishapangma, while the second column only counts "Shisha pangma". See for yourself: [2] and [3] —hike395 (talk) 16:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC) Ok, but still the common-test failed - we will never find one result to be common. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 16:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC) Other sources Britannica uses Xixabangma [4] —hike395 (talk) Library of Congress uses Xixabangma [5] —hike395 (talk) 28 atlases published after 1993 use Xixabangma [6]. An equivalent Google Books search yielded no atlases that use "Shishapangma" or "Shisha pangma" or "Xixiabangma"—hike395 (talk) Discussion Support move to Shishapangma --- I think that the evidence points to "Shishapangma" as the most common English name, although it is not as overwhelming as I had originally indicated. —hike395 (talk) 15:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC) Your result actually has shown that there's no significant difference between them in usage in that different search returns contradict results. Plus, Google analysised Shishapangma and Shisha pangma and transcluded each other included; however it did not transcluded Xixabangma and Xixiabangma. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 16:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC) Believe me - this (either Shishapangma or Xixabangma) is a unpopular term in English. If you intercept someone in New York and ask "Excuse me, but do you know Shishapangma?", they will answer nothing but "What is Shishapangma anyway?" or even "Shi-sha-what-ma?" So ther's nothing common. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 16:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC) As I explained above, the WP guidelines don't require that people in New York know of the peak, but that we should choose the most accepted (i.e., least rare) term. I would like to know how other editors interpret the guidelines and the test. Also, see above: the quoted search strings force Google to return documents that have the exact phrase in them. —hike395 (talk) 16:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC) Nope, the common test (WP:PLACE) requires a result not only most accepted but also widely accepted. When the common test failed, we have no choice to verify which one is local name. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 17:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC) Objection! Shishapangma is in wide and common usage among mountaineers. Now that the Alpine Club has moved to Golden, CO, yes, you might be hard-pressed to find New Yorkers that recognize it - but is not that the case for 99% of wikipedia items? Surely New Yorkers would be hard-pressed to identify the Uintah Mountains, but those in Utah would not. (Hmm, difficult to come up with an equivalent example, except perhaps in mountaineering. Nanga Parbat, Minya Konka, Mustagh Tower, Chogolisa - widely known names in mountaineering, unknown to the man on the street). Perhaps you will disagree, Yú Hǎi, but what there is to say about Shisha is mostly about climbing/mountaineering - there is very little encyclopedic information about it in other realms. The mountaineering content is likely to grow - other aspects are complete as they are. Thus, I suggest, the article should use the name most commonly applied in English, which is Shishapangma. I'm unclear why there is much debate on this matter - I only see one editor making a case for a different spelling of the same name (is it not?), over and over again, as if repetition makes it true. So, to be clear, I do not think the common test failed, I think it indicated Shishapangma. A name WIDELY accepted in the English-speaking mountaineering community. Ratagonia (talk) 21:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC) I'm sorry I was aware of your partipation. Actually, you misinterpret the representativeness of mountainers and overestimated it by assuming the topic to be "mostly about climbing/mountaineering" and "mountaineering content is likely to grow - other aspects are complete as they are". These are fallacy because: If you knew more about Tibetan culture, you would realize that few Tibetan mountain are named in a term like "XXX Mountain" or "Mount XXX" in Tibetan language. This would be bestly attributed to the Tibetan concept of a mountains - many of them are not mountains, but gods, trinities (and of course generally they won't allow you to climb a god, eventhough they didn't always succeed to ban you), and enourmous amount of legend, thangkas, oral relics, arts are about them. So the realm is mostly about eco-cultural contents and mountaineering is only a rather unimportant content. With the rapid developement of indigenous movements in recent years, mountaineering doesn't seem to be likely to grow and may even become something that no one wants to mention. In 2001, China officially banned any mountaineering activities in Nyainqên Kawagarbo, and Bhutanese goverment, who did better, does not issue any forms of many mountains inside Bhutan. Instead, the indigenous movements ensured the growth of cultural contents and environmentalists will be responsible tothe growth of ecological contents of them. Plus, foreign language learning is still active in China. Many natives, during their secondary education stage, would learn how to express their opinion about mountain-gods in English (and of course, the mountain-name would be directly transcripted from their native language via SASM/GNC). As a consequense, the majority of English-speakers who know Xixabangma know it as Xixabangma, and this can be far more than the total amount of mountainers. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 09:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC) It is not very charming, Yú Hǎi, to categorically dismiss many of the editors interested in this article off-hand. Your case would be more convincing if you provided some DATA to support your claim, but throughout this discussion you browbeat other editors (excuse my incivility) by emphatically stating your opinion as fact, and dismissing other's opinions. Even when FACT is presented, you dismiss it as being inconsistent with your opinion, therefore unimportant.Ratagonia (talk) 17:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC) But, as I charge you with not having facts, I feel the need to do a little research: How many books in the Shishapangma domain are about mountaineering? Google Books search, not limited in time, simple search not limited by text-string exclusiveism: Shishapangma, 4660 hits, of the first 10 books: 6 = climbing/mntring; 2 = geology; 1 = trekking (1 eliminated as a repeat). Shisha Pangma, 12,500 hits, of the first 10 books: 7 = mntring; 2 = geology; 1 = art/culture. Xixabangma, 10,100 hits: 5 = mntring; 4 = geology; 1 = art/culture. Xixiabangma, 569 hits: 1 = mntring; 9 = geology. (diatribe continues) - 1. That some time in the future there will be an huge influx of Chinese English-speakers using the English Wikipedia for information on Xixiabangma is perhaps interesting; at that point in the future the then-editors can have this discussion again. 2. You have no idea what my background in Tibetan Culture is, but thank you for the schooling anyway. Again, though interesting, these ideas are not all that important in discussing the English wikipedia ARTICLE on Shisha. 3. You dismiss mountaineering as not that important to Shisa (I agree), but mountaineering is VERY important to the ARTICLE - currently holding 71.5% of the word count of the article (551 words out of 770 total, in however MS Word counts words, applying the count to the article content, x citations, infobox and end material). Calling my statement that mountaineering is the bulk of the article a fallacy is in-civil and factually inaccurate. 4. A claim that Shisha will stop being climbed or at least not reported is fanciful and also beside the point. We work on the article as it relates to current reality, not to future conditions. Also, trekking and climbing in the area is important to the economy and to the occupying Chinese government financially; and takes place through Kathmandu, thus avoiding the contention centered on Lhasa that the Chinese would like westerners to not know about.Ratagonia (talk) 17:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC) Allow me to support my claim of your browbeating behavior with evidence: Again using MS Word word count (which dealt poorly with a simple cut and paste), I see on this talk page the following editors providing X% of words: Yu Hai - 37.4%; Hike395 - 26.7%; Wikimedes - 19.4%; Racerx11 - 5.9%; ratagonia - 5.3%; Nat Krause - 4.9%; Kauffner .4%. While I appreciate your enthusiasm for the subject, may I suggest that your argumentation style would be more effective if you used facts and citations, rather than mainly emphatically stating your viewpoint as "right", dismissing other editors out of hand and repeating your arguments several times.Ratagonia (talk) 17:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC) Keep at Xixabangma --- I did further research, shown above. I've now found two very reliable sources (Britannica and Library of Congress) that use Xixabangma, and I did a search of the Google News archive, and found the "Shisha pangma" was most common in news articles. Therefore, as Yú Hǎi says above, the overall Google test is inconclusive, and we should go with the WP:RS that agree. What do other editors think? —hike395 (talk) 17:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC) While the Britannica and Library of Congress usages favor Xixabangma, it seems to me that the Google test favors Shishapangma (perhaps with a space). Xixapangma is less prevalent than one of the two Shishapangma variants in every category (much less in 3 of 4 categories) and less prevalent than both in 3 of the 4 categories. Should we disqualify Shishapangma just because it is sometimes spelled with a space and sometimes without?--Wikimedes (talk) 18:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC) (@hike) Thank you! Even if still you did not jumped out from the "common-test always work unless equally common" viewpoint. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 15:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC) Take an extreme example: if one term hits 1 result while one hits 0. Then mathematically the former is overwhelmingly common than the latter (1:0=inifinity), but actually this is not true, because both are not widely accepted even though the former might be the most accepted. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 15:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC) I think that "Shishapangma", "Shisha pangma", "Xixabangma", and "Xixiabangma" are all equally good approximations to theTibetan name, and that we shouldn't lump any of them together, because they are all alternate spellings. Further, WP:PLACE says that if one spelling is 3 times more common than any other, then it is widely accepted. I think none of the spellings is dominant, so we have to say the Google test is inconclusive. The only avenue we have left is to consult ultra-reliable sources, such as those listed in WP:PLACE. So far, those agree on "Xixabangma". —hike395 (talk) 05:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC) Looks like a case of vote splitting to me. However Shishapangma and Shisha pangma are each 3 times more prevalent than either Xixibangma or Xixiabangma in 3 of the 4 categories (single exceptions are allowed in WP:PLACE). It seems odd that we would choose one of the overwhelmingly less prevalent names, but that depends on the Voting system. It also seems odd that if every source referenced in the article uses one of 2 names, we should use a different name for the article. BTW, thanks for all your work tracking down reliable sources, doing Google searches, etc. - it definitely adds to the discussion.--Wikimedes (talk) 15:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC) @Hike395 Actually THDL might be (I'm not familiar to this system) good for Western Archaic Tibetan but honestly it does not match the Standard Tibetan based on Lhasa dialect. That similar to be a system used for Middle Chinese does not match the Standard Mandarin. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 15:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC) @Wikimedes There's no "overwhelming" since both name is not known by virtually every one but specialists. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 15:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC) Objection - there are few names on wikipedia that are known outside their field. Shishapangma is well-known to mountaineers. Perhaps you consider all mountaineers to be specialists? May I suggest: No true Scotsman for your entertainment. Ratagonia (talk) 21:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Unfortunately, mountainers are not the majority who know the mountain. The natives who speak English as a second or foreign language are the majority who know the mountain, who know it as Xixabangma. FYI, expert mountainers are specialists, while for those dabblers, who may climb one or two 2000 meters mountain(s), we aren't sure if they know Xixabangma. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 09:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC) Comment It seems that everyone is agreeing that we use the local name, we're just discussing how to transliterate (spell) it into the Roman alphabet. On the one hand, there is the official transliteration that has been put forth by the Chinese Government, and on the other hand there is the one most commonly used in the English Language. Another consideration (maybe not Wikipedia policy): Shishapangma will be easier to pronounce for an English speaker not used to the Chinese way of spelling. (For my own education, how does one pronounce the "x"s in Xixabangma?)--Wikimedes (talk) 18:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC) Pinyin "x" is IPA [ɕy]. It sounds approximately like an "sh". Rowan Atkinson has this one down. At 0:56 on this clip, he says "xie xie" (thank you). Kauffner (talk) 19:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC) Thanks.--Wikimedes (talk) 19:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC) @Wikimedes I have replied you questions at User talk:虞海#Transliteration of ཤི་ཤ་སྦང་མ།. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 15:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC) Support moving back to Shishapangma Per Google searches above. Also, all the sources (and external links) used in the article use Shishapangma or Shisha Pangma: Shisha Pangma Shisha Pangma [7] same source as 2 Shishapangma Shisha Pangma same sources as 5 Shishapangma Shishapangma Shishapangma Shishapangma Shisha Pangma --Wikimedes (talk) 01:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC) Comment: The "common"-test (WP:PLACE) requires a result not only most accepted but also widely accepted. So it does not works here. Even if the "common"-test may be used here, WP:PLACE never pointed out to use Google. It recommend use Google Scholar and Google Books instead. The external link is determined by Wikipedia editors, i.e., the choose of external links is somewhat original research (even if we have some trandition to determine what to be choosed and what not to be choosed). If you want, I may add many external links using Xixabangma. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 15:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC) Continue my Keep/pro Xixabangma vote: just make an placeholder here to notify people that I have posted my opinion on this issue above (at the #top part of #Requested move). ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 15:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC) Support moving back to Shishapangma - most common usage in English. This is the English-language wikipedia. Ratagonia (talk) 02:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC) Well, a "mostt" common, but still not widely accepted one. Plus, all the 4 terms are English term, so don't define English as "what is in my mind is English, what I don't know is not English". ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 06:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC) WP:PLACE defines widely accepted in a relative way (i.e., 3x more common than the alternatives), it doesn't describe an absolute threshold for wide acceptance. I think for purposes of this discussion, we should stick with the established relative guideline. If you want to bring up this issue to a wider audience, I recommend starting a discussion at WT:PLACE about the definition of wide acceptance and put in a pointer back here: it may draw in some different perspectives. —hike395 (talk) 23:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC) Should we lump "Shishapangma" and "Shisha pangma" together? I think what the disucussion boils down to is whether we combine "Shishapangma" and "Shisha pangma" together for determining English usage. If we decide "yes", then the common English usage is "Shisha[ ]pangma" and we have to decide whether to include the space in the title or not. If we decide "no", then do other editors agree that there is no single form that is most widely used? Does anyone have any suggestions of how to decide the lump/split issue? I've looked through the guidelines, and cannot find anything relevant. Here's my current thinking --- at some point, we have to decide whether the article title should have a space or not. That decision needs to be driven by the WP:PLACE guidelines of current English usage and consulting tertiary sources, like atlases and encyclopedias. But, that is exactly the process we are using to decide with all of the names... Why are we doing the whole process twice? Why is the choice of "Shishapangma" vs. "Shisha pangma" different from "Shishapangma" vs. "Xixabangma"? As far as I can tell, they are just alternative choices for titles: we have to choose one at the end. I would propose simply applying the guidelines once, and stick with the results. (Whatever we choose is fine with me!) —hike395 (talk) 05:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC) It depends on how we define a "term": If we define them by their origin, then half of Shishapangma results should be lumped into Xixabamgma while the other half should be lumped into Shishāpāngmā and Hsihsiapangma should be lumped into Xixiabangma; If we define them by what they look like, then either Shishabangma should be lumped into Shisha pangma and Xixabangma should be lumped into Xixiabangma or All of the 4 should be lumped together. So define "term" first. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 05:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC) I see that this detail has been answered a couple of times, but that Yú Hǎi keeps asking for a definition of the "term". Allow me to explain my viewpoint on the matter, which is not a WP:RS for sure. The contention is between several different romanisations, rendering into written English, of a native name. I am surprised to learn that the names in contention (4) have different origins, because to my native-English eye and ear, they look the same, but are just different romanisations of the same oral sounds. Is this incorrect? I know that the romanisations have changed over the years from one system to another; and are probably different when viewed from different countries - in this case Nepal, Tibet and China. Thus we have different versions of the same name, do we not? In which case, I can say for myself, my American eyes see almost zero difference between Shishapangma and Shisha Pangma. A space between syllables in a phoenetic transcription of a native name has zero significance in English. On the other hand, I take the (newer?) Xi spelling and the (older?) Shi spelling to perhaps indicate that when my mouth speaks Xi the sound is closer to the native pronunciation than when my mouth speaks Shi. I am aware that the native languages in the area contain subtleties in this sound domain that my English-trained ears do not pickup. But our goal here is not to make the Wikipedia phonetically accurate. We seek the most common usage in written English, as the English wikipedia is a written document in English. Therefore, I think the rules of English apply, in which case Shishapangma and Shisha Pangma are in essence the same, and I would go with Shishapangma (but probably because that is the name I learned the name of the mountain under). Which brings me back to the question - the definition of "term". I have lost the origin of that question - perhaps Yú Hǎi if you wish a tighter explanation of it, you should reference it back to where it is used; ie, where the question comes from in the first place. Ratagonia (talk) 18:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC) Yu Hai - I've never understood your splitting of Shishapangma into Xixabangma and Shishāpāngmā based on "origins". Pseudois' comment in Talk:Xixabangma#Confusion_Pinyin_versus_English that Shishapangma has an independent origin from Xixabangma that predates common usage of Xixabangma makes me wonder further. Could you explain what you think the origins of the words are and why you think it leads to your grouping?--Wikimedes (talk) 22:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC) If we decide that Shishapangma and Shisha Pangma are essentially the same, then it really doesn't matter which we choose - might as well leave at Shishapangma. If this results in a huge outcry from a pro- Shisha Pangma camp, we can reevaluate.--Wikimedes (talk) 19:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC) I believe Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Tibetan)#Minor_variations addresses whether we can lump Shishapangma and Shisha Pangma together: "If there are several common spellings of a term with only minor variations between them, such minor variations do not indicate a lack of primary romanisation. One of the variants should be used as the primary romanisation. For instance, bka’-brgyud can be spelled Kagyu, Kargyu, Kagyud, Kagyü, Kargyü, or Kagyüd – the first spelling is the primary romanisation, however its variants may be mentioned when appropriate." The question then becomes "Do we lump Xixabangma and Xixiabangma with Shishapangma and Shisha Pangma?" For me, there is a natural split between the names spelled with "x" and the names spelled with "sh", but is it minor? Not sure.--Wikimedes (talk) 20:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC) Thanks for finding that! It's quite helpful. I think the example shows that if two romanizations are different by one character, or a diacritic, then the difference is minor. This agrees with your sense that "Shishapangma" and "Shisha Pangma" should be lumped, and "Xixabangma" and "Xixiabangma" should be lumped. This was also proposed by Yú Hǎi as lumping by "what they look like". If we redo the Google tests assuming that lumping, adding -wikipedia to take care of Yú Hǎi's objection about usage independent of WP, restricting to English documents when possible, restricting to post-1993 documents when possible, we get: "Shishapangma" OR "Shisha Pangma" "Xixabangma" OR "Xixiabangma" Google 506,000 28,000 Google Books 2160 405 Google Scholar 408 491 Google News Archive 3190 49 So, indeed, Shishapangma is a widely accepted English term by Google Books and Google News (even if we discount main Google). I will flip my !vote back to Move to Shishapangma. —hike395 (talk) 22:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC) After some more thought, and Hike395's new Google results, I see it like this: Usage of variations of ཤི་ཤ་སྦང་མ། (Shishapangma, Xixabangma, et al.) predominate over Gosainthan. In deciding which ཤི་ཤ་སྦང་མ transliteration to use, there is a natural division between the clade Shishapangma-Shisha Pangma (English spelling of the sh sound) and the clade Xixabangma-Xixiabangma (Pinyin spelling of the sh sound). Of these two clades, Shishapangma-Shisha Pangma usage predominates. I don’t see a clear way to choose between Shishapangma and Shisha Pangma, and maybe the difference is so small at this point that it doesn’t really matter, so leave the article where it was at Shishapangma. I’ve also put a note on the Tibetan naming conventions talk page asking for input. Some of the contributors there probably have a more informed opinion of how to interpret "minor variations".--Wikimedes (talk) 06:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC) I wrote the "minor variations" section of the Tibetan naming conventions. To be honest, the application is somewhat vague. It was intended to encourage lumping and especially to discourage an argument along the lines of, "Look, some sources write Kagyu and others write Kargyu, so neither can be said to predominate, so we have to use some kind of systematic spelling which doesn't resemble either of those." Counterintuitively, I would not lump "Xixabangma" together with "Xixiabangma", because the latter is clearly intended to represent the Chinese name while the former is the Tibetan. I don't have a strong preference as to what this article should be called, but I would be inclined to lump "Shishap..." and "Shisha P..." together per "minor variations" and on that basis move back to Shishapangma. I would also be inclined that, when in doubt, we should stick with the spelling the earlier authors of the article used, as with American vs. British English. I don't like undiscussed moves like this and I think this discussion should default to restoring the old title unless a clear consensus is built for the change.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 05:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC) I do also think Xixabangma (tib.) is not Xixiabangma (chn.), but I'm do not use double standard - I support to lump 50% of Shishapangma (tib.)+Shisha Pangma into Xixabangma while 50% of Shishapangma (nep.)+Shisha Pangma into Shishāpāngmā. For more, see my comment "It depends on how we define ..." ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 15:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Comment: @hike: You did not define what a "term" is but used my second difinition by default, without explain the reason. Plus, even if using the second difinition, we still need a reason why not lump all three together? If all above explained, there's still an issue: Google Web Search and Google News Search are not a valid test in WP:PLACE#Widely accepted name, which validate only Google Book Search and Google Scholar Search. And I doubt whether the Google News Search is post-1993. @Wikimedes: It's not sh-sound (ʃ/ʂ) but ɕ-sound! There's no ʃ-sound in Tibetan language. You mentioned the Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Tibetan), but never mentioned Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Place names, which says “For places without a well-established English name and have competing names from transliterations of pinyin vs. ethnic minority languages, which is often the case in Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia, and Tibet, use the name preferred by Xinhua or similarly authoritative organs. ” (Even though I don't completely like this ststement personally, e.g. I moved Shannan to Lhoka, it is still a strong opposition voice which is sufficient to balance the "Shishapangma more common" claim) ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 06:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC) Summary I think the following list is complete: "Most accepted" (WP:PLACE) viewpoint Consult English-language encyclopedias... Britannica use "Xixabangma" as primary Columbia Encyclopedia has no such entry Encarta 2008 has no such entry Consult Google Scholar and Google Books hits... "Shishapangma" OR "Shisha Pangma" "Xixabangma" OR "Xixiabangma" Google Books 2160 405 Google Scholar 408 491 Shishapangma Shisha pangma Xixabangma Xixiabangma Gosainthan Google Books 1090 1040 284 98 384 Google Scholar 92 332 290 207 49 As can be seen, most encyclopedias prefer "Xixabangma" or do not have such an entry; Google Books prefers "Shishapangma" OR "Shisha Pangma" or "Shishapangma"; Google Scholar prefers "Xixabangma" OR "Xixiabangma" or "Shisha pangma". Still, whether to lump search results is disputed. See #Should we lump "Shishapangma" and "Shisha pangma" together?. Consult news sources Shishapangma Shisha pangma Xixabangma Xixiabangma Google News Archive 420 1610 44 4 Yu Hai points out that this does not filter pre-1993 results. —hike395 (talk) "Name follow native" and "must widely accept" (WP:PLACE) viewpoint Since Xixabangma or Shishapangma is not widely-known in English-world, according to WP:PLACE#General guidelines––#1 does not suits (since many encyclopedia does not have such an entry), we should get a translation from Tibetan ཤི་ཤ་སྦང་མ། (Xixabangma) or Sherpa (not known now), instead of Nepali शिशापाङ्मा/गोसाईथान (Shishāpāngmā/Gosainthān) or Chinese 希夏幫馬/高僧赞 (Xīxiàbāngmǎ/Gāosēngzàn). Currently SASM/GNC romanization is the best to describe Central and Southern Tibetan, while THDL preserves the Western Anchaic Tibetan better. (Agree?) Since both Standard Tibetan/Lhasa dialect and Xixabangma located in Central and Southern Tibetan area, SASM/GNC romanization is to be used. Suggested by Yu Hai, disputed by Pseudois. —hike395 (talk) Just to make my point clear. I was not discussing whether Pinyin is better than THDL, in fact I agree with Yu Hai that Pinyin is pretty accurate for Tibetan pronounciation (the only problem is that you have to know Chinese language or learn Pinyin to understand how Tibetan words should be pronounced in Pinyin, reason why the Tibetan Pinyin is practically not used outside China, and is not very meaningful for use in an English encyclopedia). My point is that Shishapangma (alternatively Sisha Pangma) is widely-known and commonly used in English. See Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Tibetan)#General_guideline.--Pseudois (talk) 19:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC) "By Country/Region" (WP:PLACE#Country-specific guidance) viewpoint WP:PLACE#Country-specific guidance leads us to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Chinese)#Place_names, which advices"For places without a well-established English name and have competing names from transliterations of pinyin vs. ethnic minority languages, which is often the case in Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia, and Tibet, use the name preferred by Xinhua or similarly authoritative organs..." So Xixabangma should be used, which is preferred by Xinhua or similarly authoritative organs. "By Language" (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Tibetan)) viewpoint May you please add your opinion here, Wikimedes? I read "With regard to the names of places in Tibet, for many more obscure locations, our main sources will usually be government publications or UN maps, which tend to use Tibetan Pinyin spellings. Therefore, in many cases, those will be the spellings used for those place names. But this is only my personal read or interpretation. "By Ethnic" viewpoint Just the same as the "name follow native" section. Summarized by Anyone are welcomed to add other viewpoint here. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 13:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC) Discussion concerning these viewpoints I've ping Hike395 and Wikimedes. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 14:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC) FYI, THDL romanisation does reflect Central Tibetan, just like Tibetan Pinyin does. It is less precise: it includes some older distinctions between sounds which are no longer distinguished by Standard Tibetan speakers (although perhaps by other closely related Tibetan dialects), and it combines some sounds which are pronounced differently in order to make the spelling simpler for Western readers. It is not at all an accurate description of conservative Western Tibetan dialects like Ladakhi.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 05:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Welcome, Nat Krause! You are someone who does really know Tibetan. In Central-Southern Tibetan, Old Tibetan voiced consonants (Wylie ba, ga, etc.) are splitted into aspirated and unaspirated, which THDL failed to demonstrate. Tibetan pinyin and Roman Dzongkha, however, succeed demonstrate the distinction. Why? Because they are made by natives or with help of natives (it is said that Roman Dzongkha was made with the help of van Driem or someelse, but I believe it's still mainly made by natives). ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 15:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Also, I don't think it brings convienience to western readers: perhaps it does make the spelling somewhat “simpler” for Western readers, but a native English can hardly pronounce it accurately. For example, བཀྲ་ became "Ta", with a fortis stop [tʰ], but this does not make sense at all because Tibetans would read [ʈʂ˭] or [ɖ̥ʐ̥] (the ring refers to voiceless in IPA) and can be far more accurately rendered in English phonology as a lenis zh/j/ch/dzh [ʤ̥] (the ring refers to either voiceless or slightly voiced). ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 04:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC) I would like to add that two respectable online sources, Peakbagger.com and Peaklist.org both list the mountain as "Xixabangma Feng" [8] and [9]. Although these two sources are not used in this article, they are frequently referenced on many other mountain articles as trusted sources in general. I myself use them both quite often. Undecided before, based on this and the disussions above, I am now leaning towards "Xixabangma". My concern initialy was that since the initial move to Xixabangma was undiscussed, we should have moved it back to Shishapagma while we have this discussion, and move it to Xixabangma if and only after we reach a concensus to do so. However, while trying to move the page back to its original state, I made a serious mistake and it became difficult to return the page to Shishaapagma. In fact no one was able to move it back despite several attempts. I appologize for that mistake, but it brings me to my point: User:虞海, I think I left message on you talk page at the time, but its worth repeating because I noticed you have done this several times before. Please do not move pages until after you have raised the issue on a talk page and only after a concensus has been reached to make such a move. That being said, I vote Keep for current page name, Xixabangma.--Racerx11 (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC) Keep current name Xixabangma. Respected English-language publications use this systematic transliteration; no old ad-hoc transliteration seems to be much more common. Quigley (talk) 01:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC) A few final (I think) thoughts: Usage: While I lack a great deal of experience with Google Books, 1000 or 2000 Google Book hits seems to indicate that Shishapangma and Shisha Pangma are common and widespread enough. The fact that all sources used to write the article use Shishapangma or Shisha Pangma is important. The fact that many reliable English Language sources also use Xixabangma (my own atlas, for example) means that this state may change. I agree with Yu Hai that the External Links section is easily manipulated to favor one name over another and should not be counted. Minor spelling variations and grouping: I’ve explained my rationale on this already, and if sh and x represent different sounds, that seems only to support my grouping. I also respect Nat Krause’s opinion that Shishapangma and Shisha Pangma should be grouped. I’d like to echo racerx11’s request that Yu Hai discuss page moves before carrying them out. I see that your (Yu Hai’s) favorite Wikipedia policy is BRD, but perhaps for moves, you could boldly suggest a name change instead? A slightly unrelated note, but whatever the result here, external link citations should display the name of web page being cited, e.g. Xixabangma Feng on Peakbagger and Shisha Pangma on Peakware Though I now appreciate the case for Xixabangma, I still lean towards Shishapangma, and I will keep my vote as supporting the change back to Shishapangma. I also feel strongly that in the absence of a strong consensus for any name, the article should revert back to where it was (Shishapangma) before the undiscussed name change. --Wikimedes (talk) 08:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC) While peakbagger and peakware are fine websites, and are referenced in various places on the wiki, both are websites run by an individual and not even close to being Reliable Sources.Ratagonia (talk) 17:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC) (Quote) I do also think Xixabangma (tib.) is not Xixiabangma (chn.), but I'm do not use double standard - I support to lump 50% of Shishapangma (tib.)+Shisha Pangma into Xixabangma while 50% of Shishapangma (nep.)+Shisha Pangma into Shishāpāngmā. For more, see my comment "It depends on how we define ..." ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 15:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC) I predict that we are not going to reach consensus. There are perfectly good arguments on both sides, and editors seem split, with no clear majority in favor of one or the other. Now what? If this had been a normal WP:BRD cycle, the page would be at Shishapangma after a revert, and discussion would just end. But, now it's at Xixabangma, due to technical limitations of Mediawiki. Perhaps the simplest thing is to leave it at Xixabangma? I know that's unfair to the Shishapangma supporters, but are there any guidelines for asking an admin to revert a WP:BOLD edit without consensus? —hike395 (talk) 18:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Oh, hello hike395! I was looking forward to your opinion about those viewpoints. I'm not sure if it was biased or fairly summarized everyone's opinion. Could you give your opinion here? ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 19:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC) I also think that we are not going to reach consensus, and that as a result, procedurally speaking the name should be Shishapangma but it’s more convenient to leave it at Xixabangma. This gives us a number of paths forward (e.g. continue to discuss, solicit the project pages for more opinions, ask for admin help reverting, agree to leave the name as is, etc.). I favor asking for admin help reverting to Shishapangma. I don't know how much work it would take for an admin to usurp the Shishangma redirect page. If admins think it’s not worth the trouble, or that it’s improper, we can leave it at Xixabangma.--Wikimedes (talk) 04:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC) Support. Ratagonia (talk) 06:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC) Strange, why you all seem to be somewhat pessimistic? The discussion has been considerable progressed, leaving the sole 2 problems to solve: Define the term to determine what to lump and what not to; Balancing different viewpoints. However, it seems some initial discussers quit. I think we may call them back for their opinion about these problem. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 08:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC) I asked User:Quigley if he'd like to rejoin the discussion. I don't see any support in any guideline to splitting Google test results in half between two alternatives, nor in using ethnic origin to change Google test results. To me, the alternatives are lumping "Shsiapangma" and "Shisha pangma" or splitting them. —hike395 (talk) 18:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC) Name preference - JUST vote - all editors please I think a consensus HAS been reached, with an enthusiastic holdout. In this section, perhaps we could have editors just vote, without extensive discussion, which has been done to death above. Ratagonia (talk) 16:04, 5 November 2011 (UTC) Shishapangma Ratagonia (talk) 16:04, 5 November 2011 (UTC) Weak !vote for Shishapangma —hike395 (talk) 04:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC) Shishapangma or Shisha Pangma (both are acceptable)--Pseudois (talk) 16:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC) Summary of editors postions, above If you want a polling, just counting votes above, needless to put everyone to do samething again: Shishapangma Kauffner Wikimedes Ratagonia Pseudois Weak Shishapangma Nat Krause hike395 Neutral Racerx11 Xixabangma Yu Hai Quigley Result (6:1:2) So do you think this is consensus? Discard what you and I think about the result, however, Wikipedia is not Anarchopedia, which is based on polling. In consensus based Wikipedia, I advise you to write objections to the Xixabangma-supproters' opinion, which do good to consensus reaching, rather than curse the discussion to death. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 07:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC) Wonderful summary, thank you Yú Hǎi. Ratagonia (talk) 19:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC) I agree with Yú Hǎi, here. Racerx11 originally asked me to help out in the discussion, and after all of the discussion, he thought Xixabangma was the best. Quigley also thought XIxabangma was the best. That's why I think we are stuck: it is not just one editor supporting Xixabangma, and there are good arguments for both sides. It seems to be against the culture of WP to revert due to no consensus (see the essay at WP:DRNC), so I doubt if an admin will revert. The only plausible choices, I think, are a) settle on the status quo of Xixabangma, or b) widen the discussion further, perhaps by soliciting opinions at WP:WikiProject Mountains? The latter would only work if almost all of the new editors evaluated the data the same way, or came up with new data that would be very convincing. —hike395 (talk) 08:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC) P.S. I think if you read Nat Krause's comments, you'll see that he supports Shishapangma —hike395 (talk) Do you even think that we won't have a consensus here? I saw there was not a consensus, but noticed that the discussion is approaching to a consensus. Could you please offer your opinion to the 2 enging problems to solve - your difinition of "term". Nat Krause didn't express his idea about the title, however he gave us his definition on term: terms from one language can be lumped and those from different languages shouldn't be lumped, nevertheless he ignored the fact that Shishapangma itself is from 2 languages and so I suggested to lump half of them to Shishāpāngmā and another half to Xixabangma. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 08:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC) Nat Krause did express his opinion about the title. He said I don't have a strong preference as to what this article should be called, but I would be inclined to lump "Shishap..." and "Shisha P..." together per "minor variations" and on that basis move back to Shishapangma. —hike395 (talk) 18:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC) I now think my vote should be Neutral. After rereading all the arguments above and doing a little more research, I am just not sure. Take my example of peaklist.org refering to the peak as "Xixabangma Feng". Is the word "Feng" untranslated "Peak". If so, wouldn't that suggest the site simply chose not to translate the entire name to the common English name? I dont know and because of my limited knowledge of Chinese translation, my position should be best considered no vote or neutral. Now if there is no consensus here do we have another problem? I tried very early on (within hours of the initial undiscussed move) to get an admin to step in and get the article moved back to "Shishapangma" - the page name before the undiscussed move. I even placed a help template on my page, but the only reponse I got was: You have already the 'requested move' template at the correct place. so let it and wait. from user:Mabdul. I am unsure if this user understood, nor did I at the time, the consequences of just leaving it as is. So if there is no consensus, what do we do? It wouldn't seem right to me to default to Xixabangma in light of the roundabout way this page became Xixabangma. Nor does it seem right to default to Xixabangma just because it would be easiest, simplest etc.--Racerx11 (talk) 15:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC) Given that you flipped to neutral, I think we are closer to consensus on moving to "Shishapangma". Unfortunately, I just don't see a way to force a move without consensus. I'm sorry that I moved the article back to Xixabangma --- I thought this would be a simple discussion! Given that we are closer to consensus, perhaps soliciting more opinions at WikiProject Mountains is in order. —hike395 (talk) 18:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC) I would be very much in favor of soliciting more opions at Wikiproject Mountain. Good idea. Thanks for your help Hike395. I really wouldn't mind either way - Shishapangma or Xixabangma. I just want to make sure it is for the right reasons and that everyone understands how this page came to be in its current state. Another thing to consider if we decide to leave it Xixabangma and then a few months or years later we have another discussion and decide it is best to move back to Shishapangma. We would still have the same techinical problem of being unable to make the move without an admin, assuming an admin can fix it then, right? I don't like the idea of moving on from this with the bridge burning behind us, you know what I mean?--Racerx11 (talk) 18:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC) Confusion Pinyin versus English This whole discussion makes no sense. Xixabangma is the Pinyin spelling, while Shishapangma (altertatively Sisha Pangma) is the common name in English, used well before Tibetan Pinying started to be broadly use in China. Should we change Shishapangma to Xixabangma, then we should also change "Shangri La" to "Xianggelila"... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pseudois (talk • contribs) 12:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC) Nope, "Xianggelila" is the Chinese name of Shangri-La, not SASM/GNC transcription of Tibetan (Tibetan pinyin) Shangri-La is a well-known concept in English, so should not be changed (just like nobody propose change from "India" to "Bharat", but many people propose change from "Bombay" to "Mumbai"). Plus, SASM/GNC system is not confusing at all, however THDL is really confusing, for its transcribe Tibetan lenis affricate [ʈʂ˭] or [ɖ̥ʐ̥] (which should be transcribed into English lenis affricate [ʤ] as j in jack) to fortis plosive [tʰ] (as t in tank). ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 13:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC) You seem not to have understood my point. Whatever transliteration system you use for Tibetan names (pinyin, Wylie, THDL), this doesn't make it the reference spelling in ENGLISH. "Xixabangma" is Tibetan Pinyin, "Shi sha sbang ma" is Wylie, "Shishapangma" is ENGLISH. This is ENGLISH Wikipedia, not Pinyin or Wylie Wikipedia. It is possible to use Tibetan Pinyin in English when there is no previously existing spelling, but this is not the case for Shishapangma, which existed in English as "Shishapangma" long before "Xixabangma" made its first appearance in English texts (basically bad translations not respecting the previous established spelling). BTW, the advantage in using the traditional English spelling for these names is that you can more or less reproduce the correct sound; Tibetan Pinyin is useless for non-Chinese speakers to render the correct sound of Tibetan names. Using "Xixabangma" in English would be as wrong as using the spelling "Qowowuyag" for "Cho Oyu" in English. Pseudois (talk) 14:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC) Yes, we should use English spelling, and Xixabangma is also well form English. Bombay is also a previously existing spelling which exists long before Mumbai, would you propose to move Mumbai back to Bombay? ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 14:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC) This is not a forum, and the current discussion regarding the spelling of Shishapangma has nothing to do with the naming of Mumbai. To my knowledge, no official name change has ever taken place for Sishapangma, as it is the case for Mumbai. In any case, Sishapangma and Xixabangma do both correspond to the same name, the first one being Tibetan Pinyin while the second one is the long established English spelling. Pseudois (talk) 15:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC) This is a terrible section title. Neither Xixabangma nor Shishapangma are more "English" than the other; they're both transcriptions of a Tibetan name. Shishapangma existed before Xixabangma, but that does not mean ipso facto that it is "established English"; in fact it's rather obscure. Xixabangma is the official transcription; it is also a more scientific transcription that is faithful to the sounds of the original Tibetan. The spelling Shisha Pangma (or Sishapangma) was well established in English language long before the emergence of Tibetan Pinyin. Furthermore, for English speakers, the pronounciation of Shishapangma is much closer to the original Tibetan sound than Xixabanga. I agree with you that Xixabangma is more systematic and scientific, but you have to speak Chinese or learn Tibetan Pinyin in order to pronounce it correctly. The majority of readers of the English Wikipedia don't.--Pseudois (talk) 19:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC) Xixabangma is used more in scholarly sources and in reference sources like Britannica and the Library of Congress, the ranks of which Wikipedia strives to join. Xixabangma's use rivals or exceeds Shishapangma in present usage, and is growing, discounting books that were written before the emergence of standardized Tibetan place names like Xixabangma. Also, wylie cannot be equated with "Tibetan pinyin", because wylie replicates the poorly phonetic Tibetan alphabet, while "Tibetan pinyin" transcribes speech, which is exactly what someone did when they created "Shishapangma", except better. Quigley (talk) 18:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC) I guess this is where we will have to disagree regarding the predominace of one spelling over the other in relevant scholar sources. Britannica is by the way a poor example in this particular case, as it mentions both Xixabanga and Shisha Pangma.--Pseudois (talk) 19:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC) Just a last point. Would we rename "Sishapangma" (traditional English spelling) to "Xixabangma" (Pinyin spelling), then we should also change the pages for "Lhasa" to "Lasa", "Cho Oyu" to "Qowowuyag", "Lhotse" to "Lhoze", etc. This would create an unfortunate precedent.--Pseudois (talk) 18:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC) You are confused. Lhasa is the correct Tibetan pinyin. "Lasa" is the Chinese pinyin. Xixabangma is an authentic replication of Tibetan sounds; it is not Chinese. Anyway, your preference for spellings like "Lhasa", which is much more non-intuitive for English speakers than is "Lasa", demolishes your argument that you prefer "Sh..." over "X..." for its ease of use. There is no such thing as "precedent" on Wikipedia; page moves are considered on their own merits. There are many Tibet article titles that use systematic official transcriptions, and many article titles that use older ad-hoc transcriptions. It is really the cases of the latter that are "unfortunate", because those names are usually arbitrary, unscientific, and insensitive to the local cultures. Quigley (talk) 18:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC) I don't understand your remark: Xixabangma is an authentic replication of Tibetan sounds; it is not Chinese. I don't think that anybody said something different in this paragraph. I also don't don't understand your point about insensitivity to local cultures. The issue is about which spelling to use in ENGLISH for a widely used Tibetan word. Whatever spelling you use, this will remain a Tibetan word and is respecting the local culture. The point is that "Shishapangma", respectively "Shisha Pangma", has a much wider use in English. If there is a cultural insensitivity, it is the attempt to arbitrarily change established spelling conventions in foreign languages (in this case English). Consistency is also wishful in Wikipedia, and there are numerous pages using the spelling "Shishapangma". Please check Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Tibetan)#General_guideline--Pseudois (talk) 19:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC) Wikipedia:TITLECHANGES#Considering_title_changes Editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial title to another is strongly discouraged. If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. Reference: Wikipedia:TITLECHANGES#Considering_title_changes In the present case, the title has been stable for 8 years. A consensus should be reached before any title change. --Pseudois (talk) 19:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC) Since the title wasn't changed or discussed before, it was difficult to anticipate how "controversial" such a change would be. The mover thought he had good reasons. The wikilawyering going on for Shishapangma exposes the fact that there aren't many good independent reasons for that title anyway. Quigley (talk) 20:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC) I do not think user:虞海(Yú Hǎi) cared to anticipate one way or another how controversial the change would be. Yú Hǎi has moved dozens of pages in the past, all without discussion, at least one time while there was already a discussion regarding a page move, without bothering to even check if there was already a debate. Yú Hǎi has been advised several times over the past couple years to not do this and yet Yú Hǎi continues to unilaterally move pages at will. Both you and Yú Hǎi have made several good points on why the article should be named Xixabangma, but right or wrong the move may be, the method that Yú Hǎi uses is undesirable and I wouldn't defend this move as something Yú Hǎi overlooked as being uncontroversial.--Racerx11 (talk) 00:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC) I think that calling the current discussion wikilawyering is not helpful. As far as I can see, editors who disagree all have their own valid reasons: the Shishapangma supporters look at the Google results and at the article history, while the Xixapangma supporters look at the more scholarly sources, and at the Tibetan transliterations. Everyone is right -- sadly, we have to make a choice. That's why I think that consensus will be difficult to reach: there's no easy way to compromise. —hike395 (talk) 06:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC) A few necessary precisions and corrections: I just noticed than while I was typing my comments in MS Word, the talk page has been changed and discussion closed. I think it still makes sense to add the following two paragraphs which were typed before noticing this change. It might be a dead end to continue discussion the different arguments, as it seems we are simply opposing different arguments without aiming at finding a consensus. I'll make a trial for consensus finding in the next chapter, but due to my late arrival in the discussion, there are a few points in the previous chapters that I would like to rectify or give additional precision: 1) Exonym / Endonym Contributor Yu Hai suggested several times that Shishapangma is an exonym, while Xixabangma is the endonym (local name), and made several analogies such as Ceylan / Sri Lanka. This is simply incorrect. Both variations do correspond to the same Tibetan name. The issue is about spelling. 2) "The majority of English-speaker who know Xixabangma know it as Xixabangma" (Yu Hai) This undocumented claim is more than curious. See Google books, the ration is 10:1 in favour of Shisha Pangma. This is just an anecdotal evidence, but in my personal experience, the ratio would rather approach 100% knowing about Shisha Pangma and less that 5% aware of the Xixabangma spelling. 3) Grouping Sisha Pangma / Shishapangma / Xixabangma / Xixiabangma Thank you for all your efforts in doing these calculations with the Google counts. I however object about the last grouping made. Shisha Pangma and Shishapangma do indeed both correspond to the "traditional" English spelling, and should be lumped together. Xixabangma and Xixiabangma Feng should however not be confused, even though very similar: the first one is the Tibetan Pinyin for ཤི་ཤ་སྦང་མ།, the second one is the Chinese Pinyin for希夏幫馬峰 4) Google / Google books / Google scholar The use of google to test the "popularity" (amongst general public or amongst scholars) of the different spellings may content some important bias. Yu Hai mentioned himself that the Chinese Pinyin spelling getting thrice more hits than the Tibetan Pinyin spelling. A problem with Google scholar is that an important part of the publications may be related to geology / geography research using Chinese maps, which are often not consistent in the romanisation protocols. That might explain the reason why you get almost as many results with the Chinese Pinyin spelling than the Tibetan Pinyin spelling. Just one or two maps are sufficient to radically alter the statistics. In addition, I suspect that many scientific publications are using both spellings. It is also important to note that most of these publications do not focus on naming/spelling issues, so they just use the naming they will find in the maps. Google books may be more reliable, as you will get more books where the author has made a deeper research on naming. Even if we accept Google results, I cannot see how contributor Yu Hai can say that Xixabangma is the most common, here again the data compiled by hike395 (not including Chinese Pinyin spelling Xixiabangma Feng, the inclusion would alter number 3 only): a) Google hits: Shishapangma / Shisha Pangma: 382,800 (96%) Xixabangma: 18,000 (4%) b) Google books: Shishapangma / Shisha Pangma: 2,130 (88%) Xixabangma: 284 (12%) c) Google scholar: Shishapangma / Shisha Pangma: 422 (59%) Xixabangma: 290 (41%) d) Google News archives: Shishapangma / Shisha Pangma: 2,030 (98%) Xixabangma: 44 (2%) 5) Widely accepted name (see Wikipedia naming convention) Shisha Pangma (or Shishapangma), contrarily to Yu Hai opinion, is clearly the most widely accepted name. Widely not only in terms of quantity (see Google hits 96% versus 4%), but also in terms of geographic diversity, the term Sishapangma being common all over the English speaking world. 6) "Shishapangma had no well established English name" (Yu Hai) This is a recurrent claim (never sustained) by Yu Hai in order to reject the application of the existing Wikipedia naming convention. Let me politely disagree on this point too. Many authors (including Chinese authors) have referred to Shisha Pangma since many decades, while the term "Xixabangma" has emerged much later. A simple Google search gives some good hints about it. 7) Using Encyclopaedia Britannica as reference On this point, I fully agree that the main article name is Xixabangma(with no reference on the etymology). It is however interesting to see that the spelling Xixabangma is only used once (in the title), while the article is mentioning twice Shisha Pangma: "Tibetan Shisha Pangma" & "while the Tibetan name, Shisha Pangma, means “range above the grassy plain." It is therefore unfair to use that single reference as a one-way argument in favour or one spelling rather than another one. 8) Discussion on the advantage of one romanisation system over the others This whole discussion is irrelevant for the current article in English Wikipedia. To my knowledge, "Athens" will remain "Athens", "Vientiane" will remain "Vientiane" and "Mecca" will remain "Mecca" in English regardless of which romanisation system is used. And I don't think this is an issue in Greece, Laos or all over the Arabic world. 9) The "cultural sensitiveness argument" (used by both Yu Hay and Quigley) To be honest, I just don't understand to what these remark can refer. I have meanwhile noticed that Yu Hay as attempted to change the article name of Cho Oyu to Qowowuyag (changed immediately reverted by one other editor) with the following aggressive and displaced comments: "be respective to the native Tibetan and Sherpa there" and "please respect the indigenous people there". If this self-proclaimed defender of the "Sherpa" would know a little bit about Sherpa culture, he would have known that Tibetan Pinyin is not taught in schools on the Southern slopes of Cho Oyu where a majority of Sherpa live. ALL Sherpa (100% to be clear) knowing the roman script will refer to Cho Oyu as Cho Oyu. Thank you for learning about local cultures before bringing the "cultural sensitivity argument" in future. 10) "Xixapangma is faithful to the sound of the original Tibetan" (Quigley) As previously said, this is valid only if the reader is fluent in Chinese or has learned Tibetan Pinyin. This is ENGLISH Wikipedia and for the average English speaker, pronouncing "Shishapangma" is the closest you can get to the original Tibetan sound. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pseudois (talk • contribs) 16:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC) An attempt to summarise the pro/contra arguments: Arguments in favour of Shisha Pangma / Shishapangma: 1) Wikipedia guidelines for naming geographical places 2) Wikipedia guidelines regarding title change 3) Wikipedia naming conventions (Tibetan) 4) Anteriority of Shishapangma versus Xixapangma in WP (consensus should have been made before reverting) 5) Consistency (all other WP articles mentioning Sishapangma use the original spelling) 6) Traditional and well established spelling in English 7) Most widely used spelling in English (including books) 8) Pronunciation does correspond to the name in Tibetan Disputed: 1) Which spelling is most commonly used by scholars? (see anterior paragraphs, some editors interpret the data as favourable to Sisha Pangma, other to Tibetan Pinyin Xixabangma, other to Chinese Pinyin Xixiabanga Feng) Arguments in favour of Xixabangma: 1) Does respect the official romanisation ("Tibetan Pinyin) in use in China 2) Is the emerging spelling I must admit that I am probably more trusted with Shishapangma history than with Wikipedia policies, but I would like to express my surprise by seeing that as a result of no consensus (there was a 6 to 2 majority in favour of reversing to the original title in use during 8 years), the decision is to accept the title change made unilaterally and without prior discussion by one single editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pseudois (talk • contribs) 16:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC) Sorry I forgot to add my signature but the last two paragraphs were written by me (user: pseudois). --Pseudois (talk) 16:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I intended to be back at Wednesday, but the topic surprisingly developed far fast than I thought. Seemingly many Wikipedians have more free time at weekdays. Perhaps it'd take me long time to read this. Even though I'm not authorized to add in comments into, I'd like to add some opinions here:

1. This first thing I's say is I personally do not recognize Pseudois's summarize of my opinion:
   1. What is disputed is not only "Which spelling is most commonly used by scholars?" but also "What is the commonly English term used all over the world". As what I have mentioned, foreign language learning in different countries might be taken into consideration. With Ratagonia's blame of "not based on facts and citations", I may try to find an English textbook used by billions of Chinese children (incl. both Han Chinese and Tibetan). That's also the reason why I say "The majority of English-speaker who know Xixabangma know it as Xixabangma".

      I'm somewhat concerning with potential Anglo-American focus, for Google Books and Schloars are a little bit failed to covering English-language publications published in developing countries. But I'm not sure about this now.

   2. I think there's many a few other points not covered in Pseudois's summarize that may be seen from my summarize (sure enough there's also some ommission in my summarize, and that's why I pinged hike and Wikimedes to put opinions there).
   3. Wikipedia naming conventions (Tibetan) is not an argument in favor of Shisha Pangma / Shishapangma :)
2. Whether Shishapangma is an exonym or not is disputed, for we don't know if Shishapangma is from Tibetan or Nepali Khas.

   Now, I even suspect if Shishapangma may be a Tibetan transcription or not, in that seemingly Shishabangma is the correct THDL of ཤི་ཤ་སྦང་མ. I'm not sure, perhaps Nat Krause may be familiar with the THDL system and Tournadre system.

3. Again Pseudois used double standard of lumping. I kindly ask him to read my opinion about "double standard" because I do not want to repeat it to annoying people.
4. I do not very catch the idea of WP:TITLECHANGES. It not very easily-understoodable, I need a further reading later.
5. Generally, when I successed to persuade my self that a page should be moved, I move it. Sometimes I think more and sometimes less. I'm a little bit confusing that sometime my move was seen as uncontroversial while sometimes as controversial, and there is no clear clue when it would be viewed as controversial. If the 2010 Yushu earthquake hadn't happened, I would perhaps have moved it to Yushu to Yüxü following Tibetan tradition, but the deadly earthquake happened and makes Yushu too well-knowned, and the proposal no longer practical.

   I admit I was some too confident to believe that few people know or care naming of mountains not in the top 3 highest. And I underestimated the difficuty to draw a consensus to the mov Shishapangma->Xixabangma. I now suspect that the top 10 highests are rather well-knowned.

––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 05:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Result of 'No Consensus' Ruling

Mike Cline wrote: "The result of the move request was: No Consensus The discussion below does not come to a clear consensus for a move at this time. Further discussion at WikiProject Mountains seems like a wise option at this time. Mike Cline (talk) 15:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)"

Thank you Mike Cline - I presume you are from the management. Now that the result of "No Consensus" has been reached, I assume the article will change back to the stable name of Shishapangma, although there are technical issues involved in producing that result. Do you take care of this, or do we need to contact someone else? Ratagonia (talk) 23:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I was under the assumption that it would be unlikely that an admin would revert to Shishapangma in the event of no consenses, but considering how this all went down, I would think a move back to Shishapangma would make the most sense. I would at least like to see the technical issue addressed. If nothing is done now, what if we decide in the future to move the page to Shishapagma? Would that be difficult or impossible then?--Racerx11 (talk) 23:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Mike Cline is an admin (a volunteer, not an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation). I think he won't move the page. In the future, if we get consensus to move, we can go though the RM process again: if we get consensus, I'm sure an admin will be happy to move the page.

Mike left me with good piece of advice: editors get very passionate about title changes, but the actual title does not impact readers very much, due to redirects. Our readers will still find information on the peak, including the alternative names. So, we should put the disgreement in perspective --- perhaps we don't have the perfect title, but the article is still useful. —hike395 (talk) 02:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I closed this as no consensus to move X back to S at this time, so moving back to S is not the defacto result. As far as correcting the technical history issue, if editors don't muck around with the current redirects, everyting is salvagable if a move to S is needed. I have two suggestions for the group of editors concerned about this article's title. 1) Given the complexity of the various languages involved, first come to a consensus as to what google search terms and sites (news, scholar, etc.) you want to use to determine the title via WP:COMMONNAME criteria. With google, you get what you search for and where yor search for it, so getting everyone on board with an agreed set of search terms makes it easy for the next step. Try to reach this consensus on the article talk page or one of the project pages. Next step, run the searches, tabluate the results and make a titling decision. Leave the emotions and rationalizations out of it. If you can demonstrate that you have strong consensus on either X, S or ?, I will be happy to help you move the article if necessary. Remember we write article for WP users to read, not editors to bicker about.--Mike Cline (talk) 11:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Alternate spellings in lead

I added the Shishapnagma and Shisha Pangma spellings to the lead (with references). Alternate names and spellings now take up the first 2 lines of the lead, which is kind of bulky. It might be better to reduce the first sentence of the lead to "Xixabangma, also known as Gosainthān (see below for alternate spellings), is the fourteenth-highest mountain in the world and, at 8,013 m (26,289 ft), the lowest of the eight-thousanders." and then put the alternate spellings in the body. I'm not sure if this would strictly adhere to guidelines, but it would make the lead much more readable. I also changed the titles of the web citations to reflect the titles of the web pages they reference.--Wikimedes (talk) 07:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thus leaving the most-commonly-used spelling out of the lead? I agree that starting the article with a long list of alternative spellings is not very kind to Wikipedia readers. Yu Hai is well versed in the different versions, perhaps he would put together a paragraph on alternative names, to be placed in the body somewhere. But the lead sentence should be (I suggest): Xixabangma, also known as Shishapangma, is... I do not think an alternative names and spellings needs to be called out in the lead, especially if it is the FIRST paragraph of the body, or at least, near the top.Ratagonia (talk) 03:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking that mentioning a different name for the mountain early might be more useful for readers than an alternate spelling of the title, but mentioning the most commonly used spelling early also has its merits. I’ve noticed in the last week that lots of other articles begin with 2 lines of alternate names and spellings, so we could also just leave it as is. Or wait until the article name discussion dies down. It’s probably not that important.--Wikimedes (talk) 05:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Some WP internal data to feed future discussion about a possible revert to the original title

I understand that the decision of the administrator not to move back Xixabangma to its original title is related to the lack of consensus and impossibility to agree on Google search parameters. In order not to overload this talk page with unproductive discussions, I have answered user:虞海 last comments directly in his talk page I'm sorry also for my insistence but would like to provide the following (hopefully objective) data to feed future discussion regarding a possible revert to the original title.

Supporters of the "Xixabangma" spelling have mentioned the following points that I would like to analyse in the light of Wikipedia internal data (upon which I hope everybody will agree, without suspecting manipulation):

1) It has been suggested that the WP naming convention for Tibetan names does not apply for the traditional English naming of Sishapangma (Shisha Pangma) as it is not sufficiently known.

Food for thoughts: the article is rated Top Importance on the project importance scale for the WikiProject Mountain since 2007. Only 269 (1.6%) out of 16,026 mountain articles are rated "Top Importance". Out of these 269 top important articles, only 2 are located fully inside Tibet (Mount Kailash and Shishapangma). Question: how can Shishapangma lack sufficient "notoriety" to apply the above-mentioned naming convention for Tibetan names, while it belongs to the very few mountains in the World considered "Top Importance" (the highest on the scale)?

2) It has been suggested that the WP title change policy (extract: "editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial title to another is strongly discouraged. If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed") does not apply, as the editor who changed the title could not anticipate how controversial it would be.

Food for thoughts:

a) The talk page of user:虞海 shows that he has repeatedly made similar controversial changes over the past three years, and that several WP editors (not involved in the current Shishapangma naming controversy) raised his attention about the need to first discuss a proposed moved and reach consensus before proceeding to the move.

b) On the same day (26 October), user:虞海 changed the title name of 5 mountain pages, all of them very significant mountains in the region. 4 out of 5 name changes were reverted by another editor, without contestation from user:虞海. If my understanding is correct, reversion to the Shishapangma original name failed due to technical issues.

c) The German Wiki had a similar dispute in 2007 regarding the naming of Shishapangma. The issue was settled with keeping the traditional name. Argument pro/contra were basically the same as discussed in the current controversy. (I not saying that the persons involved in the current controversy should have known about the German WP)

3) It has been suggested that "Shisha Pangma / Shishapangma" is the old / outdated naming, current naming in English is "Xixabangma".

Food for thoughts: as we couldn't agree on which parameter to select for a Google search, I have been checking the Wikipedia traffic statistic for the whole year of 2010. Shishapangma 34,260 (93 per day)

Shisha Pangma 5,965 (16 per day)

Xixabangma 380 (1 per day)

I guess the first number is not comparable as this might include all redirects from other WP pages linking to Shishapangma original page.

But comparing Shisha Pangma (16 search per day) and Xixabangma (1 search per day) might be a very good indicator for the current spelling usage amongst English speakers (both spelling do redirect to the "Shishapangma" page). The ratio of 16 to 1 is eloquent.

Is consensus finding possible?

Template:Saveto While doing the present research, I have noticed that beside making on 26 October the five controversial title changes mentioned above (beside all other controversial changes over the past 3 years), user:虞海 has the same day made some other controversial changes on the Mount Kailash page, which is probably the most famous mountain worldwide and one of the holiest worship place. In English, the mountain is traditionally known as Mount Kailash, and accessorily as Gang Rinpoche. In the infobox, the name Kailash has been relegated to the second place, while the traditional Gang Rinpoche has been totally removed by user:虞海 to be replaced by the Pinyin Kangrinboqê (note that I am fully favorable to have the Pinyin spelling included, as it was already the case). Once again, user:虞海 has deliberately removed some important WP content without adding new content.

Based on these observations, I am expressing doubts that User user:虞海 is genuinely interested in consensus finding. Unilateral controversial edits and systematic opposition rather seem to be the rule. In such case, how is it possible to have a constructive discussion regarding the naming of Shishapangma, when objective remarks and data are systematically ignored or rejected? --Pseudois (talk) 16:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

(Inserted) You'd point out what the "deliberately removed some important WP content without adding new content" is, or I don't think it to be worthful to discuss with you for you just point what in your mind without hearing anything I said. Also, you'd better clarify what "objective remarks and data are systematically ignored". Actually, I may point out what objective remarks you have ignored. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 17:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

For your accuse of "systematically rejected", I admit I reject them, but debate always push forward the discussion and make things clearly. This is an umbrella term, I can also accuse you that if you have simply one refute. I discuss with those who want to discuss with me, debate with me, but won't discuss with a accuser who accuse anyone he/she don't like. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 17:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Inserted: see my answer in your user talk page (Kailash chapter), there is absolutely nothing personal. --Pseudois (talk) 20:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Pseudois's observations. Yu Hai is a disruptive editor with a long history of unilateral and controversial moves, and he has never shown the slightest interest in reaching consensus. BabelStone (talk) 20:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Funny this same scenario has now stated at the page Gompa now Goinba. Yu Hai made an undiscussed move. A couple moves with two additional names actually. Several editors attempted to move it back to Gompa, but were unable. Now if a discussion such as this is initiated, the default action in the event of no consensus would be to keep at Goinba. Thats right Goinba, not Gompa, the stable name before, but Goinba, the name that started the controversy in the first place. I am starting to wonder if my error at this page had anything to do with our inability to move it back. It is perhaps something Yu Hai is doing in these page moves, intentionally or not, that is causing the techinical problems. It could even be a way of gaming the system, to force a page move against all others will. I don't know. But I can say that based what I have seen of Yu Hai's edit history, the above editors estimations of Yu Hai are spot on.--Racerx11 (talk) 23:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the way that page moving is set up is that it is easy for anyone to move an established article to a novel name, but hard to move it back again unless you're an admin, which gives a seriously unfair advantage to an unscrupulous editor who wants to push their own POV against consensus. Pre-emptive moves without discussion certainly seem to work for Yu Hai most of the time. BabelStone (talk) 23:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The talk page of goinba shows that Yu Hai is acting in good faith and simply didn't know that "gompa" is relatively known in English. I don't think the term "stable name" is meaningful for a title that hasn't been moved or discussed before. In both cases, Yu Hai did not "push POV against consensus" because there was no consensus for the previous name; it was just undiscussed. Besides, "gompa" is clearly well-established in English, while pre-Xixabangma spellings are not; let's not get carried away with the comparison. It should be relatively easy and quick to get a consensus for "gompa" and move it back; Yu Hai could even help. Also, this talk page is not the place to raise up a lynch mob against Yu Hai (or to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear in general). Just talk to him and pursue normal dispute resolution. Quigley (talk) 00:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record I am just as happy with our current page name as I was with the previous one. I will address your comments one by one:

The talk page of goinba shows that Yu Hai is acting in good faith and simply didn't know that "gompa" is relatively known in English.

I can agree with that now that I have closely reread Yu Hai's comment.

I don't think the term "stable name" is meaningful for a title that hasn't been moved or discussed before.

Disagree. I think a page name that has remained the same, uncontested, discussed or not, is "stable" IMO for what its worth.

In both cases, Yu Hai did not "push POV against consensus" because there was no consensus for the previous name; it was just undiscussed. Besides, "gompa" is clearly well-established in English, while pre-Xixabangma spellings are not; let's not get carried away with the comparison.

I can agree with those statemants except one could argue there was a consensus since there was no change for several years.

It should be relatively easy and quick to get a consensus for "gompa" and move it back.

Another editor said nearly these same words very early on in the Shishipanga issue and look how that turned out.

Yu Hai could even help.

Perhaps, and I hope so, but based on his history I wouldn't count on it. Hope I'm wrong.

Also, this talk page is not the place to raise up a lynch mob against Yu Hai (or to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear in general).

Very much agree. Sorry, that was not my intent. Looking over the comments above, it does read like that. Thank you for reminding us to remain civil and assume good faith.

Just talk to him and pursue normal dispute resolution.

I intend to do that. Thank you. --Racerx11 (talk) 01:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I’m not as happy with Xixabangma as with Shishapangma, but I don’t think Xixabangma is a bad choice either. I did want to elaborate on one thing Quigley said:

“Yu Hai is acting in good faith and simply didn't know that "gompa" is relatively known in English”

It’s probably true that Yu Hai did not know that gompa is relatively well known in English. I would go so far as to say that that his incorrect assumption that gompa is not widely known is the reason he made the edit. He also made the assumption that Shishapangma, Cho Oyu, and Lhotse were not well known, which also turned out not to be true. (Shishapangma is also known by other names.) These are 3 of only 14 mountains in the world over 8000m high. The “eight-thousanders” have their own Wikipedia article. Books have been written about them for popular consumption.

Also, these 3 mountains are rated top importance on Wikiproject Mountains. Importance ratings can be arbitrary and something may be important and still not well known, but it should be a clue that other editors care about the article and he should extend these editors the courtesy of discussing a name change before making it.

Yu Hai said above that he now thinks that the 10 highest mountains may be well known. (Xixabangma is 14th.) This is a very poor criterion, for example Mount Washington (New Hampshire) is less than 2000m, and is not even the highest mountain on the East Coast of the United States, but is very well known.

Since the controversy over Xixabangma began, and requests from at least one editor to stop moving articles without discussing first, Yu Hai has made another poorly informed decision to move an article because he thought the name was not well known (gompa –> goinba).

I agree that “this talk page is not the place to raise up a lynch mob against Yu Hai”. But it might be a good place for Yu Hai to agree to stop making undiscussed moves. Thank you.--Wikimedes (talk) 04:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

@Quigley: as an occasional contributor to WP, I have never been involved in any kind of controversy before. I disregard "lynch mob" as much as yourself, my objective being solely to bring my own contribution at improving WP in a true spirit of NPOV.

To reply to your point regarding 虞海, he has been making several controversial edits (deleting commonly used English spelling from articles, moving titles as in the case of Gompa, etc.) after the Shishapanga controversy started. So it is difficult to see how he could have been unaware of the potentially controversial nature of his edits.

To take the Gompa example, the article clearly states that Gompas can be found in China, Nepal, India and Bhutan. How can an editor like 虞海 assume that a Pinyin spelling would be understood in Nepal, India and Bhutan? So:

- either 虞海 is good faith, but he a) lacks sufficient general knowledge about the topics he is editing, b) lack sufficient knowledge in English, and/or c) lacks sufficient knowledge about Wikipedia and its rules.

- or 虞海 is just blindly and aggressively pushing for his own POV with a total disrespect of other editors.

In both cases it is not helping to improve WP quality. Would 虞海 show a cooperative and consensus-oriented attitude, I would be more than glad to revise my thoughts.

PS. In defense of 虞海, I am not sure that it is not possible to revert the "Gompa" title. I did not dare to try to rename it in order not to create a similar mess as for the Shishapangma page, so if no other editor has tried it is maybe possible to simply revert the title.--Pseudois (talk) 07:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

(Inserted)

1. Your example "Pinyin spelling would or would not be understood in Nepal, India and Bhutan" makes nonsense because whether pinyin spelling-system being popular in Bhutan/Nepal does never matter, for:
   1. Regardless where there is a gonpa/goinba, Tibet is the originate place of gonpa/goinba and the main culture-taker. E.g. you may build 10 gonpas/goinbas in Arctic and say "Pinyin would not be understood in arctic so Yu Hai is disturbing us delebrately!" But does that make sense? Arctic wouldn't be the main cultural-taker nor the originate place, and neither do Nepal/Bhutan.
   2. Even if it matters, does popularity of pinyin in Nepal/Bhutanmatters the common use in English?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 虞海 (talk • contribs) (splitted by Pseudois' edit, I supplement this sign)

      Inserted: no, and I totally agree with you on that point. I actually never said something different.--Pseudois (talk) 20:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

      I meant "does the popularity of pinyin in Nepal/Bhutan affect the answer of the question 'is Goinba common in English'". ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 16:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

   Pseudois, I'm confused, why you do that subtle change in object, from naming convention to the popularity of pinyin? To make an accuse at me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 虞海 (talk • contribs) (splitted by Pseudois' edit, I supplement this sign)

   Inserted: you have in the past changed article names by justifying that we should respect the "official" spelling. In your talk pages, I explained that the concept of "official" spelling makes little meaning for the English language as strictly spoken English is a non-regulated language (but we have some WP conventions instead). In the case of objects like gompas which apply to countries like India, Nepal and Bhutan where Pinyin spelling is unknown, a title move makes even less sense (see also the Cho Oyu and Lhotse renaming), even though I agree with you that this is not the most relevant argument (see above). --Pseudois (talk) 20:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

2. Your two cases in the either-or statement are simply the same if you do not add your subjective definition "blindly", "aggressively" and "total disrespect".
   1. One who lack "the three" may pushing for one's own POV to the community, but that never matter because you may convince him/her, but if you feel not able to convince, that would be:
      1. either, you lack enough knowledge to convincing him/her
      2. or, you failed to get his/her idea and you just insist on what you said and he/her just insist what he/her said

      In both cases it is not a good reason for you to blame one being "systematic opposition".

      (You can, however, if systematic is not a derogatory, but that doesn't seems to be the case, and that's the reason why I asked you what did you mean by saying "systematic")

   2. One who always tried to oppose someone or "push their own POV against consensus" is simply one who follow the consensus because if one is doing opposing work, that would must because one's not being convinced. (Once one's being convinced, he/she will never think worthful to do resultless job. People always do thing when they have hope, i.e. when they see there's others' fallacy to makes them able to correct them and others will eventually change their opinion.) Well, this put use back to the "if you feel not able to convince" cycle. So the two are simply the same.

––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 18:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, seems you're not some undifferentiated accuser, and I think I may offer a example.

When Racerx11 changed his vote to Neutral, he said "that suggest the site simply chose not to translate the entire name to the common English name". I intended to persuade him with the Da Hinggan Ling Prefecture (rather than Greater Hinggan Peak Prefecture or Greater Hinggan Range Prefecture) example to prove it's well-translated. However, I noticed that "simply chose not to translate the entire name" isn't his sole concern even though he didn't say "and I have some other concerns", etc. (I.e., even if he is convinced that "Xixabangma Feng" is well translated he might still vote "Neutral".) Such vague things is often not very helpful to the discussion and if I didn't find out the fact that he voted "Neutral" not simply because he saw "Xixabangma Feng", the discussion would be even more longer, and someone will accuse me for "Oh you systematically objection!" earlier. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 19:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

It is not possible to simply move the page back to Gompa, by a non-admin that is. I tried myself shortly before entering my first comment in this section. I also left a message there at Talk:Goinba about getting an admin to make the move back before any formal discussions get started, otherwise the same thing that happened here could occur again.--Racerx11 (talk) 11:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

And I have not tried to contact an admin to do this. Hoping someone else can bring it to an admin's attention. I tried early on after discovering the problem at this page, way back when it was at "Shishabangma" with a "b" not a "p". I was kindly brushed off and dismissed by the responding admin. I guess I just have a way with people.Racerx11 (talk) 11:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the history of this and moved Goinba back to Gompa for you all hoping that you all can work things out with 虞海. --Mike Cline (talk) 12:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Another attempt to find consensus

As it seems that both "Shishapangma" and "Xixabangma" will never get consensus, what about simply renaming the page "Shisha Pangma" as mentioned previously by an editor.

Here an objection previously raised that hasn't been answered with objective facts:

Besides, "gompa" is clearly well-established in English, while pre-Xixabangma spellings are not; let's not get carried away with the comparison. Comment by Quigley 00:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

In order not to be accused by 虞海to have an Anglo-American bias, I would like to mention this book published in China (Science Press) by Chinese authors, dating back to 1966:

A photographic record of the Mount Shisha Pangma Scientific Expedition

I would be very interesting to see anterior English language sources for the spelling "Xixabangma". I hope that this will answer satisfactorily your interrogations. I also hope that consensus-oriented editors will not start challenging the renaming to "Shisha Pangma" with new objections that haven't been mentioned so far, as the discussion is already two weeks old.

I think that the overwhelming majority of other objections raised in this talk page against "Shishapangma" or "Shisha Pangma" have already been answered, but would an issue not be solved yet, I would feel very obliged to try to give a precise, scientific and objective answer to any clearly formulated objection.--Pseudois (talk) 16:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand, why someone uses Xixabangma. Noone uses it: no webpage, book or climber. The normal english name is Shishapangma or Shisha Pangma. --PietJay (talk) 19:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

In order to structure the discussion (if discussion we should have), I would like to quote again my previous attempt to summarise the pro/contra. It could be useful if objecting or supporting remarks do point out to which number it is referring.

Arguments in favour of Shisha Pangma / Shishapangma:

1) Wikipedia guidelines for naming geographical places

2) Wikipedia guidelines regarding title change

3) Wikipedia naming conventions (Tibetan)

4) Anteriority of Shishapangma versus Xixapangma in WP (consensus should have been made before reverting)

5) Consistency (all other WP articles mentioning Sishapangma use the original spelling)

6) Traditional and well established spelling in English

7) Most widely used spelling in English (including books)

8) Pronunciation does correspond to the name in Tibetan

Disputed:

1) Which spelling is most commonly used by scholars? (see anterior paragraphs, some editors interpret the data as favourable to Sisha Pangma, other to Tibetan Pinyin Xixabangma, other to Chinese Pinyin Xixiabanga Feng)

Arguments in favour of Xixabangma:

1) Does respect the official romanisation ("Tibetan Pinyin) in use in China

2) Is the emerging spelling--Pseudois (talk) 12:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, you told me not to discuss here but continue to posting your own ideas as summary of "Arguments in favour of Xixabangma", so my reply to your “05:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)” will be here.

However, before refute your understanding to "Arguments in favour of Xixabangma", I want to reply one of your point you have emphasis for long: the difference between naming and spelling.

The first time you mentioned it was in 15:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC) and was immediately replied by Quigley, I thought it was solved, but now it seems it's not. Since you're in favor of quote examples, I may also explain it by examples: the example “Bombay is also a previously existing spelling which exists long before Mumbai”, as I used, WAS a naming issue, however, Simla/Shimla, Peking/Beijing, etc. - all these examples I didn't cite are spelling issues. These examples have bestly shown that the only difference between naming and spelling is no difference, and overthrowed your point that where there was a previously existing spelling, it should be used.

And then reply your comment on my user talk page:

1.1 "Billions of kids" was a wrong number. I didn't thought more but China has some 1300000000 people. I didn't calculate how many Chinese children (incl. both ethnics) are learn English textbook published by PEP. Neither did I taken non-native English speakers into consideration when I said the mountain is almost unknown in English community, and I think it should be corrected as "the mountain is not known to most native English speakers".

1.3 Why?: Wikipedia naming conventions (Tibetan) is not an argument in favor of Shisha Pangma / Shishapangma because it simply advise to use a common name while it's not sure which one is common. Those in favor of Shishapangma think Shishapangma more common by Google Book, those in favor of Xixabangma think Xixabangma by authority encyclopedia and Google Scholar.

2 I'm not sure, you may ask Nat Krause or BabelStone. sbang in shi sha sbang ma is likelier to be transcribed as bang rather than pang in THDL, so I said I suspect if Shishapangma is from Tibetan language.

3

At last a summary of Arguments in favour of Xixabangma:

––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 16:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Yuhai is right, the correct THDL or Tournadre spelling would be Shishabangma (or maybe Shisha Bangma, since those systems don't give specifics on how to split up words). The p in Shishapangma is ad hoc. Modern Standard Tibetan no longer distinguishes between voiced/tenuis/aspirated stops except at the beginning of a word, so conventional English spellings sometimes confuse them, viz Ngabö (should be Ngaphö or Reting (should be Radreng).—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 10:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

In the case of most articles, the polices explained at WP:ENGLISH will resolve such disputes. Here, the issue is not what Chinese children learning English in China do, the issue is what people who speak English as their first language do. I do not view this as anglocentric bias, I view it as a simple lingistic difference. In similar disputes, I point to the example of Munich, spelled München by Germans themselves (who call themselves Deutschlanders, also). I tend to follow that example where there are differences of opinion on such matters. Where a name variation makes something completely incomprehensible to the average reader who has heard a different name, it is best avoided as a title, though the name variations can and often should be discussed in the text where appropriate. For example, Mount Everest. Now, if a name or word is considered disrespectful or gives offense (such as inuit being preferred over eskimo or not calling ANYTHING squaw this-or-that), that sort of name change should be respected by all. But for geographic names in various languages, absent flat-out offense, it is a bit trickier. In the case of Beijing/Peking, it was a request by a national government to rename their own capital, made without significant controversy (I remember the switch, there was some discomfort for 4-5 years, but eventually the change was solidified). Cases such as Mumbai/Bombay or Myanmar/Burma are tricker, as there IS some opposition, but where we are talking major cities or nations, it can become very awkward to resist the flow. But here, in the case of these mountain names, I believe that it would violate WP:NOR to swap over to a name that few would understand. There is a tendency here to either stick with Tibetan-influenced romanization and show respect to this older form due to the ongoing human rights issues, OR there is "Munich/München issue that the English-speaking world has simply adopted an anglicized form and would have no clue if it were altered. (I suppose if the Germans really threw a worldwide fit about "Munich" the world would go along with München, even if no one but the Germans would pronounce it properly!) Montanabw^(talk) 03:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Disposing of 3 arguments for Xixabangma:

The argument for using Xixabangma as the article's title is stated, then refuted.

1. The mountain is not well-known.
   1. Including the different names for the mountain, there are over 2500 Google Book hits. Even if a few of these hits are duplicates, a topic that is included in this many books is well-known.
   2. (Previously mentioned) All eight-thousanders are well known, with books written about them for popular consumption (e.g. Potterfield, Peter; Viesturs, Ed; Breashears, David (2009). Himalayan Quest: Ed Viesturs Summits All Fourteen 8,000-Meter Giants. National Geographic. p.137 ISBN 142620485X.).
2. Shishapangma and Shisha Pangma are no longer in use and have been replaced by Xixabangma.
   1. There are 332 post-1993 Google Scholar hits for Shisha Pangma, more than any other spelling of the mountain. Shisha Pangma is still being used.
   2. Several web sites use Shishapangma and Shisha Pangma, including the web sites used as references in this article. Both of these spellings are still being used.
   3. English Wikipedia traffic in 2010 for Shisha Pangma was 16:1 more prevalent than Xixabangma. Clearly, among English Wikipedia readers, Shisha Pangma is still being used and Xixabangma has not replaced Shisha Pangma.
   4. The above cited 2009 book about Ed Viesturs’ climbs of the 8,000 meter peaks uses Shishapangma – another example that Shishapangma is still being used.
3. It is unclear whether Shishapangma derives from Xixabangma (Tibetan) or Shishāpāngmā (Nepali) therefore Shishapangma hits should be divided evenly between Xixabangma and Shishāpāngmā.

I have to admit that this claim has never made any sense to me, and I had hoped (and requested) that 虞海 would explain further. Although I am not an etymologist and I speak neither Tibetan nor Nepali, it is obvious that Xixabangma and Shishāpāngmā share a common origin. Nepal and Tibet share a common border. There is frequent contact between the two populations, including extensive trade (perhaps not in the last few decades) and occasional conquest. The two words are spelled (and I presume sound) very much alike. In such a case, absent very clear evidence to the contrary, there should be a strong presumption that the words share a common origin. It is also obvious that Shishapangma shares the same origin. Splitting it between Xixabangma and Shishāpāngmā based on different word origins simply makes no sense when all three words share the same origin.--Wikimedes (talk) 05:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)