Talk:Huangshan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleHuangshan has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 25, 2009Good article nomineeListed

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2020 and 6 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Haomimimi.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Construction of Trails[edit]

The amount of labor employed to install all of the stone trails is incredible, certainly along the lines of building the great pyramids in Egypt. Information regarding this amazing feat of human engineering and labor should be included in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.124.140 (talk) 07:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naming[edit]

This title is a misnomer. Shan means mountain so Mount Huangshan means Mount Mount Huang. This should be either changed to Mount Huang or Huangshan. Mandel 14:07, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

I think you have a good point here and I have moved the article to "Huang shan (Mountain range)" to distinguish it from "Huang shan (city)", which is already on the Huangshan disambiguation page. rm 19:30, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think thats true. I was going to say that Shan means mountains, so it should just be called HuangShang, or something like that. -Freddy Tsao

Huangshan is the mountain, Huangshan Shi or Huangshan City is a recent creation that was named after the mountain. So I would suggest titling them as such and putting a link at the top of the respective pages for anyone that stumbles onto the wrong one. Mutt (talk) 05:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More Naming Questions[edit]

In the other articles about Chinese mountains, like Mount Tai, Mount Hua, Mount Heng, Mount Song, Mount Putuo, etc., the name "Shan" is always treated as "Mount". For that reason, I propose that the article name be change to "Mount Huang" (with all the proper redirects for "Yellow Mountain", "Mount Yellow", and "Huangshan"). What do y'all think?LedRush (talk) 14:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree (belatedly) with this move; "Mount Huang" sounds awkward to me since I learned it first as Huangshan, but it is the most consistent naming scheme for Wikipedia, and it's better for most readers (i.e. non-Chinese-speakers). —Politizer( talk • contribs ) 15:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Based on what I heard, I disagree. I asked about Huangshan from a native hotel clerk in Huangshan city (Tunxi), and he assured me that Chinese people don't think "Yellow Mountain" when they see "Huangshan", they just see it as a single word name. Also UNESCO and others seem to use "Mount Huangshan". I wouldn't use "Mount Huang" unless someone native would support that, as using different (and based on above, wrong) name is confusing, especially for non-Chinese-speakers who can't translate shan into mountain. Jesh (talk) 20:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures[edit]

UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUWJHJJJJ. Xz 09:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Why are there so many fake CGI images in this article? Has it become some kind of "cool" competition to put as many fake computer graphics in here as possible just because the mountain has been linked to a major CGI film? Thrapper (talk) 00:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um, all the pictures in this article were added more than a year before Avatar came out, so I don't think there's any connection. If you want to leave a constructive comment, perhaps you could point out which images in the article you feel are "fake". rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Is it just me? Hmm, well ok then maybe I'll have to retract "fake CGI" and replace with "overly photoshopped to look more like CGI". Or do I just need my eyes tested? One example is HuangShan.JPG, subtitled "Mount Huang with trees and clouds". Apparently this was added in November 2009 (not so long ago), and included in this article, Avatar (2009 film), as well as the German versions of both those articles, Catalan, French, Italian, and maybe others. To me it looks like a screengrab, although maybe it's just been modified to look like a screengrab. And the fact that it's linked to so many Avatar articles is odd.
Then there's the first picture on this page, Huangshan_pic_4.jpg, apparently added on 24 January 2010 (also not so long ago), which also looks odd to me, which is what triggered my comment. I didn't look at the dates of the other pictures. To me they just don't look real, I'm surprised other people haven't mentioned it already. Thrapper (talk) 00:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The second picture is overly contrast-y, but other than that I don't see a problem; the first one you mentioned doesn't look unreal at all to me, have you been to Huangshan? Both of the pictures have camera metadata and are very high resolution, so they are not screengrabs. Most of the rest of the pictures in the article were added by me in late 2008, or were already there before I started editing. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, in that case I'll have to back-pedal... Of course the inclusion of camera metadata means nothing, that can be added to any computer-generated image too. And computer-generated imagery can also have very high resolution too, so that doesn't prove anything either. But no, I have never been to this part of the world. If you have, and you're happy with these recent images (and the fact that they've been added to so many of the Avatar pages) then I guess I _do_ need to get my eyes tested :/ Thrapper (talk) 13:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you do need to get your eyes tested >.> as you keep saying that every time Rjanag brings up facts that disagree with your assumptions. Just because a picture looks fake to you does not mean it is or looks fake to the rest of us. I have been to Huangshan. The pictures actually don't do the place justice as it looks much better and a lot more awe-inspiring in real life. Just because the pictures are too beautiful in someone's eyes does not mean that place does not exist, or the pictures are fake. That is an insult to the photographer, and even more, to the location itself. If person making the assumption has never been to the place in question and seen what it looks like, that just completely nullifies any credibility that person has. Even a five-second research by clicking on the pictures and viewing their source link and you'd see Huangshan_pic_4.jpg was taken and uploaded almost 3 years ago on Flicker. The German photographer who took HuangShan.JPG also has various other photos of Huangshan and other places he's visited on his user page gallery. This is the only photo he uploaded to the Wikipedia entry. You should message him, I'm sure he'll be very thrilled to know that you think his photos are fakes.Obsilord (talk) 02:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

The Image gallery in the article is pretty big (granted, I have been adding to it, but it was big even before I came along). Is it possible to create a corresponding gallery of these images at Commons (there is already a linked Commons page, but the images it has are very different) linked from this article, and then not have such a big gallery here? Also, of course, as the article grows, more images can be worked into the main body of the article (I'm about to try squeezine some in right now).

An alternate solution would be to put the image gallery within a {{show}} template, so that it is still in the article but not so in-your-face. I don't know what the standard is, though, on using {{show}} in articles. —Politizer( talk • contribs ) 15:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good source[edit]

The latest source I added to the article seems to be very good, and I think we can use it to make some nice expansions to the article. Here is the source:

"Mount Huangshan Scenic Beauty and Historic Interest Site". Protected Areas and World Heritage. United Nations Environment Programme. 1990. Retrieved 2008-10-08. {{cite web}}: External link in |work= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

(The ref is named "UNEP", if you want to cite stuff inline).

It seems much more credible than most of the sources in the article now, and its status as a review of material makes it more desirable and NPOV than primary sources. Of course, we don't want to base the whole article off of one source, but I do think it's ok to lean more heavily on this source than the others, at least until we've found some other comparably good sources. —Politizer( talk • contribs ) 19:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New section in article[edit]

I added a new section on what Huangshan is significant for in terms of what people do with it; I am drawing a blank on what to call it (I know there's a good term, I have just gone braindead right now) so I tentatively called it "Uses." That is a pretty lame section title, so if you think of a better title before I do you are more than welcome to change it (in fact, I urge you to change it!). —Politizer( talk • contribs ) 20:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mount Huang/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I started reading this article. Images and references look fine. After I finish reading it, I anticipate passing it without delay. Crystal whacker (talk) 19:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"watching the sunrise is considered by many to be a "mandatory" part of visiting the area." Does the reference say that it's "considered by many" or is the reference speaking only for itself? I'm just making sure you're not "cheating" here. :) Crystal whacker (talk) 19:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Corrected (diff). The ref doesn't say anything about "many," and I think I originally included the "by" phrase just to distance myself a bit from the statement. But I think the new wording should be ok; it's probably closer to what's in the source, and I can attest from my own experience that it is accurate (as part of "conventional wisdom" among many Chinese people I've spoken with during my time over there). Politizer talk/contribs 20:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The mountains were formed in the Mesozoic, about 100 million years ago, when an ancient sea disappeared due to uplift.[citation needed]" As I said in a previous review, I will pass an article with only one missing citation, but I do need to ask. Every other statement that should need a citation has one. Crystal whacker (talk) 20:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh, good catch...that bit was added while I was on a short wikibreak and I must have missed it. I will leave a message with LedRush, who I believe is the editor who added it and who might have a copy of the book (ref 8) that the surrounding statements are taken from. If we can't find the source for it, I wouldn't have a problem with removing it or commenting out it (I think it was commented out in earlier revisions, as well). Politizer talk/contribs 20:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just left a message with LedRush asking if he can check the book. I just noticed, though, that pretty much the same statement is included, in a shorter form, in the History section: "Mount Huang was formed approximately 100 million years ago and gained its unique rock formations in the Quaternary Glaciation.[8]" It doesn't mention Mesozoic, but it does say 100 million years ago, so I imagine that stuff is all from the same ref and the [citation needed] could be removed from where it appears earlier; I don't mind waiting a bit, though, to see if LedRush can confirm it for us. Politizer talk/contribs 20:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answers. The issue with the citation appears to be a non-critical item, and I will pass the article regardless. I encourage you to work it out with Led Rush.

I believe there were two sources for the mesozoic, one from a bad chinese website and one from my book, hence the two statements. I can't check until tomorrow though, as my book is at work. I'll check the chinese website (which I think we've removed as a possible source because of possible quality concerns) and report back tomorrow.LedRush (talk) 00:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I checked out my book and it has a cite for everything in the sentence except that 100 million years ago it was indeed the Mesozoic. I don't believe it is original research to state what geologic era it was at a specific time in the past when a reference for that time is provided. However, if we lose the link, I don't think the article suffers too much, so I will defer to the better judgment of more experienced editors.
Finally, so we know how it came about, this statement was included in the stub article before I started to try and make it better, and before Politizer came and really made it better. We had cites for the 100 million bit and I saw through the link that 100 million years ago was indeed the Mesozoic and I thought that the link could only help the article. Anyway, there you go...LedRush (talk) 15:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree...we can accept that 100m years ago was the Mesozoic, so as long as we've got the footnote for 100m years then the whole thing is fine. Thanks for digging up that source! Politizer talk/contribs 15:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on an outstanding article with beautiful photographs. I learned something by reading it. Crystal whacker (talk) 21:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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.

Moved to Huangshan Mountains. The article is mostly about the range as made clear in the first sentence. If the main peak should have its own article, then I would suggest Huangshan Mountain as the best choice to avoid a proposal to move the dab page. Clearly from the discussion and inbound links, Huangshan is the preferred to Huang. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was moved back after the additional discussion below. So the result became no consensus for a move. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mount Huang → Huangshan
  • Huangshan → Huangshan (disambiguation) — per WP:COMMONNAME. Huangshan is a much more common name for this rather well-known mountain range: google books yields 347 hits for "huangshan" + "yellow mountain", vs. 40 for "mount huang" + "yellow". All the other entries at the current disambiguation page are named after the mountains, so the mountain range should be the primary topic. --Yaan (talk) 19:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.
Why was the main article not informed of this beforehand? A discussion with no input, held at a dab page that no one was watching, does not seem like proper procedure to me.
The current title does not make sense with COMMONNAME. In English, I have never heard anyone call this place "Huangshan Mountains". "Mount Huang" and the misnomer "Mount Huangshan" are far more common. It doesn't matter if it's technically a mountain range; what matters is the common name. Please undo the move and allow a real discussion to take place. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as a side note, when you moved th is page and performed the history merge you failed to move the subpages, causing the GA1 link above to become broken. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The dicussion was on the talk page for Mount Huang which was the article proposed for a move. So, I don't understand what part of this discussion was not on the main page. The dab page had a pointer to the discussion. If the issue is dropping the 's' at the end, I'll make that change if you want. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I suppose you're right; your edit summary had given me the impression the discussion was held at the dab page or RM rather than here, but now that I look at the history it seems like it was added here on Nov 27 (which was Thanksgiving holiday in the US, so I must have just not noticed it).
In any case, I don't agree with your choice to move it to "Huangshan Mountains". Nowhere in the discussion did anyone suggest that title, and it has one of the fewest ghits of any of the alternatives. Just Huangshan (and moving the dab page) would have been much better. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So would Huangshan Mountain be better? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, Huangshan Mountain is even less common than the name that was being used originally. The whole move was unnecessary anyway. It should be either "Mount Huang" or just "Huangshan". ("Mount Huangshan" is also used relatively frequently, but is grating to anyone who speaks Chinese.) See below. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Also, I'm not sure the move is necessary at all, as Yaan's proposal is based on misleading statistics. He points out that "Huangshan" has 347 gbooks hits, vs. 40 for "Mount Huang"...but he added extra things to the search. If you search for just Mount Huang, without extra terms, you get about the same number of hits as Huangshan (of what I checked, all but one were about the same topic). So the names are fairly evenly distributed. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll move it back since it appears that there is opposition to the move and close this discussion showing that there was no consensus for a move. If anyone wants to move this, they can open a new discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your understanding. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 01:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proper spelling of Huangshan[edit]

We need to re-open the discussion about the name of this mountain!

According to the Pinyin spelling rules of the 1950s (under Mao), the Chinese 黄山 should be spelled Huang Shan in Pinyin (two separate capitalized words). In English, this would indeed mean Mount Huang or Yellow Mountain or Huang Mountain. The spelling in two words means that shan has its own meaning and is not part of a proper name. The spelling in one word would mean that it is a proper name.

However, this Pinyin spelling rule has never made its way into international conventions. An overwhelming majority is using Huangshan, spelled in one word, both for the prefectural city and for the mountains. See this google trend for Huangshan and Huang Shan or this one for Huangshan and Mount Huang. This clearly shows that Huangshan is generally accepted as the proper name of the mountain and of the city.

I suggest to follow international habits and use the following names here:

For reference, some more google popularity Pinyin spelling checks for two character proper names of mountains and rivers:

You will see that only for Huangshan, there is a clear web vote for spelling in one word. Shenhemu (talk) 07:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I prefer "Huangshan" over "Mount Huang", it's just that the article was already called "Mount Huang" when I got here and it didn't seem like a problem so I let it stay. I think as long as we're not using the deplorable "Mount Huangshan" (which really rubs me the wrong way) we should be fine. Both "Mount Huang" and "Huangshan" are pretty common—common enough that it's hard to make a strong argument for either one using the google test alone.
I'm about to turn Yellow Mountain into a dab page; I just noticed that there's a Yellow Mountain in Montana (the article was created recently) and probably others as well. My intuition is that "Yellow Mountain" still refers to Huangshan most often, but I can't verify that, and don't want to get too greedy with redirecting, so I'm fine with dabbing. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Huangshan is the most commonly used name in English, take a look at most travel books for examples. I also think that the mountain is far more notable than the city and the at Huangshan should be the montain with a dablink to the city's page (AFAIK the city is named after the mountain). What do you guys think? Cheers, — sligocki (talk) 17:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
UNESCO listed the mountain officially under the name Mount Huangshan in 1990. The official English language media of China use either Mount Huangshan or just Huangshan, recently prefering Huangshan (Example at Xinhua). I totally agree that Mount Huangshan sounds awkward, but the Mount Huang we currently use here is much worse. Once again, I strongly vote for Huangshan! Shenhemu (talk) 18:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Huangshan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Huangshan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Huangshan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Huangshan&oldid=1193691165"