Talk:Erhai Lake

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stub[edit]

I made this into a stub, so do not delete. Danny 00:27, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1[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 by someone else to a different name. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Er → Er Lake — per adjusted WP:NC-ZH, Category:Lakes of China. --TrueColour (talk) 17:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: per comments in discussion I moved "Lake Er" -> "Erhai Lake". This also is the pre January 2009 name. No admin needed for this move since it is simply a revert and the old page was not edited. "Lake Er", "Er Lake" was unwanted in discussion. So return to term "Erhai". Put lake at end, per WP:NC-ZH, see Category:Lakes of China TrueColour (talk) 20:17, 29 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.

note on name of article[edit]

Note: If the name of the article keeps like this then the sentence A commonly-seen mistranslation is Erhai Lake is really contradictory. --katpatuka 13:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katpatuka (talk • contribs)

Requested move #2[edit]

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page not moved: no consensus Ground Zero | t 15:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Erhai Lake → Erhai – WP:NCPLACE: "Rivers, lakes and mountains often include the word River, Lake or Mount in the name; national conventions and idiom should be followed in this matter... For many countries the additional word is used when needed for disambiguation purposes, but is otherwise omitted: compare Jade (river) or Achelous River (which require disambiguation) with Rhine (which does not)." The national convention in China is to call it "Erhai", that's it. The "hai" part means "Sea", and if you scroll above and read the previous move proposal you'd see that some people believe that "Erhai Lake" is a tautology. WP:ZH-NC#Place Names specifies "Avoid tautologies." The problem is avoided by removing the word "Lake". Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 13:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC) Timmyshin (talk) 19:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment it's not actually duplication, "hai" has no meaning in English, so cannot be excessive duplication, as it would require "hai" to be an English word. There is no actual problem since "hai" isn't an English word, and as it isn't a sea, that's not a problem either. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course "Hai" is not an English word, but it means "Sea" in English. Why else do you think there is a guideline of "avoid tautologies" in WP:ZH-NC#Place Names? Having an English word repeated twice is not the only form of duplication. Regarding the argument that it isn't a sea, well, what is Dead Sea? Would you think it's OK to call it "Dead Sea Lake"? Timmyshin (talk) 05:00, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commetn Ghits: erhai lake 95.7k; lake erhai 13.8k; lake er 79.1k; er lake 58k; erhai 107k; In the 5 years since the last move request, usage seems to have shifted a bit. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided. WP:CONCISE seems to suggest "move". But WP:CONSISTENCY says not to. I'm fascinated and will post this to WT:AT. Red Slash 03:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I've said it before, and will say it again: concise is not the same as short. The title needs to convey at least something about the subject of the article. "Erhai" conveys nothing by itself. Omnedon (talk) 03:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • And why doesn't Erhai convey anything by itself? WP:NC on recognizability: "The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize." By your logic, Category:Heat shock proteins need the word "protein" appended to all their titles and that's clearly ridiculous. Timmyshin (talk) 04:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't convey anything to most readers of the English Wikipedia. Even if a reader is familiar with lakes, or lakes in China, that doesn't mean s/he will know the language. And no, that's not clearly ridiculous. Please be civil. Omnedon (talk) 12:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you don't wish to cater to most readers of the English Wikipedia, on the English Wikipedia? Titles need to convey something to the reader about the subject of the article. "Erhai Lake" does so. Omnedon (talk) 00:52, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's correct, because "most readers of the English Wikipedia" are not going to surf to the page, only a tiny fraction will, like the majority of the articles. Those who surf to the page will recognize it, as the title follows both the WP:NC "recognizability" and WP:NCPLACE guidelines. Again, if the English word "Lake" doesn't appear in the titles of Continental European lakes there's no reason to force it in "Erhai" either. Timmyshin (talk) 20:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You do not know who will view this article. The title needs to convey, by itself, at least something about what the article is about. "Erhai" does not. "Erhai Lake" does. Omnedon (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The proposed title would be less recognizable to readers. Lakes, rivers, mountains, etc, are best named as comma lake, river, mountain, etc. Even without noting ambiguity with Erhai Park. Regarding "WP:CONCISE", that would be an over-reading of the term. If "hai" were to be considered a problem tautological repetition with "lake" (but argued against by 65.94.169.222), then rename to "Er Lake", but "Erhai Lake" is an excellent title. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is about WP:NCPLACE not WP:Concise. FYI the Danish page uses "Erhai", while the German, Dutch and Polish pages all use "Er Hai". Either way is better than "Erhai Lake", which could easily be "Lake Erhai" or "Lake Er" or "Er Lake". As far as "Erhai Park" goes, it is part of "Erhai", the argument that it makes "Erhai" ambiguous is almost like arguing that the word "City" to be added to "Houston" just because there is a "Houston Zoo". Timmyshin (talk) 04:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If "Erhai Park" is part of "Erhai", then "hai" is not meaning "lake. It's like naming something "New York City" just because there is a "New York State". "Lake" should stay in the title. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fail to follow the logic here. "Hai" means "Sea", a similar term to "Lake". What does "Erhai Park" being part of "Erhai" have to do with that? Also the meaning of your second sentence is unclear to me. Timmyshin (talk) 08:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Erhai means Er Lake, or Er Sea, there must be some subtlety here. I think I prefer to see Erhai over Er Lake. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move #3[edit]

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Close as disruptive; moratorium on move discussions for three months. A move proposed by the same user was closed less than twelve hours earlier. Although consensus can change, constantly re-opening discussion at such a rate is disruptive. If people disagree with the outcome of an RM they can seek review at Wikipedia:Move review. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Erhai Lake → Erhai – I'm sorry but I have to relist since none of the opposers of the previous discussion based their opinion on any of the established guidelines and policies, #1 WP:NCPLACE: "Rivers, lakes and mountains often include the word River, Lake or Mount in the name; national conventions and idiom should be followed in this matter... For many countries the additional word is used when needed for disambiguation purposes, but is otherwise omitted: compare Jade (river) or Achelous River (which require disambiguation) with Rhine (which does not)." #2 WP:NC-ZH: "Avoid tautology", and #3 WP:NC: "The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize." This is not about WP:CONCISE but rather on the policies I quoted. Google Maps use "Erhai": [2]. Brittanica uses "Lake Er", also mentioning "Er Hai" or "Erh Hai". "Erhai Lake" is clearly a tautology (as "hai" means "sea") and should not be used, just like European lakes Spaneggsee, Talalpsee, Walensee or Tissø, Arresø, Mossø omit the word "Lake" in their titles when "see" or "sø" have the same etymology as "sea". We can't have double standards on WP. Timmyshin (talk) 01:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • This has already been discussed, and the discussion was closed less than 24 hours ago. Please let it go. Omnedon (talk) 01:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? The current title is following neither WP:NCPLACE nor WP:NC-ZH#Place names and it's only reasonable to try one's best to correct it. You can continue to oppose it, since that's allowed by WP, and you may again prevail maybe even a few times, but one day it will be moved, as you will see. Timmyshin (talk) 02:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? Because it's already been discussed extremely recently. Give it time before opening this again. Omnedon (talk) 02:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm unaware of any requirement to wait. If there is and it's clearly stated, I will gladly follow it and withdraw. But if there isn't, then I have to question why you are so afraid of me opening another discussion. Nobody has asked you to join it either. Timmyshin (talk) 02:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Afraid? Why are you so personally aggressive in these discussions? Constantly re-opening RMs in the hopes that you'll get the result you want is not how this works. There is no consensus to move this page. Omnedon (talk) 02:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please respect the traditional 2 month wait for renominating after a "no consensus" discussion. You may be right, but don't bludgeon. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm unaware of this policy. Please direct me to the page stating that requirement. Timmyshin (talk) 02:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't on a single page anywhere because there are varying contexts for wait 2 months 6 months etc. But now you do know. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I started (July 2012) a very closely related essay: Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion. The six month timeframe has been around undocumented, inconsistently enforced, for years. Two months has been mentioned with respect to AfD for "no consensus" closes, and seems an appropriate conservative minimum for RM "no consensus" results. Maybe this discussion will provide impetus to get minimums waits properly documented, depending on how this discussion goes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Lake Erhai in China collapsed [ecologically] sooner than most observers expected"[edit]

The Guardian has an article (22-June_2023) which mentions an ecological collapse of the Lake as an established fact (and important sudden event). The Wikipedia article mentions some changes in the range of fish species present, but nothing tht sounds like what the Guardian is referring to.

It's possible, perhaps, tht what our article records is the same event? - but if so, and the Guardian article is from any sort of true-&-fair stance, our article is severely deemphasising it and needs a very different POV.

Anyone know anything about this? feel able to update our article? 84.9.119.66 (talk) 23:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I should also have said this: the same Guardian article also says, further on, "Lake Erhai .. has shown signs of recovery". So maybe there's a whole story to tell. It needs telling. 84.9.119.66 (talk) 23:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Erhai_Lake&oldid=1201792730"