Talk:Hsinchu

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

population[edit]

article claims population of 21 million???

Are you sure??

Goodralph 20:14, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

lol answering this question from 2 years ago. It was probably a typo. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites)  03:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hsinpu[edit]

Is this where Hsinpu is located? (Where Hsinpu dried persimmons are produced?) Badagnani 03:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hsinpu (also Sinpu, Xinpu) is a rural town approx. 10km Northeast of Hsinchu. It is known for fruit growing. [Frank, 28.Oct.2008] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.248.183.66 (talk) 07:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology[edit]

Does it mean "new bamboo"? This should be added. Badagnani (talk) 08:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Literally, yes, but not in any meaningful sense. It's the new territory based at the old "[town of] the Bamboo Barriers" (Zhuqian).
Now, History of Hsinchu claims that this transcribes an aboriginal word meaning "seashore" but a it doesn't have a source; b it doesn't say which aboriginal language this supposedly was or c the actual form of the word in the supposed original language; and d it says the entire town was surrounded by bamboo groves and fortifications used for defense, which pretty well supports the idea that the name was Hokkien/Chinese and meant exactly what it said on the tin. — LlywelynII 14:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hsinchu or Xinzhu. I added the alternative name for information only[edit]

I added the alternative name for information only. Xinzhu is Hanyu Pinyin, is now one of the standards in Taiwan and is often used to romanise 新竹 (Hsinchu) (alternative). --Atitarev (talk) 05:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's already in the article. Look a couple spaces to the right. and refer to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (China-related articles)--Jiang (talk) 14:49, 30 April 2008 (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.

The result of the proposal was not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 08:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Xinzhu District → Xinzhu City — Either go with Huayu pinyin or back to its former name but not "Xinzhu District" because it is a city not a district.
— ASDFGH =] talk? 02:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Close. I can't cite it now, but Hsinchu is one of the cities that keeps its Wade-Giles spelling due to its prominence (cf. Taipei, Kaohsiung). — AjaxSmack 06:46, 11 July 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.

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Kaohsiung which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source[edit]

Hi,

I try doing research of the investments that the government did in the Hsinchu Science park and related insititutions like the ITRI. The article says 31 billion but where is the source of this number? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.75.182.176 (talk) 14:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 November 2019[edit]

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Next time anyone wants to move six different articles, try to have a nomination statement at least six words long. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 23:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


– WP:PRECISION. Ythlev (talk) 07:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC) —Relisting. Colin M (talk) 20:54, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. The proposed names are counter to common English usage, i.e. cities are no usually appended while counties are (e.g. [1] [2]) —  AjaxSmack  00:58, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @AjaxSmack: That's not true. This source uses "Hsinchu" in title but actually refers to Hsinchu County. These sources [3] use "Hsinchu City", therefore using "X City" by no means violate WP:UCRN. I should also point out that county-administered cities (e.g. Pingtung City) use "X City" except for Miaoli and Changhua, so there is a lack of consistency too. Ythlev (talk) 13:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. If there are no ambiguity, then we shall use the shorter name, thus "New Taipei City" shall be "New Taipei", same like the other municipalities in Taiwan (e.g. "Kaohsiung", "Taichung" etc). For "Hsinchu", I have to say it is better to rename it to "Hsinchu City" because we have "Hsinchu County" name also, which can create ambiguity, so same goes in this case for "Chiayi", "Miaoli" and "Changhua". Many articles about companies in Hshinchu, they said they are located in "Hsinchu" (thus I assume it is Hsinchu City), but they also include the township location (thus I definitely know they are located in Hsinchu County (which consists of townships), not Hsinchu City (which consists of districts)). For "Yunlin County", a bit similar to New Taipei, since there are no other article that uses the name Yunlin, then we can safely shorten it to become "Yunlin", same like "Kinmen" (instead of "Kinmen County"). One more for "Taoyuan, Taiwan", I suggest to have it changed to "Taoyuan City" (for standardization naming and its direct translation from its full official name in zh-tw (桃園市)), not "Taoyuan" only, because there is "Taoyuan District". Lastly, please try not to use the argument of common English usage because there is no exact term derived from that. A common English usage probably will refer the "United States" as "America" (which is technically wrong), refer "Netherlands" as "Holland" (which is technically and geographically wrong), refer "United Kingdom" as "England" (which is geographically wrong) and refer "South Korea" as "Korea" (which is also geographically wrong also). Again, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (with precise and technically-correct naming terms), not a tourism guide book (using "tourist-friendly" naming terms). Chongkian (talk) 02:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So which part do you oppose? Ythlev (talk) 03:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ya, looks like I agree to all of those suggestions ~ :P Chongkian (talk) 04:06, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for nominator: for the first 4 moves, is it your intention that the old name redirects to the new title? e.g. that Changhua redirects to Changhua City rather than a disambiguation page? Colin M (talk) 20:58, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, because they are ambiguous names. Ythlev (talk) 01:06, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By default if (let's say) we type 'Changhua', then it should be the ambiguity page, e.g. Did you mean 'Changhua City' or 'Changhua County'. More or less it should be like that. Chongkian (talk) 04:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, like Hualien. Ythlev (talk) 16:35, 26 November 2019 (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 December 2019[edit]

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:43, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


– Based on WP:PRECISION, as these name can mean the city or county. These names should be disambuguation pages. Ythlev (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC) —Relisting. SITH (talk) 13:01, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Even if we take it for granted that Hsinchu County is commonly referred to as just "Hsinchu", the pageviews suggest that the city would still qualify as primary for the name. Generally, I think the nomination would benefit from more data to establish the WP:COMMONNAME / WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for each of these cases. Colin M (talk) 00:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You've made the wrong comparison. "Hsinchu" is more general so of course it would get more views. WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY: the exact title of a page or a redirect. You need to compare "Hsinchu City" with "Hsinchu County". The county has more views, but really neither are primary. Ythlev (talk) 00:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The goal is to measure interest in topics, not terms. 4-5x as many users are viewing the article about the city as are viewing the article about the county. Even if 100% of users searching for information about the county search for "Hsinchu" rather than "Hsinchu County", those false positives would still make up a tiny percentage of the Hsinchu page views, since most page views on Wikipedia originate from the user clicking a link (either from another article, or from an external site such as a search engine), not from Wikipedia's search function. Colin M (talk) 01:16, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The goal is to measure usage amounts in general, not just on Wikipedia. A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is more likely than all the other topics combined to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. The term is often used to refer to the broad area rather than any specific administrative division, e.g. Hsinchu Industrial Park. That usage combined with the county is more than Hsinchu City. Not to mention your argument for sure doesn't apply to Changhua and Miaoli. Ythlev (talk) 03:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I haven't presented evidence to oppose the other moves. But you haven't provided evidence to support those other moves. IMO, as nominator, there's an onus on you to provide evidence in your nom that the moves are required by policy. You didn't provide any page views, ngrams, or other evidence of RS usage. The RM you opened 2 weeks prior for the same set of moves was closed with a comment that specifically noted the brevity of the nomination rationale. I looked into the pageviews for one of these moves, and found that, IMO, the threshold for primary topic is not met. My default is to also oppose the others, since it seems like due diligence hasn't been done on the set as a whole (or that we're working from irreconcilably different interpretations of WP:PRIMARY). Colin M (talk) 06:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Colin M, while its true that we do disambiguate by default when there are 2 or more topics that are full matches for a term, as noted the counties get less views [[4]] and they look to be sub topics of the cities (similar to Fareham/Borough of Fareham and Gloucester/Gloucestershire) so WP:DABCONCEPT could apply since the counties are linked at the top of the articles anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:06, 17 December 2019 (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.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hsinchu&oldid=1194082594"