Talk:Guangzhou/Archive 4

2011 edition of Eight Sights of Guangzhou not notable[edit]

(I do not accept the translation of "羊城八景" into Eight Views of the Ram City. Nobody uses that. But this is a minor issue.)

I do not believe that the 2011 edition of Eight Sights of Guangzhou meets the bar of notability for inclusion. Other than being the result of a New Express Daily PR stunt, they have not been widely recognized and accepted by the public. The sights that "科城锦绣" and "湿地唱晚" that are referring to may not even be well-understood to local residents.

I think that the list should be removed. Long-recognized sights that warrant inclusion can be integrated in better ways. Kxx (talk | contribs) 16:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not in this article itself, but we can certainly integrate the attractions nevertheless. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 04:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted at the page on lists of 8 sights that are a trope in Chinese culture. No, it doesn't actually merit mention unless it becomes more notable. —

Llywelyn II

14:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boat people?[edit]

The use of "boat people" in the following section seems inconsistent with the definition of boat people. Unless a citation can be provided, I think we should at the very least remove the link, if not the entire sentence. Thoughts?

Communist forces entered the city on October 14, 1949. This led the nationalists to blow up the Haizhu Bridge as the major link across the Pearl River and to the acting president's leaving for New York, whereas Chiang Kai-shek set up the capital for the Nationalist government in Chongqing again. The urban renewal projects of the new communist government improved the lives of some residents. New housing on the shores of the Pearl River provided homes for the poor boat people. Reforms by Deng Xiaoping, who came to power in the late 1970s, led to rapid economic growth due to the city's close proximity to Hong Kong and access to the Pearl River.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fistoffoucault (talk • contribs) 20:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The term "boat People" must be the same term as what we called the 鄧家人. 鄧家人 was used to be the lowest members of the society. What defines 鄧家人 as who they are, was that they do not live on the land in houses, but insed they were forbidden to leave the boats of which were also their home to come ashore. It was used as a method to keep them is their places, that is being the lowest members of the society and prevent them to rise from their proper places. Yes, welcome to the real world. Where some people can be very nasty to some members of their society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.112.99 (talk) 01:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Canton dab for namesakes[edit]

Good call. tho' I'd prefer to see Canton dab'd in the hatnote. --Pawyilee (talk) 15:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete sentence in "Early History" section[edit]

The page October 30 shows that in 758, "Guangzhou is sacked by Arab and Persian pirates." But in this page, "October 30, 758" is mentioned, but the event is omitted. This makes the sentence incomplete. Please add the details. -- Ymir000 (talk) 16:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Translation needed[edit]

Can some please try to translate the following information from http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%B9%BF%E5%B7%9E_(%E5%8F%A4%E4%BB%A3).

广州 (古代)

维基百科，自由的百科全书

广州，是中国古代的一个行政区划，其范围曾覆盖今天的广东、广西两省。

东吴政权分东汉的交州为交、广两州，北部为广州，郡治在番禺（今广州市中心），广州的范围横跨今日广西、广东两省，只有南部今天湛江市（廣州灣）、北海市、玉林市、钦州市范围属于交州，北部桂林市、贺州市、韶关市范围属于荆州。两晋基本沿用了三国建置，但到了南朝后期增设了大量州置，广州的范围也大大缩小。

隋朝废州置郡时，广州成为南海郡。之后唐朝恢复广州之名，但是范围已经缩小到了今天广州、佛山、东莞、清远，以及惠州的部分。此后广州之名一直沿用至今，但是其范围已经与三国、两晋时期的广州有很大的区别。

1368年（明洪武元年）設廣東承宣布政使司於廣州府，位於今日廣州市。

至民國才正式成立廣州市政府，將當時的廣府（現時的廣州老四區）定名為「廣州市」。1949年10月14日，中華人民共和國成立廣州市人民政府。 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.112.99 (talk) 08:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Translation is doable, but references are needed for such additions, which are unclear in the original page. Kxx (talk | contribs) 17:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Historical sites[edit]

"The Muslim's Loyal Trio" are the tombs of Ming loyalist Muslims who were martyred while fighting in battle against the Qing in the Manchu conquest of China. 1. Rajmaan (talk) 06:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Old 'criticism' section[edit]

I have removed the old criticism section under Transport ([1]) since neither (Isidor's Fugue, South China Morning Post (SCMP)) source present corroborated most of the claims on Guangzhou municipal public transport, instead speaking on the Guangzhou–Zhuhai Intercity Railway alone (Isidor's) or high-speed rail (SCMP). In addition, Isidor's Fugue is a self-published website, falling under WP:USERGENERATED. TLA 3x ♭ → ♮ 04:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Population correction ?[edit]

In the second paragraph, it mentioned that the Pearl River Delta has around 44.5 million. When you click the link to go to the Pearl River Delta, that article mentions around 65 million. So which is it, 44.5 million or 65 million people ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gizziiusa (talk • contribs) 05:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gizziiusa:: I can't provide much help as sources differ. I think the definition of the Pearl River Delta varies in different contexts (some may, say, include the entire urban or populated area surrounding the river while others only consider the settlements in proximity to it). Differing sources are something virtually everyone hates to see when editing Wikipedia articles. They damage the already-not-so-accurate information available on the website. Wishva de Silva (talk) 13:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Guangzhou[edit]

What is missing from the recently created city timeline article? Please add relevant content. Contributions welcome. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 17:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Political correctness[edit]

When you are so PC that you can't even name Canton Canton in an English speaking encyclopedia. Jesus Christ. --83.252.99.134 (talk) 07:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide reliable contemporary sources that Canton is its English name today? Certainly it was so historically, but most modern sources I've seen use "Guangzhou". So I'm not seeing any evidence of this being more political correctness. (And am seeing even less of what Jesus Christ has to do with it.) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Photos[edit]

From https://www.tumblr.com/search/artist:%20john%20thomson : Physic Street and Wah Lum Chu, Canton - 1869 John Thomson

http://frostcremation.tumblr.com/post/49022468066/physic-street-and-wah-lum-chu-canton-1869

http://19thcenturyart.tumblr.com/post/28077433837/john-thomson-physic-street-canton-from

http://blog.burnedshoes.com/post/17883230735/johnthomson

http://nativethoughts.tumblr.com/post/15506011034

John Thomson, Wah Lum Chu, Canton, 1869.

http://flashofgod.tumblr.com/post/61481693393

[unsigned]

Is Guangzhou still known as Canton or Kwangchow? I don't think so[edit]

I know the name Canton was commonly used for centuries before the spread of Pinyin, especially in historical foreign media. Pinyin, however, has officially replaced this spelling some ~60 years ago, I have hardly ever heard of this name being used anymore -- currently its only existence are probably just on old maps or the entrance of historical buildings for nostalgia. The other name, Kwangchow (I am not sure but I presume its the Wade–Giles spelling) is something I have NEVER heard of before, even after living nearby for most of my life. I mean, even Hong Kong newspapers in English would probably use Pnyin, at least Jyutpin. So I personally consider this to be VERY biased. Any opinions or suggestions about this? Wishva de Silva (talk) 13:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, it didn't use to say that. It appears that it dates back to this revision. I'm not really a fan of the wording prior to that, "former common romanisation", which just seems to sound a bit wonky to me. Prior to this revision, it said Guangzhou was "historically known as Canton", which seems like good wording to me since it expresses the fact that it was historically the name of the city, and also reflects the fact that some places continue to use the historic name (such as Hotel Landmark Canton and the Canton Tower). So I would favour a return to something along those lines. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Canton" has just been added to the infobox as an "other name". What do we think, is that a good idea? I'm leaning no, that it's not really current enough to be used today. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:50, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Canton" is still an important name in the context of the Opium Wars and the Raj. Its use in this context I think justifies its inclusion on the article to avoid any confusion. Malinion (talk) 11:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely belongs in the article. I'm not so convinced about the infobox, though. I looked at other articles and didn't find similar things; for example, no "Danzig" in the infobox for Gdansk, nor "Leningrad" in the infobox for Saint Petersburg. "Canton" also already has a place in the lede, so it's not like we're completely ignoring it. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:27, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect to Ms/r De Silva's worldliness, Kwangchow is the Postal Map Romanization of Guangzhou and was listed as the "correct" form of the name for both the EB9 and EB11. It belongs in the article whether she has heard of it or not. Now, that said, I'm curious what the official postal map actually used for the city. If it used Canton regardless of its general rules, then Kwangchow belongs in the Chinese infobox but not the lead; if it was the official Postal Map form, it's notable enough to appear in the lead to inform others who similarly haven't yet heard of it but might encounter it in historical documents.

That said, tourist campaign slogans like "City of Flowers" certainly doesn't belong anywhere near the lead. Also Jyutping is not a language and we don't really need to mention Chinese twice... —

Llywelyn II

14:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about removing City of Flowers in the lead, but I've restored the wording "known historically as Canton" rather than "formerly romanized as Canton" as it's more in line with the source. The cited source, Britannica, says "conventional" spelling is Canton, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's still not used. Obviously it's not used as widely as it was before but it is still used (e.g. the annual Canton Fair). Even modern history/non-fiction books that use pinyin for place names will often use older romanisations for places of historical significance in English, including Canton. Spellcast (talk) 08:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When Wikipedia was founded, there were definitely arguments to be had about the COMMON ENGLISH name of Beijing and Guangzhou. I don't think that's the case any more at all. Even Washington and Taipei use Hanyu Pinyin romanizations for most mainland cities (exceptions include Harbin, Urumqi, Kashgar but those aren't Chinese names in the first place). What you're seeing is, essentially, that the people who grew up learning the old forms of those names are dying off. When people say, "I'm going to...", the sentence is going to be Guangzhou, Hangzhou, and Beijing, not Canton, Hangchow, or Peking. Canton, as a name for the city people visit or live in, is a thing of the past.

Now, that said, you have a point about the adjectival uses... but we now have a #Name section to discuss that.

I think "formerly romanized" with a link to the system (Postal Map Romanization) and general field (romanization of Chinese) is far more useful than anything unlinked and nebulous, Mr Laeufer's complaints about "wonkiness" to one side. The problem is [see below]~~that Canton is not a former name. It is a former way for Europeans to write the exact same Chinese name.~~ Once you start clarifying that "...historically known to Europeans as..." or "...also historically known in English as...", that phrasing is far wonkier and "awkwarder" even before getting to the loss of helpful links. Still more damning, in its continued life as an adjective, "Canton" and "Cantonese" don't usually refer to Guangzhou particularly but to all of Guangdong generally. —

Llywelyn II

09:33, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Canton refers primarily to the province? I don't think so. Sure, "Cantonese" is when referring to a language and perhaps a cuisine, but not "Canton" itself, nor is "Cantonese" when used for people. Furthermore, with several editors supporting the use of the word "historically" rather than "formerly", I don't think your edit is in accordance with consensus. Still, the use of a link really does improve things, so I'm going to try a compromise and see if that might hold. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:20, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's establish the wording before deciding on links. I hate splitting hairs on semantics but here we go. If you say Canton is not a former name, we could say "also known as Canton". But that's misleading because it implies Canton is used as much as Guangzhou today but it doesn't seem to be, which you also admit. To me, "known historically as Canton" is more informative than "formerly romanized as Canton" because 1/ It's still used in modern romanisation. In addition to the places/events Heimstern and I gave, the Guangzhou Baiyun International Airport uses the IATA code CAN for the city. (Not the full spelling but it adds to my point about not just being a former romanisation). And 2/ It's self-evident in the wording that "Canton" is an older romanisation . Now you may think you can use the same arguments against my preferred wording by saying "Canton isn't only used historically". Perhaps but I think we can agree that in general, it's overwhelmingly used in a historical context. And 3/ Imagine a new user reading about this city for the first time. The phrases "also known as Canton" and "formerly known as Canton" are too black and white; the former misleadingly implies Canton is used as much as Guangzhou today while the latter implies that it's not used in modern romanisation. But "historically known as" is more nuanced and best encapsulates the balance between being the conventional name and not being a totally unused/dead name that the word "former" would imply. So basically, it communicates everything that "formerly romanised as" does but more. Oh and it complies with what the source actually says ("conventional", with the word "historical" being virtually synonymous in this context).

As for the links, I think having two surprise links is wp:overlinking. Linking to Chinese postal romanization is misleading because the spelling precedes that system by a LONG time. That leaves us with Romanization of Chinese. I'm not saying I'm opposed to links but they're meant to expand or clarify our understanding. And I don't see how a general article on the history of Chinese romanisation helps in our understanding of the etymology behind the word Canton. Only the Name/Etymology section does that in which case we don't need a link but I'm open to suggestions. Spellcast (talk) 14:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are some misconceptions on this thread. Canton is not an older romanisation for Guangzhou, the two terms are romanizations of different words despite both meaning the city. Canton is a romanization of 廣東, which generally refers to the whole province of Guangdong, but in this case it is a short form of 廣東省城, "the provincial capital of Guangdong". The older generation of Cantonese people still refer to Guangzhou as simply "provincial capital" 省城 sometimes. "Guangzhou", is, as you know, a romanisation of 廣州. As such, I have no issue with saying Guangzhou was historically known as Canton. This is not an issue with differing romanizations. _dk (talk) 01:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

a. Linking every word unhelpfully is WP:OVERLINK. Linking things helpfully, neither of which is a surprise, is not overlink but WP:READER service, which shouldn't need reminding but sometimes does.

b. That said, per the sources in the new #Names section, it does seem that Canton was originally based on the province name and therefore not a romanization issue, except insofar as Postal Code formerly made it official. It is now officially Guangzhou to, I believe, every government on Earth. We still mention Canton, but it is not actually current. IATA uses CAN precisely because that airport has 80 years of history and is carrying on its preexisting code.

c. With respect, most of the misconceptions are on Mr Cast's side of the aisle. At best, "historically" is a tony synonym for "formerly"; at worst, it's ambiguous as to whether it means "formerly" (which is being objected to), "based upon its history" (which doesn't apply), or "in historical contexts" (the last of which isn't actually a definition for the word but seems to be what he thinks it means). It's not self evident that Canton has any relation to the Chinese language, and was retained for the Postal Map precisely as a historical exception to the transcription of the Chinese language.

d. If you actually have a source for that derivation of Canton (from 廣東省城), I'd love to add it to the article. I didn't see that myself when I was looking for sourcing one way or the other as to Guangzhou/Guangdong and, while I ended with adding the M-W cite, I don't actually trust them much. The OED dodges the whole issue and leaves the etymology of Cantonese as "from Canton".

e. If you guys are actually watching the page and have enough time to bicker about this at paragraph length... could I note that it's much more productive to actually do something productive like the Name section I added, the expansion of history I'm doing, the picture formatting and proofreading I went through? I'm not saying you have to do the whole page: just finding one better source or one additional fact is great. But edit warring over misunderstood definitions of words and removing links and adding nothing to the article while you do... I mean, why do that? If expanding the text of this article isn't interesting, go find another one to love on. If you really get your rocks off on grammar and formatting issues, go over to WP:MOS and establish a consensus there that's binding on everyone and more lasting and productive than the three of us bickering at each other. —

Llywelyn II

16:45, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's true the previous citation didn't support the 'former' status of "Canton", though. How does this compromise look? It seems to address everyone's concerns, including continuing minor use of "Canton". —

Llywelyn II

08:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) A response came 2 weeks after my comment, so I wasn't aware of the recent edits. Expanding articles is all well and good but has no bearing on the merits of the arguments. The recent "formerly and informally known as Canton" is self-contradictory. It should be as least convoluted as possible. Like Underbar dk (talk · contribs), I too support "known historically as Canton", which is what I put in this article in 2011 and has been the stable wording until recently. Heimstern (talk · contribs) also favoured that wording and the only reason he put "historically romanised as Canton" was in response to LlywelynII (talk · contribs) changing it to "formerly". But no other editor has yet supported "formerly". I welcome more third party opinions regardless. The "conventional" vs. "historical" meaning is way overthinking it. Like I said, historically has that extra little nuance that formerly doesn't have. You call it ambiguous but it's only the first sentence. You're trying to make a black and white statement on something that isn't. That's why there's a name section. I could easily find a source saying "historically" (just as you can easily find one saying "formerly" or "also known as", which is why there has to be compromise). That being said, I wouldn't mind saying known/romanised "conventionally as Canton" or "conventional: Canton" to use the exact Britannica wording. I suspect those who support "historically" would also support "conventional". But what's clear is that "formerly" has no consensus. Also, deciding how much a name/spelling is still used seems anecdotal to some extent. IMO, I wouldn't put Canton in the same category of unused names/spellings that other Chinese places may have. The Encyclopedia of China: History and Culture (2013 ed.) has "formerly known as" in its entries for Beijing (Peking), Nanjing (Nanking), and Xiamen (Amoy), but "also known as Canton" for Guangzhou. Maybe one day Guangzhou will overtake Canton to the extent Beijing has over Peking, especially when describing (pre-pinyin) history, but right now that doesn't seem to be the case. Spellcast (talk) 10:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the lede says "traditionally romanised as Canton", with "traditionally" linking to Chinese postal romanization. From the above discussion it seems that neither is Canton the Postal name or rendering of Guangzhou, nor is Canton a romanization of Guangzhou at all (it is of Guangdong). Why not just say "traditionally known as Canton", without any misleading wikilinks?--88.73.41.45 (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The tens of thousands of foreign residents included multiple women over the course of two centuries"[edit]

Eh, seriously? I know someone apparently went to some trouble to find sources individually mentioning them, but doesn't that go without saying? A community of a few thousand merchants might possibly be exclusively male but beyond that, of course some are bringing wives, daughters, &c. Pending something they actually did or some cultural importance they actually had, is there any reason to mention this at all except possibly at Islam in China or the historical section of Demographics of China? — $Llywelyn II$ 00:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, the overview of Christians in Guangzhou is not at all the place for details about the curriculum and alumni of a single medical school simply because it was founded by a woman. A single link more than suffices. — $Llywelyn II$ 03:57, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ENGVAR[edit]

This edit used American English but the article was still pretty stubby. This was the first edit to clearly use one form of English once the article was fleshed out and that was British English. Kindly maintain it pending a new consensus to the contrary. Probably just as well, since the region's English speakers are still likely to be influenced by Hong Kong. [FWIW, though, a lot of the Guangzhou placename links seem to use American spellings. If the city's administration has a preference one way or the other (as in their metro system), we should adjust the article to that.] — $Llywelyn II$ 10:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Canton" in infobox[edit]

Unlike other Chinese cities, "Canton" is still occasionally used to refer to this city in Modern English. In addition, the term "Cantonese" is still the only word used in English for describing things that come from this city and province. Therefore, I have put "Canton" as the "other_name" in the infobox. This is the same thing that is done for Bombay/Mumbai and Calcutta/Kolkata. Genealogizer (talk) 23:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed before with both opposition and support materializing, and I'm not sure consensus ever developed either way. I'm curious what the rationale the editors at Mumbai and Kolkata had for including that as another name. We certainly don't do so consistently on Wikipedia, with no sign of "Danzig" in the article Gdansk. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that Danzig was renamed Gdansk because of a change in which country owned the city. Canton is usually but not always called Guangzhou now because of a change in the way Chinese is romanized into English. Also, Canton was more common than Guangzhou until 1983, and they were pretty much tied until 2001. "Danzig" has been rare outside of historical contexts since 1945. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genealogizer (talk • contribs) 23:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Same can be said about Beijing there are many things that are still refer as Peking (Peking opera, Peking duck, Peking University, Peking Man). However, the city is still known as Beijing in modern English not Peking same for Guangzhou. — ASDFGH =] ^talk? 02:25, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike Beijing, "Canton" is still occasionally used to reference this city in modern English. See this article, which uses "Canton" and "Beijing" in the same sentence. It doesn't really hurt to have "Canton" in the infobox, and given that it is still used on occasion, it is a good idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genealogizer (talk • contribs) 22:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks!!![edit]

You have all three maps at the beginning permanently open! That is absolutely correct! Some hyper-morons in other pages pretend to know programming by forcing us to play with on/off buttons to "select" maps! This is undebatably a mistake! Map information must be open! Unreasonable infantilism should be avoided! Please correct the other pages! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4104:E700:D4B:7BB6:9607:F611 (talk) 00:13, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MOS-ZH[edit]

Per our Chinese manual of style, we should not clutter the lead with foreign language text and incomprehensible IPA where infoboxes are already providing all the needful information in an easier and less obtrusive way. All the more so where we have 5+ fields of information being used, all of which just repeats the two infoboxes. Kindly maintain the page's proper formatting against well-meaning but unhelpful editors who will doubtlessly restore it. — $Llywelyn II$ 07:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "should not clutter the lead with foreign language text and incomprehensible IPA where infoboxes are already providing all the needful information in an easier and less obtrusive way", does that mean we'd better use "Guangdong" rather than "Canton"？ Jiao0052 (talk) 05:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Guangzhou. 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) 21:21, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Guangzhou. 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) 12:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cantonese spelling should be shown fairly without doubt[edit]

@CaradhrasAiguo: Accroding toWP:VNOTSUFF,consensus of the Cantonese'voice in mainland facing should cut down should determine that the article must have the information shown the difference between differnt languages in names.All other Wiki USERS should realize that have been misled IN THE NAMES OF THE CANTONESE PLACES by the media under the CCP courtal for years.Amendtion might help the readers comprehend the realty in the way of spelling of the local language used old days that more close to the original voice.——Longway22 (talk) 02:27, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Guangzhagou" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Guangzhagou. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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:

China-guangzhou-blue-sky.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Beijing Skyline.webp

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Montage Update[edit]

I think it's time for a montage update. I can't help to notice that all of the images in the current infobox montage (except for the lead image) is from 10-15 years ago. The pano underneath the lead image is even missing the recently completed CTF Centre and as a result, does not accurately show the current state of the major city and should be removed. Anybody have suggestions? ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 20:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Urban mass transit update[edit]

The article mentions that Guangzhou has 13 lines, but after the opening of Line 18 on September 28, 2021, the metro network is made up of 15 lines， covering a total length of 589.4 kilometers. I think it needs to be updated. — Yujun Chen (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Canton (Canton)" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Canton (Canton) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 19#Canton (Canton) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA22 - Sect 201 - Thu[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 September 2022 and 8 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SheilaSh11 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by SheilaSh11 (talk) 17:51, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]