Talk:Zhusuan

Requested move 29 November 2016

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. There does not appear to be consensus for a move at this point, and it appears that several things need to be worked out before this can be moved. The proposed target, Zhusuan, redirects to Suanpan, which states at the top, "not to be confused with Zhushan or Chinese Zhusuan." The nomination statement points to WP:CONCISE, but it appears that moving this would only make things more confusing. (non-admin closure) Bradv 02:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

---

Chinese Zhusuan → Zhusuan – WP:CONCISE. Timmyshin (talk) 20:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Bradv 02:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose As per article title policy, "Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject." All the UNESCO documents cited in the article, including the Nomination File for Inscription on the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity prepared by the authorities in China, refer to the article's subject as "Chinese Zhusuan" and state that it is the official name of the element. So it is appropriate that the present title be retained. Krishnachandranvn (talk) 00:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

• You wrote the article and you yourself used the short form throughout the article. Timmyshin (talk) 06:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment there is already a redirect in place at Zhusuan that is redirecting to Suanpan. So are you suggesting that it should redirect to this content, or be merged into Suanpan or ?? Tiggerjay (talk) 21:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
• Comment and tentative support I'm wondering here if Zhusuan and Suanpan are actually two different names for the same thing? This source suggests so: [1] If so, this should be a merger rather than a move. I'm inclined to support the move per WP:CONCISE as plenty of sources don't say "Chinese" and it's probably used by UNESCO as a clarifying adjective rather than part of the proper name for this.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• Technically "Zhusuan" means "using the suanpan to calculate". So the two words are related like cycling and bicycle. Timmyshin (talk) 05:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: It was not a case of UNESCO choosing the name, but a case of Chinese authorities naming it that way. Krishnachandranvn (talk) 14:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose first work out what to with redirect in place at Zhusuan that is redirecting to Suanpan. As for keeping China, seems to be how English sources describe it. Not surprisingly Zhongguo zhusuan is also the term in Chinese. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support per nom's clarification. SSTflyer 11:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

• Could you please clarify what was "per nom's clarification"? Krishnachandranvn (talk) 15:20, 18 December 2016 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Thanks

Thanks to all who showed the patience to carefully assess the article. Krishnachandranvn (talk) 06:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 21 February 2024

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: moved. – robertsky (talk) 07:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

---

Chinese Zhusuan → Zhusuan – Unnecessary disambiguator, consistent with all other articles with Chinese terms for names Remsense诉 20:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). EdJohnston (talk) 01:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Adumbrativus (talk) 02:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

There was a previous move discussion back in 2016 which ended with no consensus to move. It's my impression that some things may have changed since then, so a new look is worthwhile. EdJohnston (talk) 01:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Sure thing, thank you! Remsense诉 01:52, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject China has been notified of this discussion. Remsense诉 04:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Essentially, the only previous argument is that UNESCO has a particular designator for the term, which totally ignores historical Chinese use of the term, and frankly also common sense outside of the concept of a database of intangible heritage. If this UNESCO label were the only English name (it's not) , I would consider this to be a clear exception to WP:COMMONNAME, just because of how unnecessary and unnatural the phraseology is. Either zhusuan or Chinese calculation (etc.), this phraseology does not exist with other cultural activities.

References

Remsense诉 04:18, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Support - "Chinese" cannot be justified for disambiguation purposes. I think in other articles linking to this article, we would often write "Chinese Zhusuan" (or "Chinese abacus", or whatever), but that in no way justifies "Chinese" in the article title. -- Similarly, the article Soroban is not called "Japanese Soroban"!Nø (talk) 10:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

But see next talk section (about merging with Suanpan) too; it would make sense to settle taht first! Nø (talk) 12:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support, seems like common sense. Use the natural, concise term. A quick search on Google Books and Google Scholar shows plenty of sources that just say "zhusuan" instead of the phrase "Chinese zhusuan". —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support. But as per below (and above), I think we should merge this into Suanpan. As such, the only reason to move is so that the history is kept at a slightly better location.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
• Relisting comment: The RM and merge are closely related. It seems a consensus is likely, but Talk:Suanpan first got notified less than a day ago, so I'll let it have some more time. Adumbrativus (talk) 02:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merge with Suanpan?

I think having two separate articles, Zhusuan (or, for the time being, Chinese Zhusuan) for Chinese abacus arithmetics, and Suanpan for the device, is needless; I think they should be merged into one article. Not sure what the title should be, though. Nø (talk) 10:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support. I was thinking this also, but I didn't want to suggest it before the move, I guess because I'd at least have that than neither. Remsense诉 11:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support. As I noted in 2016, they appear to be heavily related concepts, and the article here isn't long enough to make me think it needs to be separate. This makes the above RM irrelevant. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
• Comment @Remsense: @Amakuru: My post did not specify whether the merge should be one way the other. I have known the word Suanpan for ages (I have one hanging on the wall in my IT office, for emergencies ;-) ), where as Zhusuan is new to me - so I'd go with Suanpan. That's not much of an argument, but here's a slightly better one: There are 30+ times as many google hits on Suanpan. Do you agree that merging Zhusuan into Suanpan (and redirecting, of course) would be the obvious choice? Nø (talk) 08:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
• For future editors: If you add a Support (or Oppose), please also state what name you think the one article should have. Nø (talk) 08:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
• This seems like a sensible merger proposal. I think it is more natural to have the subject of the article be the device, with a section on the skill, rather than vice-versa. --JBL (talk) 20:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support a merge of this article into suanpan. —  AjaxSmack  02:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)