Talk:Kunyu Wanguo Quantu

Merge?

Is this the same as Kunyu Wanguo Quantu? Or is the Minnesota copy the only one called the "Impossible Black Tulip"? If all 7 copies are called the "Kunyu Wanguo Quantu" as well as the "Impossible Black Tulip", then perhaps we need to merge the two articles. --PFHLai (talk) 07:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is. A merge of its content here and redirecting that title to Impossible Black Tulip (map) would be appropriate, as they are the English and Pinyin designation of the same thing. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 07:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice article, but I guess "Impossible Black Tulip" is somewhat a rather journalistic expression (a neologism?), rather than a formal historic designation of the map. As far as I know this expression is not seen in historical literature, and it brings zero hits in Google books in association with "map": [1]. The formal, official, name is Kunyu Wanguo Quantu/ 坤輿萬國全圖/ "Map of the Myriad Countries of the World", which I suppose would suggest that everything be merged under Kunyu Wanguo Quantu, with an "Impossible Black Tulip" segment in it, and a redirect from Impossible Black Tulip (map). Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 08:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree. Would have done so earlier but was not aware of Kunyu Wanguo Quantu.

I have already begun merging Kunyu Wanguo Quantu with Impossible Black Tulip but when done will move full merge to Kunyu Wanguo Quantu and put redirect under IBT.

Also KWQ refs have good info to expand article. Feel free to pitch in. Marcus334 (talk) 09:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

This has become quite an amazing article. Congratulations! Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 11:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Just edited it

I just edited the page (to restore the section headings), having glossed over the "don't edit this page" note. Apologies if I've messed anything up. Molinari (talk) 20:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, me too. Sorry, I just changed one word. 204.69.139.16 (talk) 16:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Front page assertion

The front page news post regarding this map says that it is the first Chinese language map to include the Americas. There are theories regarding Zhang He that are considered fringe by most relevant historians that he saw at least the coast of the America's 150 years prior to this. Perhaps then, the statement on the front page shouldn't be so 'definite'.Senor Freebie (talk) 01:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Clarified article to note that it's the first known map. Jpatokal (talk) 01:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

File:坤輿萬國全圖.jpg

A Japanese copy of the original Kunyu Wanguo Quantu.

It appears that this "Unattributed very detailed 2 page colored edition (1604?), copy of 1602 map" is a Japanese export version of the map. There are many annointations in Kana (more specifically, Katakana) outside of the Sinic world, especially around Europe, Russia and the Near East. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

You are right, this is a Japanese copy of the original Chinese map, with Japanese phonetical transcriptions of country names. Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 11:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Now a Featured Image on the Spanish Wikipedia, woo!!! Any chance this might happen here? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 01:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Australia isn't shown on the map.

Australia isn't shown on this map. Should this be included in the article under "Details"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.8.131.221 (talk) 00:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Why? Is it really significant? And we have Terra Australis anyway, which at the time was believed by Europeans to be a large continent, possibly including Australia, shown on the map. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Translation?

Would someone be interested in producing an annotated map with English translations? I would be very interested to see such a map! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.198.148.16 (talk) 02:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

hmm, if that project were text-only, does anyone know if that would go into Wikibooks or Wikisource? English puffmonster (talk) 23:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Ucucha 14:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Kunyu Wanguo Quantu → Kūnyú Wànguó Quántú — New article that omits tone marks per Wikipedia:Naming conventions is correct, but mover and editors of new article ignored {Inuse-section} tag at old article. Old article however, now includes recent changes to new article, but not vice versa.—Marcus334 (talk) 23:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• Unpreferable: I don't see how the inclusion of tone marks improves anything. WP:NC aside, it does look rather odd for an article title. Mao Zedong, Wu Hu, Chunyun, Zhonghua Zihai, Tian yuan shu, Hanyu Da Zidian, Jiandao and Zhonghua minzu all omit tone marks. Why should this one be any different? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:11, 18 January 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sea of Japan naming dispute

Is it really necessary to be bringing the heated dispute over onto here? I don't think that any mention on the dispute is relevant on this article. Sure, the Kunyu Wanguo Quantu can be used as an argument, but keep it on the Dispute article, and not here. It does not belong here, just as how any Joe Bloggs that has shaken hands with Barack Obama does not necessarily warrant a Joe Bloggs section within the Barack Obama article that mentions the event that occurred between Barack Obama and Joe Bloggs. This article should be about the map, and the map only; it should include historical and cultural aspects of the map, but not any political jibber-jabber that is distantly related to the map itself. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 00:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi 李博杰! I agree the paragraph seems unecessarily polemical, but the information that the map mentions the Sea of Japan (for the first time in a map?) is quite interesting however in its own right (I was not aware of it). Best regards Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 07:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

However, the majority of the section deals with what North Korea and South Korea name the body of water in modern times, which is completely unrelated to the topic at hand. Perhaps trim the section down a bit into a single sentence/paragraph, leaving in only information that is directly related to the map, and incorporate it into a larger paragraph/section. We could always do a See also type thing for people after more information regarding the dispute itself. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Great with me. Cheers Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 18:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it's not important enough to include here, and have gone ahead and removed it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kunyu Wanguo Quantu. 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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.grandricci.org/bibliografia_ricci.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100127033250/http://gallery.shapero.com/index.php to http://gallery.shapero.com/index.php

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) 11:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)