Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China/Chinese-language entertainment/Archive 1

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Welcome to the Modern Chinese music talk page!

Before you comment:

Don't

1. Talk about why certain artists suck or why they're the most awesomest things in the world
2. Ask whether or not certain rumours are true.
3. Openly insult other editors, etc.

Instead

1. Discuss naming conventions - things like Taiwan vs. ROC.
2. Ask for help
3. Talk about collaborating, etc.

To Do:

• Find out how to archive talk pages like for WikiProject China.

Video Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China/Chinese-language entertainment/Archive 1

Introducing Rock in China / Collaborating

Hi, I'm Azchael of www.rockinchina.com and I became recently aware of this WikiProject about Chinese modern music. I myself am hosting a wiki system dedicated to Chinese rock music, actually all kind of Chinese underground music:

http://wiki.rockinchina.com

It is by far the largest English language page in the web about Chinese rock and heavily edited by me and our staff. We are independent and this is a spare-time project of ours without sponsoring of any specific preferences, except our own musical taste, in which we like to add more bands than in other genres.

I know that most bands we feature are by far no famous enough to be included into Wikipedia and I see our own project as an extension to the Wikipedia knowledge. E.g. Having extended knowledge about Cui Jian and also featuring everything we know about Yaksa or Cold Fairyland. We also used information for e.g. Tang Dynasty or Xu Wei from Wikipedia and think of it as a mutual collaboration, exchanging knowledge!

Therefore I'd like to welcome everyone to visit our wiki system, have a look around and either use the knowledge there for the Wikipedia, or vice-versa add your knowledge into our system, for it is the first reference at the moment, when looking for English info on Chinese rock, punk, metal or electro music.

--Azchael (talk) 12:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Maps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China/Chinese-language entertainment/Archive 1

user infobox

Is there a user infobox (i.e.

) for this WikiProject?

82nigiri 23:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I can whip one out by tomorrow. Stay tuned. Arsonal 23:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

You should have put Faye's face on it! Because as we all know, she is the reigning queen of Chinese pop. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, clearly. (rolls eyes) Haha. Pandacomics 19:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Arsonal for the infobox! Shuttlecockfc 01:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

ROC vs. Taiwan

While it is true that the ROC is used on all formal documents (e.g. passport), I think Taiwan is fine for music. Reasons:

• Most people prefer to say "Taiwan" instead of "R-O-C." It's the same reason why people say "China" instead of "P-R-C" or "People's Republic of China."
• Taiwanese people say they are from "Taiwan." I've NEVER heard a Taiwanese say "I'm from R-O-C" or "I'm ROC-ese." It's just not right.
• The ROC *beep* (I won't get into the legal status of it, as that will violate the neutral political status rule).
• The PRC replaced the ROC, which therefore doesn't legally exist (i think).

82nigiri 23:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually it does. When Chiang fled to Taiwan, the Republican government was moved with him and, as you well know, Chiang set up his government on the island of Taiwan. In the meantime, Mao, seeing that the seat of government in mainland China was vacant (because of Chiang's departure), set up his CCP government. In this respect, the ROC wasn't replaced, but rather, it moved its seat of government. As for legally existing, even today, both regimes continue to co-exist under incredible amounts of friction and political tension. Pandacomics 01:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm going to apply the Stalin rule here. I'm pretty sure the Georgians back then didn't say that they were USSR-ian. They probably said they were from Georgia, but yet they're from (insert city here), USSR, simply because that's how the political entity was known then. Similarly, going back further, people probably didn't say they were from the Napoleonic Empire, they probably said they were French. Or Italian. And having both names is to be fair to both sides, plain and simple. You can disagree, and I can disagree with whatever pro-TI standpoint you may have. But again, Wikipedia is not a place to push viewpoints. Our project isn't a place to push viewpoints. It's a place to improve articles on artists, plain and simple. Pandacomics 00:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Funny you should mention it. I was actually looking this up on Wikipedia's consensus on the ROC today. The problems we've been having with this issue is what to put on the Origin field for an artist's infobox. Some people have been reverting all the entries that have  Republic of China (Taiwan) to Taiwan. Wikipedia's consensus states that "Republic of China (Taiwan)" or "Taiwan (Republic of China)" is preferred "when identifying nationality or origin". However, this may get confused with the consensus stating that Taiwan is preferred when indicating birthplace. Many artists in the Taiwanese market are not born in Taiwan, thus they would get the ROC origin field, while artists born in Taiwan will be given Taiwan. It just gets confusing.

But the consensus that Pandacomics and I have come to is to use "ROC (Taiwan)" in the origin regardless because we are not using the birthplace field. Artists not from Taiwan will use the country name of wherever they were born or are a citizen of. The main text of the articles actually uses "Taiwan" over "ROC" because of "referring to an article or subject specific to the island of Taiwan", particularly the music industry. Arsonal 00:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh jeez. More cross-straits issues. Seems like they are everywhere sometimes. Hopefully it won't be a big problem for this new WikiProject. Nice work starting it up, by the way! Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Cantopop WikiProject proposal

Just a note - not sure if everybody is aware, but there is a current WikiProject proposal for a Cantopop WikiProject. I just left a message there to say that it may not be necessary anymore.[1] Cheers. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Haha, that was ages ago. Smcafirst has since hopped on board. Pandacomics 06:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

External links to sites with lyrics

I've been told in the past that links to sites with lyrics are against Wikipedia policy, because those sites violate copyright. Links to official sites would be OK, so would links to English translations and perhaps pinyin versions, but not pages with Chinese lyrics. You may need to revise the advice on the project page in the light of this. - Fayenatic london (talk) 22:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get to this yet. There's been an IP user who's been giving external links to pinyinized lyrics, so I think that's a fine alternative, since the pinyin is clearly a derivative work. Pandacomics 12:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

src: i1.wp.com

Record labels

It states to give award shows, musical genres, and notable singing contests Top importance, but what about record labels? Contests, awards and whatever pretty much define the musical industry (award shows - those who win dictate what's popular in the industry, awards indicate degree of success, genres - evolution of the C-pop sound, singing contests - in the case of Super Girl, it indicates a grassroots revival in Mainland China). Record labels aren't nearly as influential, seeing as they're the mere engines that make artists who they are. Moreover, unlike award shows, which have their own stories and such, record labels are much harder to search for, and frankly, are just rosters of artists. News for record labels will more than likely overlap news for its respective artists. I thereby vote to place record labels in the Low importance category. Pandacomics 12:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking about exclusively Chinese-language record labels like HIM and Alfa Music? I'd refer to WP:ORG's notability policy for decisions on judging a record label's notability. Arsonal 17:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

...the question was "what priority should we give them?" -_- And yes, I meant the exclusively Chinese ones. Pandacomics 18:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, what I meant was I usually use the notability conditions as ratings for priority. Arsonal 20:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Guangdong a production hub?

Someone made an edit in C-pop#Terminology. I know that region is a consumer market. Are they really a production hub? Benjwong 22:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I believe they are primarily a Cantopop consumer market, with SOME Mandopop. And by "some" I mean "not a whole lot." Pandacomics 04:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok great thx. I had to verify in case the market really was expanding that fast. Benjwong 14:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

src: i1.wp.com

Genres

I know some artist pages like Roman Tam saids cantopop. Compare it with Jay Chou, it saids Pop, Rock, R&B, hip hop. Would it make sense to keep it all consistent? So that Jay Chou would say C-pop, taiwanese pop, mandopop, Chinese hip hop? There are alot of categories. I would like to help where I can at least if we can at least agree on some format. Benjwong 14:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

There are quite a number to choose from:

• C-pop
• Mandopop
• Cantopop
• Taiwanese pop
• New Taiwanese Song
• Chinese rock
• Northwest Wind
• Prison Song (genre)
• Shidaiqu
• Taiwanese pop

We should, by all means, avoid the C-pop tag because it's so freaking generic. It's like saying, "oh that artist plays music." On one hand, if we just say "Mandopop" or "Cantopop", it'll identify which language (and in Cantopop's case, genre as well) it falls under. On the other hand, it doesn't tell what style of music that is played. The whole "pop," "R&B" and "rock" thing is just an attempt to put American equivalents to Chinese music. But honestly, no one wants to place an artist in a single genre; in a similar vein, many (if not all) artists dabble nowadays. I think putting in your suggested genres should be fine. Just as long as it's not C-pop. (Honestly.) Pandacomics 16:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

So I can get rid of pop/rock and other generic names. No C-pop. Ok that sounds fair. I hope everyone will help keep it the same way. If an artist is 90% cantopop and 10% mandopop, I might even just have cantopop. What do you think of that. Benjwong 22:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sounds good. Cantopop artists releasing Mandarin albums are basically singing Cantopop-style songs...only in Mandarin. Pandacomics 00:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Has Jay Chou actually been described as "Chinese hip hop"? I thought it would be just "hip hop"? I really don't like liberally applying the "Cantopop" and "Mandopop" label to some of the artists, because the implication in those two genres is that it is commercial and generic music that's not usually known to be "good" music. But can we really describe someone like Roman Tam or Faye in that context, even though they are usually described by those terms? If it was up to me, the only people that would be described as "Cantopop" or "Mandopop" are people like Twins and Cookies and others that are like them. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, see, slapping on genres like that really is subjective. We once had someone put "symphonic cantopop" on Hacken Lee's profile. Cantopop and Mandopop (and Chinese rock) are objective labels simply based on what language the songs are sung in. That's basically it. Pandacomics 04:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well if you look at the well done pages of US artists like Limp Bizkit, they have terms like Numetal and Rapcore. Nirvana has alternative rock. The artists here should be equally as descriptive. Faye has sung English songs for final fantasy games also. But I wouldn't classify her genre as "English pop" or "Video Game remix". But "Cantopop/Mandopop" seems basic enough to not offend any fans. "Pop" is way too generic. I think I am more concerned with getting something basic down + at least a template if possible. Benjwong 22:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

"Well if you look at the well done pages of US artists like Limp Bizkit, they have terms like Numetal and Rapcore. Nirvana has alternative rock." There are also many more US artists than Chinese/Taiwanese/Hong Kong(ese?) ones, so there would likely be more artists per genre. I mean, it'd be odd to have only three artists represent a sub-genre of music. I mean, who'd represent the genre of "chinked out" ? Lee-Hom Wang, and that's pretty much it. A one-man genre. Whoopee. I hope you can see where I'm going with this. Moreover, the way Cantopop and Mandopop have evolved is slightly different from how Western music evolved (aside from the recent effects of globalization and the borrowing of hip-hop/R&B). As much as we borrow from the West, it's still not "true" hip hop or "true" R&B in the American sense. Just my two pennies. Pandacomics 00:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure mandopop cantopop will be a start, keeping it simple. Benjwong 04:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Helpful flags

Some helpful flags for the different rows

For Born and Died Row

Qing

1912-1928

1929-1948

1910

1959-1997

1997-present

1948-present

For Origin Row

 Republic of China

 Republic of China

 Republic of China (Taiwan)

 Hong Kong

 Hong Kong

 Hong Kong

 People's Republic of China

Wow I was running down the list fixing many artists pages, when I saw that I was possibly violating WP:Flagcruft according to Hong Qi Gong. I left a message at Wikipedia:Use of flags in articles. Before I go any further, I still can't tell if there really is a violation. That rule is so loose. And IMHO doesn't make much sense. Benjwong 06:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I do want to note firstly that WP:FLAG is a proposed policy. But reading the section on flag use for birth and death locations (Wikipedia:Use_of_flags_in_articles#Not_for_use_in_locations_of_birth_and_death), I think this is not a bad policy to go by, especially for people born in Hong Kong. The main point is that flags imply nationality, so we should avoid them in birth and date places. Putting one of the versions of the HK flag next to the birth location can definitely cause confusion as to a person's nationality. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

According to enochlau, this is not exactly a real policy yet? I don't know. I went cleaning out all the flags yesterday. It may be safe to not put anything up for the time being. Benjwong 17:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Right, it's a proposed policy - but I do think it's a good thing to do. And there's no policy to say that we should use flags in birth and death locations. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I am going to continue with the template and basic formatting with no flags. Its actually easier. Benjwong 01:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree it's a good thing to do as well - I was mainly referring to your edit summary claiming it was "policy". Just link to the project page, otherwise I'm sure someone nastier will try and nab you for making up policy. enochlau (talk) 02:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

You mean like Moheroy's comment on sept 30th? I am trying to help get the pages to some level of consistency. I really don't know who to listen to anymore?? If it's not a real policy, why don't I put the flags back. Benjwong 16:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure all those flags are necessary or appropriate? They seem to complicate the issue, and introduce problems like, what flag do you use for someone born in Tibet in 1932? Or 1950? What do you use for someone born in Nanjing or Hong Kong in 1944, or Taiwan in 1935? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 07:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Right, I think putting flags next to birth and death locations just unnecessarily confuses a reader about a person's nationality. WP:FLAGCRUFT might only be a proposed policy, but I think the rationale is right. Plus, I don't think there's an existing policy that we should stick flags next to birth and death locations, so given the choice of whether or not we should have those flags, I would prefer that we keep them out. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, first thing I want to say is sorry to Benjwong, for I was mainly the one running around reverting most his flag-removing streak lol. But enochlau told me there was a discussion here so I decided to express my opinion. Firstly, about the confusion of nationality, I don't see how confused it can be. If the person was born in Hong Kong prior to 1997, there will be a Hong Kong in the born row with a colonial flag. Then in the origin bit, it is still hong kong, except the new hong kong flag. Perhaps some may suggest people might not know the difference between the two flags, but it is a fact, it is not a confusion. It is like reading some of the battle articles. China vs Britain for example. But The china flag now is different from the qing flag. But we do not change those, it is a fact that at the time, the Chinese flag had a dragon on it.

Anyway, to round in on my point. Let's take for example Ella Koon. She was born in the French Islands. But origin in HK. 1 Picture say a thousand words, rather than reading French Poly....somethingsomething, I can just look at the French Flag to know where she was born, then the HK flag to know where her main audience is. Ok, I hope I made sense in all that =/ Dengero 12:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

People are definitely complaining about me removing the flags. Is not just you, but quite a number of people. So I am running down the list, I don't know if I should add a flag to be consistent or delete a flag to stick to some guideline/policy/wiki-wishlist??? Benjwong 01:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

You miss my point. It's all very well to say the Chinese flag in 1905 had a dragon on it. Let me ask you this though:

1. Did the Chinese flag in January 1912 have a dragon on it? The Republic of China was already established, but the Qing emperor had not yet abdicated. Mongolia had declared independence, but it was not recognised by China - what flag do you use for someone born in Outer Mongolia at that time?
2. what was the "Chinese flag" in January 1916? Was it a) the Empire of China flag, or b) the Republic of China flag (1912-1928)? What flag do you use for someone born in Mongolia or Tibet at that time? What about Taiwan?
3. The list seems to have a (disproportionately) detailed list of flags for Hong Kong. What about when Hong Kong was under Japanese occupation then? Shouldn't it use the Japanese flag? That would follow logically from the de facto treatment of the China/Taiwan situation in that flag list: i.e. whatever flag flew/flies over the territory is used.

These are just some examples of the many political landmines lying across your path. They are complex political questions, and aiming for precision leads only to controversy and error.

My suggestion is to abandon all these flags altogether, especially since most people without a backgorund in Chinese history would not even recognise, say, the flag of the Empire of China or the Republican flag (1912-1928). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

That wont really Be much of a problem now, chinese music didn't come up as a popular thing until the 50-60s, well over the Qing/Mongolian dispute period. As for the subject of taiwan, We can just stick to the ROC flag. But in the end, I support the use of flags anyway. I think it transfers the message across much clearer. I mean, just talking about flags in general, some people might ask "Where on earth is Providence??" if so and so was born there. But placing a French flag there will automatically lighten things up without the need to search the whole infor box for the "nationality" row to read the name "France". Well, that is my stand anyway. Dengero 04:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know there was a Providence in France... do you mean Provence??

In any case, this "confusion" can be easily remedied by identifying the origin as Provence (or Providence), France - which is what I would expect when I see a biographical box anyway.

If someone really is confused here, then - given the average Wikipedia user, do you think he or she is more likely to know "Taiwan", or the flag of the Republic of China? Surely the former?

As to whether it has only been popular since the 1950s and 60s - Chinese pop music was very big in pre-war China (e.g. Shanghai) in the 20s and 30s, and I'm sure there are members of the music scene back then who deserve articles. In deciding the presentation of the infobox, regard should also be had to conformity with analogous boxes in other subject areas: e.g. political leaders, writers, or other artists.

Again, having flags, especially lots of obscure flags in pursuit of a misapprehended precision, leads only to controversy and error. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I know my reasons are getting exhaustive, but despite anything, I still continue to support flags!!! I mean, in a war article for example, or a football match. It is so much more meaningful to have flags vs flags. And plainly, I think wikipedia has enough txt in it, a touch of graphic here and there really wont hurt. As for the confusion and error, it will exactly happen in text also. Take the example of "The Republic of China was already established, but the Qing emperor had not yet abdicated. Mongolia had declared independence, but it was not recognised by China - what flag do you use for someone born in Outer Mongolia at that time?". What will a person write in text of the person born in outer mongolia at that time? It is in the same situation as flags. So flags+text is just as, if not more effective than just text. Dengero 07:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, in that example, you just write Mongolia... If someone is born in Taiwan, you just write "Taiwan" - a geographical identifier avoids all the political NPOV problems associated with flags, because flags are inherently political, but geography does not have to be. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I daresay not. Location yes, indeed does not have any political affiliations in it. For example Ulaanbaatar. But Ulaanbaatar, China(Qing) and Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, there is a difference. But you see, once the text is set in to either Qing OR Mongolia, the flag will just be there to match the set country. It wouldn't have a Qing flag matched with Mongolia or Mongolian flag matched with China(Qing). Dengero 11:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why you would need to identify the precise regime in charge at that precise location at the precise moment of the person's birth. In my experience, Ulan Bator, Mongolia, surfices to indicate this location. You don't need to specify whether this is Ulan Bator, Outer Mongolia, Qing Empire, or it is Ulan Bator, State of Mongolia, or Ulan Bator, Mongolia Area, Republic of China.

By contrast, if you are using flags, that is the (by necessiry controversial and imprecise) specification you need to make: e.g. if you use the Mongolian flag, you are indicating that this is Ulan Bator, State of Mongolia. If you use the dragon flag, you are indicating that this is Ulan Bator, Outer Mongolia, Qing Empire. If you use the Republic of China flag (1912-1928), you are indicating that this is Ulan Bator, Mongolia Area, Republic of China.

Do you see how using the flag is inviting an edit war in such cases? Simply labelling it "Ulan Bator, Mongolia" does not confuse anyone, and is adequate in conveying the information.

I also repeat my submission that hardly anyone will recognise the Republic of China flag (1912-1928), which means that it is mere clutter and does not convey useful information. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's simplify this a little. Firstly, when stating the place of birth, it goes by the format of [Location],[State/Region(If applicable), then finally, [Nation]. The point I want to argue about is, The flag icon is simply just a subsidiary of the [Nation] part. Whatever you fill in the [Nation] part of the birth place, is whatever the flag icon is going to be.

For example. I am born 1990, Hong Kong(Location), Hong Kong(Auto Region). That is perfectly fine because all location and affliates are definate. But in a controvertial example like: Is it I am born 1985, Taipei(Location), ROC? or I am born 1985, Taipei(Location), Province of Taiwan(State) PRC?

As you can see there, the flag changes according to what the text is written in. So edit wars are war of words, not the flags. To cut it even shorter, simpler, the flags are there just to represent the words in a more meaningful and pretty way. Dengero 12:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

By your argument, you would have to say Hong Kong, Republic of China, or Hong Kong, People's Republic of China, or Hong Kong, United Kingdom (Crown colony).

It is much more neutral to just say Hong Kong - or, in the case of the latter example, Taipei, Taiwan.

As you have rightly pointed out, identifying the so-called "nation" invites edit warring. Using a flag forces us to identify a "nation", when in fact ambiguity can avoid conflict much more effectively. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You are saying that we dont need to place the nation column at all in profile of the artist/person. Dengero 23:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly what I am saying. There is no need to put down a politically loaded "nation" if a country/region/territory identifier like "Hong Kong" or "Taiwan" is sufficiently clear. However, this is only possible if you don't use a flag. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Then I agree. If there is no nationality stated on the page, there is no need for flags. But I disagree on the point where the flag is the element that causes error and confusion. You see, when there IS a nationality stated on the page, thats where the flag goes in. No error, no confusion. Dengero 00:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

So the concensus is???? No flags at all???? Benjwong 04:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Really, flags are completely unnecessary. It's not needed to convey location or nationality. I am against using flags for locations of birth and death. But for nationality, I am neutral to flag usage even though I don't think it's necessary. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The musician templates do not have a nationality field. They have born/death/origin. So no flag in the born/death row. No flag in the origin row either right? Basically no flag in any template. That is what I am seeing. Benjwong 04:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I prefer no flag in the "origin" field. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's see if other people have a final say on the "origin" row, which is where this artist became famous. That should be the final consensus we need. I guess I too prefer no flag. Benjwong 04:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

After the above discussion with Dengero, my preference is no flags anywhere in these fields. However, if there is a definite, unambiguous, indisputable country being referred to, then a flag may be acceptable - but my preference is not to have one, if only for consistency. When I say definite, unambiguous, indisputable country, obviously it would not include "China", "Taiwan", and other ambiguous geo-political identifiers. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Since rather those here who participated in the discussion have the majority of no-flag supporters, then I suppose that is the decision. I vote we DO have flags, but just specifically for the born and death row. I don't really care about the origin bit. I mean, what would you put for Kelly Chan? China or the HK flag? But otherwise, I think it is better to wait till the final decision comes from the official flag policy. This can ensure the consistency of wikipedia overall. But yes, if the comments of the WikiProject Modern Chinese Music was added in, we have the policy of no flags on our bit. Dengero 06:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, WP:FLAG is now an MoS guideline. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

What I see is that the first block message still saids "It is a generally accepted standard that all editors should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." Benjwong 16:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

That basically applies to all guidelines, including the main MoS. We don't have to follow them, but it's generally a good idea to do so because guidelines are standards of what a good article should look like, and most experienced editors will insist on it. This is especially true if we ever want to take an article to GA status, and an article will not likely ever get to FA status if it does not follow established guidelines. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

TVB Dramas

I know this doesn't relate to the discussion board, but this is really the only place I've been hanging out so far and I can't find any other wikiprojects relating to TVB dramas. So yeah. Anywayz, I find that lots and lots of TVB drama pages has various forums and fansites linked to them. And I mean alot. From known ones like AsianFanatics right up to some weird site with only 4 memebrs or something. Should I do a major cleanup? I'm afraid of a backlash really to be honest. Dengero 12:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no official TVB drama project right now. A few people have dedicated themselves to helping out here on en.wiki. Some people created their own wiki at drama wiki. That site is NOT under wikipedia, but started by people using one of the wiki software. There is no copyright violations, no limitations and no way of knowing how long it will stay up. No way of knowing whether it will evntually scale either, but it has far more drama experts there. I wanted to copy the data from that site to this site. But the community might get angry. Benjwong 13:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

lol, you didn't answer my question lol ^^". Should I do a clean up or not? haha.Dengero 23:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Sure. Benjwong 23:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

As always, make sure you have reliable sources. Forums are not considered reliable sources. Your best bet for TVB dramas are probably Chinese-language websites or Chinese-language news sources. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm only allowing 2 sources. http://tvb.windy-goddess.net/ and the official website of the series if there was one. Dengero 11:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

woo, some....ahem....retard......reverted all my clean-up edits from yesterday >.> Dengero 23:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

A fan opinion?

Someone with a HK IP deleted the image of Sunboyz out of Music of Hong Kong. Is it a bad caption or something missing? Benjwong 17:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

He didn't give a reason, it's an anon ip, there was no suitable reason we could find. It's good enough to be reverted :P Dengero 23:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

New template

I've created a template specifically for actors/singers in the Chinese entertainment industry and I've added it to Maggie Cheung. Please take a look - Template:Infobox Chinese actor and singer. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Is that image size fixed? Benjwong 20:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The image field should work the same way as Template:Infobox actor - I copied the code from that template. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Before we mass deploy this. It is currently missing a "Background" field found in Template:Infobox Musical artist. You can see how it changes colors whether it is a band, solo_singer etc. Also a romanization field could be helpful. Benjwong 04:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, presumably everybody that would use the template would be solo singers (since no acting info is needed for music groups), so I'm not sure how useful that field would be. But I'll add a pinyin field. The reason I didn't add it at first is because I don't want the template to get cluttered up with some 5 or 6 different Chinese romanisation fields for the person's name. By the way, I've added the template to Leslie Cheung and Anita Mui. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok I think this still needs the "Associated act" field for solo artists then. Like Gillian Chung is associated with Twins, and that is what the field is for. For group pages, we have to keep the old templates, which has the "members" field and the blue band color. Benjwong 05:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we should leave the romanization field real plain, and let people insert hakka, jyutping or whatever for their region. Pinyin is quite locked in. Sorry to be a hassle I am trying to get this exactly right spreading the use. Benjwong 05:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

By all means, please edit the template to improve it. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Now that Fiona Sit uses this template, gives us the instructions when you want to mass spread it. Dengero 10:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

No no, I didn't mean to imply we need to mass spread it. It's just an infobox template that we can optionally use if any editor feels it's better for an article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't mass spread it yet. Give me some time to look at the code. Benjwong 19:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok I added a "jyutping" for HK artists and "associated acts" field for anyone who is a part of a group. I think we should mass spread this now. Groups should not use this, just individuals male/female. Dengero do you want to help? Benjwong 05:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

If I can I'll do whatever. Just say the word ^^ Dengero 06:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Side comment. With the "Other awards" section for things like song awards, I don't think it's a good idea to have awards for a group listed for all members of that group. For example, it'd be kinda awkward placing all of Twins' awards in Gill's infobox; it should probably be awards pertaining only to Gill and not Twins in general. Pandacomics 06:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok I added a pastmembers and currentmembers field so it can be used for groups also. So now everyone can use the same templates, groups, actors, actress, singers. Only thing I still can't figure out is how to make the color feature work. Benjwong 02:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually if HongQiGong can take a look at that line. The code of "If deathdate is populated, make it gray". Can we do a "If currentmembers is populated, make it lightblue"? Benjwong 03:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I've added it and put it in Twins (group). Note that if the "currentmembers" field is populated, it'll override the colour scheme for if the "deathdate" field is populated. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

That looks good. Can't believe how easy you fixed it. Let's mass spread this thing for all the artists, actors, groups etc. Benjwong 07:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I am slowly replace all the older templates with the new one. Added an origin field too to be consistent. Benjwong (talk) 04:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Seriously there's no need to mass spread the template all at once. I think the best way to do it is if you happen to be editing an article, add it in if it's appropriate. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

If the majority of the articles use the same templates, then people will know it exist. Whether I can put it on every page depends on how bored I get. Is pretty robotic task. Benjwong (talk) 00:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for this, Hong. I'll implement your new infobox in the template page sometime soon. Arsonal (talk) 20:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Steps

The TVB series Steps, someone edited the name of the character Wallace from Stephen to Francios. I know the guy came from France, but I'm not really sure of the name. Anyone know? Dengero 08:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. Benjwong 02:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Pretty sure its Stephen. Pojanji 10:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Heart of Greed

Serious grammar fixing required for Heart of Greed. Anyone game enough? :P I did only just pass my last english assignment ~.~ Dengero 13:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I think maybe later if I ever finish these template transfer. Could be a long time. Benjwong (talk) 04:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Toby Leung

After seeing 3 chapters of Marriage of Inconvenience I fell in love with Toby so I decide to create her page lol. Anyway, I used the new template for her, worked very well btw. Can anyone help me translate those awards? Whoever translated the awards for Fiona Sit did a fantastic job. And errrm....can someone teach me how to put up music samples? Thankyou in advance ^^. And I also created a page for her album Bear In Mind. If you want you can watch both pages. Again, thx ^^. And! One last thing! Can we delete/archive stuff already decided on this page like the flag one. Dengero (talk) 07:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Gah! The speedy deletion article guys are on me like a bunch of hounds AGAIN. Happens everytime. ><" Dengero (talk) 07:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

You should try using a scratch pad next time. Just create a subpage under your own user page. Flesh out the article you want to write before putting the content in the main article space. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

So I've been doing a bunch of lurking around lately...

Is anyone (other than Benjwong, who's been doing a lot of the replacing, and H7G, the maestro behind the box) up for some mass infobox replacing? Pandacomics (talk) 21:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Rant alert. Another thing. There are a lot of leads that say things like "John Doe, also known as/more commonly credited as John". I have some qualms about this, cause by definition, you're going to call someone by his or her first name e.g. "Hey John!" instead of "Hey John Doe!". Granted, there are some artists who really DO go on a given name-only basis e.g. Janice, Hebe, and it shows on screen credits or when they're being introduced. I mean, even if fans DO call Andy Lau "Andy", he'll still appear on screen credits and television shows as either "Andy Lau" or "???". Same with Ella Koon, who is almost always credited on-screen as "???", not "Ella". I also don't know why first names appear on some infoboxes as an "other name" due to redundancy, nor do I know why Cantonese/Mandarin transliterations of their names (e.g. Andy Lau's "other name" would end up being "Lau Tak-Wah") are appearing there. I therefore propose the following:

• When someone is "more commonly credited as" another name, including a first name-only form of address, it should also be evident in on-screen credits and/or on nameplates (like when they're at a press conference or something).
• The "Other names" field should be reserved for:

• other names under which the artist has released material (e.g. Jasmine/Fish Leong)
• actual fan-given nicknames, such as "Wa Zai" (Andy Lau) or "Fei Fei" (Fahrenheit), but not first names or transliterations. --Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandacomics (talk o contribs) 05:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100%. About Ella koon's other name "Ella", that was there a long time ago. I just moved it into the template as part of the move. Her fans know her better than I do. Benjwong (talk) 04:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Discographies and other lists

Please start tagging discography and list pages with {{WikiProject China|class=na|entertainment=yes}}. Thanks. --Arsonal (talk) 15:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Popularity

I was looking at the cantopop listing of artists. Maybe the page should be limited to mainstream only. Groups like AMK and Dear Jane? I really have never heard of them. Is it just me? Benjwong (talk) 06:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, on the flip side, what would we classify them under? Obviously "Cantonese-language singers", but I guess you have a point with the mainstream thing. But then, playing Devil's Advocate, people might end up making a case for the Cantopop-ness of a certain group (at17, for example, very much toes the line, as does Soler.) Along the same lines, would F.I.R. and Mayday really count as Mandopop? Pandacomics (talk) 06:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't mean the category sorting. I meant this section. It seems rather unfair to be listing AMK and Dear Jane when people like Daniel Chan does not even have a page yet. Other artists like Michael Kwan seems questionable to me. Do you guys remember/know him? Benjwong (talk) 07:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I remember Michael Kwan, and yes, he's in the same pool with Sam Hui, so he does in fact count. Pandacomics (talk) 08:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm ok. Benjwong (talk) 15:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the Cantopop and Mandopop labels are definitely over-used. And I wonder if the Cantopop and Mandopop articles are in violation of WP:Original research because they mostly describe music in Cantonese and Mandarin. But as I understand it, Cantopop and Mandopop is mostly used to referred to "manufactured" pop music that relies heavily on marketting. But there are really plenty of Chinese musicians that don't really fit that label. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but how would we define the categories of Cantopop and Mandopop (such that we can start removing categories from Category:Cantopop artists + subordinate categories, and Category:Mandopop artists + subordinate categories)? Pandacomics (talk) 08:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think he meant delete cantopop and mandopop. If you look at international sources they will say 9 out of 10 times Four heavenly king of cantopop, not Four heavenly king of pop. We are trying to be as accurate as possible, groups like at17 lists folktronica. Artists like Bai Guang lists shidaiqu. Once we template-ize outside the canto and mando pages, there will be more people fitting the other genres from Category:Chinese styles of music. Benjwong (talk) 15:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Retooling this WikiProject?

Has anybody ever given thought to retooling this WikiProject to encompass Chinese TV and films? As you know, there's often a lot of crossover between the Chinese acting industry and the Chinese singing industry. I know it would be a lot of work, but it would increase the range of this WikiProject, and there are a lot of articles on Chinese films and actors that could use the attention. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe there's a Chinese cinema workgroup on WP:CHINA. Pandacomics (talk) 22:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

True, but there's an overlap when you're talking about Chinese dramas. For example, List of S.H.E filmography technically shouldn't be tagged under WP:CPOP, but it is because of its relevance to S.H.E's notability. On the other hand, Jackie Chan is famous through movies as opposed to music. Arsonal (talk) 23:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The Chinese cinema workgroup over at WikiProject China has been inactive for nearly a year (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Chinese cinema task force). Honestly, editors at WikiProject China are usually not interested in subjects related to modern entertainment. I'd be willing to do much of the work necessary to retool the WikiProject if others think it may be a good idea to do the expansion. But on the other hand, I don't think we should do this unless we can get unanimous approval to do so. To reiterate, I'm throwing out the idea of expanding this WikiProject to include the film and TV industries, so basically everything in the modern Chinese (or Chinese-language) entertainment industry. There're a lot of small articles on Chinese movies and TV series, we can use this WikiProject to coordinate efforts to improve those articles. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a sound plan, Hong. I think it's actually worth trying out. Would you think that completely separating away from WP:China be a good idea? Because if we want to cover all Chinese-language entertainment articles, we have to incorporate Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Chinese-language shows from Singapore also. Arsonal (talk) 15:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Can we make this very wide like a "Entertainment in Chinese" group" or something? This gives you room to cover Taiwan stuff without much problem. It can include tv shows, game shows, variety shows, all music, films and possibly even video games (if we can find an expert somewhere). Or is that too much? Benjwong (talk) 17:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'd imagine it would be either a "sister" or "child" WikiProject to WP:China and other relevant WikiProjects. First let's see if we can get everybody's approval for this, then we can iron out the specifics later, things like scope - include only the entertainment industry in Greater China? Or all Chinese-language entertainment globally? What should we name it? etc etc. The holidays are coming up, I suggest we continue this conversation and after the new year I'll put up a poll to officially see if there are any objections. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

"Chinese-language entertainment" is a very ideal name. I wouldn't even label a Greater China region. I think as long as the native language of the entertainment is Chinese of some sort, it could be included. But maybe we should make it "media entertainment" to exclude comics or live performances like opera etc. Benjwong (talk) 21:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The name doesn't have to be as descriptive as possible, we can just specify the scope of the WikiProject when/if we re-write its description at the WikiProject's main page. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Any more name suggestions? Any one opposed to changes? Benjwong (talk) 07:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

"Chinese-language entertainment" sounds like a good name. I guess discussing the time period we're covering would also fall under the discussion of project scope for later? Arsonal (talk) 21:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I think some people may not have much online time during the holidays (myself included), so I'm going to create a poll in a few days to officially see if there are any objections to changing the scope of the WikiProject. After that, if there are no objections, we can see what we want the scope of the expansion to be. So far, it seems that editors who have been participating in the discussion agree that it should be expanded to include Chinese-language entertainment world-wide in the TV, film, and music industries. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

We can say worldwide, though 95% of the topics probably come out of Taiwan, HK, Singapore, Malaysia, mainland China or areas near by. Can we decide on what to include/exclude?

• Dramas - yes
• Non-drama TV shows - yes
• C-pop, rap, rock - yes
• Celebrities - yes
• Operas - no
• Movies - probably no right? Leave that with WP:film. Benjwong (talk) 21:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I imagine we should include the film industry (movies) as well. Otherwise, an article like List of S.H.E filmography wouldn't be included. What I have in mind is basically including everything in the modern Chinese entertainment industry, which would include articles that are related to Chinese TV series, movies, and music (so celebrities would be included). Many Chinese entertainers move through all three industries and their fans follow their work. Heck, with the exception of noted comedians like Eric Tsang, I can't think of one top Chinese celebrity who hasn't been active in at least two of the industries. All four of the heavenly kings have been active in all three industries, and even Faye has made movies and TV series, despite all the hype about her being such an "artist" (don't get me wrong, I still love her!) But yes, traditional entertainment like operas and traditional Chinese music would not be included (though I imagine there are going to be borderline cases like Ding Fei Fei and Twelve Girls Band, but we can discuss these cases later if we do decide to expand the WikiProject). Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Side note about that S.H.E article, it's called filmography cause the word "televisionography" doesn't exist. Pandacomics (talk) 15:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have a "bot" to help do repetitive tasks? Like renaming categories, projects?? Benjwong (talk) 16:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Well...I don't think we have to rename categories. But the entire WP? Yeah. We could always...do it manually. Yay winter holidays. Pandacomics (talk) 18:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest putting in a bot request for renaming the project, templates, and categories as needed when the time comes. There's a couple that are related to WikiProjects, so I'm sure one of them can be used to help us. Arsonal (talk) 21:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Side question. For a film in Chinese. Do we leave it in WP:FILM and add this new project tag on top? Or do we delete from WP:FILM? Wouldn't we be triple-ing the project tags like WPHONGKONG + WPFILM + THIS_NEW_WP. Benjwong (talk) 03:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Tripling it works. Currently, there's very few Chinese-language movies that will be a high priority in WP:FILM and the other region WikiProjects. By retooling this WikiProject, we'll also rework the priority/grading system, and I'm sure the article will get more attention from us than the other more generic groups. Arsonal (talk) 04:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

My main concern is that we might be spreading ourselves too thin. If you hadn't noticed, most of the "grunt work" is being done by the four of us, plus Dengero, Ushimaru, and IceDevil. If we expand our scope too far, it's going to stretch us quite a bit. Pandacomics (talk) 16:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok then I am in favor of leaving films out completely. I think filmographies can belong in WP:FILM fine. Benjwong (talk) 18:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... that kind of defeats the purpose of how I want to expand the WikiProject. I don't think any editor really is required to edit film-related articles if we expanded the WikiProject to include films, unless the editor is actually interested in doing so. I'm not sure I agree that it'll stretch the work. I was just thinking that this WikiProject is a good place to coordinate editing Chinese films and TV series as well. Plus, there's a chance other editors would be interested in joining if it was expanded to include films. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The TV shows is definitely included. But the films I am quite undecided on. Anyhow, assuming there is no disagreement with the names what do we do next to change this existing project group to "Wikiproject Chinese-language entertainment"? Is it a page move?? Benjwong (talk) 18:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably. We might also have to change the logo. On a related note, the WP 1.0 bot that manages our article stats will likely have to change somehow. I think either Hong or Arsonal set that up, so I guess they could deal with that then. Pandacomics (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I am actually ok with the logo at Template:Cpop. Any proposal for project tag? How about {{WikiProject China|class=na|entertainment=yes}} to {{centertainment|class=list}}. It seems to be available. Benjwong (talk) 18:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

What about "cent" (chinese entertainment) or even "yule" (as in yu le, the Mandarin for entertainment, har har.) Just my two pennies. Pandacomics (talk) 20:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

"cent" sounds ok to me. Benjwong (talk) 22:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Alright, it seems like there are objections to expansion into films. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I think there needs to be more contributors from the film area. Benjwong (talk) 22:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Well then we kind of have a catch 22. We need more contributors in the film area, but we won't know until we expand it to films. Pandacomics (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Are existing contributors to the WikiProject not very interested in editing film-related articles? I know that I am. Anyway, I won't be pushing for this expansion if there are objections to include films. But maybe other editors are interested in expanding into TV series. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind doing film articles at all. In fact, I previously tried to work on Jay Chou's Secret and Kung Fu Dunk. The problem is the lack of interest in people contributing significantly to newer Chinese films. Lust, Caution may be an exception as it was released in the US also. It's a pretty daunting task trying to find all these films and categorizing them since there are tons of film stubs out there. Even so, I support the inclusion of films because at least it'll be a nice way to consolidate them so future contributors who want to work on Chinese films specifically can find them in a centralized location. Arsonal (talk) 02:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You can incorporate films if you like. But I recommend you guys telling the Chinese cinema taskforce about this. Or at least WP:FILM to acknowledge the overlap. I am asking User:Tryptofeng to come here for an opinion or comment. Benjwong (talk) 00:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with films being included. To be honest, I don't do much collaboration with other members, just the occasional article of a notable film or director when I have free time...so I don't have much of an opinion either wayTryptofeng (talk) 05:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Well again, I don't think we should expand into films unless we have unanimous support for it. And the Chinese cinema taskforce has only three comments at the Talk page, made by only two editors, and the last comment made over a year ago. If we ever get unanimous support for expansion into films, we can leave a comment over at the Chinese cinema taskforce to see if there are any objections to it being absorbed by this WikiProject. I honestly doubt there will be any objections. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I just looked over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Chinese cinema task force and it seems they use the tag "Chinese-task-force=yes". Tryptofeng doesn't seem to mind the move. I really have no preference. Is up to how you want to handle it. It might actually be easier to co-exist with WP:FILM. Benjwong (talk) 07:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

If we want this project to be truly encompassing the scope of (modern) Chinese entertainment, I am for including films. Incorporating it now will save later headaches of deciding to include cinema in the future. In this case, we can take some of WP:China's load and consolidate similar articles from WP:Taiwan and WP:HK. Arsonal (talk) 05:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think User:Pandacomics has reservations about including films. He thinks that it'll spread the WikiProject too thin. That's a valid concern. From my point of view though, no editor in this WikiProject is forced to edit any articles or even tag any articles they are not interested in, but this WikiProject can be leveraged to coordinate efforts and standards on Chinese language films. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. I'll change my vote to "support" largely due to Dengero's posting on the WP:HK talk page not knowing whether something should be tagged with the WPHK banner, because if we made a Chinese entertainment Wikiproject, it'd be pretty easy to slap on whatever banner it is we would have. But we'll probably have to find some way to distinguish top-high-mid-low separately for music and for dramas/films. We'll probably deal with that later once the transfer is complete. Pandacomics (talk) 19:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

How do we make the transfer complete? Make that Chinese-language entertainment btw. Benjwong (talk) 05:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the late-ness in adding my 2c. Well, about the point that we're spread too thin if we increase our range, the thing is, (we're) already doing the job lol. Dengero (talk) 02:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

So...are we retooling? Dengero (talk) 02:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we are. Most people are busy around this time of year. Please give it another week or two. Benjwong (talk) 04:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

There's opposition to it, no? I'm all for it personally. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

"Sigh. I'll change my vote to "support" largely due to Dengero's posting on the WP:HK talk page not knowing whether something should be tagged with the WPHK banner, because if we made a Chinese entertainment Wikiproject, it'd be pretty easy to slap on whatever banner it is we would have. But we'll probably have to find some way to distinguish top-high-mid-low separately for music and for dramas/films. We'll probably deal with that later once the transfer is complete. Pandacomics (talk) 19:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)"

I am fine with the move. Seems like everyone is agreeing now. Benjwong (talk) 19:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I support the move as well. Shall we set a date when everything will be official? Arsonal (talk) 02:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Anytime would be fine for me, earlier the better. Dengero (talk) 02:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Anytime is fine. Benjwong (talk) 08:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering if/when this will take place. It is already May, haha. I'm interested in helping out, particularly with HK TV shows, actors and actresses. I just feel there needs to be a manual of style for a lot of the articles... they're lacking any standard. The western style ones don't really fit. Skyezx 05:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It's particularly hard because either ppl from HK don't know much english, or we don't know enough about HK haha. You won't believe the amount of emails I received for writing an anti-china article ><" seriously they are getting brainwashed hard....Dengero (talk) 13:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh noes, the crime of writing an article that isn't one-sided. (rolls eyes) Pandacomics (talk) 14:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

*Ahem* So is there still enough interest to get this thing going? Skyezx 02:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Template discussion

By the way, I just discovered this template - Template:Infobox Chinese Film - I think many of the articles for Chinese films are not using this template. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That template is actually just an extension of Template:Infobox Film. I personally think that the infobox could be reworked to make the Chinese name look more important than just sticking it at the bottom. Kung Fu Dunk is using the template. Arsonal (talk) 02:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, we can see how it goes. If it's too much, we can narrow it later. Consensus seems to be pro-expansion. Pandacomics (talk) 20:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'm totally fine with not doing the expansion. Like I said, I only want to do it if we can get unanimous support for it. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Gillian Chung

I think we need to do something about the news where a photo was posted on the internet of her and edison chen in the bed. Until we write something about it, vandalism will keep going lol. Dengero (talk) 06:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Standardise album name translations

A number of album articles have been listed at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English for needing translation:

• EMI CD + DVD Best Collection: HOCC - The Greatest Hits (CD+DVD)
• Free (love)
• Revolution (2R album)
• The Best of HOCC (Compilations)
• We Stand As One
• Baby Zhang#Discography
• Cantonese New + Best Collection

Please help in translating these. But before we do that, maybe we ought to come up with a standard way to translate these album articles. Do we list the original Chinese song titles first? Do we then put in parenthesis the title translation? Or maybe we do a romanisation of the Chinese song titles? I'm opened to anything. But I thought it would be good to set a standard so we have a guideline for how to format these translations. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I do all mine like this [2] Dengero (talk) 07:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've translated The 2R album. If you feel ok about it I can do all the other ones. Dengero (talk) 07:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No objections here. And in the future, I'll follow the same format, too. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, after one of these articles has been translated, make sure you de-tag it and de-list it from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English. Also, if any editor is interested in doing article translations, keep Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English on your watchlist. I would say that about half the Chinese-language articles that get listed there are album articles or otherwise articles related to the Chinese music industry. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, finished them all babbbby =D. Now time for some dododododotaaaaaa! Dengero (talk) 01:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

One more left. It's not an album, but a singing competition show in Taiwan - One Million Star, Season 2. I've translated most of the theme names of the different episodes, but I'm not sure how to translate a few of them. I don't watch singing competition shows so I was a little confused by some of the names. We also need to find out if the contestants of the show have English names that they use, if not, then I guess we just romanise like One Million Star, Season 1. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Recategorization

Nlu has tabled a proposal involving the recategorization of C-pop artists. He proposes the following:

• Mandopop singers should be subdivided into their respective regions e.g. Taiwanese Mandopop singers

  This disctinction is also necessary because not all Taiwanese singers are Mandopop singers.

• Contemporary singers from the mainland are, by definition, from the People's Republic of China. Hence, People's Republic of China Mandopop singers.
• Remove the Mandarin-language singers category, as all Mandarin-language singers are in Mandopop.

I have qualms with the following points, outlined as follows.

• Rebuttal to Point 1 - while this makes sense in a way, I feel that the distinction is still too specific. I mean, are we going to list Faye Wong in a category called "Hong Kong Cantopop singer-actresses born in China" ? To me, the point of having a Mandopop category on its own was because there would be way too many subcategories based on region.
• Rebuttal to Point 1a - the Taiwanese singers who are also Mandopop singers would find themselves in both the Taiwanese singers category, and the Mandopop singers category. Personally, the way I see categories is that they are effectively Wikipedia's other search engine. People will look for "Taiwanese singers" and "Mandopop singers", but will they be as likely to look for "Taiwanese Mandopop singers" ?
• Rebuttal to Point 2 - I don't see why we should be politicizing this. Although, I wholly agree with putting "ancients" like Bai Hong and Li Jincui under "Republic of China singers", because China was then under Republican rule. However, I think we should keep the status quo Chinese/Taiwanese distinction as opposed to "People's Republic of China/Republic of China singers". But I see where Nlu is going by placing Taiwanese singers under the supercategory of Republic of China singers. I just feel it's an unnecessary politicization.
• Rebuttal to Point 3 - not all Mandarin-language singers are in Mandopop. Examples include Siris (band), who sings a large number of songs in the Mandarin language, but are by no means Mandopop singers. Hong Kong singers releasing a couple of Mandarin albums also don't count as Mandopop, but they are still very much "Mandarin-language singers". Pandacomics (talk) 00:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe this is a fair characterization of my position. The reason why I divided the categories into the way they are now is not because I believe it to be optimal; it's as a stopgap measure to prevent the the entire Category:Chinese singers (and actually, Category:Chinese musicians) tree from having unmanageably large categories and subcategories. I'm open to any reorganization schemes that make sense as long as they don't cause any category to become unmanageably large. Not being someone who listens to Mandarin or Cantonese music for substantial amounts of time, I do not have strong position as to how the category should be organized, other than that I have strong feelings that doing nothing makes the categories useless. At the time that I subdivided them, I'd consider Category:Chinese singers, Category:Mandarin-language singers, and Category:Mandopop singers to all be unmanageably large. If you disagree with the one I subdivided them, fine, propose something manageable.

Also, please keep the general guidelines in WP:CAT and WP:SUBCAT in mind when dealing with the category tree. In particular, in general, an article should not belong to both a category and its parent category. Specifically, because Category:Mandopop singers is a subcategory of Category:Mandarin-language singers (and I was not the person who put it there), unless there is a very good reason (and I see none), by the community consensus as expressed in WP:SUBCAT, no article should belong to both categories.

In particular, I am in no way recommending or even favoring the deletion of Category:Mandarin-language singers. In fact, if that category is CfD'ed, I'd oppose the CfD. It's that someone who is already in Category:Mandopop singers has no reason to belong to Category:Mandarin-language singers as well.

To be frank, Pandacomics, as I am reading what you wrote above, I am getting the impression that you have 1) not read WP:CAT or WP:SUBCAT and 2) not looked at how other category trees work on Wikipedia. --Nlu (talk) 02:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think it is a fair categorization of your position, because without prior context, that effectively summarizes what you pretty much did. Unilaterally, I might add. Pandacomics (talk) 05:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hell, I'd be happy to get rid off all categories that refer to Mandopop or Cantopop. It's not like there's a definitive authority that slaps those labels on musical acts. It might be easy to categorise an act like S.H.E, but are acts like ??? and ??? considered Mandopop? Their music is not very "pop" sounding, but they sure have the marketting, music videos, etc, that pop stars have. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hong makes a fair amount of sense. If we do away with the whole Mandopop/Cantopop distinction altogether, we're just left with Taiwanese, Hong Kong, etc. singers. But at the same time, this means that "Category:(region) singers" cannot be sub-categories of Mandarin-language singers or Cantonese-language singers. Ok, PRC singers can be a subset of Mandarin-language singers, but Taiwanese singers cannot (because some also sing in Min Nan). At the same time, by abolishing the "(language)-pop" categories, the Mandarin/Cantonese-language singer categories become very, very, very large. Pandacomics (talk) 05:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

How big are we talking about? An easy way to break it down is by age. Though admittedly that may not be very useful categorising. If we are to categorise by region, let's try to stay away from politics as much as possible - do "Mainland China", "Hong Kong", and "Taiwan", and that's it. Make them subcategories of Mandarin-language singers/musicians. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll say this again -- Pandacomics, please read WP:CAT and WP:SUBCAT. When you are still stating "not all Taiwanese singers sing in Mandarin" (very true) as an argument of making Category:Taiwanese singers a subcategory of Category:Republic of China singers, I have to believe that you don't understand the nuances of how subcategories work. (There are other valid arguments against such a categorization, as you yourself wrote already, but this was not a valid one.) --Nlu (talk) 13:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you're the one who doesn't understand. You are the one who put Taiwanese singers under Republic of China singers. I'm saying we should keep Taiwanese singers as Taiwanese singers, without putting it as a subcat of "Republic of China singers", a category that you created. Pandacomics (talk) 14:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I am saying that you have valid reasons for arguing so -- but one of the other reasons you stated, that not all Taiwanese singers sing in Mandarin -- is not a valid reason. --Nlu (talk) 14:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is a valid reason. If a singer is from Taiwan and does not sing in Mandarin, why should they be lumped with other Mandarin-language singers? If I'm a singer from Germany, and I sing exclusively in Spanish, does that automatically lump me with "German-language singers""

You are not reading. It is not a problem because Category:Republic of China singers is not a subcategory of Category:Mandarin-language singers. --Nlu (talk) 15:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Likewise for you. I just said, "You are the one who put Taiwanese singers under Republic of China singers.", which is in fact true. If you go to Category:Republic of China singers, you will see Category:Taiwanese singers as a subcategory. I also said, at the very beginning (which, seemingly, you happened to skim over) I also said "I see where Nlu is going by placing Taiwanese singers under the supercategory of Republic of China singers" because Taiwan is part of the Republic of China. Nowhere did I say that Category:Republic of China singers is under Category:Mandarin-language singers. Perhaps it is you who should be doing some re-reading? I at least went to WP:CAT. Pandacomics (talk) 15:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

And going back to your point about WP:CAT, to give you a taste of your own medicine, it says here: In general, avoid subcategorizing subjects by geographical boundary if that boundary does not have any relevant bearing on the subjects' other characteristics. Does being Taiwanese/Malaysian/Singaporean have any bearing on their existence as Mandopop artists? No. They still sing in the Mandopop industry. From WP:SUBCAT, "When an article is put into a subcategory based on an attribute that is not the first thing most people would think of to categorise it, it should be left in the parent category as well." When people want to look for or refer to a Cantopop artist, they aren't going to say "Oh, are there any good Hong Kong Cantopop artists?" Same with Mandopop. "Are there any good Singaporean Mandopop artists?" There's a reason that in music stores, CDs are lumped by language and by genre. Not by geography (unless you're looking for World Music, which Mandopop/Cantopop are not.) The subdivision of "Mandopop singers" into "(region) Mandopop singers" would thus violate that particular WP:SUBCAT criterion. And finally, for future reference, from WP:CAT, "if you decide that a large category should be depopulated and the entries re-categorized into sub-categories, add this template to the category page {{Verylarge}}". As opposed to, you know, re-categorizing things in a very unilateral manner. Pandacomics (talk) 14:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said repeatedly, this is a temporary measure. I am not opposed to a reorganization with a different division scheme. And I am still not seeing one. You know, instead of twisting my positions and making arguments against what I've done, perhaps you should spend time on proposing a tree structure that would in fact be one that makes sense. --Nlu (talk) 15:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Pandacomics (talk) 15:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposal 1 Per Hong's concern over Mayday's status as an actual Mandopop band as opposed to being a Chinese rock artist:

• Remove Mandopop categories completely, and maintain geographic distinction. This means no "Mandopop artists", "Mandopop singer-songwriter", etc. categories.
• Distinguish regions by "[...]"Mainland China", "Hong Kong", and "Taiwan", and that's it."
• Place Hong Kong/Macanese artists as a subcat of Cantonese-language singers
• Place Taiwanese/Chinese as a subcat of Mandarin-language singers

i.e.

Mandarin-language singers

Mainland Chinese artists

Mainland Chinese singers

Mainland Chinese musical groups

Mainland Chinese singer-songwriters

Taiwanese artists

Taiwanese singers

Taiwanese singer-songwriters

Taiwanese musical groups

Cantonese-language singers

Hong Kong artists

Hong Kong singers

Hong Kong musical groups

Hong Kong singer-songwriters

Comments

Proposal 1a Same as above, but with the following modification:

• Do not place Taiwanese as a subcat of Mandarin-language singers, as some Taiwanese artists sing in Min Nan or Hakka.

Mandarin-language singers

Mainland Chinese artists

Mainland Chinese singers

Mainland Chinese musical groups

Mainland Chinese singer-songwriters

Taiwanese artists

Taiwanese singers

Taiwanese singer-songwriters

Taiwanese musical groups

Comments

Comment. Both of these are too disorganized to be realistic proposals. I'd say, write your proposal in a tree structure. --Nlu (talk) 15:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Categories should not necessarily form trees. I don't see the problem in having parallel structures, but admittedly, these categories will have members bloating to the hundreds. Pandacomics (talk) 16:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment. What I mean is -- write concrete proposals, including the names of categories and the way that you plan to have the hierarchy organized. As you wrote it above, it is difficult to conceptualize. --Nlu (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment Yes please write it in a tree structure. I am still a bit confused. Benjwong (talk) 21:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The structure, as you've written in both your Proposal 1 and Proposal 1a, Pandacomics, won't work. First of all, "XXX artists" is taken already and used for a different purpose (for people involved in the arts). Second, even if they were not taken, "Taiwanese artists," even when used in a musical sense, as you yourself noted, won't necessarily be Mandarin singers, so it would really has to be "Taiwanese Mandarin-language singers." Basically, you have to make sure that your categories are well-conceived and wouldn't cause further confusion, and also have to be logically correct. --Nlu (talk) 00:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem with "Taiwanese Mandarin-language singers" is that once that becomes too large, the further categorization of the category will become absurdly specific. That is, "Taiwanese Mandarin-language rock singers who are part of a band". If you get my drift. The other problem I forsee with this geographical distinction, especially with musical groups, is that (at least) one member will not have the same nationality. "Mandopop" and "Cantopop" effectively remove any need for geographical disctinction. How about "Mandopop groups" and "C-rock bands" under "Mandarin-language singers"?

Mandarin-language singers

Mandopop groups

C-rock bands (also subcat of Cantonese-language singers)

Pandacomics (talk) 20:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to add this as well -- for an example of how a "singers" tree might work which, incidentally, is also an example of how categories might become unmanageable without proper subcategorization, take a look at Category:American singers. --Nlu (talk) 00:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

We are not getting rid of the mandopop and cantopop category per the trees above, right? Benjwong (talk) 03:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh. No, we aren't. Well, Hong has proposed removing the "Mandopop singers" and "Cantopop singers" category. That tree I posted just now only relates to the Cantonese/Mandarin bands. I guess we can still keep the Cantopop/Mandopop categories for things like awards. But then, they'd just become "Cantopop awards" and "Mandopop awards". Pandacomics (talk) 04:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The Cantopop and Mandopop category seem useful. You have singers like Michael Wong that have also done some cantopop but not to a serious amount, and isn't really that HK based. And singers like JJ that are doing mandopop in the HK entertainment circle. If anything I would just reduce it to the following. We are assuming everyone in HK does cantopop, and it isn't true. I could settle for no hierarchy. Benjwong (talk) 06:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Cantopop

Mandopop

C-pop musical groups

Hong Kong artists

Hong Kong songwriters

Mainland Chinese artists

Mainland Chinese songwriters

Taiwanese artists

Taiwanese songwriters

oh my goodness.

By just looking at the disaster on Aska Yang, I think we really need to set a manual of style. Now. (I know many, many other users have called for this. This is definitely not the first proposal.) Any suggestions? I know a Career section will be almost mandatory; same goes for our infoboxes. We still haven't established a consensus on categories, so I guess we can start on the article sectioning first.

Lead - brief summary of career developments (e.g. Jay Chou, Jane Zhang)

"Beginnings" - some kind of section detailing the article subject's pre-debut life; titles may vary (although we should probably agree on a select few)

Career - music, film, etc.

Musical style - if applicable and if verifiable sources exist. But if you're just paraphrasing things off the CD booklet, then I don't think that's going to be a problem. It's not like you have to prove that David Tao composed a song.

Public perception - includes controversies, media praise and criticism

Image - if possible (note: not all artists will have sources on their image, but you can include sources that describe their character in some way)

Death and legacy - if applicable. Should be useful for Leslie Cheung and Anita Mui.

Discography - I'd strongly discourage a discography section within the article, but if it's small like that of Jane Zhang (who has only two albums so far, and whose discography would not really take up any space), I guess we can just leave it. However, should the discography be split off to another article (e.g. Leon Lai discography), then we're going to have to link it within the Music Career section.

Filmography - see Discography above. If it's short enough, let it be.

Major Concerts - list only MAJOR PERFORMANCES. (any input as to what constitutes as major?) Prose here I guess would be optional.

Endorsements - a full listing of endorsements is highly discouraged (not to mention it'd be horrendously long). Should be included under the "Public perception" section, or written as prose under its own "Endorsements" section.

Notes - includes non-reference footnotes

References

Navigation boxes, should any exist

Pandacomics (talk) 23:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• I say we contact all active and interested Wikipedians (i.e. Benjwong, Dengero , Hong Qi Gong) and get the whole re-tooling thing started! We can start off by archiving what's here and rework (by that, I mean, thoroughly clean up) the project under the new name (which I presume is to be, "Wikiproject Chinese-language entertainment"?). Until then, I've set up a sandbox page to expand on the MOS until we can move it to the WikiProject once it's cleaned up. How does that sound? Skyezx 08:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I'll join you guys after my crazy retarded exams which will be after June 21st. 5 assignments this month and 4 exams next month. I'm like the fattest crab in history. Can't even budge lol. Dengero (talk) 10:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Yah I'll join when the project name is retooled / changed. Benjwong (talk) 15:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

looking at the new project page....

Is this going to be the place where we can put in our two CEnts? Har har. Pandacomics (talk) 01:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Or we can archive this and start fresh. Skyezx 03:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, after all the link tweaking and everything... (T_T), we can archive the entire project and start everything from scratch instead of just changing the name (like what I've done up to now). Any ideas?Skyezx 03:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

We could...I mean, it'd be a simple matter of copying and pasting everything, really. Pandacomics (talk) 18:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Article "grammer"

(Typo intended.) In the manual of style, I'd absolutely love to include a section on when to use the simple past (e.g. released) and when to use the present perfect (e.g. has released). Anonymous/new editors seem to be obsessed with using the present perfect for reasons beyond my comprehension. WHY? Pandacomics (talk) 18:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Source of the article : Wikipedia