Disambiguator
@Philg88, Anna Frodesiak, and Colipon: I've moved the article back to its original title Wuzhishan City, because using Hainan as disambiguator does not work in this case, as the city and the mountain it's named after are both in Hainan. See similar cases of Huangshan / Huangshan City, Jinggangshan / Jinggangshan City, Hami Prefecture / Hami City, etc. -Zanhe (talk) 06:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- Hmmmmm, tricky situation. On one hand, Wuzhishan, Hainan is good because it gets some distance for the word "city", but there is the ambiguity. Then again, the other article is called Wuzhi Mountain so it is not that ambiguous. On the other hand, Wuzhishan City is good because visitors clearly know it's not about the mountain, and there is the lead and lead image which clarifies. I know! Let's call it Wuzhishan Prefecture-Level City and Greater Area That is Named After a Mountain But Not a Mountain But Includes a Mountain and a City Which is Really a Town That is Not Actually on the Mountain. It is quite fitting, just like calling the equivalent of Canada's Boxco something like China National Box Manufacturing and Assembly Industry Conglomerate Concern Company Limited. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Baidu Baike archives
@Amigao@Thehistorianisaac, You have each reverted three times over this removal . I am disappointed to see two experienced editors pushing the limits of the 3RR instead of coming to the Talk page.
WP:BAIDUBAIKE lists Baidu Baike as deprecated because it is a user-generated source. We generally consider user-generated sources unreliable, including Wikipedia. However, Baidu Baike's archive links, such as the one Thehistorianisaac added here, are not user-generated, so it seems to me that WP:BAIDUBAIKE would not apply to them.
Amigao, you asked for a broader discussion in your edit summaries. That has already happened, to some extent, in this Village Pump discussion. I read that discussion as a rough consensus to allow Baidu Baike archive links. If you disagree and would like to start a full-on RfC, you are welcome to do so. Toadspike [Talk] 08:14, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- I will mostly stick to the talk page from now on; Though point still stands, as the original sources comes from the wuzhishan municipal goverment website which is unfortunelately a dead link(though archived on baidu baike) Thehistorianisaac (talk) 10:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- The proper forum for discussion about proposed changes to the status of any deprecated source is WP:RSN. (WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, WP:ONUS, and WP:BURDEN are also highly germane in this context.) Have any relevant discussions about this been put forth on WP:RSN? An inconclusive past discussion on the village pump that has not resulted in any changes to the edit filter does not suffice for changing the status of a deprecated source. - Amigao (talk) 22:15, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- Amigao, I just explained why the deprecation of Baidu Baike does not apply to its archives of third-party webpages, which are not user generated. Isaac is citing some local government website, not Baidu Baike.
- The edit filter is irrelevant. It only exists to remind editors of consensus; it does not define consensus. This is similar to how SALTing and the title blacklist are regularly lifted when specific cases call for it. The filter also does not stop these links being added – it only provides a warning against doing so, presumably because there are cases where linking to Baidu Baike is allowed.
- RSN discussions take significant community time and I am wary of starting one over an insignificant factoid (the number of employees of a local police station). If you are able to articulate legitimate concerns about this specific citation, then I will go to RSN, but if I understand you correctly, you are currently arguing, without evidence, that this source is user-generated. Toadspike [Talk] 22:35, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Amigao
- Again, I am citing the government website, not Baidu Baike, which is purely being used as an archive(WP:CONTEXTMATTERS)
- I actually made a post on WP:RSN which mentioned this long time ago, which most users agreed on accepting use as an archive, not a source Thehistorianisaac (talk) 23:38, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- Well, that would've been nice to know. Found it after a quick search: WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 468#Possible uses of deprecated sources (in some contexts): Baidu Baike and China Central Television (CCTV). Toadspike [Talk] 23:43, 15 June 2025 (UTC)