Talk:China/Archive 2013-2018

Other destinations cut

Following the discussion, I cut the list and place the rest here for the future:

The skyline of Pudong, Shanghai

China has dozens of UNESCO World Heritage sites.

Sacred sites

For sacred mountains, see the next section.

Several sites in China have famous Buddhist art:

• Yungang Grottoes in Shanxi Province - more than 51,000 Buddhist carvings, dating back 1,500 years, in the recesses and caves of the Yangang Valley mountainsides
• Mogao Caves in Gansu province - art and manuscripts dating back to the 4th century
• Dazu Rock Carvings near Chongqing - dating from the 7-13th century
• Longmen Grottoes near Luoyang - 5-10th century

Mountains

The Hong Kong skyline, with a famous Star Ferry in the foreground

China is home to many sacred mountains.

The Five Great Mountains (五岳 wǔyuè), associated with Taoism:

• Mount Tai (泰山), Shandong Province (1,545 meters)
• Mount Hua (华山), Shaanxi Province (1,997 meters)
• Mount Heng (Hunan) (衡山), Hunan Province (1,290 meters)
• Mount Heng (Shanxi) (恒山), Shanxi Province (2,017 meters)
• Mount Song (嵩山）, Henan Province, where the famous Shaolin Temple (少林寺) is located (1,494 meters)

The Four Sacred Mountains (四大佛教名山 sìdà fójiào míngshān), associated with Buddhism:

• Mount Emei (峨嵋山), Sichuan Province (3,099 meters)
• Mount Jiuhua (九华山), Anhui Province (1,342 meters)
• Mount Putuo (普陀山), Zhejiang Province (297 meters, an island)
• Mount Wutai (五台山), Shanxi Province (3,058 meters)

The three main sacred mountains of Tibetan Buddhism:

• Mount Kailash, Tibet (5,656 meters), also known as Gang Rinpoche in Tibetan, also one of Hinduism's holiest mountains visited by many Hindu pilgrims
• Kawa Karpo
• Amnye Machen

There are also several other well-known mountains. In China, many mountains have temples, even if they are not especially sacred sites:

• Mount Qingcheng (青城山), Sichuan Province
• Mount Longhu (龙虎山), Jiangxi Province
• Mount Lao (崂山), Shandong Province
• Mount Wuyi (武夷山), Fujian Province, a major tourist/scenic site with many tea plantations
• Mount Everest, straddling the border between Nepal and Tibet, world's highest mountain
• Mount Huang (黄山) (Yellow Mountain), in Anhui province, with scenery and temples
• Mount Wudang (武当山), near Danjiangkou in Hubei, Taoist mecca, birthplace of taichi and Wudang kung fu
• Changbaishan/Paektusan (Chinese:长白山 Korean:백두산), the most sacred mountain in the world to both ethnic Manchus and Koreans, located on the border with North Korea

Revolutionary Pilgrimage Sites

• Shaoshan (韶山) - First CCP Chairman and Chinese leader Mao Zedong's hometown
• Jinggangshan (井冈山) - The first CCP rural base area after the 1927 crackdown by the KMT
• Ruijin (瑞金) - Seat of the China Soviet Republic from 1929 to 1934
• Zunyi (遵义) - Site of the Zunyi Conference where Mao Zedong joined the Politburo Standing Committee
• Luding (泸定) - Site of a famous forced crossing of a high mountain river
• Yan'an (延安) - Primary base area for the Communist Party from 1935 to 1945

Most of these, though not Shaoshan, are covered in the Long March itinerary. Is a link to that all we need here? Pashley (talk) 00:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I see most of these are now back. Take them out again? Create a new article along the lines of Sacred sites of the Indian sub-continent and put them there? Keep them? Even the list of mountains? Pashley (talk) 19:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Difficulty of the language

I reverted the edit "Like standard Mandarin, all these "dialects" are tonal languages and not easy for Westerners to master." to the "Talk" section but another user reverted my revert, so I'll address it here as is protocol: I don't think this information is important nor is it very accurate. Tonal languages may take some getting used to, but with such similar grammatical structure to English, Chinese is really not that difficult to learn to speak/understand for those who actually try. Those who say Chinese is difficult typically have never made any serious efforts to learn and are basing that assumption purely on the fact that it's Asian and therefore "different/weird/strange".

Perhaps more importantly, though, I don't think the information is pertinent nor do I think it sets a good tone. What is the purpose of saying that Westerners are bad at Chinese/tonal languages? To discourage them from travelling to China? To discourage them from trying to learn anything before they visit? To promote the stereotype of Asia as a mysterious and incomprehensible land to outsiders? I'd like to rerevert it... Thoughts? (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 20:09, 10 April 2011 (EDT)

I get some of your points, but I have to say, I am very good at learning languages: I'm fluent in English (my mother tongue) and Malay (well, I was fluent and will be again within a week after going back again) and have very good conversational and reading skills in Italian and French when in practice, and I speak a smattering of a bunch of other languages, including Mandarin. The fact that I'm a musician and used to tones in that context helped me to learn survival-level Mandarin before and during my first trip to China in 1987 and improve my skills further before and during another trip in 2004. Yet there's no doubt that of all the languages I've tried to learn, Chinese has been the most challenging (with Hungarian in 2nd place). However, if you feel that discussion of whether it is challenging for Westerners to learn Chinese is not pertinent to the article, I won't dispute your rereverting on that basis. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 23:58, 10 April 2011 (EDT)

I agree that the notion that Chinese is hard for westerners is a too often repeated stereotype. Yes, it is tonal but a great deal is communicated and understood by context. "tonal languages and not easy for Westerners to master." as it is mastering any second language. No point trying to scare off travellers by telling them they cant get around China without being fluent in Chinese. A few simple words or phrases like those on the language pages will be enough for most, and we should tell them exactly that. - (WT-en) Cardboardbird 10:33, 11 April 2011 (EDT)

A couple of side points here: No-one is telling anyone they have to be fluent in the local language to get around, and I don't think our job is to either encourage or discourage anyone from traveling anywhere, but just to present information and let people make their own decisions. Is the purpose of this guide to promote travel? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think so. I think the purpose is, instead, to assist travelers and prospective travelers. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 13:50, 11 April 2011 (EDT)

Well, I think the tone and "be fair" policies are at least partially meant to encourage writing that makes destinations appealing to travelers, so in a way we are promoting/encouraging travel to each destination. Of course, we also have to be realistic about each destination's dangers/downsides. For me, after having studied Japanese, I thought Chinese was refreshingly easy to pick up, since I could pretty much plug in any new vocab without worrying about sentence-structuring like in Japanese, although I only learned basic Chinese.

On the discussion topic, are we in agreeance then that the information about language difficulty is inappropriate? (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 22:22, 11 April 2011 (EDT)

You presented it earlier in this discussion as not pertinent, and I agreed on that basis. But, by the way, did you learn how to say "How do you say [English word] in Chinese?" I found that unless you say "[English word], shenme shuo?", you get a confused look and no answer. So while I don't know enough Japanese to compare difficulty and I am aware that its grammar is more complex, if you really think word order is always the same in Chinese as in English, your Chinese may be more basic than mine.

[Edit:] Sorry, it looks like I somehow forgot to sign my comment directly above. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 21:02, 12 April 2011 (EDT)

Alright. I changed it. I like to get final confirmation, since I was the one that started the discussion, just to make sure no one feels like I made a decision quickly in order to get my way. lol

I didn't mean that the grammar is always the same, but generally, the structure is similar to English (much moreso than critics would lead one to believe). I never really asked someone how to say an English word in Chinese, because I found that if they knew the English word, they would speak English, and if they didn't, they weren't able to give a Chinese equivalent. I could get around but not really have discussions, so your Chinese is likely better. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 22:38, 12 April 2011 (EDT)

I don't agree that Chinese is as easy for most westerners as a European language. I've yet to meet a westerner fluent in many languages who said he or she picked up Chinese as quickly as he or she picked up his or her second or third European language. There's also the considerable regional variation, such that even if you're well understood in Harbin or Beijing, you may get a lot of uncomprehending looks in Chongqing, never mind Guangzhou (which isn't even a Mandarin area).--Brian Dell (talk) 22:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Orwell

An anonymous contributor added "George Orwell's novels Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four have been seized at Chinese airports as they are critical of communism." I am tempted to take that out because I have seen both in the state-owned Xinhua bookstore. On the other hand, perhaps this is just yet another of China's contradictions. If the comment comes from experience rather than rumour, it should probably stay. (WT-en) Pashley

I have traveled through immigration in Shanghai and Beijing many times recently. I have yet to be searched for anything, so I find this fact somewhat dubious. (Not that I have ever tried to bring a Geore Orwell book in) --Andrewssi2 (talk) 14:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I've lightened up this section somewhat.. it makes it sound like entering China is similar to North Korea. I guess these kind of searches happened even 10 years ago, but my experience of mainland airports is that customs are very rarely bothered to search your bags. Not sure where the author found his metric of 100 pornographic videos on his laptop from... Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:39, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Airline info

Someone has put quite a lot of work into a table of China-Europe airline routes. It is incomplete; Luthansa have flown to Nanjing for years & KLM now fly to Xiamen. Above it is text on flights from North America and other areas of Asia. I am not sure how up-to-date that is.

I could make a pretty good argument for deleting the lot because it is impossible to maintain such a detailed list. On the other hand, at least some sort of primer on routes to China seems a good idea; many travellers would have no idea what their options are. What do others think? Pashley (talk) 17:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd say: delete the table, it's too detailed. Jjtk (talk) 17:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

More than six months later, table is still there. I'm still inclined to nuke it, but do not have time to write a good replacement. Other flights may also have changed, so the whole section may need an update. Any volunteers? Pashley (talk) 16:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I would delete the portion of the "Airlines and routes" subsection, starting with the first bulleted item, in addition to the table. If people want up-to-date flight information, there are various sites they will consult; this is not one of them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Ikan in that Wikivoyage isn't a good place to maintain a current list of flight information. The motivation to do this is good, however it is simply impractical to keep up to date. In addition, someone might read the page and assume that no such flight exists, therefore unfortunately (and inadvertently) misinforming the traveler. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Per se the idea of having such a list isn't bad. If it would be possible to directly embed regularly updated lists of airlines' and airports' destinations from Wikipedia it would be great. But now it's not possible. In the current list there's now only a fraction of the flights between Europe and China - where are the other Chinese carriers, British Airways, Air France, Lufthansa's other flights and who know what else is missing/outdated? Plus, the transpacific and other transcontinental flights to China aren't arranged in a list either. Therefore: let's delete the list for now and, if needed, expand the paragraph about Europe-China flights above. ϒpsilon (talk) 09:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Duly deleted. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I recently expanded China#By plane a bit because I thought that, after the deletion, it was somewhat too thin. Other opinions are likely needed. Pashley (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Looks good. It does still seem to have a focus on east Asian travel.. maybe we should add more content for North American and European connections? Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Negative tone

While it is fine I think to mention jarring aspects to outsiders, like spitting, I think the document provides an overwhelmingly and unfairly negative tone. I find Chinese to have many good qualities such as patience, a relative lack of violence, etc., which also ought to be drawn out if there is going to be such a negative tone. Similarly, other articles like on New York City, which state things like "approach the nearest police officer. You'll find them to be friendly, polite, and very helpful." go out of their way to qualify their often negative image. I have seen such manifest bias in travel documents before, and from the ceaseless carping of certain expats I have met here, but I would have expected a little better here. Yes, I know I can edit it myself, but don't have all the time or interest to do so. But wanted to bring it up. Brettz9 (talk) 05:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I am more concerned about accuracy, and the points are mostly accurate. I'd rather not see Wikivoyage adopt a Lonelyplanet style whereby there is a general bias towards viewing the local culture as nobly struggling against a history of colonial oppression and contemporary western and especially U.S. foreign policy as largely malevolent. I'd rather see the addition of positive material than the removal of negative material.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Interesting point, I would strongly agree that expatriates living in China take a very negative attitude towards Chinese behavior, which is completely unfair. The article should be written for the benefit of the traveler who wants to experience China and not for people who choose to live there long term just to earn money. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Explanation of the latest edits

Hi, everyone. The latest edits - [1] - are unexplained. I'd like to see an explanation for each of the edits, please. All of them seem non-obvious to me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I left no explanation for my edit. I trimmed down some contents in the part History in Understand. I think some words were unimportant and that part wasn't brief at all. These words may be helpless to tourists visiting China. That's why I deleted some words in the page.Shdzw (talk) 06:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Shdzw. That's quite a reasonable explanation. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Regions revisited

The original proposal for what became the current regions division, above at #Regions, had Shaanxi in the North, with the other Yellow River basin provinces, and Inner Mongolia in the North-west with Ningjia, Xinjiang, etc. I would say both of those suggestions were correct.

Now, though, the North China region includes Inner Mongolia and excludes Shaanxi. I do not know when or why those changes were made, but I'd say both were errors and we should rectify them. Other opinions? Pashley (talk) 19:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thinking further, there are arguments both ways for Shaanxi; it could be taken as part of either Northwest China or the Chinese heartland North China.

Inner Mongolia is a clearer case. It just does not belong in the heartland North China article. and it fits better in Northwest China than Northeast China, if only because the Chinese dong bei for the Northeast excludes it.

I agree with all the other current divisions. Pashley (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Moving Inner Mongolia to Northwest China looks obviously correct to me, but I have not done it for two reasons. One is that I'd like to hear other opinions before making a major & possibly controversial change. The other is that it would need changes to the map and I do not know how to do that. Pashley (talk) 18:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I can understand why it's grouped with North China: Because it's so wide from east to west that it goes from Northeast to Northwest China. Your solution is certainly a reasonable one, though not the only possible one. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

A couple of months have gone by with no further comment on this. I think I'll add it at Wikivoyage:Requests for comment to see if others have anything to add. Pashley (talk) 18:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems weird to have it in "Northwest China" simply because looking at a map, it looks like it's in the northeast. That said, it definitely groups better with the rest of the provinces in Northwest China. Could we use a different name? Chinese Steppes? For that matter the old "North Central China" seems like a more geographically intuitive name for North China. --Peter ^Talk 18:33, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

You are right on both of those. Chinese Steppes seems a fine idea, though there would need to be something in the text about Manchuria also being a steppe region. Pashley (talk) 19:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Its an oddly shaped province. While it is probably easiest to reach from the Beijing area, Northeast China seems to be the best fit. I believe much of the eastern part of the province has traditionally been under the control of Manchuria or Manchus anyway. Personally, Inner Mongolia seems much less odd in its current location than Guangxi being paired with Tibet. Altaihunters (talk) 07:45, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

New bird flu outbreak

I am not sure how much of a concern this is, so I have not inserted a warning box. Should we? If so, where: top of article or in "stay healthy"?

An email warning which I got from Canadian consulate links to [2] which in turn links to WHO site. Pashley (talk) 16:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

more [3] Pashley (talk)

Health alerts can be relevant as a main warning box over an article, although I would suggest only when consistent with current WHO alerts. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Transit without visa

I deleted and simplified a fair amount of content from the 'Transit without visa' section. It was extremely complex to read, and would possibly give someone traveling to China the wrong idea. I'm very open to someone reviewing my change since I myself have never used such a visa before. We should also take care when providing travel advice on the whole subject area of Chinese visas, since the rules change frequently and are not applied uniformly as in other countries. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 11:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I would say your changes are a large improvement. Pashley (talk) 13:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I took the liberty of doing some more cleanup of the visa section, although I feel it still needs a lot more work. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 13:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Using Specialized Chinese Travel Agents for airline discounts?

The airlines section has this paragraph:

If you live in a city with a sizable overseas Chinese community (such as Toronto, San Francisco, Sydney or London), check for cheap flights with someone in that community or visit travel agencies operated by Chinese. Sometimes flights advertised only in Chinese newspapers or travel agencies cost significantly less than posted fares in English. However if you go and ask, you can get the same discount price.

Is this actually true? It may have been the case 10 years ago that you could get a better deal with a specialized travel agent, although I am doubting this is still the case. Does anyone have an opinion on this? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 11:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I wrote that at least five years ago and there were good deals in Toronto then. Now, I don't know. Pashley (talk)

OK, I guess it might still be true then. Let's leave it. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 13:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Smoking in restaurants

I've been to many restaurants in both Shanghai and Beijing in the last year, and I'm having difficulty recalling any places that people smoked. There was a pretty local mutton restaurant in Beijing where I did observe this, however in most other places (both Western and Chinese) I just didn't notice. Is it because I wasn't paying enough attention, or are attitudes changing in the main cities? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 14:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Attitudes and laws are changing, faster in the major cities but to some extent in second-tier cities as well. As of mid-2012 many of the better places in Xiamen & Fuzhou restricted smoking, but not all and most hole-in-the-wall class places did not. I'm not sure if there is any change in more rural areas since I have no experience of those. Pashley (talk) 15:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you think the whole 'People and customs' section gives the wrong impression about China? Most of these things can be observed if you spend enough time in China, however the text gives me the impression that these things happen constantly whereas my experience of China is actually much more positive. (Although like you, I don't spend much time in the rural areas). Would you be agreeable if I toned down the text a bit? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 16:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Fine by me.

There is one thing that was once there, though, that someone took out & I think should go back in, because I think it essential to understanding Chinese attitudes. China is zhong guo (center land or middle kingdom) & everyone else is wai guo ren (outside land people) or lao wai (venerable outsider). Of course, others do the same thing — consider Mediterranean Sea, the Londoner who claims "civilisation ends at Watford", etc. etc. — but I see this as an aspect of Chinese thinking that vistors need to be told about. Pashley (talk) 16:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Seems like User User:W. Frank has added your material back in already :) I'm not sure why someone would have taken it out originally . --Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I moved 'Offensive Behaviour' out of the 'culture' section since it doesn't seem right to define Chinese culture with a massive list of negative behaviors. I will work on this new section more. Any ideas what this new section should be called? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

"Potentially jarring behaviours"? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that could work. Do you think maybe it suggests a point of view belong to Western people? (for example, sneezing into a handkerchief is a 'jarring' behvaiour for a Japanese person, but Westerners think nothing of it at all) --Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

At first glance, yes, but on second thought, not entirely. All that spitting could be more shocking for a Singaporean than a New Yorker. I do think the section is primarily directed at people from European and European-influenced cultures, though, and that's the way it is. And I think many Chinese people realize that these kinds of behaviors are off-putting to many foreigners. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, point taken! Again, I would welcome of review of any changes I make to this section. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 14:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

English teaching visa restrictions

I have read the Work section on being an English teacher, and I find the wording very ambiguous around giving extra private lessons outside of your school. It is not an area I personally have experience in, however isn't is against the conditions of your work visa to do this? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 13:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

It is quite common but most contracts (link in article) forbid it without the employer's permission; I do not know if it is actually a visa condition.

Certainly some outside work is OK. I worked for a school attached to a university and school management asked for volunteers to do some extra classes at the university. Later I was offered work teaching a Chinese Army medical team who were about to go off to Liberia as UN peacekeepers; I asked for employer permission and got it with no problem. I assumed that working for a prestigious employer with my school's permission was quite safe, but I do not actually know.

On other hand, a language school in the town I was in was raided by police and at least one teacher with a tourist visa was deported. People who were working elsewhere and had FECs were given a hard time but neither arrested nor deported. Rumour had it that the Chinese owner of another school turned that school in; it irritated him to pay for airfare and housing then have the employee work for a competitor as well. Pashley (talk) 14:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, like many things in China it seems to be ambiguous. Working under a tourist visa is a pretty clear violation though.

I believe my own (Z) visa conditions restrict me from doing external work at the same time, although perhaps the nature of teaching (with the example you gave) means that work outside your employer is generally accepted. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 15:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

元666 or CNY666 rather than ¥666?

I don't speak or write Mandarin and have never been to China, but I'm given to understand that there are several different ways to describe Chinese currency: yuan, rm, RM, ren min bi, RMB, CNY; CN¥, 元, CN元 and kuai and that "yuan" is rarely used in spoken English, whereas kuai and ren min bi are the most frequently used.

Some while ago (and long before we recently adopted the three letter ISO 4217 code for the currency in block capitals and no intervening space, for most countries) we decided to use the Japanese yen symbol of just ¥ for the PRC currency.

Now that sentiment in China has been growing against "things Japanese", do we want to re-visit that decision and use the formats of either 元666 or CNY666 rather than ¥666?

The rationale would be that, at the moment, we have the policy that the format is either

the three letter ISO 4217 code for most countries or

where there is a universally known currency notation that is well established and there is no real risk of ambiguity, then the currency notation the traveller will encounter locally is used.

The current WV policy for the PRC seems to create a rather bizarre third category of neither using the UN / ISO recommendation nor the currency notation used in the PRC itself.

My understanding is that we only previously decided on "¥" because it was the standard symbol for Japanese yen, which is included in most mainstream western font sets, and should display fine on most computers.

I think you can tell that my own preference would be to use the unambiguous and inoffensive CNY666 notation. --W. Frank^email_talk 22:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

You mention "yuan, rm, RM, ren min bi, RMB, CNY; CN¥, 元, CN元 and kuai and that "yuan" is rarely used in spoken English, whereas kuai and ren min bi are the most frequently used."

No. I spent ten years in China & my impression is that "yuan" or "kuai" are common, with "RMB" (usually pronounced as three letters) a fairly distant third. But "kuai" is slang, about like "buck" or "quid", common in informal speech both in Chinese and English, but not appropriate for use here. As for rm, RM, CN¥, or CN元, I have never seen those before your post.

Ren min bi, abbreviated RMB, means "people's money"; it is the formal name of the currency, but yuan is the unit. A similar thing in the West is "pounds sterling"; pounds is the unit and it would be strange to say or write "200 sterling" instead of "200 pounds". Despite that, things like "200 RMB" do appear fairly often.

Correct written Chinese is 200 元 (symbol after number & usually with a space); that is what travellers will most often encounter locally. I'm not sure that is a good idea here, though, since it may be hard for both readers & editors.

I do not like CNY200 at all; you do not see it in China and it looks ugly to me.

As I see it, the current ¥200 is fine. We could change to 200 元 or 200 rmb, but I do not think it is worth the trouble. Pashley (talk) 01:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

earlier discussion Pashley (talk) 01:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

CNY is maybe not offensive, however it often means 'Chinese New Year' between foreigners, and therefore confusing. RMB is the standard way that I see prices listed for the benefit of foreigners (e.g. RMB 600 ) therefore I would suggest using that notation. I agree with Pashley in that 元 would also be hard for new visitors to China. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that User W. Frank changed the currency code from RMB to CNY. For reasons I have already stated I believe this to be incorrect. (I am currently in China, and my receipts all say 'RMB'). Can someone else please provide an opinion on this? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

We usually show the ISO 4217 currency code in the quickbar, together with the symbolisation we use if different from that. Why do you think that should change for China or that the current pertinent paragraph of our article below is not accurate?

"The official currency of the People's Republic of China is the renminbi (人民币 "People's Money"), often abbreviated RMB. The base unit of this currency is the yuan (元), international currency code CNY. All prices in China are given in yuan, usually either as ¥ or 元. The renminbi is not legal tender in the Special Administrative Regions of Hong Kong and Macau, both of which issue their own currencies although occasionally it will be accepted on an unfavorable 1 to 1 basis with Hong Kong Dollars."

--W. Frank^email_talk 22:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

If the ISO standard is used in the quickbar for all wikivoyage articles, then it probably isn't that important to make an exception here. I just felt it strange to use CNY since I seldom see it in China, however the general use of currency throughout the article seems fine (¥) --Andrewssi2 (talk) 13:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I reverted a W Frank edit since it seemed sill to me to insert an explanation of currency symbols in the middle of a paragraph on an unrelated topic, then edited both the box text and the Buy/Money section to (I hope) improve the explanations. Feedback solicited. Pashley (talk) 16:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm very happy about you reverting this edit since, as the edit summary hinted, it was made specifically to comply with the not entirely unreasonable suggestion of Ikan Kekek and other's to expand and or explain the first occurrence of an abbreviation or symbolisation that may not be known or be ambiguous to some in an article.

Personally, I think that most readers in most destination articles will presume that the first occurrence of a price or cost using a notation they don't know is likely to be the currency used in that country, but it might be fair to alert him to this since I know he has a special interest in avoiding any currency ambiguities.

I accept that, for now the consensus is that there should be no change in using ¥ in both China and Japan articles and that where there is a risk of ambiguity, the internationally recognised currency codes of CNY and JPY can be used respectively. Fortunately these should be rare since it should be obvious from a phrase such as "Flights from Lusaka with China Southern Airlines via Guangzhou to Osaka are priced at about ¥16,500" since currently CNY1 = JPY16 approximately. --W. Frank^email_talk 17:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Time formats

It would be nice to get some China guides to Star status.

At the moment they have a mixture of 12 and 24 hour formats.

wv:times says: "Use one of these formats: 09:30–17:00 or 9:30AM–5PM. Do not use both 24- and 12-hour formats within one article. Choose between formats by following predominant local usage. Ask yourself which format visitors will see in timetables, on shop doors and in newspapers."

I presume the 24-hour format is the more common of the two? --W. Frank^email_talk 09:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

In my limited experience in China (2 visits of 4 1/2 weeks and 2 weeks, but only a few cities), that was definitely the case. For example, train tickets were printed in 24-hour time. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I was in Shanghai yesterday, and one clear example was the bus lanes that are clearly marked in 24 hour format. 24 hour seems standard in China. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

British/Commonwealth English or American English?

There is a mixture of spelling in all the China articles between American and British English.

There seems to be a general tendency to use British English in Wikivoyage China articles.

As far as I know, China does not have an English standard, although most English signs tend to use American spellings. (An obvious exception is Hong Kong that uses the British English standard)

I myself do not have a preference, except that one standard is used for all China articles except Hong Kong and Macau.

How can we define a rule for China in order to make all China articles consistent? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. When I was last in China, in 2004, I tended to see British spellings, such as centre instead of center. If there's no real standard of English in China, maybe it's best just to keep each article internally consistent and otherwise not worry about any of them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

OK. Happy to leave the China article as 'British' and let the others follow what they feel is best. It might become an issue at some point though. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

This is indeed a tricky one and, if we allow it to, we can have many a happy hour chasing our tails in circles about what variety to use. As I write this our policy is, of course: "If the destination has no history of using English and no clear preference for the variety to use, we prefer US English spelling" but the wv:sp policy page is glaringly deficient in not providing a list of countries with the variety assigned to them. This gaping omission means that it will inevitably fall to be thrashed out on more than 100 different country pages like this one.

As you've pointed out, we could reasonably decide either way. We could decide that the territory currently occupied by the PRC has no history of using English (except in pre-war Shanghai) and no clear preference for the variety to use (government websites seem to use a mixture that varies between ministries) so we should default to US English.

On the other hand, we could adopt the officially popular stance of One country, two systems and say that there is a very strong history of using British English in a tiny (but economically important) part of the Chinese territory and come down on the side of British/Hong Kong English.

Since, the major part of this article already uses the Commonwealth variety I'm going to be lazy and carry on using that variety here to keep things consistent unless anyone makes a persuasive objection. --W. Frank^email_talk 14:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Historically, British English dominated in all the Treaty Ports, with considerable influence from other parts of the Empire, with Hindi words like "bund" (riverside embankment) and "shroff" (a type of clerk) in widespread use. However, American English has also been an influence from 19th century missionaries & traders to the present, and I think it has increased in the last few decades. Pashley (talk) 14:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Pashley, I always wondered about 'schroff' but never took the time to google it. Because it ends with 'ff' it seemed unlikely to be a Chinese word, but also obviously not English. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:42, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Frank. Let's just say commonwealth. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:42, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Rebuild Cinema List?

I just noticed the Cinema section: China#Cinema. It seems to be a long list of directors and films with no description of each whatsoever. Now, I agree that 'Beijing Bicycle' is definitely a film worth watching before visiting China, however the listing here would not interest anyone to go find it and watch it.

Is it OK to rebuild this list into something more descriptive? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 14:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

See previous discussion at #Books_.26_cinema. It is explicitly a non-goal of the project to be either a yellow pages or a web directory, so I'd say such lists are inappropriate. I'd delete the whole cinema section and reduce the books to "Wild Swans" (which I'm told the British Foreign Office suggests for businessmen coming to China) and perhaps one or two others. Pashley (talk) 14:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I was thinking just that. (although unaware of that particular discussion) Perhaps remove everything and replace with a (much shorter) section called 'Books and Films' with 4 or 5 items in total? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 14:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

A list of films removed:

• Bernardo Bertolucci - The Last Emperor (1987)
• Zhang Yimou - Raise the Red Lantern (1991)
• Chen Kaige - Farewell My Concubine (1993)
• Zhang Yimou - To Live (1994)
• Wu Ziniu - Don't Cry, Nanking (1995)
• Wu Tianming - The King of Masks (1996)
• Zhang Yimou - Keep cool (1997)
• Xie Jin - The Opium War (1997)
• Zhang Yang - Shower (1999)
• Feng Xiao Gang - Sorry Baby (1999)
• Zhang Yimou - Not one less (1999)
• Xiaoshuai Wang – Beijing bicycle (2001)
• Zhang Yimou - Riding Alone for Thousands of Miles (2005)
• Gianni Amelio - La stella che non c’è or The Missing Star (2006)
• Zhang Yuan - Little Red Flowers (2006)
• Daniel Lee - Three Kingdoms: Resurrection of the Dragon (2008)
• Roger Spottiswoode - The Children of Huangshi (2008)

A list of books removed:

Non-guidebooks, either about China, or by Chinese writers.

Travel

• The Travels of Marco Polo by Marco Polo - the Venetian traveller's stories in the Middle Kingdom (see also: On the trail of Marco Polo)
• Dialogues Tibetan Dialogues Han by Hannü (ISBN 9789889799939) - Tibet through the Tibetans with a Han traveller

Literature

• The Good Earth by Pearl S. Buck - The classic tale of Chinese peasant life at the turn of the twentieth century, by the author who kindled the American public's interest in China in the 1930s. Ms. Buck won the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1938 for the body of her work about China.
• Winter Stars by Beatrice Lao (ISBN 988979991X) - a collection of poems born between the Alps and the Tyrrhenian
• Romance of the Three Kingdoms (三国演义) - the classic Chinese novel of the heroic deeds of the generals and leaders of the three kingdoms following the collapse of the Han dynasty. Noted for its details of cunning military and political strategies. One of the Four Great Classics. It continues to inspire films, TV series, comics, and video games throughout East Asia.
• Water Margin or Outlaws of the Marsh (水浒传) - a Song Dynasty tale of bandits living in the Huai River Valley who fight against the corrupt government. Noted for the rebellious nature of its main characters against an established order. It's the Chinese version of "sticking it to the man". One of the Four Great Classics.
• Journey to the West (西游记) - perhaps the most famous Chinese novel, a fantasy account of Xuan Zang's Tang Dynasty journey to retrieve sacred Buddhist texts with the aid of the monkey king Sun Wukong, the gluttonous Zhu Bajie and dependable Sha Wujing. Noted for its extremely creative fantasies and adventures. One of the Four Great Classics.
• Dream of the Red Chamber (红楼梦) also known as The Story of the Stone (Penguin Classics, 5 volumes)- a lively account of aristocratic life in the Qing dynasty told through the stories of three powerful families. Noted for its extremely accurate portrayal of Chinese aristocrats and the work is often regarded as the zenith of Chinese literature. One of the Four Great Classics.

History

• Twilight in The Forbidden City by R.F. Johnston (ISBN 0968045952) Also available in Kindle Edition. As the British-born Tutor to the Dragon Emperor, Johnston was the only foreigner in history to be allowed inside the inner court of the Qing Dynasty. Johnston carried high imperial titles and lived in both the Forbidden City and the New Summer Palace. Twilight in the Forbidden City reflects his eyewitness accounts of the memorable events of the time.
• The Search for Modern China by Jonathan Spence - a renowned book written by a Yale professor about Chinese history since 1644.
• 1587, A Year of No Significance by Ray Huang - describes an uneventful year in the history of Ming Dynasty China. Its Chinese edition is one of the most well known history books on this period.
• China: A New History by John K. Fairbank - the last book of a prominent American academic that helped shape modern Sinology.
• The Cambridge History of China - ongoing series of books published by Cambridge University Press covering the early and modern history of China. This is the largest and most comprehensive history of China in the English language.
• The Open Empire: A History of China to 1600 by Valerie Hansen - presents in colourful detail the history, culture, and socio-economic development of China from the Shang period to the Ming.
• 1421, The Year China Discovered the World by Gavin Menzies (ISBN 0553815229) - well known but well contested account of China's alleged efforts to explore and map the entire world. Interestingly, this book which suggests that Chinese first discovered the New World is largely denounced as fictional by Chinese academics.
• The Sextants of Beijing by Joanna Waley-Cohen - a book that summarizes recent thinking on how China was much more open and less xenophobic than often assumed.
• Red Star Over China by Edgar Snow- recounts the months that he spent with the Chinese Red Army in the summer and fall of 1936.
• The Rape of Nanking by Iris Chang (ISBN 0140277447) - the forgotten Holocaust in WWII
• The Good Man of Nanking: The Diaries of John Rabe by John Rabe - firsthand description of the sadistic rapes, torture and slaughter perpetrated by Japanese soldiers in WWII and Rabe's ultimate success in saving perhaps a quarter of a million lives

• Red China Blues: My Long March from Mao to Now by Jan Wong, a reporter for the Globe and Mail of Toronto, Canada. The book describes her experiences as one of the first foreign exchange students to study in China after the Cultural Revolution and her life and experiences as a reporter in China until the mid 1990s.

Wikimedia images being blocked in China?

I'm in mainland China this week, and I noticed today that all images from Wikimedia were no longer working. I remotely logged into my computer in the United States and the images were fine when browsing WikiVoyage from there.

Is anyone else in China experiencing this? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, it seems to be working fine again now. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 14:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The issue has returned, as experienced from two separate internet connections in Shanghai. The problem means that visitors to china using Wikivoyage will experience:

* A massive empty square where the banner should be (it isn't the normal banner size)

* All images, including maps, are missing

The first issue might be resolved to some extent by fixing the banner template so that it doesn't resize like this. It will not return the banner image, although it will make the page more usable.

The second issue can't realistically be resolved technically. I would suggest a CautionBox for the main China articles suggesting that travelers print out / save as PDF pages before they travel to mainland China. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

They do block various things. Facebook, Twitter, many blogs, ... WP has been blocked a number of times. Preparing for the 2008 Olympics, the Olympic Committee basically told them they had to smarten up & they did. WP was unblocked then and, as far as I know, has remained unblocked since. There are probably images on Commons, though, that their gov't would consider not conducive to a "harmonious society".

Our Connect section needs a rewrite. Anyone planning to spend a significant amount of time in China needs a VPN, period. Pashley (talk) 01:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Does WP mean WordPress? That has always been blocked for me (tried it just now as well)--Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The VPN option, although necessary for long term China visitors isn't particularly straightforward for casual or short term visitors. (i.e. you have to identify a reputable service provider, pay with credit card and install it on your device). I believe it is worth to cover strategies for both types of visitors. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I was using WP for Wikipedia. Pashley (talk) 02:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Obtaining medicine

The article section for 'Health Care' states: "Drugs are generally available from a pharmacist without prescriptions". I went to a local drugstore in Shanghai yesterday and they said that western medicine requires a doctors prescription. I went to a drugstore next to a western clinic today and they sold me Tylanol, however they needed to see my passport and take a note of what I had purchased with my passport number.

I don't want to change the article text just based on my limited experience, therefore can anyone else provide input? Andrewssi2 (talk) 12:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I rewrote the paragraph, but more input would be good. Pashley (talk) 12:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Pashley! I'll add something based on recent experience. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 11:07, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Banking in China

I found the Banking information below really hard to understand, and I actually live in China:

Opening a bank account in China is a very straightforward process. The "big four" retail banks in China are the Bank of China (中国银行), China Construction Bank (中国建设银行), Agricultural Bank of China (中国农业银行) and Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (中国工商银行). For locally-owned banks you only need your passport with a valid visa (tourist visas are acceptable). Some banks such as Bank of East Asia will require proof of residence, but this restriction mostly applies to banks based in Hong Kong. For long-term travel or residence, a Chinese bank account is a very good idea. Depending on the bank, the PIN and/or ID may be required for withdrawals at the counter (ask beforehand; some foreign banks only require a signature for withdrawal; if you're not comfortable with that don't open an account there) although deposits can be made no questions asked if you have the bank book or card they issued with your account. Depending on the bank, the minimum initial deposit is ¥1-100 (some multinational banks like Citibank or DBS require five-digit minimum deposits; these banks are to be avoided for the average person). You may receive a bank book in which will record all transactions and balances - including foreign currency balances. However, most banks in big cities offer card-only accounts by default; if you want a bank book you'll have to ask unless they don't issue ATM cards at all (such as Shinhan Bank or Dah Sing Bank) Banks usually charge a fee (around 1%) for depositing and withdrawing money in a different city than the one you opened your account in (if opening with Woori Bank, they offer unlimited ATM withdrawals at any ATM in China until June 2011, and Wing Hang Bank offers free withdrawals anywhere in the world, with the card fee waived until 2014). ATMs are now present in almost all towns and cities except in the most remote areas. Many ATMs accept Visa, MasterCard, AMEX, Maestro, and Plus debit and credit cards although some only accept UnionPay and Pulse, Interac, or Link ATM cards.

I simplified it a great deal. My rationale is that details around services of individual banks in China will change significantly over time. Additionally financial regulations change quickly and the article can not hope to keep up around these circumstances. I hope the simplification was a good way to make banking here easier to understand without losing too much pertinent information. Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:03, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Links

Can anyone verify that the two Wikipedia links in the China#Cities section are not allowed? Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

They are not, per external links, and I have deleted them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Thought not, thanks! In any case, I'm not sure the GDP ratings of cities are of high interest to travelers. Andrewssi2 (talk) 13:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Good point. That list probably shouldn't be mentioned at all. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Does China still have accommodation restricted for foreigners?

I saw this in Shijiazhuang and wondered if it is still true for anywhere in China?

"In the Cangyan Shan region, there are no places to stay for foreigners - in fact this is the issue in much of Hebei province. If a proprietor can be bothered and the police feel inclined, the police can allow you to stay in accommodation not approved for foreigners provided you register with them."

I know that until a few years ago, some hotels were restricted to Chinese nationals and foreigners had to stay in specially designated places. I was under the impression that this no longer happened, although I haven't spent much time in the remoter regions. Is this perhaps still true today?

Pinging User:Pashley for any advice on this. Andrewssi2 (talk) 13:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I do not actually know. I have had places refuse me claiming they were not licensed for foreigners, but I haven't used Chinese hotels since about 2010. If the rules have changed, I have not heard. Pashley (talk) 15:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

OK thanks, I will investigate this offline! Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Foreign passport (外国人护照) listed among acceptable forms of ID, in a hotel near Zhangzhou in southern Fujian

My impression is that policies like this are not very widespread, but they definitely exist in some cities. I have traveled quite a bit in China, and I never had this problem in small towns with just one hotel, for example; in many places, the official-looking placard stating the necessity for all lodgers to register with a proper ID lists a foreign national's passport, 外国人护照, among acceptable forms of ID). However, in some cities certain places of lodging are apparently prohibited from hosting foreigners (or perhaps the compliance with the applicable rules involves so much hassle that the proprietors just don't bother. Recall that processing citizens' IDs in China is very easy for businesses - they can be read by a machine, like a credit card, while if you check in with a passport, they probably will have to take a photocopy of it [or just a photo using a cell phone], and then fill some forms in their back office). I recall that in Nanjing this has always been the case, last observed on my last visit there just a year ago (early 2017; ironically, the place that could not accept a passport was advertising on hotels.com!); it may be the case in some other cities in Jiangsu Province as well. In Fuzhou, this was certainly the case too, when I visited in early 2018. (The polite way for the front desk person to explain that the place does not host foreigners is "不能待外宾", usually followed by a suggestion to go to Super 8 or some similar place down the street).

While one would think that, in cities where such restrictions exist, it's more upscale and more expensive hotels that are authorized to deal with foreigners, in practice the correlation is not perfect. -- Vmenkov (talk) 07:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Merge districts and prefecture cities?

I notice that someone went through China articles back in 2009 and created a very detailed structure by creating all 'prefectures' as regions, with no content at all, with one city in each.

I was going through with merge requests, but since there are so many, can we just have the discussion here?

If a prefecture level article has no content and only one link to its 'seat' city, then can we safely merge them together?

This would not preclude someone working on these later and expanding them to use district sub-articles again. Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Examples: Wuhai‎, Dongsheng‎, Baotou (prefecture)‎ Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

You're right, we don't need two articles in these cases.

However, you have it tagged for merging e.g. Wuhai into Wuhai (prefecture). I'd merge the other way, or even delete empty prefecture articles entirely, In most cases, the city is the important bit for the traveller. Pashley (talk) 12:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that deleting the empty prefecture articles would be better. There seem to be at least 18 of them, so do you think it is OK to go forth and delete them all?

Also, is there anything to be said from an SEO perspective for making redirects instead? Andrewssi2 (talk) 13:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe that from an SEO perspective, most redirects help a bit but the only ones that matter a lot are ones where the redirect page has a large number of incoming links. Pashley (talk) 14:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, I did this for Baotou. I will continue to do some more later. Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Beijing 2008

Do we still need to link to the Beijing_2008 Olympics in this article? I would have thought all the Olympic sights of note would be contained withing the Beijing articles? Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Clean up 'See' section

The 'see' section is a very long list of mountains, Buddhist destinations and revolutionary sites with very little context.

Since we try and avoid lists for the sake of lists, I would suggest removing them and creating relevant articles where needed. Any questions? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I made a start with: User:Andrewssi2/Chinese_Revolutionary_Destinations . I think the map makes this much more valuable. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, very good start. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I finished the first draft. I think there are many more destinations to be added in future, but is this fine to release for now? Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

No time for me to check right now, but I'd trust your judgment. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, done. I just noticed that User:Pashley had already moved the lists to the talk page and someone reverted. I will move them here again. Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there's a perennial problem here, and I think in other huge countries. In addition to talk page moves, I created Marriage in China (later deleted) and List of Chinese provinces and regions by moving out stuff I thought did not belong on the main China page. The rather similar province & territory list for India, from which I got the idea of the China list page, has been deleted but India has Sacred sites of the Indian sub-continent. Pashley (talk) 23:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, I guess we can do that for the buddhist temples. I just don't know what we can do with the long list of mountains since that will invariably be a list article. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:24, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Travel topic. The mountains were all traditionally considered sacred and many have temples and are places of pilgrimage to this day. If they are all given some description and the article is illustrated with beautiful pictures, it won't be merely a list. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I just moved the Buddhist sites to the Buddhism#See article, which actually looks like it could some some general work itself.

I'd like to create a Chinese Mountains travel topic, but we would just need someone with more subject knowledge to start working on it. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 12:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Mountains

China is home to many sacred mountains.

The Five Great Mountains (五岳 wǔyuè), associated with Taoism:

• Mount Tai (泰山), Shandong Province (1,545 meters)
• Mount Hua (华山), Shaanxi Province (2,054 meters)
• Mount Heng (Hunan) (衡山), Hunan Province (1,290 meters)
• Mount Heng (Shanxi) (恒山), Shanxi Province (2,017 meters)
• Mount Song (嵩山）, Henan Province, where the famous Shaolin Temple (少林寺) is located (1,494 meters)

The Four Sacred Mountains (四大佛教名山 sìdà fójiào míngshān), associated with Buddhism:

• Mount Emei (峨嵋山), Sichuan Province (3,099 meters)
• Mount Jiuhua (九华山), Anhui Province (1,342 meters)
• Mount Putuo (普陀山), Zhejiang Province (297 meters, an island)
• Mount Wutai (五台山), Shanxi Province (3,058 meters)

The three main sacred mountains of Tibetan Buddhism:

• Mount Kailash, Tibet (6638 meters), aka Gang Rinpoche in Tibetan, also sacred to Hindus pilgrims as the abode of Lord Shiva. Kora (walking around the foot of the mountain) takes 3 days.
• Kawa Karpo (卡瓦格博), Yunnan (6740 meters), Best viewed from FeiLaiSi (飞来寺) at sun rise. Kora takes 15 days.
• Amnye Machen (阿尼玛卿), Qinghai (6282 meters), aka Mt Jishi (积石山). Kora takes 8 days

There are also several other well-known mountains. In China, many mountains have temples, even if they are not especially sacred sites:

• Mount Qingcheng (青城山), Sichuan Province
• Mount Longhu (龙虎山), Jiangxi Province
• Mount Lao (崂山), Shandong Province
• Mount Wuyi (武夷山), Fujian Province, a major tourist/scenic site with many tea plantations
• Mount Everest, straddling the border between Nepal and Tibet, world's highest mountain
• Mount Huang (黄山) (Yellow Mountain), in Anhui province, with scenery and temples
• Mount Wudang (武当山), Taoist mecca, birthplace of taichi and Wudang kung fu
• Changbaishan/Paektusan (Chinese:长白山 Korean:백두산), most sacred mountain to both ethnic Manchus and Koreans, located on the border with North Korea

Work in China article

User:Pashley suggested on the Pub moving the content of the 'Work' section to a separate article. I think this is a good approach since the section is long, and frankly a lot of travellers to China are actually wanting to work there at the moment. Any comment? Andrewssi2 (talk) 12:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, I guess I will plunge forward with Working in China Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Missing China banners

There are 446 China articles without banners,

The following articles are the only ones above 30,000 bytes that have no banners. I think it would be good to start with those:

• Dalian/Zhongshan
• Anshan
• Changchun
• Fuzhou
• Beijing/Chongwen
• Haikou
• Urumqi
• Jinan

--Andrewssi2 (talk) 13:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

GPS coordinates in China

Swept in from the pub

I remember some time ago a conversation on coordinates being a little out of place with China locations. Can someone point me the information? Trying to understand difference between different map apps results. --Traveler100 (talk) 10:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I remember there was a discussion on this topic, looked at a few Travellers' pub archives but did not find it. If I come across it will pass that info on. -- Matroc (talk) 19:25, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

It appears that the discussion was moved to Wikivoyage_talk:Geocoding#Map_coordinates_in_China. STW932 (talk) 14:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article w:Restrictions on geographic data in China also has detailed information about this confusing problem. I think the solution is to avoid using the regular Google Maps view or Chinese mapping apps to get coordinates for places in China. Instead, use Open Street Map, Google Maps satellite view, or a smartphone or GPS device on the ground. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:03, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Southwest China region

I was trying to figure out how Guangxi got into this region, so I reviewed Talk:China/Archive 2003-2012 and came upon Talk:China/Archive 2003-2012#Regions. The reasoning was:

South-west: Tibet, Sichuan, Chongqing, Yunnan, Guangxi. The exotic part, home to most of the Chinese minorities and spectacular scenery.

Fair enough, but geographically, Guangxi is nowhere near the western reaches of China and even has a coastline on the South China Sea. I don't think the current name for the Wikivoyage region makes any geographic sense. I could see moving Guangxi into Southeast China and renaming the remaining provinces "Interior Southern China" or even keeping the name Southwest China for them; we could move Guangxi and Guizhou into South-central China and spin off Sichuan and Chongqing into Southwest China, where in some ways they belong; or we could even spin off Guangxi and Guizhou into a new region. However, if we keep the regions as they are, what should we rename the "Southwest" region? Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with "Southwest", based on the map at China. Powers ^(talk) 20:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I guess from the perspective of most Chinese the area is south-west, even though there is even coastline! I'm actually completely neutral in keeping or moving this region. Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

So this is a traditional region? Guangxi is traditionally considered southwest, along with Tibet and Yunnan? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think a traditional region called 'South West China' exists, although Wikipedia points to w:Southwest_China which as you indicates excludes Guangxi but retains Guizhou Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

So what do you think we should do with Guangxi? Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't know where Guangxi should go, but I do think the current "Southwest China" region seems weird. From the perspective of an international traveler, what does Guangxi have in common with Tibet? It might make more sense to put Qinghai and Tibet in the same region due to their historical, cultural, and geographic ties. That region could possibly also include Yunnan, Sichuan, and Chongqing. (I've never been to any of these provinces, though, so take my thoughts with a grain of salt.) —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Today I happened to be at a bookstore and, remembering this discussion, I decided to look at a few Chinese-language guidebooks out of curiosity to see how they divided up the country. I looked at four guidebooks, three of which had similar ways to divide the country and one of which had a more complicated division. Among those guidebooks, there was consensus for regions that match our Northeast China and Northwest China. Most of them have a region that matches our North China excluding Henan and Shandong; an East China region that includes Jiangsu, Shanghai, Zhejiang, Shandong, Anhui, Jiangxi, and Fujian; and a Southwest China region including Tibet, Sichuan, Chongqing, Yunnan, and Guizhou. They didn't have much consensus about how to organize the remaining provinces in southern and south-central China, but most of them put Guangxi in the same region as Guangdong and Hainan.

On the basis of that little survey, and my own knowledge of China, I want to suggest that we rename "Southeast China" to "South China", add Guangxi to it, and move Sichuan and Chongqing to Southwest China. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:10, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

On the face of it, that makes sense to me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

No response from anyone else, so I posted to requests for comment. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I see your RFC includes moving Fujian to East China. Though I didn't specifically propose that, it does match the divisions in the guidebooks I surveyed better, so it seems reasonable to me. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I guess it could go either way, as is often the case with provinces on the margins. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Placing Fujian with East China and Guangxi with Southwest China is also perfectly consistent with what Baidu Baike and a number of other Chinese language websites say are the standard definitions of those regions. In the case of Guangxi, it probably makes a lot of sense from a cultural and linguistic perspective to be grouped in the same region as Guangdong, as both Guangxi and Guangdong are predominantly Cantonese-speaking areas (whereas southwestern provinces like Sichuan and Yunnan are not). STW932 (talk) 05:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for that feedback. What do you think about moving Sichuan and Chongqing into Southwest China, and should Qinghai stay separated from Tibet in Northwest China? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I have no objections to Sichuan and Chongqing being included in Southwest China, and I note that this would be consistent with Wikipedia's w:Southwest_China. However, as far as Qinghai is concerned, I am undecided. As Granger said, putting Qinghai and Tibet in the same region would make sense given their historical, cultural, and geographic ties. But Tibetans are a minority in Qinghai (only about 21% of the population are ethnic Tibetan) and the province also has close ties to the northwestern province of Gansu (most of the population of Qinghai live in the areas bordering Gansu). Moreover, it seems to be standard practice to put Qinghai in Northwest China (both Wikipedia and Baidu Baike do this) and Qinghai's geographical position appears to be a little too northerly to be considered part of the Southwest. I would say if you wanted to put Qinghai and Tibet together, it might be better to create a separate region for them. STW932 (talk) 14:40, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

So it would be simplest to keep Qinghai where it is and change the others. I'll wait a couple of days and see if anyone else cares enough to express an opinion. If not, though 3 people don't constitute a substantial consensus, I think we can plunge forward with the other changes. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I'll support the changes. More knowledgeable people than I seem to think it's a good idea, so I will, too :). More seriously, I think linguistic grouping makes sense; better to keep the Cantonese-speaking areas together. Perhaps in the future, I think a separate area for Tibet+Xinjiang is also preferable to the status quo, but not by much, and not urgently. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 17:28, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, and I agree about linguistic groupings. I think Tibet and Xinjiang are probably best separated, though, because of their very different history, geography and culture. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

[unindent] I've made the changes. Now, someone needs to change the static map to reflect the changes in the regions: (1) Guangxi was moved to the former "Southeast China", now renamed South China; (2) Fujian was moved to East China; (3) Sichuan and Chongqing were moved to Southwest China. Saqib, Shaundd, PerryPlanet or anyone else who would like to edit the map to reflect these changes would be doing a good service that will be much appreciated. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

The maps for the affected regions have to be changed, too: The maps for Southwest China, South China (formerly Southeast China), East China, South-central China (where I moved Chongqing and Sichuan from). Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:51, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Main map done. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 17:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Wonderful! Looks great. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:14, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

A bit late to the discussion... As a Chinese, I agree with this grouping. Sichuan and Chongqing have more in common with each other than with Guangxi. And Guangxi is more related to Guangdong even in its name. "Xi" means west and "Dong" means east. It's kind of like saying North Dakota and South Dakota are related and therefore should be grouped together. Fujian is an interesting case. Geographically and linguistically, it belongs to eastern China but politically and economically it's more similar to Guangdong because both experienced tremendous economic growth from foreign investment in early 1980s. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:04, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree with the changes. In Talk:East China, the idea of moving Jiaxing from South-central China to East China was mentioned by Pashley, and I brought up the idea of, in that case, also moving Anhui from South-central China to East China, then perhaps moving Henan from North China to South-central China and renaming South-central China "Central China". Do you think these things are worth doing? (I sort of hope not.) Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I might have incorrect biases since, except for some time in Nanjing, I've only lived in coastal regions. However, for whatever it is worth:

I see it as inappropriate to group any of the poorer inland provinces like Jiangxi, Anhui & Sichuan with any of the richer coastal provinces. They are quite different & the inland ones provide hordes of migrant workers for the coastal ones. Pashley (talk) 03:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

That makes sense. What about making only one more move, of Henan to the South-central grouping and renaming the region "Central China"? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

An opinion about history section

I think the description of the China history, especial history about gorvenment under CPC, is disputed. Although wikivoyage don't need to submit CPC's threat, a cleaning up is needed in order to make this page more suit to NPOV. I think for a contronversional figure such as Mao Zedong, listing only a view is not enough. Please consider about this, thank you! 117.136.101.138 09:01, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikivoyage is expressly not NPOV, but instead, follows the guideline of be fair. Is there anything in that section you consider unfair (i.e., inaccurate or misleading)? If so, say what it is, so that we can discuss it and come to a consensus about it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:27, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I edited some, mainly adding links. I see no POV problem with current text; this is not the place for serious political analysis such as a critique of Mao. Pashley (talk) 11:51, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Is Arunachal_Pradesh administrated by India or part of India and claimed by China?

Maybe semantics, but as far as I can tell Arunachal Pradesh is a part of India that is also claimed by China (as 'South Tibet').

Stating that is administrated by India seems to suggest that it is occupied by India isn't really part of India at all. Is this hair-splitting too much or a legitimate concern? Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:57, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, these disclaimer infoboxes shouldn't take sides in disputes—when a piece of land is claimed by two countries, the box shouldn't say that it's part of one country and not the other. Instead it should state the different sides' claims, indicate the situation on the ground, and leave it at that. If the word "administered" is too weak, we could say "controlled by India". That would be similar to the disclaimer box at Taiwan, which says "Taiwan is under the de facto control of a different government from mainland China", and at Arunachal Pradesh itself, which says "it is under the effective control of the Indian government". —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:32, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually, in that statement about Taiwan, shouldn't it say de jure instead of de facto? Not to take a side on this, but I've always thought that de jure means "in law" and insinuates that such is not the case on the ground, while de facto implies that such is the case on the ground but not by law. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 01:46, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

De facto is correct for Taiwan. The de jure situation there depends on whose laws you're looking at, but the situation on the ground is that the island is controlled by the Republic of China. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:00, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with your most recent comment, but not the original statement. There is, of course, a difference between the "Republic of China" and "Mainland China", and that difference is very significant. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 02:02, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Although I used that one example, wouldn't it be regarded if every territorial dispute was regarded in this way on WV? Surely de-facto ownership would be sufficient (i.e. 'Arunachal Pradesh is part of India, but claimed by China')? Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:12, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@SelfieCity: Yes, there's a huge difference—they're almost opposites. The Republic of China is the government that controls Taiwan. They have no de facto control over mainland China, which is administered by the PRC government.

@Andrewssi2: As far as I can tell, most major territorial disputes are treated this way on Wikivoyage. Look at the disclaimer boxes in Ukraine, Crimea, Kosovo, Moldova, Palestinian territories, etc. All of them describe the competing claims and explain the situation on the ground but are careful to avoid taking sides. If we change this disclaimer box to say that "Arunachal Pradesh is part of India", that would be a significant departure from how we usually treat these issues. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:19, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I do disagree with that. With Crimea we very clearly do not take sides, but nevertheless recognise that it is part of the Russian Federation. It is not merely 'administrated' by the Russian Federation as the China article is claiming with other territories. Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:29, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

The disclaimer box at Crimea says "Russia has controlled the region since March 2014" and "Crimea is under the de facto control of the Russian Federation", both of which are similar to the phrasing I'm suggesting here. Nowhere does the disclaimer box say "Crimea is part of the Russian Federation". —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:36, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't have to, given that it is categorised under Southern_Russia.

I'm just asking to remove the term 'Administered by India', since I believe that it is a statement in itself. Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

If you all want a compromise, we could say: "AP is administered by the Indian government as part of India, while China claims it as 'South Tibet'. Wikivoyage takes no view on this disagreement." Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:04, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with that as a compromise, though it seems kind of wordy to me. I'm also happy to use the word "controlled" instead of "administered", like the Crimea article does. I'm also good with using the phrasing from Arunachal Pradesh ("under the effective control of the Indian government"). I support continuing to categorize Arunachal Pradesh under North-Eastern India, in case that wasn't obvious. —Granger (talk · contribs) 04:52, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, of course on the categorization. The traveller comes first, not politics. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:57, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Difficulty accessing Wikivoyage website in China

Swept in from the pub

I am currently unable to access the Wikivoyage website on my home computer except when connected to a VPN. Does anyone else in China have this issue? Interestingly, the problem seems to be very localised, as I can still access the site on the mobile network or when connected to the WiFi at a restaurant or other public place.

Unfortunately, VPN is only half the solution because Wikimedia has a policy of blocking users from editing content while connected to an open proxy. Hence, I usually (but not always) encounter the following error when I try to do some editing:

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:

Your IP address is in a range which has been blocked on all wikis.

The block was made by X. The reason given is Open proxy.

Wikimedia's 'no open proxies' policy is explained here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies

As stated in the article "This policy is known to cause difficulty for some editors, who must use open proxies to circumvent censorship where they live; a well-known example is the government of the People's Republic of China, which sporadically attempts to prevent the people in China from reading or editing Wikipedia."

The article also states that it's possible to get an IP block exemption and I am hoping that one of the administrators reading this might be able to give me one. A local exemption covering only English Wikivoyage would be sufficient for my purposes.

STW932 (talk) 14:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm currently able to access Wikivoyage from mainland China with no VPN. I'm able to read and edit with no problem. If you're able to access at restaurants, then I think the problem must be with your home computer or home WiFi network, not with the Great Firewall.

However, I have occasionally (two or three times in the past three months) had trouble accessing Wikivoyage without a VPN, and I have a global IP block exemption to deal with that problem and to let me edit other Wikimedia wikis without interference from the Chinese firewall. I think there should be no problem with giving you a local IP block exemption. Any admin reading this should be able to do so at Special:UserRights/STW932. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:42, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Done -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:09, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! STW932 (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

A team at U of Toronto have a tool Psiphon: Bypass Internet Censorship which, last I heard (a few years ago) worked well for people in China. It lets a friend outside the country run a proxy for you on his or her machine; typically this will not be on either the Chinese government's or WMF's list of proxy addresses, so it will not be blocked. Works best if you have a friend with a server that runs 24/7. Pashley (talk) 13:19, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

See also w:Psiphon and the project website. Pashley (talk) 13:25, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Warning box?

@Ground Zero: Are there any reasons to add a warning box for Canadian and American travellers? I see that the warning is about a simple diplomatic conflict (involving a Huawei executive arrested at arrival in Vancouver), an issue has nothing to do with travel, but we may even think about checking Canadian and US travel advisories. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 22:49, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ground Zero: I also doubt if the IP who added that warning box is likely the Telstra user, IP-hopping. Is it so, or just another IP? —The preceding comment was added by TagaSanPedroAko (talk • contribs) 23:38, 20 December 2018

I think the concern is that travelers might find themselves detained in retaliation or as negotiating chips. My read on the situation is that ordinary travelers don't need to worry, but if I were a high-profile American or Canadian business executive, I might be nervous. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:23, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Tags and Granger: you're quite right. Ordinary travellers need not worry, and I don't think that executives that would be enough of a trophy would be getting their information from Wikivoyage. I've removed the warning. I think there is a tendency to overuse warning boxes -- we shouldn't be reporting on every thing that is in the news. Ground Zero (talk) 01:04, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

In light of the recent news articles about Canadians being detained in China, I think it's safe to say that these were all prominent corporate executives and high-ranking government officials. It's highly unlikely that the Chinese government will just detain a random Canadian or American tourist as such people have little to no value as bargaining chips, and this will only serve to create the wrong kind of publicity, if any at all. Whatever people's reservations of Xi Jinping may be, he is most certainly not dumb, and will not do something like that. Therefore, a warning box is not warranted. The dog2 (talk) 02:46, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

When you say a warningbox, I assume you mean not a caution box. Because there is something between a warningbox and nothing at all — and that's a cautionbox, which may be appropriate in this situation. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 03:26, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

A warning box is most certainly over the top, and I'm not even sure a caution box is needed since the vast majority of American and Canadian visitors to China don't need to be worried about being randomly detained. As I mentioned, the only people that need to be concerned are high-profile corporate executives and high-ranking government officials, and most Americans and Canadians visiting China do not fall into one of those categories. But if people insist we need to mention something about this, then most certainly a caution box is more appropriate than a warning box. The dog2 (talk) 03:38, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Sorry if I sound like I'm interrogating whoever answers this question, but what about Christians who visit the country from other places? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 03:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

As a former resident of the PRC, I would say that the chances of a retaliatory detention are fairly minimal, but not exactly non-existant. One of the detained Canadians runs a North Korean touring company, so not exactly a high profile multinational executive. Additionally I would say to take extra care, because even if you are detained for 'legitimate' reasons, the US and Canadian consulates will be less effective at advocating for you at this time. Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:58, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

For now, I'm going to add this back in as a cautionbox, until we reach a consensus. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 04:09, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

(Actually, though, I don't see in the history when it was removed.) --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 04:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

With regards to Christians, if you go to China to proselytise, then there is a fair chance that you will be arrested and sentenced to jail. However, if all you're doing is performing personal religious rituals, then for the most part you need not be concerned. The dog2 (talk) 04:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think this is specific to Christians. Any unsanctioned religious activity not undertaken privately will likely get you into trouble, regardless of your faith. Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. I mentioned Christianity because that was the question asked, but it most certainly applies to all religions. The dog2 (talk) 04:56, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Let's not confuse two different topics. The situation with the Huawei executive and related tensions have nothing to do with religion. —Granger (talk · contribs) 05:54, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Protection

The China article is semi-protected until March 2019, but it's still seeing a lot of vandalism. Are they auto confirmed users? Do we need to go to a higher level of protection? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:18, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

The only protection currently on this page is against renaming. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 15:21, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks ARR8. I've changed the editing protection. Ground Zero (talk) 15:29, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

I see, okay. It said that it was semi-protected by User:ThunderingTyphoons! in the article history, but apparently it wasn't working. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:41, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I should have looked closer. The semi-protection expired in October, the move semi-protection expires in March 2019. Now, it's semi-protected against any action until March 2019. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:43, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Ah, well, I think it makes sense to restore the editing semi-protection, given the recent vandalism. Merry Christmas. Ground Zero (talk) 15:45, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, makes sense. Merry Christmas. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:52, 25 December 2018 (UTC)