Talk:Chamdo

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chamdo article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Tibet Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tibet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Tibet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TibetWikipedia:WikiProject TibetTemplate:WikiProject TibetTibet
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

China Low‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

New proposal for Tibetan naming conventions

I recently proposed a new set of Tibetan naming conventions which could end up affecting the title of this article. Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Tibetan) and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Tibetan)#New naming convention proposal. Your comments and feedback are requested.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 23:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Result was MOVED. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Qamdo Prefecture → Chamdo Prefecture – Spelling consistency as per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Tibetan)#Use_consistent_spellings. The case of Chamdo is explicitely mentioned in the naming convention, I think this should be a rather technical and uncontroversial move. The same move request has been made at Talk:Qamdo Pseudois (talk) 22:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support as per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Tibetan)#Use_consistent_spellings. --Pseudois (talk) 22:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support this is so clear cut that it doesn't really need discussion. I appreciate the fact that Pseudois has noticed this, and it is nice of them to post to the talk page. --Keithonearth (talk) 01:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Requested move 05 November 2014

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 02:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chamdo Prefecture → Chamdo – Chamdo Prefecture is now a prefecture-level city — ASDFGH =] ^talk? 21:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Support - per WP:NC-ZH#Disambiguation of settlements and administrative units: "settlements ranked higher administratively are primary topic over those ranked lower". -Zanhe (talk) 19:14, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Question -- Is this the clear primary topic over Chengguan, Chamdo, which is evidently also referred to as Chamdo or Qamdo?--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is because under precedence Chamdo/Qamdo Prefecture which is now a prefecture-level city (昌都地区→昌都市) the the parent division of Karub District formerly Chamdo/Qamdo County (昌都县→卡若区) in which also the parent division of Chengguan, Chamdo (official: 城关镇; informal: 昌都镇). All three divisions are synonymous known as "Chamdo/Qamdo." Since Both Chamdo/Qamdo prefecture-level city (昌都市) and Chengguan, Chamdo (城关镇/昌都镇) are urban city/town division the higher division take precedence over the lower division because Chamdo/Qamdo (昌都市) is the parent division of Chengguan, Chamdo (城关镇/昌都镇). — ASDFGH =] ^talk? 03:36, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chamdo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141106023052/http://www.qh.xinhuanet.com/2014-11/05/c_1113122809.htm to http://www.qh.xinhuanet.com/2014-11/05/c_1113122809.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]