Talk:Tiananmen Square

Qianbulang

Not for nothing, but it seems bizarre that the Chinese article on this thing has paragraphs on the former "Thousand-Step" or "Thousand-Pace Corridor" (千步廊, Qiānbùláng, ch'ien-pu-lang, also [badly] translated as "Thousand-Step Porches") and its role in the imperial bureaucracy and national imperial exams versus our bupkis. Each had 110 bays with another 34 after they turned north. The idea went back to the Song but the wooden ones in Beijing started with the Ming & were abolished in 1913, although their rear walls weren't cleared until the 1950s.

More generally, the history and form of the place under the centuries of Ming and Qing rule should be treated in greater detail than "So, yeah, the Brits & French stopped by this one time. The End." — LlywelynII 21:23, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Hatnote

Previous editors wanted to remove the hatnote about the Tiananmen Square protests due to concerns about bias. However, I have a different concern. Since the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre is already mentioned in the lead, isn't the hatnote simply an unnecessary duplication? The Account 2 (talk) 12:06, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

I concur. It's like adding a hatnote to Vietnam that says, "For the historical event, see Vietnam War." "Tiananmen Square" is often used (chiefly on the internet) as a short form for the 1989 protests, as is "Tiananmen", but I don't think that justifies the hatnote. Yue🌙 (talk) 23:49, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

I've removed the hatnote; if there's disagreements from other editors, I'm happy to discuss. The Account 2 (talk) 07:41, 20 December 2025 (UTC)