Talk:Yangtze

a stupid question

I wondered if in

"Ianſu" and "Ianſuchian."

the initial letter was a lowercase l or an uppercase I. My eyes are poor and I was long unable to realize that the fourth letter is not an f, so my attempts to check using a search for Ianf and lanf with ^F failed. Finally I edited the text and extracted the above words. It is possible to check that this f-like letter is really different from f? Well, a good-eyed reader realizes soon that Il is upper-i/lower-l, but ... it is possible to signal to a software-manager that many readers have poot eyes? Thanks for the consideration of these problems. 151.29.133.9 (talk) 23:54, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion of "Changjiang" as an English name

This seems plausible to me, new Standard Chinese renditions for extant vocabulary continue to enter English from time to time, but according to Ngrams the difference is roughly a whole order of magnitude, and I wonder how many false positives the latter has. At any rate, as you can see from my extra look, "Yangzi" is actually considerably more popular in English, maybe we should swap Changjiang out for it in the lead sentence. Remsense诉 23:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. That's the way the opening sentence was until recently – I've put it back. However, I'm not sure that "Yangzi" is common enough to put there. Also, does anyone say /ˈjɑːŋtsi/? It's only partway to approximating the Chinese pronunciation of a name that isn't used in Chinese. Kanguole 08:35, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

It does seem like if people do say it, it's people fully born and inoculated post–ISO 7098:1982, which is fun. Remsense诉 09:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 25 September 2025

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. – robertsky (talk) 02:55, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

---

Yangtze → Yangtze RiverYangtze River – The common names in RS contain 'river'. SoAnnoyedToName (talk) 05:53, 25 September 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 02:56, 2 October 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath^talk 11:14, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

"Yangtze" is the consensus title, see this 2014 RM. 162 etc. (talk) 06:33, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

The Nile is widely accepted while few RS say 'the Yangtze' SoAnnoyedToName (talk) 10:35, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

The yangtze is more commonly a abbreviation when they have called it Yangtze river before SoAnnoyedToName (talk) 10:37, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

I found an aricle from BBC Learning English and they use "the Nile" and "the Yangtze River". This seems to be a conventional usage, so we should use what RS provides.SoAnnoyedToName (talk) 17:12, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

WP:RMT is for uncontroversial technical requests. Article titles which have been the subject of past discussion cannot be uncontroversially moved. See WP:PCM. 162 etc. (talk) 01:29, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

• Lean oppose on concision. "Yangtze" and "Yangtze River" are not exactly two different names where commonness can be compared. The Britannica page uses "Yangtze River" as a title and "the Yangtze" in prose. Regarding WP:AT, the two seem interchangeable in terms of Recognizability and Naturalness. The Precision seems the same too, we don't need "River" to disambiguate. That leaves Concision, in which "Yangtze" is preferred, and Consistency, which seems to be the reason Talk:Yangtze/Archive 1#Requested move 13 April 2014 led to a move to the current title. CMD (talk) 07:46, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

  I don’t think it’s a big deal either way but I support the move. If the Britannica uses The Nile but “Yangtze River”, I’m with them. Definitely more common than “The Yangtze”. 189.40.75.101 (talk) 07:58, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

  Britannica uses Nile River. CMD (talk) 01:24, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Rivers has been notified of this discussion. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 02:56, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose per consensus at 2014 RM. 162 etc. (talk) 02:41, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support. It is a river, and it being a river is the most important thing about it. River is often used, and dropping the river is abbreviation. Titles should be more formal than the prose. See https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=The+Yangtze+was%2CThe+Yangtze+river+was&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&case_insensitive=true&corpus=en&smoothing=3

- SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:45, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject China has been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 11:14, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support essentially per SmokeyJoe's reasoning and Ngram. This Ngram is even clearer: since the mid-80s, sources have preferred "Yangtze river", and lately that preference has gotten much stronger (more than 2:1). Toadspike [Talk] 15:20, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

  I hope that the closer will weigh comments referring to the previous, over 10 year old RM without explanation appropriately. Consensus can change. And in this case the Ngrams show that the sources have changed, too. Toadspike [Talk] 15:23, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

  The plural comments doing so where? CMD (talk) 16:48, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose This is the concise title, and is consistent with the title of the Nile article. The term "Yangtze" does not have any major connotations in English other than the river, so disambiguating is unneccessary. For people citing google ngram, see WP:NGRAM. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:13, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. Both are fine and it's basically a coin toss if I were starting fresh and picking a title. WP:TITLECHANGES requires a good reason for a change and argues for maintaining the status quo if the new title is not a real improvement. I acknowledge the Ngram data but in this case it's not really showing a different name but a rather minor stylistic preference. Concision further argues for keeping the current title. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 22:24, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose – Per WP:CONCISE. 'Yangtze' is clearly sufficient to identify the subject of this article. I must also make a point about WP:COMMONALITY. The current title is common to all varieties of English and therefore superior; 'Yangtze River', on the other hand, is an American construction (the usual British form is 'river Yangtze'). Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 05:22, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

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.