Talk:Grand Canal (China)

Archives (Index)

2012 2013 2015 2017 2018 2020

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Ship allowance dimensions?

length? beam? draft? For example: 110x22×3.5m? Or 80x9.5x2.5 ? (Sea able) 38.5x5.05x1.6?

Map of inland waterways allowed Standard dimensions? (Bangkokmax?)

Requested move 16 November 2021

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: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 16:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

---

• Grand Canal (China) → Grand Canal
• Grand Canal → Grand Canal (disambiguation)

– Clear primary topic, all entries on the first page of a Google search would show you the Grand Canal in China. Lolitart (talk) 06:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. (t · c) buidhe 08:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's clear at all that the Grand Canal in China is the primary topic. A regular Google Search showed mainly entries for the Canal in China, but also one for the Canal in Ireland and one for the Grand Canal in Venice, and Google Images mainly showed me pics of the Grand Canal in Venice. I don't see any reason to treat the Grand Canal in China like the default Grand Canal. Erinius (talk) 12:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't find those statements particularly convincing, rather they confirmed my position on this, of course it will show you other canals if you click next page enough times, but an undoubtedly overwhelming majority of them are about this Grand Canal specifically, that's why we say primary topic, not only topic. Lolitart (talk) 12:43, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that your (Lolitart) statement needs to be convincing, and at this point, it's just anecdotal. Gonnym (talk) 16:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Google search is not anecdotal. Lolitart (talk) 16:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

it's also the only thing in that list that's a World Heritage site, in addition to being mentioned in the overwhelming majority in search results. Lolitart (talk) 17:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Not true, as I've pointed out below. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:38, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I didn't click next page, I found results for other Canals on the first page of my Google search, and, on the first page of my Google image search, most of the pictures were of the Grand Canal in Venice. That said, any references to Google search results are anecdotal since we'd all get somewhat different results. Erinius (talk) 18:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Requested move of associated disambiguation page. Also, DuckDuckGo search (news) for reference. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 16:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support. While Google results are a poor way to determine primary topics, the page views [1] make a strong case for the Grand Canal in China being the primary topic here. Calidum 19:02, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

  Long-term page views for reference. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 15:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. Top results in JSTOR are split between the canal in China and the canal in Venice; there appears to be no primary topic. BilledMammal (talk) 02:03, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. You're joking, right? You think the Chinese one is primary over the incredibly famous one in Venice? Most definitely not. I think if asked what they associated with the term "Grand Canal" most European people at least would say Venice, not China. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  Well, I'm not. The Grand Canal in China is more famous by all metrics, whether we conclude it primary or not, and more 'grand' if that counts anything, the Venetian one is miniature in comparison, and it's not even that important to Venice, while the Grand Canal in China is the longest canal mankind ever constructed, supported the kind of traffic the Venetian canal would never have and I don't see that changing in anytime soon. If you think that's a joke, that the world simply don't exist outside of Europe, then I have nothing to say. Lolitart (talk) 16:25, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  Primary topics are not based on what first comes to mind. Calidum 16:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  No, they're based on various factors including page views and long-term significance. The Venetian Grand Canal, the main canal of one of the most famous cities on earth, is not trumped to primary topic status by the one in China. The fact the latter is longer, more heavily used or "more important" is utterly irrelevant. If the only metric that was important was page views then almost anything in the United States or China, which have huge populations, would automatically be primary over anything in Europe. The fact they are not shows what we consider on Wikipedia when determining primary topic status. The fact is, it is very clear that neither of these canals have primary topic status and trying to make a primary topic grab because the Chinese one is bigger or "more famous" (no, it really isn't, outside China itself) is really not appropriate. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  First of all, Venice is not that important a city, whether to Europe or to the rest of the world, Venice is behind at least 20 other cities being on the Level 4 of Vital Articles. Second of all, we don't have an under-representation problem for things in Europe whether on this site or other places, if anything, that sounds like a joke. The Venetian Grand Canal simply isn't that important to Italy, to Europe, and to the rest of the world. Europe is significantly over-represented in UNESCO World Heritage sites, even so the Venetian Grand Canal is not listed. Thirdly, you rejected the importance argument, and rejected the fame argument which you initially proposed without laying ground to any argument other than your belief. About that, China is not a English-speaker country, the population argument is essentially irrelevant as we don't have many readers from China, most of them are from the US, UK, Australia among other places with a high English-speaking population, even in that case the Grand Canal in China enjoyed much wider viewership, and I believe that speaks volume for itself. Lolitart (talk) 02:49, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

  I said famous, not important. Although it is indeed incredibly important historically. But if you don't realise that Venice is one of the most famous and notable cities on earth then I'm frankly at a loss for words. What you don't seem to get is that I'm not arguing the Venetian canal should be primary topic. You're arguing that the Chinese canal should be primary topic. Big difference. I'm saying that neither of them should be primary topic as both are extremely important and notable topics. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:52, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

  And the whole of Venice is a World Heritage Site! I think you'll find that includes the Grand Canal. So that argument doesn't hold up either. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support Per @Calidum:. Ytpks896 (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Necrothesp. The very fact that there are at least two competing topics that may first come to anyone's mind proves that there is no primary topic. And the Chinese canal does not even satisfy the "more pageviews than all other topics combined" clause. No such user (talk) 13:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

  You're entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts. It's patently false to suggest the canal in China doesn't meet the page view criteria when it fact does [2]. Calidum 15:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

  If we're going to nitpick, the actual wording from WP:PTOPIC is that it is much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. The Chinese canal got 1,183 k views, while the Venetian got 674 k; that's 64:36 ratio, which is in my book not that much more likely. You're technically correct for the grand total, since the Chinese canal gets 57.5% of all pageviews, which is in my opinion not that impressive, particularly when we consider that those are popular topics. No such user (talk) 12:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

• Weak oppose this one may barely gets more views but if you add Nicaragua Canal[[3]] you get a negative number. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:58, 25 November 2021 (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.

When this inevitably comes back up, support since yes this is by far the PRIMARYTOPIC in every form of the English language even if British tourists see it less often. Crouch, Swale's point above is particularly poorly taken since all the other possible meanings needing to be added up to match the page views of this topic quintessentially and definitionally makes this the primary topic. — LlywelynII 03:14, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:ERA

This edit established the usage of the page as BC/AD. Kindly maintain it consistently pending a new consensus to the contrary. — LlywelynII 03:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the initial section cleanup

We should be reducing translation/character gore in the lead when it gets this unruly, and WP:MOS-ZH already shows us how: Don't repeat things that you're already covering in the infoboxes. That said, if some editors really want the Chinese to show up at the very top of the page, that's understandable but the place to do it—since {{infobox canal}} currently lacks |native_name= parameters—would be in the |name= parameter by adding <br> followed by the (simplified) Chinese characters (only) with or without pinyin.

We should also be highlighting the length and sections of the modern canal better. I'll do my own draft. If any well meaning editor just reverts them, kindly do fix any mistakes but then restore enough that these problems are all fixed. — LlywelynII 03:23, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

So, how long is it?

We have 1776 km and 1794 km both in the article, neither supported by a citation. (Theoretically, the 1st number might be supported by a later cite to Needham but he would be outdated information on the current length regardless.)

Also, if the article is correct that the current canal is only partially navigable despite Chinese engineers' best efforts, then we should also be providing a well-sourced length for that navigable stretch as well. — LlywelynII 03:14, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Interested editors

The article on the South-North Water Diversion Project could probably use its own rebuild from new sources but what's over there is at least newer than 2012. Similarly, the current #Uses section is treating culture as part of its bulk cargo transport section. Really, the different historic uses—flood control, communication line, warfare, cultural diffusion, economic development, imperial taxes and tribute, food supply for the capital, etc.—should be repeated a bit and handled as separate sections here. — LlywelynII 07:30, 8 October 2023 (UTC)