Talk:Forbidden City/Archive 2

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

What about access to the forbidden city?

As far as I know, eunuchs were the only 'men' apart from the emperor himself who were allowed to enter the innermost structures of the forbidden city [1]. Have there been any other such restrictions? I think this should be part of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.88.62.226 (talk) 20:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://factsanddetails.com/china.php?itemid=43&catid=2&subcatid=2

Chief Architect of the Chinese Forbidden City is Nguyen An (Juan An), a Vietnamese

So don't say "Vietnam built a palace and fortress that was intended to be a smaller copy of the Chinese Forbidden City" You can find more on “The Cambridge History of China, Vol. 7, page 241

'The architect was indeed Ruan An (Nguyen An)an eunuch who was a Vietnamese prisoner of war.His master plan is based on laws that are hundreds of years old.'[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.159.42 (talk) 15:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is Nguyen An or other architects not mentioned at least once in the article? Suy tưởng (talk) 08:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Because Ruan An wasn't that important compare to chief architects such as Kuai Xiang, Chen Gui, etc; those people were high ranking officials of construction department. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.171.158.154 (talk) 02:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.icetv.com.au/interactive/show/13987

Some Revision

I tried to add some sections and rearrange things slightly to make this article more accessible. It is still probably too long and some might need to be spun off into one or more other articles. I think the first paragraph or two should be easy to read and not cluttered with a lot of complicated information. I did not remove any information, I just reorganized it and made the first paragraph or two much simpler to read. I also made some of the sentences easier to read and shorter, and removed some of the very complicated constructions.--Filll 16:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC) this city is a sham, the one and true only GOD is God almighty , jehovah, jesus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.65.63.182 (talk) 22:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I think there is no problem with describing all the various names for this facility in different languages and scripts, but I have collected them all in a special section, very early, and leaving the introductory paragraph to be mostly in English (since this is the English version of Wikipedia).--Filll 16:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Number of Rooms

I see there is a lot of confusion that exists about the number of rooms.

  • Some sources say that legend had it that the F.C. has 9999 rooms
  • some sources say that legend had it that the F.C. had 9999.5 rooms and the .5 room was a staircase
  • our article said that the F.C. was reputed to have 9999.5 rooms and the .5 room was a small room off the Imperial library
  • our article said that a survey by the palace museum found about 8600 rooms
  • our article now says that a survey shows that there are 2,172 remaining intact rooms.

Which if any of these are correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filll (talk • contribs)

The exact numbers of rooms is not known. However Heaven has ten Thousand Rooms and the Forbidden City where the Son of Heaven lived has one room less so therefore it is said by the Chinese that the Forbidden City has 9999 rooms--Lie-Hap-Po--

10000 rooms minus .5 Shunjingbingdenaocan (talk) 05:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Name

Is the name in Chinese Violet Prohibition Castle or Purple Forbidden City??--Filll 13:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

"Purple forbidden city" is more correct, "Violet Prohibition Castle" sounds like a machine translation or a bad joke.--Niohe 13:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It is the literal translation published in at least three character dictionaries. Logographic script produces many words that make no sense in literal English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.171.106.232 (talk)

And therefore it shouldn't be used here. Good translations make sense in the language into which they have been translated, this is simply a poor translation. Heimstern Läufer 02:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

What it is referred to is mentioned shortly after. It is explicity stated as a literal definition, therefore I restored the literal definition.

[1]. Here, the organizers of the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games refer to the palace as the "Purple Forbidden City". Note also that a Google search for "purple forbidden city" yields 11,600 hits, "Violet Prohibition Castle" returns 1. There's no reason to include such a nonstandard translation in this article, especially since it is incorrect in English. Heimstern Läufer 02:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree about going with the more standard translation. That does not mean that the nonstandard translation might not be mentioned in a footnote for completeness, however. --Filll 03:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
... I'd like to see what dictionary would give that as a translation. My Chinese-English dictionary gives the definitions of the three characters, character by character, as
zi - "purple; violet";
jin - "1) prohibit; forbid; ban; 2)imprison; detain; 3)what is forbidden by law or custom; a taboo; 4) forbidden area";
cheng - "1) city wall; wall; 2)city". [Source: A Chinese-English Dictionary", The Commercial Press, Beijing, 1986]
For "Zijincheng" it gives: "the Forbidden City (in Beijing)". For "Gugong" (i.e. the Forbidden City) it gives: "the Imperial Palace".
I think it's pretty clear, that only a deliberate misreading of the dictionary would produce "violet prohibition castle". --Sumple (Talk) 04:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

If it is a bad translation then we can remove it from the footnote. I am just trying to be complete and strike a compromise.--Filll 04:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

紫禁城 Zijincheng must be translated in English as Forbidden City, but the Forbidden City is known by the Chinese and must be translated in Chinese as Old Palace Museum Gugong Bowuyuan 故宮博物院 for short Gugong 故宮--Lie-Hap-Po--

The Chinese Language has never been the official language of China before 1958. China has known only two official languages in its entire history The first is 满语 Manyu the Manchu Language from 1644 till 1912. The Second is 普通话 Putongua Mandarin Chinese from 1958 till now. The reason that Chinese wasn't the official language of China, was because all dynasties were Chinese except for the Yuan and Qing so there wasn't a reason to state that the Chinese language was the official language of China.--Lie-Hap-Po--

Comments

  • It appears to me that a lot of people want to shove as much information as possible into the front of the article. I think that this makes the article much less accessible.
  • Is it really credible that The Forbidden City is in the exact center of modern Beijing? I do not believe this. And is it necessary to shove this kind of stuff as far up front in the article as possible? --Filll 19:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

--The Palace is no longer in the exact center of Beijing proper, as the developments of the city has not been perfectly balanced in all directions. It was designed to be in the exact center for ritualistic reasons, and remains fairly close to it now.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.171.106.232 (talk)

Some revisions

  • Deleted unencyclopaedic "tourism" section. The important part of that section was the disambiguation statement about the Palace Museum, Peking, vs the National Palace Museum, Taipei. I have moved that to the front because it deals with one of the principal terms of this article, the Palace Museum. The other thing about the Palace Museum being a "major tourist attraction" should not be in this section. If anywhere, it should be in the lead as a part of the notability statement, cf Louvre. However, without concrete numbers it is pretty uselss, so I've deleted it.
  • In History, combined single-paragraph subsections. Subheadings serve no purpose if they only delineate paragraphs.
  • Retitled the "references in popular culture", because it is patently no longer about popualr culture. Some of these statements need to be removed also, such as the one about "A fictional city called Ba Sing Se in the cartoon series Avatar the Last Airbender is based upon the Forbidden City", which is pretty much unverifiable and probably untrue.
    • In a similar vein, the thing about the Fifth Avenue Theatre seems wishful thinking to me. It's a theatre, not a palace, and doesn't look terribly authentically Chinese in any case. --Sumple (Talk) 22:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with most of those, although I still favor a more streamlined introduction. --Filll 23:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Opened to Tourism... when?

There should be some little trivia bit on when this was opened to the public for tourisim.

WiiWillieWiki 14:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this is somewhat interesting. It has been closed sometimes for renovations too I think. I would also be interested to know the volume of tourists it gets. I am also interested to know what sort of preservation efforts are ongoing and what sort of restoration efforts were undertaken.--Filll 15:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately the Palace Museum website seems to be down ("closed for renovation"? =D), but if it ever comes back up we should be able to find that kind of info there... --Sumple (Talk) 02:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Update: I tried and was able to access the site in China, but don't seem to be able to do so here in Australia. Can others verify? http://www.dpm.org.cn/ --Sumple (Talk) 03:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

According to the website which is now up again, the museum was established in the Outer Court in 1914. I noted it in the article.--Filll 04:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is this important to have in the first few paragraphs?

The following paragraph people seem to want frantically to have very early in the text:

The Forbidden City is listed by UNESCO as the largest collection of preserved ancient wooden structures in the world. The Forbidden City was declared a World Heritage Site in 1987 as the "Imperial Palace of the Ming and Qing Dynasties."

Why is it important to have this in the introduction????

I guess I do not understand the seemingly desperate need in this and many other articles to try to shove a huge amount of material as close as possible to the start of the article. At least in my opinion, the introduction should be brief and just a very short summary. Readers should not be overwhelmed by a lot of details in the introduction, but just be able to learn a minimal definition of the subject. In other words, the introduction should answer the question, "What is the article about?". Readers can then continue if they are interested, or move on to something else if they have learned enough in the first few sentences. I will not bother to try to impose my views again, but I am curious as to the reasoning that drives people to want to front load these articles with 20 different translations and etymology and many many dates and caveats and extraneous information and details, to the extent that the introduction tells the reader NOTHING about the subect of the article, since it is so buried in minutae.--Filll 16:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Major revision in progress

I'm planning some major editing on this article. My draft is at User:Sumple/Forbidden_City. At the moment it is just a replica of this article. I plan to make changes to the following aspects of the article:

  • Rewrite the Description section - using subheadings to produce a more logical structure; re-arranging information so that the description better follows the structure of the Forbidden City; introduction of new information on major buildings and constituent parts of the Forbidden City.
  • Introduce information about the museum collections of the Palace Museum - I may need help on this point since I still can't access the Palace Museum website for some reason.
  • Rearrange sections.
  • Copyediting.
  • Finding sources and citations where possible.

If you have any questions, suggestions, or criticism, please reply here or leave comments on my talk page, or the talk page of my draft page. --Sumple (Talk) 06:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow I find it disturbing you cannot get on the official website. I was blown away by the official website. It has a lot of great stuff on it. At all costs you have to get access somehow. I am not sure how though. I made the crude section division that now exists, although I am sure you could do better. When I saw the official site I realized there was a lot more information available. There might be so much that we cannot get it all in one article. I also still would like a gentle accessible first paragraph or two if possible. I would also suggest that the relation of this palace to the many other palaces be explored. I listed some in the article Chinese Palaces. Unfortunately we do not have articles for the vast majority of these. I gather that although the Forbidden City is quite opulent, it was put to shame by at least one other Chinese Palace that was destroyed. Also interesting is the fact that no artefacts are unaccounted for in the movement of the material out of Beijing into storage, and the splitting of the collection between Beijing and Taiwan. That alone is one of the most astounding facts I have ever encountered. It is a miracle. There is a lot of confusion about what constitutes a room so I would explore that as well if you can. Also the palace in Vietnam was designed as a copy of the Forbidden City, so that is interesting. Anyway it sounds like a good idea to me.--Filll 19:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the encouraging reply! I'm very frustrated that I can't get on the Palace Museum website - it used to be one of my favourite sites. And yes, that site has heaps and heaps of information...
I don't think I'll be changing the opening, or the "Names" section much. Oh and btw you are welcome to edit my subpage too! --Sumple (Talk) 00:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you read Chinese? Both Mandarin and Cantonese ? Any other languages? I would be curious to look at the Vietnamese Imperial Palace site in Vietnamese since it is a copy of the Forbidden City. The english versions of these sites I suspect is quite limited.--Filll 01:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep I read Chinese (Mandarin and Cantonese are written the same), but not Vietnamese. I have a couple of Chinese books at hand, but the information they contain are quite limited compared to the website. As for English versions of websites - I think the English version of the Palace Museum site should be sufficient for the purpose of this article. Also, I do have access to the National Palace Museum (in Taipei) site, so I hope to use some of their information on the history of the museum. --Sumple (Talk) 01:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I can cut and paste some of the website to a page for you to refer to if you cannot get access other ways.--Filll 01:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Update

I have re-written the parts of the article relating to the site and the buildings (which was pretty much everything in the previous version). The seciont relating to the collections of the Museum is still to come. Comments and criticism are welcome, but please Be Bold and edit anything you don't like. --Sumple (Talk) 04:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Added "Collection" section. That's it for now - several sections need references, but a lot of the information comes from the Palace Museum website. --Sumple (Talk) 09:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)



The City of Forbidden City is built by most talent Vietnamese engineer. He forced to move to China after the war in 15th century between Vietnam and China. The Vietnamese Imperial Palace in Hue City is a copy of forbidden city because the contruction art is copyright by Vietnam, China can't say anything about it so they can't stop the construction. Hue City has limited over all so little different from Forbidden City such as the highest building can't be higher than the tallest building in Forbidden City because China consider their King is son of Heaven so nobody can't overpower them

External link cleaning

I have removed the following links which I find to be in violation of WP:External_links

not directly related to the article
not directly to the article - potentially spam
dead link
dead link
  • googlemaps link
World Heritage site has good satellite picture (plus no advertising)
possible copyright violation (is there permission to copy this map) - also, multiple links to the same website
another map and potential copyvio
multiple links to same website
link to a personal website with redundant material

Linking to your photos on another website doesn't help the article. Uploading your photos to [Wikimedia] does. Linking to the photos of others (unless they are exceptional and do not violate WP:EL) tends not to improve the article either. External links tend to be more advantageous for the linked website (notariety, ad-sense, promotion, etc.) than for the article. If users want to find photos, there are many handy search options available on the internet. That isn't what this encyclopedia is for. Please discuss any relinking here before editing the article. Relevant guidelines: Wikipedia is not a link repository WP:NOT, External links WP:EL, Conflict of interest WP:COI, and Reliable sources WP:RS. Thanks. Nposs 20:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Shanghai Knights/Noon

Wasn't there some relation with the city and the movies? You know, the ones with Jackie Chan in them? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Madking (talk • contribs) 01:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

Jackie Chan's character was a "guard" at the "Forbidden City". The "imperial palace" shown in the movie(s) looks nothing like Forbidden City. --Sumple (Talk) 04:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Pekingese dog

User:Ideogram deleted this:

A Pekingese dog.
  • The Pekingese dogs are a breed originated in China in antiquity, most likely from Asian wolves. For centuries, they could be owned only by members of the Chinese Imperial Palace. During the Second Opium War, in 1860, the Forbidden City was invaded by Allied troops. The Emperor Xianfeng had fled with all of his court. However an elderly aunt of the emperor remained. When the ‘foreign devils’ entered, she committed suicide. She was found with her five Pekingese mourning her passing. They were removed by the Allies before the Old Summer Palace was burnt.

I find it relevant to the article. --84.20.17.84 16:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it would be more appropriate to link the Forbidden City on the Pekingese dog article rather than to have this content in the Forbidden City article. Perhaps the best solution would be to like Pekingese dog under the "see also" topics. Certainly the picture is excessive for this article. Nposs 16:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism Warning!!! Only seeing the images of a Japanese flag and naval ensign in this article. Hopefully someone will correct this.

Second inline reference - Yu (1984)

The only thing the second inline reference says is "Yu (1984)". I think we need a little more information than that. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I'll go find the page numbers. Same goes for the Puyi (1964) reference too. --Sumple (Talk) 23:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
What's the title of the publication anyway? Post it up and we can probably find other pertinent information about it. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
The full reference is in the "General" subsection. --Sumple (Talk) 04:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh ok, I didn't catch that before. Do you think the way that it and others like it are not presented in full form in the References section is any problem on the path to GA or even FA? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Do you think so? I made them like this because that was the way I've seen them done in several feature articles, e.g. Dürer's Rhinoceros. --Sumple (Talk) 11:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I guess we can always just change them if it's a problem during GA or FA nomination. All the better if it doesn't matter to the reviewers and we can just leave them. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I think it's confusing partly because there are only two of them done in this style. Thanks for your help. --Sumple (Talk) 23:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

"Construction" section

I'm reading The Travels of Marco Polo translated by William Marsden, 1948 edition. Book 2, Chapter 6 tells of Kublia Khan residing for three months out of the year in his palace in Kanbalu. The article in Wiki on Kanbaliq (aka: Kanbalu, Cambuluc, Cambaluc, Khanbalikh, Ta-Tu, Dadu, Daidu, and now Beijing) shows the Forbidden City in relation to that time in the 1200's. Before Kublia Khan, the city was apparently Zhongdu. I thought your section on the History of the Forbidden City could use this as additional information. I like your history article, but it would have been better to me had I been able to tie in the earlier history. - Thanks, Jason 11/24/12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.114.3.79 (talk) 23:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I added a "citation needed" tag for this statement:

The scale of the palaces meant that larger pieces could not be transported by conventional means. Instead, wells were dug at regular intervals along the way as a source for water that was poured onto the road in deep winter to form a layer of ice, with the stones dragged along the ice.

And actually looking back at it, the whole section is a little under-referenced. We might need more sources for that section, and maybe other sections, before it reaches GA status. And I'm pretty sure FA reviewers would be pretty strict with these things. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, you're right. Part of the reason why that section is undersourced is because most of it I got from the CCTV documentary series on the Forbidden City. I've been wanting to find some written sources instead.
Do you think CCTV documentary is okay for references? --Sumple (Talk) 06:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I would think it's an OK reference. But it would be problematic for the path to FA if any one particular source was over-used. I don't think that should be a problem for GA though. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Bolding

I got rid of some unnecessary bolding, per MOS:BOLD#Boldface. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Here goes

I'm going to give this article a thorough edit now. To understand where I'm coming from, please read my user page. I'm going to make all my edits at once so you can see the result and you can change things back if you disagree. I will be happy to discuss the reasons for any of my changes, just ask. --Wang C-H 18:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

There was an edit conflict and I am just too tired to deal with it. My version is at User:Wang C-H/Forbidden City. Look at it and merge the changes you want.

In general I am extremely disappointed in the state of this article. There are an amazing number of wikification problems as listed on my user page such as repeated linking, inappropriate date linking, and fixed image sizes that you should be able to fix without me. I started by making copyedits for language and flow and found myself spending all my time on these other tasks.

A lot of the prose is breathless and trivial and seems to come directly from tourist brochures. I don't think the Wikipedia article should serve as an advertisement selling the marvels of the Forbidden City to tourists.

I'm done for now. --Wang C-H 20:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

One more thing: I have made extensive comments in the text on problematic prose. Please read them carefully. --Wang C-H 20:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss

Please discuss any issues you have with the recent changes here. I want to ask the editor who reverted the changes if he understands that items should not be linked multiple times, and also if he realizes that comments are not visible to the reader, which is why they are used for communication between people editing the article. --Ideogram 21:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It is also extremely rude to revert an entire edit without taking the time to separate edits you disagree with from edits that you agree with. --Ideogram 21:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

May I point out that it is usually the onus of the person making the large changes to justify them? enochlau (talk) 04:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
The justifications for the changes are listed at User:Wang C-H as noted above. Also, there are no large changes, only lots of little ones. I had no idea that removing duplicate links and inserting comments invisible to the reader would be considered controversial changes. --Ideogram 06:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This editor is apparently not interested in discussing these changes. How exactly am I supposed to deal with this situation? --Ideogram 14:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem is basically that there are too many changes made in one edit. I believe many of your changes are uncontroversial, but the few that are are mixed in to the extent that it makes it difficult for other editors to see the changes and revert or propose changes. I would recommend breaking your changes down: changes to the writing style, changes to wiki links, images, etc. Maybe even break it down by section if there too many changes to the entire article. This will facilitate discussion and allow for collaboration between editors. (Also, use the talk page for discussing the article - not invisible comments in the article itself.) Nposs 15:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I know you are trying to help, but I really think there isn't any point to breaking up edits; it only clutters up the edit history, since you can't undo individual edits, only revert back to a previous version.
I spent over two hours going through this article with a fine-tooth comb and it is disheartening to have someone revert the whole thing with a single mindless click. I think it is unfair to ask me to put in even more work for our shared goal of improving Wikipedia when the person who disagreed with me couldn't be bothered to distinguish between agreeable and disagreeable edits.
It is far too common for editors here to blindly revert. They should be expected to put in as much thought reverting as was put into the edits being reverted. I just don't feel like fighting this battle right now. --Ideogram 15:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I have reverted to your version. If some items got delinked that should not have been delinked, it is easier to add links again by hand than to do the other copyediting that was in Ideogram's version. Kusma (talk) 15:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I will of course be happy to discuss any of my changes that are deemed controversial. --Ideogram 15:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Revised version can be accepted , anyway , it is not a final version . Icedawan (talk) 20:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Revised version can be accepted , anyway , it is not a final version . Icedawan (talk) 20:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Too many pictures?

Ok, I think this article is starting have too many pictures. What does everybody else think? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I am pretty much always in favor of less pictures. One per substantial subsection is my rule. --Ideogram 19:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Good lord, there are a lot of pictures in there. I really think there should be fewer.--Danaman5 19:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we ask the editor who put them in to rank the pictures he wants according to importance, with his reasons for including each one, and we can discuss where the cutoff should be. --Ideogram 19:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-architectural pictures can probably be removed, but it might be good to add a gallery at the bottom: Wikipedia:Galleries. Nposs 23:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

A gallery is a good idea, as long as we keep in mind that we can't use fair-use images in galleries. --Ideogram 23:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Good idea. But I don't think we need the images of Yongle Emperor, Puyi, and Qianlong Emperor. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Does someone want to check the copyright status of all the images to see which ones we can put in a gallery? --Ideogram 23:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the notion of removing some of these photos, especially when it doesn't really improve the article that much. I think some of these pictures should be included as they are relevant to the article itself. Many of these photos that were removed are pictures of items from the Palace Museum collections itself, and the photos of these emperors simply serves as illustration for the sections they are in (hence their importance to the history of the Forbidden City); why is that so distracting?--Balthazarduju 03:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

There are just way too many pictures, and it is unlikely that they can be formatted in a way that looks good. It is not our job to give the reader illustrations for an article that are not directly relevant, and the emperor pictures were not relevant. Many of the other pictures are just redundant or unnecessary. Sometimes fewer pictures makes each picture more poignant, and less likely to be ignored.--Danaman5 03:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I can make you understand this, but more pictures is not better. Less pictures is better. Text is information, pictures are eye-candy. --Ideogram 03:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh great, another revert-warrior. You guys explain it to him. --Ideogram 04:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey everyone, this is User:Sumple. As I'm on self-imposed exile, I can't actually access my account right now (so please don't expect prompt replies or regular attention to this page). Just wanted to comment on the recent changes on this page.
I agree with Ideogram that there were too many pictures which were cluttering up the page. At the same time, I agree with Balthazarduju that photos should not be deleted on the arbitrary basis of "one pic per section". Photos and diagrams can help to illustrate written information. The current state of photos looks good, but I noticed all the emperor pictures got removed. Perhaps one can be added to the collections section as an illustration of palace artefacts?
As the person who removed the gallery, I must say I oppose the gallery idea. Galleries seldom add information. If a photo is actually illustrative in an informative way, it should be in the article. Wikimedia Commons already has, not one, but two great galleries on images from the Forbidden City/Palace Museum.
Anyway, great work! Keep it up! 211.30.235.104

Name in opening

I've removed the Chinese name from the lead paragraph because mainly of two reasons:

  1. The various Chinese and English names are dealt with already in the paragraph "Names" below.
  2. "Zijincheng" is neither a direct translation of "Forbidden City" (it's "Purple Forbidden City") nor the common Chinese name ("Gugong"). Thus it should not be presented as the Chinese "equivalent" of the term "Forbidden City". --PalaceGuard008 10:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

GA on hold

I have placed this article on hold for just three days, because there is only one/a couple of problem/s I can see:

  1. The lead needs expansion to summarise the whole article. It is important an article of this size has a good lead to properly introduce the subject
  2. A general cleanup, final copyedit and slight improvement in prose might "spruik" the article up a little bit.

Good luck! You have three days. All questions should be forwarded to my talk page. Best wishes, Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments! I'll work on the suggestions. --PalaceGuard008 07:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Great! I'll take a look in the three days. Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I have decided to pass this article early. You have adequately addressed the problems, so I will now pass this candidate. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 19:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

World heritage

I have moved the detailed information about world heritage listing back down to the history section. The reason I moved the mass footnote and other bits down is because the WP:LEAD is meant to be a summary of the article's content. It won't do to have a (longish) section in the lead section that isn't explained further on in the article.

I have, however, removed the reasons for inclusion. --PalaceGuard008 06:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Taipei, Republic of China

Due to the controversial nature of the Taiwan issue, Wikipedia is deliberately ambiguous. Thus, for example, in terms of geographical locations, "mainland China" versus "Taiwan" is preferred over "People's Republic of China" versus "Republic of China", or "China" versus "Taiwan". See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese). In the present case, there is really no need to disambiguate Taipei - there is only one Taipei and the ordinary reader, reading a China-related article, knows it's in Taiwan. Those who don't can click on the wikilink to Taipei to find out where it is. There is really no confusion. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Since PalaceGuard008 wrote "Those who don't can click on the wikilink to Taipei to find out where it is. There is really no confusion. " on 00:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC) I am going to response. Firstly, if that so, then why on earth you removed the wikilink?? Next time read the change, edit what is necessary instead of abusing the revert function. Secondly, it is actually confusing because the whole article constantly refers PRC as China (which is fine) but suddenly there is a sentence talking about something in Taiwan without saying that country's name (ROC or Taiwan). If we are ever that worry about the communists' protest about saying that country's official name, why don't you just rename all reference to the Republic of China to The-Country-That-Its-Must-Not-Be-Named? --Da Vynci 00:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
There is already a wikilink to Taipei in the opening paragraph. As a general rule, a term does not need to be repeatedly linked in an article. That being said, I would not have reverted simply to remove the wikilink - it was in the course of reverting your edit generally.
You keep on referring to ROC or Taiwan as the "name of the country". That is precisely the POV that Wikipedia tries to be ambiguous about. We use "Taiwan" for the geographical location, and "ROC" for references to the state apparatus. If at all possible, we try to avoid any reference at all.
You said that the article constantly refers to the PRC as "China". It does not: the only such equation is in the UNESCO infobox, and that is because UNESCO officially inscribes the PRC as China. If you have a problem with that, it is something you should raise with the UN.
In general, the convention in literature is to identify the various "palace museums" via their city location (Beijing, Taipei, Shenyang).
You are letting your indignation about the ROC's international recognition (or lack thereof) affect your judgment in this case. Whether Taiwan is a separate country or state or whatever is something which Wikipedia makes no judgment upon, and prefers to render ambiguous. If you have a problem with that policy, the appropriate way to challenge it is to discuss it on Naming Conventions (Chinese), not unilateraly on this page. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Cantonese for palace

Hi, I know that Gong is palace in mandarin, but what is the Cantonese equivilent?

Same in cantonese. If you want to be more precise its wong gong, or wong gung, depends on how you ping yum it.Dengero 23:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The title name

Sounds weird and reminds me of negative images, especially relating to activities for reform in the modern era. Koreans traditionally call and write it as 자금성(紫禁城), Jageum seong which pronounces similar to the original name, Zijin Cheng. Why this article keeps the too much translated name for the title? Even UNESCO doesn't use the translated English title for the palace. There are many literature and films named after this English name, but that is not enough reason to keep the name. I suggest to move the article name to Zijin Cheng or Zijin palace.--Appletrees (talk) 18:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Context?

  • In 2007, Tyra Banks, Nigel Barker, Jay Alexander, Twiggy, Chantal Jones, Saleisha Stowers competed in a Qi Yang Fashion Show. The final runway show of America's Next Top Model Cycle 9 which was held in Forbidden City. The runway was introduced by Tyra Banks and the judges for that Cycle.

I moved the above paragraph from the article because it was uncited and I didn't get it. Is "America's Next Top Model Cycle 9" a TV show? Who's Twiggy? I can't see Andrew Forrest running around on a runway.... What's a Qi Yang Fashion Show?? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

NAME CHANGE FOR ----------> FORBIDDEN CITY

should the name be changed from FORBIDDEN CITY to "ALLOWED CITY"

The name SHOULD NOT be changed to "ALLOWED CITY" as it destroys its historical intention. It was called the forbidden city for a reason and thus the name should stand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.195.151 (talk) 05:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Which district?

Which district of Beijing is it in? Badagnani (talk) 03:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Added Dongcheng District, Beijing. Badagnani (talk) 03:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the reference to the administrative district in the lead paragraph. The administrative district which covers something as centrally important as the Forbidden City is not important enough for the lead.
Putting down that the Forbidden City is adminsitered by the East District serves to confuse rather than clarify its position: the division of the old city into East and West districts takes its reference from the Forbidden City in any case, and the boundary being drawn so as to place the Forbidden City into the East rather than the West district was essentially arbitrary. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

What is the height of the wall around the Forbidden City?

This article tells us it is 7.9 meters and cite China Central Television as the source which is in Chinese (which means I can not verify it) . Other web sites tell us it is a 10 meters high or more accurately 9.9 meters high. for example ,[2] (one of the external links in the article) or the German Wikipedia. Avihu (talk) 20:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

A lot of those web sites are clones or derivatives of the old version of this article. The CCTV documentary cited is also available in English. Depending on your location, you may be able to obtain a copy at your local library or shop. The last time I checked, a complete, dubbed version was also on YouTube. This is the first episode with subtitles: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbK6vLYMvmk. You may need to look around to find the dubbed version. Enjoy. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but sending me on a goose chase after a documentary did not result in finding the source. Any other source? I do not think that an old version, at least pre March 2007, of this article was the source for [3], because as far as I manage to dig there was no version of the article with the number 9.9 meters. Only ten meters and the current 7.9 meters. Avihu (talk) 12:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand. You are asking for a source for a claim made by a blog site that the wall is 9.9 metres, when the article currently states that the wall is 7.9 metres high, a statement sourced to an authoritative documentary? I'm afraid that I didn't write for "photo96.com" and have no idea where they get their information from.
The Gugong documentary is the source, and if you wish to verify the source, then, as I said, you can either obtain a copy of the documentary yourself (it's a widely distributed documentary series, not some obscure 16th century archival material), or, more conveniently, watch it on Youtube.
If your point was that the wall is actually 9.9m or 10m, that's fine also: please bring up a reliable source and we'll get the article changed. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Here are some online sources, courtesy of a Google search for "紫禁城城牆7.9米" ("Forbidden City wall 7.9m"). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
This game can be played the other way. Here are lots of online sources, courtesy of a Google search for "Forbidden City wall 9.9m, it can be used with your string just changing 7.9 to 9.9, again getting lots of sources in Chinese. Avihu (talk) 14:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
That's correct. The article cites a reliable source for the 7.9 figure, but you seemed to want more "web sources", so these are the web sources.
Frankly, I don't understand your "game". What are you trying to say? Are you arguing that the wall is actually 9.9m? If so, bring up a reliable source and we'll change the article. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, it seems from your tone that you are very irritated about my posts and I am sorry about that. I will start my reply by some background. The reason I wrote here is because I translated most of the this article into Hebrew (he:העיר האסורה) and I tried to cross check some of the facts. The height of the wall was one thing that I could not verify. There are just too many web sources specifying 9.9m or 10m height to ignore. I do admit that all of them can be wrong. Lot of sites say that there 9,999 rooms or even 9,999.5 rooms in the forbidden city which is an urbane legend. You are certain that the CCTV documentary is the most reliable source, but for me the only real reliable web source would be the palace museum site, which unfortunately do not have those numbers. Off course written books are also reliable source. I do not believe that we will come to an agreement about this issue, so I will stop here. Avihu (talk) 05:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I see your point now. If I get a chance, I will pop down to the library and dig up the main academic source that I used for this article (Yu, Zhuoyun (1984). Palaces of the Forbidden City. New York: Viking. ISBN 0-670-53721-7). It's an English source, and should be available at major libraries. If there is indeed a conflict between that source and CCTV, then we should probably mention both. That said, the walls are still there. I would have expected that the figure could be easily and authoritatively determined. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Your last sentence is what bothers me. How come that a fact, that can be so easily verified, is disputed? Anyway I wrote an e-mail to the palace museum asking for the information, but unfortunately did not receive a reply yet. Avihu (talk) 18:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I've finally had a chance to go to the library, and I can confirm that Yu states that the walls are "7.9 m high, 8.62 m wide at the base, and 6.66m broad the top." (p. 32, source cited above). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

semi protected

I've semi-protected the article for a month for excessive vandalism.

IP users can either register for accounts or discuss their proposed changes here.

In any case, it's good practice for all users to discuss significant changes to the article before making them. --Dweller (talk) 10:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

"8,707 bays of rooms"

British English is my first language and I note that the article is written in British English. Despite this, I have no idea what "8,707 bays of rooms" means - and there's no wikilink to help me, if "bays" is some kind of jargon. --Dweller (talk) 10:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It is a kind of jargon. A "bay" in a classical Chinese hall is a space defined by four pillars. The reason for this method of counting rooms is because interior walls were usually only partitions and were moved and modified all the time. Hmm this needs to go somewhere. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yongdingmen?

"To the north, it extends through the Bell and Drum Towers to Yongdingmen". According to the map Yongdingmen is a gate at the southern wall of the outer city. Shouldn't it be Andingmen? Avihu (talk) 16:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Forbidden City/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

While the featured article nomination pointed out several problems such as use of weasel words and use of Chinese references, I believe this article is well-written and well-referenced. This article remains as an GA. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Restoration Project Times

There is a conflict between the text and the photo.

"It is currently administered by the Palace Museum, which is carrying out a sixteen-year restoration project" is the text whereas the photo states a 19-year restoration project. Which is correct?

I have to say most pictures here are really lame; can we find some good photographs? more artistic maybe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.21.143.42 (talk) 06:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

It started at the 600th anniverysary of the beginning of Forbidden City construction, and this project will end at the 600th anniversary of the completion of it. You can find related information from a 2005 CCTV documentary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.171.158.154 (talk) 02:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Forbidden City. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:39, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Forbidden City. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 19:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Upright Gate / Duanmen article?

Resolved

Should there be a standalone article for the Upright Gate (Duanmen)? ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, see zh:端門. Cobblet (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! I created a stub. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:28, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Forbidden City. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 16:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Gate of Heavenly Purity?

Resolved

Should there be a Wikipedia article for the Gate of Heavenly Purity? ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I've created a stub. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Forbidden City. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 22:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Gate of Thriving Imperial Clan?

Should there be an article for the Gate of Thriving Imperial Clan? See commons:Category:Gate of Thriving Imperial Clan. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:01, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Probably notable: see zh:隆宗門. Timmyshin (talk) 22:07, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Is it actually notable though? Just because there is an article on Chinese wikipedia. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 Done Created stub at Gate of Thriving Imperial Clan. ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Belvedere of Embodying Benevolence?

Resolved

Should there an article for the Belvedere of Embodying Benevolence? See commons:Category:Belvedere of Embodying Benevolence. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, see zh:體仁閣. Cobblet (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 Done I've created a simple stub referencing the article at Chinese Wikipedia. ---Another Believer (Talk) 05:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Belvedere of Spreading Righteousness‎?

Resolved

Should there be an article for the Belvedere of Spreading Righteousness‎? See commons:Category:Belvedere of Spreading Righteousness. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:03, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, see zh:弘義閣. Cobblet (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 Done I've created a simple stub referencing the Chinese Wikipedia article. ---Another Believer (Talk) 05:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Gate of Moral Standards?

Should there be an article for the Gate of Moral Standards? See commons:Category:Gate of Moral Standards. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:04, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Possibly, although it is a minor gate flanking the Gate of Supreme Harmony. On the Chinese Wikipedia it is a redirect to that article (in Chinese). Cobblet (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Forbidden_City/Archive_2"