Talk:Sichuan

3rd Most populous province?

According to the Times World Atlas and a number of other sources Sichuan has the largest population of any province in China with about 109,980,000 million people - a lot more than the 86,730,000 cited in this article. I have seen other sources which give a figure in the 80 millions. Does anyone have any explanation for these disparities?

Don't forget a fair-sized chunk of Sichuan was split off as Chongqing municipality in 1997. Your reference probably predates that. -- Curps 02:14, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yep.. Sichuan was the most populous province of China until the establishment of Chongqing municipality. -- ran (talk) 02:35, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

Language

Could someone add information about the Sìchuān dialect please? --LakeHMM 04:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Umm... I can do it tomorrow, but right now I've got to finish stuff from school first... -- ran (talk) 05:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Very well done! Thanks so much. --LakeHMM 21:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Mongke Khan is not died in sichuan,he died in hechuan chongqing

1259-1264 On their way to attack the Song city of Hezhou, hundreds, including Mongke, die. In 1260 the Mongols suffer their first major defeat near Ain Jalut against the Mamluks. Kublai becomes their next khan in 1264. form: http://www.royalalbertamuseum.ca/vexhibit/genghis/timeline.htm

Hezhou is the old name of hechuan,a county of chongqing,so Mongke Khan is die in chongqing,not in sichuan,please refer to People's Republic of China.

Chongqing was once a part of Sichuan. --–HXL's Roundtable and Record 00:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Ethnicity census

What is the source for all the percentage figures given for each ethnicity in China? Please add the link to the census report.PlusDrawn 12:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Earthquake?

CNN.com and MSNBC.COM both reported a 7.8 magnitude earthquake in Sichuan, China. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.35.214 (talk) 06:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Correct. The BBC broke the story too. See here for info from Reuters. Not much info has been released yet. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 06:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

wade-giles tones?

What's up with the tone indicators in the wade-giles spelling? I never saw Wade-Giles with tone indicators, and the WP site on this Romanization system says nothing about tones either. What is the merit of having this romanization here anyway? Poastal Pinyin seems reasonable enough, but Szu-chuan and Szu-ch'uan seem to yield significantly fewer hits on google scholar or google books. Yaan (talk) 17:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Wade-Giles was a very popular form of Chinese romanization up until the relatively recent use of pinyin. Almost no major modern literature uses the old, inaccurate, postal spellings. The tone marks are essential for anyone wanting to correctly pronounce the words since Chinese is a tonal language. See Wade-Giles#Punctuation for detail. Rincewind42 (talk) 15:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

No major modern literature uses the old, inaccurate Wade-Giles either. The tone marks are essential for correct pronunciation, but users of Wade almost never include them as the numbers are even more of an eyesore than the pinyin tonal marks (which are usually omitted in personal use as well). That said, yes, we should absolutely give the Wade romanization even if no one used it for this province. — LlywelynII 12:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Kingdom of Kham

no mention of the Tib. Kingdom of Kham or the local indigenous group? Article is ethno/sino centric. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.82.8.74 (talk) 07:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Southwest China / Central China

"Sichuan, formerly romanized Szechuan, is a province in southwest China" is it Southwest China? It looks more like central China and two different language wiki's call it central China because of that. Carol (Talk) 18:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

See Central_China, it is not part of it. Also Chinese wiki should know, and it puts Sichuan in Southwest China. Those that put in in Central China are wrong, if they don't give a source, I'd say they are doing original research, they don't understand how Sichuan is traditionally viewed in China. Other encyclopedia put it in Southewest China - e.g. Encyclopedia Britannica. Hzh (talk) 19:27, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Carol Fenijn: Sichuan is actually part of the area known as Southwest China. For most of Chinese history this area was at the frontier of Chinese civilization. With the addition of Xinjiang and Tibet in the last two centuries, Sichuan is no longer exactly in the southwest of the People's Republic of China, but the region has kept the appellation "Southwest China". Even today Sichuan is in the southwest of the parts of China predominantly inhabited by Han Chinese. --NoGhost (talk) 19:35, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, Hzh and NoGhost. I may change it on the wikipedia's that say it is central China based on this, or add some nuance. Carol (Talk) 20:05, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Chinahighlights as a source

While I was cleaning up the Giant Panda section, I tried fixing the sources, and it wouldn't let me use one of their sources. It is here. ( https://www chinahighlights com/giant-panda/habitat.htm, Giant Pandas' Habitat — Bamboo Forest in Western China by Kelly. ) I only removed the ref signs, and destroyed the link (removed the . of .com and www.).

Infobox images

A single image cannot be representative of a large province, using multiple images in the infobox would be more useful. Unless there is an MOS that says we shouldn't use multiple images for Chinese province article, I'd say we use more images. States of India and provinces of Pakistan use multiple images, e.g. Uttar Pradesh and Punjab, Pakistan. Given that a single image is unrepresentative, an alternative is not to use images in the infobox at all. Many articles on major subdivision in other countries don't use any images apart from flags, maps, seals and coat of arms, for example articles for the states of Bavaria, Queensland and California, so removing all geographical images is a valid option. Hzh (talk) 22:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Regions of France as well as the Piedmont region in Italy makes use of only one image in their infoboxes, so the practice is shown to be implemented and acceptable. The presumed reason why the images of Jiuzhaigou have been left as the sole infobox image of the Sichuan article for so long is that it is a well-known scenic destination in the province, but using that as a justification for leaving the image in the infobox is debatable. As I believe that many of these provinces have an adequate amount of images within the article itself, I don't think there is a need of photomontages for Chinese provinces. As I understand that one image is not exactly "representative" of the province, removing them alltogether would be acceptable. - 𝙄𝙠𝙤𝙣21 ❯❯❯ talk 06:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Piedmont is the only one in Italy that uses an image, all the others don't use any, like Tuscany or Lazio. Same for Spain, like Andalusia and Catalonia. France is an odd one, the larger article Britanny do not use an image but the smaller (therefore apparently less important) Brittany (administrative region) do, seems like former divisions or cultural regions don't use or may use many images (e.g. Alsace), but current ones do use one (I don't think the choice of single images are representative either). As far China, many provinces or regions use images that are frankly odd, for example, who would think the image for Xinjiang is in any way representative? Hzh (talk) 08:15, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't really agree with the assertion that the administrative region of Brittany is less important, my guess that the reason why that article has an infobox image instead of the cultural region is because the administrative region actually has a function within the French government, and the cultural region is nothing more than a historical province. Anyways, going back to whether we should keep the infobox images for the Chinese provinces, I say we could either remove all the images as they're not exactly representive, or make montages for every single province. I honestly don't see a need for montages but if you or someone really wants to make them, I really don't care. - 𝙄𝙠𝙤𝙣21 ❯❯❯ talk 21:25, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I'll try and add montages to other articles on provinces later. It will take some time. Let's see if other people object, and if they do, then I might start a discussion on Wikiproject China on deleting all images or using montage on infobox. Hzh (talk) 00:07, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good. - 𝙄𝙠𝙤𝙣21 ❯❯❯ talk 01:21, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

"koi Manchu conquest"

@Alarob: I don't understand this phrase: is it a typo or misspelling? Jarble (talk) 18:37, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for flagging it. The word “koi” doesn’t belong. I’m baffled; I suppose I was editing with a phone which “intelligently” decided the next word should be “koi,” and I didn’t notice the insertion. I’ll use the same phone to erase it. — ℜob C. alias ALAROB 12:51, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

"landlocked"?....

The first sentence of the intro had emphasized that this province was "landlocked." While technically true, this strikes me as rather odd to emphasize in the first sentence of the intro of an article about a sub-national entity. The [Colorado]] article, for example, doesn't mention the state lacking a coastline, and I don't believe any of the articles on US states mention it in their first sentence. Being "landlocked" is more relevant for sovereign independent states than subdivisions thereof. -2003:CA:872F:268C:F4D1:7329:A842:E715 (talk) 13:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Economic development zones

Why is there so much detail on various "Economic development zones" that don't have stand-alone articles? (Chengdu Hi-tech Comprehensive Free Trade Zone, etc.) I am tempted to remove them entirely from this article.

Some of them are unreferenced and wouldn't be reasonable stand-alone articles as-is ... but that lack of quality isn't a reason to keep it here. Walt Yoder (talk) 02:54, 30 March 2023 (UTC)