Talk:Shishapangma/Archive 1

1283:(diatribe continues) - 1. That some time in the future there will be an huge influx of Chinese English-speakers using the English Knowledge for information on Xixiabangma is perhaps interesting; at that point in the future the then-editors can have this discussion again. 2. You have no idea what my background in Tibetan Culture is, but thank you for the schooling anyway. Again, though interesting, these ideas are not all that important in discussing the English wikipedia ARTICLE on Shisha. 3. You dismiss mountaineering as not that important to Shisa (I agree), but mountaineering is VERY important to the ARTICLE - currently holding 71.5% of the word count of the article (551 words out of 770 total, in however MS Word counts words, applying the count to the article content, x citations, infobox and end material). Calling my statement that mountaineering is the bulk of the article a fallacy is in-civil and factually inaccurate. 4. A claim that Shisha will stop being climbed or at least not reported is fanciful and also beside the point. We work on the article as it relates to current reality, not to future conditions. Also, trekking and climbing in the area is important to the economy and to the occupying Chinese government financially; and takes place through Kathmandu, thus avoiding the contention centered on Lhasa that the Chinese would like westerners to not know about. 4310:

that an important part of the publications may be related to geology / geography research using Chinese maps, which are often not consistent in the romanisation protocols. That might explain the reason why you get almost as many results with the Chinese Pinyin spelling than the Tibetan Pinyin spelling. Just one or two maps are sufficient to radically alter the statistics. In addition, I suspect that many scientific publications are using both spellings. It is also important to note that most of these publications do not focus on naming/spelling issues, so they just use the naming they will find in the maps. Google books may be more reliable, as you will get more books where the author has made a deeper research on naming.

1161:, but what there is to say about Shisha is mostly about climbing/mountaineering - there is very little encyclopedic information about it in other realms. The mountaineering content is likely to grow - other aspects are complete as they are. Thus, I suggest, the article should use the name most commonly applied in English, which is Shishapangma. I'm unclear why there is much debate on this matter - I only see one editor making a case for a different spelling of the same name (is it not?), over and over again, as if repetition makes it true. So, to be clear, I do not think the common test failed, I think it indicated Shishapangma. A name WIDELY accepted in the English-speaking mountaineering community. 4229:(Yú Hǎi) cared to anticipate one way or another how controversial the change would be. Yú Hǎi has moved dozens of pages in the past, all without discussion, at least one time while there was already a discussion regarding a page move, without bothering to even check if there was already a debate. Yú Hǎi has been advised several times over the past couple years to not do this and yet Yú Hǎi continues to unilaterally move pages at will. Both you and Yú Hǎi have made several good points on why the article should be named Xixabangma, but right or wrong the move may be, the method that Yú Hǎi uses is undesirable and I wouldn't defend this move as something Yú Hǎi overlooked as being uncontroversial.-- 4151:. I don't think that anybody said something different in this paragraph. I also don't don't understand your point about insensitivity to local cultures. The issue is about which spelling to use in ENGLISH for a widely used Tibetan word. Whatever spelling you use, this will remain a Tibetan word and is respecting the local culture. The point is that "Shishapangma", respectively "Shisha Pangma", has a much wider use in English. If there is a cultural insensitivity, it is the attempt to arbitrarily change established spelling conventions in foreign languages (in this case English). Consistency is also wishful in Knowledge, and there are numerous pages using the spelling "Shishapangma". Please check 4133:. Anyway, your preference for spellings like "Lhasa", which is much more non-intuitive for English speakers than is "Lasa", demolishes your argument that you prefer "Sh..." over "X..." for its ease of use. There is no such thing as "precedent" on Knowledge; page moves are considered on their own merits. There are many Tibet article titles that use systematic official transcriptions, and many article titles that use older ad-hoc transcriptions. It is really the cases of the latter that are "unfortunate", because those names are usually arbitrary, unscientific, and insensitive to the local cultures. 4361:

native Tibetan and Sherpa there" and "please respect the indigenous people there". If this self-proclaimed defender of the "Sherpa" would know a little bit about Sherpa culture, he would have known that Tibetan Pinyin is not taught in schools on the Southern slopes of Cho Oyu where a majority of Sherpa live. ALL Sherpa (100% to be clear) knowing the roman script will refer to Cho Oyu as Cho Oyu. Thank you for learning about local cultures before bringing the "cultural sensitivity argument" in future.

31: 3610:. After rereading all the arguments above and doing a little more research, I am just not sure. Take my example of peaklist.org refering to the peak as "Xixabangma Feng". Is the word "Feng" untranslated "Peak". If so, wouldn't that suggest the site simply chose not to translate the entire name to the common English name? I dont know and because of my limited knowledge of Chinese translation, my position should be best considered no vote or neutral. 3768:

current state. Another thing to consider if we decide to leave it Xixabangma and then a few months or years later we have another discussion and decide it is best to move back to Shishapangma. We would still have the same techinical problem of being unable to make the move without an admin, assuming an admin can fix it then, right? I don't like the idea of moving on from this with the bridge burning behind us, you know what I mean?--

1225:, to categorically dismiss many of the editors interested in this article off-hand. Your case would be more convincing if you provided some DATA to support your claim, but throughout this discussion you browbeat other editors (excuse my incivility) by emphatically stating your opinion as fact, and dismissing other's opinions. Even when FACT is presented, you dismiss it as being inconsistent with your opinion, therefore unimportant. 2064:"If there are several common spellings of a term with only minor variations between them, such minor variations do not indicate a lack of primary romanisation. One of the variants should be used as the primary romanisation. For instance, bka’-brgyud can be spelled Kagyu, Kargyu, Kagyud, Kagyü, Kargyü, or Kagyüd – the first spelling is the primary romanisation, however its variants may be mentioned when appropriate." 4726:(see below for alternate spellings), is the fourteenth-highest mountain in the world and, at 8,013 m (26,289 ft), the lowest of the eight-thousanders." and then put the alternate spellings in the body. I'm not sure if this would strictly adhere to guidelines, but it would make the lead much more readable. I also changed the titles of the web citations to reflect the titles of the web pages they reference.-- 2198:

Pangma (English spelling of the sh sound) and the clade Xixabangma-Xixiabangma (Pinyin spelling of the sh sound). Of these two clades, Shishapangma-Shisha Pangma usage predominates. I don’t see a clear way to choose between Shishapangma and Shisha Pangma, and maybe the difference is so small at this point that it doesn’t really matter, so leave the article where it was at Shishapangma.

2237:"minor variations" and on that basis move back to Shishapangma. I would also be inclined that, when in doubt, we should stick with the spelling the earlier authors of the article used, as with American vs. British English. I don't like undiscussed moves like this and I think this discussion should default to restoring the old title unless a clear consensus is built for the change.— 4038:, and is growing, discounting books that were written before the emergence of standardized Tibetan place names like Xixabangma. Also, wylie cannot be equated with "Tibetan pinyin", because wylie replicates the poorly phonetic Tibetan alphabet, while "Tibetan pinyin" transcribes speech, which is exactly what someone did when they created "Shishapangma", except better. 2847:, etc.) are splitted into aspirated and unaspirated, which THDL failed to demonstrate. Tibetan pinyin and Roman Dzongkha, however, succeed demonstrate the distinction. Why? Because they are made by natives or with help of natives (it is said that Roman Dzongkha was made with the help of van Driem or someelse, but I believe it's still mainly made by natives). –– 3911:" made its first appearance in English texts (basically bad translations not respecting the previous established spelling). BTW, the advantage in using the traditional English spelling for these names is that you can more or less reproduce the correct sound; Tibetan Pinyin is useless for non-Chinese speakers to render the correct sound of Tibetan names. 1330:--- I did further research, shown above. I've now found two very reliable sources (Britannica and Library of Congress) that use Xixabangma, and I did a search of the Google News archive, and found the "Shisha pangma" was most common in news articles. Therefore, as Yú Hǎi says above, the overall Google test is inconclusive, and we should go with the 1298:- 5.3%; Nat Krause - 4.9%; Kauffner .4%. While I appreciate your enthusiasm for the subject, may I suggest that your argumentation style would be more effective if you used facts and citations, rather than mainly emphatically stating your viewpoint as "right", dismissing other editors out of hand and repeating your arguments several times. 2095:

should be lumped. This was also proposed by Yú Hǎi as lumping by "what they look like". If we redo the Google tests assuming that lumping, adding -wikipedia to take care of Yú Hǎi's objection about usage independent of WP, restricting to English documents when possible, restricting to post-1993 documents when possible, we get:

3161:

for admin help reverting, agree to leave the name as is, etc.). I favor asking for admin help reverting to Shishapangma. I don't know how much work it would take for an admin to usurp the Shishangma redirect page. If admins think it’s not worth the trouble, or that it’s improper, we can leave it at Xixabangma.--

4663:

Mike left me with good piece of advice: editors get very passionate about title changes, but the actual title does not impact readers very much, due to redirects. Our readers will still find information on the peak, including the alternative names. So, we should put the disgreement in perspective ---

4339:

This is a recurrent claim (never sustained) by Yu Hai in order to reject the application of the existing Knowledge naming convention. Let me politely disagree on this point too. Many authors (including Chinese authors) have referred to Shisha Pangma since many decades, while the term "Xixabangma" has

4280:

It might be a dead end to continue discussion the different arguments, as it seems we are simply opposing different arguments without aiming at finding a consensus. I'll make a trial for consensus finding in the next chapter, but due to my late arrival in the discussion, there are a few points in the

3998:

The spelling Shisha Pangma (or Sishapangma) was well established in English language long before the emergence of Tibetan Pinyin. Furthermore, for English speakers, the pronounciation of Shishapangma is much closer to the original Tibetan sound than Xixabanga. I agree with you that Xixabangma is more

3796:

This whole discussion makes no sense. Xixabangma is the Pinyin spelling, while Shishapangma (altertatively Sisha Pangma) is the common name in English, used well before Tibetan Pinying started to be broadly use in China. Should we change Shishapangma to Xixabangma, then we should also change "Shangri

3627:

Now if there is no consensus here do we have another problem? I tried very early on (within hours of the initial undiscussed move) to get an admin to step in and get the article moved back to "Shishapangma" - the page name before the undiscussed move. I even placed a help template on my page, but the

1991:

But our goal here is not to make the Knowledge phonetically accurate. We seek the most common usage in written English, as the English wikipedia is a written document in English. Therefore, I think the rules of English apply, in which case Shishapangma and Shisha Pangma are in essence the same, and I

1600:

It seems that everyone is agreeing that we use the local name, we're just discussing how to transliterate (spell) it into the Roman alphabet. On the one hand, there is the official transliteration that has been put forth by the Chinese Government, and on the other hand there is the one most commonly

1349:

While the Britannica and Library of Congress usages favor Xixabangma, it seems to me that the Google test favors Shishapangma (perhaps with a space). Xixapangma is less prevalent than one of the two Shishapangma variants in every category (much less in 3 of 4 categories) and less prevalent than both

1297:

Allow me to support my claim of your browbeating behavior with evidence: Again using MS Word word count (which dealt poorly with a simple cut and paste), I see on this talk page the following editors providing X% of words: Yu Hai - 37.4%; Hike395 - 26.7%; Wikimedes - 19.4%; Racerx11 - 5.9%; ratagonia

1110:

As I explained above, the WP guidelines don't require that people in New York know of the peak, but that we should choose the most accepted (i.e., least rare) term. I would like to know how other editors interpret the guidelines and the test. Also, see above: the quoted search strings force Google to

222:

Indeed, but can we make the move. Another editor tried to move the page but was not allowed because of multiple redirects or something. The current state of the article is not a result of any consensus but rather the result of a series arbitrary attempts to fix the original undiscussed page move. See

4520:

What is disputed is not only "Which spelling is most commonly used by scholars?" but also "What is the commonly English term used all over the world". As what I have mentioned, foreign language learning in different countries might be taken into consideration. With Ratagonia's blame of "not based on

4251:

I think that calling the current discussion wikilawyering is not helpful. As far as I can see, editors who disagree all have their own valid reasons: the Shishapangma supporters look at the Google results and at the article history, while the Xixapangma supporters look at the more scholarly sources,

3767:

I would be very much in favor of soliciting more opions at Wikiproject Mountain. Good idea. Thanks for your help Hike395. I really wouldn't mind either way - Shishapangma or Xixabangma. I just want to make sure it is for the right reasons and that everyone understands how this page came to be in its

2827:

FYI, THDL romanisation does reflect Central Tibetan, just like Tibetan Pinyin does. It is less precise: it includes some older distinctions between sounds which are no longer distinguished by Standard Tibetan speakers (although perhaps by other closely related Tibetan dialects), and it combines some

2687:

Just to make my point clear. I was not discussing whether Pinyin is better than THDL, in fact I agree with Yu Hai that Pinyin is pretty accurate for Tibetan pronounciation (the only problem is that you have to know Chinese language or learn Pinyin to understand how Tibetan words should be pronounced

2231:

I wrote the "minor variations" section of the Tibetan naming conventions. To be honest, the application is somewhat vague. It was intended to encourage lumping and especially to discourage an argument along the lines of, "Look, some sources write Kagyu and others write Kargyu, so neither can be said

4766:

I was thinking that mentioning a different name for the mountain early might be more useful for readers than an alternate spelling of the title, but mentioning the most commonly used spelling early also has its merits. I’ve noticed in the last week that lots of other articles begin with 2 lines of

4696:

on board with an agreed set of search terms makes it easy for the next step. Try to reach this consensus on the article talk page or one of the project pages. Next step, run the searches, tabluate the results and make a titling decision. Leave the emotions and rationalizations out of it. If you

4687:

I closed this as no consensus to move X back to S at this time, so moving back to S is not the defacto result. As far as correcting the technical history issue, if editors don't muck around with the current redirects, everyting is salvagable if a move to S is needed. I have two suggestions for the

3994:

This is a terrible section title. Neither Xixabangma nor Shishapangma are more "English" than the other; they're both transcriptions of a Tibetan name. Shishapangma existed before Xixabangma, but that does not mean ipso facto that it is "established English"; in fact it's rather obscure. Xixabangma

3160:

I also think that we are not going to reach consensus, and that as a result, procedurally speaking the name should be Shishapangma but it’s more convenient to leave it at Xixabangma. This gives us a number of paths forward (e.g. continue to discuss, solicit the project pages for more opinions, ask

2922:

we reach a concensus to do so. However, while trying to move the page back to its original state, I made a serious mistake and it became difficult to return the page to Shishaapagma. In fact no one was able to move it back despite several attempts. I appologize for that mistake, but it brings me to

2236:

lump "Xixabangma" together with "Xixiabangma", because the latter is clearly intended to represent the Chinese name while the former is the Tibetan. I don't have a strong preference as to what this article should be called, but I would be inclined to lump "Shishap..." and "Shisha P..." together per

4206:

Since the title wasn't changed or discussed before, it was difficult to anticipate how "controversial" such a change would be. The mover thought he had good reasons. The wikilawyering going on for Shishapangma exposes the fact that there aren't many good independent reasons for that title anyway.

2197:

After some more thought, and Hike395's new Google results, I see it like this: Usage of variations of ཤི་ཤ་སྦང་མ། (Shishapangma, Xixabangma, et al.) predominate over Gosainthan. In deciding which ཤི་ཤ་སྦང་མ transliteration to use, there is a natural division between the clade Shishapangma-Shisha

1987:

In which case, I can say for myself, my American eyes see almost zero difference between Shishapangma and Shisha Pangma. A space between syllables in a phoenetic transcription of a native name has zero significance in English. On the other hand, I take the (newer?) Xi spelling and the (older?) Shi

1903:

I think what the disucussion boils down to is whether we combine "Shishapangma" and "Shisha pangma" together for determining English usage. If we decide "yes", then the common English usage is "Shishapangma" and we have to decide whether to include the space in the title or not. If we decide "no",

1179:

If you knew more about Tibetan culture, you would realize that few Tibetan mountain are named in a term like "XXX Mountain" or "Mount XXX" in Tibetan language. This would be bestly attributed to the Tibetan concept of a mountains - many of them are not mountains, but gods, trinities (and of course

1156:

Objection! Shishapangma is in wide and common usage among mountaineers. Now that the Alpine Club has moved to Golden, CO, yes, you might be hard-pressed to find New Yorkers that recognize it - but is not that the case for 99% of wikipedia items? Surely New Yorkers would be hard-pressed to identify

603:

The “common name” varys from time to time and may be influenced by the native community. Before 1972, Ceylon is definitely the common name for Sri Lanka, but the native community prefer the name Sri Lanka, so Sri Lanka is used and then become popular. Beijing was once called Peking in English, but

544:

that exonym should be discouraged if possible. For place such as Mt. Everest is too well known to introduce the endonym (name in the Tibetan language or the Sherpa language). However, the case in Xixabangma is different: few native English speakers know the mountain, and it follows that few people

4626:

I was under the assumption that it would be unlikely that an admin would revert to Shishapangma in the event of no consenses, but considering how this all went down, I would think a move back to Shishapangma would make the most sense. I would at least like to see the technical issue addressed. If

4607:

Thank you Mike Cline - I presume you are from the management. Now that the result of "No Consensus" has been reached, I assume the article will change back to the stable name of Shishapangma, although there are technical issues involved in producing that result. Do you take care of this, or do we

4360:

To be honest, I just don't understand to what these remark can refer. I have meanwhile noticed that Yu Hay as attempted to change the article name of Cho Oyu to Qowowuyag (changed immediately reverted by one other editor) with the following aggressive and displaced comments: "be respective to the

4309:

The use of google to test the "popularity" (amongst general public or amongst scholars) of the different spellings may content some important bias. Yu Hai mentioned himself that the Chinese Pinyin spelling getting thrice more hits than the Tibetan Pinyin spelling. A problem with Google scholar is

3463:

I agree with Yú Hǎi, here. Racerx11 originally asked me to help out in the discussion, and after all of the discussion, he thought Xixabangma was the best. Quigley also thought XIxabangma was the best. That's why I think we are stuck: it is not just one editor supporting Xixabangma, and there are

2973:

While I lack a great deal of experience with Google Books, 1000 or 2000 Google Book hits seems to indicate that Shishapangma and Shisha Pangma are common and widespread enough. The fact that all sources used to write the article use Shishapangma or Shisha Pangma is important. The fact that many

4346:

On this point, I fully agree that the main article name is Xixabangma(with no reference on the etymology). It is however interesting to see that the spelling Xixabangma is only used once (in the title), while the article is mentioning twice Shisha Pangma: "Tibetan Shisha Pangma" & "while the

2923:

my point: User:虞海, I think I left message on you talk page at the time, but its worth repeating because I noticed you have done this several times before. Please do not move pages until after you have raised the issue on a talk page and only after a concensus has been reached to make such a move.

1556:

Unfortunately, mountainers are not the majority who know the mountain. The natives who speak English as a second or foreign language are the majority who know the mountain, who know it as Xixabangma. FYI, expert mountainers are specialists, while for those dabblers, who may climb one or two 2000

4743:

Thus leaving the most-commonly-used spelling out of the lead? I agree that starting the article with a long list of alternative spellings is not very kind to Knowledge readers. Yu Hai is well versed in the different versions, perhaps he would put together a paragraph on alternative names, to be

4563:

Generally, when I successed to persuade my self that a page should be moved, I move it. Sometimes I think more and sometimes less. I'm a little bit confusing that sometime my move was seen as uncontroversial while sometimes as controversial, and there is no clear clue when it would be viewed as

4512:

I intended to be back at Wednesday, but the topic surprisingly developed far fast than I thought. Seemingly many Wikipedians have more free time at weekdays. Perhaps it'd take me long time to read this. Even though I'm not authorized to add in comments into, I'd like to add some opinions here:

4353:

This whole discussion is irrelevant for the current article in English Knowledge. To my knowledge, "Athens" will remain "Athens", "Vientiane" will remain "Vientiane" and "Mecca" will remain "Mecca" in English regardless of which romanisation system is used. And I don't think this is an issue in

4301:

Thank you for all your efforts in doing these calculations with the Google counts. I however object about the last grouping made. Shisha Pangma and Shishapangma do indeed both correspond to the "traditional" English spelling, and should be lumped together. Xixabangma and Xixiabangma Feng should

3411:

Discard what you and I think about the result, however, Knowledge is not Anarchopedia, which is based on polling. In consensus based Knowledge, I advise you to write objections to the Xixabangma-supproters' opinion, which do good to consensus reaching, rather than curse the discussion to death.

2094:

Thanks for finding that! It's quite helpful. I think the example shows that if two romanizations are different by one character, or a diacritic, then the difference is minor. This agrees with your sense that "Shishapangma" and "Shisha Pangma" should be lumped, and "Xixabangma" and "Xixiabangma"

1193:

Plus, foreign language learning is still active in China. Many natives, during their secondary education stage, would learn how to express their opinion about mountain-gods in English (and of course, the mountain-name would be directly transcripted from their native language via SASM/GNC). As a

1062:

Your result actually has shown that there's no significant difference between them in usage in that different search returns contradict results. Plus, Google analysised Shishapangma and Shisha pangma and transcluded each other included; however it did not transcluded Xixabangma and Xixiabangma.

3979:

of Mumbai. To my knowledge, no official name change has ever taken place for Sishapangma, as it is the case for Mumbai. In any case, Sishapangma and Xixabangma do both correspond to the same name, the first one being Tibetan Pinyin while the second one is the long established English spelling.

1979:

keeps asking for a definition of the "term". Allow me to explain my viewpoint on the matter, which is not a WP:RS for sure. The contention is between several different romanisations, rendering into written English, of a native name. I am surprised to learn that the names in contention (4) have

1911:

guidelines of current English usage and consulting tertiary sources, like atlases and encyclopedias. But, that is exactly the process we are using to decide with all of the names... Why are we doing the whole process twice? Why is the choice of "Shishapangma" vs. "Shisha pangma" different from

1872:

defines widely accepted in a relative way (i.e., 3x more common than the alternatives), it doesn't describe an absolute threshold for wide acceptance. I think for purposes of this discussion, we should stick with the established relative guideline. If you want to bring up this issue to a wider

1175:

I'm sorry I was aware of your partipation. Actually, you misinterpret the representativeness of mountainers and overestimated it by assuming the topic to be "mostly about climbing/mountaineering" and "mountaineering content is likely to grow - other aspects are complete as they are". These are

4294:

This undocumented claim is more than curious. See Google books, the ration is 10:1 in favour of Shisha Pangma. This is just an anecdotal evidence, but in my personal experience, the ratio would rather approach 100% knowing about Shisha Pangma and less that 5% aware of the Xixabangma spelling.

1157:

the Uintah Mountains, but those in Utah would not. (Hmm, difficult to come up with an equivalent example, except perhaps in mountaineering. Nanga Parbat, Minya Konka, Mustagh Tower, Chogolisa - widely known names in mountaineering, unknown to the man on the street). Perhaps you will disagree,

4332:

Shisha Pangma (or Shishapangma), contrarily to Yu Hai opinion, is clearly the most widely accepted name. Widely not only in terms of quantity (see Google hits 96% versus 4%), but also in terms of geographic diversity, the term Sishapangma being common all over the English speaking world.

1086:

Believe me - this (either Shishapangma or Xixabangma) is a unpopular term in English. If you intercept someone in New York and ask "Excuse me, but do you know Shishapangma?", they will answer nothing but "What is Shishapangma anyway?" or even "Shi-sha-what-ma?" So ther's nothing common.

4744:

placed in the body somewhere. But the lead sentence should be (I suggest): Xixabangma, also known as Shishapangma, is... I do not think an alternative names and spellings needs to be called out in the lead, especially if it is the FIRST paragraph of the body, or at least, near the top.

4287:

Contributor Yu Hai suggested several times that Shishapangma is an exonym, while Xixabangma is the endonym (local name), and made several analogies such as Ceylan / Sri Lanka. This is simply incorrect. Both variations do correspond to the same Tibetan name. The issue is about spelling.

2913:. Although these two sources are not used in this article, they are frequently referenced on many other mountain articles as trusted sources in general. I myself use them both quite often. Undecided before, based on this and the disussions above, I am now leaning towards "Xixabangma". 2875:

became "Ta", with a fortis stop , but this does not make sense at all because Tibetans would read or (the ring refers to voiceless in IPA) and can be far more accurately rendered in English phonology as a lenis zh/j/ch/dzh (the ring refers to either voiceless or slightly voiced).

4451:

I would like to express my surprise by seeing that as a result of no consensus (there was a 6 to 2 majority in favour of reversing to the original title in use during 8 years), the decision is to accept the title change made unilaterally and without prior discussion by one single

1180:

generally they won't allow you to climb a god, eventhough they didn't always succeed to ban you), and enourmous amount of legend, thangkas, oral relics, arts are about them. So the realm is mostly about eco-cultural contents and mountaineering is only a rather unimportant content.

4602:

Mike Cline wrote: "The result of the move request was: No Consensus The discussion below does not come to a clear consensus for a move at this time. Further discussion at WikiProject Mountains seems like a wise option at this time. Mike Cline (talk) 15:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)"

1450:

says that if one spelling is 3 times more common than any other, then it is widely accepted. I think none of the spellings is dominant, so we have to say the Google test is inconclusive. The only avenue we have left is to consult ultra-reliable sources, such as those listed in

111:

Hello. This article has been through a few name changes lately before being put back to almost where it was. I've tried to change it from the present title back to the "original" Shishapangma, but I get a page already exists error. I believe it's because the Shishapangma --:

2326:

For places without a well-established English name and have competing names from transliterations of pinyin vs. ethnic minority languages, which is often the case in Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia, and Tibet, use the name preferred by Xinhua or similarly authoritative organs.

1988:

spelling to perhaps indicate that when my mouth speaks Xi the sound is closer to the native pronunciation than when my mouth speaks Shi. I am aware that the native languages in the area contain subtleties in this sound domain that my English-trained ears do not pickup.

1478:. It also seems odd that if every source referenced in the article uses one of 2 names, we should use a different name for the article. BTW, thanks for all your work tracking down reliable sources, doing Google searches, etc. - it definitely adds to the discussion.-- 1492:@Hike395 Actually THDL might be (I'm not familiar to this system) good for Western Archaic Tibetan but honestly it does not match the Standard Tibetan based on Lhasa dialect. That similar to be a system used for Middle Chinese does not match the Standard Mandarin. –– 2755:

With regard to the names of places in Tibet, for many more obscure locations, our main sources will usually be government publications or UN maps, which tend to use Tibetan Pinyin spellings. Therefore, in many cases, those will be the spellings used for those place

4649:

Mike Cline is an admin (a volunteer, not an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation). I think he won't move the page. In the future, if we get consensus to move, we can go though the RM process again: if we get consensus, I'm sure an admin will be happy to move the

2732:

1762:

The external link is determined by Knowledge editors, i.e., the choose of external links is somewhat original research (even if we have some trandition to determine what to be choosed and what not to be choosed). If you want, I may add many external links using

1601:

used in the English Language. Another consideration (maybe not Knowledge policy): Shishapangma will be easier to pronounce for an English speaker not used to the Chinese way of spelling. (For my own education, how does one pronounce the "x"s in Xixabangma?)--

1188:, and Bhutanese goverment, who did better, does not issue any forms of many mountains inside Bhutan. Instead, the indigenous movements ensured the growth of cultural contents and environmentalists will be responsible tothe growth of ecological contents of them. 3242:

I don't see any support in any guideline to splitting Google test results in half between two alternatives, nor in using ethnic origin to change Google test results. To me, the alternatives are lumping "Shsiapangma" and "Shisha pangma" or splitting them.

1912:"Shishapangma" vs. "Xixabangma"? As far as I can tell, they are just alternative choices for titles: we have to choose one at the end. I would propose simply applying the guidelines once, and stick with the results. (Whatever we choose is fine with me!) — 4367:

As previously said, this is valid only if the reader is fluent in Chinese or has learned Tibetan Pinyin. This is ENGLISH Knowledge and for the average English speaker, pronouncing "Shishapangma" is the closest you can get to the original Tibetan sound.

4313:

Even if we accept Google results, I cannot see how contributor Yu Hai can say that Xixabangma is the most common, here again the data compiled by hike395 (not including Chinese Pinyin spelling Xixiabangma Feng, the inclusion would alter number 3 only):

1183:

With the rapid developement of indigenous movements in recent years, mountaineering doesn't seem to be likely to grow and may even become something that no one wants to mention. In 2001, China officially banned any mountaineering activities in Nyainqên

3686:

So if there is no consensus, what do we do? It wouldn't seem right to me to default to Xixabangma in light of the roundabout way this page became Xixabangma. Nor does it seem right to default to Xixabangma just because it would be easiest, simplest

2974:

reliable English Language sources also use Xixabangma (my own atlas, for example) means that this state may change. I agree with Yu Hai that the External Links section is easily manipulated to favor one name over another and should not be counted.

4717:

I added the Shishapnagma and Shisha Pangma spellings to the lead (with references). Alternate names and spellings now take up the first 2 lines of the lead, which is kind of bulky. It might be better to reduce the first sentence of the lead to

4688:

group of editors concerned about this article's title. 1) Given the complexity of the various languages involved, first come to a consensus as to what google search terms and sites (news, scholar, etc.) you want to use to determine the title via

4521:

facts and citations", I may try to find an English textbook used by billions of Chinese children (incl. both Han Chinese and Tibetan). That's also the reason why I say "The majority of English-speaker who know Xixabangma know it as Xixabangma".

1983:

I know that the romanisations have changed over the years from one system to another; and are probably different when viewed from different countries - in this case Nepal, Tibet and China. Thus we have different versions of the same name, do we

4564:

controversial. If the 2010 Yushu earthquake hadn't happened, I would perhaps have moved it to Yushu to Yüxü following Tibetan tradition, but the deadly earthquake happened and makes Yushu too well-knowned, and the proposal no longer practical.

1898: 4052:

I guess this is where we will have to disagree regarding the predominace of one spelling over the other in relevant scholar sources. Britannica is by the way a poor example in this particular case, as it mentions both Xixabanga and Shisha

1239:

But, as I charge you with not having facts, I feel the need to do a little research: How many books in the Shishapangma domain are about mountaineering? Google Books search, not limited in time, simple search not limited by text-string

352:

So, "Xixabangma" is at least a good second choice, although "Shishapangma" still seems more common. I found that I could move the article to "Xixabangma", so I did. I propose that we leave it with that title until we come to consensus.

1445:

I think that "Shishapangma", "Shisha pangma", "Xixabangma", and "Xixiabangma" are all equally good approximations to theTibetan name, and that we shouldn't lump any of them together, because they are all alternate spellings. Further,

1025: 2038:

If we decide that Shishapangma and Shisha Pangma are essentially the same, then it really doesn't matter which we choose - might as well leave at Shishapangma. If this results in a huge outcry from a pro- Shisha Pangma camp, we can

1694: 93:. I listed it as a copyright violation on January 22, 2005. I contacted the image owner (using info off summitpost.org) about obtaining permission for use on Knowledge. He responded on February 6, 2005, declining permission (see 4533:

I think there's many a few other points not covered in Pseudois's summarize that may be seen from my summarize (sure enough there's also some ommission in my summarize, and that's why I pinged hike and Wikimedes to put opinions

4276:

I just noticed than while I was typing my comments in MS Word, the talk page has been changed and discussion closed. I think it still makes sense to add the following two paragraphs which were typed before noticing this change.

3532:

Nat Krause didn't express his idea about the title, however he gave us his definition on term: terms from one language can be lumped and those from different languages shouldn't be lumped, nevertheless he ignored the fact that

2071:

The question then becomes "Do we lump Xixabangma and Xixiabangma with Shishapangma and Shisha Pangma?" For me, there is a natural split between the names spelled with "x" and the names spelled with "sh", but is it minor? Not

1904:

then do other editors agree that there is no single form that is most widely used? Does anyone have any suggestions of how to decide the lump/split issue? I've looked through the guidelines, and cannot find anything relevant.

276:

It's not directly because of a double redirect. WP has a safety mechanism to preserve article history ---- you cannot move over an existing article or redirect if it has non-empty history. Unfortunately, the current redirect

2017:

that Shishapangma has an independent origin from Xixabangma that predates common usage of Xixabangma makes me wonder further. Could you explain what you think the origins of the words are and why you think it leads to your

709:

by 39,300 vs 12,500, but following a strong sense that we should respect the natives and that UN suggestion (to reduce exonyms), I do not recommend the Chinese name. For the same reason I do not recommend the Nepali name.

113:

Shishabangma redirect page now has more than one line of history, and therefore requires an administrator to usurp the page name. Could an admin put this article back to Shishapangma pending consensus for a name change?

559:

If the UN explicitly discusses the term "Xixabangma", we could take that into consideration. In any event, we should follow the WP convention that has been designed to resolve disputes much more difficult than this one.

4434:

1) Which spelling is most commonly used by scholars? (see anterior paragraphs, some editors interpret the data as favourable to Sisha Pangma, other to Tibetan Pinyin Xixabangma, other to Chinese Pinyin Xixiabanga Feng)

3528:

have a consensus here? I saw there was not a consensus, but noticed that the discussion is approaching to a consensus. Could you please offer your opinion to the 2 enging problems to solve - your difinition of "term".

2986:

I’d like to echo racerx11’s request that Yu Hai discuss page moves before carrying them out. I see that your (Yu Hai’s) favorite Knowledge policy is BRD, but perhaps for moves, you could boldly suggest a name change

3715:

Given that you flipped to neutral, I think we are closer to consensus on moving to "Shishapangma". Unfortunately, I just don't see a way to force a move without consensus. I'm sorry that I moved the article back to

3583:

I don't have a strong preference as to what this article should be called, but I would be inclined to lump "Shishap..." and "Shisha P..." together per "minor variations" and on that basis move back to Shishapangma.

4181:

Editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial title to another is strongly discouraged. If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be

938: 4033:

Xixabangma is used more in scholarly sources and in reference sources like Britannica and the Library of Congress, the ranks of which Knowledge strives to join. Xixabangma's use rivals or exceeds Shishapangma in

2980:

I’ve explained my rationale on this already, and if sh and x represent different sounds, that seems only to support my grouping. I also respect Nat Krause’s opinion that Shishapangma and Shisha Pangma should be

1469:

Looks like a case of vote splitting to me. However Shishapangma and Shisha pangma are each 3 times more prevalent than either Xixibangma or Xixiabangma in 3 of the 4 categories (single exceptions are allowed in

935: 1403:

Take an extreme example: if one term hits 1 result while one hits 0. Then mathematically the former is overwhelmingly common than the latter (1:0=inifinity), but actually this is not true, because both are not

503:

I respectfully disagree. Even though a name is rare, we can still sort alternatives by how rare they are. Good point about quoted string, we should distinguish between "Shishapangma" and "Shisha pangma". See

2870:

Also, I don't think it brings convienience to western readers: perhaps it does make the spelling somewhat “simpler” for Western readers, but a native English can hardly pronounce it accurately. For example,

4697:

can demonstrate that you have strong consensus on either X, S or ?, I will be happy to help you move the article if necessary. Remember we write article for WP users to read, not editors to bicker about.--

3051:- I support to lump 50% of Shishapangma (tib.)+Shisha Pangma into Xixabangma while 50% of Shishapangma (nep.)+Shisha Pangma into Shishāpāngmā. For more, see my comment "It depends on how we define ..." –– 2250:- I support to lump 50% of Shishapangma (tib.)+Shisha Pangma into Xixabangma while 50% of Shishapangma (nep.)+Shisha Pangma into Shishāpāngmā. For more, see my comment "It depends on how we define ..." –– 4567:

I admit I was some too confident to believe that few people know or care naming of mountains not in the top 3 highest. And I underestimated the difficuty to draw a consensus to the mov Shishapangma-: -->

1538:

Objection - there are few names on wikipedia that are known outside their field. Shishapangma is well-known to mountaineers. Perhaps you consider all mountaineers to be specialists? May I suggest:

4537: 2828:

sounds which are pronounced differently in order to make the spelling simpler for Western readers. It is not at all an accurate description of conservative Western Tibetan dialects like Ladakhi.—

1846:

Well, a "mostt" common, but still not widely accepted one. Plus, all the 4 terms are English term, so don't define English as "what is in my mind is English, what I don't know is not English". ––

608:: since the country of Sri Lanka and the city of Beijing has introduced their endonyms, why can't Xixabangma introduce its endonym (espc in the case that few people know the term "Shishapangma")? 2201:

I’ve also put a note on the Tibetan naming conventions talk page asking for input. Some of the contributors there probably have a more informed opinion of how to interpret "minor variations".--

858:

Did you see that the search result of Shishapangma included Shisha pangma as its second and third result? Google analysised Shishapangma and Shisha pangma and transcluded each other included. ––

4552:

be a Tibetan transcription or not, in that seemingly Shishabangma is the correct THDL of ཤི་ཤ་སྦང་མ. I'm not sure, perhaps Nat Krause may be familiar with the THDL system and Tournadre system.

4347:

Tibetan name, Shisha Pangma, means “range above the grassy plain." It is therefore unfair to use that single reference as a one-way argument in favour or one spelling rather than another one.

3263:

I think a consensus HAS been reached, with an enthusiastic holdout. In this section, perhaps we could have editors just vote, without extensive discussion, which has been done to death above.

298:, it looks like we have not yet come to consensus. We'll just have to live with a somewhat arbitrary article title until then. I'll ping 虞海 and ask if he or she can join the discussion here. — 3836:

Plus, SASM/GNC system is not confusing at all, however THDL is really confusing, for its transcribe Tibetan lenis affricate or (which should be transcribed into English lenis affricate as

2918:

My concern initialy was that since the initial move to Xixabangma was undiscussed, we should have moved it back to Shishapagma while we have this discussion, and move it to Xixabangma if and

4252:

and at the Tibetan transliterations. Everyone is right -- sadly, we have to make a choice. That's why I think that consensus will be difficult to reach: there's no easy way to compromise. —

3831:

Shangri-La is a well-known concept in English, so should not be changed (just like nobody propose change from "India" to "Bharat", but many people propose change from "Bombay" to "Mumbai").

3137:

Oh, hello hike395! I was looking forward to your opinion about those viewpoints. I'm not sure if it was biased or fairly summarized everyone's opinion. Could you give your opinion here? ––

3334: 1921: 3029:

While peakbagger and peakware are fine websites, and are referenced in various places on the wiki, both are websites run by an individual and not even close to being Reliable Sources.

3879:

You seem not to have understood my point. Whatever transliteration system you use for Tibetan names (pinyin, Wylie, THDL), this doesn't make it the reference spelling in ENGLISH. "

399: 662:, since Xixabangma is well-sourced. The Chinese government stands on the side of indigenous people and promote the local name "Xixabangma", not the Chinese one "Xixiabangma". 403: 3999:

systematic and scientific, but you have to speak Chinese or learn Tibetan Pinyin in order to pronounce it correctly. The majority of readers of the English Knowledge don't.--

3008:

I also feel strongly that in the absence of a strong consensus for any name, the article should revert back to where it was (Shishapangma) before the undiscussed name change.

1932:

half of Shishapangma results should be lumped into Xixabamgma while the other half should be lumped into Shishāpāngmā and Hsihsiapangma should be lumped into Xixiabangma

934:

No, I used quoted string search, which forces exact match. First column only counts Shishapangma, while the second column only counts "Shisha pangma". See for yourself:

3903:

It is possible to use Tibetan Pinyin in English when there is no previously existing spelling, but this is not the case for Shishapangma, which existed in English as "

4528:, for Google Books and Schloars are a little bit failed to covering English-language publications published in developing countries. But I'm not sure about this now. 4395: 167:

The discussion below does not come to a clear consensus for a move at this time. Further discussion at WikiProject Mountains seems like a wise option at this time.

4172: 3258: 4557:

Again Pseudois used double standard of lumping. I kindly ask him to read my opinion about "double standard" because I do not want to repeat it to annoying people.

2951:

current name Xixabangma. Respected English-language publications use this systematic transliteration; no old ad-hoc transliteration seems to be much more common.

1980:

different origins, because to my native-English eye and ear, they look the same, but are just different romanisations of the same oral sounds. Is this incorrect?

294:

indicated that if the move is at all controversial that we should discuss and come to a consensus before an admin will intervene. Judging from the discussion at

80: 4767:

alternate names and spellings, so we could also just leave it as is. Or wait until the article name discussion dies down. It’s probably not that important.--

1907:

Here's my current thinking --- at some point, we have to decide whether the article title should have a space or not. That decision needs to be driven by the

4484: 3272: 1048:--- I think that the evidence points to "Shishapangma" as the most common English name, although it is not as overwhelming as I had originally indicated. — 4200: 4271: 87: 3485:? The latter would only work if almost all of the new editors evaluated the data the same way, or came up with new data that would be very convincing. — 2796: 4302:

however not be confused, even though very similar: the first one is the Tibetan Pinyin for ཤི་ཤ་སྦང་མ།, the second one is the Chinese Pinyin for希夏幫馬峰

4800: 4592: 4388: 4152: 2693: 1999:

if you wish a tighter explanation of it, you should reference it back to where it is used; ie, where the question comes from in the first place.

123: 2688:

in Pinyin, reason why the Tibetan Pinyin is practically not used outside China, and is not very meaningful for use in an English encyclopedia).

2054: 91: 1759:

Even if the "common"-test may be used here, WP:PLACE never pointed out to use Google. It recommend use Google Scholar and Google Books instead.

106: 4706: 4525: 3199:

Strange, why you all seem to be somewhat pessimistic? The discussion has been considerable progressed, leaving the sole 2 problems to solve:

2241: 4776: 4753: 3289: 3184: 3038: 2081: 2027: 4636: 4164: 3328: 1646: 1632: 4597: 4008: 3594: 3307: 2727: 2321: 2210: 2192: 2048: 1487: 1464: 1359: 4673: 4617: 4261: 4238: 4216: 4142: 4062: 4047: 3777: 3696: 3227: 2819: 415: 384: 362: 307: 240: 4119: 3817: 3746: 2013:

Yu Hai - I've never understood your splitting of Shishapangma into Xixabangma and Shishāpāngmā based on "origins". Pseudois' comment in

569: 2992:

A slightly unrelated note, but whatever the result here, external link citations should display the name of web page being cited, e.g.

2232:

to predominate, so we have to use some kind of systematic spelling which doesn't resemble either of those." Counterintuitively, I would

1533: 1307: 1292: 2894: 2865: 2832: 2268: 1350:

in 3 of the 4 categories. Should we disqualify Shishapangma just because it is sometimes spelled with a space and sometimes without?--

4735: 3452: 3430: 3170: 3069: 3020: 2008: 1864: 1841: 1786: 1673: 1575: 1551: 1510: 1430: 1398: 1234: 1216: 1170: 687: 3989: 3966: 3929: 3870: 2941: 2907:

I would like to add that two respectable online sources, Peakbagger.com and Peaklist.org both list the mountain as "Xixabangma Feng"

2839:

Welcome, Nat Krause! You are someone who does really know Tibetan. In Central-Southern Tibetan, Old Tibetan voiced consonants (Wylie

2790: 465: 269: 3555: 3494: 3252: 3155: 3132: 2960: 2371: 1968: 1886: 1151: 1120: 1105: 1081: 976: 949: 728: 653: 631: 592: 517: 4627:

nothing is done now, what if we decide in the future to move the page to Shishapagma? Would that be difficult or impossible then?--

2659:

is the best to describe Central and Southern Tibetan, while THDL preserves the Western Anchaic Tibetan better. (Agree?) Since both

3995:

is the official transcription; it is also a more scientific transcription that is faithful to the sounds of the original Tibetan.

3791: 3086:. There are perfectly good arguments on both sides, and editors seem split, with no clear majority in favor of one or the other. 2744: 2317: 927: 900: 496: 101: 2652:(not known now), instead of Nepali शिशापाङ्मा/गोसाईथान (Shishāpāngmā/Gosainthān) or Chinese 希夏幫馬/高僧赞 (Xīxiàbāngmǎ/Gāosēngzàn). 1686:

Per Google searches above. Also, all the sources (and external links) used in the article use Shishapangma or Shisha Pangma:

1380:(@hike) Thank you! Even if still you did not jumped out from the "common-test always work unless equally common" viewpoint. –– 1799:

vote: just make an placeholder here to notify people that I have posted my opinion on this issue above (at the #top part of

1257:

Shishapangma, 4660 hits, of the first 10 books: 6 = climbing/mntring; 2 = geology; 1 = trekking (1 eliminated as a repeat).

1652: 176: 4712: 4186: 4173: 193:, we should name the article after the common English name of the mountain. While the Google test is inexact, it yields: 4545:

Whether Shishapangma is an exonym or not is disputed, for we don't know if Shishapangma is from Tibetan or Nepali Khas.

905:

I think the more resonable one is narrow test in Google Scholar and Google Books. But anyway, that would only result in

734: 4501:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

3209:

However, it seems some initial discussers quit. I think we may call them back for their opinion about these problem. ––

876: 216: 158:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

4191:

In the present case, the title has been stable for 8 years. A consensus should be reached before any title change. --

3537:

itself is from 2 languages and so I suggested to lump half of them to Shishāpāngmā and another half to Xixabangma. ––

1877:

about the definition of wide acceptance and put in a pointer back here: it may draw in some different perspectives. —

1736: 1610: 2644:––#1 does not suits (since many encyclopedia does not have such an entry), we should get a translation from Tibetan 4560:

I do not very catch the idea of WP:TITLECHANGES. It not very easily-understoodable, I need a further reading later.

1995:

Which brings me back to the question - the definition of "term". I have lost the origin of that question - perhaps

1343: 1057: 1027:. An equivalent Google Books search yielded no atlases that use "Shishapangma" or "Shisha pangma" or "Xixiabangma"— 3482: 2705: 2298:

If all above explained, there's still an issue: Google Web Search and Google News Search are not a valid test in

2014: 4469: 4384: 3813: 3737:

Given that we are closer to consensus, perhaps soliciting more opinions at WikiProject Mountains is in order. —

3477:), so I doubt if an admin will revert. The only plausible choices, I think, are a) settle on the status quo of 94: 79: 1821: 1474:). It seems odd that we would choose one of the overwhelmingly less prevalent names, but that depends on the 640:

and examine the evidence for different names objectively, rather than imposing our own ideas of what the name

3920:

Using "Xixabangma" in English would be as wrong as using the spelling "Qowowuyag" for "Cho Oyu" in English.

2346:, it is still a strong opposition voice which is sufficient to balance the "Shishapangma more common" claim) 1992:

would go with Shishapangma (but probably because that is the name I learned the name of the mountain under).

1515:@Wikimedes There's no "overwhelming" since both name is not known by virtually every one but specialists. –– 2723: 2715: 4414:

4) Anteriority of Shishapangma versus Xixapangma in WP (consensus should have been made before reverting)

4796: 4449:

I must admit that I am probably more trusted with Shishapangma history than with Knowledge policies, but

2292:

You did not define what a "term" is but used my second difinition by default, without explain the reason.

739:

Performed with quoted strings, books and papers restricted to after 1993, search restricted to English. —

71: 66: 3828:"Xianggelila" is the Chinese name of Shangri-La, not SASM/GNC transcription of Tibetan (Tibetan pinyin) 2690:

My point is that Shishapangma (alternatively Sisha Pangma) is widely-known and commonly used in English

38: 4475:

Sorry I forgot to add my signature but the last two paragraphs were written by me (user: pseudois). --

3669:

I am unsure if this user understood, nor did I at the time, the consequences of just leaving it as is.

2299: 1039: 291: 2641: 2566: 2176:

is a widely accepted English term by Google Books and Google News (even if we discount main Google).

432: 207:

The usage of "Shishapangma" is so overwhelmingly more common that we should move the page. Thanks! —

436: 2295:

Plus, even if using the second difinition, we still need a reason why not lump all three together?

428: 3340:

If you want a polling, just counting votes above, needless to put everyone to do samething again:

1939:

Shishabangma should be lumped into Shisha pangma and Xixabangma should be lumped into Xixiabangma

2377: 1619:"x" is IPA . It sounds approximately like an "sh". Rowan Atkinson has this one down. At 0:56 on 636:

Yes! The WP guidelines explicitly say we should examine usage since 1993. But, we should follow

478:

common name, and that's not surprising at all because few English speakers know the mountain. ––

4792: 4586: 3960: 3864: 3549: 3424: 3221: 3149: 3063: 2888: 2859: 2813: 2784: 2365: 2262: 1962: 1858: 1815: 1780: 1667: 1569: 1527: 1504: 1424: 1392: 1210: 1145: 1099: 1075: 970: 921: 894: 870: 722: 681: 625: 586: 490: 459: 263: 128: 4517:

This first thing I's say is I personally do not recognize Pseudois's summarize of my opinion:

2400: 2740:

So Xixabangma should be used, which is preferred by Xinhua or similarly authoritative organs.

2668: 2656: 2405: 1260:

Shisha Pangma, 12,500 hits, of the first 10 books: 7 = mntring; 2 = geology; 1 = art/culture.

324:

Google scholar yielded the following number of papers published since 1993 that mentioned...

4692:

criteria. With google, you get what you search for and where yor search for it, so getting

4702: 4689: 4457: 4372: 3801: 1874: 295: 228: 172: 3111:, due to technical limitations of Mediawiki. Perhaps the simplest thing is to leave it at 8: 4772: 4749: 4731: 4613: 3473:

It seems to be against the culture of WP to revert due to no consensus (see the essay at

3448: 3285: 3268: 3180: 3166: 3034: 3016: 2206: 2077: 2044: 2023: 2004: 1837: 1732: 1642: 1606: 1547: 1483: 1355: 1303: 1288: 1230: 1166: 1009: 224: 119: 4417:

5) Consistency (all other WP articles mentioning Sishapangma use the original spelling)

3648:

You have already the 'requested move' template at the correct place. so let it and wait.

3004:

Though I now appreciate the case for Xixabangma, I still lean towards Shishapangma, and

1198:

know it as Xixabangma, and this can be far more than the total amount of mountainers. ––

4632: 4480: 4465: 4380: 4326:

d) Google News archives: Shishapangma / Shisha Pangma: 2,030 (98%) Xixabangma: 44 (2%)

4292:

2) "The majority of English-speaker who know Xixabangma know it as Xixabangma" (Yu Hai)

4234: 4196: 4160: 4115: 4058: 4004: 3985: 3925: 3809: 3773: 3692: 3324: 2937: 2701: 1628: 411: 380: 236: 2911: 1133:. When the common test failed, we have no choice to verify which one is local name. –– 97:). Thus, I removed the image from the article and will be deleting it from Knowledge. 4669: 4257: 4212: 4138: 4043: 3742: 3590: 3516: 3490: 3303: 3248: 3128: 2956: 2681: 2625: 2188: 1917: 1882: 1460: 1339: 1116: 1053: 1032: 1016: 1000: 945: 744: 649: 565: 513: 358: 303: 212: 47: 17: 4317:

a) Google hits: Shishapangma / Shisha Pangma: 382,800 (96%) Xixabangma: 18,000 (4%)

2640:

Since Xixabangma or Shishapangma is not widely-known in English-world, according to

2660: 1539: 984: 4698: 4575: 4323:

c) Google scholar: Shishapangma / Shisha Pangma: 422 (59%) Xixabangma: 290 (41%)

4320:

b) Google books: Shishapangma / Shisha Pangma: 2,130 (88%) Xixabangma: 284 (12%)

4226: 3949: 3853: 3538: 3413: 3210: 3138: 3052: 2877: 2848: 2829: 2802: 2773: 2649: 2632: 2387: 2354: 2251: 2238: 1951: 1908: 1869: 1847: 1804: 1769: 1656: 1558: 1516: 1493: 1471: 1452: 1447: 1413: 1381: 1199: 1134: 1088: 1064: 959: 910: 883: 859: 711: 670: 614: 575: 479: 448: 281:

has been edited by robots twice since it was created, so we non-admins are stuck.

252: 190: 168: 2993: 2908: 541: 338:

Google books yielded the number of books pbulished since 1993 that mentioned...

46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

4768: 4745: 4727: 4609: 3474: 3444: 3281: 3264: 3176: 3162: 3120: 3030: 3012: 2202: 2073: 2040: 2019: 2000: 1833: 1728: 1638: 1602: 1543: 1479: 1351: 1299: 1284: 1226: 1162: 115: 3934:

Yes, we should use English spelling, and Xixabangma is also well form English.

1620: 4628: 4476: 4461: 4376: 4281:

previous chapters that I would like to rectify or give additional precision:

4230: 4192: 4156: 4111: 4054: 4000: 3981: 3921: 3805: 3769: 3688: 3320: 3100: 2997: 2933: 2697: 2664: 1624: 1475: 637: 407: 376: 232: 4443:

1) Does respect the official romanisation ("Tibetan Pinyin) in use in China

3507:

P.S. I think if you read Nat Krause's comments, you'll see that he supports

2313:

It's not sh-sound (ʃ/ʂ) but ɕ-sound! There's no ʃ-sound in Tibetan language.

4665: 4664:

perhaps we don't have the perfect title, but the article is still useful. —

4568:

Xixabangma. I now suspect that the top 10 highests are rather well-knowned.

4492: 4365:

10) "Xixapangma is faithful to the sound of the original Tibetan" (Quigley)

4340:

emerged much later. A simple Google search gives some good hints about it.

4253: 4208: 4149:

Xixabangma is an authentic replication of Tibetan sounds; it is not Chinese

4134: 4131:

Xixabangma is an authentic replication of Tibetan sounds; it is not Chinese

4039: 3738: 3586: 3512: 3486: 3299: 3244: 3234: 3124: 3116: 3104: 2952: 2677: 2621: 2184: 1913: 1878: 1456: 1335: 1331: 1112: 1049: 1028: 1012: 996: 941: 740: 659: 645: 561: 509: 354: 299: 278: 208: 186: 149: 98: 4358:

9) The "cultural sensitiveness argument" (used by both Yu Hay and Quigley)

993: 4351:

8) Discussion on the advantage of one romanisation system over the others

3119:

supporters, but are there any guidelines for asking an admin to revert a

909:, so we have to introduce the other way, i.e. the exonym-endonym test. –– 882:

See "Failure to represent independent usage of the name:" in WP:PLACE. ––

3481:, or b) widen the discussion further, perhaps by soliciting opinions at 1832:- most common usage in English. This is the English-language wikipedia. 3717: 3478: 3112: 3108: 667:

Ok, if some one may draw a link line from Xixabangma to the cold war...

605: 182: 2057:

addresses whether we can lump Shishapangma and Shisha Pangma together:

4125:

You are confused. Lhasa is the correct Tibetan pinyin. "Lasa" is the

3047:(Quote) I do also think Xixabangma (tib.) is not Xixiabangma (chn.), 1975:

I see that this detail has been answered a couple of times, but that

1185: 2302:, which validate only Google Book Search and Google Scholar Search. 1263:

Xixabangma, 10,100 hits: 5 = mntring; 4 = geology; 1 = art/culture.

4299:

3) Grouping Sisha Pangma / Shishapangma / Xixabangma / Xixiabangma

3006:

I will keep my vote as supporting the change back to Shishapangma.

474:

Facing this result, my point is: we cannot determine which is the

2411: 2338: 3940:

is also a previously existing spelling which exists long before

3107:

after a revert, and discussion would just end. But, now it's at

402:

post-1990 English-language Google Book hits for "Shishapangma",

4337:

6) "Shishapangma had no well established English name" (Yu Hai)

4086:" (Pinyin spelling), then we should also change the pages for " 3945: 2620:

Yu Hai points out that this does not filter pre-1993 results. —

1616: 4540:

is not an argument in favor of Shisha Pangma / Shishapangma :)

3971:

This is not a forum, and the current discussion regarding the

1557:

meters mountain(s), we aren't sure if they know Xixabangma. ––

2667:

and Xixabangma located in Central and Southern Tibetan area,

2342: 2246:

I do also think Xixabangma (tib.) is not Xixiabangma (chn.),

86:

This image was uploaded to Knowledge on December 20, 2004 by

2567:#Should we lump "Shishapangma" and "Shisha pangma" together? 1125:

Nope, the common test (WP:PLACE) requires a result not only

3572:

Nat Krause did express his opinion about the title. He said

1899:

Should we lump "Shishapangma" and "Shisha pangma" together?

4791:

without the first 'n'. Should it be गोसाईंथान Gōsāīnthān?

4423:

7) Most widely used spelling in English (including books)

3202:

Define the term to determine what to lump and what not to;

954:

Ok, but still the common-test failed - we will never find

4330:

5) Widely accepted name (see Knowledge naming convention)

3893:

This is ENGLISH Knowledge, not Pinyin or Wylie Knowledge.

4426:

8) Pronunciation does correspond to the name in Tibetan

4420:

6) Traditional and well established spelling in English

4153:

Knowledge:Naming_conventions_(Tibetan)#General_guideline

2694:

Knowledge:Naming_conventions_(Tibetan)#General_guideline

2305:

And I doubt whether the Google News Search is post-1993.

1748:

The "common"-test (WP:PLACE) requires a result not only

148:

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a

4405:

1) Knowledge guidelines for naming geographical places

2565:

Still, whether to lump search results is disputed. See

2055:

Knowledge:Naming_conventions_(Tibetan)#Minor_variations

321:

I found that Britannica does call this peak Xixabangma.

1937:

If we define them by what they look like, then either

1111:

return documents that have the exact phrase in them. —

4491:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a

4110:", etc. This would create an unfortunate precedent.-- 4401:

Arguments in favour of Shisha Pangma / Shishapangma:

2760:

But this is only my personal read or interpretation.

2332:(Even though I don't completely like this ststement 664:

But anyway, what is 1993 (why not 1994, 1995, etc.)?

2772:

Anyone are welcomed to add other viewpoint here. ––

604:now it becomes Beijing. Now we turn to the case of 549:, so the “common name” costum does not apply here. 2766:Just the same as the "name follow native" section. 2728:Knowledge:Naming_conventions_(Chinese)#Place_names 2322:Knowledge:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Place names 4396:An attempt to summarise the pro/contra arguments: 138:Requested Move Discussion - Close as No Consensus 4787:Is the form गोसाईथान correct? It transcribes as 4187:Knowledge:TITLECHANGES#Considering_title_changes 4174:Knowledge:TITLECHANGES#Considering_title_changes 3720:--- I thought this would be a simple discussion! 3259:Name preference - JUST vote - all editors please 2750:May you please add your opinion here, Wikimedes? 1266:Xixiabangma, 569 hits: 1 = mntring; 9 = geology. 4408:2) Knowledge guidelines regarding title change 2631:"Name follow native" and "must widely accept" ( 2420:Consult Google Scholar and Google Books hits... 2015:Talk:Xixabangma#Confusion_Pinyin_versus_English 1873:audience, I recommend starting a discussion at 4344:7) Using Encyclopaedia Britannica as reference 1022:28 atlases published after 1993 use Xixabangma 223:edit history of this page, and discussion at 2676:Suggested by Yu Hai, disputed by Pseudois. — 4354:Greece, Laos or all over the Arabic world. 4272:A few necessary precisions and corrections: 3975:of Shishapangma has nothing to do with the 1653:User talk:虞海#Transliteration of ཤི་ཤ་སྦང་མ། 1651:@Wikimedes I have replied you questions at 4411:3) Knowledge naming conventions (Tibetan) 1334:that agree. What do other editors think? — 4307:4) Google / Google books / Google scholar 2396:Consult English-language encyclopedias... 2382:I think the following list is complete: 553: 248: 191:guidelines for naming geographical places 1930:If we define them by their origin, then 1455:. So far, those agree on "Xixabangma". — 505: 4524:I'm somewhat concerning with potential 2978:Minor spelling variations and grouping: 552:To make you believe this, see proof in 14: 4538:Knowledge naming conventions (Tibetan) 3237:if he'd like to rejoin the discussion. 2797:Discussion concerning these viewpoints 2745:Knowledge:Naming conventions (Tibetan) 2401:Britannica use "Xixabangma" as primary 2318:Knowledge:Naming_conventions_(Tibetan) 1943:All of the 4 should be lumped together 1927:It depends on how we define a "term": 427:: Actually I searched Google Scholar, 107:Admin help requested for move: p not b 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 4082:" (traditional English spelling) to " 4548:Now, I even suspect if Shishapangma 4078:Just a last point. Would we rename " 3099:Now what? If this had been a normal 2932:for current page name, Xixabangma.-- 1408:even though the former might be the 1196:English-speakers who know Xixabangma 163:The result of the move request was: 25: 3084:we are not going to reach consensus 2801:I've ping Hike395 and Wikimedes. –– 1830:Support moving back to Shishapangma 1800: 1684:Support moving back to Shishapangma 1006:Library of Congress uses Xixabangma 23: 4439:Arguments in favour of Xixabangma: 3406:So do you think this is consensus? 3335:Summary of editors postions, above 3049:but I'm do not use double standard 2724:WP:PLACE#Country-specific guidance 2716:WP:PLACE#Country-specific guidance 2430:"Shishapangma" OR "Shisha Pangma" 2248:but I'm do not use double standard 2108:"Shishapangma" OR "Shisha Pangma" 24: 4812: 2545:"Shishapangma" OR "Shisha Pangma" 1623:, he says "xie xie" (thank you). 4147:I don't understand your remark: 574:But the "common" test failed. –– 29: 4598:Result of 'No Consensus' Ruling 3792:Confusion Pinyin versus English 3205:Balancing different viewpoints. 2967:A few final (I think) thoughts: 2424: 2102: 4608:need to contact someone else? 4576: 4472:) 16:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC) 3950: 3854: 3606:I now think my vote should be 3539: 3464:good arguments for both sides. 3414: 3211: 3139: 3115:? I know that's unfair to the 3053: 2878: 2849: 2803: 2774: 2433:"Xixabangma" OR "Xixiabangma" 2355: 2252: 2111:"Xixabangma" OR "Xixiabangma" 1952: 1848: 1805: 1770: 1657: 1559: 1517: 1494: 1414: 1382: 1200: 1135: 1089: 1065: 960: 911: 884: 860: 712: 671: 615: 576: 480: 449: 253: 95:User:RedWolf/Image permissions 13: 1: 4777:05:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC) 3439:Wonderful summary, thank you 2994:Xixabangma Feng on Peakbagger 2556:"Xixabangma" OR "Xixiabangma" 2540:or do not have such an entry; 2300:WP:PLACE#Widely accepted name 2179:I will flip my !vote back to 1194:consequense, the majority of 535:), for the following reasons: 4801:16:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC) 4754:03:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC) 4736:07:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC) 4707:11:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC) 4674:02:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC) 4637:23:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC) 4618:23:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC) 4593:05:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC) 4485:16:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC) 4446:2) Is the emerging spelling 4389:16:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC) 4262:06:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC) 4239:00:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC) 4217:20:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC) 4201:19:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC) 4165:19:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC) 4143:18:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC) 4120:18:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC) 4063:19:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC) 4048:18:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC) 4009:19:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC) 3990:15:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC) 3967:14:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC) 3944:, would you propose to move 3930:14:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC) 3871:13:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC) 3818:12:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC) 3778:18:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC) 3747:18:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC) 3697:15:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC) 3595:18:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC) 3556:08:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC) 3495:08:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC) 3453:19:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC) 3431:07:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC) 3329:16:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC) 3308:04:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC) 3290:16:04, 5 November 2011 (UTC) 3273:16:04, 5 November 2011 (UTC) 3253:18:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC) 3228:08:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC) 3185:06:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC) 3171:04:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC) 3156:19:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC) 3133:18:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC) 3103:cycle, the page would be at 3070:15:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC) 3039:17:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC) 3021:08:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC) 2961:01:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC) 2942:22:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC) 2895:04:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC) 2866:15:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC) 2833:05:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC) 2820:14:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC) 2791:13:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC) 2706:19:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC) 2372:06:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC) 2269:15:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC) 2242:05:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC) 2211:06:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC) 2193:22:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC) 2082:20:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC) 2049:19:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC) 2028:22:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC) 2009:18:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC) 1969:05:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC) 1922:05:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC) 1887:23:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC) 1865:06:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC) 1842:02:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC) 1822:15:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC) 1787:15:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC) 1756:. So it does not works here. 1737:01:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC) 1674:15:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC) 1647:19:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC) 1633:19:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC) 1611:18:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC) 1576:09:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC) 1552:21:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC) 1534:15:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC) 1511:15:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC) 1488:15:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC) 1465:05:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC) 1431:15:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC) 1399:15:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC) 1360:18:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC) 1344:17:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC) 1308:17:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC) 1293:17:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC) 1235:17:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC) 1217:09:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC) 1171:21:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC) 1152:17:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC) 1121:16:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC) 1106:16:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC) 1082:16:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC) 1058:15:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC) 1046:Support move to Shishapangma 977:16:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC) 950:16:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC) 928:16:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC) 901:16:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC) 877:16:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC) 729:14:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC) 688:16:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC) 654:15:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC) 632:14:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC) 593:16:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC) 570:15:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC) 518:15:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC) 497:14:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC) 466:14:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC) 416:11:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC) 385:10:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC) 363:08:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC) 308:07:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC) 270:15:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC) 241:03:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC) 217:03:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC) 197:Shishapangma, 1,170,000 hits 177:15:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC) 124:01:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC) 102:20:59, 6 February 2005 (UTC) 7: 4713:Alternate spellings in lead 2642:WP:PLACE#General guidelines 10: 4817: 3524:Do you even think that we 2536:most encyclopedias prefer 1950:So define "term" first. –– 990:Britannica uses Xixabangma 907:failure in the common test 701:Actually the Chinese name 3844:) to fortis plosive (as 3797:La" to "Xianggelila"... 3123:edit without consensus? — 2998:Shisha Pangma on Peakware 1221:It is not very charming, 705:surpass the Tibetan name 4498:Please do not modify it. 3483:WP:WikiProject Mountains 2928:That being said, I vote 1542:for your entertainment. 200:Shishabangma, 6,490 hits 155:Please do not modify it. 3628:only reponse I got was: 3319:(both are acceptable)-- 2554:Google Scholar prefers 958:result to be common. –– 445:is the most common name 433:"Shishapangma" hits 119 203:Xixabangma, 12,500 hits 3883:" is Tibetan Pinyin, " 2414:2008 has no such entry 2320:, but never mentioned 2066: 540:The United Nation has 437:"Xixiabangma" hits 267 231:Thank you very much.-- 81:Image:ShishaPangma.jpg 2763:"By Ethnic" viewpoint 2714:"By Country/Region" ( 2669:SASM/GNC romanization 2657:SASM/GNC romanization 2543:Google Books prefers 2406:Columbia Encyclopedia 2062: 658:This is irrelated to 554:#XixabangmaMoreCommon 429:"Xixabangma" hits 390 249:#XixabangmaMoreCommon 42:of past discussions. 4526:Anglo-American focus 2599:Google News Archive 2575:Consult news sources 2181:Move to Shishapangma 2153:Google News Archive 838:Google News Archive 506:#Broader Google test 447:in scholar usage. –– 290:The instructions at 4285:1) Exonym / Endonym 2558:or "Shisha pangma". 1797:Keep/pro Xixabangma 735:Broader Google test 225:User talk:Wikimedes 90:who copied it from 3948:back to Bombay? –– 2316:You mentioned the 1327:Keep at Xixabangma 341:Shishapangma: 2550 292:WP:Requested moves 4793:Anthony Appleyard 4509: 4508: 4474: 4460:comment added by 4392: 4375:comment added by 3821: 3804:comment added by 3650:from user:Mabdul. 3363:Weak Shishapangma 2617: 2616: 2530: 2529: 2463: 2462: 2408:has no such entry 2386:"Most accepted" ( 2345: 2165: 2164: 1707:same sources as 5 1176:fallacy because: 856: 855: 668: 327:Shishapangma: 411 247:Not exactly, see 77: 76: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 18:Talk:Shishapangma 4808: 4722:, also known as 4589: 4582: 4578: 4500: 4473: 4454: 4391: 4369: 3963: 3956: 3952: 3885:Shi sha sbang ma 3867: 3860: 3856: 3820: 3798: 3552: 3545: 3541: 3442: 3427: 3420: 3416: 3224: 3217: 3213: 3152: 3145: 3141: 3066: 3059: 3055: 2891: 2884: 2880: 2874: 2862: 2855: 2851: 2816: 2809: 2805: 2787: 2780: 2776: 2730:, which advices" 2661:Standard Tibetan 2648:(Xixabangma) or 2647: 2580: 2579: 2533:As can be seen, 2465: 2464: 2425: 2368: 2361: 2357: 2336: 2265: 2258: 2254: 2103: 1998: 1978: 1965: 1958: 1954: 1861: 1854: 1850: 1818: 1811: 1807: 1783: 1776: 1772: 1698:same source as 2 1670: 1663: 1659: 1572: 1565: 1561: 1540:No true Scotsman 1530: 1523: 1519: 1507: 1500: 1496: 1427: 1420: 1416: 1395: 1388: 1384: 1224: 1213: 1206: 1202: 1160: 1148: 1141: 1137: 1102: 1095: 1091: 1078: 1071: 1067: 973: 966: 962: 924: 917: 913: 897: 890: 886: 873: 866: 862: 750: 749: 725: 718: 714: 684: 677: 673: 666: 628: 621: 617: 589: 582: 578: 493: 486: 482: 462: 455: 451: 406:for Xixabangma. 318:More information 266: 259: 255: 189:– Following the 157: 134: 133: 63: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 4816: 4815: 4811: 4810: 4809: 4807: 4806: 4805: 4715: 4600: 4591: 4587: 4580: 4510: 4505: 4496: 4455: 4398: 4370: 4274: 4225:I do not think 4177: 3965: 3961: 3954: 3907:" long before " 3869: 3865: 3858: 3799: 3794: 3554: 3550: 3543: 3440: 3429: 3425: 3418: 3337: 3294:Weak !vote for 3261: 3226: 3222: 3215: 3154: 3150: 3143: 3082:I predict that 3068: 3064: 3057: 2893: 2889: 2882: 2872: 2864: 2860: 2853: 2818: 2814: 2807: 2799: 2789: 2785: 2778: 2757: 2743:"By Language" ( 2734: 2645: 2576: 2509:Google Scholar 2451:Google Scholar 2421: 2397: 2380: 2370: 2366: 2359: 2337:, e.g. I moved 2328: 2267: 2263: 2256: 2142:Google Scholar 1996: 1976: 1967: 1963: 1956: 1901: 1863: 1859: 1852: 1820: 1816: 1809: 1801:#Requested move 1785: 1781: 1774: 1754:widely accepted 1672: 1668: 1661: 1574: 1570: 1563: 1532: 1528: 1521: 1509: 1505: 1498: 1429: 1425: 1418: 1406:widely accepted 1397: 1393: 1386: 1222: 1215: 1211: 1204: 1158: 1150: 1146: 1139: 1131:widely accepted 1104: 1100: 1093: 1080: 1076: 1069: 1042: 987: 975: 971: 964: 926: 922: 915: 899: 895: 888: 875: 871: 864: 816:Google Scholar 737: 727: 723: 716: 686: 682: 675: 630: 626: 619: 591: 587: 580: 495: 491: 484: 464: 460: 453: 347:Xixabangma: 378 344:Shishabangma: 0 333:Xixabangma: 292 330:Shishabangma: 0 268: 264: 257: 153: 139: 131: 109: 84: 59: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4814: 4804: 4803: 4784: 4783: 4782: 4781: 4780: 4779: 4759: 4758: 4757: 4756: 4714: 4711: 4710: 4709: 4681: 4680: 4679: 4678: 4677: 4676: 4656: 4655: 4654: 4653: 4652: 4651: 4642: 4641: 4640: 4639: 4621: 4620: 4599: 4596: 4585: 4572: 4571: 4570: 4569: 4561: 4558: 4555: 4554: 4553: 4543: 4542: 4541: 4535: 4531: 4530: 4529: 4507: 4506: 4504: 4503: 4493:requested move 4397: 4394: 4305: 4273: 4270: 4269: 4268: 4267: 4266: 4265: 4264: 4244: 4243: 4242: 4241: 4220: 4219: 4176: 4171: 4170: 4169: 4168: 4167: 4076: 4075: 4074: 4073: 4072: 4071: 4070: 4069: 4068: 4067: 4066: 4065: 4022: 4021: 4020: 4019: 4018: 4017: 4016: 4015: 4014: 4013: 4012: 4011: 3959: 3935: 3915: 3914: 3913: 3912: 3898: 3897: 3896: 3895: 3891:" is ENGLISH. 3874: 3873: 3863: 3834: 3833: 3832: 3829: 3793: 3790: 3789: 3788: 3787: 3786: 3785: 3784: 3783: 3782: 3781: 3780: 3756: 3755: 3754: 3753: 3752: 3751: 3750: 3749: 3728: 3727: 3726: 3725: 3724: 3723: 3722: 3721: 3706: 3705: 3704: 3703: 3702: 3701: 3700: 3699: 3677: 3676: 3675: 3674: 3673: 3672: 3671: 3670: 3660: 3659: 3658: 3657: 3656: 3655: 3654: 3653: 3652: 3651: 3636: 3635: 3634: 3633: 3632: 3631: 3630: 3629: 3618: 3617: 3616: 3615: 3614: 3613: 3612: 3611: 3580: 3579: 3578: 3577: 3576: 3575: 3574: 3573: 3563: 3562: 3561: 3560: 3559: 3558: 3548: 3522: 3521: 3520: 3500: 3499: 3498: 3497: 3468: 3467: 3466: 3465: 3458: 3457: 3456: 3455: 3434: 3433: 3423: 3409: 3408: 3407: 3404: 3396: 3395: 3394: 3391: 3383: 3382: 3381: 3373: 3372: 3371: 3368: 3360: 3359: 3358: 3355: 3352: 3349: 3341: 3336: 3333: 3332: 3331: 3310: 3292: 3260: 3257: 3256: 3255: 3239: 3238: 3220: 3207: 3206: 3203: 3198: 3197: 3196: 3195: 3194: 3193: 3192: 3191: 3190: 3189: 3188: 3187: 3148: 3092: 3091: 3090: 3089: 3088: 3087: 3075: 3074: 3073: 3072: 3062: 3045: 3044: 3043: 3042: 3041: 3009: 3001: 3000: 2989: 2988: 2983: 2982: 2975: 2968: 2964: 2963: 2945: 2944: 2925: 2924: 2915: 2914: 2904: 2903: 2902: 2901: 2900: 2899: 2898: 2897: 2887: 2868: 2858: 2812: 2798: 2795: 2794: 2793: 2783: 2770: 2767: 2764: 2761: 2758: 2754: 2751: 2748: 2741: 2737: 2736: 2731: 2720: 2719: 2711: 2710: 2709: 2708: 2673: 2672: 2671:is to be used. 2653: 2637: 2636: 2629: 2615: 2614: 2611: 2608: 2603: 2600: 2596: 2595: 2592: 2589: 2588:Shisha pangma 2586: 2583: 2578: 2577: 2574: 2571: 2570: 2562: 2561: 2560: 2559: 2552: 2549:"Shishapangma" 2541: 2528: 2527: 2524: 2521: 2518: 2513: 2510: 2506: 2505: 2502: 2499: 2496: 2493: 2488: 2484: 2483: 2480: 2477: 2474: 2473:Shisha pangma 2471: 2468: 2461: 2460: 2455: 2452: 2448: 2447: 2444: 2439: 2435: 2434: 2431: 2428: 2423: 2422: 2419: 2417: 2416: 2415: 2409: 2403: 2395: 2392: 2391: 2379: 2376: 2375: 2374: 2364: 2351: 2350: 2349: 2348: 2347: 2325: 2324:, which says “ 2314: 2308: 2307: 2306: 2303: 2296: 2293: 2287: 2281: 2280: 2279: 2278: 2277: 2276: 2275: 2274: 2273: 2272: 2271: 2261: 2220: 2219: 2218: 2217: 2216: 2215: 2214: 2213: 2199: 2177: 2163: 2162: 2159: 2154: 2150: 2149: 2146: 2143: 2139: 2138: 2135: 2130: 2126: 2125: 2122: 2117: 2113: 2112: 2109: 2106: 2101: 2100: 2099: 2098: 2097: 2096: 2087: 2086: 2085: 2084: 2061: 2060: 2059: 2058: 2036: 2035: 2034: 2033: 2032: 2031: 2030: 1993: 1989: 1985: 1981: 1961: 1948: 1947: 1946: 1935: 1900: 1897: 1896: 1895: 1894: 1893: 1892: 1891: 1890: 1889: 1857: 1814: 1790: 1789: 1779: 1766: 1765: 1764: 1760: 1757: 1725: 1724: 1723: 1720: 1717: 1714: 1711: 1708: 1705: 1702: 1699: 1696: 1693:Shisha Pangma 1691: 1681: 1680: 1679: 1678: 1677: 1676: 1666: 1595: 1594: 1593: 1592: 1591: 1590: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1585: 1584: 1583: 1582: 1581: 1580: 1579: 1578: 1568: 1526: 1513: 1503: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1440: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1436: 1435: 1434: 1433: 1423: 1401: 1391: 1323: 1322: 1321: 1320: 1319: 1318: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1314: 1313: 1312: 1311: 1310: 1295: 1268: 1267: 1264: 1261: 1258: 1254: 1253: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1249: 1248: 1247: 1246: 1245: 1244: 1243: 1242: 1241: 1237: 1209: 1191: 1190: 1189: 1181: 1144: 1098: 1084: 1074: 1041: 1038: 1037: 1036: 1023: 1020: 1007: 1004: 991: 986: 983: 982: 981: 980: 979: 969: 931: 930: 920: 903: 893: 869: 854: 853: 850: 847: 842: 839: 835: 834: 831: 828: 825: 820: 817: 813: 812: 809: 806: 803: 800: 795: 791: 790: 787: 784: 781: 778: 773: 769: 768: 765: 762: 759: 758:Shisha pangma 756: 753: 736: 733: 732: 731: 721: 695: 694: 693: 692: 691: 690: 680: 624: 610: 609: 601: 600: 599: 598: 597: 596: 595: 585: 545:know the name 537: 536: 525: 524: 523: 522: 521: 520: 500: 499: 489: 469: 468: 458: 419: 418: 392: 391: 390: 389: 388: 387: 368: 367: 366: 365: 350: 349: 348: 345: 342: 336: 335: 334: 331: 328: 322: 319: 313: 312: 311: 310: 285: 284: 283: 282: 274: 273: 272: 262: 205: 204: 201: 198: 180: 161: 160: 150:requested move 144: 141: 140: 137: 132: 130: 129:Requested move 127: 108: 105: 83: 78: 75: 74: 69: 64: 52: 51: 34: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4813: 4802: 4798: 4794: 4790: 4786: 4785: 4778: 4774: 4770: 4765: 4764: 4763: 4762: 4761: 4760: 4755: 4751: 4747: 4742: 4741: 4740: 4739: 4738: 4737: 4733: 4729: 4725: 4721: 4708: 4704: 4700: 4695: 4691: 4690:WP:COMMONNAME 4686: 4683: 4682: 4675: 4671: 4667: 4662: 4661: 4660: 4659: 4658: 4657: 4648: 4647: 4646: 4645: 4644: 4643: 4638: 4634: 4630: 4625: 4624: 4623: 4622: 4619: 4615: 4611: 4606: 4605: 4604: 4595: 4594: 4590: 4584: 4566: 4565: 4562: 4559: 4556: 4551: 4547: 4546: 4544: 4539: 4536: 4532: 4527: 4523: 4522: 4519: 4518: 4516: 4515: 4514: 4502: 4499: 4494: 4489: 4488: 4487: 4486: 4482: 4478: 4471: 4467: 4463: 4459: 4453: 4447: 4444: 4441: 4440: 4436: 4432: 4431: 4427: 4424: 4421: 4418: 4415: 4412: 4409: 4406: 4403: 4402: 4393: 4390: 4386: 4382: 4378: 4374: 4366: 4362: 4359: 4355: 4352: 4348: 4345: 4341: 4338: 4334: 4331: 4327: 4324: 4321: 4318: 4315: 4311: 4308: 4303: 4300: 4296: 4293: 4289: 4286: 4282: 4278: 4263: 4259: 4255: 4250: 4249: 4248: 4247: 4246: 4245: 4240: 4236: 4232: 4228: 4224: 4223: 4222: 4221: 4218: 4214: 4210: 4205: 4204: 4203: 4202: 4198: 4194: 4189: 4188: 4184: 4183: 4175: 4166: 4162: 4158: 4154: 4150: 4146: 4145: 4144: 4140: 4136: 4132: 4128: 4124: 4123: 4122: 4121: 4117: 4113: 4109: 4105: 4101: 4097: 4093: 4089: 4085: 4081: 4064: 4060: 4056: 4051: 4050: 4049: 4045: 4041: 4037: 4036:present usage 4032: 4031: 4030: 4029: 4028: 4027: 4026: 4025: 4024: 4023: 4010: 4006: 4002: 3997: 3996: 3993: 3992: 3991: 3987: 3983: 3978: 3974: 3970: 3969: 3968: 3964: 3958: 3947: 3943: 3939: 3936: 3933: 3932: 3931: 3927: 3923: 3919: 3918: 3917: 3916: 3910: 3906: 3902: 3901: 3900: 3899: 3894: 3890: 3887:" is Wylie, " 3886: 3882: 3878: 3877: 3876: 3875: 3872: 3868: 3862: 3851: 3847: 3843: 3839: 3835: 3830: 3827: 3826: 3824: 3823: 3822: 3819: 3815: 3811: 3807: 3803: 3779: 3775: 3771: 3766: 3765: 3764: 3763: 3762: 3761: 3760: 3759: 3758: 3757: 3748: 3744: 3740: 3736: 3735: 3734: 3733: 3732: 3731: 3730: 3729: 3719: 3714: 3713: 3712: 3711: 3710: 3709: 3708: 3707: 3698: 3694: 3690: 3685: 3684: 3683: 3682: 3681: 3680: 3679: 3678: 3668: 3667: 3666: 3665: 3664: 3663: 3662: 3661: 3649: 3646: 3645: 3644: 3643: 3642: 3641: 3640: 3639: 3638: 3637: 3626: 3625: 3624: 3623: 3622: 3621: 3620: 3619: 3609: 3605: 3604: 3603: 3602: 3601: 3600: 3599: 3598: 3597: 3596: 3592: 3588: 3584: 3571: 3570: 3569: 3568: 3567: 3566: 3565: 3564: 3557: 3553: 3547: 3536: 3531: 3530: 3527: 3523: 3518: 3514: 3510: 3506: 3505: 3504: 3503: 3502: 3501: 3496: 3492: 3488: 3484: 3480: 3476: 3472: 3471: 3470: 3469: 3462: 3461: 3460: 3459: 3454: 3450: 3446: 3438: 3437: 3436: 3435: 3432: 3428: 3422: 3410: 3405: 3402: 3401: 3400: 3397: 3392: 3389: 3388: 3387: 3384: 3379: 3378: 3377: 3374: 3369: 3366: 3365: 3364: 3361: 3356: 3353: 3350: 3347: 3346: 3345: 3342: 3339: 3338: 3330: 3326: 3322: 3318: 3317:Shisha Pangma 3314: 3311: 3309: 3305: 3301: 3297: 3293: 3291: 3287: 3283: 3280: 3277: 3276: 3275: 3274: 3270: 3266: 3254: 3250: 3246: 3241: 3240: 3236: 3232: 3231: 3230: 3229: 3225: 3219: 3204: 3201: 3200: 3186: 3182: 3178: 3174: 3173: 3172: 3168: 3164: 3159: 3158: 3157: 3153: 3147: 3136: 3135: 3134: 3130: 3126: 3122: 3118: 3114: 3110: 3106: 3102: 3098: 3097: 3096: 3095: 3094: 3093: 3085: 3081: 3080: 3079: 3078: 3077: 3076: 3071: 3067: 3061: 3050: 3046: 3040: 3036: 3032: 3028: 3027: 3026: 3025: 3024: 3023: 3022: 3018: 3014: 3010: 3007: 3003: 3002: 2999: 2995: 2991: 2990: 2985: 2984: 2979: 2976: 2972: 2969: 2966: 2965: 2962: 2958: 2954: 2950: 2947: 2946: 2943: 2939: 2935: 2931: 2927: 2926: 2921: 2917: 2916: 2912: 2909: 2906: 2905: 2896: 2892: 2886: 2869: 2867: 2863: 2857: 2846: 2842: 2838: 2837: 2836: 2835: 2834: 2831: 2826: 2825: 2824: 2823: 2822: 2821: 2817: 2811: 2792: 2788: 2782: 2771: 2769:Summarized by 2768: 2765: 2762: 2759: 2752: 2749: 2746: 2742: 2739: 2738: 2729: 2725: 2722: 2721: 2717: 2713: 2712: 2707: 2703: 2699: 2695: 2691: 2686: 2685: 2683: 2679: 2675: 2674: 2670: 2666: 2665:Lhasa dialect 2662: 2658: 2654: 2651: 2643: 2639: 2638: 2634: 2630: 2627: 2623: 2619: 2618: 2612: 2609: 2607: 2604: 2601: 2598: 2597: 2593: 2590: 2587: 2585:Shishapangma 2584: 2582: 2581: 2573: 2572: 2568: 2564: 2563: 2557: 2553: 2550: 2546: 2542: 2539: 2535: 2534: 2532: 2531: 2525: 2522: 2519: 2517: 2514: 2511: 2508: 2507: 2503: 2500: 2497: 2494: 2492: 2489: 2487:Google Books 2486: 2485: 2481: 2478: 2475: 2472: 2470:Shishapangma 2469: 2467: 2466: 2459: 2456: 2453: 2450: 2449: 2445: 2443: 2440: 2438:Google Books 2437: 2436: 2432: 2429: 2427: 2426: 2418: 2413: 2410: 2407: 2404: 2402: 2399: 2398: 2394: 2393: 2389: 2385: 2384: 2383: 2373: 2369: 2363: 2352: 2344: 2340: 2335: 2331: 2330: 2323: 2319: 2315: 2312: 2311: 2309: 2304: 2301: 2297: 2294: 2291: 2290: 2288: 2285: 2282: 2270: 2266: 2260: 2249: 2245: 2244: 2243: 2240: 2235: 2230: 2229: 2228: 2227: 2226: 2225: 2224: 2223: 2222: 2221: 2212: 2208: 2204: 2200: 2196: 2195: 2194: 2190: 2186: 2182: 2178: 2175: 2171: 2170: 2169: 2168: 2167: 2166: 2160: 2158: 2155: 2152: 2151: 2147: 2144: 2141: 2140: 2136: 2134: 2131: 2129:Google Books 2128: 2127: 2123: 2121: 2118: 2115: 2114: 2110: 2107: 2105: 2104: 2093: 2092: 2091: 2090: 2089: 2088: 2083: 2079: 2075: 2070: 2069: 2068: 2067: 2065: 2056: 2052: 2051: 2050: 2046: 2042: 2039:reevaluate.-- 2037: 2029: 2025: 2021: 2016: 2012: 2011: 2010: 2006: 2002: 1994: 1990: 1986: 1982: 1974: 1973: 1972: 1971: 1970: 1966: 1960: 1949: 1944: 1940: 1936: 1933: 1929: 1928: 1926: 1925: 1924: 1923: 1919: 1915: 1910: 1905: 1888: 1884: 1880: 1876: 1871: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1862: 1856: 1845: 1844: 1843: 1839: 1835: 1831: 1828: 1827: 1826: 1825: 1824: 1823: 1819: 1813: 1802: 1798: 1794: 1788: 1784: 1778: 1767: 1761: 1758: 1755: 1751: 1750:most accepted 1747: 1746: 1744: 1741: 1740: 1739: 1738: 1734: 1730: 1722:Shisha Pangma 1721: 1718: 1715: 1712: 1709: 1706: 1704:Shisha Pangma 1703: 1700: 1697: 1695: 1692: 1690:Shisha Pangma 1689: 1688: 1687: 1685: 1675: 1671: 1665: 1654: 1650: 1649: 1648: 1644: 1640: 1636: 1635: 1634: 1630: 1626: 1622: 1618: 1615: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1608: 1604: 1599: 1577: 1573: 1567: 1555: 1554: 1553: 1549: 1545: 1541: 1537: 1536: 1535: 1531: 1525: 1514: 1512: 1508: 1502: 1491: 1490: 1489: 1485: 1481: 1477: 1476:Voting system 1473: 1468: 1467: 1466: 1462: 1458: 1454: 1449: 1444: 1432: 1428: 1422: 1411: 1410:most accepted 1407: 1402: 1400: 1396: 1390: 1379: 1378: 1377: 1376: 1375: 1374: 1373: 1372: 1371: 1370: 1369: 1368: 1367: 1366: 1365: 1364: 1363: 1362: 1361: 1357: 1353: 1348: 1347: 1346: 1345: 1341: 1337: 1333: 1329: 1328: 1309: 1305: 1301: 1296: 1294: 1290: 1286: 1282: 1281: 1280: 1279: 1278: 1277: 1276: 1275: 1274: 1273: 1272: 1271: 1270: 1269: 1265: 1262: 1259: 1256: 1255: 1240:exclusiveism: 1238: 1236: 1232: 1228: 1220: 1219: 1218: 1214: 1208: 1197: 1192: 1187: 1182: 1178: 1177: 1174: 1173: 1172: 1168: 1164: 1155: 1154: 1153: 1149: 1143: 1132: 1128: 1127:most accepted 1124: 1123: 1122: 1118: 1114: 1109: 1108: 1107: 1103: 1097: 1085: 1083: 1079: 1073: 1061: 1060: 1059: 1055: 1051: 1047: 1044: 1043: 1034: 1030: 1026: 1024: 1021: 1018: 1014: 1010: 1008: 1005: 1002: 998: 994: 992: 989: 988: 985:Other sources 978: 974: 968: 957: 953: 952: 951: 947: 943: 939: 936: 933: 932: 929: 925: 919: 908: 904: 902: 898: 892: 881: 880: 879: 878: 874: 868: 851: 848: 846: 843: 840: 837: 836: 832: 829: 826: 824: 821: 818: 815: 814: 810: 807: 804: 801: 799: 796: 794:Google Books 793: 792: 788: 785: 782: 779: 777: 774: 771: 770: 766: 763: 760: 757: 755:Shishapangma 754: 752: 751: 748: 746: 742: 730: 726: 720: 708: 704: 700: 697: 696: 689: 685: 679: 665: 661: 657: 656: 655: 651: 647: 643: 639: 635: 634: 633: 629: 623: 612: 611: 607: 602: 594: 590: 584: 573: 572: 571: 567: 563: 558: 557: 555: 551: 550: 548: 543: 539: 538: 534: 530: 527: 526: 519: 515: 511: 507: 502: 501: 498: 494: 488: 477: 473: 472: 471: 470: 467: 463: 457: 446: 444: 438: 434: 430: 426: 423: 422: 421: 420: 417: 413: 409: 405: 401: 397: 394: 393: 386: 382: 378: 374: 373: 372: 371: 370: 369: 364: 360: 356: 351: 346: 343: 340: 339: 337: 332: 329: 326: 325: 323: 320: 317: 316: 315: 314: 309: 305: 301: 297: 293: 289: 288: 287: 286: 280: 275: 271: 267: 261: 250: 246: 245: 244: 243: 242: 238: 234: 230: 226: 221: 220: 219: 218: 214: 210: 202: 199: 196: 195: 194: 192: 188: 184: 179: 178: 174: 170: 166: 159: 156: 151: 146: 145: 143: 142: 136: 135: 126: 125: 121: 117: 104: 103: 100: 96: 92: 89: 82: 73: 70: 68: 65: 62: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 4788: 4723: 4719: 4716: 4693: 4684: 4601: 4573: 4549: 4511: 4497: 4490: 4456:— Preceding 4450: 4448: 4445: 4442: 4438: 4437: 4433: 4429: 4428: 4425: 4422: 4419: 4416: 4413: 4410: 4407: 4404: 4400: 4399: 4371:— Preceding 4364: 4363: 4357: 4356: 4350: 4349: 4343: 4342: 4336: 4335: 4329: 4328: 4325: 4322: 4319: 4316: 4312: 4306: 4304: 4298: 4297: 4291: 4290: 4284: 4283: 4279: 4275: 4190: 4180: 4179: 4178: 4148: 4130: 4126: 4107: 4103: 4099: 4095: 4091: 4087: 4083: 4079: 4077: 4035: 3976: 3972: 3941: 3937: 3908: 3905:Shishapangma 3904: 3892: 3889:Shishapangma 3888: 3884: 3880: 3849: 3845: 3841: 3837: 3800:— Preceding 3795: 3647: 3607: 3582: 3581: 3535:Shishapangma 3534: 3525: 3509:Shishapangma 3508: 3398: 3385: 3375: 3362: 3344:Shishapangma 3343: 3316: 3313:Shishapangma 3312: 3296:Shishapangma 3295: 3279:Shishapangma 3278: 3262: 3235:User:Quigley 3208: 3117:Shishapangma 3105:Shishapangma 3083: 3048: 3005: 2977: 2970: 2948: 2929: 2919: 2844: 2840: 2800: 2726:leads us to 2689: 2605: 2594:Xixiabangma 2555: 2548: 2544: 2538:"Xixabangma" 2537: 2515: 2490: 2479:Xixiabangma 2457: 2441: 2381: 2333: 2310:@Wikimedes: 2283: 2247: 2233: 2180: 2174:Shishapangma 2173: 2172:So, indeed, 2156: 2132: 2119: 2063: 1942: 1938: 1931: 1906: 1902: 1829: 1796: 1792: 1791: 1753: 1749: 1742: 1726: 1719:Shishapangma 1716:Shishapangma 1713:Shishapangma 1710:Shishapangma 1701:Shishapangma 1683: 1682: 1597: 1596: 1409: 1405: 1326: 1325: 1324: 1195: 1130: 1126: 1045: 955: 906: 857: 844: 822: 797: 775: 764:Xixiabangma 738: 706: 702: 698: 663: 641: 547:Shishapangma 546: 532: 528: 475: 442: 440: 424: 395: 375:Understood-- 296:User talk:虞海 279:Shishapangma 229:User talk:虞海 206: 187:Shishapangma 181: 165:No Consensus 164: 162: 154: 147: 110: 88:Jonathancamp 85: 60: 43: 37: 4185:Reference: 4080:Sishapangma 2747:) viewpoint 2718:) viewpoint 2646:ཤི་ཤ་སྦང་མ། 2635:) viewpoint 2591:Xixabangma 2482:Gosainthan 2476:Xixabangma 2390:) viewpoint 2018:grouping?-- 1763:Xixabangma. 767:Gosainthan 761:Xixabangma 703:Xixiabangma 36:This is an 4724:Gosainthān 4720:Xixabangma 4699:Mike Cline 4084:Xixabangma 3909:Xixabangma 3881:Xixabangma 3718:Xixabangma 3479:Xixabangma 3386:Xixabangma 3367:Nat Krause 3113:Xixabangma 3109:Xixabangma 2920:only after 2830:Nat Krause 2655:Currently 2334:personally 2239:Nat Krause 2053:I believe 1040:Discussion 707:Xixabangma 606:Xixabangma 533:Xixabangma 508:, below. — 443:Xixabangma 183:Xixabangma 169:Mike Cline 4789:Gōsāīthān 4769:Wikimedes 4746:Ratagonia 4728:Wikimedes 4610:Ratagonia 4430:Disputed: 4053:Pangma.-- 3445:Ratagonia 3354:Ratagonia 3351:Wikimedes 3282:Ratagonia 3265:Ratagonia 3177:Ratagonia 3175:Support. 3163:Wikimedes 3031:Ratagonia 3013:Wikimedes 2733:organs... 2203:Wikimedes 2074:Wikimedes 2041:Wikimedes 2020:Wikimedes 2001:Ratagonia 1834:Ratagonia 1752:but also 1729:Wikimedes 1639:Wikimedes 1637:Thanks.-- 1621:this clip 1603:Wikimedes 1544:Ratagonia 1480:Wikimedes 1352:Wikimedes 1300:Ratagonia 1285:Ratagonia 1227:Ratagonia 1186:Kawagarbo 1163:Ratagonia 1129:but also 542:suggested 116:Wikimedes 114:Thanks.-- 72:Archive 3 67:Archive 2 61:Archive 1 4694:everyone 4629:Racerx11 4477:Pseudois 4470:contribs 4462:Pseudois 4458:unsigned 4385:contribs 4377:Pseudois 4373:unsigned 4231:Racerx11 4193:Pseudois 4182:changed. 4157:Pseudois 4129:pinyin. 4112:Pseudois 4100:Qowowuya 4055:Pseudois 4001:Pseudois 3982:Pseudois 3973:spelling 3922:Pseudois 3814:contribs 3806:Pseudois 3802:unsigned 3770:Racerx11 3689:Racerx11 3380:Racerx11 3357:Pseudois 3348:Kauffner 3321:Pseudois 3233:I asked 2987:instead? 2981:grouped. 2934:Racerx11 2753:I read " 2698:Pseudois 2633:WP:PLACE 2388:WP:PLACE 1909:WP:PLACE 1875:WT:PLACE 1870:WP:PLACE 1793:Continue 1625:Kauffner 1472:WP:PLACE 1453:WP:PLACE 1448:WP:PLACE 408:Kauffner 398:. I get 377:Racerx11 233:Racerx11 4685:Comment 4666:hike395 4534:there). 4452:editor. 4254:hike395 4227:user:虞海 4209:Quigley 4135:Quigley 4127:Chinese 4096:Cho Oyu 4040:Quigley 3739:hike395 3608:Neutral 3587:hike395 3513:hike395 3487:hike395 3475:WP:DRNC 3403:(6:1:2) 3393:Quigley 3376:Neutral 3370:hike395 3300:hike395 3245:hike395 3125:hike395 3121:WP:BOLD 2953:Quigley 2678:hike395 2622:hike395 2412:Encarta 2378:Summary 2339:Shannan 2289:@hike: 2284:Comment 2185:hike395 2124:28,000 2120:506,000 2116:Google 2072:sure.-- 1914:hike395 1879:hike395 1743:Comment 1598:Comment 1457:hike395 1336:hike395 1113:hike395 1050:hike395 1029:hike395 1013:hike395 997:hike395 942:hike395 789:29,100 786:13,500 783:18,000 780:64,800 776:318,000 772:Google 741:hike395 646:hike395 562:hike395 510:hike395 441:by far 425:Comment 396:Support 355:hike395 300:hike395 209:hike395 99:RedWolf 39:archive 4581:Yú Hǎi 4106:" to " 4104:Lhotse 4098:" to " 4090:" to " 3977:naming 3955:Yú Hǎi 3946:Mumbai 3942:Mumbai 3938:Bombay 3859:Yú Hǎi 3825:Nope, 3687:etc.-- 3544:Yú Hǎi 3441:Yú Hǎi 3419:Yú Hǎi 3399:Result 3390:Yu Hai 3216:Yú Hǎi 3144:Yú Hǎi 3101:WP:BRD 3058:Yú Hǎi 2971:Usage: 2883:Yú Hǎi 2854:Yú Hǎi 2808:Yú Hǎi 2779:Yú Hǎi 2756:names. 2692:. See 2650:Sherpa 2360:Yú Hǎi 2257:Yú Hǎi 1997:Yú Hǎi 1977:Yú Hǎi 1957:Yú Hǎi 1853:Yú Hǎi 1810:Yú Hǎi 1775:Yú Hǎi 1662:Yú Hǎi 1617:Pinyin 1564:Yú Hǎi 1522:Yú Hǎi 1499:Yú Hǎi 1419:Yú Hǎi 1387:Yú Hǎi 1223:Yú Hǎi 1205:Yú Hǎi 1159:Yú Hǎi 1140:Yú Hǎi 1094:Yú Hǎi 1070:Yú Hǎi 965:Yú Hǎi 916:Yú Hǎi 889:Yú Hǎi 865:Yú Hǎi 717:Yú Hǎi 676:Yú Hǎi 642:should 638:WP:NOR 620:Yú Hǎi 581:Yú Hǎi 485:Yú Hǎi 454:Yú Hǎi 435:, and 258:Yú Hǎi 4650:page. 4108:Lhoze 4102:g", " 4088:Lhasa 3852:). –– 3526:won't 2495:1040 2343:Lhoka 1803:). –– 1332:WP:RS 802:1040 699:Notes 660:WP:OR 644:be. — 531:(use 439:. So 400:2,350 16:< 4797:talk 4773:talk 4750:talk 4732:talk 4703:talk 4670:talk 4633:talk 4614:talk 4481:talk 4466:talk 4381:talk 4258:talk 4235:talk 4213:talk 4197:talk 4161:talk 4139:talk 4116:talk 4094:", " 4092:Lasa 4059:talk 4044:talk 4005:talk 3986:talk 3926:talk 3850:tank 3842:jack 3810:talk 3774:talk 3743:talk 3693:talk 3591:talk 3517:talk 3491:talk 3449:talk 3325:talk 3304:talk 3286:talk 3269:talk 3249:talk 3181:talk 3167:talk 3129:talk 3035:talk 3017:talk 2996:and 2957:talk 2949:Keep 2938:talk 2930:Keep 2910:and 2873:བཀྲ་ 2702:talk 2682:talk 2626:talk 2606:1610 2602:420 2523:207 2520:290 2504:384 2498:284 2491:1090 2454:408 2446:405 2442:2160 2207:talk 2189:talk 2157:3190 2148:491 2145:408 2137:405 2133:2160 2078:talk 2045:talk 2024:talk 2005:talk 1984:not? 1918:talk 1883:talk 1838:talk 1733:talk 1655:. –– 1643:talk 1629:talk 1607:talk 1548:talk 1484:talk 1461:talk 1412:. –– 1356:talk 1340:talk 1304:talk 1289:talk 1231:talk 1167:talk 1117:talk 1054:talk 1033:talk 1017:talk 1001:talk 946:talk 937:and 845:1610 841:420 830:207 827:290 811:384 805:284 798:1090 745:talk 650:talk 566:talk 529:Keep 514:talk 476:most 412:talk 381:talk 359:talk 304:talk 251:. –– 237:talk 227:and 213:talk 173:talk 120:talk 4550:may 4495:. 3848:in 3840:in 3315:or 2696:.-- 2610:44 2547:or 2526:49 2516:332 2512:92 2501:98 2458:491 2341:to 2234:not 2183:. — 2161:49 1941:or 1795:my 956:one 849:44 833:49 823:332 819:92 808:98 404:361 112:--> 4799:) 4775:) 4752:) 4734:) 4705:) 4672:) 4635:) 4616:) 4577:虞海 4574:–– 4483:) 4468:• 4387:) 4383:• 4260:) 4237:) 4215:) 4199:) 4163:) 4155:-- 4141:) 4118:) 4061:) 4046:) 4007:) 3988:) 3951:虞海 3928:) 3855:虞海 3816:) 3812:• 3776:) 3745:) 3695:) 3593:) 3540:虞海 3493:) 3451:) 3443:. 3415:虞海 3412:–– 3327:) 3306:) 3288:) 3271:) 3251:) 3212:虞海 3183:) 3169:) 3140:虞海 3131:) 3054:虞海 3037:) 3019:) 3011:-- 2959:) 2940:) 2879:虞海 2876:–– 2850:虞海 2845:ga 2843:, 2841:ba 2804:虞海 2775:虞海 2704:) 2684:) 2613:4 2356:虞海 2353:–– 2329:” 2253:虞海 2209:) 2191:) 2080:) 2047:) 2026:) 2007:) 1953:虞海 1920:) 1885:) 1849:虞海 1840:) 1806:虞海 1771:虞海 1768:–– 1745:: 1735:) 1727:-- 1658:虞海 1645:) 1631:) 1609:) 1560:虞海 1550:) 1518:虞海 1495:虞海 1486:) 1463:) 1415:虞海 1383:虞海 1358:) 1342:) 1306:) 1291:) 1233:) 1201:虞海 1169:) 1136:虞海 1119:) 1090:虞海 1087:–– 1066:虞海 1063:–– 1056:) 961:虞海 948:) 912:虞海 885:虞海 861:虞海 852:4 747:) 713:虞海 710:–– 672:虞海 669:–– 652:) 616:虞海 613:–– 577:虞海 568:) 556:. 516:) 481:虞海 450:虞海 431:, 414:) 383:) 361:) 306:) 254:虞海 239:) 215:) 185:→ 175:) 152:. 122:) 4795:( 4771:( 4748:( 4730:( 4718:" 4701:( 4668:( 4631:( 4612:( 4588:✍ 4583:) 4579:( 4479:( 4464:( 4379:( 4256:( 4233:( 4211:( 4195:( 4159:( 4137:( 4114:( 4057:( 4042:( 4003:( 3984:( 3962:✍ 3957:) 3953:( 3924:( 3866:✍ 3861:) 3857:( 3846:t 3838:j 3808:( 3772:( 3741:( 3691:( 3589:( 3585:— 3551:✍ 3546:) 3542:( 3519:) 3515:( 3511:— 3489:( 3447:( 3426:✍ 3421:) 3417:( 3323:( 3302:( 3298:— 3284:( 3267:( 3247:( 3243:— 3223:✍ 3218:) 3214:( 3179:( 3165:( 3151:✍ 3146:) 3142:( 3127:( 3065:✍ 3060:) 3056:( 3033:( 3015:( 2955:( 2936:( 2890:✍ 2885:) 2881:( 2861:✍ 2856:) 2852:( 2815:✍ 2810:) 2806:( 2786:✍ 2781:) 2777:( 2735:" 2700:( 2680:( 2663:/ 2628:) 2624:( 2569:. 2551:; 2367:✍ 2362:) 2358:( 2286:: 2264:✍ 2259:) 2255:( 2205:( 2187:( 2076:( 2043:( 2022:( 2003:( 1964:✍ 1959:) 1955:( 1945:. 1934:; 1916:( 1881:( 1860:✍ 1855:) 1851:( 1836:( 1817:✍ 1812:) 1808:( 1782:✍ 1777:) 1773:( 1731:( 1669:✍ 1664:) 1660:( 1641:( 1627:( 1605:( 1571:✍ 1566:) 1562:( 1546:( 1529:✍ 1524:) 1520:( 1506:✍ 1501:) 1497:( 1482:( 1459:( 1426:✍ 1421:) 1417:( 1394:✍ 1389:) 1385:( 1354:( 1338:( 1302:( 1287:( 1229:( 1212:✍ 1207:) 1203:( 1165:( 1147:✍ 1142:) 1138:( 1115:( 1101:✍ 1096:) 1092:( 1077:✍ 1072:) 1068:( 1052:( 1035:) 1031:( 1019:) 1015:( 1011:— 1003:) 999:( 995:— 972:✍ 967:) 963:( 944:( 940:— 923:✍ 918:) 914:( 896:✍ 891:) 887:( 872:✍ 867:) 863:( 743:( 724:✍ 719:) 715:( 683:✍ 678:) 674:( 648:( 627:✍ 622:) 618:( 588:✍ 583:) 579:( 564:( 560:— 512:( 492:✍ 487:) 483:( 461:✍ 456:) 452:( 410:( 379:( 357:( 353:— 302:( 265:✍ 260:) 256:( 235:( 211:( 171:( 118:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index