Disputatio:Xinjiang

Nomen[fontem recensere]

I just moved this to agree with the lemma. The trouble with "Uiguristania", if I'm not mistaken, is that we don't have a source for it. As for "Sinkiangia", I don't know ... While we decide, "Xinjiang" is OK because it's the official short name in official transliteration. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:09, 25 Februarii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[1] I've found in my peregrinationibus this. Franciesse 15:15, 25 Februarii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And this: [2] Franciesse 15:20, 25 Februarii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, very interesting. Your no. 1 seems to be a mistake on that usually-accurate website -- he has confused Kianjing with Xinjiang. Or am I wrong there? But your no. 2 looks like the bee's knees: it shows that "Sinkiangensis" is fine as an adjective. Not sure yet, though, what the noun would be ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:58, 25 Februarii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that mistake, but i haven't understood where Kianjing is (in en:wikipedia there isn't). Kiangchow is referred to Jiangzhou (I think we have a phonetic translation), that is in Shanxi. So we have two Xinjiang, this (region, Regio Sinkiagensis or something similar) and that (city, Urbs Kiangchovensis or something similar). What a confusion! I will NEVER go to China!! :-) Franciesse 09:25, 3 Martii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly this confusion was the last straw for Benedict XVI. The new pope will sort it out and find the archbishops, I'm sure. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:45, 3 Martii 2013 (UTC)[reply]