Macau was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Macau, an attempt to better organize and improve articles related to Macau.MacauWikipedia:WikiProject MacauTemplate:WikiProject MacauMacau articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Portugal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Portugal on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PortugalWikipedia:WikiProject PortugalTemplate:WikiProject PortugalPortugal articles
Find correct name
The airport is not listed as João Paulo II anywhere.
The airport's own website calls itself simply Ponta Delgada, and has no mention of João Paulo.
Template:Regions of Portugal: statistical (NUTS3) subregions and intercommunal entities are confused; they are not the same in all regions, and should be sublisted separately in each region: intermunicipal entities are sometimes larger and split by subregions (e.g. the Metropolitan Area of Lisbon has two subregions), some intercommunal entities are containing only parts of subregions. All subregions should be listed explicitly and not assume they are only intermunicipal entities (which accessorily are not statistic subdivisions but real administrative entities, so they should be listed below, probably using a smaller font: we can safely eliminate the subgrouping by type of intermunicipal entity from this box).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is written in Hong Kong English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, travelled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
On 24 June 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to Macao. The result of the discussion was no consensus.
This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Macau/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
This orange-tagged article clearly fails criteria 2b. There are many paragraphs lacking citations. I brought this issue up at the talk page a while ago, but there doesn't seem to be much interest.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the geography section, there is a humongous image of Guangdong with major cities surrounding Macau listed. I think this image should be removed or resized to be a lot smaller because I feel its current size is a bit distracting. LittleCuteSuit (talk)
Macao is not a English region at all. The requirement that this article should be written in Hong Kong English looks really weird (especially when China is written in American English instead of Hong Kong English). John Smith Ri (talk) 01:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hong Kong English is more commonly used in Macau than any other variant of English, and certainly not American English. Yue🌙01:16, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the area of macau as stated in "Macau" is listed as 115.3km^2 (i'm not going to write the american equivalent in miles square because who cares about the imperial system). however, the area of macau listed in the article titled "List of countries and dependencies by population density", it shows 33km^2. so which one is correct??? 2406:3003:2002:2D79:AC21:87FD:5C6E:EC8D (talk) 05:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@2406:3003:2002:2D79:AC21:87FD:5C6E:EC8D: As stated in the article (particularly the Geography section) and at Geography of Macau, the smaller figure is the land area while the larger figure includes water. The land area is generally what's relevant for population density. — MarkH21talk06:33, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'Macao' is the official English spelling, while 'Macau' is the official Portuguese spelling. Why is the Portuguese spelling (Macau) used throughout/ as the title of the English page? Eensaam (talk) 18:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did the exact same search and was surprised too. However, the 2018 move proposal for this article failed because the crux of the movers' arguments was also WP:OFFICIAL. This is not a policy-based point, but if you make an English-language Google search of Macau or Macao, the first page will return almost exclusively Macaus. I'd reckon a lot of editors familiar or unfamiliar with the site guidelines would need a better explanation than "it's official". Yue🌙18:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The question could then become "how much of that is Wikipedia itself", but it seems when it's this even, we do need a clearer, more compelling majority to make a change. Remsense诉18:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sure, I agree. It's one piece of evidence, but a more detailed analysis would be helpful. If they end up being similarly common in English reliable sources then I think the official name should be the title. — MarkH21talk20:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Completely arbitrary but more specific data point I'll contribute: my personal library of China-related books has 40 using "Macau" somewhere in the text, but 73 for "Macao". Remsense诉14:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where two names both might fit the common name criteria, I favor the official name. Common name is not a purely mechanistic "vote by the ngrams" criteria. In the instance of Macao/Macau there are so many overlapping linguistic questions that I don't feel particularly strongly, however.
I thought I might add this from Prof. Tim Simpson's (University of Macau) recent text in case it's helpful to thinking about the issue:
One odd challenge encountered by anyone who writes about this city is the ambiguous spelling of Macau/Macao. Both versions are widely used. A local government directive indicates that the proper spelling of the city is "Macao" in English and "Macau" in Portuguese, except for the case of the "University of Macau" which retains the "u" in both languages. HGowever, as the latter clause in that sentence makes clear, this is primarily a policy of convenience rather than a definitive orthographical rule. In any event, I have chosen to spell Macau with a "u," which is (despite the local policy) arguably the more common form found today in the international English press. [Simpson goes on to say he retains "Macao" when quoting that usage]. Ultimately, there is no way to avoid this spelling inconsistency, which, although frustrating, is also a reflection of the endemic historical and cultural ambiguity that makes the city so fascinating.JArthur1984 (talk) 21:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: no consensus. Out of the number of voters, there is a total of eight support !votes (including two weak support), and nine oppose !votes (including one weak oppose). There was no consensus since between the two sides, the two names remians the WP:COMMONNAME. While there is a proposal of official name because of interchangeability of both titles, was already tackled by arguments saying that WP:COMMONNAME supersedes WP:OFFICIAL, which was mostly the conclusion of the support voters. Since both are recognizable in English, and used widely in certain particular areas, I see no argument of move and do not move. (non-admin closure) Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!04:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Google Ngram results (based on print sources only) are split between the two, as are many contemporary English-language news sources (that I took a quick look at), e.g. AP News, BBC, CBC, CNN, Fox News, The Guardian, NYT, SCMP, etc. I am unconvinced that "Macao" is more recognizable than "Macau". Yue🌙20:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Both variations might fit the common name criteria. In a situation where we have multiple common names to pick from, I favor the usage which has the additional benefit of being "official". JArthur1984 (talk) 20:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose– Ngrams are too close right now to assuredly say that Macao is more common than Macau, I say leave the status quo for now. DervotNum4 (talk) 17:14, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It seems that Macau and Macao are both commonly-used and equally recognisable. As such, there is no good rationale to change the spelling to Macao. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 01:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The official English name 'Macao' also fits common name criteria, and where both spellings are interchangeable and common I prefer the official term.
Oppose While Macao is the official name of the region in English, but we must beware that both Macao and Macau are equally recognisable name in English (with the US, Singapore, and Australia prefer the latter while China and the UK prefer the former). On the other hand, the majority of non-governmental English-language sources outside China prefer to usage of "Macau" instead of "Macao", signify that there's a popularity split between two spellings that make the page cannot be moved to one another. 103.111.100.82 (talk) 12:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will note here (in response equally to several of the other oppose votes) that there are five criteria for article titles. To me, the case is predicated on "Macao" being equally recognizable, but more natural, as it reflects official use. Remsense诉18:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Yue. Ngrams does show they're close, but the current is still ahead, so something else proving COMMONNAME is needed, not OFFICIALNAMES. Tiebreaker would make sense if there were more than two spellings or Macao was just barely ahead. DankJae18:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support: If the two names are equally common (so WP:COMMONNAME is split between them), then the article title should be the official English name for the naturalness and consistency criteria.There is no preferential treatment for the status quo under any part of the naming guidelines, even though multiple oppose !votes given here seem to be implicitly based on such a principle.My support is only weak because there isn't a detailed analysis on the frequency of either spelling. Google Ngrams show them as being similar and English language reliable sources using both names (e.g. Associated Press uses "Macao", Reuters uses "Macau"). I'd upgrade my support with a more careful counting of sources. — MarkH21talk22:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:RECOGNIZABILITY. Neither one of two words are more recognizable than each other. Both "Macao" and "Macau" are equally recognizable in English, with "Macau" preferred by majority of English-language media publications and government publications in the US, Australia, and Singapore, while the name "Macao" used by British, Canadian, and Chinese governmental publications, as well as some English-language media publications. 2404:8000:1037:178:6846:2832:E7EC:82C6 (talk) 10:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.