(another edit) Expecting a rain of mixed language stuff from the same user in a different shape, will just keep adding them here: Huygens yuánlǐ. --Anatoli 01:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC) Hubble Chángshù
This IP address of 18.104.22.168 is also busy adding biblical quotations as usage examples for entries such as this edit to 所 and this edit of 蛇. Struck me as a bit odd, and then I saw the same IP address here, so I thought I'd mention it. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 03:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
This construction (English proper noun + Chinese word for river) could be used with any river not originating from a Chinese speaking region in the world. For example, Thames河 (the River Thames), Avon河 (any Avon river), Amazon河 (the Amazon) and Rhine河 (the Rhine), all of which have or can have Chinese phonetic translations. They are 泰晤士(河), 艾文河, 亚马逊(河) and 莱因河 respectively. The mixed script version is almost exclusively used among bilingual speakers of English and Chinese, and will not be understood by any monolingual Chinese speaker. So I suggest to delete the mixed versions and only include the phonetic Chinese versions. Any input is appreciated. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 01:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
If it "will not be understood by any monolingual Chinese speaker", that speaker might want to look it up in a dictionary. Of course, the argument could be made that these are SOP and the speaker could just look up "Thames" and "河". I am at the moment very weakly inclined to keep these if they are attested. Note that both "Rhine河" and "Rhein河" get about 1500 hits on Google: I haven't decided if the fact that different languages' names for the rivers can be used makes the compounds seem more or less appropriate for inclusion. - -sche(discuss) 01:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
These are definitely attestable (e.g. the first hit for Rhine河 on google is an article on blogspot.com about someone's travel experience in Koblenz). That's why I didn't include this topic in rfv. It's just a matter of should or should not. As I said, I am inclined towards deletion, but I am open to comments such as yours. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 01:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
After some thought, I am more strongly inclined to keep these, because different languages' names — and especially because other exonyms — are used in the compounds. The existence of forms like "Rhine河" (alongside "Rhein河") and "Danube河" (alongside "Donau河" and "Duna河") means that the compounds are not formed only by combining the river's non-Chinese endonym (in the absence of a Chinese endonym like 黄) with "河": instead, sometimes other exonyms are used. ("Rhine" is no better than "莱茵(河)"; both are exonyms.) This is bizarre, and we should explain it. We should tell in the etymology section what language the Latin-script part is, and if it is an exonym, we should link (eg to Rhine) so that users can learn (from the translations section of Rhine) what the river is actually called by the people near it; we should also have synonym sections for the Chinese exonyms. If the Chinese names are SOP, they can be unlinked or linked like this: [[莱茵]][[河]]. - -sche(discuss) 02:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Strong delete. We should have a clear language policy to avoid this bullsh.t. English or other language words can always be found in a Mandarin text, it doesn't make the foreign words Mandarin. This is a clearcut Chinglish!. --Anatoli 02:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
@-sche. I already mentioned at Talk:Ampere定律 that foreign words are mentioned only once for clarity if at all, so that native Chinese speakers are not confused about the identity of a person, place name, etc. E.g. like in Chinese Wikipedia: 泰晤士河 (英语：River Thames). The Chinese transliteration of foreign names is complex, no doubt, and there is some level of incosistency and rare names may not have an established translation but writing names in Roman letters is not a feature of native speakers, they only write it when they don't know how to write it properly. If there is an established translation of a name, though, writing it in Roman letters should be avoided, otherwise every single English name will get a Chinese entry. --Anatoli 03:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
No, certainly not. Only when they are used in Chinese (and not only mentioned). Are quotations for this word uses or mentions? Lmaltier 05:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Strong delete. Standard Chinese is and has always been (for > 3000 years) written with Chinese characters. None of the orthography standards in PRC (中华人民共和国国家通用语言文字法) and ROC (常用國字標準字體表, 次常用國字標準字體表, 罕用字體表) recognise the use of non-Chinese scripts. I don't understand why non-speakers often consider this worthy of inclusion (both here and at Talk:Ampere定律). English proper nouns get mixed into other languages all the time, the fact that Chinese, being the only major language written completely with a non-phonemic writing system, sometimes contains these words for clarity, does not at all make them Chinese. 22.214.171.124 03:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
What you explain is a strong rationale for keeping. If they are used in Chinese, they should be kept. It's the same for words such as autoroute: can this word really be considered as an English word? Still, it has an Englsih section. Creating a section for a language does not mean that the word fully and naturally belongs to the language, only that it is used in the language. Lmaltier 05:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
What the anon user means is, in Chinese it's OK and common to write a Chinese word followed by the original or English spelling for clarity, e.g.: 泰晤士河 (Thames). It may difficult to tell, which river "Tàiwùshì Hé" actually is. Knowing the correct characters for a foreign name is a challenge for Chinese themselves and they do write it in English and other languages, if they don't know the hanzi, nothing more, nothing less. Can I ask not to make assumptions if you don't know how Mandarin works? Your parallels are not appropriate without some background knowledge. --Anatoli 05:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't assume anything. I ask questions (uses or mentions?) and I say that, if it's used, it should be included. You explain that English words are often mentioned for clarification. Obviousy, this is not a reason for including them as a Chinese section. But what of the term under discussion? From what I understand from discussions, citations use the English term instead of the Chinese character(s), and they are not only mentions (but this is only my understanding from the discussion). Lmaltier 17:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Strong delete. Though rarer, Japanese occasionally does the same thing, using foreign words in other writing systems after the Japanese kana or kanji rendering, purely for clarification. This does not turn such foreign words into Japanese just because they're being used in a Japanese context, any more than an English writer using Japanese or Chinese purely for clarification turn those words into English. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 16:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I have no informed opinion because I know no Mandarin. However, I get the nomination. 河 means river so this is SoP Thames + 河. But if you look up Thames there's no Mandarin entry. However there is an English entry, and we deleted the Portuguese entry for I love you as the usage in Portuguese only refers to the English phrase. Similarly, if I say "the French for White House is Maison Blanche" then the fact that Maison Blanche appears in an English sentence doesn't make it English. Hopefully this has provided some clarity, as I myself am not qualified to give an informed opinion. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the Portuguese use of "I love you": but we're set to keep the Italian use of Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion#made_in_Italy, because it isn't SOP in Italian. Without having seen the discussion of "I love you", I wonder if one or the other should be revisited. - -sche(discuss) 20:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, "Волга河" is attested on Google, though not Google Books. In other words, scripts other than Latin can be found. - -sche(discuss) 20:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Also FWIW, there are a few Google hits for the (English) phrase "the Волга river". - -sche(discuss) 21:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
In at least some of the citations available on Google Books, "Thames河" is used not in parentheses and not followed by "泰晤士河" (see Citations:Thames河 for one example). If these books were only mentioning the Latin script form, giving it to disambiguate or clarify the Chinese form, I would expect the Chinese form to be given, but in some instances, it isn't. The mixed-script term seems to be used in those instances. The idea that instances of mixed-script are clarificatory also doesn't completely explain why non-Chinese exonyms are sometimes used: on Google, I can find "Волга河" (Russian), "Volga河" (English) and "Wolga河" (German!). I understand the feeling that these mixed-script proper placename nouns are not Chinese, but at least a few of them seem to be used in Chinese. - -sche(discuss) 21:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
To get to what I'm discovering might be a more core argument: sure, these terms might be used in Chinese, but are they used as Chinese? To wit, do they have any intrinsically Chinese meaning, any meaning in Chinese that is different from how the terms are used in other languages, or are these terms being used purely as foreign (i.e. non-Chinese) words?
If the former, fine, let's list them as Chinese and lay out the specific Chinese meanings. If the latter, as with Москва#English above, I feel very strongly that these terms do not belong under Chinese (or in -sche's case, English) headings. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 22:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
As an aside, how is this particular entry not SOP in the first place? Even if it's attested, I don't think that's terribly relevant, since it's still SOP. Even if it "will not be understood by any monolingual Chinese speaker", and that speaker might want to look it up in a dictionary, as -sche notes, then as -sche also notes, wouldn't they think "I'll look up Thames, since I know what 河 means," or "I'll look up 河, since I know what Thames means," or "I'll look up Thames and 河 separately since they're clearly in different scripts and are thus likely separate words"? We don't have River Thames or Potomac River, presumably for SOP reasons, even though we do have Thames, Potomac, and river individually. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 22:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the usage of qualifier -河, 公园, etc. but the usage of English names in Chinese is a clearcut Chinglish. Even though Chinese in London may say Hyde公园 (pronouncing Hyde as in English) or even "Hyde Park", it's because they become anglicised. The proper way to say Hyde Park in Mandarin is 海德公园 (Hǎidé gōngyuán). Are you going to create Hyde公园/Hyde Gōngyuán now? --Anatoli 00:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
"Chinglish" and "the proper way" are your personal ideas. The fact is they exist. 126.96.36.199 00:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
They existis not enough. You are being disingenuous, and are successfully getting up a lot of people's noses, including my own if I'm honest. Contrafibularities and frasmotic also "exist", but they are not valid words. Thames may exist in English and 河 may exist in Chinese, and "Thames河" may exist in Chinese texts, but that does not necessarily make the combined term valid as Chinese.
Yes, they exist is good enough. If there were three independent uses in permanently recorded media, we would accept frasmotic and contrafibularities as perfectly cromulent words. Validity is not an appropriate argument given w:descriptive linguistics and WT:CFI.--Prosfilaes 08:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Strong delete. It is not a Chinese word; Chinese words are written in Chinese characters, with occasional Latin letters, but not whole words from other languages, that's just stupid. We don't include English words with random characters, so why does Chinese get subjected to this treatment? What's next? book书? Lest I remind you all that the person who created this entry has had hundreds of other crap entries deleted, both speedily and through RfD and RfV, has evaded a dozen blocks over the past year and trolled discussions in almost every discussion page, so the fact that you didn't just trust the Mandarin editors who have contributed years to this project to deal with this in the first place is pretty mind-boggling. ---> Tooironic 23:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm getting quite frustrated too with the attitudes, Carl. abc123's crazy ideas seem to have gained supporters. (If we allow creating such stupidity, I'll move to other interesting projects) I have suggested to create a policy disallowing proper names in Mandarin if they are not in Chinese characters, regardless whether they are citable. This is the only way we can keep Mandarin entries free of stupidity. I missed how we allowed Alzheimer病 entry to stay as well. This should not be here!
"crazy" is just your personal idea. The fact is they exist, such as Gunnersbury公园. By the way, how do you say Gunnersbury公园 in your Mandarin? 188.8.131.52 00:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Do you think you deserve an apology, moron, after what you've done? My Mandarin? Not all words have an equivalent, as simple as that, so Chinese people will just say them in English, it doesn't justify making wrong entries. In my Mandarin Gunnersbury park is 君納士貝莉公園/君纳士贝莉公园 (Jūnnàshìbèilì gōngyuán) or 根拿斯貝利公園/根拿斯贝利公园 (Gēnnásībèilì gōngyuán). --Anatoli 00:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Good work! That's the idea, foreign names are transliterated into Chinese chracaters and sometimes the result is funny or offensive, that's why care should be taken so that the meaning of characters is good and there is a standard set of characters that are used only in foreign names. Transliteration or sometimes translation into Chinese is a better skill to master and takes effort. The dictionary of foreign proper names in Chinese (世界人名翻译大辞典) just keeps growing. --Anatoli 01:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
So, which is the standard? Is your 君納士貝莉公園/君纳士贝莉公园 (Jūnnàshìbèilì gōngyuán) the standard? 184.108.40.206 02:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
世界人名翻译大辞典 gives "冈纳斯伯里"/"岡納斯伯里" (Gāngnàsībólĭ). So go away, you obviously have some agenda related to Pinyinisation and dream of a world in Pinyin. There's no possibility that Chinese will even remotely consider digraphia in the future, and even if there is that's something for native-language planners to decide, not you. 220.127.116.11 02:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Don't depart from the topic.
So, do you mean that your "君纳士贝莉公园" is not the standard, but "冈纳斯伯里公园" is the standard? 18.104.22.168 02:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
No, I 'm not departing from the topic. The topic is - (an English proper name) + 河, 公园, 市, 岛, whatever, should not be allowed as Mandarin. --Anatoli 03:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Those are not mine but yes, the latter is standard. 22.214.171.124 02:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the last statement. We now have two anons, please identify yourselves. You must be Wjcd. --Anatoli 03:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Could you cite that 冈纳斯伯里公园 is the standard? 126.96.36.199 03:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Transcription into Chinese characters: "In People's Republic of China, the official guide for the transcription of people's names is the Names of the world's peoples: a comprehensive dictionary of names in Roman-Chinese (世界人名翻译大辞典), compiled by the Proper Names and Translation Service of the Xinhua News Agency." Media in PRC must adhere to the transcriptions given in those dictionaries. This is enough to show 冈纳斯伯里公园 is standard. 188.8.131.52 03:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
The two official dictionaries on proper nouns (人名, 地名) combined has more than 800,000 entries. You expect all of them to be attestable in Google Books? 184.108.40.206 03:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
We should follow the rules of Wiktionary but not <<世界人名翻译大辞典>>. 220.127.116.11 04:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Sure, but there is the distinction of standard orthography and non-standard writing in most languages, which is a fact that Wiktionary must recognise. Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion is clearly heavily English-orientated, it doesn't give enough attention to the orthography rules set out by language regulators of other languages. The outcome would be completely different if the regulators were absent or non-functional. Without Qin Shi Huang abolishing and "non-standardify"ing numerous "variant" characters, the Chinese writing system would probably be a mess now. Without character simplification in PRC in the 1950s, people in PRC would probably still be using the traditional characters and it'll be a much simpler picture for Wiktionary. Especially, without the promotion of Pinyin by PRC government, you'll have no Pinyin to work with! Is that what you really want? 18.104.22.168 04:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
The simplification also brought the standardisation, abolishing many variant chracters and setting the rules on how to write foreign names. Foreign names have been written in many variants, no doubt, both before and after standardisation but invariably in Chinese chracters only. We may go wrong in choosing the right characters for rare names or names, for which the transliteration have not been established but like in any language, we may include those alternative spellings if they common, however, Chinese writes foreign names in the native script, not in Roman letters, which is the whole point of this discussion, not which spelling is right for "Gunnersbury Park" or any other proper name, not widely known in China.
One of my Chinese teachers has written a book about Australia. It obviously has many place and person's names. They are all written in Chinese characters, the original name given once in brackets to avoid any confusion, eg. Victoria (state) - 维多利亚州 (Wéiduōlìyǎ zhōu) or 维州 (Wéi-zhōu, abbrev.) (Victoria). Further Victoria would not be repeated. You'll find citations of Victoria州. Should we then go and claim that Victoria州 is a Chinese translation of Victoria? --Anatoli 05:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
So, "君纳士贝莉公园" is just an irresponsible talk. 22.214.171.124 03:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
So what? Words used by native speakers which don't conform to orthography standards are deemed non-standard all the time. English users quite often write supercede for supersede, accessable for accessible; The Standard Comprehensive Korean Dictionary (표준국어대사전) lists thousands of words as "‘...’의 잘못" ("misspelt form of '...'"); In German words like Eßstäbchen effectively become non-standard after the Rechtschreibreform in 1996; Same for French, and standardisation of loanwords in Japanese (外来語の表記) and Korean (외래어 표기법). What are you trying to prove here? That there is variation means the name in original script should be imported unchanged? 126.96.36.199 03:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Москва#English should go too, good pickup, -sche! (I hope your intention was to demonstrate how stupid it to say that "Thames河" can be Mandarin.) --Anatoli 23:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
My intention was simply to show that this issue isn't specific to Chinese (mixtures of Latin and Cyrillic can be found, too). - -sche(discuss) 06:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Alright, I'm persuaded by our Sinophone editors that these mixed-script placenames should not be allowed. (I think that leaves Lmaltier(?) and one of the two IPs as the only editors arguing "keep".) Eirikr in particular found a way of phrasing the distinction I was looking for: a sentence like "He could walk alone on the streets of Москва because of curfews dude." is clearly using "Москва" in English, but it is not using "Москва" as English. A sentence like "首先看到的是Thames河的出海口", without parentheses or 泰晤士河, is using "Thames" to the same extent, but not using it as Chinese. I strongly agree with Anatoli's suggestion in the BP and here that we decide and formalise this with a vote, though. - -sche(discuss) 06:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Would it be too ambitious to change that to banning foreign proper nouns as [language], to include your "Москва" example? -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 06:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
No, we could probably find a wording that rules out all proper nouns / placenames. Let's discuss that general policy issue in the Beer Parlour. - -sche(discuss) 22:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
People are not excluded from holding an opinion just because a troll does. If I had blocking powers, I would block and revert abc123 on sight. We may not be able to stop every IP he edits from, but we can certainly stop him from walking around as a registered user engaging in discussions, and we can make his changes moot.--Prosfilaes 08:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep in RFD; move to RFV if desired.Abstain.Weak keep if. the term is attestable in Chinese durably archived sources. The term may be marked as non-standard if fit. What I see in the pro-deletion arguments above is what looks to me like some sort of non-Angloamerican lexicographical prescriptivism, which basically says that whatever is non-standard should be deleted, no matter whether it meets CFI and is attestable. See also Wiktionary:CFI#Attestation_vs._the_slippery_slope, and Wiktionary's having "pr0n" in particular. The condition of attestability is key; I acknowledge the following: google books:"Thames河" gives only 7 hits; google:"Thames河" has only 4,650 hits (most of which do not count toward attestation); Citations:Thames河 presently hosts only one citation. An alternative to keeping is pronounce this an uncommon misspelling, while we keep only common misspellings. --Dan Polansky 10:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC) Later: But these are not really misspellings either: "Thames" is not written as an accidental error but rather with full intention. In any case, even if this is attestable, it is very rare. I switch to "abstain from the subject" right now. --Dan Polansky 10:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC) Even later: actually, if the term is not attestable, it will fail RFV. I am not going to support a deletion in RFD that does not refer to CFI. --Dan Polansky 09:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
There is no only one standard for Chinese language. Chinese is not only for Mainland China, but for Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macau, Singapore and overseas. Such as President Bush is written as 布什, 布殊 and Bush as well. 188.8.131.52 12:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
布什, 布希 or 布殊 are all standards, no doubt about that. But in which part of the world is the standard Chinese name for Bush "Bush"? 184.108.40.206 13:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
There is no only one standard. A dictionary just record the words exist. 220.127.116.11 14:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Again, you're being disingenuous (or possibly just very dense). We already have a record of the word Thames in this instance. This word is decidedly not Chinese. And, tellingly, you have not even attempted to fully address the arguments that Thames is simply an English word used in a Chinese context. Your best try is simply to insist that "Thames河" is somehow an integral whole, but insistence alone without a solid argument backing it up is wholly inadequate, and does nothing to invalidate the point that "Thames河" is a sum-of-parts phrase consisting of Thames and 河.
As Stephen notes in the Москва entry below, such use "is called w:code-switching. Just because a foreign word is inserted unchanged into an English text" (or, in this case, a Chinese text) "doesn’t make it suddenly English" (or Chinese).
Please, read the w:code-switching article and familiarize yourself with this phenomenon. My wife and I are both native English speakers who have lived in Japan, and we sometimes use Japanese terms in otherwise completely English sentences. This does not make those Japanese terms English -- this is code-switching. Likewise, Chinese speakers (and writers) who use the term Thames in otherwise completely Chinese sentences are doing the same thing -- code-switching: using an English term, as an English term, but in a Chinese context.
Thames is English. 河 is Chinese. "Thames河" is a mixed-language SOP phrase that employs code-switching, and as such does not belong under either English or Chinese headers -- and, as an SOP phrase, does not belong in Wiktionary at all anyway. Please try to find some more productive way of spending our collective time. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 17:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
In the UK, we heard people said Thames河 but never Thames in Chinese language, because Thames河 is a whole word. Another example is Hyde公园, the people never said Hyde instead of Hyde公园 as the same reason. So they are not sum-of-parts but a whole word. Engirst 19:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Engirst, collocation does not necessarily mean that the whole is an integral term. By your logic, I could just as well argue that "the sky" is an integral term deserving of its own entry. Please read up on linguistic concepts before trying to make pronouncements about such things. Your ignorance is severely impeding your ability to communicate effectively. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 21:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Proper nouns of the format [Name] + [Geographical Feature] are exactly that -- a name, plus a geographical feature. They are not "whole words", but rather combinations of words. Some multi-word phrases are indeed included here in Wiktionary, but that is usually when the phrase has some specific idiomatic meaning, or when an editor has made a subjective decision to include the term and other editors have not objected. Thames河 faces a lot of objection here. I agree with those objections. Your arguments to include Thames河 have so far not made a lot of sense, and are not very compelling. I say that as a matter of fact, not insult. If you wish to change our minds about Thames河, please think of some other angle, some other points to make, to try to convince us. Repeating the same points that we have already refuted is not going to work. -- Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 23:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. The Great Salt Lake isn't Lake Great Salt and Lake Ontario is not the Ontario Lake; Pikes Peak is not Mount Pikes, and Mount Everest is not Everest Peak. I'm not sure if I think Wiktionary is the right place for all these geographical names, but I don't see this one as fundamentally different.--Prosfilaes 08:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Moreover, there are cases where there is only one major geographic feature with a particular given name, such as the Thames or Everest -- adding the "river" or "mount" portions is optional, and used more as disambiguation. Disambig is a similar theme for Washington vs. Washington, DC / Washington State, or New York vs. New York City / New York State -- the shorter forms are used as often as not, indicating that the "DC" or "state" or "city" portions are used more for disambiguation. Meanwhile, where disambiguation is not an issue, I've also heard folks in the Niagara Falls area or in the Great Falls area just say "I'm going to the falls" with no mention of "Niagara" or "Great"; or just using the proper name portion for Mount Mitchell ("we spent two nights camping up on Mitchell") or the Susquehanna River ("boating on the Susquehanna").
I will certainly grant that certain places are described using specific collocative phrases when using the full address, as it were -- as Prosfilaes notes, saying "Everest Peak" or "Mountain of Pike" could confuse the listener. That said, I still think these can be described as SOP phrases. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 18:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
The searches are unconvincing to me. google:"Hyde+and+Greenwich+Parks" finds 44 hits on the whole of the world wibe web--that does not seem like the standard usage. google:"Lake+of+Ontario" (31,100 web hits) finds such hits as "Mississagua Lake is a lake of Ontario", while it also finds hits you were looking for. google:"Great+Lake+of+Salt" finds mere 2,680 hits on the world wide web. To me, your searches do more disservices than service to your claims. What you demonstrate is that there is a small minority of uses (on the whole web, which is not considered durably archived as a whole) that deviate from the overwhelming common practice as regards these names. --Dan Polansky 07:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
As for code-switching, when bilingual speakers mix the languages, that's one thing. But when a word from language a starts being used in otherwise grammatical language b sentences, that's how languages gain vocabulary. "I want sushi, and can we turn off the bukkake on the TV while I'm eating?" is not an example of code-switching.--Prosfilaes 08:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
I wonder how long are you going to waste people's time here. Are you just waiting for people to get sick of you and give up? We have already explained to you but you keep trolling your point of view.
It's probably best to enforce the language policy banning English proper nouns (with any suffix like 河, 公园, 州, 市, 山, etc.) to be under Mandarin heading. Otherwise, we will get rubbish like Paris市, New York州, etc. --Anatoli 23:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Delete per Anatoli (though this vote is pointless, considering that persistent POV pushing (trolling?) will usually come out on top in the long run). No need to comment on this one, IPs. -- Gauss 16:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Delete per nomination: no one will look this up. Or, at the very least, no one will need to, as it's SOP: someone who comes across it will be able to easily split it up into its component parts and look them up.—msh210℠ (talk) 23:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)