Talk:1960–61 campaign at the China–Burma border

ref improve

I think that maybe this artice use too much reference which is published by the CPC or pro-CPC publisher.-- パンツァー VI-II ❂Fu7ラジオ❂In the Republic of China 103rd.民國103年 04:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

POV

In preparation of the joint offensive, PRC ceded some territorial claims to Burma during bi-lateral territorial negotiations so that KMT occupied areas became Burmese territory, and enticed the Burmese government to get involved. The goal of PRC move is to avoid the KMT to retreat into Burma during PLA attack. Once PRC got Burma on its side, PLA can get permission from Burma to chase KMT across borders with Burmese trying to stop KMT, instead of Burmese letting KMT flee into other areas of Burma. This strategy is documented in academic books but not mentioned at all in the article. --Happyseeu (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 26 March 2017

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved per lack of opposition. It is unfortunate that Pppery decided not to participate in the discussion. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:53, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

---

Campaign at the China–Burma border → Campaign at the China–Burma border (1960–61) – The current title is descriptive, yet ambiguous. There have been more than one campaign on the China–Burma border. See, e.g., Kuomintang Islamic insurgency#Burma and Luchuan–Pingmian campaigns. Srnec (talk) 19:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Discussion

Any additional comments:

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 17 March 2018

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Not seeing general agreement in this discussion, so as is usual with a no-consensus outcome, editors have time to strengthen their arguments and try again to garner consensus in a few months. Have a Great Day and Happy Publishing! (closed by page mover)  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  03:45, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

---

Campaign at the China–Burma border (1960–61) → Campaign at the China–Burma border – No other articles with this title {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Oppose. It's a descriptive title and it needs the dates. This was hardly the only campaign at the China–Burma border. Srnec (talk) 02:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Parentheticals at Wikipedia are disambiguators to distinguish articles of the same title. As there is no other article of this title, a disambiguator is not needed. —  AjaxSmack  04:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • In that case, shouldn't it be Campaign at the China–Burma border, 1960–61? The proposed title does not appear to be sufficiently precise to unambiguously define the topic. Dekimasuよ! 02:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Or 1960–61 campaign at the China–Burma border to follow typical Wikipedia phrasing. —  AjaxSmack  15:39, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
      • I would support this alternative. Dekimasuよ! 18:40, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Without the disambiguation this can mean anything. RedUser (talk) 01:11, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.