Talk:2004 Taiwanese cross-strait relations referendum
Latest comment: 5 months ago by RMCD bot in topic Move discussion in progress
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2004 Taiwanese cross-strait relations referendum article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Plebiscite?
editIsn't this a plebiscite not a referendum? The results of the vote had no legal force? --Sumple (Talk) 10:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- referendum is the word that the media used. one may have to refer to the language of the referendum law and how it was evoked-Jiang 11:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Introduction
editI don't see how it's harmful having both the formal names of the states when describing the relationship between the two, and thereafter the common names. That it escalated to this extent was completely unnecessary, when I have attempted to compromise, while the other user has routinely ignored it in favour of getting his way. --Tærkast (Discuss) 15:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Because there is no need for it. The names of the countries are set by the articles Taiwan and China. This is not a place for you to disagree with how we name these countries. Either request moves of those articles or stop this. Number 57 15:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- It's to provide clarity, which isn't exactly a bad thing. There are plenty of instances in which use of the official titles are justified, but you insist that because the articles are at the titles where they are now, that every single time it must just be "Taiwan" and "China." You have repeatedly ignored my attempts at compromise. Did I not leave Taiwan and China as the common names after using the official titles? Yes. Does it matter to you? No. The state articles are linked to the right titles in any event.--Tærkast (Discuss) 16:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- I would suggest "Taiwan (ROC)" and "China (PRC)" as a better compromise which does not modify the link of the wiki article and also endorse their official names. Fizikanauk (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- That's what I was trying to convey, all I wanted to do was use the full names for one instance in the introduction - the internal links are still at the correct article titles, hence the use of piping. But I'd be happy for your proposal. --Tærkast (Discuss) 20:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- I would suggest "Taiwan (ROC)" and "China (PRC)" as a better compromise which does not modify the link of the wiki article and also endorse their official names. Fizikanauk (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- It's to provide clarity, which isn't exactly a bad thing. There are plenty of instances in which use of the official titles are justified, but you insist that because the articles are at the titles where they are now, that every single time it must just be "Taiwan" and "China." You have repeatedly ignored my attempts at compromise. Did I not leave Taiwan and China as the common names after using the official titles? Yes. Does it matter to you? No. The state articles are linked to the right titles in any event.--Tærkast (Discuss) 16:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Move discussion in progress
editThere is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Cross-Strait relations which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 19:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)