Talk:Chimerica

does this need to be standalone article?

Why shouldn't it be merged with Group of Two? -- AnonMoos (talk) 17:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

If I understand how Wikipedia works, the question should go the other way. Why should it merge? --Biblbroks (talk) 20:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Because this is a somewhat ugly-sounding neologism coined by a journalist, which does not seem to have caught on in any major way... AnonMoos (talk) 02:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Ugly or not, it's there. And the article states "... by historian Niall Ferguson and economist Moritz Schularick..." - that's two people. First one has quite an ample article. On the other hand, the second one has a red link associated with the name. Regards, --Biblbroks (talk) 15:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

However, does this article serve any distinctive purpose which would not be served better by merging its information into the Group of Two article? I would tend to doubt it... AnonMoos (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Then be my guest: tend to doubt it. Btw, you could also propose a merge. Best regards, --Biblbroks (talk) 21:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I was asking if anyone had any real significant meaningful reasons to oppose a merge. AnonMoos (talk) 00:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

After checking some refs from both articles, other links from those refs, their timestamps, and the usage and the meaning of the terms Chimerica and G-2 in those sources, I think that the term G-2 is older than Chimerica. So it might be appropriate to merge this article into G-2. Therefore I conclude that I have no real significant meaningful reasons to oppose such a merge if it were proposed. --Biblbroks (talk) 09:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

i've rarely heard gang of two, but "chin-am" or "ChinAm" is quite common among the diaspora. "chin-am relations", 3rd gen chinam", etc. if we're gonna mention its japanese equiv "nichi-bei", we should at least mention the one it's ACTUALLY meant to supplant.

more importantly, why did ferguson et al feel a need to coin a new version? file under "reinventing the wheel".... 66.30.47.138 (talk) 07:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Map

Any chance of a Pacific-centred map? Gob Lofa (talk) 13:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chimerica. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100613083353/http://www.jfki.fu-berlin.de/faculty/economics/team/persons/schularick/Chimerica.pdf to http://jfki.fu-berlin.de/faculty/economics/team/persons/schularick/chimerica.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090721015335/http://www.the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=533 to http://www.the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=533

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:19, 5 August 2017 (UTC)