Talk:History of transport in China

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. This is consistent with other recent PRC -> China moves. UtherSRG (talk) 22:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

---

History of transport in the People's Republic of China → History of transport in China – Main country article is at China and this brings the title in line. This was moved previously but reverted by User:Jiang, claiming the article scope is only from 1949 onwards. This is not true: the article is not limited to 1949 onwards and there is no other article on transport in China before 1949 that would conflict with this move. An editor interested in adding details of transport in China prior to 1949 would do so in this article. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 04:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Limiting the history of transportation in China from 1949 to the present is a logical segmentation of a very broad topic. If someone wants to write about the history of transport in China from antiquity to the present, they should be using Wikipedia:Summary style with this article as a specific article for a more general topic. That is, start a new article and don't attempt to feed off this one. In any event, this article, as one dedicated to modern history, should continue to exist. No amount facts pertaining to the period from 600BC to 1949 will succeed in preventing this article from being focused on modern history. Basically, encouraging editors to "add details of transport in China prior to 1949" to this article would not improve it. If the title is too unwieldy, try History of transport in China (1949-present).--Jiang (talk) 04:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Further comment: an article like History of rail transport in China makes sense as it is only about the late 19th Century to the present. Having an article on the History of transport in China and not also having a more specific article on the History of transport in the People's Republic of China makes no sense to me as the former would span over 3000 years. The topic is so broad that we would have to delete half the material on this page to give different time periods due weight. What exists now is a full-fledged article, not a stub, so there is no need to mess with it. --Jiang (talk) 05:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Due weight only applies to content that meets our other content policies, including notability. China may not have had any notable transport to speak of prior to the development of heavy rail and tramways. We don't have many 'history of transport' articles to use as a model but History of transport in Hong Kong doesn't seem to suffer from the problems you mentioned, even though it primarily deals with transport developments during British rule. – NULL ‹talk›
      ‹edits› 06:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Hong Kong was only formed with its cession to the British. There would be no need to emphasize the transport technology of the entire Chinese civilization in that article. If you look at the History of transport, you'll see that most of that article is an overview of the premodern period. I disagree with the assertion that "China may not have had any notable transport to speak of prior to the development of heavy rail and tramways." You might as well assert that "The world may not have had any notable transport to speak of prior to the development of heavy rail and tramways." There are complete volumes, for example by Needham, on Zheng He's treasure ships. --Jiang (talk) 11:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
        • History of Hong Kong under Imperial China seems to suggest that while it wasn't the bustling city it is today, Hong Kong existed in notable fashion well before British colonial rule. I would also suggest noting the word 'may' in my comment that you objected to. I didn't say China didn't have any notable transport before then, I simply said they might not have any. If I were going to go into depth on finding details of notable historical transport, I'd rather put it in the actual article than use it to fund an argument on the talk page. If there are notable details of naval transport, by all means they should be included in the article. – NULL ‹talk›
          ‹edits› 03:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
          • Hong Kong did not exist as an entity until the founding of the British colony. It was just part of Baoan County of Guangdong province. The article you cite to is like the history of the United States before 1776. Just because we have an article titled "Colonial history of the United States" does not mean the United States existed before 1776. Rather, the article focuses on the history of the particular piece of land that existed before the political entity was established. That I personally will not devote the time to write about the history of transport in China from antiquity to the present (which I would if I had plenty of time on my hands) is not an argument for why an article on the post 1949 (or post 1978) history should not stand alone as its own article. The significance of modern infrastructure projects suggests otherwise.--Jiang (talk) 20:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I agree with Jiang. In addition to that, the geographical scope of PRC is narrower than China. Jeremy (talk) 10:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • That be an oppose?--Jiang (talk) 11:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
    • It is, but it's also wrong. The geographical scope is the same, the chronological scope is narrower. – NULL ‹talk›
      ‹edits› 19:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
      • No. Geographical scope is narrower too. Jeremy (talk) 10:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Right Jiang. I support your position and I oppose the move request. Jeremy (talk) 10:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. PRC is the best, most accurate and most precise term to define the geographical and time scope. Jeffrey (202.189.98.142) (talk) 14:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support. This is an inadequate article in many ways. It covers the subject only since 1978, with two or three cursory mentions of things that occurred earlier. That's hardly a history at all. But that is a separate issue from the title. The solution is for someone to add material about earlier periods until the article grows to 40K of main text. Then subarticles can be spun out. That's the Wiki way. One of the spun out articles may cover the PRC period, or perhaps editors will divide history up in some other way. There is a lot that needs to be done before that issue arises. Kauffner (talk) 15:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • If this is your idea, then please propose a rewrite of the lede section to redefine the scope. This article cannot be moved without that being done. --Jiang (talk) 03:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support It's not a clearcut issue, but I disagree with Jiang that this is the way to divide the history of transport articles. As it stands, the page has only 15kB of prose, so there's room for expansion. I don't think having articles on the History of Transport during every period of Chinese history would be the best way to divide them. The way to do it, I think, is (in the future) emulate History of rail transport in China, with a summary of each form of transport on this main page. CMD (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • There is no need to have a "history of transport" article for every period of Chinese history, but there should be one for the period 1949-present because of the significance of modern developments. --Jiang (talk) 03:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Would there be enough content in the pre-Modern era to justify two separate articles? CMD (talk) 11:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Yes, see [1][2][3][4]. I don't think the current article structure encourages expansion because its focus is so modern. It is better to start a new article.--Jiang (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
        • This article actually has nothing on highways and roads. Weird. Anyway, I'm unconvinced of the value of having a history article for transport in China up to the 1940s and another one for post 1940s. It seems odd to break chronology like that. If both were combined then it would be easy to present things like the change of focus throughout history, and present a continuous timeline of each piece of infrastructures growth. CMD (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
          • My proposal doesn't contradict yours. We're not "breaking the chronology". We are using Summary style. The main "history of transport" article will have a section on the PRC, linking to this article as the more specific one. Your desire to present "the change of focus throughout history" and "a continuous timeline of each piece of infrastructures growth" would all fit in a general "history of transport in China" article. This doesn't mean we cannot have an article devoted specifically to the recent history (like the article is now), given the pace, intensity, and significant of developments in the recent decades.--Jiang (talk) 19:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
            • In order to do that without weird duplication, the main article would have to have integrated all forms of transport into one narrative. A focus on different forms of transport would be much more appropriate. This article isn't specifically devoted to anything, it seems to be just a copy of a single source. There doesn't seem to be a specific reason why the regime of one communist government gets its own page (and I'm willing to bet the page title wasn't determined with the aim of emphasising the specific point), especially one so short. Splitting should only occur if a parent article grows too large. This is the parent history article (just named weirdly because of the name of the main transport article). If it one day become so large that a split of the modern regime is justifiable and doesn't cause excessive duplication, it can be done then. CMD (talk) 23:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose this is a time-limited article, it only covers from 1949 onwards. 70.24.244.198 (talk) 03:50, 27 March 2012 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

China's canals

Inland navigation is China's oldest form of transport.

even with a source is going to be incorrect compared to footpaths/roads/chariots/etc. Better to just link to the history article detailing how old we know the canals to be.

Despite the potential advantages of water transport, it was often mismanaged or neglected in the past.

as the article's unsourced gloss of all 3000 years of some of the most important, extensive, and technically impressive canal construction and management in the world? I don't think so... Maybe as a sourced caveat after a full treatment of the rest, in order to explain its lousy state by 1950. I don't even think that's necessary; it wasn't in bad shape because of "mismanagement" or "neglect" but because of decades upon decades of "collapsing empires", "warlords", "world wars", and "civil wars". — LlywelynII 03:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC)