Talk:Unequal treaties

Requested move 6 July 2024

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: Page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerium (talk) 21:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

---

Unequal treaty → Unequal treaties – Usually referred to in the plural as a collection, per WP:NCPLURAL. Remsense诉 18:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject International relations, WikiProject Korea, WikiProject China, WikiProject Hong Kong, and WikiProject Japan have been notified of this discussion. Remsense诉 18:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Support. Per WP:NCPLURAL. This is also more consistent with the scope of the article body, which addresses the numerous unequal treaties, not just a particular unequal treaty. JArthur1984 (talk) 18:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Support. Google ngrams also suggests that "Unequal treaties" is much more common than "Unequal treaty". --Wengier (talk) 18:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Support. Have only ever seen this in the plural form. Folly Mox (talk) 19:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support – seems similar to examples listed at WP:NCPLURAL. This article is about a specific set of historical treaties that are typically known as the unequal treaties, not about the general concept of an unequal treaty. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 21:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support per other comments 211.43.120.242 (talk) 00:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support: the article mentions multiple treaties, so WP:NCPLURAL applies. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support as per Remsense ch (talk) 05:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nom. I see that this article is more focusing about multiple set of historical treaties, many of them are unequel treaties. 2404:8000:1037:178:BC59:A73B:4305:D032 (talk) 09:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Neutral, leaning oppose pending clarifications. The first part of the article focuses on the term "unequal treaty" in the singular. Moreover, While I have seen the plural "unequal treaties" as a collective term in reference to China, I am not sure the same applies in the context of Japan and Korea, which are also discussed, nor that the plural term as used is inclusive of all three countries. Also, I don't read Chinese/Korean/Japanese script, so I cannot tell if the infobox is translating it into singular or plural. I would appreciate clarification on these points. Walrasiad (talk) 10:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  The CJK terms can be either singular or plural, depends on context. Japan and Korea each signed their own series of unequal treaties; they are explicitly described as such in both English and in their respective languages. Korea quick search in books, japan in scholar 211.43.120.242 (talk) 10:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support - excellent catch. The first word of the article then should be "The" Red Slash 06:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Support- Even the lead refers to it as unequal treaties and there's more than one treaty, it should be plural.

Urchincrawler (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support, an understandable title both ways, but the sources used with titles including "unequal" use the plural "treaties" which feels indicative. CMD (talk) 00:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

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.