Talk:Demographics of Greater China

This redirect was nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion on 31 March 2012. The result of the discussion was keep.

Move

Why was this page moved? This is the only page that links to Demographics of mainland China so the purpose is defeated. I don't think this is necessary. --Jia ng 04:39, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Summary style

Is there any particularly reason for this page to changed from summary style to disambiguation [1]? — Insta ntnood 22:24, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

If there's no particular reason, the summary style should better be restored. — Insta ntnood 19:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quote article "According to the 2000 census, the TFR was 1.85 (0.86 for cities, 1.08 for towns and 1.43 for villages/outposts)." How can this be? 0.86, 1.08, and 1.43 cannot make a total of 1.85. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.80.179.6 (talk) 19:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

census results 2010

Where can I get census results 2010 year of People's Republic of China with ethnic population?--Kaiyr (talk) 02:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move request

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was not moved. Consensus appears to stand pretty firmly in opposition to the proposal, with the general sense being that the title Demographics of China should reflect the location of the article on China. bd2412 T 01:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

– To conform with the majority of articles on Wikipedia, e.g. Military history of China. Jeremy (talk) 10:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- This is an article about the area now govered by PRC. There is no reason to include the word "greater" in it, even if Sinkiang and Tibet are not (or were not) ethncially Chinese. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. China, People's Republic of China and Mainland China are different concepts. 119.237.156.246 (talk) 15:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)blocked and banned as sock[reply]
Oppose this is a redirect. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Comment: In the course of the previous move request discussion in August 2011 it was reaffirmed that other articles, categories, etc., wouldn't be affected. This principle was reaffirmed in CfD in October 2011 and February 2012. But this article was moved.[2] The move should be reverted. 119.237.156.246 (talk) 15:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)blocked and banned as sock[reply]
- Coincidentally that's promised by the pro-camp in Talk:ROC. Jeffrey (147.8.202.204) (talk) 07:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The 'pro camp' made no such promises in either the ROC move request or the PRC move request. Individual editors may have done so on their own behalf, and are free to change their mind as new evidence is presented. This point is effectively 'sour grapes' and has nothing to do with the move request here. – NULL ‹talk›
    ‹edits› 20:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The country is China so the article Demographics of China has the right name and is in the right place. As for Demographics of Greater China that currently is a redirect, and was before it was a summary article of different countries' demographics, not just that of China, so in either case moving it would be inappropriate.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~It was agreed that other articles should not be affected by the PRC → China move. 119.237.156.246 (talk) 17:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)~~blocked and banned as sock[reply]
  - That's just a link to this page, and I don't see anything in the other discussions (two closed 'no consensus' so nothing was decided, the other was the page move to China which established that's the common name for the country).--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Demographics of Greater China should not exist as an article. It should be a disambiguation page either at Demographics of China or Demographics of China (disambiguation).--Jiang (talk) 18:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- From what's mentioned above in this talk page this entry, currently an article with four short sections in summary style, had used to exist as a disambiguation page. 119.237.156.246 (talk) 18:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)blocked and banned as sock[reply]
  - When? (Is there any SPI evidence, by the way?) Jeffrey (147.8.202.204) (talk) 07:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ask one or both of the administrators who commented on the block directly. This question has nothing to do with the move request. – NULL ‹talk›
      ‹edits› 20:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - There was simply no. 119.237.156.246 (talk) 17:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Er this article is a redirect... What the hell is being done here? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I recently changed the article into a redirect as I saw no reason for its existence. It was orphaned anyway. If this seems to be controversial, then revert and go through the bureaucratic processes. If we had comprehensive Greater China statistics then perhaps there is a reason to keep it - anyone want to add the numbers? --Jiang (talk) 01:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's orphaned because it was moved to an unusual title. But Greater China definitely isn't the PRC by whatever meaning. Jeffrey (147.8.202.204) (talk) 07:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The community already agreed that 'China' means the People's Republic of China. I don't understand what other definition of 'China' you're using. Shrigley (talk) 20:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - "China" is the title of the country article, so logically we should have "Demographics of China". "Demographics of the People's Republic of China" could be potentially confusing to the reader (...are China and the People's Republic of China different countries? if not, why different names? etc...). mgeo talk 21:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The main article was moved to "China", so the title of the demography article should correspond. Descriptive titles should be consistent with the corresponding main title, not with each other. A lot of "People's Republic of China" articles really need to be moved now. Kauffner (talk) 06:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, either as a disambig page or in the summary style. Jeffrey (147.8.202.204) (talk) 07:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, this title is a redirect, and the Demographics of China article is correctly placed in reference to the country of China. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 13:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Consistency should applied across articles such as Culture of China, History of China, etc., where the word 'China' covers both Chinas of the divided China. Jeremy (talk) 10:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominator doesn't generally vote on his own nomination, Jeremy. – NULL ‹talk
  ‹edits› 01:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - It was a response on consistency. Jeremy (talk) 10:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question The proposal is to...create a double redirect? I don't really think this redirect should exist at all, there's nothing it can really redirect to. CMD (talk) 14:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So, I'd like to close this. I've moved some of the other China-related articles. What do y'all think is the outcome here? I think that what is being asked here is that the previous version in history of Demographics of Greater China is supposed to become the new Demographics of China, and the current Demographics of China gets moved to Demographics of the People's Republic of China. Is that what the requestor wants? Are any of the opposers only opposing because the current Demographics of Greater China is a redirect? Do any of the opposers change to supporters if my clarification is correct? - UtherSRG (talk) 21:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing should be moved. The existing article is fine in content and fine where it is. The other commenters (Shrigley, Kauffner, MadGeographer, NULL, JohnBlackburne) made that more explicit as their rationale. Myself, Eraserhead, and Chipmunkdavis all expressed reservations about it being a redirect. While I don't speak for the other two, I believe they are aware of the article's history and their comments express satisfaction with the current arrangement and surprise at the proposal. Nothing needs to be done except close this from further disruption. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 04:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Notes to Move request March 2012

Please note that i) the red link to Talk:Republic of China/Archive 20 shall now read Talk:Taiwan/Archive 20 (since the talk page was moved along with the article), and ii) some of my comments were disruptively deleted or refactored by Schmucky and Null for no reason before the Move request was archived.[3] Jeffrey (talk) 09:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They were refracted because you kept mixing unnecessary notes with your edits. CMD (talk) 10:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat, I agreed not to add back the Unsigned tags. I did so without the Unsigned tags (except for one single tag since I posted a question to SchmuckyTheCat there),[4][5][6] but no one bothered to read and went straight to revert blindly.[7][8][9] Such blind reverts are disruptive. Jeffrey (talk) 16:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey, you were blocked for 48 hours for being disruptive, and you are looking at a recommended month-long block because you still don't get that you're being disruptive. Three editors and two admins have told you you're being disruptive, maybe it's time you listened. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 21:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently no one actually noticed that the Unsigned tags were dropped. Or else they wouldn't have carried on blind reverts. Jeffrey (talk) 01:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your reverts still contained the unsigned tags, which is why they were reverted. The edit history shows this clearly. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 01:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been told umpteen times on several different pages why this particular one has to been kept. To repeat, it's because there's a question posted to Schmucky. Jeffrey (talk) 01:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And you were told repeatedly not to do it. You persisted, you were reverted. Simple. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 01:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. No one ever challenged specifically about this single tag. You guys complained about all the Unsigned tags generally and then reverted blindly. Jeffrey (talk) 01:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You were told not to add unsigned tags, period. That doesn't mean 'add them if you're going to reply', it means 'don't add them'. You were reverted consciously. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 05:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do make some sense here my friend. That's much clearer to explain why I was posting such a question to Schmucky at that particular location. Jeffrey (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That you think 'don't add the unsigned tags' doesn't make sense is very indicative of your overall conduct on Wikipedia. You lack WP:COMPETENCY. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 20:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

line 34. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Convert to Disambiguation or Conceptdab

The term 'Greater China' never means the country China. As Jiang had suggested above (at 18:07, 19 March 2012, and a bit relevant at 01:02, 20 March 2012), Demographics of Greater China should be a disambiguation page either at Demographics of China or Demographics of China (disambiguation). Should we convert it per his suggestion? Or should it be a Conceptdab page instead? I myself would prefer Conceptdab. Jeffrey (talk) 16:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The term simply isn't used on Wikipedia. Since it was renamed, this title has been lucky to scrape 5 hits per day, and most of them have been because of the move discussion above. If anything, such an unused redirect should be deleted. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 21:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]