Talk:Economy of China (disambiguation)

message: Huaiwei's and SchmuckyTheCat's edits were reverted. Proposals on disputed entries should not be presented in this way, but at sandbox or at personal namespace instead.  — Instantnood 16:36, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
*Take it to RfAr. SchmuckyTheCat 01:37, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits by Huaiwei and SchmuckyTheCat

message: There are over 100 pages linking here, so having a disambiguation page is really destructive. I will be moving things back if those links havent been fixed a month from now. It can be done using bots. --Jiang 07:22, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would recommend the one who moved the page to put up a bot request.   — Instantnood 08:39, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
*There were a dozen or so pages and one template linking here.  That template (WTO) is the cause of all remaining links, the database is stuck with a stale link history on that template, I think. Otherwise, go ahead and move it back. It wasn't agreeing with my opinion to move it. SchmuckyTheCat 14:19, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation page 

message: 160.39.250.203 removed ROC/Taiwan from the page, with the edit summary "removed POV". If ROC's/Taiwan's economy has to be included in this page, the leading sentence can perhaps be changed to "You may be looking for:" to avoid POV.  — Instantnood 20:28, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
:Jiang's edit was modified by SchmuckyTheCat.  — Instantnood 07:14, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
Please stop removing references to taiwan claiming it is not part of China. As long as some people believe Taiwan is part of China, then we must include it here. The term "may include" is used to satisfy those who think it is not part of China. --Jiang 20:13, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are doing nothing to improve the situation.  May include is a hypothetical that has no place on a reference concerned with reality.  There "may" be green men on the moon that we have yet to be discovered.  So?  Why should that be written in?  Territorial claims do not directly have to do with the economy either.  Fact is Taiwan's economy is never claimed to be part of China's.  They claim Taiwan's territory belongs to China but that's not what it is like now.  Cite something.  Chinese laws, interest rates, money don't appy in Taiwan.  There is absolutely no reason to include Taiwan.--160.39.195.88 05:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're interpreting "China" to mean the PRC exclusively.  That's contrary to the naming conventions, which treat "China" as an encompassing term without a political meaning as far as recent history is concerned.  In fact, whenever you're about to phrase an argument in terms of "China vs. Taiwan", you're probably ignoring the naming conventions. The economy of the ROC is clearly relevant and should be linked from here. The phrase "may include" or "may refer to" is pretty standard for disambiguation pages. It does not mean "can refer to X but we're not sure"; rather, it means "can, in some contexts, refer to". There is nothing underhanded about that. --MarkSweep 07:32, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed: Should Taiwan's economy be included?

message: the clause "Depending on one's position over the question of the political status of Taiwan" used to modify "the economy of China may include" is not accurate since people often use "China" to mean mainland China, excluding HK and MO. The news media does this when speaking in economic terms.
i'm not sure how the change of "considered part of the Greater China economy with the PRC" to "many considered it part of the Greater China economy with the PRC" is necessary. who disputes that the term "Greater China" includes TW? --Jiang 04:17, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pol status of Taiwan 

message: See talk:Economy of the People's Republic of China, where the usage of "Economy of China" is up for discussion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: "Economy of China"

message: This disambiguation page is suffering from WP:RECENTISM per  Emmette Hernandez Coleman  comments that anything that is not today is not "economy of China" -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 06:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I suppose Economy of India is also suffering from RECENTISM for not being a disambig that lists Economic history of India. When I said ""Economy of China" does not refer to the economy of China prior to 1949 or the Economic history of China", I worded that porly. What I meant to say is that "Economy of China" is not a term that means "economy of China prior to 1949" or "Economic history of China". Those are sub-topics of the Economy of China, but they are not valid meanings of the term "Economy of China". Per WP:Disambiguation "Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving the conflicts that arise when a single term is ambiguous". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 07:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The article Economy of India already covers the economic history of India. The economies of Chinas prior to 1949 are also "economy" topics, and can be called "economy of". Indeed, these are just descriptive titles chosen by Wikipedia, and not set terms, so any topic that can be called "economy of China" would be viable topics to list, since they are not set terms. This page could be called "China's economy" or many other variants, because it is not a set term.  If you use the phrase "Economy of Tang Dynasty China" it would be something that Wikipedia would by Wikipedia convention called "Economic history of the Tang Dynasty", but that would also be called "Economy of Tang Dynasty China" in the world at large which would be forumlated as "Economy of China (Tang Dynasty)" by Wikipedia convention, so would be appropriate. Descriptively named articles have many other descriptions they can use. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 03:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:RECENTISM]]