Talk:China–European Union relations

message: I think there really needs to be an article on this. I'll try to get round to editing it in time. I think it's good to place some links to this page first so it will get some eyeballs. There is a site that has a lot of information that will be useful. Jacoplane 21:23, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article should be at "European Union arms embargo on China" I think. I'm not sure if it's neccessary to distinguish between the ROC and the PRC. -- Joolz 12:33, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the name with which it is almost always referred to in the media. I think the article makes it abundently clear that the embargo is against the PRC. Jacoplane 11:54, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok I see what you mean, arms embargo shouldn't be in capitals. Yes I agree with you, we should make a redirect soon I guess. Jacoplane 11:55, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: This article is COTW, but I doubt it will actually be selected. I placed it on the list mainly to get some publicity. If it is not selected, I will start updating the article anyway. Jacoplane 11:54, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: COTW

message: funny how human rights is the reason why the embargo should continue. yet some how. the usa sells weapons to israel. possibly the biggest human rights violator in the world. the usa practically gives the weapons to israel for free.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by F3289H89H (talk • contribs) 22:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  human rights 

message: This article formerly dealt with the EU relations with the People's Republic of China (PRC). I don't find the new idea of having a "trifid", "triangular" or "threefold" article (also including the Republic of China) to be a particularly enticing prospect, current article title and/or the possibility for the existence of a standalone article for the [informal?] EU-ROC relations notwithstanding. In any case, for the time being, this article is, from an ontological standpoint, different from the articles in the language versions of Wikipedia previously inter-linked, so I just removed this mess from the correspondent Wikidata cluster. Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 15:51, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you know when that change occurred? Its been a weird tripartite thing for as long as I’ve been here. Also just a technical note, all EU relations are “informal” in the diplomatic sense as the EU is not a state. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  The last time I edited this article in October 2019 it was a purely PRC-EU article (). The most recent switch dates back to November 2019. In any case, I stand by the rest of points stated above.--Asqueladd (talk) 16:20, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Lets separate them out then, I cant think of any other article where two countries are lumped together like that even if the PRC/ROC thing is a bit complicated. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

text: I’ve created Taiwan–European Union relations as a redirect here for the time being. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Good. Going forward, the only "troubling" issue for some editors might possibly be the title, I suppose?--Asqueladd (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

text: I've just created a wikidata item for the Taiwan-EU relations (Q94778317) and consequently I linked it to the redirection you've just created.--Asqueladd (talk) 16:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don’t follow, what would be the issue with the title? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Some people may take offence in the China–European Union relations title being appropiated by the PRC. I personally don't give a flying one.--Asqueladd (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Luckily we have a consensus on that one... If there is ever a conflict China means People’s Republic of China and Taiwan means Republic of China, that one was settled long before I started editing. If consensus makes a few IPs unhappy I’m with you on this one, I don’t give a flying one. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just overwritten the redirect with some content extracted from this article.--Asqueladd (talk) 19:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Wonderful, glad we got that sorted. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  EU-PRC-ROC threefold relations 

message: @Thereisnous posted a map of a freight train route between China and Europe, bypassing Russia (diff). The footer claims that this is the current route, and no citation is provided. The related image on Commons links to an article that is beyond a paywall. I have casually checked online, and to me it looks like that is a plan more than a reality today. There seem to be several trains connecting China and Europe every week, but they seem to be crossing Russia as they did before. I suggest removing the map until this point is clarified.  QuimGil (talk) 13:37, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, it's an actual train rote. Here is another source without a paywall. As I understand, it's currently only for freight, not for passengers. Thereisnous (talk) 13:48, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Thereisnous ok, thank you. I see: https://middlecorridor.com/en/route. In any case, would you agree to say that nowadays the main freight train routes between Chinese and European connections still cross Russia, and that this Middle Corridor is an alternative route? Right now, the footer gives the impression that the route bypassing Russia is the default, if not the only one. A clearer footer would be helpful, in my opinion. QuimGil (talk) 14:01, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with you. Please modify it as you see fit. Thereisnous (talk) 14:10, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Done! QuimGil (talk) 14:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illustration with train route bypassing Russia