Template talk:Foreign relations of China

Ukrainian & Georgian
please add Chinese-Ukrainian relations], Chinese-Georgian relations. 218.102.206.23 (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

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: template not moved. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 20:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:Foreign relations of the People& → Template:Foreign relations of China – This would allow for consistency with the corresponding nation-state article, which has been moved to China. Template:Foreign relations of China is currently a redirect to this article. Just plain "China" can be considered official for international relations as it is the country's UN member name. See also the. Kauffner (talk) 23:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Survey

 * Oppose the category is called Category:Foreign relations of the People's Republic of China, the main article is called Foreign relations of the People's Republic of China, therefore the template should match. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 04:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment were this moved, the history of the other template page should be shifted to a subpage or something. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 04:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose: So what happens to Foreign relations of the Republic of China and its template? Keep in mind that Taiwan is not a country, not yet on Wikipedia anyway. This category is for the foreign relations of the government that governs the PRC, as opposed to the government of China (yes China, from 1912 to 2012; Chiang Kai-shek had relations with Nazi Germany, Soviet Union and United States, and was not subordinate to the Chinese Communist Party) that today is located in Taipei. What the country is called in the UN is irrelevant because this is the foreign relations of the government, not necessarily the country. --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 14:49, 13 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.

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:Foreign relations of the People's Republic of China - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 01:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Suggest using non-collapsible groups
There really isn't too much content in this template, using collapsible groups simply makes the template highly unusable. SilAshkenazi (talk) 02:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

China-Uzbekistan Relations?
Someone add these bilateral relations. They just recently got back in contact as trade partners. I have sources if you need them. Sereniama (talk) 06:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Taiwan
Cross-strait relationship is dedicate to be defied as foreign relations, since both authority see the territory of the others as their own and offically not give up the one-china policy, so i follow the pattern of Template:Foreign relations of Serbia, Template:Foreign relations of Kosovo, Template:Foreign relations of Cyprus to move the Cross-Strait Relationship to a new "dispute" row, as Kosovo–Serbia relations shown on the Serbian template. But it was reverted by user:Uaat without any explanation. So, i would like to ask why can not Taiwan be move to the dispute row, since the Relationship IS dispute. Jiangyu911 (talk) 03:38, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * NO Disputed domestic relationship per se at least by the official stance of Beijing and Taipei. Thus no need to and should not add this disputed row into this template. And... please do not add it without this thread reach any consensus. Best regards. --SilAshkenazi (talk) 12:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * NO Disputed domestic relationship per se at least by the official stance of Belgrade and Pristina and NO Disputed domestic relationship per se at least by the official stance of North and South Nicosia too, Why there is need to exist this disputed row in their template,And where do you do Beijing has no official stance to treat Taiwan affairs as domestic affairs. I wait for days and there was no respond, so i thought it was a consensus. Course no one respond. Thanks.Jiangyu911 (talk) 12:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You might mean yes in the previous response I think. And several spelling and grammar mistakes pop up in your previous discussion, although only facts matters, readiness is still vital for comprehensiveness. Now back to the topic, the reason there is no response (mine excluded) during your two-day wait is that this is an entry so marginalized that few people 'watch' it. And the example given by you doesn't justify the same modification made to this template, since the open nature of Wikipedia that 'everyone can edit'; many of these edits may not stand closer scrutiny though they still remain because few people care, we nevertheless should maintain a higher standard of quality during editorial process. In this template specifically, the cross-strait relationship really seems to many foreign, but since both the involved parties (and in my personal understanding, only the Chinese perspective matters since this is a China-template) regard it otherwise, why should we write differently? All we should do at most is to add a link to the wiki article of cross-strait relationship in the 'Diplomacy' section since this is a repeated emphasized issue in Chinese diplomatic practice. SilAshkenazi (talk) 12:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I just dislike to show something in bold as if you have a natural advantage. So, if i give up, can you please change the template of Serbia and Cyprus so that the template also reach "a higher standard of quality during editorial process", it seems that you think Serbia-Kosovo Relations and Cyprus-North Cyprus Relations to many foreign, since you do not show me the difference. I do not care where it is shown, i just want to see a common standard for the same issue. In this case, i do not see much difference from the Cross-Strait Relations and Kosovo-Serbia Relations or Cyprus-North Cyprus Relations. Jiangyu911 (talk) 13:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

National emblem image
Please stop edit-warring and discuss the issue here on the talk page. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:14, 10 July 2023 (UTC)