Jump to content

Talk:Guangzhou–Shenzhen railway

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

Should be added: The Home page: http://www.gsrc.com - has no time table, but lots of dead links.



Mainland China, *internal* border

[edit]

Regarding User:SchmuckyTheCat's edit summary: " please don't pretend HK is not part of China or create separation where there isn't any. " [1]: I don't think I was pretending Hong Kong is not part of the PRC. It's not the first time I'm telling SchmuckyTheCat that using the term "mainland China" does not possess such implications. It's actual fact the distinction does exist in the real world within the sovereign state. Wikipedia, as an encyclopædia, is a reflection of real and actual facts. — Instantnood 22:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Was it the first train to get to 200kph in China or mainland China? China, of course. What purpose does the disambiguation of "mainland" serve in this article? Is there some train in Taipei we need to dab China about? Is there a train in HK that goes this fast that we need to specify what region of the PRC? China is the correct word here, the article is about both the mainland AND Hong Kong.
And is it not an internal border of the PRC? Why are you removing that word? SchmuckyTheCat 22:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
First, it was translated from the Chinese version of the same article. Second, it's not wrong to say mainland China, and it's more correct since what we've to mention in this case is the jurisdiction, not the geographical area (nor the sovereign state). As for internal border, I've explained in this edit summary [2], that by using Hong Kong's full name its status is already sufficiently acknowledged. The word internal is superfluous. It's also confusing to readers who're less familiar with the situation, since without any relative qualifier the adjective here is rather meaningless. — Instantnood 23:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC) (modified 23:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
If you want to emphasise " by any definition of China " [3], please consider linking to [[China (disambiguation)|China]], and let readers to decide which definition(s) shall apply. — Instantnood 23:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your first sentence makes no sense.
As to internal, it makes it less confusing for readers. If they see the country name twice, they have to wonder why it's a border. By saying "internal border" it lets readers know that it is within the same country, but a situation exists where direct travel is restricted. SchmuckyTheCat 23:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Saying internal border tells nothing about travel restrictions either. The border between Germany and Luxembourg is an internal border (within the European Union), the border between Alberta and Saskatchewan is an internal border too (within Canada). Saying it's an internal border in this article conveys no useful information to readers, except the status of Hong Kong, which is already sufficiently acknowledged. — Instantnood 23:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
wow. the term "internal border", like internal passport has connotations to the kind of totalitarian state that the PRC is. Your analogies are rubbish. SchmuckyTheCat
What is mean by internal is clearly defined in the internal passport article. — Instantnood 16:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Protected

[edit]

I have temporarily protected this page to deal with the edit warring that has been taking place here. Please discuss your changes on the talk pages rather than reverting. I urge you to consider Mediation or another form of dispute resolution. If you have reached agreement or want the page unprotecting, please post a request on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection or ask me on my talk page. Thanks. Izehar 18:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Izehar. — Instantnood 18:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've unprotected the page after indications from all parties that they would prefer it unprotected. Do not resort to edit warring again. Izehar 19:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

China/mainland

[edit]

Since "China" is a geographical term, perhaps 'nood would prefer that it links to PRC? SchmuckyTheCat 19:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neither. As mentioned, what we should mention is the jurisdiction. [4] — Instantnood 20:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is there such a thing as a "jurisdiction" of Mainland China?--Huaiwei 20:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly speaking, it's the jurisdiction of the People's Republic of China which has no jurisdiction over Hong Kong and Macau for matters (including transport) other than diplomatic relations and national defence. — Instantnood 08:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Strictly speaking". So how about loosely speaking?--Huaiwei 14:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Commonly it's called mainland China, as in trade agreements and trilateral health conference. — Instantnood 14:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You arent answering me.--Huaiwei 15:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps that's because I'm not giving you an answer you wish. :-P — Instantnood 15:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And what is the answer I want? :D--Huaiwei 02:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What jurisdiction? It travels across borders! SchmuckyTheCat 21:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfC?

[edit]

Yawn, I see this revert war has stubbornly refused to go away. Have you considered an RfC? They can be very effective if you present them properly. In my opinion, this case is perfectly suited for an RfC. You identify the dispute; in this case, it is easy: diff 1 & diff 2: we have three options:

You will have to find good reasons for and against each alternative (if any) and then file the RfC and allow neutral Wikipedians to give their opinion. BTW I have protected the page to stop the revert war and to prevent anyone violating the 3RR - if you want unprotection, request it at WP:RPP or ask me on my talk page. Izehar 14:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats just the tip of the iceberg. Wait till you see
And the list goes on...--Huaiwei 14:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. I've been going through Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 2, but I'm afraid I am not going to do anything about it. Start with an RfC on this article and then move on to the next. In about ten years time, you'll have got through the backlog. Let's agree on what to call China/PRC/Mainland China for now. That may slow down edit wars on more than one article. Izehar 15:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions have been done across many pages. I remain pessimistic towards the possibility of reaching any resolution. — Instantnood 16:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No surprise why instantnood would say that. :D--Huaiwei 16:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:38, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Guangzhou–Shenzhen_railway&oldid=1202488144"