Template talk:China topics

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the China topics template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

	This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
China This template is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related

I think it's hilarious that Chinese Culture is put under the PRC instead of the ROC since Mao and the PRC did everything they could to destroy Chinese culture while the ROC has done whatever it can to preserve it. Oh well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.88.201.100 (talk) 19:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC) When was the last time a child in the PRC studied Confucius? I know kids in the ROC are still made to study the Analects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.88.201.100 (talk) 19:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This template should focus on the post-1949 People's Republic. And there should be a separate {{China topics}}. 218.250.143.16 (talk) 14:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why we have to click on "show" 6 times to see all - we should not add obstacles/steps for our readers to derive serviceable information from templates. I believe the original style is best for our readers while at the same time not highlighting only a few articles of many.Moxy (talk) 01:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Not sure why we have to click on "show" 6 times to see all..." – probably because there are that many (too many?) links in the template. But it's possible to set the template to display everything – why not give it a try and see how people respond..? CsDix (talk) 06:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To see all the links we have to click on "show" 6 times - I guess we could display everything but then two whys? - Why the sub section if there point is useless if un-collapsed all the time and why not make (leave it as is) to make it like the majority of all other templates of its kind and the rest of Wikipedia. Style preference over stander format and user functionality should never be the outcome. Is the point to highlight just a few main articles?Moxy (talk) 06:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that the collapsible sections allow flexibility – a way to have a lot of links to hand without that feeling like information overload, i.e. without the template filling much of the window/screen, or, when the article including the template is on the short side, without the template's uncollapsed size appearing out-of-proportion with the rest of the article. At the same time, I do see your point – hence my suggestion that perhaps these templates are carrying too many links. And perhaps the (other) point is to highlight links to articles taken to be immediately related or relevant, at least on first sight, especially when there are many other links in the template. CsDix (talk) 08:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what your saying. As the current version is larger and has more coding, thus takes longer to load and takes up much more space on the page. The current version also maks us have to click show many times to see all the links - Lets look at 2 versions....one is smaller in coding and presentation much more user friendly. Is the point to highlight just a few main articles or should the template present all the links in a neutral manner (meaning all the same size and font)Moxy (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

vs

Something I forgot to mention above is that the collapsible sections template also tends to reduce the space taken from the template by group-plus-subgroup names, by making the group names the titles of the sections. Accessibility-wise, I think this is a good feature, as the template may be being viewed in a window or on a smaller-than-usual screen. But, yes, the sections don't need to be individually collapsible – how about this version of the present template (People's Republic of China topics), which I hope combines the best of both approaches..? :

I'll also place an equivalent for the "United States topics" template on its talkpage. CsDix (talk) 11:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you highlight just a few main articles? People worked on the others aswell?17:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what/which you mean – the section titles? The group names? Something else..? CsDix (talk) 21:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the section titles - only link that should stand out is the main template title link. Links like Geography of the United States have there own template like {{USRegions}}. All links should be treated equally. Highlighting articles (with bold and large text as a headers) like Environment in the People's Republic of China leads our readers to a very bad article. Moxy (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've reduced the section titles to the same size as the groupnames and unlinked "Natural environment". Okay to use now (and apply similarly to Template:United States topics)..? CsDix (talk) 12:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice. Great job....sorry this took so long....my fault sometimes due to fustration I am not clear and a bit head strong on my approach to thingsMoxy (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay – I read somewhere that "there's no deadline" and there's only so many things that can be done (well, appear to be done) at the same time. As well as here, I've just implemented the same at Template:United States topics. CsDix (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pls do not change other temeplats based on this conversation here about this template - I personally would not agree to having this format on our most viewed country template - as its not at all the stranded of all the other temeplats used by WP:USA let alone the rest of Wikipedia. I am sure you have noticed that this template is still the oddball.Moxy (talk) 20:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is the "Other topics" section really necessary? The links could easily be included in the other sections. I have moved Flag into the Culture row, Extreme points and Natural disasters into Environment and Geography, Terrorism into Society, Human rights into People, and International rankings into Economy.--Ninthabout (talk) 23:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree and have removed the section in the template's current incarnation. I've left the human-rights link in the Law section (i.e. within Governance), however, as I think that's how it's treated in other country topics templates. CsDix (talk) 20:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We should take the time and fix this template we have need to link articles multiple times in the same template. never mind forgot this was the odd ball template. Moxy (talk) 20:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This template claim to describe China as a country, why the ancient history of china is just showed in one Link and the modern history of China showed in more than 6 Links. I think this is not fair since China has more than three thousend years history and the more than 2000 years are only represent by one Link, while the history of 1976–89 and 1989–2002 are shown seperately. Jiangyu911 (talk) 04:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since the ROC ruled the Mainland until 1949, could this Template:Taiwan topics to be merged with the PRC template? It's because both the PRC/China and ROC/Taiwan are simply one country and having two templates that just does not make any sense. Wrestlingring (talk) 03:43, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the Korea template for example:

Considering that just two weeks earlier you requested a move based on essentially the same rationale, which was solidly rejected, perhaps this is a good moment to read WP:FORUMSHOP. Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:32, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you my friend, i'll be looking over it. ---Wrestlingring (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to provide the proposed modifications below. is this ok?

thanks. ---Sm8900 (talk) 🌍 05:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've reorganized the historical periods to align with standard Chinese historiography. "Middle Ages", "Early Modern", and "Late Modern" are terms from European historiography that don't transfer well to the Chinese context. I also removed most of the links save to specific dynasties and more recent events. It makes more sense for readers to navigate to the article on the appropriate time period of Chinese history to learn about relevant events, as is done in other templates. SilverStar54 (talk) 20:42, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Thanks Moxy- 20:43, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]