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 articles
good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
This template is within the scope of Falun Gong work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.
what's the rationale...
...for the changes? I didn't revert because I don't want to hurt your feelings confucius. But I think I disagree. Specifically, some HRTR news reports haven't even mentioned Falun Gong, and it's not primarily a Falun Gong thing. Certainly shouldnt' be accorded a space on the template, in my opinion. CIPFG could be in the related articles; these things are directly on the matter of Falun Gong the practice, they are like spin-offs. The self-immolation has more relevance than these, for example. Please note that this isn't an editorial view i'm putting forward about whatever purported relation Falun Gong has to these things or not, but that whatever the case, while the topics are related to Falun Gong, they aren't actually on Falun Gong itself. There's a difference.--Asdfg12345 09:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I included all the articles within the purview of Falun Gong, with three degrees of separation. Whilst it is arguable whether organ harvesting or Wenyi Wang belong on the template, I certainly believe Epoch Times · CIPFG · NTDTV · Sound of Hope · Shen Yun Performing Arts all warrant a place through them being within the sphere of Falun Gong and its teachings. Ohconfucius (talk) 13:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
just wondering if we really need Wang on the template, she's only famous for one thing, I´d just as soon remove her.--Asdfg12345 07:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like you might not object to having the article deleted? Ohconfucius (talk) 13:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The paramedics show up and haul dead bodies away? You stumped me with this one. No idea. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 18:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I think discussions should continue, just not on that page. I am not so sure about the assertion that "trainwreck" defaults to "keep", and further even less enthused about prematurely inserting this topic onto the template. Colipon+(Talk) 18:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. Having dealt with these articles for so long, I am not convinced at this point that your efforts at FA and "sourcing" would be genuine. It's nothing personal, but I've just had enough. Colipon+(Talk) 21:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's OK, you can help too. Best regards, --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Trainwreck" means that the discussion was so badly fragmented that it was impossible to determine a consensus; so in effect, "no consensus, default to keep, no prejudice against another nomination provided a proper discussion will result." I believe I marked it as such (no consensus) on the article's talk page.
