Template talk:Foreign relations of China

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 articles International relations This template is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations 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.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles

please add

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@NYCT192 and WikiCleanerMan: Please stop edit-warring and discuss the issue here on the talk page. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:14, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]