Talk:List of airports in China

Comments

Airplanes go fly! whee! SchmuckyTheCat 04:57, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

comments moved from WP:RFPP

• • I would like to point out that the version with the two versions template is the version instantnood prefers, ie, the version which existed before the two pages were moved to a new title. This has been corrected quite some time ago, until Instantnood suddenly comes in and starts to revert them unilaterally and without warning. This resulted in the latest revert war, and instantnood took the opportunity to revert them all the way back to the version he prefered based on the old titles, plus adding a two version tag, an action which obviously endorses a version he prefers. I would therefore question the rational of protecting the two pages at their current versions.--Huaiwei 12:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I did not choose a version arbitrarily or according to my preference, but rather, as explained in the edit summaries, I restored to the version before disputes take place, i.e. what was the article intended for when it was created, and what it was like immediately before the disputes. By saying "this has been corrected" User:Huaiwei is asserting her/his point of view, and attempting to implement her/his point of view while the discussions are in progress. As for the title I would suggest administrators to add a notice informing readers that there is a dispute over the title of the article, in the following suggested format, for instance: — Instantnood 13:08, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
      • This conveniently ignores anyone else's changes to the articles besides one user, Instantnood. This is a request from a POV pusher to protect his version from the edits of at least three other people, and at least six have made smaller edits that are lost by this protection - because he makes no attempts to include subsequent change in his revert warring. Every other time Instantnood has come to this page the admins have seen through the fact that he is the one without consensus. This is a worthless protection and absolutely nothing will come from the discussion on the talk page because he - and only he - filibusters. SchmuckyTheCat 13:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Indeed. when the dispute was sparked by Instantnood, several other editors have also contributed, and did come to a logical compromise in List of companies in the People's Republic of China. This is evident in the edit history and the talk page. Instantnood, however, decides to unilaterally revert all these edits back to an ancient version for no apparant reason other then to claim it was the point "before the dispute". Lets look at the history pages of each to prod this further:
        • List of companies in the People's Republic of China
        • A quick look at the edit history shows that the daily dispute was sparked when Instantnood made this edit [1]. Prior to this, there was no obvious signs of any dispute by the said parties. SchmuckyTheCat first changed the reference of Mainland China to the PRC here [2], with no one else opposing it in terms of edits. Instantnood himself made just one edit [3] which did not change the leading sentence, almost 2 months after SchmuckyTheCat's edit. I made my first edit in the page, a small edit [4], 14 days after instantnood. It was another 20 days later before Instantnood sparked the edit warring with the edit mentioned above. At no other time was there any evidence of edit warring at all.
        • List of airports in the People's Republic of China
        • The edit history shows that Instantnood sparked this latest dispute with this edit: [5]. The page was first changed to a reference of the PRC with SchmuckyTheCat's edit [6], with no signs of edit warring at all after that. Instead, various editors, including instantnood himself, have added content to it. In light of the page's reference to the PRC, I changed the format of the page to show airports in all of the PRC, a process I started 2 days after SchmuckyTheCat's edit, and which I did not finish until a good 50 days later [7], with no signs of any edits opposing my move throughout the entire period. An entire 2 months passed before I made a small edit to a single entry [8], and 4 fateful days later, Instantnood decides he has nothing else in his hands to play with, and decided to spark a major edir war through the edit specified above.
        • As anyone can clearly see, the evidence is all in the edit histories. There has never been any "edit disputes" in both pages until the two controversial edits by Instantnood in each page, both of which sparked frenzied multiple edits by multiple users on a daily basis not seen in both pages before. If he sees a need to revert the page to "prior the dispute has taken place", then may I know why he did not revert it to the version just before his edit in both instances? I would think he has alot to answer for his actions above.--Huaiwei 15:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
          • Here is not the right place to further the debate, but as User:Huaiwei has brought up some of his arguments which are not entirely true, I have to clarify. I do apologise for any inconvenience that this might have caused.
            Huaiwei sees the disputes over the two lists as something I brought up recently. This is quite the opposite. If one take a look at the edit history, she/he will be able to tell there were disputes months ago. In the past two months or so, I was advised by my advocates not to engage in editing relating to the naming conventions while the previous ArbCom case was in progress. Therefore I did not actively object renaming of titles by SchmuckyTheCat, and edits by Huaiwei.
            I added the notice to the list of companies [9] because I did not consider it part of the disputed issue, as similar notices are already tagged at the top of many other mainland China-related articles. It was simply for clarification purposes. Nevertheless Huaiwei went further to change the coverage of the list [10], that touched the firepoint of the disputed issue. As the list of airports shares the similar conflicts, I supposed the two lists should be considered together, and therefore made similar changes to both lists, and later, tagged with the {{twoversions}} template.
            Back to the requests for protection, I'd like to request administrators to consider adding the notice I suggested, in order to better clarify to readers what is disputed. — Instantnood 15:46, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Does the russian special region Kaliningrad get it's own list? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 10:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Kaliningrad is an oblast. — Instantnood 11:32, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Unprotect the page

This is an attempt to unprotect the page and start discussion of the differences.

The differences as I see them:

1. Limit the scope of the article to only the mainland of China.
2. Remove HK and Macau airport(s) from inline sections to see also lists.
3. Alphabetize the category to conform to the mainland title.

• Issue 1: There is no reason to limit the scope of the article. We can be inclusive.
• Issue 2: HK and Macau still have their own lists. They also have few airports and won't have more. Their inclusion here does nothing to "diminish" their autonomy. Limiting them to "see also" doesn't help the reader.
• Issue 3: This just confuses readers of the category, as the alphabetizing makes no sense. This is a technical problem. (Note to Instantnood, the pipe text after a category is for alphabetizing only, it doesn't display that title in the category.) - SchmuckyTheCat 19:25, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Please kindly take a look at what this list was created for, and how it was like. The differences, as seen from another angle, would be: expand the scope to cover Hong Kong and Macao (in the inline section, instead of links at the see also section). I think the problem cannot be easily resolved, not until the ArbCom case is concluded. Afterall we have very different perceptions and understandings of the term "mainland China", and very different views over its usage on Wikipedia. — Instantnood 17:51, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

You haven't answered the question. There is one country, the People's Republic of China. What value, to a reader of Wikipedia, is gained in restricting this in the way it is currently presented. SchmuckyTheCat 19:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I guess there's little dispute that Hong Kong and Macao is part of the PRC as a sovereign State. The problem here lies with what should be done with such special status. — Instantnood 19:38, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

What does the special status have to do with a basic list to which they assuredly belong? The text at the airports individual articles already do a wonderful job of explaining jurisdictional issues and I doubt anyone would be opposed to some amount of text pointing interested readers to more articles (or several, the bureacratic agencies for civil air regulation of each region should be in the see also). SchmuckyTheCat 21:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

They did not belong until the title was changed. — Instantnood 21:33, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

That was months ago. This is now. What is the nature of your opposition now? What is your proposal to move forward and unprotect the page? ~ SchmuckyTheCat 22:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC) ~

The title change itself is disputed, and was done at the time I voluntarily refrained from editing the disputed issues. My proposal, as presented at WP:RFPP, is to keep the {{twoversions}} template, together with the notice stating that the current title does not endorse the position of any party. In fact the article did not have to be protected if Huaiwei and you did not remove the tag for several times. — Instantnood 22:38, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Your solution is there is no solution? Twoversions is not a solution. You cannot have twoversions of a single article. The point of twoversions (if there is one at all) is to get discussion going on the talk page in order to work through the dispute between the differences. Either one version moves forward or some compromise is met. I've described the differences between the two versions as listed on the diffs of the template as it is right now. What is your proposal to move forward? SchmuckyTheCat 22:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

You asked for a proposal to unprotect the page, am I right? That's the answer. To take {{twoversions}} off, we'd better wait until the ArbCom case is concluded. There's little foundation for us to work towards compromise and consensus before that. Your description of the differences was done from your angle, without acknowledging what the list was initially created for and the disputed title change. — Instantnood 22:52, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Title disputed

I would like to propose to add a notice, such as the following, to notify readers there is not only a content dispute, but also a dispute over the title.

— Instantnood 09:06, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

I have added this notice to the article (above the {{twoversions}} notice). — Instantnood 10:21, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Which version to be displayed

I have explained [11] why the current version was chosen in the edit summaries before, that is, according to what the list was like and was intended for at the time of creation, prior to the disputes and point of view-pushing edits and renaming. The {{twoversions}} tag states precisely the version displayed is not, and should not be seen as an endorsement of any of the two versions. Further, I've added a notice telling that the title is also disputed. Nevertheless, user:Huaiwei and user:SchmuckyTheCat has tried to swap to the other version [12]. I would like to request for third party opinion to decide on which version should be displayed, with acknowledgement of the edit history of this article. Third party opinion will also be requested if there's a similar disagreement over other articles on which version should be displayed. (Please see also articles relevant to the political arrangements and situations, and Wikipedia:naming conventions (Chinese).) — Instantnood 10:04, August 28, 2005 (UTC) (modified 13:28, August 28, 2005 (UTC))

From the above, are you expecting only third party opinion to have any say in this affair, while in the meantime, your version stays? You gave your reasons for keeping this version, but the reasons for keeping the alternative version has already been voiced out time and again. Restoring your version purely based on the fact that you gave your reasons is clearly not enough. I am restoring it to the other version until you can come up with a more valid means of demonstrating your disagreement with a verion others have developed.--Huaiwei 11:10, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

To repeat, it is not "your [my] version". If you request me to come up with a "more valid means", please provide valid reasons too to justify your restoration to the other version. Thank you very much. It wouldn't help by continuing to claim returning to what the list was intended for to be an invalid reason, while assuming your reasons to be valid; and based on that assumption, edit according to your point of view. — Instantnood 11:40, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it has indeed become a "my/your" version because you appear to be exagerating a dispute more because of personal vendettas against said personalities than using a rational mind when making decisions here. This in itself is already one more reason for using the current version. Your abuse of this site by turning it into a self-advocacy exercise and massively reverting articles on impulse is clearly disruptive and no longer based on logical reasoning. You insist there is a "title dispute". But is that merely the only reason, or are you simply showing your displeasure against others whom you think made changes without your consent? Are you showing so much concern for just these two articles, because you felt others are "taking advantage of the situation" while you are being scrutinised during the arbcom?

Be honest. Anyone familiar with basic psychology can tell when someone is puching a POV beyond the logical. The rationality in your arguments for keeping one version over the other simply do not tally with the zeal in your furious edit wars. If you continue to expect others to "come out of the closet" while you think you can continue to hide in yours, then no, I dont think a resolution is going to come about that quickly.--Huaiwei 11:56, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Mind elaborating a bit on personal vendettas, and providing evidence of self-advocacy? (These accusations equally fit if I were to comment you.) If I were showing my displeasure as you may think, are you having the same displeasure that this article was created with a title and scope that you don't like? (Note: the title of this list was 'list of airports in Mainland China'.) And if I were to be pushing a POV beyond the logics, what are you doing here? Please also verify what the ArbCom case is aimed at, before saying that it's a scrutiny of me. — Instantnood 12:16, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

And so we have managed to come one step further. You now say you can use my above comments to comment on me. I suppose this means you are accepting those comments on yourself? Thats good, because that is probably a positive first step. You dont really have to ask me what I have been doing, because quite unlike you, I am pretty much open about my intentions, and I do explain at length the philosphies I abide by, which dictate the POV I adopt. And quite unlike you, I am very willing to accept the fact that I DO have a POV as well. I dont deny that I break wikipedia conventions, nor do I dare claim that I do not ruffle feathers in this site. A sharp contrast to your conduct, which bears all the hallmarks of an evasive and irresponsible member who prefers to throw back comments at others instead of reflecting and accepting them. Meanwhile, perhaps you might save some effort constantly asking me for evidence for this and that. They will come forth at the right time.

As I said, it takes much more than merely saying "I want to reconcile" to truly come to the settlement table. Its been almost 8 months, and we have yet to understand you better as a person, other than being an obnoxious individual who hides behind a webname and continues to wreak havoc here.--Huaiwei 12:33, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Use tables?

I admit I sometimes have too great a fondness for tables. They are unnecessary gunk in lists where only one column exists, (wouldn't want it here). But in this case, we have 3 items of information on each line. And the length of airport titles vary widely, so the city names do not line up at all if you scan down the list. It looks messy. We could use a table to line up the three columns. For example, the first line could look like:

Airport code	Airport	City
HFE	Luogang Airport	Hefei

compared to:

• Luogang Airport, Hefei (HFE)

What do people think about this? Dmcdevit·t 05:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Based on my edit history, I prob have the same reputation with tables. :D But we gonna have lots of small tables for this list?--Huaiwei 06:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

That's the biggest problem. Sectioning it up makes it easier to edit smaller pieces and makes it more navigable by the Table of Contents. The tradeoff is that we may end up with some less appealing one line tables. For example, the example above would be a whole section by itself. Without sectioning, we could do somethig like this:

Airport code	Airport	City
Anhui Province
HFE	Luogang Airport	Hefei
Beijing Municipality
PEK	Beijing Capital International Airport	Beijing
ListY	Beijing Nanyuan Airport	Beijing

Of course, formatting tweaks to make it prettier (like bigger province header, etc.) could be done later, I just threw this together. This may or may not be more appealing. Which one do you like (or have better ideas)? Dmcdevit·t 06:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

That was really nice (thou its so depressingly grey haha), so perhaps we can do one table for now until the list grows to a humongous giant and we have to end up sectioning into one table per provinces again? --Huaiwei 09:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

The deed is done. If anyone wants to fiddle with (happier) colors, just plug in any of the codes you find at web colors. BTW, some airport codes are missing... Dmcdevit·t 04:07, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Haha thks! :D--Huaiwei 06:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Title and scope disputed

The title and the scope of this list is disputed and has not been settled. The dispute over the scope of this article was between mainland China alone (Hong Kong and Macao excluded) or the People's Republic of China (Hong Kong and Macao included). The title is disputed, accordingly, between list of airports in mainland China and list of airports in the People's Republic of China.

The current content and title do not endorse, and should not be seen as an endorsement of, any of the two.
You may also read the other version and the difference between the two. See also the edit history and move history. — Instantnood 17:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC) (modified 20:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC))

"Air transport between the Mainland and Hong Kong is specially managed domestic air transport by nature with reference made to the management of international air transport." Bolding is mine. Quoted from Air Services Arrangement between the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. SchmuckyTheCat 06:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Read the Chinese text too, which is the only official version. Original text of "domestic" is "国内", which means "within the sovereign state". The whole wording is "内地和香港间的航空运输性质为特殊管理的国内航空运输，参照国际航空运输管理，使用国际运输凭证，其责任条款可参照有关国际公约。" (Unofficial and for reference translation from Department of Justice, Hong Kong Government: Air transport between the Mainland and Hong Kong is specially managed domestic air transport by nature with reference made to the management of international air transport. Documents of international carriage shall be used and in respect of their liability provisions reference may be made to the relevant international conventions.). - Privacy 08:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

CIQ

Which of these airports are having CIQ facilities? 119.236.251.39 (talk) 06:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 2012

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: page moved. Since multiple pages are involved, one multi-request should have been made. Moved this and renamed the destination as a disambiguation. UtherSRG (talk) 03:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

---

List of airports in the People's Republic of China → List of airports in China – Consistency move in line with the previous PRC->China move. The country article is currently located at China. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 04:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support per nominator. Terence7 (talk) 04:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support. The other titles in Category:Lists of airports by country all use the short form for the country name, i.e. "United States" not "United States of America", "France" not "French Republic", etc. Kauffner (talk) 06:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Clearly not all countries are using short forms. Jeffrey (202.189.98.142) (talk) 15:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, almost all of them are. Terence7 (talk) 04:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support per nomination. This is a descriptive title, we should use the name used for the country article. mgeo talk 23:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. The PRC (and specifically the Chinese mainland) in this case should follow Republic of Ireland, Republic of Macedonia, Republic of the Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo and Federated States of Micronesia. Jeffrey (202.189.98.142) (talk) 15:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Except for the Republic of Ireland (see List of airports in Ireland), in each of the examples you gave, the format of the article title is 'List of airports in X', where X is the current name of the country article on Wikipedia. This proposed move is to follow this same naming format, where X is China. – NULL ‹talk›
    ‹edits› 03:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
    • In the case of Ireland, articles titled Ireland are usually created for the whole island, whereas those titled ROI are created for the country. The same arrangement is in place for most topical articles of China. China is currently for the region, whereas PRC is for the country. Jeffrey (202.189.98.142) (talk) 14:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
      • The arrangement you described is in the process of being changed, in line with the PRC->China article move. Hence this move request. I wouldn't consider maintaining the status quo to be a valid opposition in light of the fact consensus can change. – NULL ‹talk›
        ‹edits› 03:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support because there isn't any reason to oppose. List of airports in China was created as a redirect to here, then turned into a dab page. As discussion has shown, there is no reason to dab these, and maintaining a redirect is pointless. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
• Rename to match the country article which is at China. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:16, 23 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.

HK and Macau

Why doesn't this article include airports of HK and Macau? They are undoubtedly part of China. Readin (talk) 15:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

An IP troll kept removing them. I just restored them again. -Zanhe (talk) 16:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing to do with diplomatic relations or national defence for the subject matter of this list. The two special administrative regions don't belong here. 2001:CE0:2201:8804:646:65FF:FE8A:6B44 (talk) 09:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

This issue depends strongly on the interpretation of the topic of this article. It is reasonable for a reader coming here to see some mention of Hong Kong and Macau because they're nominally part of China (and PRC); however neither belongs to the Chinese airspace, so I reckon an inline "See list of..." notice in the table would be appropriate, as the recent revisions have. Deryck C. 10:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

So long as the article says it is about airports in the "People's Republic of China" it needs to include HK an Macau because there is no dispute about whether they are part of the PRC. If the article is going to exclude HK and Macau than it needs to be modified so that it is described as being about airports in "mainland China". However, since the China article is about the PRC rather than mainland China, it makese more sense for this article to also be about the PRC. Readin (talk) 13:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, which is why I support the use of an inline link rather than a hatnote. Deryck C. 13:01, 18 August 2012

Hong Kong isn't part of China for many purposes. For example it's outside the customs territory of China. It isn't part of the China team in the Olympics. It's just like Norfolk, Cocos and Christmas islands are not part of Australia for immigration and asylum seeking purposes. 110.4.1.160 (talk) 13:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

This article is about airports in the People's Republic of China. Hong Kong and Macau are SARs of PRC, and therefore should be included. And for your information, Norfolk, Cocos and Christmas islands are included in the List of airports in Australia although they are not part of Australia for immigration and asylum seeking purposes. -Zanhe (talk) 19:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

HK and Macao aren't part of the People's Republic for aviation, international trade, customs or immigration purposes. 202.64.189.90 (talk) 13:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Hyperlinks are included to help people who aren't familiar to navigate to the relevant and suitable articles. 202.64.189.90 (talk) 13:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you another sock of Instantnood? It seems that you're bent on pushing your POV and trying to reason with you is futile. -Zanhe (talk) 18:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The two territories don't belong here. Please stop putting them back. Hyperlinks are adequate given their special relationships with the People's Republic 2001:CE0:2201:8804:646:65FF:FE8A:6B44 (talk) 09:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 2013

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Clearly no consensus to move, and no activity for 7 days.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

---

List of airports in China → List of airports in the People's Republic of China – I'm reopening this one in light of the recent move-revert sequence. The 2012 move request was passed in the snowball aftermath of the People's Republic of China -> China mass move, and ignores the nuances that removing "People's Republic" from the title of this particular list actually endorses the POV that ROC-controlled territories are not part of China at all. Given the current scope of the list it should really be at the original title, as GOTM's move comment would suggest. I'm personally in favour of the move. Deryck C. 11:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support If you sue for using the shorthand ("China"), you are suing for, as a government of Chinese (Greater China) government, inclusion of Republic of *CHINA*-controlled. I should remind all of the wise words of Nil Einne. It is high time to place a moratorium on all of the Correct name → Shorthand but imprecise names moves to stop wasting time on these unproductive, WP:POINTy discussions such as the one dating to March 2012. GotR ^Talk 16:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. We should use the common name in article titles, and when people say China, they are, as a rule, referring to the People's Republic. In any case, this has nothing to do with the political dispute. Both the Republic and the People's Republic agree that there is one China. The article is about airports within this China, regardless of who is the legitimate government of it; "China" is here used primarily as a geographical division. To acknowledge de facto control over geographical China by the People's Republic is not an endorsement of the regime or of any of its land claims, it's merely calling a spade a spade. Knight of Truth (talk) 21:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Absent some very convincing evidence why we should deviate from the name of the parent article (China), this appears to be an attempt to relitigate the China naming issue. Take it up at Talk:China, not here. That "snowball aftermath" you refer to was simply the application of consistency, one of our core article naming WP:CRITERIA. --BDD (talk) 04:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't believe this should be considered on an article by article basis. It is a matter to be decided for all China related articles with all voices present. It would create a complete mess to have this argument here now and then two months later have the same argument at on the talk page of, for example, List of tallest structures in China where a different group of editors may come to a different decision. The inconsistency that would result would not benefit users of Wikipedia but only serve to confuse. This discussion should take place in a forum where all relevant editors are present and all have the opportunity to voice their opinion. The result of which can then be applied to all relevant articles uniformly. As long as People's Republic of China -> China I will oppose. If you convince the editors at China to change their stance, then this page should change with it. Rincewind42 (talk) 06:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. mgeo talk 09:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. the previous consensus states very clearly about the common name should be used on this article.Fizikanauk (talk) 11:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, match the use of the country article which is at the WP:COMMONNAME China. It is vey messy to use different names on different articles when the issues ae the same each time. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. WP:COMMONNAME. China represents PRC already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcnut1996 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: per #Requested move 2012. Sawol (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2013 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Airports in SARs and in areas of disputed sovereignty

I WP:BOLDly have reverted this two-edit change. This is a WP:BRD discussion involving that. It also involves HK and Macao (see the #HK and Macau section above). It also involves Yongxing Island Airport, which is listed in the article and which is located on Woody Island (South China Sea), the sovereignty over which is disputed (see the Territorial disputes in the South China Sea and Spratly Islands dispute articles).

I have added a note regarding the disputed status of Woody Island. The question of whether airports in Special administrative regions of China and in Taiwan ought to be mentioned in this article remains open. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)