Talk:2004 Taiwanese cross-Strait relations referendum

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2004 Taiwanese cross-Strait relations referendum article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Taiwan Low‑importance

	Taiwan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taiwan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Taiwan 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.TaiwanWikipedia:WikiProject TaiwanTemplate:WikiProject TaiwanTaiwan articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Plebiscite?[edit]

Isn't this a plebiscite not a referendum? The results of the vote had no legal force? --Sumple (Talk) 10:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

referendum is the word that the media used. one may have to refer to the language of the referendum law and how it was evoked-Jiang 11:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction[edit]

I don't see how it's harmful having both the formal names of the states when describing the relationship between the two, and thereafter the common names. That it escalated to this extent was completely unnecessary, when I have attempted to compromise, while the other user has routinely ignored it in favour of getting his way. --Tærkast (Discuss) 15:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is no need for it. The names of the countries are set by the articles Taiwan and China. This is not a place for you to disagree with how we name these countries. Either request moves of those articles or stop this. Number 5 7 15:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's to provide clarity, which isn't exactly a bad thing. There are plenty of instances in which use of the official titles are justified, but you insist that because the articles are at the titles where they are now, that every single time it must just be "Taiwan" and "China." You have repeatedly ignored my attempts at compromise. Did I not leave Taiwan and China as the common names after using the official titles? Yes. Does it matter to you? No. The state articles are linked to the right titles in any event.--Tærkast (Discuss) 16:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest "Taiwan (ROC)" and "China (PRC)" as a better compromise which does not modify the link of the wiki article and also endorse their official names. Fizikanauk (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was trying to convey, all I wanted to do was use the full names for one instance in the introduction - the internal links are still at the correct article titles, hence the use of piping. But I'd be happy for your proposal. --Tærkast (Discuss) 20:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]