This article 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Transport 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.
Over half a billion bicycles should rate a mention in this section, as well as the historical policies. As I mentioned in the 'Environment of China' discussion, before (about) 1980 I think you needed a special permit to have a privately-owned vehicle. If someone could substantiate this, that would be great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 16:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes the lack of a substantial discussion of cycling, historical and present, renders this article sub-standard. I hope to get back to it - but please don't wait. Pedalissimo (talk) 20:43, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
The article also lacks any information about REGULATION. I.e: If you drive legally on a bike, where can you drive it? Going by global regulations is non existing, there is no givens existing. Some places sidewalks are legal. Some places(mostly adaption of British law) Sidewalk biking is illegal because its regulated like a Horse carriage. In Japan "illegal in sidewalk except where indicated by shared sidewalk signs" and "unless really in slow pace".
If there is sidewalks on both sides of the way: Are you allowed to ride on the one that goes against the main traffic flow? Etc. Stalkerkun (talk) 11:51, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
The 3 transportation maps used in the article need an update. Currently, a part of PRC - Mailand China, the maps also display territories not under control of the PRC. It's ok if I put Taiwan networks out of the maps? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 12:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
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) 03:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Consistency move in line with the previous PRC->China move. All incoming links to the current Transport in China refer to the country of China (formerly PRC) and not any of the other places on the dab page currently at that title. This would have been nominated as a technical move but there are a small minority of editors who oppose moves of this type because they disagreed with the PRC->China move. – NULL‹talk›
‹edits› 04:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. Consistency should also applied across articles such as Culture of China, History of China, etc., where the word 'China' covers both Chinas of the divided China. Jeremy (talk) 10:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Support Present day topic. The scope issue surrounding HK/Macau will not be affected by the move, existing even at the current title. There's definitely scope to be more definitive though. CMD (talk) 15:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Support per nomination. mgeotalk 23:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. Consistency should apply. For most topical articles, China means the wider (but divided) China. Jeffrey (18.104.22.168) (talk) 15:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
This move is to establish consistency. The article titles for every other 'Transport in X' article use the name of the country as X. It was determined in the PRC->China move that 'China' does not mean "the wider (but divided) China", it means the country of China. – NULL‹talk›
‹edits› 03:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
What 'most articles' do with China is what's currently being debated. If we had a series of articles on Footopia and the main article on Footopia was moved to Foolandia, your opposition is effectively the same as saying "we shouldn't move all the 'in Footopia' articles to 'in Foolandia' because they're all already at 'in Footopia'". The status quo argument only works when the status quo exists. With the PRC->China move, the status quo was changed. – NULL‹talk›
‹edits› 04:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Support target page is a dab created as a redirect to this page. No reason to oppose this. I don't oppose summary style paragraphs to any of the current dab targets in this article, now or at the proposed name. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
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.