Template talk:China–Macau border crossings

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Move request[edit]

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. This close is reflective of the like move that was proposed for the category. The discussion was in favor of keeping the old name and there was not a consensus to retain the new name. Hence returning to the old name. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Template:Guangdong - Macau border crossingsTemplate:China–Macau border crossings – 21:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose Macau is part of China. This makes no sense. It's like saying the United States-Utah border crossings. 184.144.163.181 (talk) 04:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course "United States-Utah border crossings" makes no sense because they don't exist. However,...
  • Support because the border is not merely an issue between a province and Macao. The crossings are staffed by central government officials, not provincial ones[1]. The unique nature of Hong Kong and Macao's political situation means that terms may seem a little strange at times but the proposal more accurately reflects the nature of the crossings, i.e., ones between Macao and the rest of China. —  AjaxSmack  15:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment that's not the only thing about China that is different, since there is One China but there are Two Chinas, and there are four Chinas (PRC, ROC, HK, Macau). 184.144.163.181 (talk) 05:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This page was relocated from Template:China-Macau border crossings to Template:Guangdong-Macau border crossings with no discussion. 119.236.251.39 (talk) 00:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.

editprotected[edit]

Please add

[[Category:Guangdong - Macau border crossings|~]]

184.144.163.181 (talk) 04:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: That category does not exist. Stickee (talk) 12:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editsemiprotected[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}} To add [[Shekou Port]], [[Fuyong Port ]] and [[Jiangmen Port]], and [[Taipa Temporary Ferry Terminal|Taipa Ferry Terminal Checkpoint]] and [[Outer Harbour Ferry Terminal, Macau|Outer Harbour Checkpoint]]. [2] [3] 203.198.25.249 (talk) 12:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please be more specific with reliable references. Monkeymanman (talk) 13:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The two links are the sources for the checkpoints of Macau. They were previously missing. 203.198.25.249 (talk) 14:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: Thank you for providing sources, but your request is not specific enough for me to follow through with it. Where do you want that text added? What is it? Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'China-Macao border crossings' is fine[edit]

Macao is a Chinese territory, but not part of China. It is a territorial entity which belongs to China. This is independent of the soveregin state's attitude: for example, we consider French Guiana to be a seperate territorial entity which belongs to France, but not part of France. I do not see anything wrong with 'China-Macao border crossings' when two seperate jurisdictions are concerned.

'Mainland China-Macao border crossings' is also acceptable.

Douglas the Comeback Kid (talk) 16:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is right, the template was created with China - Macau border crossing because Macau Special Administrative Region is a separate customs territory and immigration policies. Everyone knows Macau is part of China but in terms of border crossing, its a separate customs and it controls its own immigration policies. Therefore it was correct in the first place before all the move shenanigans. Maybe some people should read up on Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China. --Takamaxa (Talk) 13:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request[edit]

To add [[Terminal Marítimo de Passageiros do Porto Exterior|Outer Harbour]] to the list for Macau. That ferry terminal got departures to Shenzhen and Panyu too, in addition to the frequent services to Hong Kong and Kowloon. 116.48.155.127 (talk) 17:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 01:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a look at that article. 116.48.155.127 (talk) 16:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not done for now: I had a look at Outer Harbour Ferry Terminal which I assume is the article you refer to. But your argument is WP:CIRCULAR, the article is poorly sourced. Could we have some sources added to it? Sam Sailor Sing 16:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Say, [4], [5], [6]? 116.48.155.127 (talk) 16:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile, add Taipa too. 116.48.155.127 (talk) 17:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. While they might be nice to add, those sources are WP:PRIMARY and not WP:INDEPENDENT and WP:RELIABLE. — {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 17:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those are official sources. Here're two newspaper stories: [7], [8]. 116.48.155.127 (talk) 17:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those are WP:RS best I can tell... Reactivating. — {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 20:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
May I suggest that IP adds sources to Outer Harbour Ferry Terminal? If help is needed give me a shout on my talk page. Sam Sailor Sing 07:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Mdann52talk to me! 14:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please add the word 'checkpoint' to follow other checkpoint entries? Meanwhile, would you please add the Taipa one too? Thanks. 116.48.155.127 (talk) 18:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]