Talk:Weihai

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Weihai 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

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements 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.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

China Mid‑importance

	China portal 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.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Proposal to split article

The article indicates a proposal to split this article. This was proposed in Dec 2012. The proposal is that there would be a separate article for the British colony material. I seem to be the first person to comment. I favor the proposal because the current city material and the colonial period material have sufficiently dissimilar content to merit their own articles. Further, a disambiguation page seems appropriate. I added a tag to this page. I am thinking of completing the split in 2 to 3 weeks approximately. FeatherPluma (talk) 20:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I would be opposed to this split at this time. The proposed split section would not really make a viable article and in any case, it is just that for a time, Weihai was a British colony. There is no need to split. Op47 (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose split. Material related to same physical territory should be kept in the same article unless the article becomes too large. It's nowhere near large enough to consider this. ~KvnG 03:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In favor. Weihaiwei is the only one of the 4 leased territories of China (Kwangchowan (Guangzhouwan), Kwantung Leased Territory, Kiautschou Bay Concession (really it should have been titled Kiautschou Leased Territory), and Weihaiwei) not to have its own page. I have edited and added material to Kwangchowan now and then and I'm preparing to add more. I would love to do the same soon for a Weihaiwei Leased Territory page (it should not be "Weihaiwei (British Colony)" since it was not a colony. I have good sourced material as well as maps and pictures. --Lubiesque (talk) 01:27, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In favor. I agree, there are loads of pictures of Weihaiwei and two good books about the subject are available, it appears to be quite different material to the new modern Weihai, I would be keen to help anyone develop this historical material about Weihaiwei. Let's do it. Chuangzu (talk) 12:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In favor It would be a great idea to have a separate article titled 'Weihaiwei (British leased territory)', then it can be listed separately under the British Empire project - (203.211.72.83 (talk) 23:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]

In favor. I have quite a lot of material on Weihaiwei Leased Territory Legal System and rendition. I have not added it because it would swamp the rest of the article. I agree Weihaiwei Leased Territory will probably be a better title. Shanghai88 (talk) 09:45 2 November 2013 (UTC)

In favor. I believe that there is more than enough information for there to be a separate article for the British colony. Only so much can be summarized within the article itself. -- Another n00b (talk) 19:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Usage of "special administrative region"

The word "special administrative region" is confusing and it should only referred to HKSAR and MSAR only.

Reserving that terminology to HK and M would have been my instinct too, but we seem to be incorrect, at least according to WP article on Special administrative region (Republic of China). FeatherPluma (talk) 23:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]