Talk:China proper

Pashley, you wrote in the article China proper term is not much used today, except by some historians then whats the purpose of this article? How useful it is? This is encyclopaedic. --Saqib (talk) 20:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I am also finding this to be rather encyclopedic and fairly irrelevant to the traveller. Texugo (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

"not much used" does not mean entirely unused. What led me to create it was this text in South-central China:

The regions of Sichuan and Chongqing are sometimes referred to as Western China by Chinese, because they are the edge of China proper (the area historically inhabited by Han Chinese) even though they are near the center of the modern Chinese state.

There are other places where it could be used, for example the distinction between China proper and the areas controlled by the Chinese, Mongol, etc. Empires at various times might be used in the Silk Road article. It might even help simplify the China article itself; link to this instead of putting complex explanations there.

Anyway, I think more heavily-linked articles are a good idea; see Wikivoyage_talk:Search_Expedition#Index_articles. Pashley (talk) 22:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I also have to say that I can't see any traveler related content here. Also having a article that defines the historical area of China has the potential to attract contention in the future. Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Heavily linking articles is a good thing. Stretching and/or redefining our scope for the express purpose of having such articles, however, is not. Texugo (talk) 23:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer not to cramp your style, Pashley, as I know you enjoy creating articles about now-defunct historical entities. But in most cases, there's some kind of travel-related angle. For example, the Persian Empire article lists cities that have existed since those times and can be visited by travelers, and also links to some non-obvious regions and On the trail of Marco Polo, which details historical voyages modern travelers can retrace. If this article is merely historical explanation and has no salient point about places to visit, I would suggest merging only the most essential parts of the history to the China article as necessary and redirecting this article to China. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Merge?

It's 2021, and the most recent edits user:Soumya-8974 notwithstanding, this article hasn't expanded much since 2014 and still barely covers any travel content. Is there a good reason not to merge this back into China? ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd revert most of Soumya's edits. In particular, I think the list of the 18 provinces was useful & the list of cities just duplicates the China article.

I do not think merging is a good idea. Pashley (talk) 14:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Per your first point, fair enough. Per your second, why not? We're a travel guide, and this isn't a travel article, nor was it a travel article yesterday. If people want to look up a definition for China Proper, they should do so elsewhere, e.g. a dictionary or an encyclopaedia. If you're proposing to retain it and actually try to turn it into a travel article (without just duplicating what's covered the breadcrumb hierarchy), then I could see merit in that, but otherwise, the question I asked in my first post stands.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with ThunderingTyphoons on this one. China Proper includes most of China, so it's hard to see why it merits a separate article. STW932 (talk) 11:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Merge. Wikivoyage isn't an encyclopedia. We don't need an article about a historical term. If someone searches on "China proper" and is redirected to China, they will get better travel information than this article provides. Ground Zero (talk) 12:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Worth noting that the terms "China proper", "Eighteen provinces", "Inner China" aren't mentioned even once on the China article. Perhaps they should be, in the 'History' section for instance, but the fact that they aren't does rather indicate the level of importance they have to the contemporary traveller.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Merge. China already includes a disclaimer, "Wikivoyage covers Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan in separate articles." Anything worth salvaging from this article can be shoved into the Understand section. --Nelson Ricardo (talk) 15:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

It could be retained as an extra-hierarchical region as a term to describe the traditional Han Chinese heartland (excluding the Tibetan, Mongol, Uyghur, Hmong and other ethnic minority regions). But of course, it's complicated by the fact that the Han Chinese people of Fujian and Guangdong are believed to have been descended from ethnic minorities that got assimilated. The dog2 (talk) 17:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

If we are going to merge, then merge to Imperial China. That's a historical background article that covers the periods in question; "18 provinces" was a Qing Dynasty term & "China proper" was commonest in the colonial era. We do not want to clutter the main China article with this stuff. Pashley (talk) 06:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

There won't be any clutter, because there isn't much content to merge; three sentences at most. However, if Imperial China is a more logical destination for a redirect, that works for me.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I think we may have a consensus to merge to Imperial China. If I'm wrong and there's still a discussion to be had, you've got 24 hours (or more if I forget!) to come up with something.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

It is done.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)