Talk:Five-year plans of China

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Five-year plans of China 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

Archives: 1: 30 days

A news item involving Five-year plans of China was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 14 March 2011.

Wikipedia

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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Socialism Mid‑importance

	Socialism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism 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.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Move discussion

A move to Five-year plans of the Communist Party of China is proposed.

I am not so convinced and believe the idea merits discussion first.

The proposed page title is less WP:concise. I am not so sure "...of [CPC/CCP]" is a common name either. One view is that "...of party" although longer is more WP:precise. I am also not so convinced of this, especially as it raises the contention of whether the correct rendering in English is Communist Party of China or Chinese Communist Party. I am someone who concludes that CPC is more correct, but in any case it strikes me as good to avoid the CPC/CCP article naming contentions unless there is more meaningful benefit.

I am open-minded on the issue but tend to think the article name should stay as is. If the consensus is ultimately to change it to "...of [party]," I would strongly favor starting fresh with the correct CPC rendering. JArthur1984 (talk) 14:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I think further on this, another reason the proposed name may be less precise is that FYPs are drafted by the CPC Central Committee but approved and further detailed by the NPC. Like many aspects of Chinese governance, they are a mixed party-state process. JArthur1984 (talk) 14:36, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]