Talk:Greater China

RFD discussion: March–April 2016
SoP: greater + China. See above. DCDuring TALK 11:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, delete. Compare 'Greater Germany", "Greater Macedonia", etc... - -sche (discuss) 16:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as sum-of-parts. Means whatever the writer or speaker uses it to mean.  P Aculeius (talk) 16:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep of course. The fact that it could include Taiwan and Singapore makes it idiomatic. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 11:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. The meaning of in this case is the same as the meaning of greater in thousands of similar phrases, it means 'and certain associated areas.  The Greater Burlington Area near me includes Essex and Shelburne, which isn't obvious to people not familiar with the area but that does not make Greater Burlington Area'' idiomatic. - TheDaveRoss 13:04, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * And yet a reasonable person would not expect Greater China to include Taiwan and Singapore, which are separated from mainland China by the sea. A reasonable person would want to know what a term which can refer to a couple of billion people means. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 03:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Given that China includes Taiwan (by one common definition), I find it unlikely that any reasonable person wouldn't expect the collocation "Greater China" to include Taiwan. - -sche (discuss) 01:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ. Whether Taiwan should be considered part of China is highly contentious; whether Greater China would include Taiwan - not to mention Singapore, an entirely independent country - is surely something a user would want to know when coming across the term. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 04:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * But that's precisely why the term doesn't have a definition. It means whatever the speaker or writer wants it to mean, and the only way to know what that is, is for the writer or speaker to tell you.  P Aculeius (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "Whether Taiwan should be considered part of China is highly contentious" we're not an encyclopedia, we just define things. Whether something's controversial has no relevance whatsoever. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, I think the argument that a term is controversial - or does not have a readily understood definition - and therefore should not be included in a dictionary is a specious argument. By that logic we should delete Middle East, not to mention Greater Middle East, immediately. (And, yes, writers often use these terms with their own limited interpretation of them in their head - but the same could be said for any term - existentialism for example.) ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 04:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * RFD failed. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 18:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Note there is a Wikipedia article:. Also at least one of our other entries links to this now-deleted entry. Equinox ◑ 19:20, 30 September 2023 (UTC)