Template talk:Neoauthoritarianism in China

Title

• Neoconservatism in China
• Neoauthoritarianism in China

There's a 'move' war going on about which of these two is more appropriate for the title. Let's discuss it here.

I prefer "Neoconservatism". The reason is that I can clearly convey to my readers that this is a conservative ideology, and the moderate/liberal-conservatives in Hong Kong or Macau are less authoritarian. Above all, when arranging "Ideologies," if the title is "Neoauthoritarianism," what can simply be shortened to Authoritarian, Cultural, Social, and Ultra should be written as Authoritarian conservatism, Cultural conservatism, Social conservatism and Ultraconservatism. Because unfamiliar readers may not be able to grasp whether "Neoauthoritarianism" is conservative. ProKMT (talk) 07:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

• Neoauthoritarianism in China is more fitting because it emphasizes centralized authority, which better describes China's political structure. The term "Neoconservatism" might suggest a balance with liberal values, which doesn't fully capture the importance of authority in China's context. The link also redirects to neoauthoritarianism article not neoconservatism. Since the ideology's name in the article is widely agreed as neoauthoritarianism, the template should mirror the main article. If not, it would confuse readers.

Guotaian (talk) 07:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

According to that logic, the title of the article is "Neoauthoritarianism (China)" in the first place, not "Neoauthoritarianism in China" ProKMT (talk) 07:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

The main article and the template is referring to the same ideology. So it is best for readers to be consistent. Guotaian (talk) 07:27, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Currently, there are a lot of users who support "Neoconservatism", and you are the only 1 who supports "Neoauthoritarianism". So, for now, we need to keep the title as "Neoconservantism". ProKMT (talk) 07:36, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

You can't just make a claim without proof. There is no source that "most" users support neo con. Additionally, it is not constructive to provide false information such as " you are the only 1 who supports" in order to achieve your aims. Guotaian (talk) 07:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Above all, the phrase "Neoauthoritarianism in China" is so long that the template is longer than the original size. This is a very serious problem because the template sizes are different when used at the same time as the "Conservatism in China" template. See Global Times ProKMT (talk) 07:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

The template size is irrelevant when it comes to wikipedia. According to wikipedia, "Wikipedia's purpose is to provide free, comprehensive, and accessible information on all topics to benefit readers". So it is more important to give users accurate and comprehensive information than caring about something so minute such as " template sizes" Guotaian (talk) 07:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

The correct information is that "Neoauthoritarianism" and "Neoconservatism" mean virtually the same thing, and Neoauthoritarianism is an absolutely conservative and absolutely right-wing ideology. If the template sizes are significantly different, it becomes very seriously esthetically ugly. ProKMT (talk) 07:51, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't disagree that "Neoauthoritarianism" and "Neoconservatism" are synonymous. However, the main article and the template is referring to the same ideology, and the need to be consistently is necessary. Guotaian (talk) 07:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

You did a prank editing. # This is Vandalism. ProKMT (talk) 07:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Don't be salty. Just have a formal and civil discussion. Guotaian (talk) 07:56, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Neoauthoritarianism is very narrow in scope and has been morphing into neoconservatism anyway. Vacosea (talk) 20:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

To be clear I support Neoconservatism as the better title. Notifying Guotaian and ProKMT to hear their thoughts. Vacosea (talk) 20:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC)