Talk:Chimerica

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Business Mid‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business 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.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Economics Mid‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics 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.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Finance & Investment Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment 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.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

China

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

does this need to be standalone article?[edit]

Why shouldn't it be merged with Group of Two? -- AnonMoos (talk) 17:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand how Wikipedia works, the question should go the other way. Why should it merge? --Biblbroks (talk) 20:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is a somewhat ugly-sounding neologism coined by a journalist, which does not seem to have caught on in any major way... AnonMoos (talk) 02:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ugly or not, it's there. And the article states "... by historian Niall Ferguson and economist Moritz Schularick..." - that's two people. First one has quite an ample article. On the other hand, the second one has a red link associated with the name. Regards, --Biblbroks (talk) 15:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However, does this article serve any distinctive purpose which would not be served better by merging its information into the Group of Two article? I would tend to doubt it... AnonMoos (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then be my guest: tend to doubt it. Btw, you could also propose a merge. Best regards, --Biblbroks (talk) 21:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was asking if anyone had any real significant meaningful reasons to oppose a merge. AnonMoos (talk) 00:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After checking some refs from both articles, other links from those refs, their timestamps, and the usage and the meaning of the terms Chimerica and G-2 in those sources, I think that the term G-2 is older than Chimerica. So it might be appropriate to merge this article into G-2. Therefore I conclude that I have no real significant meaningful reasons to oppose such a merge if it were proposed. --Biblbroks (talk) 09:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i've rarely heard gang of two, but "chin-am" or "ChinAm" is quite common among the diaspora. "chin-am relations", 3rd gen chinam", etc. if we're gonna mention its japanese equiv "nichi-bei", we should at least mention the one it's ACTUALLY meant to supplant.

more importantly, why did ferguson et al feel a need to coin a new version? file under "reinventing the wheel".... 66.30.47.138 (talk) 07:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Map[edit]

Any chance of a Pacific-centred map? Gob Lofa (talk) 13:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chimerica. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:19, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]