This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | A news item involving Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 1 January 2019. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
What happens with trade between 2 nations when they are related by both CPTPP and RCEP, but with different standards ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.49.109.219 ( talk) 14:38, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
The article describes the history and the ratification process but no section actually describes the provisions in the agreement, I think this should be added. -- hroest 13:44, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The map needs to be pacific centric.
At the moment, the pacific is divided in two on the map of countries, highlighting the least relevant parts of the world.
This is annoying here, but in other cases, if this is the standard map being used, it could really get up people's noses, especially when taking (neo)colonial sensitivities into account.
Chris Fletcher ( talk) 03:11, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
New map is needed that includes Thailand and Ecuador as applicants highlight the countries in orange Black roses124 ( talk) 21:42, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Why are they not listed as a party? We note them as a signatory, but there is no explanation for why they are not listed as a party. Is this an oversight on our end? Or did they never ratify? If so, the article should probably include a sentence or two explaining why not.-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 02:19, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Given that the UK has now been accepted with final membership pending ratification by existing members, it might be more accurate to change the UK colour on the map and perhaps update the accompanying key to something like `Accepted applicants-dark red` Gashmak ( talk) 15:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
I believe that it is worth making a separate page for the United Kingdom's accession to CPTPP, using the subsection on Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. Its section within enlargement is far too big compared to the others, and sub sections are getting confused. I would be willing to write additional content that I have been reluctant to add to the CPTPP page.
CPTPP—United Kingdom relations
StevoLaker ( talk) 00:18, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
There's one one brief paragraph about what the treaty does, the rest is the history of negotiations, ratifications, minutae about the commission and a bunch about applicants.ts. 86.8.114.154 ( talk) 12:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
[1] [2] [3] [4]. Can someone expand on the article about how Britian is now a member of the CPTPP? TheCorvetteZR1 (The Garage) 15:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | A news item involving Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 1 January 2019. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
What happens with trade between 2 nations when they are related by both CPTPP and RCEP, but with different standards ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.49.109.219 ( talk) 14:38, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
The article describes the history and the ratification process but no section actually describes the provisions in the agreement, I think this should be added. -- hroest 13:44, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The map needs to be pacific centric.
At the moment, the pacific is divided in two on the map of countries, highlighting the least relevant parts of the world.
This is annoying here, but in other cases, if this is the standard map being used, it could really get up people's noses, especially when taking (neo)colonial sensitivities into account.
Chris Fletcher ( talk) 03:11, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
New map is needed that includes Thailand and Ecuador as applicants highlight the countries in orange Black roses124 ( talk) 21:42, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Why are they not listed as a party? We note them as a signatory, but there is no explanation for why they are not listed as a party. Is this an oversight on our end? Or did they never ratify? If so, the article should probably include a sentence or two explaining why not.-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 02:19, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Given that the UK has now been accepted with final membership pending ratification by existing members, it might be more accurate to change the UK colour on the map and perhaps update the accompanying key to something like `Accepted applicants-dark red` Gashmak ( talk) 15:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
I believe that it is worth making a separate page for the United Kingdom's accession to CPTPP, using the subsection on Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. Its section within enlargement is far too big compared to the others, and sub sections are getting confused. I would be willing to write additional content that I have been reluctant to add to the CPTPP page.
CPTPP—United Kingdom relations
StevoLaker ( talk) 00:18, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
There's one one brief paragraph about what the treaty does, the rest is the history of negotiations, ratifications, minutae about the commission and a bunch about applicants.ts. 86.8.114.154 ( talk) 12:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
[1] [2] [3] [4]. Can someone expand on the article about how Britian is now a member of the CPTPP? TheCorvetteZR1 (The Garage) 15:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)