Jump to content

Talk:Taiwan (disambiguation)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]
english=Formosa
traditional=臺灣
simplified=台湾
pinyin=Táiwān
wade-giles=T'ai-wan
bopomofo=ㄊㄞˊㄨㄢˉ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.8.110 (talk) 06:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removals: Chinese Taipei; Taiwan, Province of China

[edit]

Removed:

  • Taiwan, Province of China, according to the UN, see Republic of China
    • "Taiwan, Province of China" is a redirect. According to the UN, the Republic of China does not exist, so the link does not make sense.
  • the Taiwanese Authority, according to the People's Republic of China, see Chinese Taipei
    • "Chinese Taipei" is an international designation for Taiwan ROC. Directing people in search of "Taiwanese Authority" there is misleading and unhelpful. This is a disambiguation for the word "Taiwan", not "Taiwanese Authority".

--Jiang 02:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of any silliness at the UN, the Republic of China certainly does exist, they had elections rather recently, their government is involved in regular talks with the PRC and has a fairly well equipped defense force. Trying to pretend they don't exist is silliness at best. Arker 04:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response:
    • They might want "Chinese Taipei", and all you need to is modify the description for it to "The interantional designation for the Republic of China (otherwise known as Taiwan): Chinese Taipei"
    • "Taiwan, Province of China" contains "Taiwan" most prominently, so I don't see why that isn't a valid place to point to. The term exists. If you don't like the link, put a "see 'redirect:destination' " instead.
    • 132.205.93.89 22:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have difficulty understanding your response. What is "They might want...." supposed to mean? Who? "Chinese Taipei, the international designation for the Republic of China, commonly known as Taiwan, used in deference to the People's Republic of China, where organizations defer to the PROC." is not proper disambiguation form. It does not show how "Chinese Taipei" can be confused with Taiwan.

"Taiwan, Province of China, the term used by the United Nations, in deference to the People's Republic of China, in reference to the Republic of China, commonly known as Taiwan, see Chinese Taipei." Again, "Chinese Taipei" is not supposed to be synonymous with "Taiwan, Province of China" and the article in questions explains how "Chinese Taipei" is used as a term, and does not explain the "Province of China" in its entirety (eg culture, geography, etc). --Jiang 00:03, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response:
    • It's not my fault that Taiwan, Province of China redirects to Chinese Taipei. However, Taiwan, Province of China is mentioned in the Chinese Taipei article. Your complaint was that I placed a redirected link on the page, I solved that by placing the redirect target on the page. Now your complaint is that the target page is not the proper page to link to. The only solution to your problem is for you to place a template:rfd onto the Taiwan, Province of China redirect and delete it. Otherwise, it is a proper solution to place Taiwan, Province of China on the disambiguation page, because people could very easily be looking for that through "Taiwan".
    • Chinese Taipei is also a very conceiable destination for someone looking at "Taiwan", as it is the internationl name for Taiwan, therefore a proper disambiguation.
    • I see you deleted REpublic of Formosa before, but it's back by someone else, and you didn't delete it again. This is also a proper disambiguation.
    • A disambiguation page is a page that points to things that people might want to look at when they type in the ambiguous article (Taiwan). The three above are obviously things that people could be searching for when they type in Taiwan.
    • 132.205.45.110 18:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since when have we linked redirects, or more specifically, link redirects and their destinations on a disambiguation page? Give an example. The whole purpose of a disambiguation page is defeated when there exists a redirect. If readers are already linked to their destination, then there is no disambiguation to be done!

While people going to "Chinese Taipei" may be more interested in what is covered in the "Taiwan" or "Republic of China" articles, the opposite is not true because going from general to specific is not handled by the disambiguation. It is handled by the article text. The "Chinese Taipei" article is a description of the term and an explanation of its uses. This makes it a subarticle of "Taiwan"/"Republic of China". Furthermore, this is not presented in disambiguation format. Will readers be looking solely for the information in "Chinese Taipei" and not in "Taiwan" be misdirected to the Taiwan article? I find it highly unlikely. --Jiang 22:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response:
    • People can well infact be looking for the Taiwan, Province of China term. Since the redirects to Chinese Taipei, that is an appropriate target for disambiguation. The fact that "Taiwan, Province of China" contains the term "Taiwan" should obviously make it a proper subject for disambiguation.
    • Chinese Taipei could well be something they're looking for. "Taiwan" is easier to remember that "Chinese Taipei". If someone sees "Chinese Taipei", but is told that that's the "Taiwanese National Sports Team", they could well look for information in Wikipedia under Taiwan, but be looking for Chinese Taipei.
    • 132.205.45.148 17:18, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are begging the question. Let me try to explain again: "Taiwan, Province of China" is a redirect. Therefore, people searching for "Taiwan, Province of China" are already led to "Chinese Taipei". Therefore, stating that if you are looking for "Taiwan, Province of China", then you should go to "Chinese Taipei" is redundant and unncecessary. The software already does that. "Taiwan, Province of China" is not an article. I repeat: Since when have we linked redirects, or more specifically, link redirects and their destinations on a disambiguation page? Give me just one instance of this on wikipedia.

"Chinese Taipei" is already linked in the Taiwan article. People looking for information about the use of "Chinese Taipei" will find it there and can click on the linked text for detail. Disambiguation serves a single purpose: to let the reader choose among different pages that might reside under the same title. Will the "Chinese Taipei" article appropriately reside as "Taiwan"? Of course not! The whole article dwells on the term "Chinese Taipei", not "Taiwan". The article on "Chinese Taipei" is not a country/province article on Taiwan island. It is specific to its page title.

And please don't reformat my posts. They are following standard wikipedia talk page protocol. You indent, I don't since I started. --Jiang 18:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then, why do you delete all references to Taiwan, Province of China from the disambiguation page? Redirects exist to allow people to get to the article that contains the information they're looking for on the proper page. Proper protocol would mean that you change references to redirects to point directly to the redirect target, to reduce load on the servers. So, why did you remove the link this time? "Taiwan, Province of China" redirects to "Chinese Taipei", so, obviously, since "Taiwan, Province of China" should properly be listed on the disambiguation page, the see Chinese Taipei would be there.
That Chinese Taipei is linked to from the Taiwan article is neither here nor there, since this is a dab page, and its links are independant of whatever is on the Taiwan article page. That people would look for Chinese Taipei as a meaning of Taiwan is entirely relevant to it being on the Taiwan dab page.
The whole article of "Chinese Taipei" dwells on why Taiwan is called Chinese Taipei, and not Taiwan or Republic of China, so it should appear on the Taiwan dab page because of that.
That Taiwan, Province of China redirects to Chinese Taipei, also means that Chinese Taipei should be on the dab page.
"Taiwan, Province of China" should appear on the dab page because it's Taiwan, Province of China, that much should be self-explanatory.
Redirects exist for a reason. But since they are redirects, are you going to delete all information about the redirected information because they are redirects?
I've listed this at WP:RFC because we are having a major disagreement on proper content.
You want a dab page that has a redirect target listed? Ironsides lists USS Constitution, the detination of the redirect Old Ironsides.
132.205.45.110 18:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan, Province of China is not referenced because no such article exists, and as long as we leave it as a redirect, we dont intend it to exist. Since when have we linked redirects, or more specifically, link redirects and their destinations on a disambiguation page? Ironside links USS Constitution, not Old Ironsides in the format *'''[[USS Constitution|The USS Constitution]]''', which was nicknamed '''"Old Ironsides"'''. This is proper disambiguation format since the destination article (and not the redirect) is linked and the alternate name directly reflects the disambiguation page title. Since when has the name "Taiwan" appeared in the two words "Chinese" and "Taipei"?

You say, "Redirects exist to allow people to get to the article that contains the information they're looking for on the proper page." So what? This is a disambiguation page, not a redirect. You say "Proper protocol would mean that you change references to redirects to point directly to the redirect target, to reduce load on the servers." You are wrong. There's nothing here asking us to reduce loads on the servers. And again, this is neither a redirect nor a redirect target. This is a disambiguation page. You ask "So, why did you remove the link this time?" I answer, because it is a redirect. You say, "'Taiwan, Province of China' redirects to 'Chinese Taipei', so, obviously, since 'Taiwan, Province of China' should properly be listed on the disambiguation page, the see Chinese Taipei would be there." Taiwan, Province of China should not be listed on this disambiguation page. See above.

You say, "That Chinese Taipei is linked to from the Taiwan article is neither here nor there, since this is a dab page, and its links are independant of whatever is on the Taiwan article page." I say, please type in grammatical sentences. The large proportion of sentences here that fail to follow the rules of English grammar or basic logic is forcing me to read over your postings several times to understand you. In this case, I don't understand you. You say, "That people would look for Chinese Taipei as a meaning of Taiwan is entirely relevant to it being on the Taiwan dab page." I say, I never claimed that people would "look for Chinese Taipei as a meaning of Taiwan". Chinese Taipei is not a "meaning of Taiwan". Instead, I said "The 'Chinese Taipei' article is a description of the term and an explanation of its uses. This makes it a subarticle of 'Taiwan"/"Republic of China'."

You say, "The whole article of "Chinese Taipei" dwells on why Taiwan is called Chinese Taipei, and not Taiwan or Republic of China, so it should appear on the Taiwan dab page because of that." I say, the logic doesn't follow. It is because of your premise that your conclusion is false. Dwelling on why Taiwan is called Chinese Taipei implies that the article is focused on "Chinese Taipei" as a term and is unsuitable as a replacement for the Taiwan article. Disambiguation serves a single purpose: to let the reader choose among different pages that might reside under the same title. Will the "Chinese Taipei" article appropriately reside as "Taiwan"? Of course not! The whole article dwells on the term "Chinese Taipei", not "Taiwan". The article on "Chinese Taipei" is not a country/province article on Taiwan island. It is specific to its page title.

"That Taiwan, Province of China redirects to Chinese Taipei, also means that Chinese Taipei should be on the dab page." But would Chinese Taipei satisfy the single purpose of disaambiguation in wikipedia? Perhaps the redirect is unsuitable. Perhaps we should extend the Chinese Taipei article to a general article on names and designation for Taiwan as a proposed about a year ago.

You say, "'Taiwan, Province of China' should appear on the dab page because it's Taiwan, Province of China, that much should be self-explanatory." I say, this doesn't settle the fact that you are linking a redirect and that Chinese Taipei is an unsuitable article for listing here.

You ask, "But since they are redirects, are you going to delete all information about the redirected information because they are redirects?" I answer, redirects contain no information. This instance contains only the code #REDIRECT[[Chinese Taipei]]. Did I delete the redirect? It still works! We are not aiming for inclusion of information here. We are trying to aid confused readers to the proper location to find this information. In doing this, we list different pages that might reside under the same title. If the page cannot properly reside under "Taiwan", then it is perhaps not a central article, but a periphery or side article that does not belong here.--Jiang 04:33, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your comments

[edit]

I would like to read this discussion and try to give a neutral opinion, but I can hardly even make out what the stances are because most remarks are unsigned. Jiang, I personally would not answer unsigned remarks. Also, : can be used for indentation when replying. Piet 15:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It appears everything is signed to me. 70.51.8.110 (talk) 06:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I have read the above dispute and from studying the links to this page, I do not believe that a link to Taiwan, Province of China (nor to Chinese Taipei) would be helpful to those who stumble upon this page. JeremyStein 18:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And why would that not be? I have pointed out that "Taiwan Province" is also commonly referenced as "Taiwan". Maybe not in your community, but surely in others. I've also pointed out other explanations as well. Liu Tao (talk) 15:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I've pointed it out in the Talk:Taiwan article, not here... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liu Tao (talk • contribs) 15:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan/ROC

[edit]

We're having issues on the wording of the sentence "Chinese Taipei, the name that the Taiwan or the ROC competes under in the Olympics and many other international events."

Taiwan should not be included because Chinese Taipei is NOT Taiwan, it is the ROC only under a different name. To say that it is also Taiwan is to say that the ROC and Taiwan are the SAME entities, which we have all largely agreed they are not. To remove the "Taiwan" out is not POV, it is called "removing incorrect information". Chinese Taipei is not the name Taiwan competes under, it is the name the ROC competes under. Taiwan is an island, a geographic entity, not a political entity, it cannot participate in international events because it doesn't even exist as a political entity besides the Taiwan Province. To include "Taiwan" in the sentence is to include incorrect information. Wikipedia does not support incorrect information in their articles. Liu Tao (talk) 20:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not incorrect to call the ROC "Taiwan". This is the common name of the ROC; this is how it's called by most media organization; and it's the name under which the ROC is known by most people (at least in English speaking countries, which is the audience we write for on en.wikipedia). To avoid an edit war, I'm fine with the Taiwan/ROC compromise though. Laurent (talk) 21:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To say that it is also Taiwan is to say that the ROC and Taiwan are the SAME entities, which we have all largely agreed they are not.
In one sense of course they are not. Taiwan is the place, region, or country. ROC is the government. The government does not compete in sporting events as "Chinese Taipei". But it does participate in groups like the WTO using the informal name "Chinese Taipei" (the formal name is much longer).
WikiLaurent is also right that the ROC is known by most people as Taiwan. Readin (talk) 21:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How many times must I say it? RoC is not a frickin government, it is a STATE and is composed of a government, territory, and population (the basic parts for a state). ROC itself is also a place, region, and country. Taiwan only covers the Island or Province (depends on usage), and not the whole of the ROC. People of Kinmen and Matsu are represented by Chinese Taipei too, which obviously makes Taiwan NOT the only range covered by the Chinese Taipei or ROC. Taiwan is NOT the territory of the ROC, it is A territory of the ROC. As for the ROC being referred as Taiwan, it is already mentioned 3 lines above, to mention it again is superfulous and unnecessary as well as could be considered as POV. Also, to call the ROC "Taiwan" is only correct in the common usage and speech (AKA slang) where it is commonly used as so. As for technicality, political, and 'official' context, to refer to the ROC as "Taiwan" is incorrect. And even if the ROC is commonly referred to as "Taiwan", it is only common in SOME places, not ALL. Long story short, the reference of the ROC as "Taiwan" is NOT UNIVERSAL. There are still places, communities, and societies where the "ROC" and "Taiwan" are not used synonymously and are differentiated. Liu Tao (talk) 23:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is inappropriate, I'm spending hours of my time debating with you guys, and you guys just respond with a few words or just ignore me. Either you guys keep debating or you are forfeiting to my points. I'm offering a debate, but you guys are refusing to participate in it. If you're gonna be like this, then you shouldn't be undoing other people's edits based on these points of which you refuse to touch upon on. Liu Tao (talk) 18:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with some of the things you say, and some of your arguments are irrelevant on Wikipedia because you seem to ignore the policies. For instance, there's no point to keep repeating that calling the ROC "Taiwan" is "incorrect" since Wikipedia doesn't care about what's "correct" or not. We care about the facts, as documented by reliable sources, and the sources tell us that the ROC is more often called "Taiwan" than "the ROC". So, per the WP:COMMONNAMES policy - and if we want readers to know what we are talking about - it's the name we should always use on Wikipedia. Obviously it's not going to happen so we need to reach a compromise. "Taiwan/ROC", "ROC (Taiwan)" or "ROC, commonly known as Taiwan" are good compromises in my opinion, and the second one was actually used by the government at some point. Laurent (talk) 20:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You want veriability? It's something called "common sense". You got something who's name is "Republic of China" and you call it "Taiwan", obviously that is not correct. You claim that readers won't know what we're talking about, says who? Have you done a survey. As far as I can see, I don't see why they wouldn't know what we are talking about. The ROC article, first sentence, "Republic of China, commonly known as Taiwan". Wow, if a reader doesn't even read the first sentence of an article, the lad's not a reader. Even if we still end up renaming the ROC article to "Taiwan (state)" or something like that, we've still to differentiate it from the island, province, region, etc. That is the point I am trying to make, not about the frikin names of the different entities. Liu Tao (talk) 06:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move request (2012)

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The first thing to note is that I have not taken into consideration the vast majority of comments made by unregistered editors, since there appears to be strong evidence of votestacking or meatpuppetry, and the majority of the rest do not appear to have realised that the article currently at Taiwan is about the island, and the article on the country is presently at Republic of China. And therein lies the problem, as this appears to be confusing to many editors, and presumably many readers.

Those supporting the move argue that there is no primary topic for the word "Taiwan", and that the term refers to an island, the nation, and several other things. The grounds for opposition are more numerous and less consistent, ranging from arguments that the proposed move would only add to the confusion or that the Island is the primary topic, or that we should have a single article covering both the Island and the nation. However, things are made more complicated by others who support the moving of the article on the island to Taiwan (island) (or a variation thereof), but oppose or do not comment on the proposal to place a disambiguation page at Taiwan.

If I were to take into account only those explicitly supporting or opposing the proposal as stated, we would have approximately 65% support (right on the borderline in my opinion), and the result might well have been a finding of consensus in favour of the proposal as stated. However, factoring in those who have articulated a third viewpoint, I find there is no consensus for the proposal as stated. Whether there is consensus for moving the article on the island to Taiwan (island) is murkier, and I would suggest that that issue should be the subject of another requested move once everyone has had time to recover from this one. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no single primary topic for "Taiwan". It may refers to the geographical island and the islets immediately around it, or the modern Republic of China at least from the 1990s onwards. By doing so incoming links to Taiwan can regularly be corrected like those directing at Washington or Georgia.relisted-since the last relisting there has been both supports and opposes but maybe progress toward consensus. Another week may demonstrate the ill-advised nature of the premature close on 11 Feb, --Mike Cline (talk) 01:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC) relisted --Mike Cline (talk) 18:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC) 61.18.170.226 (talk) 16:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer, this discussion is marred by SPA and socks. 218.250.159.25 has extensive commentary here that doesn't make sense to strike, that IP has since been blocked. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Agree. 42.3.2.237 (talk) 11:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC) — 42.3.2.237 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Support, as a step in the right direction. Jenks24 (talk) 04:44, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (struck, see indented reply below), reluctantly. This is a step in the right direction, but it's not a big enough step and it'll be inappropriately pointed to to oppose a future movement of ROC->Taiwan. Yes, there are many closely related subjects to which Taiwan may refer, but I disagree that we don't have a primary topic. In the vast majority of English language sources, Taiwan refers to the country as a political entity, with geographic meanings coming in a far but not-insignificant second. In my view, the first and biggest step here needs to be to get a good 'this is what the Taiwan country article will look like' up and vote on that. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 05:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is worse, to have Taiwan as an island article, or to at least admit it could also refer to the country, i.e. to have a disambiguation page? Would you maybe at least support to move the island away from "Taiwan"? As you, I think for most people outside East Asia, Taiwan refers to the country. But I don't know how the situation is for people from Japan, PRC, ROC and Korea. Huayu-Huayu (talk) 12:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll clarify better. My ideal solution is Taiwan→Taiwan (island), and Republic of China→Taiwan. In view of this I support Taiwan→Taiwan (island) but suggest instead a redirect, not a move, of Taiwan to Taiwan (disambiguation). This leaves the door open later for the second potential move of ROC->Taiwan. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Taiwan redirecting to Taiwan (disambiguation) is a WP:MALPLACED disambiguation page, and would be fixed as a non-controversial move by moving the disambiguation page to the base name. The door would still be open to a second potential move of ROC → Taiwan regardless -- if that move request were successful, the disambiguation page would simply be moved again. It's an easy move, and there's never any reason for "X" to redirect to "X (qualifier)" or "X (disambiguation)". -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Noted on the MALPLACED topic, I'd forgotten about that one. My concern that the move will be pointed to as precedent of consensus remains though - it may be run of the mill from a procedural point of view, but minority opinion (whether it be support or oppose) sometimes has a tendency to grasp at straw(men) to resist a move. I'd want to be clear that my support for Taiwan being the DAB page is temporary and that I will support a future move request to put ROC at Taiwan. Some editors have put a lot of effort into sandbox versions of the affected articles and when they put that to a vote (which should have been soon, until this one popped up), my support will move from this proposal to that one. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 02:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, this is even more confusing for readers. They would expect some full article, not a DAB page. I'd prefer Taiwan → Taiwan (island) and leaving a redirect behind. -- Luk talk 10:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. See below. 42.3.2.237 (talk) 11:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That solution presumes that the primary topics for both Taiwan and Taiwan (island) are the same (the topic of that article). In that case, per WP:TITLE, Taiwan is preferred as the title for concision. If we prefer Taiwan (island) to Taiwan on the grounds that Taiwan is ambiguous, then we're saying Taiwan should be a dab page. In other words, you can't have it both ways; it's either too ambiguous to be a title and so should be a dab page, or it's not. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also suggest that having Taiwan redirect to Taiwan (island) is not the best choice. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Qualified support I support having an article on "Taiwan (island)" for the island itself. But there needs to be an article called "Taiwan" for the country. It must not be a DAB. John Smith's (talk) 15:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- WP has decided that the name "Taiwan" should be used for the present polity, officially called the "Republic of China" to distinguish it from its mainland predecessor and from Peoples Republic of China. The problem is that it is strictly only the name of the main island. The decision that the country is Taiwan means that that should certainly not be a dabpage, but a page on the state. That article needs a dab-hatnote to another article which can cover the other uses, but I do not think that ought to be called a disambiguation article, becasue they will all be about aspects of the same thing. This is not a fully formed solution to the problem, but I hope that it will help others come up with one. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even if the country should be called "Taiwan" in some written text, it does not mean that the country is the primary topic. One can have one meaning of a word in special contexts and another one in other contexts. Like depending on context Washington can have a specific meaning, but still it is ambiguous. There are no special cases for countries in the WP dab system. Huayu-Huayu (talk) 14:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Neither is primary topic. 203.145.92.206 (talk) 04:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC) — 203.145.92.206 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Support. The primary topic of "Taiwan" is not the island but the country. That a small cadre of editors refuses to recognize the end of the Chinese Civil War in 1949 should not cause Wikipedia to perpetuate an inaccuracy. Making "Taiwan" a dab page is a step in the right direction. —  AjaxSmack  04:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If the article on the country were called "Taiwan", would it be sensible to have a separate article on the island comprising 99% of its territory? Kanguole 10:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Not, but the proposal here doesn't address that issue. It does, however, represent a step in the right direction — the island is not the primary topic. I'm of the same mind as you on the utility of a single article (I once proposed merging the useless Korean Peninsula article with Korea) but see this move as positive development —  AjaxSmack  01:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to me that the goal should be a merge of the two articles under the common name. This request seems be a step in the opposite direction, as the move of the dab page to the plain title would have to be undone. In the meantime the maze of pages is that little bit more complicated and we inflict another dab page on everyone searching for this term. Kanguole 02:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Incidentally, Taiwan has about 10,000 incoming links from other articles, which this move will turn into dab links that need "fixing", even though the error is at the other end of the link, i.e. what is located at "Taiwan". Kanguole 12:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    A bot can probably deal with the redirects if we assume they are correctly linked already, and if not, it will allow us to fix all the errant ones. As for the dab page, it's very easy to move it back to disambiguation if another article, say a merged one, is found to be primary. This move really won't affect any merge proposal one way or another. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I've added {{movenotice}} to both affected articles. Kanguole 11:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this page move is enacted, then the proponents of the move you describe above will attempt to wait for some time and see the number of views of [[Taiwan (island)]] and [[Republic of China]] as further evidence in favour of their schemes. GotR Talk 01:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Many of the opposes (a good example being the one above) come from a desire to have the country article at Taiwan, or the confusion that the Taiwan article is about the country. These opposes don't contradict the supporting argument that the island is not the primary topic, and I suppose actually agree with that idea, as they want the country to be the primary topic. CMD (talk) 14:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose this because I think that the primary topic for the name "Taiwan" is the island country. The main reason this topic is split between two articles (unlike the cases of Iceland, Cuba, Madagascar and Sri Lanka) is that some people want to call the country and the island by different names. This move will be a step away from the goal of a single article, will perpetuate the confusing distinction between the country and its territory, and will create an unnecessary dab page (the cost of which many here seem to underestimate). Kanguole 17:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't just two different names. The country and the islands aren't coterminous, which is the case of none of the island-countries that you suggested. Taiwan wasn't part of the ROC before 1945 (although Quemoy, Wuchiu and the Matsu Islands were), and even in 2012 there are remote islands of the ROC that aren't considered to be part of Taiwan. Further, I don't think this move is that much relevant to the debate on whether the articles Taiwan and Republic of China should be merged. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 18:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, all four of the island-countries mentioned include other islands besides the main island. older ≠ wiser 18:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the islands of the ROC are part of Taiwan, such as the Green Island, the Pengchia Island, and the Pescadores. Some other islands aren't part of Taiwan, such as Itu Aba, Quemoy, and so on. It's just like the Copeland Islands and the Rathlin Island, which aren't part of Great Britain although they are part of the UK. In the case of Iceland, e.g., all islands are part of Iceland. The same is true for Cuba, etc. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 08:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those other islands you're referring to comprise 0.5% of the land area of the country, with 0.33% of the population, which hardly seems enough to justify a distinct article for the rest. The Copeland Islands and Rathlin Island of Northern Ireland (which is part of the UK) are completely irrelevant. Kanguole 17:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The Copelands and Rathlin aren't comparable at all. Although the remote islands of the ROC are insignificant in terms of geography, population size or size of economy, they are important to the contemporary ROC and modern Chinese history in general in terms of politics, history and location. Further, Taiwan (including the Pescadores and the rest of the Taiwanese Archipelago) wasn't part of the ROC before 1945 (yet Quemoy, Wuchiu and the Matsu Islands were). In comparison Iceland the island has always been part of Iceland the country or the Danish/Norwegian dominion, and Cuba the island has always been part of Cuba the country or the former US unincorporated territory/Spanish colony. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They're important to be sure, but that doesn't justify separate articles for the whole country and the part of the country that has 99.5% of the land and 99.67% of the population. The territory before 1945 is of course relevant to historical articles, and we also have an article on the History of the Republic of China, but most of the literature sees the events of 1949 as a major watershed creating a new situation, for which they use a new nomenclature. It is that situation we should describe. Kanguole 17:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great Britain perhaps constitutes 97% of the population of the UK, and probably more than 97% in terms of size of economy. The same may perhaps be true for Honshu with respect to Japan, the Lower 48 with respect to the United States, Metropolitan France with respect to France, or Mainland Portugal with respect to Portugal. By the same token I see no reason why we cannot have an article specifically about Taiwan, the main island or the islands as a whole. Further, an important factor is that the Taiwanese islands had a significant separate path of history, and as a result a culture different from the rest of the ROC. But after all this isn't immediately relevant to the move request here. You may want to bring that up instead at Talk:Taiwan or Talk:Republic of China. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 18:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just a little bit of clarifications.. 1949 is a watershed, yet the ROC didn't become commonly known as Taiwan from that point onwards, but possibly two or three decades later. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 18:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how it is a step away from a single article. A merge request is independent of any sort of move, and will actually clarify the distinction between the country and article in some ways, such as the temporary prevention of readers clicking on misplaced Taiwan links that were meant to go to the country going to the island instead (and possibly being very confused about this). Could you elaborate on what the cost of a dab is? CMD (talk) 17:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's hardly independent, as the rationale for this move is the awkward split between the country and its territory so that people can use a different name for the country. I've described the loss of convenience to readers from a dab above, and commented below about the cost of "fixing" the dab links this will create (effort that will have been wasted if we ever reach a sensible structure). It will just create a useless and costly mess. Kanguole 18:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That may have been the original reason the page is split, but for now it's best to argue based on current content. I do agree with your opinion, but I think that while the dab is in place it will help readers who would otherwise hit an island article explicitly not focused on the country, which doesn't help them at all. I believe there will be another request to move Republic of China --> Taiwan after this request closes (no matter what the result of this is), which will have to include this move as well, if you're interested. CMD (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe we'll get good results by accepting the content and just moving it around. For example much of the current content of Republic of China won't make sense under the title "Taiwan", and conversely people will expect a country article to cover a lot of stuff that one doesn't. And I also view a dab a less useful than what we have now, as I've already said. If I'm planning a visit to a place, I'll want to know about its history, geography, wildlife, government, economy, culture, cuisine, etc. In the case of Taiwan, I'll find about half of that in the current article, with a hatnote telling me where to look for anything I don't find there. Not as good as Madagascar etc, where I'll find it all in one place, but better than a dab where I'll find none of it and have to guess which article has what I'm interested in. Kanguole 19:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are countries that you cannot expect the same thing. The article on the Netherlands, for example, hasn't got much about the culture, wildlife, cuisine, etc., of the BES islands. There are always exceptional cases that we got to work on with special arrangements, and in this case, neither the island (or the islands as a whole) nor the country is the sole primary topic. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. Republic of China is the only country article in Wikipedia lacking coverage of the history, geography and culture of the territory it occupies. Kanguole 23:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What about South Korea, Republic of Ireland, Pakistan, South Sudan, to name a few? And Republic of Ireland#History in particular? All these articles on divided regions need some certain degree of adaptations from the general norm of other country articles. I'm not suggesting that the ROC article cannot be substantially improved. Just that it can never be compared with articles such as France or New Zealand. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 10:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They all have coverage of the geography and culture of the area, and only the RoI article has a truncated history. Kanguole 11:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage on their pre-contemporary history, for example, are all briefer than usual. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 23:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Dab links need to be fixed by humans – see WP:DPL. If you look down that page you'll see that they're working on just under 20,000 links to the top 500 articles, the top one of which has 238 links. I can't imagine they'll be pleased when Taiwan pops up with over 10,000 links. Kanguole 02:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    So no worries about the work this move will create for other editors, then? Or are the supporters offering to fix a thousand dab links each? Kanguole 11:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think it's going to be more difficult than fixing the incoming links to Ireland, Washington, Macedonia, Turkey, Congo, Micronesia or Georgia. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 21:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I expect this is an example of what the WP:DPL people call a WP:CONCEPTDAB, as all the meanings of "Taiwan" on the disambiguation page are variations on one concept, unlike say Turkey (the country) and Turkey (bird), which have nothing in common but their name. Kanguole 00:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The bird is actually named after the country. But yes Turkey is a relatively more remote example. Still there are incoming links to Turkey that actually refer to the bird. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 10:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONGLY OPPOSE Taiwan is the "common name" as indisputably used by the international media for the democratic island country officially known as the Taiwan Republic of China (Taiwan). Redirecting this article to "Taiwan (Island)" would lower the status of Taiwan from that of country to just a territory, which is precisely what supporters of the People's Republic of China (PRC) would prefer to label it out their continuous efforts to try and claim Taiwan by waging a media war to deceive the general public into believing the Chinese communist propaganda that Taiwan is a so-called "23rd Province" of the People's Republic of China (PRC), which is absolute rubbish with no real world logical justification. The Taiwan article must treated equally in the same manner as other island nations such as the above mentioned Iceland as well as other island nations such as Cuba, Jamaica and Japan in order to comply with Wikipedia policies. If there needs to be any move or redirecting of the article, then I give full support for redirecting the Republic of China (Taiwan) article to the Taiwan article. 118.163.7.55 (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal isn't about moving the country article to Taiwan (island). It's about moving the island article to Taiwan (island). 218.250.159.25 (talk) 21:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To the closing admin, this is another oppose made under the assumption that this page is about a country, something the move would help to rectify. CMD (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The island of Taiwan and country of Taiwan are the same and all information pertaining to the "island" should be placed in the same article as the country in the same format as other island nations such as United Kingdom, Japan, Cuba and Iceland. Nowhere on any of these articles are the information separated, they are all on the same article because the country and island information should be together.118.163.7.55 (talk) 22:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment - unless there's significant movement on this one way or the other, consensus is unlikely. Much better policy based arguments must be made by either side to sway the other. Right now its a stalemate.--Mike Cline (talk) 18:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree consensus on this proposal seems unlikely; the proposer was probably unaware of the fact that another (probably bigger and better) proposal will be made shortly, for a move from ROC -> Taiwan. But that RM is being delayed until this RM is closed. Mlm42 (talk) 18:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree partially with CMD that some of the votes above should be counted with special care. Some editors might not be aware at the time of their vote that the current article at Taiwan is about the island(s) instead of the Republic of China. There was in fact a clear consensus if these votes were discounted. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 22:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But any vote can be misinformed and none can be 'discounted'. The current article at Taiwan goes far beyond the island's geography and includes a section on Government as well as some very detailed content under a History subsection "Republic of China rule" with all the relvant links. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 02:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest to clean up these articles roughly following the lines of Ireland (island) and Republic of Ireland. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 11:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A nation is a community that, having done great things together, wishes to do more. At least that's how Ernest Renan defined it in "What is a Nation?" Kauffner (talk) 12:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at nation-state and nation. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 12:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those are very interchangeable terms IP, there's no point making a fuss about such semantics on a talkpage if they're understandable. CMD (talk) 13:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's difficult to discuss if we keep saying wrong words to refer to the wrong things. This is an encyclopedia, and it has to be accurate. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 13:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd consider this move request to be a kick-off of subsequent move requests. A huge umbrella move request involving too many changes would usually be difficult to be debated. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 23:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I literally don't understand your point. Compared to China this move would be "incorrect" but it doesn't currently match China either, so I don't see what you are getting at. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I'm reading, the proposal is suggesting that information on the Taiwan article be merged into the Taiwan Island article, and the article itself be turned into a disambiguation page so that when people search for the word Taiwan, they'll land on the disambiguation page and have the option of navigating either to the Republic of China article or the Taiwan Island article. I'm pointing that if this is the way most editors think things should be done, it should be consistent throughout all articles (or at least the more popular ones). Perhaps China is not the best example here, so let's look at Korea instead. The Korea article is not a disambiguation page, but rather an article about the history and culture of the Korean people. There are separate articles about Republic of Korea and Democratic People's Republic of Korea, as well as an article about the Korean Peninsula. If the Korea-related articles are to be organized in the same way as this proposal is suggesting, the Korea article would have to be turned into a disambiguation page, with the Republic of Korea, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, and the Korean Peninsula articles listed on it. I do not see such a proposal on the Korea-related articles. If you can convince me that this is going to be retroactively applied to other existing articles, it would be easier for me to support this move. --Kevkchan (talk) 17:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and no. This proposal involves no editing (or perhaps only very minor modifications) to the content of the two existing pages. The disambiguation page currently at Taiwan (disambiguation) will be renamed Taiwan, and the current page at Taiwan will be renamed Taiwan (island) or (islands). 218.250.159.25 (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now that's easier to understand. I'm downgrading my opposition to Conditional Oppose pending assurance that consistency will be maintained throughout other articles. --Kevkchan (talk) 21:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The entire point of this move request is to make Taiwan a disambiguation page. Taiwan Island as a separate article (beyond the current content at Taiwan doesn't currently exist. Korea is different in the sense that there isn't a modern nation state called just Korea. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Both sovereign states carrying the name Korea, namely the ROK and the DPRK, are typical examples of nation-states. There's no sovereign state by the name Taiwan, and the ROC contains more than one ethnic group. Comparisons can be drawn between Taiwan and Korea (or Korean Peninsula), or between Taiwan and similar cases like Ireland or Great Britain, that the country and the geographical entity aren't coterminous. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 20:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as long as there's some form of consistency throughout similar cases. I'm downgrading my opposition to Conditional Oppose pending assurance that consistency will be maintained. --Kevkchan (talk) 21:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This proposal will have zero effect on any article text. It's simply flipping the island page from the primary namespace to a disambiguated title. CMD (talk) 04:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I think a move should happen, but this is not the one. WP:CONCEPTDAB should prevent the article with the title "Taiwan" from ever being a disambiguation page. Because the "country" known as Taiwan contains the island known as Taiwan. So the article "Taiwan" should be about both. Once this proposal is closed, a new one will start, proposing an ROC -> Taiwan move. The sooner that happens, the better. Mlm42 (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And then procedurally reopened. It will be closed again within a day or two. CMD (talk) 23:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment - whether consensus is reached on a move or no move, I will not participate further in this RM, as my original close was disrespected, and any subsequent close by me is likely to engender the same disrepect by at least some of the participants in this RM. --Mike Cline (talk) 01:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've raised the issue of the reverted close at AN/I. Kanguole 15:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[edit]

While fixing typos, I noticed that some of the links resulted in redirections—e.g., Taiwan (island) to Taiwan and Ilha Formosa: Requiem for the Formosan Martyrs to Ilha Formosa: Requiem for Formosa's Martyrs. I have amended each to the correct article name. However, I would query the need to include the latter one at all, since it will probably never be involved in any disambiguation issue. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 01:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request (2012)

[edit]

To remove Taiwan (island), Republic of China, Free Area and Taiwanese archipelago from section one. And to replace the opening paragraph with - "'''Taiwan''' is an island (see [[Taiwan (island)]]) in northwestern Pacific Ocean and the main island of the [[Taiwanese archipelago]]. It is also the largest island of and hence the common name for the [[Republic of China]] (ROC), a sovereign state officially recognised by 22 UN members and the Holy See. The territorial extent of the ROC has since the 1950s been confined to its ''[[Free Area of the Republic of China|Free Area]]'', which includes the Taiwanese archipelago, as well as some islands on the other side of the Taiwan Strait and a few atolls in the South China Sea. '''Taiwan''' or '''Tai Wan''' may also refer to the followings:". 202.189.108.245 (talk) 07:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.--Ankit Maity TalkContribs 11:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a disambiguation page and all these are taken from the text of the relevant Wikipedia articles. 202.189.108.140 (talk) 12:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: As you say, this is a DAB and not a good place to go into details like "recognised by 22 UN members and the Holy See." Celestra (talk) 15:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the concerns raised above by Celestra. Would the proposer agree with simplifying that clause with "partially recognised sovereign state"? 218.250.159.25 (talk) 09:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not done:First of all, the proposer has not provided reliable sources. And secondly, the consensus tells the proposer is wrong.--Ankit Maity Talk|Contribs 11:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What sources would you expect for a disambiguation page? And by the way I don't think there is anything wrong with what he or she proposed. Just that, as Celestra had pointed out, it's too detailed on its partially recognised status. Could you point out what exactly is wrong? 218.250.159.25 (talk) 11:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, actually I meant the detail only.--Ankit Maity Talk|Contribs 08:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's rather detailed - to replace the opening paragraph with the script proposed. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 13:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It's meant to tell it's a not-so-recognised state. 147.8.246.68 (talk) 06:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That sort of explanation belongs in an article. This is just a disambiguation page, intended to help users quickly find the article they're looking for. Kanguole 13:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't meant to be explanation, but to put the interlocked concepts together in the lede. 147.8.102.108 (talk) 12:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Introductory paragraphs belong in articles, not disambiguation pages (see MOS:DAB). Kanguole 13:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Please stop reactivating the template. The template should only be used for requesting changes that have an actual or assumed consensus. This is obviously not the case with this request. You need to build a consensus before reactivating the template. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 15:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't any objection apart from the closing admins. 147.8.102.108 (talk) 12:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closing the move request

[edit]

I haven't participated in this move discussion and it looks to have been hanging on a while. However I do recognise that I have been heavily involved in the move discussions at Talk:China so if anything thinks I'm too involved in the general area to close the discussion please comment below. If anyone objects with any reason (or none at all) within the next 48 hours, or someone else gets there first then I won't close it.

As I haven't been particularly involved in the move discussions around Taiwan/Republic of China itself if no-one objects then there I don't think there should be an issue with me closing the discussion. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's relisted not long ago. And I don't think you are, as you have said, adequately impartial over this particular topic. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 09:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should be closed as unclosable. It's unknown how many individuals participated vs socks. A move request for the main article, Taiwan, should have been done on the Taiwan page, not this backwater. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Well we could simply ignore all IP editors and users with small numbers of contributions. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As it was relisted on the 6th February I'll be giving this until next Tuesday at the earliest, if anyone has any objections by then feel free to make them. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sitting on the fence on the outcome of this proposal, but I don't think either you or I or anyone with a vested Wikipedia-ideological interest in the outcome should be closing this as it appears to be controversial.--Jiang (talk) 00:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. The quicker way would be to post on WP:AN or a similar noticeboard and ask for administrative attention in closing this. GotR Talk 00:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did so a couple of days ago at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Mlm42 (talk) 06:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem that I see is that no-one who doesn't know about the topic feels qualified to close it and/or they don't feel confident enough about it to do it - only people who are at least slightly involved will feel they are in that position.

If you guys don't want me to close it because I've made a huge number of edits and have an obvious POV that's not a problem - and why I bought up this thread, but I think that someone who is knowledgable about the topic would be a sensible person to close it - especially if they are on the fence about this - as I am.

Leaving controversial discussions unclosed for ages and ages is very bad for the project as a whole. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine with me if you close it.. having dragged on for multiple weeks now, it seems pretty clear that it's not going to end in a move anyway. To me, WP:CONCEPTDAB pretty clearly says not to make a disambiguation page in cases like this.. WP:CONCEPTDAB suggests that the "Taiwan" article should either be about the main island, or about the country (sorry if the word "country" offends anyone). Mlm42 (talk) 18:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On my reading, WP:CONCEPTDAB suggests that the "Taiwan" article should treat the country, the island group and the main island as the same broad topic, and explain the small differences between them in the text. Kanguole 18:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the country and the island aren't coterminous, and neither of the two concepts is the primary topic. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right, that's kinda what I meant. Mlm42 (talk) 20:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how I'd have closed the discussion.
I have had a fairly careful read through the discussion and I'd have almost certainly have closed it as move. Most of the oppose !votes are talking about their view of whether Taiwan should be about the Republic of China or not, and there is only a single argument in favour of the current position which implies that the island is the primary topic for Taiwan - given the number of people who either think the Republic of China, or neither article is the primary topic, then it is fairly clear that the current status quo is inappropriate - additionally the affect on the Republic of China article should be minimal, so people opposing on that grounds should be ignored - other than making it more popular as people who are confused about the current hat note are less likely to be confused by the modal dialog that is a disambiguation page, especially if we limit the disambiguation page to only showing the two most obvious possibilities. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But the problem is that a lot of the support votes are not actually in favour of what is being proposed.. they are in favour of a move from ROC to Taiwan. And their arguments, combined with WP:CONCEPTDAB, should prevent "Taiwan" from being a disambiguation page. So I really don't think it's a good idea to close this as a move. Mlm42 (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's true Mlm42, but if you ignore bad supports as well as bad opposes, I still think policy arguments come out on for a move. I believe that's what Eraserhead1 meant. Of course, I'm involved, biased, confirmation bias, etc etc. There's no denying it's an awful mess though. CMD (talk) 04:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the arguments favour a move, but which move? How does one get around WP:CONCEPTDAB, if "Taiwan" is made into a disambiguation page? Mlm42 (talk) 06:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its pretty clear the the primary meaning of the term isn't the island, therefore WP:CONCEPTDAB doesn't apply. While there are some support arguments that aren't clear they can easily be ignored - the good support arguments outweigh the good oppose ones.
The only part where there is some controversy is whether Taiwan should be a redirect or a straight disambiguation page, but frankly that's a minor issue compared to the overall move request and that the disambiguation page should be at Taiwan rather than Taiwan (disambiguation) is clear from the guideline WP:DABNAME. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how you can claim that WP:CONCEPTDAB doesn't apply. All the entries in the DAB page are about variations of the same broad concept, the place called "Taiwan", which is precisely the situation CONCEPTDAB describes. Kanguole 13:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To quote the policy If the primary meaning of a term proposed for disambiguation is a broad concept or type of thing that is capable of being described in an article, and a substantial portion of the links asserted to be ambiguous are instances or examples of that concept or type only one person has asserted that the primary meaning of the term Taiwan is the island, rather than either the "Republic of China" being the primary meaning or it being ambiguous.

With regards to "Taiwan" being the "broad concept" - well it isn't like any of the other examples, but more importantly if the island isn't the primary topic then WP:CONCEPTDAB doesn't apply - as that's a requirement. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not claiming the island is the primary topic, but rather that the primary topic is the island country (think Iceland, Cuba, Madagascar or Sri Lanka). That is the broad concept of which the country, island group and island are small variations. Kanguole 14:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but neither the current position, or the position after the move satisfies that view.
Moving Republic of China to this location isn't under discussion on this page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, but since we're considering change to the status quo, it is entirely legitimate to think about which change will best serve our readers (by getting them quickly to what they're looking for). Dab pages should be avoided wherever possible (and that's what CONCEPTDAB seeks to do). Kanguole 14:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest we agree to disagree and allow the closing admin to make the decision. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 18:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This page move doesn't touch on what should be done with the country article Republic of China. Therefore as far as this page move is concerned, that's a non-issue. Further, Taiwan and the ROC aren't like Iceland, Cuba, Madagascar, Sri Lanka, or Malta, Jamaica.. Relatively better examples would be Great Britain and the UK, or Newfoundland and Newfoundland and Labrador. (Still neither the UK nor Newfoundland and Labrador had "migrated" like the ROC did.) 218.250.159.25 (talk) 18:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The examples I mentioned are quite similar to the Taiwan case. In contrast, the reason we have separate articles for the island and the state both called Ireland is that 1/7th of the area and a quarter of the population of the island are part of a different state. For GB/UK, there's that, plus the fact that they don't have the same name. Kanguole 19:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Consider the fact that Northern Ireland constitutes only 3% of the population of the UK, and that "Great Britain" being a common name (to the extent that it gives the codes GB and GBR to the whole UK, as well as the designation in Olympic Games) despite not an official name of the UK. The same is true for Newfoundland and Labrador, that the province is often known simply as "Newfoundland", and Labrador constitutes a very small proportion of the province's population. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken: "Great Britain" is not a common name for the UK/Britain. A glance at the map shows that the claim that Newfoundland and Labrador presents a parallel case is too ludicrous to entertain. Kanguole 20:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great Britain is much less common than Taiwan as a common name for a country, but still it's quite common to see Great Britain being used as a substitute for the UK. Labrador is only territorially significant. Its population and size of economy is far from significant for the province. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 15:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closing remarks by Mike Cline

[edit]

In his closing remarks [1] Mike Cline suggested that " the other titling initatives [sic] relative to China do bear on this decision and should be allowed to move forward with encumbering them with the chaos that might follow the requested moves." Yet I'm afraid to my understanding there's no other retitling initiatives currently or in the near future relative to China apart from the ROC and Taiwan. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 20:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are 3 or 4 comments in the move discussion above about other ROC and Taiwan moves. Maybe I shouldn't have said China, but should have been more specific --Mike Cline (talk) 21:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The word "China" sounds a bit ambiguous. It isn't easy for some of the editors here to tell whether you are talking about the People's Republic of China across the strait, or the China region in general. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 14:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

218.250.159.25

[edit]

... is just another filibustering IP address and probable sock. Don't feed the trolls. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I'm inclined to agree, and will ignore their view with regards to closing this. User:42.3.2.237 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has commented fairly extensively above and was also clearly very heavily involved at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could you cite the official Wikipedia policy that discriminates contributions by IP editors? 218.250.159.25 (talk) 11:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such policy I'm aware of, and positive contributions from IP editors are very welcome. But in discussions which require knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and conventions, comments from IP editors (especially ones whose first contributions were last week, such as yourself) are obviously not going to be given the same weight as comments from experienced editors. If you want your comments to be taken more seriously, then I suggest you get an account. Mlm42 (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can't assume or assert IP editors to be less knowledgeable of Wikipedia's politicscies and conventions than registered editors. You have to judge from what the editors, IP or registered, actually say in the discussions. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC) (typo corrected at 21:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]
But you are failing to realize one of the main problems with IP addresses: multiple people could potentially use the same IP address. This lack of accountability is problematic.. so although IP editors are welcome to raise points in discussions, they should not expect their opinions to be given the same amount of respect as editors who are willing to register and take some accountability. I don't really understand why you don't just get an account.. in some ways it's more anonymous, since people don't know your IP address.. Mlm42 (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no such policy, editors and especially administrators have no basis to discriminate them. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 20:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the policy you're looking for is Wikipedia:Consensus. Things aren't decided by vote, and not all opinions are equal. That's just the way it is. Mlm42 (talk) 20:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still that isn't a basis to discriminate opinion from IP contributors just because they don't register. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it? I guess it depends on what kind of discrimination. Could I ask why you don't want to register? Mlm42 (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to point out to the multiple IP editors on related pages that it's much easier to keep track of a conversation involving MlM42, Eraserhead1, SchmuckyTheCat, Jiang and HiLo42, than one involving 218.250.159.25, 202.189.108.245, 59.188.42.63, 118.163.7.55 and 123.192.93.138. (Yes, all those IP addresses appear above.) I'm certainly not good at keeping track of (up to) twelve digit numbers (even though I actually worked as an IT network engineer for some years!), and I'd expect most other people would have the same trouble. Humans give each other names for good reasons. Totalitarian regimes have forced people to be known by numbers at times rather than names in order to dehumanise them. So yes, it's legal to choose not to register, but why on earth would you do it? It certainly leaves me thinking that such editors are somewhat odd. HiLo48 (talk) 06:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IP editing is fine if all you want to do is make a few spelling corrections, or possibly make 1-2 comments on something or add something controversial, beyond that really you should register. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any basis from Wikipedia policies? 218.250.159.25 (talk) 13:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't talking about formal policies. And I'm certain you know that. To even ask the qeution shows how obstinate you are being here. We're talking about common sense. And I'll be quite blunt. The IP editors are not displaying common sense. HiLo48 (talk) 20:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's my choice not to have a registered account. And I respect your choice to discriminate IP editors on a personal basis. But, no matter how, please be civil and familiarise yourself with Wikiquette. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 15:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re HiLo48: Do you have any telephone number, passport or SSN#? 218.250.159.25 (talk) 13:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Stupid, pointless, irrelevant question, typical of the debating style of many of the IP editors here. Rather than discussing the points I made, you tried to deflect the discussion in another direction. That tactic will never win your 60 year old war for you. It just makes you look silly and actually damages your ancient political cause. (On which I again state I have no opinion.) HiLo48 (talk) 20:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We all are living in a civilised world with telephone numbers, passports, membership numbers, and all those sort of things. It's pointless to pretend that you don't. While I do know the shortcomings for not having a registered account, I hope you can understand that Wikipedia isn't a place for labelling, but a place for meaningful and intellectual collaborations. Even if people are named and therefore can be more easily identified, we don't rely on their names. We rely on the actual content of their contributions. That particular 63-year-old war isn't relevant to me at all. It's way too remote for me to have any personal stance about it. What I care about are hard facts. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 15:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please read your own words: "a place for meaningful and intellectual collaborations". Several people told you that having no name makes it difficult for other people to systematically collaborate with you. Yet you are choosing to ignore this, so don't be surprised that collaboration will be difficult for you as well. Yes, we don't rely on people's names. But we do rely on their names in order to remember who said what a month ago on some subject. You will have to work hard so that other wikipedians begin to respect 218.250.159.25. At the moment you are doing poor job at this. All you said about your rights to the way of self-identification is right and good, however for some psychological reasons your efforts do not speak "freedom fighter", but rather "smartass". Last Lost (talk) 21:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know there are psychological reasons for some people, especially among those who resist to go into any detail and insist to talk only about common names. But the reality is that we should never judge a piece of comment because of the name of the contributor. Some universities have a policy not to let students to put their names on exam papers, only their student numbers. That's meant to avoid the influences of names on grading. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 12:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The IP was eventually blocked as a sock. Let's remember not to spend time feeding trolls. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Removing (台湾岛, Táiwān Dǎo)

[edit]

I removed the translation after the main wikilink for two reasons: 1. MOS:DABOTHERLANG recommends against it and 2. Even if we were to include a translation, it should be 台灣, which is the common name for the island (and according to some, for the state as well). wctaiwan (talk) 08:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just realised I've probably misunderstood the style guide—it's saying that if a meaning is just a foreign phrase spelled in English, it probably shouldn't be included, so it doesn't apply here. However, I still think the removal was proper, as the translation is immediately available through the wikilink, and its previous placement doesn't really give more information to a reader unfamiliar with the subject. wctaiwan (talk) 12:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It might be useful to just have 台灣, to distinguish it from 大灣, but I agree that there's no real possibility of confusion here. Kanguole 12:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[2] - I don't think the Chinese characters are necessary for Taiwan, since the names are available in the articles anyway. But if in case they're included, traditional characters should be used instead. Don't impose the simplified characters across the strait. Meanwhile, I don't understand why the village in Sai Kung is removed. Further, I believe the layout with a leading paragraph and two sections looks neater. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 14:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, removing Tai Long Wan, Sai Kung was a mistake. As for the layout, the old format was repetitious. Kanguole 14:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I agree with trimming. But I guess it's better to retain the two subheaders. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 15:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ROC and PRC

[edit]

I replaced ROC and PRC with Taiwan and China but was reverted. The main problem with ROC and PRC is they are unclear, with the common names of Taiwan and China being much more recognisable. PRC is a particular problem as it's explained nowhere and has many other meanings, as does ROC. But far more people know China as "China" and Taiwan as "Taiwan", there is no need to use these less common abbreviations.

Spelling them out would not help: doing so for the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China at the same time can just confuse as the names are so similar without further explanation which would be inappropriate for a disambiguation page. Even without this they are not more compact: they actually take a little more space.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 14:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What "ROC" stands for and its common name is unambiguously stated at the top, while "PRC" is spelled out in the link to the claimed province; it would take a person of extremely subpar intelligence to not realise either connection immediately. Any argument invoking common name is simply beating a dead horse for the 10000th time—common name is only relevant to titles. GotR Talk 15:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But expecting readers to read this first before finding the article they want does not help them. That it needs explaining, while "Taiwan" doesn't, shows that the latter is the better tern. Nowhere on this page does it explain that PRC stands for the People's Republic of China, something that's not commonly known. It's nothing to do with intelligence, it's that in most of the world people know these places as "Taiwan" and "China"; the official names are less used and the abbreviations are even more obscure.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 15:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But PRC is fully spelled out when linking to the second Taiwan Province; whether someone is ignorant is irrelevant because it is, however, commonly known that the People's Republic is often equated with "China", making the link [[Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China]] Sirius-clear.which state is being referred to. More importantly, this is precisely the type of situation where the extra precision is required.
And Chipmunkdavis, you must cease immediately with the drive-by reverting. Every description was at PRC/ROC before, so it is up to you to defend your revisionist, militant changes. GotR Talk 16:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, I've never before been told I've been making revisionist, militant changes. Quite amusing.
On topic rather than random ad hominems which show little understanding of the meaning of some English words, JohnBlackburne is right, there is no reason not to use the names of countries that readers will most easily recognise, especially on a disambiguation page. CMD (talk) 16:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not at all commonly known. Here (the UK) the names "China" and "Taiwan" are overwhelmingly used. "Republic of China/ROC" is especially uncommon, perhaps avoided as it sounds like it could be a name for China which is well known. "People's Republic of China" is at least used for official purposes, while Taiwan has to use "Chinese Taipei". But that only appears when needed: other than that "Taiwan" is used.
You've yet to give a reason for using ROC and PRC over the common names for the countries. How this page used to look is not a reason (pages change all the time). The relevant policy says "Keep in mind that the primary purpose of the disambiguation page is to help people find the specific article they want quickly and easily.", and that purpose is far better served by using the names most people will be familiar with.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 16:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No good arguments have been given for using ROC and PRC, while two editors agree and have given reasons for using the common names, so we have a third opinion. Given that I'm restoring the version with China and Taiwan.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 20:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NC-ZH/TW requires greater precision in such contexts. Stating the acronym at the top is in no way a disservice to readers. The best step forward is to remove "PRC" from that entry, and revert it back to "a claimed province", which is clear enough. I will let the Free Area description go, but there is no reason to use Taiwan for "Chinese Taipei", which arose exactly because of the dispute over China between the two states.
On a side note, no one here is automatic in his response, and policy dictates that 24 hours be given for making decisions in discussions to accommodate for time zone differences; you were too rash. Also, it is undeniable how hard-line you have approached this, with no sign of compromise from you yet. GotR Talk 22:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no WP:NC-ZH/TW. I've had a look at WP:NC-ZH which I presume you mean and can see no guideline for 'greater precision' over country names. Besides 'Taiwan' is precise and unambiguous in English. I'm also unaware of any policy suggesting a 24 hour delay; except of course WP:3RR. Per your edit summary my point about WP:3 was that it's normal when two editors disagree to call on a third but we already had a third opinion, so that was not an option.
But I have no problem with 'ROC' appearing in the first line. I think it's redundant and will help few readers, especially as those that know what it means will easily recognise the name from the 'Republic of China' in the first line, but if you think it helps then I don't object to that. --JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 23:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sovereign claim changes

[edit]

The aim of a disambiguation page is to quickly direct readers quickly the article they are seeking. From this perspective, that Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China is a notional province (i.e. not an actual provincial government) is a key piece of information. Adding "sovereign" to "claim" unnecessarily emphasizes one view of the situation. The article on "Taiwan, China" is an article about a phrase, so quotation marks are appropriate. I don't think they're appropriate for the province, though. Kanguole 21:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I can verify I am the one making that change and I do mean very much to accomplish two things:
  • That the title of articles not be contained in quotation marks.. These marks make the list look intentionally controversial, when they should not. Listing the articles directly, without quotation marks or alteration (ie how the articles are already worded in the encyclopedia) is just good common sense. Especially in a disambiguation page.
  • That the page for the PRC sovereign claim, [Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China] be given a description that matches the article: namely an article about the claim of sovereignty by the PRC for the province called Taiwan.

There is no "adding" of the word 'sovereign' to the word 'claim': that is the type of claim they are making, and the article that is about it should not be described as something else. --— robbie page talk 22:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is usual for article titles to not include such formatting. See e.g. Fuiste Tú (found on the main page as one of the Did You Know? articles). In such articles the formatting is indicated in the article, usually at the start of the first sentence. So that article starts
"Fuiste Tú" is a latin pop song by Guatemalan recording artist Ricardo Arjona,
Other formatting such as italics, bold and sometimes special characters are treated the same way. The article name does usually does not include such formatting.
Taiwan, China is the same. In the article it includes quotes, as it's a phrase not a song title. So the quotes should be used in the disambiguation page.
Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China is a bit different: only the "Taiwan Province" is in quotes in the article, so only that needs to be in quotations here. While "Taiwan Province" is a disputed phrase or term the People's Republic of China is very real country so should not be in quotes. Neither should be italicised.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 22:20, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even though you make a concise and reasonable point, the very example you site, the page for Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China demonstrates in its first lines of text a handling of the material more in line with my proposal than yours where it reads:

For the meaning and use of the term "Taiwan, China", see Taiwan, China.

--— robbie page talk 22:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a hatnote, not part of the article. Hatnotes always use the bare title in the link: one obvious reason is being italic they can't make the link italic (the most common form of formatting). They use standard templates to enforce this: even if you wanted to link it as "Taiwan, China" it would not be possible within the template. The article actually begins
"Taiwan Province" is a term and political designation used by the People's Republic of China
--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 22:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The use of italic was your idea, not mine! The "one obvious reason" you give addresses your own problem, which you made up! To be clear, the fact that it is italic has nothing to do with the use of quotation marks. Moreover, the template disallows the use that follows your suggestion, from which at most it follows only that wikipedia would rather not use formatting like you suggest. --— robbie page talk 23:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"sovereign claim" is problematic because it literally reads as the though the claim itself were the highest ruler - the rightful king. Any disagreement with the claim would then be a disagreement with the rightful king. Although we obviously aren't meant to interpret the words that way, the tone still remains. The claim being made is that the PRC has sovereignty. That is, the PRC is claiming sovereignty. A better wording then is "claim of sovereignty" or even "sovereignty claim". Readin (talk) 22:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is their claim. Any disagreement belongs on sections covering critical reception of the claim, or on the main Taiwan page, or anywhere else you might prefer it to be. IT does not belong on the disambiguation page. --— robbie page talk 22:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't "claim of sovereignty" express that? Kanguole 22:56, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the problem is that the wording makes it sound like the entire existence of a claim is hypothetical. What is wrong with, for example "the province as defined by the People's Republic of China's claim of sovereignty"? --— robbie page talk 23:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for not repeating the name of the state is that people couldn't agree whether it should be "China" or "People's Republic of China", and it's not necessary anyway. On the other hand it's important for navigation purposes to directly indicate that this is a notional province; "as defined by" is more obscure. Kanguole 23:20, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think actually it is the other way around: the use of "notional" is more obscure. When a nation makes a claim, it is precise -- even if it is precisely wrong. Notional is a word most often used to describe ideas from works of fiction, religious matters, and the like. It is the wrong word for the context. (My main area of interest tends to be language.) --— robbie page talk 23:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The claim is real enough; it's the province that's notional, hypothetical, etc. Kanguole 23:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The word you are looking for is "contested". --— robbie page talk 23:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, the ROC's claim to Taiwan is contested. This province exists only on paper. Kanguole 23:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Moving back a few tabs) Well, both are true then. The ROC government makes a claim of sovereignty over Taiwan, and it is contested. The PRC government makes a claim of sovereignty over Taiwan, and it is contested. There is no legal/political/international relations special meaning given to "notional". Presumably, there is to "contested". --— robbie page talk 23:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that the ROC's administrative structures relating to Taiwan are real and functioning, while the PRC's aren't. And that's a pretty important difference for someone using a disambiguation page. Kanguole 23:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good difference. And it should be (And is) pointed out on the relevant pages. However it does not belong on the disambiguation page. Even if you were to go and change the disambiguation page to contain that distinction (since it does not), it wouldn't address the issue the misuse of a term like "notional". This term is not used for anything recognized, such as the claim here by the PRC. It is used to describe flights of pure fantasy (in the enjoyable sense that people go to movie theatres to watch).
I'm not asking to change the details here. The wording I suggested maintains all the same relationships, but simply removes an ambiguous term and replaces it with more precise language. (I am assuming that the listing is not meant to convey the notion that the Taiwan province is an actual work of fiction, to be compared literally with the works of for example E.A. Poe.) --— robbie page talk 23:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a vital difference for a reader trying to identify the article they're after. Your wording is imprecise: the province of Hainan as defined by the People's Republic of China's claim of sovereignty includes a lot of little islands that aren't under PRC control, but the bulk of it is. On the other hand a province of Taiwan is a fantasy as long as they control none of it. Again, the claim is real, the province isn't. "notional" or "hypothetical" are entirely appropriate. Kanguole 00:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well you may feel it is a vital difference, but it is one that has never to my knowledge been expressed in the line entry for the article in question, on the disambiguation page. I guess if you want to add that you're free to go through all the same sorts of troubles that I am going through now to help you with basic language skills. In the mean time, let's get back to the topic at hand and the use of the word "notional" -- which makes no sense in pretty much any non-literary context. --— robbie page talk 00:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any dictionary will confirm that "notional" is not restricted to literary contexts, but perhaps "hypothetical" is better. Kanguole 00:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, well that is progress. -- But, it is not hypothetical either, as the term has real legal meaning in the PRC. It is at most "contested", and at least the Taiwan Province, without any quotes or bias words. --— robbie page talk 00:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've already dealt with "contested". Kanguole 00:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well not really. You noted that it is contested that ROC has a sovereign claim over the island, but failed to show how the PRC claim is not contested.
I'd like to point out that another user has changed the page to text that almost exactly reflects my first edition: 00:30 Taiwan (disambiguation) (dif | hist) . . (0) . . Bkonrad (Discusión | contribuciones) (while notional is better than hypothetical, is there any reason not to use the language from the article itself?)

While not exactly the same, it is nearly identical to my very first revision of the disambiguation page. If that edit fails (which again is not mine), I intend to revert the text for that line entry to what it was yesterday, and in general for quite some time, before Kanguole began changing it so far as I saw in the log:

a term used by the People's Republic of China for its claim to Taiwan and neighbouring islands

--— robbie page talk 00:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robbiemuffin has on a couple of occasions in this discussion stated that words under discussion have either have no legal meaning, or have a particular legal meaning in a certain location. I would like to point out that Wikipedia is not a reference for laws only, it is a reference for reality. In a courtroom, the PRC's claims may have as much weight, or even more, than the ROC's. But in reality the PRC does not exercise any authority over Taiwan. It is an important distinction. Laws are part of reality so we don't ignore them, but laws do not define reality. The disambiguation we provide should be sufficiently clear so that people looking for the "Taiwan Province" that actually has an impact on the lives of the Taiwanese living there will be easily able to distinguish one "Taiwan Province" from another without needing a long history lesson. Readin (talk) 02:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I only pointed out the technical meanings of words where the wording being suggested was either intentionally or only accidentally vague. "Hypothetical" describes something projected to be true, not a real nor an imaginary thing. "Notional" implies something fictional and literary, not something wrong. As long as the language on the disambiguation page doesnt promote misunderstanding, I dont think I would care. The fact that the wording as it is now matches the page to which it points seems just fine. --— robbie page talk 17:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Geography of Taiwan

[edit]

Should that page be linked somehow since "Taiwan" could refer to just the island not the state? --Mika1h (talk) 23:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should. I'm not sure why your edit was reverted except that perhaps the link should be included in the list of links rather than in the topic sentence. There is a style manual for disambiguation pages. The editor who reverted your change referenced it but it may not have been clear to you he was doing so. The style manual is here. Readin (talk) 00:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It should not be in the first line, as there should only be one link, to Taiwan, in that line per the guidelines, e.g MOS:DAB#Linking to a primary topic. But it is certainly a possible target for those coming here, so should have an entry, and I have added one.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 00:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Taiwanfu" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Taiwanfu and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 26#Taiwanfu until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

[edit]

Please add

-- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 23:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Partly done: I added the prefecture. I didn't add the disambiguation page to this disambiguation page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:57, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Happy Editing--IAmChaos 06:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

台湾

[edit]

台湾永远只是一个国家，等到台湾不来参加中华人民共和国的全国人民代表大会再等到联合国合法席位给到台湾再说吧 46.232.122.145 (talk) 15:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Taiwan_(disambiguation)&oldid=1261692923"