Talk:Geography of Taiwan

Removed
Quemoy, Matsu were removed since they do not constitute the common knowledge of Taiwan islands, which includes the Formosa and the Pescadores. These two islands are the Fujian islands administrated by ROC.Mababa 06:27, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * However this article serves as the main article of the geography section of the article Republic of China. (All "Geography of.." articles are in the "Geography of [name of country]" format.) I would prefer moving the details about Quemoy, Wuch'iu (Wuciou) and Matsu back, and rename the article "Geography of the Republic of China". &mdash; Instantnood 02:41 Feb 23 2005 (UTC)

Disagreed. I am hundred percent sure that you must know the difference between Taiwan and ROC. The political entity currently governing Taiwan. Taiwan, as a geogrphically entity, deserves a separate article as China does. Quemoy, Wuch'iu (Wuciou) and Matsu can be mentioned when the Geogrphy of ROC was introduced with the external link of Geography of Taiwan.Mababa 05:43, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * True. And that's exactly why I suggested to add the islands back and to rename at the same time. This article currently should serve as the main article of a geography section at the article Republic of China, which is currently absent. Alternatively, a new article titled "Geography of the Republic of China" could be created, but will largely overlap with this article. &mdash; Instantnood 05:55 Feb 23 2005 (UTC)

I do not see any reason why a new article to be impossible. Mababa 06:26, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I am open on this issue. There is, however, no such precedence. All "Geography of.." articles are about political entities.
 * If a new geography article is created for the political entity Republic of China, contents about territorial water claims will have to removed from this article. A geographical entity does not make any claim. &mdash; Instantnood 06:46 Feb 23 2005 (UTC)

Check on Geography of China. China here is a geographical entity.Mababa 06:52, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * That's why I have put up a notice on the top of the page, and proposed to rename or to clean up. Many of the contents refer only to the PRC or mainland. &mdash; Instantnood 07:04 Feb 23 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. Regime comes and go. Taiwan stays forever. Taiwan as a geographic entity should have a geographical article for her. ROC can creat a new article for herself if needed.Mababa 07:20, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Page move
There was a request at WP:RM to move this page to Geography of the Republic of China, or a clean up and to split this article into two, following the lines of Geography of Ireland and Geography of the Republic of Ireland. The discussion is now over with no consensus, and is archived at Talk:List of Taiwan-related topics (by category). &mdash; Instantnood 13:53 Mar 5 2005 (UTC)

Add info about national parks
I have a suggestion, How about adding some of the information of Taiwan's national park to this page? If you can, please add it. Beast I add the terrain info of 7 national parks, and wonder if national parks should under its own title

Information in Taiwan that should go into this article
I've added a "main" link to this article in the section on "Geography" in the Taiwan article. Would an editor more interested in the subject than me (I've just wandered in here because of a content dispute that I may or may not actually be helping with) please (a) move a lot of the information in the "Geography" section of that article to this (while there is some overlap, there isn't that much); and (b) then sharply reduce the amount of text in that article pertaining to geography - the section in that article should become just a summary of what's in the main article about Taiwan's geography. Thanks! John Broughton |  Talk 02:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Volcanic?
Is it volcanic? Information about how this island came to be (and when) would be good to add. Badagnani (talk) 07:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Country
The info box used to have the country listed as "Taiwan" and now has it listed as "Republic of China". The label is "country", not "state". In general "Taiwan" is used rather than "Republic of China" is used in non-political settings, and "Geography of Taiwan" is an article having nothing to do with politics. Readin (talk) 14:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's an artificial limit on the interpretation of the word 'Taiwan'. The item in the table is called 'Country', and the national flag of the ROC is there as well. Any ordinary person would form the view that that spot is for the name of a nation.
 * We can change it to ROC (Taiwan) but merely Taiwan is unacceptable as it is about the name of a nation. I understand that you have difficulties changing it to ROC (Taiwan) because the template is unavailable. But I think I have a suitable compromise.
 * Let me change the opening paragraph to this:-


 * "Taiwan is a medium-sized archipelago in East Asia, located at 23°30N, 121°00E and running through the middle of the Tropic of Cancer (23°5N). It makes up the majority of the territories effectively under the control of the Republic of China (commonly known as "Taiwan" since the 1970s)."


 * This way even if we leave the country as Republic of China in the table, there is no likelihood of confusion that this article is talking about the PRC.--pyl (talk) 14:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Moved sections
I've moved the sections: climate, geology, flora and fauna, natural resources, energy resources, and environmental issues to the article on Taiwan Island because this article should be addressing the geography of Taiwan, not other topics as well. OjdvQ9fNJWl (talk) 22:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Those are aspects of geography, and normally covered in similar articles, e.g. Geography of Madagascar and Geography of Sri Lanka. You've created a content fork.  Kanguole 22:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * First off, what is the topic of this article? If it is about the state of Taiwan/ROC, then this article fails to adequately address the other islands other than the main island of Taiwan. The way it is written now, this article doesn't quite describe the geography of the state of Taiwan/ROC, nor does it describe only the island of Taiwan. This article should be describing all of the islands, not only focusing on the island of Taiwan, and should be written in the same format as Geography of New Zealand. Similar to North Island or Geography of Tasmania, the info about the main island of Taiwan should have an article of its own.


 * You're calling this a content fork, so is North Island or South Island a content fork of Geography of New Zealand then? Penghu is an article about that island, and my intent was to create a similar article for Taiwan Island on its geography and physical information (size, location etc) for other references to that island specifically. Because the article on Taiwan is now an article on the state, links that intend to link to the island itself aren't serving that purpose very well. For example, the sentence on the Penghu article links to Taiwan by stating that it lies of the west of Taiwan, but that article's topic is on the state of Taiwan/ROC including all of the islands that make up Taiwan/ROC, not the main island of Taiwan.


 * Just because I started to create Taiwan Island doesn't mean it's a content fork; the article was just created, so it'll take some time for it to get re-organized without including redundant info. If you would, you can try helping to create the Taiwan Island article instead of speedy reverting an initial split. OjdvQ9fNJWl (talk) 02:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The move of the ROC article to Taiwan is relatively recent, and the implications for other articles are still being worked out.


 * The case of Taiwan is clearly very different from New Zealand, as here the island comprises almost all of the country of the same name. In this situation, separate articles about the country and the island would inevitably be hugely redundant.  That is why we have a single article covering the country and the eponymous main island in similar cases such as Iceland, Cuba, Madagascar and Sri Lanka, as well as subdivisions such as Crete, Sardinia, Prince Edward Island and Tasmania.  Indeed the lead of the Flinders Island article has a similar ambiguity regarding Tasmania (state or island) to the one you mention in Penghu.  Actually I think it's clear in both cases that the island is meant, but if clarification were necessary it should be in the wording, not the links.  Kanguole 12:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This article is following the naming convention of the main article, so this should not mention only the Taiwan Island. Taiwan/ROC still has other islands even if Taiwan comprises the majority. All of them have articles of adequate length and information, so there's no question whether they can be included or not. For references from other articles, it is still useful and necessary to link to the specific island in question. That's the job of the Taiwan Island article. Even if the wording can prevent ambiguity, linking to the state is not the same as the geographical island itself. It won't be redundant if more about the other islands are mentioned and most of the content, the details, on the Taiwan island is moved to the article talking specifically about that island. OjdvQ9fNJWl (talk) 18:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Please consider the examples of similar cases I gave above. Kanguole 18:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Those states don't have additional islands. OjdvQ9fNJWl (talk) 18:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, they do, and so do each of the four examples of sub-national divisions. Kanguole 19:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Copy of Prehistory section of the History article
OjdvQ9fNJWl has copied History of Taiwan into this article as a Prehistory section. It's my view that duplication of this sort is unhelpful and that it's more useful to have distinct and focussed History and Geography articles. Any other views? Kanguole 19:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You've been reverting without comments from others. I've told you that the topic covered in that section is part of geography. There's no reason to remove it if it doesn't hinder the article in any way. So stop edit warring and editing tendentiously. OjdvQ9fNJWl (talk) 06:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be great to get more input, but the onus is on you, as the one wishing to add the material, to justify its inclusion instead of just re-inserting it.
 * That section is not geography but history; it is after all a section of History of Taiwan. That piece of prose was written to fit within that article, and is out of place here.  Duplicating it adds no information to Wikipedia and means it must be maintained twice.  Kanguole 09:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Would it not make sense to have small summary paragraph with a link to the main article just as is done with the Population section that links to Demographics of Taiwan? Actually, to me Geography of Taiwan as something that excludes human populations so neither the Population section nor the Prehistory section (as currently written with its focus on early human populations) belongs.  But if we're going to have one I think it makes sense to have the other. Readin (talk) 16:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * A minority of geography articles have Human geography sections (e.g. Croatia, Israel, China, UK); none have a Prehistory section. I added a Population section in an unsuccessful attempt to meet a demand for human geography.  I tend to agree that neither section fits here.  Kanguole 23:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've had a go at making the Population section more geographical and renamed it "Human geography". It contains a brief summary of population history.  Kanguole 12:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that's an improvement. I made a couple slight re-wordings.  The 1.3 million Chinese didn't "join" the immigrants from the 17th century.  The 17th century immigrants were dead by then.  The Kuomintang migration joined their descendants.
 * For that same reason I had a problem with the statement that the 1.3 million KMT immigrants and the 17th century immigrants together comprise 95% of the population. Most of said immigrants died long ago. I checked the source to be sure that whatever correction I provided would be accurate. The KMT's yearbook isn't something I would consider a great source for things that touch on national identity since the KMT clearly tries to promote a Chinese identify for Taiwan. Unfortunately I don't have a better source at the moment.  However I do question the statement given that 95% of the population is "of Han Chinese ancestry".  I suppose it is technically true, but it heavily implies that 95% have ancestors that were Han Chinese in China that moved to Taiwan.  However other more reliable sources I remember reading say that many people in Taiwan became Han Chinese by assimilation rather than by ancestry.  I.e. large numbers of plains aborigines recognized that the Han Chinese were the prestige ethnicity and so changed their lifestyles to assimilate and make more money (rice, whatever).  For that reason I'm not completely happy with saying "Today over 95% of the population has Han Chinese ancestry." However it that reflects very closely what the somewhat reliable source says.  Readin (talk) 19:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair points about the loose language. Assimilation should also be mentioned.  Certainly a significant fraction of the ancestry of pre-1949 Chinese must be aboriginal, though I imagine it will be hard to find a source giving a figure.  How about "ethnicity" instead of "ancestry"?
 * That was my original plan, but the source explicitly talked about ancestry. Readin (talk) 22:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

From what I gathered, this section that I took from the "prehistory" article deals with geography; more specifically, the changes in geography which also caused changes in population/distribution of inhabitants/resources/etc. Geography is a combination of history and geology with maybe a bit of sociology, and I think this type of content should help make this article more comprehensive. Just because some other articles don't focus on these topics doesn't mean including some analysis and content on this won't contribute to the article. My intention for adding this duplication is to address some of this aspect, but it can be rewritten and not be pasted word-for-word. I'm not particularly good at creating original content, so hopefully other editors can help rewrite it a bit to fit more with the rest of the article, and I can take a look at it. Any comments? OjdvQ9fNJWl (talk) 09:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * To be precise, the text is from History of Taiwan and the illustration from Prehistory of Taiwan. And now you've pasted (without attribution) a paragraph from Prehistory of Taiwan into the introduction to this article.  You can't create a coherent article just by pasting in copies of stuff written for other contexts and tweaking.  Please stop.
 * As for the definition of geography, it is not simply the sum of those things, but how they interrelate. That requires creating original text.  Kanguole 10:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you create original text? If you do, you could help fix the issues. Right now, I'm only rewriting some parts. OjdvQ9fNJWl (talk) 06:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes I do (including most of the text you're pushing to copy into this article). But instead of asking others to fix the issues you're creating, how about not creating them?  Kanguole 12:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see any issues with including this content. It is not a complete duplication of content, nor is this type of content specifically categorized as historical content. Like I said, the content I added is supposed to provide more information in the article as it is part of geography. I looked at the parts you removed and they were not duplications, so what is your issue with the content? How do you think more information of this sort should be added then? We can work out a rewritten sentence instead of revert warring. OjdvQ9fNJWl (talk) 06:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The issue is that copying text written for one context and pasting it into another makes the article incoherent. First there was the Prehistory section copied here from History of Taiwan.  It doesn't belong here; the brief summary in the Human geography section is enough history for a Geography article, and it links to the History article for more detail.  In the middle of that discussion, you went on to paste text from Prehistory of Taiwan into the lead.  The lead is supposed to summarize the body of the article – that can't be done by pasting text from elsewhere and tweaking it.
 * An incidental issue is that your diffs are bloated with needless changes, including adjustments to spacing around section headings and between sentences that have no effect on the rendered text. Kanguole 02:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not blindly reverting as you suggested, but you need to stop assuming ownership of the article. I'm checking the edit changes and fixing any issues that's occurring, but the way you're organizing the content is not helpful. OjdvQ9fNJWl (talk) 21:32, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What are the problems with the way I'm organizing the content? Do you have a different organization in mind?  Kanguole 00:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Returning to the original topic: I intend to remove the copied section. The history is briefly summarized in the Human geography section, with a link to History of Taiwan, where readers will find this text. Kanguole 14:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Fine, but the geology section needs expansion. Also, what happened to the See also section? OjdvQ9fNJWl (talk) 05:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Each of the See also links is now attached to the section it specifically relates to. Kanguole 07:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

indiginous aborigines came from where?
"Their ancestors arrived in Taiwan by sea from the mainland"

This is a glib and poorly sourced sentence that essentially claims to know the origins of all polynesian/austronesian peoples, which, while perhaps the position of ROC, would be contested by many, including the Wiki article on these same aborigines. This remains very much a subject of debate. Wikibearwithme (talk) 04:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree that the said sentence is questionable. I had added template clarify to ask for the exact text from the reference. If no one provides the text to prove it after several days, we may remove the sentence. --Matt Smith (talk) 04:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The sentence is certainly not poorly sourced. It is cited to a 4-page survey of recent work on the issue in a directly relevant scholarly work, and it is an accurate summary of the consensus in the field represented in that survey.  (It also says nothing about Polynesians, and Wiki articles are not reliable sources.)  One could, perhaps, qualify it a bit: Most scholars believe their ancestors arrived in Taiwan by sea between 4000 and 3000 BC, probably from the mainland.  Kanguole 16:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not poorly sourced, but is poorly written. According to what you explained at here, there is no decisive evidence to prove that their ancestors came from the mainland, and it is just a survey concludes that perhaps their ancestors came from the mainland. In my opinion, the wording of the current sentence is very inappropriate because it misleads readers into believing what it says is a truth. The sentence needs to be rewrite or be removed. Wikipedia is not a place to publish uncertain and indefinite things. --Matt Smith (talk) 01:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I have suggested a revised wording. Wikipedia is the place to report the scholarly consensus, and scientific statements often have a greater of lesser degree of uncertainty.  Kanguole 05:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you please provide an intact quote (by using the quote parameter) in the reference? --Matt Smith (talk) 07:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The sentence is an faithful summary of a 4-page literature survey. I don't propose to quote it all.  Kanguole 10:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 11 December 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Discussion closed and merged into Talk:Taiwan to avoid discussion fragmentation. (non-admin closure) Steel1943  (talk) 22:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Geography of Taiwan → Taiwan – I'm proposing the idea to rename this article Taiwan to allow the main article to be renamed as the "Republic of China" which controls this island. Wrestlingring (talk) 02:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Support. This geographical entity is the actual Taiwan. However, "Taiwan" being used as the informal nickname of political entity the Republic of China has been causing confusions between it and the actual Taiwan for a long time. The confusion needs to go away. --Matt Smith (talk) 03:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Provided that content is split from Taiwan so that this article is not just about the geography. Taiwan is not a political entity, no, I do not recognize the PRC's claims, but the Republic of China is the state, "Taiwan" is a neutral name that is acceptable from both sides of the strait. Thus calling "Taiwan" a state is not NPOV for the PRC sees it as a sign of splitting its, no, I repeat, I do not support the PRC at all, but I also respect Wikipedia policies. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Support, but prefer Taiwan Island, so as to differentiate clearly between the state entity commonly called "Taiwan" and the geographical entity. The RoC and Taiwan are not the same thing. The present situation is horribly confusing. RGloucester  — ☎ 05:47, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There is currently a proposal for redirect of Taiwan to Republic of China. So this article's title can simply be "Taiwan". --Matt Smith (talk) 06:02, 11 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose if a person types "Taiwan" they most likely want to learn about politics, people and culture, and not mountains, fauna, and rivers which this article covers. Timmyshin (talk) 07:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose, ditto: if a person types "Taiwan" they most likely want to learn about politics, people and culture In ictu oculi (talk) 09:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The search term Formosa should remain as the title. Taiwan or ROC are political entities recently created in the long history of Formosa. 108.31.224.101 (talk) 11:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As a country article, Taiwan needs a Geography of Taiwan sub-article to summarize in its Geography section (cf WP:COUNTRIES), and this is approximately it.  In other cases where almost all of the territory of a state is an island of the same name, e.g. Iceland, Madagascar, Cuba, Jamaica, we don't have separate articles for the state and the island, presumably because that would lead to too much duplication.  All we need to do is tweak the description in the first paragraph, to include the other 1% of the state.  Kanguole 11:04, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * oppose. Taiwan is the common name of the country. It is also the name for the geographical entity, but the country is overwhelmingly what it is used for.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 11:18, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Procedural oppose These RMs are badly formatted because they had not been combined and risk contradictory outcomes. Timrollpickering 12:02, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The current article at Taiwan is the primary topic, not this. Nohomersryan (talk) 16:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME.  Lugnuts  Precious bodily fluids 20:36, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Taiwan, is ONLY one of the several islands like Penghu, Kinmen, Matsu and the rump Fujian Province that is controlled by the ROC, NOT Taiwan, which is never a name of the country. 135.23.144.153 (talk) 19:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Taiwan which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

No article link to Taiwan
This article currently has no wikilink to Taiwan. Should it? Batternut (talk) 08:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It does. It was hidden behind the redirect as Republic of China so I’ve changed it to a direct link, and hopefully clarified that the island’s name is the same as the common name of the Republic of China.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 08:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That's why I don't like to use "Taiwan" to call the "Republic of China" because it can only confuse readers. After all, the true owner of word "Taiwan" is the island. --Matt Smith (talk) 08:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


 * These changes are improvements. I remain of the opinion that the first occurrence of "Taiwan" should be linked though, per MOS:BUILD, and as at the comparable Geography of Madagascar. Batternut (talk) 09:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * They are not the same thing though. This article is on the island of Taiwan. The state called Taiwan is a different entity, formally called the Republic of China. I think it’s important to make the distinction between them in this case, as two quite different things, and do not coincide exactly. It’s similar e.g. to the UK, where the island is Great Britain, but the country, the United Kingdom, is often called "Britain".-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 09:44, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think they are very similar - the Republic of Madagascar, commonly just called Madagascar and similarly redirected, consists of the island of Madagascar and some other "smaller peripheral islands". Batternut (talk) 09:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know much about Madagascar so I cannot comment on it for now. But in this article, Taiwan is an island, and an island should not be linked to a regime. --Matt Smith (talk) 10:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Upon further reading, MOS:BOLDAVOID and MOS:TITLEABSENTBOLD advise against putting a link in the bold, as I had done a couple of hours ago, (so I have unbolded the similar Geography of Madagascar). I would change the start of the lead to:
 * "The island of Taiwan in East Asia, formerly known as Formosa, constitutes 99% of the territory of the Republic of China (commonly also known as "Taiwan"). It is located some 180 kilometres ..."

Perhaps most contentious change here is from "Taiwan ... is an island ..." to "The island of Taiwan ...". Since Taiwan has "Taiwan ... is a state in East Asia.". I think the fact that Taiwan commands the primary topic means we can't be too rigid about Taiwan meaning the island and not the state. Batternut (talk) 11:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I oppose the change. "Taiwan" is exactly the island's name. It has been confusingly used to refer to the Republic of China for too long. We don't need further confusion. --Matt Smith (talk) 11:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia just reflects common usage, and plenty of references to Taiwan mean the RoC, not just the island, eg the CIA. Without denying that such usage may reflect biased views, we strive to show balance and avoid righting great wrongs. Batternut (talk) 11:52, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Scope of article
Why should this article be limited to the main island (as some have asserted above)? Should it not be like every other "Geography of X" sub-article of an article on country X, describing the geography of the country, per WikiProject Countries? That would be consistent with articles on every other country, including others named after an island that comprises almost all of their territory, like Madagascar (and Iceland, Sri Lanka and Jamaica). Kanguole 10:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see Geography of Iceland talking about other islands. Batternut (talk) 11:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a sketchy article, and after all the other bits are very minor, but some can be spotted in the Statistics section. Kanguole 11:31, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think as the island and polity, where they are different, are very different. It’s not like the islands other than this one are considered part of it, by being part of the same geological formation. Penghu is in the middle of the Taiwan Strait, Kinmen, Wuchiu and Matsu are geographically part of mainland China. So it makes sense to consider (the island of) Taiwan on its own, geographically.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 12:21, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Penghu is in the Taiwan Strait, but I wouldn't say in the middle. Kanguole 12:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This should be an article about the geography of the country. --Khajidha (talk) 14:20, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope. As the lede says, this article is about Formosa, presently known as Taiwan (island). Its scope should only focus on the island itself. --Matt Smith (talk) 14:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You do realize that the proposal that this should be the article about the geography of the country would mean the removal of that sentence? Whatever this article is and whatever it says, is not the question being asked. --Khajidha (talk) 14:31, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Whatever the proposal is, it's just a proposal at the moment. Anyway, this article talks about Formosa. If you want it to include other islands, you need to change the nature of this article first. Before that, including other islands is being off-topic. --Matt Smith (talk) 17:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you even understand English? The question is "what SHOULD the focus be", not "what is". The ENTIRE POINT of this discussion is about the nature of this article.--Khajidha (talk) 17:34, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It's lead btw, not lede, (MOS:LEAD). Batternut (talk) 15:04, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I have seen editors using both. I want to know which one is correct. --Matt Smith (talk) 17:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Technically, lead is correct at wikipedia. Explained at MOS comparison to news lead. On talk pages both spellings are used interchangeably where I also see lede used regularly. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I will go with "lead" then. --Matt Smith (talk) 01:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Eh, technically, both are still correct at Wikipedia. Your link only explains that Wikipedia ledes shouldn't generally be written in the same style as newspaper ledes, as they serve different purposes for different audiences. It is an Americanism, though, so a sumpsimus might opt to avoid using it in reference to British articles. — Llywelyn II   02:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Kinmen and Matsu are geographically part of mainland China; the Pratas and Taiping Island islets are in the South China Sea. They should not be included in this article. --Matt Smith (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

The other reason is as we need an article for the island. The name "Taiwan" has been adopted by the country. But the name has a much longer history as one for the island. Not that long ago (in 2012) the article at Taiwan was about the island. But after a long discussion the article on the country, formerly at Republic of China, was moved to Taiwan. This became the article about the island, distinct from the politics or history. And it really in geographically distinct, while its other islands are just small islands.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 13:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Gee, that "long discussion" was epic. Inevitable I suppose. Somehow it resolved the fate of Taiwan, but it hardly discussed Geography of Taiwan as far as I can see. The old Taiwan article was moved to Taiwan (island), which was then merged back in to Taiwan with a small section ending up here. I have not yet seen the scope of this article debated yet. Batternut (talk) 15:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If this is the geography-of-the-island article, then we need to have a separate geography-of-the-country article. Which would be this article plus a few bits. What would be the point of that? This article should be made into the geography-of-the-country article. --Khajidha (talk) 16:16, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The point is that each article is more focused. The Chinese Wikipedia has been like that and it has been working fine. --Matt Smith (talk) 17:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, cause there's no way the CHINESE Wikipedia could possibly be hijacked by delusional POV warriors. --Khajidha (talk) 17:34, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * But on a more serious side, exactly how do you focus the "Taiwan-the-island" portion of the proposed "Taiwan-the-country" page in a different manner from the "Taiwan-the-island" page? --Khajidha (talk) 17:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If you must do that, select important sentences for that section. --Matt Smith (talk) 01:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This does not answer the question. --Khajidha (talk) 11:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Please explain exactly what "Taiwan-the-country" page means. --Matt Smith (talk) 13:38, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If this is the geography page for "Taiwan-the-island", then there is no page devoted to the geography of Taiwan-the-country as there is for any other country. --Khajidha (talk) 13:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I personally don't regard Taiwan as a country. So to me, it's perfect that there is no page devoted to the geography of Taiwan-the-country. --Matt Smith (talk) 13:50, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * But the parent article here DOES, so there should be. --Khajidha (talk) 13:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I personally don't regard that Republic of China article as the parent article of this article. --Matt Smith (talk) 14:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You seem to be the only one. --Khajidha (talk) 14:07, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Even that article describes Taiwan as a state (polity) rather than a country. --Matt Smith (talk) 14:12, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Those are generally the same thing in English. --Khajidha (talk) 14:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That Republic of China article also covers Kinmen, Matsu, etc. This article talks about Formosa. --Matt Smith (talk) 14:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That article talks about them in terms of everything, not just geography. Where is the article on the geography of Formosa, Kinmen, Matsu, etc as a whole? --Khajidha (talk) 14:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * In my view, it is here, in the geography sub-article of the country article Taiwan. Matt, of course, has a different view, as part of his rearguard campaign against the naming of the Taiwan article.  Kanguole 15:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * At least I'm not one of those who don't feel guilty about confusing innocent readers. --Matt Smith (talk) 15:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * What do you think people are confused about. --Khajidha (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * They are confused about "Republic of China" and "Taiwan (island)". Look at the Taiwan section. It's making people think that the Republic of China had underwent Japanese rule, and that's ludicrous. That's why the Chinese Wikipedia never mix these things together because we clearly understand the histories of these topics. --Matt Smith (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see any confusing text there. I see talk about the history of the territory of a polity before said polity existed. No more confusing than mentioning Spanish settlements in the history section of the United States article. --Khajidha (talk) 17:19, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is appropriate to mention so much about histories which have nothing to do with the Republic of China in the Republic of China article. Check the Chinese equivalent. --Matt Smith (talk) 01:04, 26 April 2018 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, it does not need to exist. It's pointless to put the geographies of islands which are far away from each other into one article. --Matt Smith (talk) 15:27, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * These islands make up a particular political entity, there is a quite a bit of sense in including that entire political entity in one article.--Khajidha (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * For now, if you really want to put them together, I suggest that you do it in a section of that Republic of China article. I don't suggest putting them into one article. --Matt Smith (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

"Geography of ..." articles are a WP:SPINOFF articles. The usual pattern would be that the geography section of Taiwan is a summary of this article. As Taiwan covers the smaller islands, so this article would be expected to. An alternative would be for Taiwan to link this article and a bunch of others as a whole set of main articles. Great Britain does something like this, but it seems clunky to me. Batternut (talk) 21:41, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Other such spinoff articles that (clearly) cover the small islands are Economy of Taiwan, Taiwanese people, Languages of Taiwan, Foreign relations of Taiwan, History of Taiwan (Penghu only), Administrative divisions of Taiwan, Demographics of Taiwan, Transportation in Taiwan. But spinoffs that do not (clearly) cover the small islands include: Geology of Taiwan, Religion in Taiwan, Culture of Taiwan, Music of Taiwan, History of Taiwan (apart from Penghu). It's a mixed picture.

This article is (largely) small-island-free, I think an RFC would be required to change its direction. An even bolder move would be a class-action type RFC to attempt some uniformity of approach... Batternut (talk) 22:21, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The small islands account for less than 1% of the land area, and even less of the population, so with due weight one would expect them to take up a tiny part of the article. The one paragraph they occupy now seems proportionate.  Kanguole 22:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Also the mention of "Kinmen National Park" lower down, but still proportionate. Hardly more extra text than that otherwise needed for disclaimers explaining island-only-scope. Batternut (talk) 22:43, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * History of Taiwan does not include Kinmen, Matsu, the Pratas and Taiping Island. --Matt Smith (talk) 01:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, yes generally so, although it has some coverage of Penghu. Lists adjusted. Batternut (talk) 08:03, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Batternut's comment is exactly right. This article was moved from Formosa, which obviously and correctly only covered the main island, but the current of this namespace must include the smaller territories administered by the Chinese republican government. If it's thought necessary to create a separate article just for the main island, it would need to be at Taiwan Island or Geography of Taiwan Island, since the main topic for that name in English is the Chinese polity based there. —  Llywelyn II   02:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Sweet potato?
The article currently claims
 * Taiwanese, especially the Min Nan speakers, often call themselves "children of the Sweet Potato"

which has a cite but is still rather dubious. The current cite is to the offline (and therefore difficult-to-even-check) Nationalist Social Sciences and the Fabrication of Subimperial Subjects in Taiwan, which seems to have nothing to do with the point being cited and to have been written by academics with very questionable qualifications to verify the point. Something like this should better be sourced to a major newspaper or government site, where it would be quickly noticed and called out by people if it were mistaken or overstated.

Aside from the fact that the island doesn't actually look like a sweet potato at all, in my experience it is ubiquitously compared to a tea leaf. That would be worth noting if sources have commented on the comparison's appearance in ads, songs, etc. but the Taiwanese still wouldn't consider themselves "children of the tea leaf". — Llywelyn II   02:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Positions is an academic refereed journal, published by a major university. So it should be reliable. It says: It's a passing remark made in the context of critiquing an essay by an academic Taiwanese nationalist. So this doesn't support what the article text claimed at all, and has nothing to do with the physical geography of the island. I've removed the dubious claim. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Lead sentence
that seems like a non-sequitur as far as the lead sentence goes, and doesn't invalidate the wording island of Taiwan, which plenty of sources use (scroll or click past the first ten results). Is the subject of the article the island itself, or the geography of said island? If it's the former, then the article should probably be renamed Taiwan (island). If it's the latter, i.e. just one aspect of the island, then Taiwan should not be in bold according to the Manual of Style. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:50, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Judging from the lede text and the Infobox disputed islands, I think the subject of the article is the island itself. I'm fine with renaming the article as Taiwan (island). --Matt Smith (talk) 02:57, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Since such a move is likely to be controversial, I've opened a discussion below. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:19, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * there's an apparent rough consensus that the article is properly about the geography (of the whole country), and not just about the island itself. I've accordingly. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:35, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * can you provide reliable sources in support of rather than island of Taiwan? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:20, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you provide reliable sources that supports "Taiwan, officially the Republic of China (ROC), is a group of islands..."? As far as I can see, saying a political entity is a group of geographical entities is blatantly contradictory. --Matt Smith (talk) 01:27, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That's just how these types of articles tend to be written. See below. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 30 April 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:48, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Geography of Taiwan → ??? – There's some ambiguity as to whether Taiwan in the article title refers to the country or just the island, and what exactly the the article is about (see, above.) Therefore a title such as Island of Taiwan or Taiwan (island) may be clearer. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:21, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this subsection with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Oppose. Such a title change could lead to a significant change in the scope of the article. Currently the title matches the content of an article focused on geography, which is a useful article to have. CMD (talk) 04:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose: this is not, nor should it be, an article just about the actual island. This is an article about the geography of the polity commonly known in English as Taiwan. The geography of the island will, by simple fact of being the vast majority of the territory of said polity, make up most of this article. --Khajidha (talk) 13:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No. This is an article about the geography of the geographical entity, island known as Taiwan. This article is not for any polity. --Matt Smith (talk) 14:40, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I will thank you NOT to reply to my survey answer. There is a separate section below for discussion.--Khajidha (talk) 14:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose – following WikiProject Countries, each country article needs a sub-article "Geography of X", covering the geography of the country, and this article does that job. Nor would it be helpful to have a separate article on the island, which would consist entirely of duplicated content.  That is consistent with articles on every other country, including others named after an island that comprises almost all of their territory, like Madagascar, Iceland, Sri Lanka and Jamaica.  Kanguole 15:19, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Agree with above comments about the general practice on WP to refer to the geography of the whole country in a single article, rather than just the main island itself. Kdm852 (talk) 05:16, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support: Move to Taiwan (island). This article is about the island called "Taiwan", which covers nearly whole part (but less a little) of the territories controlled by Republic of China after 1949 (Free area of the Republic of China, also called "Taiwan area", including Taiwan island, Penghu Islands, Kinmen, Matsu Islands and so on), instead of the geography of the whole Taiwan area. So this article should be named as Taiwan (island) as this requested move. For the geography of the whole Taiwan area, Wikipedia can creat an article named as Geography of Taiwan area to talk about it. In addition, the island Great Britain covers most part of the island country United Kingdom, but Great Britain (about the island called "Great Britain") and Geography of the United Kingdom are two different articles in Wikipedia because they are about different things. 157.230.243.98 02:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lead rewrite
Looking at similar articles such as Geography of New Zealand, Geography of Madagascar, Geography of Sri Lanka, Geography of Cuba, Geography of Greenland, etc., I'm seeing a consistent style where the lead sentence contains a link to the country article, followed by descriptions of the main landmass plus any auxiliary islands. Therefore I suggest the following rewrite to match this style, with significant redirects to this article in bold:

Any other suggestions are welcome. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:41, 5 May 2019 (UTC) (edited 01:44, 5 May 2019 (UTC))


 * The articles you referred to do not say "officially the [political entity name]". Also, Geography of Madagascar says "Madagascar is a large island in..." --Matt Smith (talk) 01:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Then would you support the above text minus officially the Republic of China (ROC)? The Geography of Madagascar article can be adjusted to include the other islands. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:50, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * For now, I have no objection to that. But I think somewhere in the lead needs to let readers know that the name of the island itself is exactly "Taiwan". I'm thinking about changing "which includes the main island of Taiwan, formerly known as Formosa" to "which includes the main island, known exactly as Taiwan and formerly known as Formosa". --Matt Smith (talk) 01:55, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * What is unclear about "island of Taiwan" such that we need to point out that the name is "exactly" Taiwan? And which published sources support such phrasing? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:11, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The "island of Taiwan" is unclear because the "Taiwan" in it is ambiguous. Does that "Taiwan" refer to the island or a polity?
 * The island's name is exactly "Taiwan". You can easily find a source about that. --Matt Smith (talk) 02:27, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ireland is known "exactly" as Ireland, even though that name also refers to a country, but we don't need to emphasize that fact; doing so seems like editorializing. As in this article, the context makes it clear that the name refers to the island. I doubt anyone seeing the phrase island of Taiwan will be confused as to which island is meant. On consideration, I think we should keep officially the Republic of China (ROC) in the lead sentence; otherwise, the link to Territory of the Republic of China later in the paragraph would be confusing. If there's another way to phrase this part, I'm open to suggestions. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a timely example. I just checked Geography of Ireland, and the article starts with "Ireland is an island in Northwestern Europe in the north Atlantic Ocean." I suggest using that phrasing, for now. --Matt Smith (talk) 02:48, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Except if we do that ("Taiwan is an island...") the link goes to an article about the country, while Taiwan (island) points to this article. So I don't think that will work. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I got it. Judging from articles Geography of Ireland and Ireland, I think Geography of Taiwan and Taiwan (island) should be two different articles. I would like to know your opinion about that. Thanks. --Matt Smith (talk) 03:07, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't have an opinion on that. I note that the apparent consensus in the RM discussion immediately above is that this article is properly about the geography of the country. Anyone wishing to write an article focused solely on the island of Taiwan, its history, culture, economy, etc., is free to be bold and do it. —04:27, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Pending an article split, or further objections to the above text, I propose to add it to the article as it appears. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:29, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, add what to the article as what appears? --Matt Smith (talk) 04:38, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The text in the quote frame under the heading "Lead rewrite" above that begins, "Taiwan, officially the Republic of China (ROC), is an island nation..." —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:35, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I see. In my opinion, in an article which talks about geography, adding that political term in the lead text is not necessary. Geography of China does not begin with "China, officially the People's Republic of China (PRC)..." --Matt Smith (talk) 06:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems like you oppose any wording that equates Taiwan with the ROC on principle, without accounting for how it affects the rest of the article. How do you propose we handle the potential confusion I mentioned earlier, with Territory of the Republic of China linked in the same paragraph? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:33, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * But aren't you also equating Taiwan with the ROC on principle? And we don't see the wording in Geography of China affecting the rest of that article, do we?
 * In my opinion, the phrasing of "The main island, which makes up 99% of the territory of the Republic of China" is not neutral. Taiwan (island) is a disputed island and Wikipedia should not assert its territorial status. I would use "The main island, which makes up 99% of the territories being controlled by the Republic of China" instead. --Matt Smith (talk) 07:56, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm equating Taiwan with the ROC because that's what it's called on Wikipedia and in reliable sources. So in that sense, yes, it's on principle, the principle being expressed by WP:NPOV, specifically WP:WEIGHT. If you think calling the ROC Taiwan is inappropriate, the place to argue it is at Talk:Taiwan, not here; it's really beyond the scope of this discussion. Whether we call it "territory of", "territories controlled by", or "Free Area of" the ROC makes no difference if we haven't explained what the ROC has to do with Taiwan in the first place. That's why I suggest saying "Taiwan, officially the Republic of China (ROC)" in the lead sentence. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:02, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I had no intention to discuss that equating issue at here in the first place.
 * What I proposed is "territories being controlled by", not just "territories controlled by". Please note the use of "being".
 * Geography of China does not mention "People's Republic of China" in the first sentence and that article does not have the problem you are describing. Anyway, my opinion is that adding the political term in the beginning of a geography article is unnecessary. But I will let the consensus decide it.
 * By the way, it's obvious that not using "Republic of China" in the lead will confuse readers. That again shows equating Taiwan with the Republic of China is a bad idea. --Matt Smith (talk) 10:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Adding "being" makes the English more awkward without changing the meaning. (The participle clause "controlled by X" is related to the passive, and does not imply past tense.)  Kanguole 13:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure if I misunderstood English grammar, but isn't "is being controlled by" indicates a provisional or temporary state and "is controlled by" indicates a definitive or permanent state? --Matt Smith (talk) 14:22, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "The X controlled by Y" indicates the current state, and says nothing about whether it is temporary or permanent. Kanguole 14:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Does "The X is being controlled by Y" indicate the current state but imply the state is provisional or temporary and is subject to change? --Matt Smith (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It sounds odd, like you're emphasizing the control for some reason, but I wouldn't say it implies it's temporary (or that it isn't). Kanguole 16:14, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Being is about the present. It's also a really awkward formulation in this usage. CMD (talk) 16:16, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks guys. I understand. --Matt Smith (talk) 17:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The article is about the geography of a country. Countries are political entities. That's where the political terminology comes in. China has a long history as a nation before the PRC existed. That's not the case with the present nation called Taiwan as I understand it. China is also not the name of both a nation and an island occupied by that nation. The situation is different. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If the article is about the geography of a country, the infobox should be Country geography, not Infobox disputed islands. --Matt Smith (talk) 00:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:58, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * But you also removed the fact that Taiwan (island) is a disputed island, and that's inappropriate. I suggest adding back the Infobox disputed islands until we come up with a solution. --Matt Smith (talk) 10:28, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I would also personally prefer "island nation", but any application of "nation", "country", "state", etc to Taiwan will be hugely contentious. Another issue with the proposed text is that it overloads the first sentence.  I would oppose a separate island article, because it would duplicate this article except for a couple of sentences in the lead – the island of Ireland is a rather different situation, divided as it is between two states.  So here's my suggestion for the opening para:
 * Bolding "Taiwan" should conform to BOLDLEAD, because this article is a target of the disambiguated link "Taiwan (island)". And, yes, "Taiwan" refers to both the state and the island, but it's clear which is meant in each case. Kanguole 16:31, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If Ireland can avoid duplicating Geography of Ireland, I don't see why Taiwan (island) cannot avoid duplicating Geography of Taiwan. If you see that, could you please explain? Thanks. --Matt Smith (talk) 17:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * As I said, it's a completely different situation. It's also the result of a whole different massive controversy, which is not a useful model.  Kanguole 17:16, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ireland avoids duplicating Geography of Ireland because there is no duplicate article. There is no Geography of the Republic of Ireland. It's a reasonably instructive model really. CMD (talk) 22:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't quite get it. But I still see no problem as long as we make Taiwan (island) and Geography of Taiwan follow the section structure of Ireland and Geography of Ireland. --Matt Smith (talk) 00:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ireland is not a geography article. The equivalent article to Ireland is Taiwan. CMD (talk) 01:49, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ireland is an article about an island. Its equivalent article should be Taiwan (island). --Matt Smith (talk) 02:16, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You're correct, I was mixing that up with the Geography comment I made earlier. Can you provide a bit more on how you envision this island article, specifically where it would differ from current articles? CMD (talk) 02:24, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking about following the section structures (we can see that in the table of contents) of Ireland and Geography of Ireland. Small variations might be needed, but that shouldn't be a problem. --Matt Smith (talk) 02:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Geography of Ireland is roughly similar to what is on this article at the moment. Looking at Ireland though, it seems like using that structure with deviations would be extremely similar to the Taiwan article. There aren't "All-island institutions" or single-energy markets that seem to create a separate topic. CMD (talk) 04:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * So Ireland and Taiwan are having extremely similar structures, but one is about an island and another is about a state. That's weird. I don't live in the English-speaking world so I have no idea what entity "Ireland" commonly refers to. Would you mind explaining? --Matt Smith (talk) 05:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ireland commonly refers to both the island of Ireland and the state of Ireland, so you need context to figure out which meaning is meant in any particular instance. What makes it unusual among states sharing their name with a big island is that the state is smaller than the island it shares its name with, so there are "Irish" institutions that cover more than just the state, which include political, economic, and sporting bodies, which don't really fit on the state article. CMD (talk) 05:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I see. Is one of the two entities (island and state) referred to a lot more frequent than the other, or both entities have roughly equal weight? --Matt Smith (talk) 06:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's really hard to say. What is easy to say is that both uses are by themselves quite frequent, whichever way the balance lies. Exploring previous discussions regarding the names of those pages may be more enlightening, as I'm sure it's been discussed extensively by other editors. CMD (talk) 07:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion. --Matt Smith (talk) 07:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yet again: the island of Ireland is a quite different case, being an island divided between two states, like Hispaniola, New Guinea or Timor. The present case is a state consisting of an island plus much smaller islands that make up a tiny fraction of its territory, like Madagascar, Iceland, Sri Lanka, Cuba or Jamaica.  Kanguole 09:54, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Be it being divided between two states or between two hundred states, that's not the point. The point is what entity "Ireland" is most commonly used to refer to, unless WP:COMMONNAME can be used selectively. --Matt Smith (talk) 10:28, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No, in terms of identifying topics for articles, the point is what situations are similar. You are suggesting that COMMONNAME should be used to determine how many articles we have and what they cover, but that's now how it works.  Per NOTDICT, we write articles about topics; names are secondary.  Kanguole 10:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Is that your own opinion or a Wikipedia policy/guideline? I don't see that NOTDICT is relevant at here. --Matt Smith (talk) 10:44, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The point is that COMMONNAME is about naming existing articles, not about what articles should be created or what they should cover. Kanguole 10:49, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see the difference. When an article's title is not being in harmony with its content, either the title or the content needs to change. --Matt Smith (talk) 11:51, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The point is that COMMONNAME is about naming existing articles, not about what articles should be created or what they should cover. Kanguole 10:49, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see the difference. When an article's title is not being in harmony with its content, either the title or the content needs to change. --Matt Smith (talk) 11:51, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Taiwan says "state" twice in the lead paragraph. (It's also on our list of island countries, so that usage doesn't seem too contentious.) Seeing how this article is a WP:SPINOFF of the main country article, we should be able to use similar wording. The existing lead also has a link to Free area of the Republic of China, which I was trying to preserve in my proposed version, just not in the first sentence (since most countries control their territory, I don't think it's particularly helpful to lead with that info). If consensus finds we don't need that link, I'd broadly agree with 's version. Here's my proposed compromise:
 * Thoughts? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:30, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding the second sentence, how about "It consists of Taiwan, the same-name island that formerly known as Formosa,..." --Matt Smith (talk) 00:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That's an awkward phrasing in English, and I don't think it adds meaningful information. I'm not sure if English is your native language, but I think the phrase you're looking for is "the eponymous island". In any case, it should be obvious that the nation of Taiwan and the island of Taiwan have the same name. If instead we're back to saying that the island is called exactly Taiwan, I've already expressed my opinion that pointing that out is unnecessarily editorializing. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:44, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That said, I can live with either island of Taiwan or just Taiwan in bold, although I think the latter is somewhat confusing given that there's a link to Taiwan in the preceding sentence. —04:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If it's difficult to fit in the name Formosa well, maybe we can move it elsewhere? It doesn't necessarily have to be included in the first sentence. It's only mention in the article is as an adjective for wildlife, so we could include a sentence in the lead reflecting that. "The island of Taiwan was formerly known by its Portuguese name "Formosa", a name which continues to be evident in the common and scientific names of some of its native wildlife." CMD (talk) 04:59, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for correcting. English is not my native language so my wording can be inaccurate or awkward sometimes. So my suggestion should be "It consists of Taiwan, the eponymous island that formerly known as Formosa,..."--Matt Smith (talk) 05:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it's extra verbiage with no benefit. Eponymous would only make sense in a statement such as "The eponymous island making up most of Taiwan's area, formerly called Formosa", or something like that. The only reason for that would be if we didn't clearly state the name of the island, which I don't think is what you are going for. Formosa, as a historic name, is a redirect here from Formosa (disambiguation) as well as a likely search term, so I think it should at least appear in the lead paragraph. It's significant for more than just wildlife. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:51, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It is significant for more than wildlife, but at the moment that's all that's in the article, and the lead should reflect that. I'm just suggesting that if it's difficult to figure out how to include it in the first mention of the main island, it could fit in a later sentence. Alternatively, remove the smaller islands from the second sentence and continue on from your suggestion "The eponymous island of Taiwan...formerly called Formosa, measures 35,808sqkm and lies...". Cover the smaller islands later in the paragraph. CMD (talk) 07:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That wasn't a suggestion, but an example. My point was that I don't support using "eponymous island" in any sentence. Whether Formosa as a name for the island is covered in the article or not, I would still put it in the lead paragraph per WP:ALTTITLE. I'm not seeing any mention of the historic name being directly connected to the names of wildlife; is there a source for that? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:26, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If it is to be put early on in the lead paragraph, then I think including it in a sentence dedicated only to the main island would help it read better. Adapting your proposed wording above:
 * "The island of Taiwan, formerly known as Formosa, makes up 99% of the area controlled by Taiwan, measuring 35808 km2 and lying some 180 km across the Taiwan Strait from the southeastern coast of mainland China. The East China Sea lies to its north, the Philippine Sea to its east, the Luzon Strait directly to its south and the South China Sea to its southwest. Smaller islands include a number of islands around the island of Taiwan, the Penghu archipelago in the Taiwan Strait, scattered islands in the South China Sea, and a number of islands along the coast of Mainland China."
 * Regarding wildlife, I was basing that off this article, which includes many species which are called "Formosan X" and so on. CMD (talk) 08:04, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That looks like a very good lead paragraph for an article on Taiwan (island), but we're writing about the country of Taiwan as a whole. So I do think we need to give a quick summary of all the various islands right at the beginning. Unfortunately it would be WP:OR to say anything about the names of wildlife without a source commenting directly on it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Inclusion in the very first paragraph of an article is inclusion right at the beginning. Geography of Greenland introduces them all at the same time, but Geography of Sri Lanka includes other islands in the last sentence of the first paragraph, while Geography of Cuba only mentions another one at the end of the lead. It is not undue to focus on what makes up 99% of a country, if Taiwan wasn't an island, the issue of tiny islands probably wouldn't even come up. Geography of China doesn't have the word island in its lead at all.
 * It is not OR to say that the names of some wildlife have the word Formosa in them, as we can source many species with the word Formosa in the name. It's not making a special point out of it, just summarising what is in the text, which is the essence of WP:LEAD. CMD (talk) 11:02, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You suggested we say the historic name continues to be evident in the common and scientific names of some of its native wildlife. It's the "continues to be evident" part that looks like original research. Fair point about focusing on 99% of the country, but your version doesn't even mention the country directly. See revised proposal below. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:56, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, on the confusion I think the issue is I was only working on part of your lead, I did not intend to imply that your first sentence would be dropped completely. In fact, I meant to keep that in. Sorry about that.
 * On continues to be evident, it is used today (hence the Wiki article titles) for Formosan sika deer, Formosan black bear, Chamaecyparis formosensis, and Oncorhynchus masou formosanus. I don't see that as OR.
 * Replied here for relevance, will also reply below. CMD (talk) 15:55, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Evident means clear or obvious; that's just an opinion. We could say "continues to be used", but that implies a continuity with the historical use of the name. That would be WP:OR without a published source commenting on it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:10, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I was using evident more for its "easily seen" definition, but if that is too much of a voice, I'm sure there is another way it could be worded. It remains the only time in the article Formosa is used outside of the WP:LEAD. CMD (talk) 02:49, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "Easily seen" is also an opinion. The trouble is that regardless of how the name is used, we need a source that specifically mentions it in this context before we do the same. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:12, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I mentioned that I am open to other wording. Use just "seen" if easily is an opinion. If that is also too far, then I suggest we remove the mention of Formosa from the lead, given it's not in the article (WP:LEAD) and we have no sources indicating it is important to geography. CMD (talk) 10:00, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've added a mention of the former name of the island to the body of the article. If "Formosa" were omitted from the lead, all the mentions of Formosan this-that-and-the-other would be rather confusing.  Kanguole 11:07, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining. --Matt Smith (talk) 07:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Here's my latest proposal, which incorporates 's suggestion of discussing the main island first as well as 's stated preference for specifying Taiwan as an "island nation":

I think the "island nation" statement is useful, especially for an article about the geography of a country. As before, other suggestions are welcome. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:56, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


 * This seems a clear improvement over the current text to me, with the small addendum that upon reading on MOS:BOLD and MOS:BOLDTITLE I don't think we should bold "island of Taiwan" or "Formosa". CMD (talk) 15:55, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused about that last part; both guidelines say to use bold text for a term that redirects to the article or one of its subsections. Both terms redirect here, and the island of Taiwan (covered in this article) is the primary topic listed at Formosa (disambiguation). I think it would befuddle readers not to highlight that term in the lead. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Bolding is encouraged for synonyms. Given part of the current discussion was to clearly establish that this article has a slightly wider scope than either of the bolded terms, to bold them and thus imply they are the direct subject of the article is misleading. CMD (talk) 00:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it implies that, but as long as we avoid the current bolding of Taiwan alone, I guess I can live with no bolding. What do others think? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Since there are no apparent objections, I've, minus the bold text. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I and another IPv6 user disagree with the wording, since this article is about the geography of the island itself, not about whether or not it is an island country. If the user wants to know whether Taiwan is an island country or not, they should go to the main Taiwan article. Félix An (talk) 13:15, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Plus, when people say "Taiwan" today, they might also be referring to Kinmen, Matsu, etc. which are separate islands. The "Taiwan" island is a different thing from the political entity many people call "Taiwan." Félix An (talk) 13:16, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The above discussion concluded that the scope of the article is the Geography of Taiwan, and that is after all what it is called. It fits the pattern of Geography of X sub-articles linked from the Geography sections of country articles, per WikiProject Countries. To be sure the island makes up almost all of that, but deleting the tiny bit of information on the rest isn't unhelpful. Kanguole 13:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Landform of Taiwan.png

Taiwan archipelago
Hello! I saw your revert. What does "Taiwan archipelago" refer to? If it does not include the Matsu Islands, we need to change the map used in this box. Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is potential Original Research, the use of rollback here was inappropriate, if it was not a misclick. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 22:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The deletion of seems unjustified, since "Formosa" does indeed redirect here.  Kanguole 22:40, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I've no opinion about whether to mention the "Taiwan archipelago". Your edit removed which has been the subject of some controversial editing in the past. older ≠ wiser 22:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:China which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

There should be an article called "Taiwan (island)"
Since this is a "geography of" subarticle to the country Republic of China,there should be a separate page documenting the island of Taiwan.Just because the ROC only controls one main island doesn't mean the two terms are indistinguishable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twa0726 (talk • contribs) 01:24, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The terms are slightly different, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The topics have over 99% overlap, so having separate articles would create a lot of duplication. For similar reasons, Sri Lanka (island), Iceland (island), Madagascar (island), Cuba (island) and Jamaica (island) are all redirects. Kanguole 11:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

"Formosa" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Formosa and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 4 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Vpab15 (talk) 21:21, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Name change from Formosa
Why is there NO information on why and when Western governments and media made that change? When I was in 5th or 6th grade, Formosa, Quemoy, and Matsu were in the news. Would have to have been between Sept 1959 and Jan 1961, cz Ike was involved. 2602:306:BC65:5CA9:B44E:1014:B6CD:E818 (talk) 14:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Area
Quoting from the section "physical boundaries": "The total land area of Taiwan is 32,260 km2 [...]. Taiwan proper, the main island of the archipelago, was known in the West until after World War II as Formosa, [...]. It is 394 km long and 144 km wide, and has an area of 35,808 km2." So, how is it possible that the area of the main island is larger than the total area? Much of the discussion above also tells me that the editors haven't come to a final decision about the exact boundaries of the geographical entity which is the subject of the article, and confusion remains. Hopefully you'll come to a conclusion, as the current numbers don't make sense to a common reader like me. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.62.121.80 (talk) 10:07, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The two figures came from different sources. Fixed now. Kanguole 11:03, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Forested
I think we should highlight, how densely forested is Taiwan. דולב חולב (talk) 00:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Territorial claims in the Terrain section
I have again reverted this addition of territorial claims to the Terrain section. This is obviously not about terrain, and the relevant section on boundaries already mentions the outlying islands. Sprinkling random reminders through the article interferes with the focus of other sections. Kanguole 09:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)