Template talk:Taiwan-stub

Resorting
This template is suggested for renaming. The suggested new names are Template:ROC-stub, Template:Republic of China-stub or Template:ROC (Taiwan)-stub, or splitting into Template:Taiwan-stub and Template:ROC-stub.

Taiwan vs. Republic of China

 * I've placed a NPOV note on the template as referring to the ROC is taking political sides - saying effectively that we support Taipei's claims and prefer them over Beijing's. We shouldn't take sides in a political dispute (see WP:NPOV). All sides refer to the territory controlled by Taipei as "Taiwan", so why not refer to "Taiwan"? jguk 18:04, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Would you mind telling your logic on why "Taiwan" should be preferred over "ROC", what does each of the two terms mean, and in what way the two terms are different from each other? &mdash; Instantnood 18:07, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

"ROC" is a name given by itself to an illegitimate government that currently has control of the Chinese province of Taiwan and certain other Cross-Straits islands. It has no particular international standing - it was derecognised by the UN in 1971, and in all major world fora, it only has a seat where dependencies of other states also has seats. It is not recognised by China, which either uses "Taiwan" as an informal term to mean all Cross-Straits territory not currently controlled by Beijing, or, in a more formal context, terms such as: "Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Jinmen and Mazu," or "Taipei, China" (GATT); and "Taiwan, China" or "Chinese Taiwan", or "Taiwan Province of China", or "Taipei, China" or "Chinese Taipei" (Sports bodies). What is clear is that only those who support Taipei over Beijing use the term "ROC". Since we follow a NPOV policy, we should not support Taipei's position (or, indeed, Beijing's position). In particular, that means "ROC" is a big no-no.

That leaves the question, what term should we use? As far as I can see there is only one term that all sides in the dispute do use (albeit as an informal shorthand), and that is "Taiwan". So that seems the best approach. Of course "Taiwan, Penghu, Jinmen and Mazu", "Taipei, China" or "Chinese Taipei" might also achieve this - but "Taiwan" is easiest, and has the advantage that all English-speaking nations (as far as I am aware) use the term "Taiwan" in their media to refer to areas controlled by Taipei, an advantage not shared by the other terms, jguk 18:18, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. Could you i) tell where does the name "Republic of China" come from, and ii) compare the geographical area cover by the word "Taiwan", and the area currently administered by the ROC government? &mdash; Instantnood 18:23, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * I've answered that question many times before, so will not rehash that argument again here other than to say that in common parlance there is no difference.


 * However, bearing in mind my comments, I will suggest a compromise on the following (as it appears to only include terms accepted by both sides, and, whilst I do not share your concerns, I know you are concerned about places controlled by Taipei not in "Taiwan" (to use your preferred definition of "Taiwan" here)):


 * I appreciate your initiate to work towards consensus. But I'm afraid the issue is very complex that even modifying the text in this way cannot solve the problem entirely. There are articles related to the pre-1949 ROC. There are also articles relating to the government structure or constitutional arrangement of the ROC. That was the reason why I proposed to split the stub category into two. However it wasn't possible as 100 stubs are usually required for having a stub category. A intermediary solution at the time being would be having these stubs sharing a category. &mdash; Instantnood 18:41, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

I highly suggest that we complete the discussion and reach a consensus in Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and the naming convention before further dispute in this template. The generation of this template has just endured a long debate and reached a consensus. We should have just copied and pasted that discussion into this talk page to preclude emminent dispute. I will remove this tag for the time being. Meanwhile, future discussion on the choice of word Taiwan v.s. ROC should be continued in the two talke pages mentioned above. After a consensus being reached, we shall come back to employ that consensus onto this template.Mababa 06:19, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Let me clarify my position a little bit more. What is being disputed by jguk is the NPOV convention policy, not the implementation of the policy itself. Before the policy being changed, the policy should be upheld and respected. jguk has already initiated dispute on the policy in naming covention talk page. We should wait until a consensus on whether the policy would be changed before we make any alteration on this stub.Mababa 19:51, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

proposal for merging two categorical articles into one
This stub links currently to Category:Taiwan stubs with four articles titled as stubs. Previously, it linked to Category:Taiwan-related stubs with about 150 articles, but I wonder why changing a part of this stub. Anyway, I wondering if you could merge both of these categories into one under either one of these titles or another suggestive title. Please, I need your opinion about this, although sometimes I reply to your posts anytime I wish to. I'll eventually add the merge notice in these categorical articles, and then I would ask one of you to re-edit those notices in these articles after I do so. Thank you! --Gh87 07:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * If you look at the edit history for both categories you will see that Category:Taiwan-related stubs is currently being moved to Category:Taiwan stubs, hence the current existence of both. I will speed it along though, to avoid any further confusion.
 * Bearing this in mind, I have reverted your addition of the merge template to Taiwan-stubs. For future reference, please note that the merge template should not be used on categories, as stated at Merging and moving pages. cfm should be used instead. --TheParanoidOne 11:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)