Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/China- and Chinese-related articles/Archive 7

Maps
The results of this RfC should apply to all China-related maps. Including Taiwan violates NPOV. Ythlev (talk) 08:24, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus for that application. And, by your own reasoning, your own wanton modification of hatnotes (not just maps) is itself disruptive and a violation of WP:BRD. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 22:45, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with Ythlev, I see no reason not to make the consensus reached at Talk:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak universal. The PRC has no more control of the Taiwanese military, criminal justice system, international relations, or economic system than they do of Taiwan’s healthcare system. As an encyclopedia Wikipedia reflects the world as it is, not as some wish it to be. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 11:09, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Against, for China-related maps excluding Taiwan violates NPOV as Taiwan officially terms Republic of China. An encyclopedia Wikipedia reflects the world as it is, not as some wish it to be, doesn't it? Though for People's Republic of China related map your claim is definitely true. Akira CA (talk) 11:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe your confusion is because you consider "China" and "PRC" as different entities. However, on English Wikipedia China = PRC.--DreamLinker (talk) 11:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This indicates (including the Tian'anmen Square protesters), and Pan-Blues are marginalized on English Wikipedia (unlike on Chinese Wikipedia) and they shouldn't be. That's a serious threat to the encyclopedia's neutrality. Akira CA (talk) 12:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Pan-blue and pan-green only apply to domestic Taiwanese politics not to international opinion on the China-Taiwan conflict. I note that in terms of domestic Taiwanese politics both the DPP and the KMT agree that Taiwan/ROC has never been a part of the PRC and is not currently part of the PRC . An argument that ROC and PRC are one nation is a Mainland not a pan-blue argument. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:39, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * And I have nevet state ROC and PRC are one nation. Even in international opinion the use of the term Taiwan as opposed to China is not a consensus. While the WHO and UN regard Taiwan as part of China straightforward, CIA also makes map of China which includes Taiwan. The status of the term Taiwan is highly disputed and English Wikipedia should be neutral on this, pushing either side is POV. Akira CA (talk) 00:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Then can you explain why you think "Pan-Blues are marginalized on English Wikipedia (unlike on Chinese Wikipedia)"? Pan-blues and pan-greens in general would have the exact same opinion on the conflation of Taiwan and China, both are very clear that Taiwan is not and has never been a part of the PRC. The CIA is definitely not a WP:RS in this situation. English wikipedia *is* neutral on this. I’m begging you to review WP:NPOV. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 01:51, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * But Pan-Blues do consider Taiwan is a part of China, and the only China in the world is Republic of China, in short, ROC exists. The "consensus" on English Wikipedia that "China = PRC; Taiwan = ROC" takes the position of most supporters of Taiwan independence that the PRC is the government of "China" and that Taiwan is not part of China, defining "China" as only including Mainland China, Hong Kong, and Macau. It neglect major viewpoints—Pan-Blues and the Constitution of the Republic of China—on the political status of Taiwan and thus violates NPOV. And WP:NPOV is non-negotiable. Do I make myself clear? Akira CA (talk) 04:55, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, need to here. Akira CA (talk) 05:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thats not what most pan-blues believe... Please provide a source to back up your extraordinary claim. You actually have not made yourself clear, far from it. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 05:19, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The above nonsensical post is an instant disqualifier for speaking on any modern ROC political matters. The following aren't even from Ma Ying-jeou's presidency, but the KMT's current contiguous spell in opposition: Eric Chu: "We will achieve economic prosperity for the whole Chinese nation through cooperation between the two sides across the Taiwan Strait", 'Han Kuo-yu called on Thursday (Nov 14) for a return to a consensus with the mainland that there is only one China, but rejected Beijing's formula for Hong Kong-style "one country, two systems" unification.'. Also, from your own source: It has always believed that “one China” refers to the Republic of China (ROC) established in 1912 … which has independent sovereignty, although its jurisdiction is currently restricted to Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu, the KMT said in a written statement. . Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 06:33, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You want to see an instant disqualification? You seem to have forgotten this little incident you were involved in Talk:List of Chinese administrative divisions by highest point. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 06:42, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This coalition tends to favor a Chinese nationalist identity over a separate Taiwanese one from Pan-Blue Coalition.
 * As mentioned above, the point of disagreement between the Pan-Blue and the Pan-Green camps has been their different positions on the issue of unification with China versus Taiwan independence. from The Taiwan Voter, Christopher H. Achen; T. Y. Wang.
 * President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has said mainland China is the territory of the Republic of China (ROC) in an interview with a Japanese magazine, the first time Ma has made the official claim since he took office in May. Ma said under the ROC Constitution, the ROC 'definitely is an independent sovereign state, and mainland [sic] China is also part of the territory of the ROC.' from Taipei Times.
 * As indicated earlier, during its authoritarian rule of the island, one of the major tasks of the KMT government was to foster Chinese consciousness and its accompanying Chinese identity so that local residents would accept the view that China was their motherland. Throughout the several decades after 1949, the leaders of the KMT upheld the principle of “one China,” of which Taiwan was considered to be a part. Even after Lee Teng-hui became president, he was careful not to challenge the One China principle for fear of offending the party’s old guard. from The Taiwan Voter, Christopher H. Achen; T. Y. Wang.
 * Do basic researches next time before commenting on things you unfamiliar with. Akira CA (talk) 06:18, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You should have finished that Ma piece... You missed "The ultimate goal is to end hostility with Beijing, sign a peace agreement with China and march down the road of sustainable peace and prosperity, he said.” None of those sources make the point you want them to, the ones that come close only do so in a historical context. Only a tiny minority of pan-blue supporters reject the existence of the PRC, as your own sources indicate most accept that there are currently two countries even if in the future many would like those two countries to unify. There is no need to talk down to other editors, there are no experts on wikipedia. We are all equal. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 06:38, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

The ultimate goal in that 8 Oct 2008 Taipei Times article is clearly not a direct quote of Ma, and the deliberate sign a peace agreement with phrasing is a by-product of the Taipei Times, itself cited by scholarly WP:RS as being pan-Green. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 06:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

You are getting off track. The point is material relating to PRC and ROC do not belong on the same articles and maps most of the time. ZH Wikipedia refers to PRC as PRC not China but its content is still on separate articles. It is the case for EN Wikipedia too (e.g. High-speed rail in China), but just because they're titled "China" not "PRC", it's okay to include Taiwan on maps when the article is clearly about PRC? It still violates NPOV. You can rename and label PRC articles and maps with "PRC" if you want, as long as they don't include Taiwan. Ythlev (talk) 07:25, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You’re entirely right we are, sorry about that. On something like High-speed rail in China inclusion doesn’t seem appropriate but I wouldn’t have a problem waiting until a more suitable map was available before replacing it. I don’t think we should instantly purge wikipedia of the maps in question as many are more informative than no map at all, but we should make it clear that it would be ideal if in the long term those maps are replaced with better maps which do not violate WP:NPOV. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 07:32, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry for off the track. Yes despite my concerns on the neutrality of "PRC = China", maps are best to exclude Taiwan in articles about PRC. If you don't have time just put "Map of PRC + Taiwan" in the captions to show distincitons. Removing the map is definitely not a good way, and that's why I oppose removing this as it's really informative. Akira CA (talk) 07:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Break

 * As I mentioned, on English Wikipedia China = PRC and Taiwan = ROC. Government of China = Government of PRC. Personally I do have some concerns that it reduces the nuances. However, it seems that the consensus for this has been established for quite a while because most English media use China to mean PRC and Taiwan to mean ROC. While I don't necessarily agree, based on the current English Wikipedia rules (reliable sources in English media) I also find it hard to argue against it.--DreamLinker (talk) 13:26, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Admittedly I agree, though I think "media usage" is not a valid way to defend such view. (consider Overseas censorship of Chinese issues) Akira CA (talk) 13:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The outcome of the move discussion in 2011 (PRC → China) and 2012 (ROC 1949–present → Taiwan), and as explicitly stated in the closure statements, both times written by three administrators, was that article title policies were to apply, with absolutely no bearing on article content. They did not even endorse an en masse move of all applicable article titles to the shortened versions, so, unfortunately, your understanding of site policy implications is incorrect. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 16:18, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * So in your mind the consensus is to be inconsistent and use Taiwan for the main article but ROC for others? Not according to this, this, or this. Ythlev (talk) 16:58, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The early 2012 move did not give endorsement to the moves of articles such as President of the Republic of China, Government of the Republic of China or Flag of the Republic of China. None of this has any implications on article text, on which WP:NC-ZH has unassailable first order of precedence. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 17:15, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Is it practical to distinguish between PRC and ROC everywhere? Take High-speed rail in China for example, the hatnote says "The scope of this article is restricted to high-speed rail in Mainland China and Hong Kong unless otherwise stated", and yet the first image is a map with Taiwan. marginalized on English Wikipedia ... and they shouldn't be. Yes they should. According to WP:UNDUE: "articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." Ythlev (talk) 13:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * "Federalists, democrats, and Pan-Blues are all minorities" is a really extraordinary claim, even DPP rules under the name of Republic of China. Otherwise "Taiwan, officially the Republic of China (ROC)" won't be the first sentence of Taiwan. Akira CA (talk) 13:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Pan-Blues are minorities is a really extraordinary claim In the whole world, yes, they are minorities. DPP rules under the name of Republic of China. The ROC rules the free area regardless of which party and its publications do not include the mainland. We are not talking about names. If you like, I'm totally fine with replacing all instances of "China" with PRC, then removing Taiwan from maps. Ythlev (talk) 13:56, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This blanket approach will not work, as articles on a geo-cultural context (i.e. markedly apolitical) will be full of maps such as these ( prepared by the CIA, no less! ). Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 16:18, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Ask any student of cultural geography about this one... Politics can not be separated from the "geo-cultural context” as it is an inherent part of that context. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 05:35, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If a map is absolutely necessary and a CIA map is the only one available, then maybe. That's not the case. Including Taiwan in user-created maps like File:PRC Population Density.svg serve no purpose except propaganda. Ythlev (talk) 06:58, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Color for disputed territories (Taiwan and Arunachal Pradesh)
This is a discussion on the colors of maps. The current version of the Chinese map File:CHN_orthographic.svg used dark green to mark land controlled by the People's Republic of China, and light green to mark land claimed but not controlled by People's Republic of China. This convention has been used for many other maps, not only for China-related articles. In a recent edit in the file File:PRC_Population_Density.svg, Ythlev challenged this long time convention and moreover, he wanted to write his point of view in a Manual of Style section. Since any substantive edit to Manual of Style should reflect a broad consensus, I would hope to hear the opinions about which Manual of Style of maps should we use: (1) dark green to mark land controlled by the People's Republic of China, and light green to mark land claimed but not controlled by People's Republic of China, no color or not shown for other land. (2) dark green to mark land controlled by the People's Republic of China, no color or not shown for other land? I would like to invite all of people involved in the file File:CHN_orthographic.svg, the file File:PRC_Population_Density.svg , the file File:India_(orthographic_projection).svg , the file File:Republic of Korea (orthographic projection).svg , the file File:Republic of Korea (orthographic projection).svg , the file File:Europe-Ukraine (orthographic projection; disputed territory).svg and the file File:Russian_Federation_(orthographic_projection)_-_only_Crimea_disputed.svg  to discuss on whether they prefer the dark green/light green/white decomposition or the dark green/white decomposition? PE fans (talk) 20:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Personally I prefer the dark green/light green/white decomposition, because marking the disputed territory as disputed is more neutral.PE fans (talk) 20:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm also one that prefers the dark green/light green/white decomposition. These territorial disputes remain unresolved for either side, and the map should reflect this for the sake of neutrality, as with other maps on Wikipedia. LittleCuteSuit (talk) 20:33, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This isn't a break and then a tangent from the old discussion its an entirely new discussion, please change the heading to reflect that. In general I like the dark green/light green/white decomposition but I don’t find such maps to be appropriate for the vast majority of uses on wikipedia. We should reflect the way the world is in terms of facts on the ground not the way some people think it should be. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I've changed the title to "Color for disputed territories (Taiwan and Arunachal Pradesh)" because whether Taiwan should be included in a map of PRC or not is the issue discussed by the section "Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macau". If most people suggest the dark green/light green/white decompositionm then this section should be rewritten as "In general, Taiwan should be discriminately included in content related to the People's Republic of China, such as in statistics and maps". If most people suggest the dark green/white decomposition, then the sentence "In general, Taiwan should not be indiscriminately included in content related to the People's Republic of China, such as in statistics and maps" can be kept. Let's wait for more peoples' opinions. PE fans (talk) 23:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Disputed territories in general are inappropriate in maps not meant to illustrate a country’s view of itself such as on that country's main page, e.g. China in this instance. You are drawing a link between the dark green/white decomposition and Taiwan’s political status which I certainly wasn’t making when I voted for it. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I see. So you prefer dark green/light green/white decomposition for articles like China and prefer dark green/white decomposition for articles like File:PRC_Population_Density.svg.PE fans (talk) 00:22, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As its PRC specific and wouldnt ever be used on anything besides China, Demographics of China, and Geography of China (the only three pages its used on) I don’t see the issue with including claimed territories. I think it would be inappropriate to include claimed territories in something like File:World marriage-equality laws (up to date).svg or in general on any regional or global map. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:29, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This discussion is about China and Chinese-related articles and the issue that whether such articles should include claimed territories of China. The same rule applies to whether a Ukraine-related article should include Crimea, whether a Syria-related article should include the territories controlled by ISIL, but is not applicable to regional or global maps. PE fans (talk) 01:09, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Isn't that what I said? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 01:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. Now let's wait for other people's opinionsPE fans (talk) 01:30, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear this sort of map would not be appropriate on a Chinese related page, just China related ones and then only on *some* China related pages (those which are specifically about the PRC and not say Chinese culture or folk religion). In *all cases* it would still be *preferable* to use a map which doesn't conflate China and Taiwan. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 01:37, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Personally I prefer the dark green(Mainland and HK and Macao)/medium green(Taiwan)/light green(South Tibet or most of Arunachal Pradesh, Senkaku, and etc)/white decomposition, because PRC and ROC nominally claim that China is a single gountry. --Sharouser (talk) 05:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand, both sides claim to be the only legitimate "China" but only the PRC claims that both sides are part of a *single* country. The Taiwanese are clear that they see two separate countries. See. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:19, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No, you are either conflating polities with the vague notion of "country" or intentionally mis-representing that source yet again. Direct quote from that Taipei Times (pro-pan-Green) source: It has always believed that “one China” refers to the Republic of China (ROC) established in 1912 … which has independent sovereignty, although its jurisdiction is currently restricted to Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu, the KMT said in a written statement. . Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 03:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, exactly what it says... For the KMT “one China” refers to the ROC not a China which is a combination of the ROC and the PRC. Independent sovereignty very clearly means not part of the same country. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 03:30, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no idea of which "Manual of style" you are talking about as there is no link. I edited File:India_(orthographic_projection).svg on request and in that kind of work I use the conventions that we (graphic workers) try to stick to WikiProject_Maps/Conventions and for that specific type of map (ortographic) it's WikiProject_Maps/Conventions. That is what is preferred to be used with any country regarding Subject's area (country, province, state, etc.), Other areas part of the same political unity, Claimed uncontrolled areas, Outside area, etc.
 * So for me it's clear, use the conventions we have. --Goran tek-en (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The main reason for this discussion is because Ythlev removed the claimed uncontrolled areas of PRC in the map File:PRC_Population_Density.svg and wrote a section in WP:Manual of Style/China and Chinese-related articles to ask for the removal for claimed uncontrolled areas of PRC in other maps. He said it was a "consensus", but I think a broader consensus need to be achieved about this issue. PE fans (talk) 19:14, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * So to me this is really two separate issues.
 * Different opinions regarding claimed uncontrolled areas. This can't be an issue just in that part of the world so wikipedia must have some kind of convention how to deal with this, so stick to that. If a user is removing claimed uncontrolled areas and the convention is to show them, that user should be informed of that and handled according to that. One person can't be considered to have "consensus" when it comes to such things, in my opinion.
 * On this page WP:Manual of Style/China and Chinese-related articles I can't see anything regarding different colors in maps so then the convention I linked to above should be used here also.
 * If for some strange reason you would put in something about colors in maps (in the manual) and it would be consensus about that it would probably create problems. I as a graphic worker can't be aware of all those different manuals if I'm not informed of them when I work on a request, and most requesters might not know about them or will forget to inform about them. So stick to the overall conventions we have. --Goran tek-en (talk) 20:17, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * In the section Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macau, Ythlev proposed a "consensus" that "Taiwan should not be indiscriminately included in content related to the People's Republic of China, such as in statistics and maps" and his understanding of this sentence is to remove Taiwan and Arunachal Pradesh from the PRC maps. However, it seems that the convention is to include Taiwan and Arunachal Pradesh discriminately (i.e. use a different color such as light green) in PRC maps. I will count your opinion as supporting the current conventions dark green/light green/white decompositionPE fans (talk) 22:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I see no disagreement between what Ythlev is asserting is consensus and the dark green/light green/white decomposition... The word “indiscriminately” is key here. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There are three status: (1) discriminately included (dark green/light green/white), (2) indiscriminately included (dark green/dark green/white), (3) not included (dark green/white/white). Ythlev said that "not indiscriminately included", i.e. (1)=(3)>(2) but his understanding of this sentence is (3)>(1) as he did in File:PRC_Population_Density.svg. I doubt Ythlev's statement that (3)>(1) and ask a broader consensus to compare (1) and (3). If more people prefer (1) than (3), then clearly the sentence "should be discriminately included" is better than "should not be indiscriminately included". If more people prefer (3) than (1), then "should not be indiscriminately included" can be understood as a broader consensus.PE fans (talk) 03:38, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, we have completely different interpretations of what “indiscriminately” means in that sentence. The sentence is "In general, Taiwan should not be indiscriminately included in content related to the People's Republic of China, such as in statistics and maps” so we’re not talking about discriminating it on the map but about indiscriminately including maps with do discriminate when its not directly relevant to the topic. Do you understand? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 03:45, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The word "indiscriminately" has three meanings: . My understanding is the third one "not kept apart or divided" but maybe your understanding is the second one "thoughtless"?PE fans (talk) 04:07, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I’m a native english speaker, which meaning is being used here isn’t ambiguous to me. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 04:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Anyway, reaching a broad consensus on supporting either (1) or (3) is better than only opposing (2). It's better to have a "what we should be" than "what we shouldn't do" in the manual of style article.PE fans (talk) 04:14, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I don’t see a larger issue here beyond your misunderstanding about what the the word indiscriminately meant in context, there seems to already be clear consensus. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 04:21, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

as he did in File:PRC_Population_Density.svg If you want to change it from (3) to (1) I won't stop you, but I won't personally be doing the different shade BS. Taiwan is not part of the PRC and including it in such maps serve no purpose except propaganda. Ythlev (talk) 15:28, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Invoke the coloring scheme proposed by Sharouser. It seems to be a farce logically to use the same schematic for Taiwan, controlled by one of the rival governments in the One China dispute, as Arunachal Pradesh, Senkaku, which are controlled by India, Japan, etc., which are not central to said dispute. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 03:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * All territory outside of the control of the government of the People's Republic of China is just that: outside of the control of the People's Republic of China. No special colors are needed- everything they don't control but claim in Beijing is just that: "claimed". "Claimed" is one color, regardless of the rationalization behind the claim. Do we need a special third color for the Senkaku Islands which are both claimed by Taiwan but also administered by Japan? That's a kind of half-way between the India-controlled areas and Taiwan (ROC). No- I think no rainbow of colors is needed: one color for territories claimed but not administered is sufficient. We don't need to push the One-China Policy here. Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * All claims over all territories that are not actually administered by a particular government will inherently be different in particulars of the claim, but they are the same in that they involve a territory outside the control of the government making the claim. These two claims are just sovereignty claims that are not realized in actual practice. The PRC has never ever controlled these areas. Same color for all claims. Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:14, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

It has been a week since the first discussion. Many people have expressed their opinions. It seems that a majority of people support the dark green/light green/white decomposition. Accordingly, I will change the sentence into "In general, Taiwan and Arunachal Pradesh should be discriminately included in content related to the People's Republic of China, such as in statistics and maps" in the main page. "In general" means that sometimes there may be exceptions, but this applies to most articles. "Taiwan and Arunachal Pradesh" means that we treat Taiwan and Arunachal Pradesh equally. "discriminately" means that we need a clear distinction between the area controlled by PRC and the claimed uncontrolled area, "included" means that the disputed territories should be included rather than excluded, "content related to People's Republic of China" means that the guideline is applicable to PRC-related articles, or China-related articles when "China" is understood as PRC (such as File:PRC_Population_Density.svg), but is not applicable to articles related to Chinese language or Chinese folk religion, and is not applicable to global articles such as File:World marriage-equality laws (up to date).svg, "statistics" means that we include the data of Taiwan into articles like Provinces of China, but a clear distinction is important, and moreover, we can only add up the numbers of mainland China, "maps" means that we include Taiwan and Arunachal Pradesh into a map of PRC using a color different with mainland China. PE fans (talk) 02:42, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus for that change, especially as the use of discriminately is just plain odd. As I have stated before I think the only issue here is your less than fluent level of English and your insistence on reading indiscriminately out of context. There has also been almost no discussion on this point: ""Taiwan and Arunachal Pradesh" means that we treat Taiwan and Arunachal Pradesh equally.” so its kind of odd to bring it up as supposed consensus. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 03:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If you want to request an uninvolved editor close the discussion or something like that you can, but please do not unilaterally declare a consensus. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 03:22, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Currently, more than 2/3 editors support that "Taiwan and Arunachal Pradesh should be included in PRC-related articles using a different color" and I would hope that the uninvolved editor can close the discussion about that part.
 * As for the topic that "we treat Taiwan and Arunachal Pradesh equally". Do you want to discuss more about this with ? If yes, you can open a subsection titled "Should Taiwan and Arunachal Pradesh be treated equally?" and continue the discussion there. PE fans (talk) 04:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You have comprehension problems. As far as I can tell, you are the only one who thinks that. Ythlev (talk) 05:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with Ythlev, the whole lack of basic reading comprehension is getting weird. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Here's another map used on the Provinces of China page:Geographyinitiative (talk) 07:46, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Consensus
Stop reverting already. There is a clear consensus, namely, "use of a different shade to indicate Taiwan is acceptable", (note that this is not even required but only acceptable). per PE fans: In general, Taiwan should be discriminately included; per Sharouser I prefer the dark green(Mainland and HK and Macao)/medium green(Taiwan); per CaradhrasAiguo Invoke the coloring scheme proposed by Sharouser; per Geographyinitiative one color for territories claimed but not administered is sufficient.; per Ythlev so using a different shade is still acceptable; and per myself. Akira CA (talk) 03:39, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * "discriminately included” is literally gibberish in english. The consensus isnt "In general, Taiwan should not be indiscriminately included in maps of the People's Republic of China (RfC).” it is “In general, Taiwan should not be indiscriminately included as part of China on maps. On maps which are meant to show the PRC’s POV then Taiwan may be shaded differently.” or "In general, Taiwan should not be indiscriminately included in content related to the People's Republic of China, such as in statistics and maps (RfC). Hong Kong and Macau can be included in such content, but distinction from the mainland is advised.” How on earth did you come to your understanding of consensus? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 04:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * And yet I have never mentioned "discriminately" or whatsoever. The consensus certainly is "In general, Taiwan should not be indiscriminately included in maps of the People's Republic of China (RfC).", because the title of this discussion is simply Maps, while the RfC is on map of infected cases. "Hong Kong and Macau" are rarely mentioned in the whole thread and I have no idea why they are there. How on earth did you come to your understanding of "basic reading comprehension", or are you simply reverting my edit because it is my edit?
 * You misunderstand, its only acceptable (but not preferable) to include Taiwan in maps which are explicitly of the PRC... This discussion was originally about about broader maps such as regional or global maps, the consensus is that on those maps it is inappropriate to conflate China and Taiwan. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 04:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * And what I've done is adding "However, a use of different shade is acceptable.", you really seems to be reverting my edit because it is my edit. Akira CA (talk) 04:35, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, I will reword it. "related to PRC" is really vague too. Akira CA (talk) 04:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I reverted your edit because you falsely claimed consensus on an unclosed and unfinished discussion... You’re focusing on the wrong sentence, the first sentence grossly misstates consensus. Please dont continue to imply that there is anything personal going on here. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 04:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * However the Hong Kong part still shouldn't be there, and the jump from map to content also misstates the consensus (which I corrected in my edits). Akira CA (talk) 04:45, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * HK was a part of the original consensus Talk:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak/Archive 8 so unless its been explicitly overruled here by a new consensus (it hasn’t, its barely been mentioned) than the previous consensus holds. If you want to make a new RfC to explicitly address the matter of Hong Kong and Macao you definitely can do that. Although you’re right that it was rather inelegantly stated in the original version. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 04:50, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * just a note, I think the upshot of the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak was that there was consensus to list Taiwan separately but no consensus for listing Hong Kong and Macao separately. I think we should make that clear. Am I reading it wrong? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 06:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The consensus was replacing with a map of mainland China so it is kind of implied, however feel free to launch another discussion if you want. Though I might not engage in it as I think that's trivial... Akira CA (talk) 06:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, how about the current version on Taiwan? I've removed Arunachal Pradesh for now though I think they are similar. I might not be engaged in the discussion around Arunachal Pradesh (if any) too. Akira CA (talk) 06:29, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I support the current version of Akira CA. There are two discussions. The first discussion is about regional or global maps such as the only two maps File:COVID-19_Outbreak_World_Map.svg and File:COVID-19-outbreak-timeline.gif used in 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak and the consensus is to remove Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau from mainland China. The second discussion is about maps of the People's Republic of China such as the map File:CHN_orthographic.svg used in People's Republic of China and the consensus is to include Taiwan using a different shade. The current version of Akira CA reflects not only the first consensus, but also the second consensus.PE fans (talk) 14:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Also the discussion on color is entirely separate from the original discussion, there are two discussions and you appear to be trying to combine them. Also would you mind explaining your edit summaries? "Indeed, no censensus has been reached yet” and "There is a consensus, and it is certainly this one.” appear to pretty directly contradict each other.  Horse Eye Jack (talk) 04:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you means, isn't supporting "colouring Taiwan with light green" means "use of a different shade to indicate Taiwan is acceptable"? My first edit summaries is an error, and I'm now referring to the latter one. Akira CA (talk) 04:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As mentioned by Horse Eye Jack, there are two discussions. This first discussion is about regional or global maps and the first consensus is that "In general, Taiwan should not be indiscriminately included in maps of the People's Republic of China (RfC) in regional or global articles". The second discussion is about PRC related articles such as File:CHN_orthographic.svg and the second consensus (I mean supported by most editors but not all editors) is that "However, inclusion using a different shade is recommended in PRC related articles." Is it wrong? PE fans (talk) 04:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think less PRC related (its such a vague category) and more maps which are intended to show the PRC’s POV, but yes I agree thats pretty much consensus. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 04:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Got it. I make the wording more explicit this time (as the originial sentence only say "related to the People's Republic of China"). Akira CA (talk) 04:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This version is quite nice. Thanks! PE fans (talk) 05:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Your latest version does not reflect consensus at all. That RfC resulted in Taiwan being removed from such maps, which contradicts "should be illustrated separately" as you wrote. Ythlev (talk) 19:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * again, both the discussion here and the RfC is on "maps" only, please do not edit it to the broader "content" please. How about the current version? I make the distinction between PRC maps and regional & global maps again according to Horse Eye Jack and PE Fans. They are indeed different discussions...Akira CA (talk) 02:26, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

If lumping Taiwan is considered in violation of NPOV on maps, why would it be okay for lists? Most lists already separate them (Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data). The lack of an explicit RfC does not mean a lack of consensus. Your version is also too WP:CREEP heavy. Can you explain the difference between PRC maps and regional & global maps, because I have not a clue. Ythlev (talk) 05:55, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * By the way, HK and Macau were mentioned in that RfC. What I wrote was in line with the results that There is slightly greater preference for the map of mainland China, though supporters of replacement generally state they are fine with either. Ythlev (talk) 06:00, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Rules is determined by consensus, not by what consensus implies. In fact, the RfC implies nothing and all your words are simply WP:OR. PRC maps and regional & global maps is suggested by Horse Eye Jack, and supported by PE fans and myself. As far as I can tell, you are the only one who cannot understand that. Akira CA (talk) 06:09, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As for HK and Macau, they are merely mentioned but not well-discussed in the RfC, where there was consensus to list Taiwan separately but no consensus for listing Hong Kong and Macao separately. Nobody has ever "recommended" shading Hong Kong and Macau differently in the thread, where is map is simply replaced by a mainland China one. I'm very puzzled that you keep imposing non-existent ridiculous implications on the RfC. Akira CA (talk) 06:16, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:OR? Are you serious? All policies and guidelines are OR. No OR refers to content, not policies and guidelines. Rules is determined by consensus, not by what consensus implies. We're establishing consensus right now. The consensus is that "a map that lumps the PRC and Taiwan together violates NPOV". If an RfC is made for lists, you think the results would be different? you are the only one who cannot understand that. So I am 1 in 4. Does it make sense to write something that a quarter of editors can't understand and would ignore? That's what WP:CREEP addresses. Ythlev (talk) 06:24, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * imposing non-existent ridiculous implications on the RfC I am establishing consensus based on results of an RfC in which many users participate. PE fans is establishing from scratch and only three users agreed so far. And yes, I am extending the discussion to beyond maps because there can't be an RfC for everything (I mean, how many users are here?). The existing attitudes towards issues should be respected. Ythlev (talk) 06:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed you are not establishing consensus, — that splendid term is far from what you've done. You're indeed assuming there is a consensus (a consensus which only you agreed) and adding it to the community guidelines with 0 discussion. Akira CA (talk) 06:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I have not. "Bold changes to policies and guidelines are sometimes the best way to allow the encyclopedia to adapt and improve". So I ask you now, what problem do you have for extending it to lists and to HK and Macau? Ythlev (talk) 07:24, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you see the red box when you are editing...While you may be bold in making minor changes to this page, consider discussing any substantive changes first on the page's talk page. Editors of policy and guideline pages are strongly encouraged to follow WP:1RR or WP:0RR standards. Adding a brand new guideline is definitely not minor changes. Akira CA (talk) 07:16, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Consider. I have raised discussions on other issues better only to get no responses. That's why best way to allow the encyclopedia to improve is to just go with it. My edits have lasted longer than yours. I certainly haven't reverted your edit twice. You still haven't answered my question. Ythlev (talk) 07:24, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * To answer your question, Yes, you have problem of not reflecting the consensus when making a substantive edit to the page, and "Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus." Akira CA (talk) 09:05, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The whole discussion and the RfC are under the name of Maps. Nobody has ever mentioned lists and other content except you, so you are essentially establishing consensus with yourself only... Community guidelines are made from consensus, how on earth did you come to your understanding of consensus? I also make the wording explicit for you to understand without comprehension problems. Akira CA (talk) 06:28, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, to achieve consensus editors need to cooperate. Keep reverting everything, including my uncontroversial improvements (orthographic map one and "Taiwan can be included", which you admitted that's as far as consensus goes) is far from that. Akira CA (talk) 06:33, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with the ideas themselves I disagree with inclusion and wording, and I've updated it. Ythlev (talk) 07:08, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's put down mice for a while and discuss below for the current version, I hope to end this thread with a stable version :) Akira CA (talk) 07:22, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Because of the RfC is not about "maps specifically about the People's Republic of China" (as Horse Eye Jack stated) but only regional & global maps, It might not be a good idea to use the main template. The colour discussion and the RfC are seperate and accounts for each of the two sentence. Akira CA (talk) 08:08, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Summary
Let's end this long thread, what do you think of the current compromised version of the guideline? Are there any more concerns or suggestions? Akira CA (talk) 06:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The wording is problematic. "Taiwan can be included" as the leading clause is encouraging inclusion. The leading clause should be "there is no universal agreement on whether Taiwan should be included". Ythlev (talk) 07:33, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Moved to the the end of the sentence. Akira CA (talk) 08:03, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ... using a distinct shade to represent the territory as uncontrolled, is always required. ... not be included indiscriminately as a part of the People's Republic of China in general. Guidelines are in general, in general. No need to make it so wordy. Ythlev (talk) 07:33, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Akira CA (talk) 08:03, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * not be included indiscriminately as a part of the People's Republic of China On global maps, disputed areas are either coloured separately from the claiming country or not shown because trying to associate them is impractical. Ythlev (talk) 07:53, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Better to preserve this part. Akira CA (talk) 08:03, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it's better to replace the first sentence "including Taiwan is acceptable if distinction from the mainland is made to reflect its status" by "including Taiwan is recommended but not required if distinction from the mainland is made to reflect its status". The word "acceptable" gives the reader the impression that a majority of editors prefer dark green/white/white decomposition but have no objection to dark green/light green/white decomposition or dark green/medium green/light green/white decomposition but in reality, a majority of editors prefer either dark green/light green/white decomposition or dark green/medium green/light green/white decomposition but have no objection to dark green/white/white decomposition. I think the opinions of a majority of editors rather than the opinions of a minority of editors should be reflected. PE fans (talk) 14:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As for the regional or global maps such as File:COVID-19_Outbreak_World_Map.svg in the article 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak, a majority of editors in the Rfc support the exclusion of Taiwan rather than inclusion. However, there is a clear different between regional or global maps such as File:COVID-19_Outbreak_World_Map.svg discussed in Rfc and maps specifically about the People's Republic of China such as File:PRC_Population_Density.svg discussed in the section "Color for disputed territories (Taiwan and Arunachal Pradesh)"PE fans (talk) 15:16, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * majority of editors prefer either dark green/light green/white decomposition Proof? Ythlev (talk) 15:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I said "Personally I prefer the dark green/light green/white decomposition", LittleCuteSuit said "I'm also one that prefers the dark green/light green/white decomposition", Horse Eye Jack said "In general I like the dark green/light green/white decomposition but I don’t find such maps to be appropriate for the vast majority of uses on wikipedia" and later said that "only on *some* China related pages (those which are specifically about the PRC and not say Chinese culture or folk religion)", Sharouser said "Personally I prefer the dark green(Mainland and HK and Macao)/medium green(Taiwan)/light green(South Tibet or most of Arunachal Pradesh, Senkaku, and etc)/white decomposition", CaradhrasAiguo said "Invoke the coloring scheme proposed by Sharouser", Geographyinitiative said "Here's another map used on the Provinces of China page: File:China_administrative_claimed_included.svg". Isn't it a majority? PE fans (talk) 15:45, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Horse Eye Jack wrote after that In *all cases* it would still be *preferable* to use a map which doesn't conflate China and Taiwan. Horse Eye Jack has been clearly against inclusion from the very beginning. Geographyinitiative: All territory outside of the control of the government of the People's Republic of China is just that: outside of the control of the People's Republic of China. No special colors are needed Are you trying to cherry-pick comments in your favour or do you really lack reading skills? Ythlev (talk) 19:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Geographyinitiative said: "All territory outside of the control of the government of the People's Republic of China is just that: outside of the control of the People's Republic of China. No special colors are needed- everything they don't control but claim in Beijing is just that: "claimed". "Claimed" is one color, regardless of the rationalization behind the claim. Do we need a special third color for the Senkaku Islands which are both claimed by Taiwan but also administered by Japan? That's a kind of half-way between the India-controlled areas and Taiwan (ROC). No- I think no rainbow of colors is needed: one color for territories claimed but not administered is sufficient. We don't need to push the One-China Policy here. All claims over all territories that are not actually administered by a particular government will inherently be different in particulars of the claim, but they are the same in that they involve a territory outside the control of the government making the claim. These two claims are just sovereignty claims that are not realized in actual practice. The PRC has never ever controlled these areas. Same color for all claims." Could you read this more carefully? It's clear that Geographyinitiative's argument is against the suggestion dark green(Mainland and HK and Macao)/medium green(Taiwan)/light green(South Tibet or most of Arunachal Pradesh, Senkaku, and etc)/white decomposition and to support the suggestion of dark green(Mainland and HK and Macao)/light green(Taiwan, South Tibet or most of Arunachal Pradesh, Senkaku, and etc)/white decomposition. PE fans (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It's clear who had cherry-picked the comments of Geographyinitiative PE fans (talk) 20:53, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a reminder that I, LittleCuteSuit, Sharouser, CaradhrasAiguo, Geographyinitiative are already 5 editors. Even if you count you, Horse Eye Jack and Akira CA as the supporters of the complete removable of Taiwan on maps specifically about the People's Republic of China, 5:3 is already the majority. PE fans (talk) 21:02, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a concern that if no distinction from the mainland is made to reflect its status, the inclusion of Taiwan into a PRC map seems like a biased support of the political point of view that "Taiwan is part of PRC". I oppose this political point of view as much as the biased political point of view that "Taiwan is not part of PRC". So my suggestion is "On maps specifically about the People's Republic of China, including Taiwan is recommended but not required. However, if included, a distinction from the mainland is required to reflect its status." This reflects that a majority of editors support either dark green/light green/white decomposition or dark green/medium green/light green/white decomposition compared to either dark green/white/white decomposition or dark green/dark green/white decomposition. PE fans (talk) 01:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

5:3 is already the majority Wikipedia is not a democracy. WP:TALKDONTREVERT: The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. Arguments like "I prefer this" carry little weight. Also they wrote they prefer a certain colour scheme when either are available, not that inclusion is recommended. It is one thing to have a preference for one colour scheme, another to recommend editing a certain way. For that, there needs to be a benefit, which I see none. Recommending inclusion risks maps that use green/green/grey and start disputes like the coronavirus map. Ythlev (talk) 05:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Have you read WP:TALKDONTREVERT carefully? "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever. Limit article talk page discussions to discussion of sources, article focus, and policy. If an edit is challenged, or is likely to be challenged, editors should use talk pages to explain why an addition, change, or removal improves the article, and hence the encyclopedia. Consensus can be assumed if no editors object to a change. Editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material, or who stonewall discussions, may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions. Consensus cannot always be assumed simply because editors stop responding to talk page discussions in which they have already participated.
 * The goal of a consensus-building discussion is to resolve disputes in a way that reflects Wikipedia's goals and policies while angering as few contributors as possible. Contributors with good social skills and good negotiation skills are more likely to be successful than those who are less than civil to others. "
 * Please do not anger the editors LittleCuteSuit, Sharouser, CaradhrasAiguo, Geographyinitiative simply because they stop responding to talk page discussions in which they have already participated. Their opinions such as "These territorial disputes remain unresolved for either side, and the map should reflect this for the sake of neutrality, as with other maps on Wikipedia" explains that their support of inclusion with distinction reflects the WP:NPOV principle, which is an "existing policy". It clearly carries weight.
 * I agree with you that "they wrote they prefer a certain colour scheme when either are available". This can be made clear in MOS. However, there is clearly a benefit: Marking disputed territories as disputed reflect the WP:NPOV.
 * We can avoid the risk of coronavirus map by saying that "On global and regional maps, Taiwan should not be included as a part of the People's Republic of China (PRC) in general." This sentence is clear to editors and easy to follow. PE fans (talk) 13:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I have changed the sentence to "On maps specifically about the PRC, Taiwan should be included if and only if a distinction from the mainland is made to reflect its status." The meaning is clear: if a distinction is made, Taiwan should be included. If there is no distinction, Taiwan should not be included. This statement avoids the risk of either green/green/grey or green/grey/grey.PE fans (talk) 13:52, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Marking disputed territories as disputed reflect the WP:NPOV If that's the case, editors can already follow that policy and add the colours. By risk, I mean for PRC maps. If someone misreads the sentence adds Taiwan using green/green/grey, that violates NPOV more than not including. Ythlev (talk) 16:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * To avoid this risk, we can either make the "only if" bold or write another sentence "However, Taiwan should not be included if there is no distinction from the mainland." Which do you prefer? PE fans (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * What differences are there between those and the current version exactly? Ythlev (talk) 16:20, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Users who think "not including violates NPOV" are already going to go ahead and use green/green/grey without ever reading this. Ythlev (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * By the way the idea that not including something violates NPOV is pretty absurd. New Zealand is often not shown on world maps. Does that violate NPOV? Ythlev (talk) 16:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If their is no difference in meaning, why not write out things clearly as "On maps specifically about the PRC, Taiwan should be included if a distinction from the mainland is made to reflect its status. For the convention on colouring Taiwan and other disputed areas, see WikiProject_Maps/Conventions. However Taiwan should not be included if there is no distinction from the mainland". These sentences make it clear when it should be included and when should not. If Users use green/green/grey without ever reading this, you can replace their map by dark green/light green/white and ask them to read this manual to follow the NPOV principle. I will support you if you do this in the future. PE fans (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It is indeed inappropriate to exclude New Zealand from a global map. In general, in a global map like File:COVID-19_Outbreak_World_Map.svg, even the smallest country Vatican city is shown on the map. PE fans (talk) 16:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

The sentence "Taiwan should be included if a distinction from the mainland is made to reflect its status." doesn't make any logical sense. What does make logical sense is ""Taiwan should be included if a distinction from the mainland can be made to reflect its status." But then it's not clear when the distinction "can" be made and when it cannot (I'm not even sure if you've considered it). Excluding New Zealand is inappropriate but it has nothing to do NPOV. The map maker isn't saying "New Zealand does not exist". A map of the US that doesn't include Guam isn't saying Guam isn't a part of the US. I still think your version of saying Taiwan should be included violates NPOV and mine is neutral. Ythlev (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that the best sentence is "Taiwan should be included if a distinction from the mainland can be made to reflect its status." The situation of when it's possible and when it's not possible varies case by case and can be decided by users. For example, it's clearly impossible to include with distinction on a global map like File:COVID-19_Outbreak_World_Map.svg and this has been stated clearly in another sentence. However, it shouldn't be hard for maps like File:PRC_Population_Density.svg. PE fans (talk) 17:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * In the map File:COVID-19_Outbreak_Cases_in_the_United_States.svg, Guam is included. PE fans (talk) 18:09, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I meant a map about the US that does not include Guam like File:High Speed Railroad Map of the United States 2013.svg implies nothing of its status.
 * The situation of when it's possible and when it's not possible varies case by case and can be decided by users And what does a user do if they cannot? Ythlev (talk) 19:17, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If you can do it, then you can do it. If it's not the case, then you can't do it. What's the meaning of cannot decide whether you can or can't? PE fans (talk) 20:50, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If you are able to find a high speed railroad maps of Guam and other US territories and put them in the map of US, then you are encouraged to do it (like the case of COVID-19 map). If you don't want to spend time on doing so, then you are assumed by default as "can't do it" and you don't need to do it. You can wait for other people to do it. However, if other people already put them in the map of US, then I think deleting them on purpose indeed indicates your support of "Guam is not part of US" and it wouldn't be appropriate to do so. PE fans (talk) 21:05, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * To avoid confusion, we can replace the word "can" by "be able to".PE fans (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * But there is no policy saying "Guam should be included". It's just not necessary and has nothing to do with it's status or POV. if other people already put them in the map of US, then I think deleting them on purpose indeed indicates your support of "Guam is not part of US" and it wouldn't be appropriate to do so. Is that your concern? That a green/lg/grey map would be replaced with a green/grey/grey version? Then it should be written more accurately. Ythlev (talk) 03:59, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * And I highly doubt anyone would do that. The core of the issue is that there is no consensus on whether to include or not. I am capable of doing so, but I won't because although indicating it is claimed territory is technically correct, why should I put in the extra work? Why should editors be told to put Guam on US maps if they are able to? Ythlev (talk) 04:10, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * And don't tell me there is a consensus based on the above. You asked a question about colours and get a conclusion whether to include Taiwan or not? Before this thread was started, it wasn't even clear if Taiwan was within the scope of this manual. Have you proposed this idea on WikiProject Taiwan? Ythlev (talk) 04:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I started the discussion in order to resolve the edit war in File:PRC_Population_Density.svg when you replaced green/lg/grey by green/grey/grey. I asked people which version do they prefer and it turns out that a majority of editor prefer green/lg/grey. Why do you keep ignoring the opinions of a majority of editors? PE fans (talk) 05:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:DISRUPTSIGNS carefully, it's not a good thing to "repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits" Why do you repeatedly disregard the opinions of LittleCuteSuit, Sharouser, CaradhrasAiguo, Geographyinitiative and I? PE fans (talk) 05:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I started the discussion in order to resolve the edit war. And you have. "Taiwan can be included", which means I won't replace it anymore. I asked people which version do they prefer. You asked one question and made an unrelated conclusion. The coronavirus RfC found that a map that lumps the PRC and Taiwan together violates NPOV. You and a smaller number of users then say maps of China are different from world maps and that including Taiwan on China maps are okay. That is questionable on its own. If you can overrule consensus by making a new distinction, then we need a discussion for everything, which means you need to specifically ask if users should be told to include Taiwan. Ythlev (talk) 05:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * By the way, in that RfC, users also supported maps of China without Taiwan:

2019-nCoV cases in the People's Republic of China.svg I have uploaded a new map without Taiwan, Arunachal Pradesh and the small border areas in Himachal Pradesh, all claimed by the PRC. The map includes a new color scheme (with >10.000 cases). Please feel free to discuss it and to make suggestions for improvements. --Furfur &#8258; Diskussion 22:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC) Ythlev (talk) 06:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This map looks good to me! I support replacing the current one with Fufur's map. The next question is what to do with the animated one. --haha169 (talk) 03:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Good map, I strongly support the replacement. Personally, I consider it preferable to completely remove the dashed borders of both Aksai Chin (claimed by India) and Arunachal Pradesh (claimed by China), because this information has nothing to do with the coronavirus epidemic. Fleet ch (talk) 14:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support replacement with this map. It covers the areas where the PRC exercises sovereignty and not others, and so reflects the areas covered by the statistics being reported by the PRC government. I approve of the dashed lines along the lines of control in the contested areas:  That is NPOV and reflects the political reality. EMS
 * Just a separate note, the coronavirus map is replaced because no distinction from the mainland is made. Inclusion with distintion has never been questionable, and was indeed a part of the convection on WikiProject Maps. Also the replacement was a mainland China map, not a China map without Taiwan. Akira CA (talk) 07:43, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

The RfC was about replacing File:COVID-19 cases in Greater China.svg, which does have a colour for disputed areas so it can be done, yet many users still supported the above grey version. So yes, it is questionable. Even more questionable to write Taiwan "should" be included. Ythlev (talk) 08:44, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That's just your imagination. The original map is on Greater China, not PRC, so it makes no sense to shade the areas as disputed. And there has already been a mainland map (by Jabo-er) so why paying efforts? In addition, many editors support a mainland map in the RfC because Taiwan is not the epicentre and is relatively unaffected by the outbreak, which is bound to the specific context of the article (coronavirus outbreak) and cannot be applied elsewhere. Replacing a Greater China map by a mainland one in an article about a specific outbreak, is essentially irrelevant to removing Taiwan from all PRC maps. Besides, Furfur has also edited File:PRC Population Density.svg, which colours Taiwan purple. Akira CA (talk) 09:13, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The original map is on Greater China, not PRC The map is labelled as Greater China but coloured based on PRC sources. Greater China is also not a common way of grouping statistics. Most people don't even know what "Greater China" means. Again, you are creating a new distinction where most people consider them the same in an attempt to overrule consensus. Taiwan is not the epicentre If not being as severe is the reason not to include Taiwan, what reason is there to include Taiwan on File:PRC Population Density.svg? At the end of the day it is still about POV, as the RfC concluded. Writing "Taiwan can be included" is already a compromise. Ythlev (talk) 10:07, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Greater China is also not a common way of grouping statistics. I agree and that's why I support the replacement myself, therefore I can't be attempting to overrule consensus, which is the replacement of the Greater China map and nothing else. Also, comparing to the RfC of a specific article, the long-established convention on WikiProject Maps apparently represents the consensus of a broader community and suits the MoS — which is supposed to affect all articles — better. The current version is surely the most appropriate one so I'm not going to change it anymore. Have a nice day~ 祝好 Akira CA (talk) 10:25, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I don’t want to be mean but the passage as currently written was pretty obviously not composed by someone fluent in the English language which is certainly a requirement for crafting any MOS content. I don't think that the last two sentences which explain WikiProject Maps/Conventions are necessary, the link is enough. I can’t follow what PE fans is arguing anymore so I’m not even going to attempt to respond to them. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 05:09, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Violation
I don't know why you bothered with the lengthy discussion if you plan to violate the policy. Taiwan can only be included if it is distinguished, so maps without distinction must be either removed from Wikipedia or replaced with NPOV version, yet you are obstructing both actions. Ythlev (talk) 06:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No I'm not. What you should do is uploaded a separate version of mainland China map on commons and replaces the current map on Wikipedia. (that's exactly how Furfur's mainland map replaces the Greater China map) Otherwise you are violating both wikipedia guidelines and common policies. -- Akira 😼 CA  06:07, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * However I'll make a distinction for now. Leave it to me. -- Akira 😼 CA  06:13, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You should be doing that. You want there to be a map but there is no neutral version available. Until then, the map currently on those pages violate NPOV so should be removed. Ythlev (talk) 06:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note that remove before replacement has never been suggested in the RfC, so it is always better to wait for (or contribute youself) the NPOV version instead of mass purging the informative image immediately. Whatever I have made distinction on the maps now. -- Akira 😼 CA  06:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Just a note, clear cache before viewing the page. -- Akira 😼 CA  06:36, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It is a general Wikipedia policy that content must be NPOV, so non-neutral material should be removed or replaced, whichever is sooner. Ythlev (talk) 06:54, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Please recheck (or check) WP:NPOVHOW and read "Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage.", Thank you. -- Akira 😼 CA  07:11, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The fact that it misinforms is consensus. Whether it "can" be rewritten is up to the user who spotted the misinformation, and I say no. Ythlev (talk) 08:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

You can replace File:Rail map of China (high speed highlighted) WP.svg with a version in line with this MOS if you want, but since you used Commons to circumvent Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia files are preferred over Commons files from now on. Ythlev (talk) 10:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You still haven't responsed to your violation of Commons policy and the reasons for removing the file, circumvent is definitely not one of them. -- Akira 😼 CA  10:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you want me to say. You also over-wrote those files. I think you don't agree with the consensus from the coronavirus RfC and trying to find ways to get around it. Ythlev (talk) 10:41, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Your words fails completely as I am replacing the map myself with a NPOV version, a version that has been acknoledged in MoS, how can this be circumvention? -- Akira 😼 CA  11:13, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not about the version of the file itself. The fact it is hosted on Commons means it does not have to be neutral (which I would never have thought of were it not for you). That's how ridiculous your justification for reverting me is. Commons files don't have to be neutral? Okay, we stop using files there. Ythlev (talk) 12:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

The map you restored to Islam in China doesn’t follow the conventions laid out WikiProject Maps/Conventions and there is the problem that “other disputed areas” besides Taiwan aren’t demarcated. Please respect consensus. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 14:52, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There is also File:Rail map of China (high speed highlighted).svg, File:Folk religious sects' influence by province of China (alternate).png, File:Buddhism in China (China Family Panel Studies 2012).png, File:Chinese ancestor-gods belief by province of China (Chinese Spiritual Life Survey 2010).png, File:Christianity in China (China Family Panel Studies 2012).png, and File:Taoist Church influence in China (alternate).png. Akira CA has violated the compromises we all spent so long establishing. Ythlev (talk) 15:30, 13 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Oh jeez I hadn’t seen those. Yeah unless there is a good explanation that pretty clearly appears to be editing against consensus, especially as Arunachal Pradesh doesn't look like its demarcated as disputed in any of them at all. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:30, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Are you two amusing yourselves? Arunachal Pradesh is clearly not included in any of these religion maps. -- Akira 😼 CA  23:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see Arunachal Pradesh included under PRC / Tibet AR control on the current version from 06:28 UTC 13 Mar either. You wrote your comment at 16:30 UTC 13 Mar. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 05:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I don’t see it either, thats the problem. Consensus was clearly "Taiwan and other disputed areas” not just Taiwan. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 14:34, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Could you shade Arunachal Pradesh in File:Rail_map_of_China_(high_speed_highlighted).svg and use "no data" color with shade for Arunachal Pradesh in File:Folk_religious_sects%27_influence_by_province_of_China_(alternate).png, File:Buddhism_in_China_(China_Family_Panel_Studies_2012).png, File:Chinese ancestor-gods belief by province of China (Chinese Spiritual Life Survey 2010).png, File:Christianity in China (China Family Panel Studies 2012).png, and File:Taoist Church influence in China (alternate).png? Taking a NPOV on Aruncachal Pradesh as in the file WikiProject_Maps/Conventions is better than taking either China POV or India POV on this dispute.Thanks!PE fans (talk) 00:43, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * For the rail map I've already done it here File:Rail map of China (high speed highlighted) WP.svg, you can upload it to Commons but remember not to overwrite but create a separate file. For the religion maps I can't draw the accurate borderlines with the tools I have. If you want to include Aruncachal Pradesh you might use another blank map to derive works on. -- Akira 😼 CA  00:50, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your edit on File:Rail map of China (high speed highlighted) WP.svg. I spent one hour to try to draw accurate borderlines but I haven't figured out the solution. Due to the outbreak of coronavirus in United States, I have to spend more efforts on preventing it so that my participation of Wikipedia will be limited recently. Hope that everyone stays safe in this crisis. PE fans (talk) 00:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * In the oldest version of 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, there was only a map of the location of Wuhan in China. Later, it was changed to a map of provinces of mainland China due to the outbreak outside Wuhan. More recently, the map of provinces of mainland China has been replaced by a global map due to the outbreak outside mainland China. We have seen the change of consensus according to the spread of virus. I really wish that the virus can be controlled soon in Unitede States so that we won't reach the situation to include the map of states in United States in 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. PE fans (talk) 01:54, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Are you two amusing yourselves? I think you are amusing yourself by insisting that Taiwan be on File:Rail map of China (high speed highlighted) WP.svg when the article High-speed rail in China does not deal with Taiwan and explicitly states that Taiwan is on a separate article. Ythlev (talk) 05:50, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm indeed amused by your excessive use of whataboutism to circumvent my question. -- Akira 😼 CA  05:54, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Stop bringing the dispute to the noticeboard as the admin said. Arunachal Pradesh is clearly not included in any of these religion maps. So the maps are saying AP is not a part of China but Taiwan is. Basic logic, not hard to understand at all. Ythlev (talk) 06:43, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Apparently it's not me who mentioned "another user". And no, the map only indicates Taiwan is disputed like what've been done in all orthographic maps. Please stop using Straw man to portray the map as POV pushing, it's not. -- Akira 😼 CA  06:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Still I don't understand why excluding Arunachal Pradesh deserves a removal, is Horse Eye Jack trying to show excluding disputed areas violates NPOV to an extent that the map must be removed? -- Akira 😼 CA  06:57, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Selectively including disputed areas violates NPOV. You either include all or none. WP:NPOV is a core policy and is non-negotiable. So yes. Ythlev (talk) 07:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems so hard for you to admit your ally simply misread the map. -- Akira 😼 CA  07:10, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * A: not their ally. B: I didn’t misread anything. Using terms like ally and enemy violates WP:BATTLEGROUND btw, don’t do it again. Ythlev is correct that the point is about selective inclusion, either we include all disputed territories or we include none of them. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 14:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Hatnote for Chinese names of people
In follow-up to the edits in which hatnotes using the Chinese name template was replaced with inline footnotes using a newly-created Chinese name 2 template.

The user has made these edits with the unilateral assertion that "Hatnotes should be for disambiguation, not explanatory notes on naming conventions" (according to the user's edit summary). This is false, as it runs counter to the MOS here and the widespread usage of hatnotes for names (as exemplified by Category:Hatnote templates for names even beyond Chinese names). This kind of edit should be more than a drastic unilateral action against established convention. --Cold Season (talk) 11:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


 * My assertion was in accordance with WP:HAT, which states in its first paragraph that "their purpose is to help readers locate a different article if the one they are at is not the one they're looking for". That said, the use of hatnotes for surname clarification does go way back to the 2000s, so I am in that sense trying to change convention (or, to frame it another way, trying to update an outmoded practice). Since we could easily update the policy if needed, I think it's more useful to discuss overall principles than debate policy — the basic argument for the change is that putting it in a hatnote, the very first thing readers see after the title, is positioning way too prominent for what is basically trivia.
 * Inserting the template into those articles was somewhat an application of WP:BOLD, but concerns over this issue have been brought up at the village pump at least twice — in 2011 here, and last year by me here — and both times there was interest in making a change. Three of us have been discussing it on a user page here. Also, I think it's worth noting that my edits stood at eight of Wikipedia's highest-profile Chinese biographies for several days, with none of them being reverted until you rolled them back now, so there seems to be some indication per WP:SILENCE that there isn't exactly a firestorm of opposition waiting to rally in defense of the status quo.
 * Given the above, and also the fact that variation here is unlikely to confuse (or even be noticed by) casual readers, I'm going to restore the edits for now. I'm interested to see what perspectives others here have and happy to discuss further. Cheers, Sdkb (talk) 19:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was BOLD and I reverted you per WP:BRD, which you circumvented by reinstating it while not establishing a consensus for a "change" of the WP:MOS-ZH or anything else on a wider scale. Great, three users have been discussing it on a low-traffic user talk page about something that has large-scale ramifications. For courtesy sake, ping  --Cold Season (talk) 19:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the ping! Totally willing to discuss. For transparency's sake, I made a similar experimental change at Zhang Dongju --valereee (talk) 19:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You are the main contributor of that article, so editorial discretion is very warranted and I have no desire to question that judgement. Regarding the wider change, I do not see the merit of it, as a hatnote serves well to explain Chinese names (and therefore the title) in a clear, quick, and clean manner without hiding it in a footnote. --Cold Season (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The merit I see is in decluttering. The top of an article is valuable real estate, so to speak, and should be reserved for the most important items, which for a biography is the person's name, date of birth/death, photo, title or very basic life description, and (if applicable) the navigational tool of traditional disambiguation hatnotes. A clarification of Chinese naming practices is useful, yes, but it just doesn't stand among the other things I just listed. The fact that Xi Jinping's family name is Xi isn't so important as to be worth noting before noting the fact that he's the president of China. Therefore, I think some amount of de-emphasis is warranted, and an inline footnote seems like the way to go for that. Does that help clarify where the impetus for this is coming from? Sdkb (talk) 21:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, the main benefit is decluttering the head, which sometimes has multiple hats, which is just distracting and makes an article feel unreadable right from the start. --valereee (talk) 22:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Valereee and Sdkb that there is a significant decluttering benefit and I would support making this an officially acceptable style variation however I also agree with Cold Season that it probably should have been discussed here first. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I also think the inline citation might be a better option, as I've long thought that hatnotes are a little bit ugly. Just talk it out, we're all friends here.  White Whirlwind  咨   03:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)


 * This is not a Chinese-specific issue; discussion should be broadened and taken to somewhere more general like Category talk:Hatnote templates for names or Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography (with headsup at lots of other Wikiprojects). Personally I think this type of headnote is a travesty and I would support a general deprecation of hatnotes in favour of footnotes to explain non-English personal-name practices. I would not support making Chinese an exception to the practice for other languages (even though I hate that practice). jnestorius(talk) 21:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure many people are watching the category talk page, but I sent out an invitation to this discussion there a month or so ago. I created a similar template for Korean names and someone else created one for Spanish names, so it's not fully an outlier at this point. My hope is that, now that surname footnotes have gotten off the ground, they will percolate throughout WP and increasingly replace surname hatnotes. Sdkb (talk) 10:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Weakly support footnotes in the absence of anything major such as accessibility issues. I am quite indifferent to this, but I think it should be uniform across articles, so I support the change if someone will use something like a bot or AWB to change it. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:58, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose I read all the links of previous discussions, none of which give a policy based rationale. The purpose of the encyclopedia is to provide freely shared knowledge to readers. Readers do not have a clue, for the most part, of decluttering, hatnotes, disambiguation pages or any of the internal wikijargon. They go to an article for information. One of the most important immediate concerns is "is this person who I was looking for". Like a legal headnote, hatnotes immediately provide that by explaining what name and alternatives with the same name. Burying the name in a footnote, which most people do not read, is a surefire way of obscuring people and making it far harder, not simpler, for people to find information. It also has the potential to generate misinformation as without clear naming understanding, other people using our freely distributable information can erroneously make naming errors. This type of discussion should be community-wide as its implications on naming are far more complex than the three or four editors who have been involved in each of the prior discussions. SusunW (talk) 15:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose largely per SusanW. I don't see a compelling argument that the current system is an issue. If consensus emerges to switch to this system for Asian naming customs though, it needs to be applied to all naming customs, and replace templates such as, as well. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:35, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support here and for all naming customs notes. These notes apply specifically to the name, not the page in general. --Khajidha (talk) 00:59, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Amendments
Information to be modified:

Explanation of issue: An admin has confirmed that the consensus from a previous RfC applies generally. Therefore the current section should be changed to the above.

References supporting change: ANI. Ythlev (talk) 16:07, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

The administrator NinjaRobotPirate said that "Anyway, the MOS is under discretionary sanctions. If I find people are disrupting MOS pages, I'm going to become irritable and probably block them". I fully support NinjaRobotPirate's decision. Everyone is busy with their daily life, and may be unusually busy recently if the daily life is affected by the coronavirus. It's meaningless to waste energy on endless edit wars. Please respect the fact that different people have different points of views. It's better to express disputed territories as disputed rather than choosing either side so that Russian editors and Ukrainian editors won't have an edit war on Crimea, Indian editors and Pakistani editors won't have an edit war on Kashmir ... I hope that people with different points of views can collaborate together. PE fans (talk) 19:56, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

"Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements." conflicted significant points of view are listed in the discussion below.
 * Oppose the change -- Akira 😼 CA  04:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 1. Direct quote per WP:NPOV"Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them."
 * 2. Closed RfC per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Maps There is broader support in the discussion for the position that it is impractical to impose an encyclopedia-wide rule to circumstances that will vary substantially from place to place, and that in each case it is best to settle disputes over the appropriate boundary maps through local discussion on the talk pages of the articles affected. BD2412 T 02:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 3. General preference of shading disputed territories disputed in discussion above
 * 4. The requester admitted he misinterpreted the admin. (see discussion below)
 * 5. The requester misinterprets the coronavirus RfC by boardening its domain inappropriately and jamming definitions of political terms with single sided POV. (see discussion below)
 * 6. User:Swarm's comment is under question by multiple editors, and he hasn't reply yet.


 * Also could you give me where the corresponding MOS guideline is fairly unambiguous: By default, Taiwan should not be included. this come from? The current MoS is edited by Ythlev himself one months ago, which he later admitted is a bold changes and doesn't reflect the consensus at the time. After he added his own word the MoS page has been edit warred numerous times, with not only myself but many other editors opposing his bold change to MoS without any discussion. There were no section about Taiwan's political status before his edit, and I didn't find your quote by seaching across the whole MoS space. -- Akira 😼 CA  05:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * According to WP:STABLE, by default, the long time version should be kept. On global maps such as File:World_marriage-equality_laws_(up_to_date).svg, the long time convention is to mark only areas controlled by each country. This has been re-confirmed in the discussion in the talk page of 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic and has been written in the Manual of Style/China and Chinese-related articles. On country specific maps such like File:Europe-Ukraine_(orthographic_projection;_disputed_territory).svg or File:PRC_Population_Density.svg, the long time convention is to use a third color to indicate claimed uncontrolled territories. This has also been re-confirmed in the discussion in the talk page of Manual of Style/China and Chinese-related articles and has been written in the Manual of Style/China and Chinese-related articles. I don't see any reason to deviate from the long time convention. It does not respect the efforts of various editors such as the editors involved in File:PRC_Population_Density.svg between 2010 and 2013. PE fans (talk) 15:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC) -- Akira 😼 CA  23:37, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I have to admit the Ythlev is an expert in misleading the topics. By saying "The second is by PE fans, who tried to overrule the consensus. The user asked on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/China and Chinese-related articles how Taiwan should be coloured on maps of China. A small number of users expressed Taiwan should be coloured as a lighter shade. The user then concludes that maps of China should include Taiwan and tried to force it into the MOS, in direct contradiction with consensus", he gave other people the impression that our key point of debate is on whether disputed territories should be drawn as the same color of a country or a different color of a country. If these are the only two choices, then a majority of editors including me will choose the second one because this is the current conventions on global maps or other maps when there are only two choices available. I was not surprised that the admin Swarm supported the second one. However, in reality, the main topic is a different one: the main discussion is about the file File:PRC_Population_Density.svg and other similar files. In 2010-2013, many editors have spent lots of efforts to draw the border line and colors on the map File:PRC_Population_Density.svg and in 2018, even the small issue about the border line has been carefully treated. The version of Furfur used a third color to treat disputed territories in a careful manner. Even the small islands were drawn in the map. In 2020, Ythlev removed the disputed territories rudely in the sense that when deleting the claimed but not controlled territories on the map, the sentence "claimed but not controlled by China" was not removed. Moreover, he keeps trying to rewrite the MoS to support his version despite being warned by the admin NinjaRobotPirate that "the MOS is under discretionary sanctions". I requested for comments about File:PRC_Population_Density.svg on Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/China_and_Chinese-related_articles#Color_for_disputed_territories_(Taiwan_and_Arunachal_Pradesh) and a majority of editors supported the careful, long time version of Furfur than the version of Ythlev. I don't know why he keeps overruling this consensus by saying that the supporters of Furfur's version are "A small number of users". PE fans (talk) 03:28, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey just FYI the thing on Ythlev’s talk page isn't a warning its a discretionary sanctions alert, you should know that because the admin in question placed an identical alert at User talk:PE fans. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 04:23, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Everyone is busy with their daily life. That's why it makes no sense to say 5:3 is a majority when it contradicts an RfC made shortly before. People generally do not have the time to discuss something they just concluded. That does not mean they agree with you. If these are the only two choices, then a majority of editors including me will choose the second one. Not Akira CA. Here are the priorities of you two and the rest of the community.


 * PE fans: map with distinguished Taiwan → without Taiwan → no map
 * Akira CA: distinguished Taiwan → undistinguished Taiwan → no map
 * Consensus: without Taiwan → distinguished Taiwan → no map
 * Anyone with normal English comprehension would interpret the current guidelines as PE fans version, but not Akira CA. Ythlev (talk) 06:09, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think I mislead anyone. From the above, your opinion still contradicts consensus. Ythlev (talk) 06:14, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes you ARE misleading. You are misinterpreting the coronavirus RfC by broadening the case of a specific map in a specific article to all maps on En Wiki, despite Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Maps concludes there are no such consensus and maps are to be determined case by case. Even not to mention the colour discussion above has a clear preference on "dark green/light green/grey", which is
 * Consensus: map with distinguished Taiwan → without Taiwan → no map
 * It's your pro-independence political POV:
 * Ythlev: without Taiwan → no map → distinguished Taiwan → undistinguished Taiwan
 * contradicting everybody's opinion and the established consensus. -- Akira 😼 CA  06:29, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't care what you think about my comments. I can't take you seriously if you take things personally like reporting me for edit-warring where I clearly haven't, or taking offence in a comment such as "you are not the main problem". Ythlev (talk) 06:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It's actually you who take it personally...reread WP:3RR for edit warring, and WP:CIVIL for calling others "problem" and reconsider if your behaviours are appropriate. -- Akira 😼 CA  06:40, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements. A map of the US without Guam is not a statement that Guam is not a part of it. Ythlev (talk) 06:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * But nothing says We should make US maps without Guam too. Your words are in favour of my argument. -- Akira 😼 CA  06:33, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Your words are in favour of my argument If you think this is some sort of race to see who wins, again, I can't take you seriously (WP:NOTHERE). Ythlev (talk) 06:37, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not showing anybody is winning...but only you contradict yourself, that's it. You are also told to assume good faith. -- Akira 😼 CA  06:42, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

My point was a map without something implies nothing about its status, no more than a blank map of a country implying the country is empty. Ythlev (talk) 06:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * So why nothing says Guam should be excluded in US maps? You still haven't answered my question. If inclusion and exclusion implies nothing about POV then there will be no guidelines on this matter at all. -- Akira 😼 CA  06:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The fact is, although I've been told not to disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, I'm pretty sure Spain maps with Catalonia shaded grey will be removed in the name of NPOV. US maps without Guam can exists simply because the territory is uncontroversial. -- Akira 😼 CA  06:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Because there has not been a discussion. And no, inclusion does imply something. If you see an forest on a map, that means it's there. If you don't see one, there may be a forest, there might not. The idea that exclusion of Taiwan violates NPOV is absurd. Ythlev (talk) 06:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That's your own justification with no evidence nor community consensus to back it up. I'm pretty sure Ukraine maps without Crimea or Spain maps without Catalonia will be replaced in the name of NPOV. Until you have any evidence to support your claim, the absurd claim remains hypothetical. -- Akira 😼 CA  07:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The administrator has already confirmed this to you. Claiming that this is POV is irrelevant. Ythlev (talk) 07:04, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If HEJ is correct (on editing MoS requires English skill, hopefully not) then the above speech disqualifies you to edit MoS instantly...The admin is saying that we cannot overrule MoS even we think there is a POV dispute, not excluding any territories on any maps implies nothing about their status. I see no links in these two arguments and they are *completely* irrelevant: one is about MoS and WP community guidelines, the other is about maps and their neutrality. -- Akira 😼 CA  07:18, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You know...it is really tedious and unconstructive to "amend" community guidelines if you even can't get the most basic ideas right...When can we set a full stop to this time-wasting discussion? -- Akira 😼 CA  07:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

The admin's words are not super clear. Nevertheless a few things are obvious. the community's consensus. The RfC is not the only exhibit of such consensus. The fact that Taiwan is generally not on articles titled "X of China" also reflects that. the corresponding MOS guideline The guidelines does have this: When discussing geography, those places within the territorial control of the People's Republic of China should generally be said to be in "China". Ythlev (talk) 07:36, 15 March 2020 (UTC)


 * All of these count, and is reflected in the consensus that Taiwan should not be included if there is no distinction from the mainland. However, the Cross-Strait relations is not primarily termed China-Taiwan relations, and in the first sentence of Taiwan it states "officially the Republic of China". In addition, many articles titled "X of China" have the entries "This article is about X in the People's Republic of China, for X of the Republic of China, see X in Taiwan". Taiwan is also included in numerous maps of China made by both users and institutions (e.g. WHO, CIA). These viewpoints count as well. Since your argument from admin fails, I see no need to push that Taiwan should not be included as a part of China on user-created maps. "Either inclusion with distinction or exclusion is acceptable on PRC maps" is already a comprimise and reflect all significant viewpoints best (WP:NPOV). The current version is the best version. -- Akira 😼 CA  09:29, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * To a separate point, I admit my edits on the Religion maps are bad decisions, and I've already corrected them on the Taiwan matter. Can we finally set an end to this bitter discussion and stick to the current MoS that has taken us lots of effort and compromises to reach? -- Akira 😼 CA  09:36, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * In addition, many articles titled "X of China" have the entries "This article is about X in the People's Republic of China, for X of the Republic of China, see X in Taiwan". But such articles still do not include Taiwan. The equivalent of that for maps is captions, not the map itself. Can we finally set an end to this bitter discussion. No, we cannot. Last time you said let's end this I thought you were willing to compromise. I thought the principle of Taiwan should not be included if there is no distinction from the mainland is what we all agreed on but it turns out you don't know what compromise means. There could be another user like you. Ythlev (talk) 10:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The equivalent of that for maps is captions, not the map itself. proof?


 * You also bypassed my other examples, which surely count as significant points of view; you bypassed the WikiProject Maps RfC completely; you again bypassed the constitution of the Republic of China and Kuomintang because you struggle to find any counterarguments; you also cannot justify your request with admin's words anymore as you've already misinterpreted them; you are not able to answer my direct quote from WP:NPOV — If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements. — too, as your Guam & US analogy fails due to the misinterpretation.


 * The fact is There could be another user like you isn't a valid way to defend your edit request, since you are refusing to compromise merely base on what your "opponent" do but not the nature of the policy itself. Doing so by rejecting any compromise is treating Wikipedia as battleground with focus on winning in place of building encyclopaedia with adequate community guidelines. I hope you could reconsider your rejection to compromise as I apologize for what happened on the religion maps. -- Akira 😼 CA  11:09, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Proof? Do you agree with Taiwan not being on articles "X of China" or not? If not, further explanation is meaningless. You believe your opinion trumps consensus. you again bypassed the constitution of the Republic of China. North Korea is called the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, so on a map of democracies, North Korea should be on it. Ythlev (talk) 13:56, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Judging other editors base on political beliefs and false analogy, and yet still bypassing questions? OK just keep mass purging maps. Debating with you is a total shame on my contribution history. -- Akira 😼 CA  14:23, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Izno (talk) 00:08, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

, cut it out. You cannot cite one admin's post ( while distorting it to claim it supports your edit request ), while ignoring the one above refusing your edit request. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 17:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

The issue was examined by an administrator who said the community's consensus and the corresponding MOS guideline is fairly unambiguous: By default, Taiwan should not be included. The MOS should be updated to prevent future disputes. Ythlev (talk) 21:33, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You don't get to re-open an edit request just because an admin answered it against your liking. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 22:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Question: If Taiwan is to be colored by default on maps of China, is China to be colored by default on maps of Taiwan? Or vice versa? I cannot see that it would be appropriate to do it differently for the two entities in question. --Khajidha (talk) 01:09, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As far as I know no editor has suggested that we apply these arcane and antiquated territorial claims to maps of Taiwan which might tell you something about whether this argument is really about MOS issues or is just political POV pushing. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

RfC: "mainland China" or "China" in article titles
Please, check. --MarioGom (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Romanization
There is a new proposal for adding to the romanization section of the guidelines. I support adding the following:

"Sometimes, famous names are written in the old spelling rather than pinyin either because of tradition and consistency with historical records or because English-speakers will more easily recognize the old name. For example:


 * The mathematician Shiing-Shen Chern (陈省身) is usually written Shiing-Shen Chern and S. S. Chern rather than Chen Xingshen.


 * The Nobel-prize winning physicist Chen-Ning Yang (杨振宁) is written Chen-Ning Yang and C. N. Yang rather than Yang Zhenning."

Henry Capital Hill 3 (talk) 16:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The guideline already says:
 * English Wikipedia uses Hanyu Pinyin without tone marks as the default Romanisation method for Chinese characters, except where an alternate form of a word is used by modern reliable secondary sources.
 * which is in line with WP:COMMONNAME. The proposed wording appears to be partly redundant and partly weakening that formulation.  It's better to give the criterion once and get it right.  The examples are also quite verbose and oddly placed.  It would be enough to mention someone famous like Sun Yat-sen along the existing example of the Yangtze River.  Kanguole 17:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Duly noted. I have fixed the wording of the section so that it gives the 'criterion once and right'. I have added your example of Sun Yat-sen, and as for the other examples, I have trimmed them down so they sound less verbose. Moreover, giving more examples always helps, especially since these people are quite famous, and researchers in these specific fields will see their names quite often.
 * I hope this version pleases us both, and if so, have a nice summer.Henry Capital Hill 3 (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it was already done once. You're adding a scond criterion that partly repeats the first and partly alters it.  And the examples are still bloated.  In this context, the name is sufficient.  Kanguole 17:56, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, I removed the second criterion since it seems to be a point of contention, and I trimmed the examples further so that they just give the name. These edits are not meant to upset anybody, just to help improve the page and give more examples.Henry Capital Hill 3 (talk) 18:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Chinese characters in introductory sentences
"Where there is more than one parameter in use in a given article an Infobox Chinese template can be used instead of zh. This removes the characters, romanization and pronunciations from the opening sentence, thus making it more readable, while retaining the information off to the side so that the reader can still see it&mdash; see the top of this section for an example; see Infobox Chinese/doc for how to use it."

Chinese characters removed from the first sentence in many articles, in accordance to this guideline. While I agree it makes the sentences more readable, I find it strange that a reader has to look for an infobox to find the Chinese characters. It is common for articles for non-English subject to include its original language, with or without romanisation, as in the below examples (highlights added for emphasis) "Japanese: Tokugawa Ieyasu was the founder and first shōgun of the Tokugawa shogunate of Japan

Georgian:Alexander V (c. 1703/4 – March 1752), of the Bagrationi Dynasty, was King of Imereti.

Russian: Patriarch Alexy II (or Alexius II, ; secular name Aleksei Mikhailovich RidigerАлексе́й Миха́йлович Ри́дигер; 23 February 1929 – 5 December 2008) was the 15th Patriarch of Moscow and all Rus', the primate of the Russian Orthodox Church.(western Georgia) from 1720 his death in 1752, with the exceptions of the periods of 1741 and 1746–1749.

Thai: Maha Vajirunhis, Crown Prince of Siam (27 June 1878 – 4 January 1895) was the first Crown Prince of the Chakri dynasty.

Lao: Samsenethai also called Oun Huan(ອຸ່ນເຮືອນ) was the second king of Lan Xang in Indochina. He succeeded his father, Fa Ngum."

Although the romanisation of Chinese is far more complicated as there are multiple varieties, which is reflected in the complexity of Infobox Chinese, the writing in Chinese characters appears to be a basic stuff of what readers expect to see – IMHO the way the subject is written in its original language belongs to basic information; its romanisations is bonus. Therefore, I would like to seek the community's opinion on modifying the guideline, such that the (traditional and/or simplified) Chinese characters can be retained in the introductory sentences, but the romanisations should be relocated to the side in the infobox where appropriate. For example, "Wang Wei (699–759) was a Chinese poet, musician, painter, and politician during the Tang dynasty. The Book on Numbers and Computation, or the Writings on Reckoning, is one of the earliest known Chinese mathematical treatises. Hong Kong Tramways (HKT; ) is a narrow-gauge tram system in Hong Kong. The Yellow River or Huang He is the second-longest river in China" --Jabo-er (talk) 13:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Display of simplified characters in Template:Infobox Chinese at ROC articles
On 4 March, closed the previous discussion titled "Do the traditional and simplified forms of Chinese count as the same name or different names in regards to eligibility of displaying characters?". Within the past 10 days, has attempted to re-litigate their previous "simplified not part of the native language" arguments twice: at Democratic Progressive Party, and President of the Republic of China. I noted at the latter that there only was one !vote mentioning "exceptions", and it was particularly vague, i.e. not suggesting the entirety of the modern-day ROC be counted therein. Continued carcass mutilation in a snipe-like fashion does not seem to be the proper way to go about this. Pinging as the opener of that discussion at the end of December. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 04:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I respond here out of respect for user CaradhrasAiguo who has a different perspective on this issue than I do. On its face, any organization which does not (and historically did not) use the characters 进 and 党 in their name should not have those characters displayed on the English Wikipedia page of any such organization. To do otherwise is to impose the politics of one group of people upon another. Including an unsourced form using 进 and 党 gives the readers of English Wikipedia the factually inaccurate impression that the characters, 进 and 党, are or were used in native language communication among Taiwanese when describing this organization. I do not contest that 进 and 党 are part of Mandarin Chinese- no, for indeed I just the other day made a page in the dictionary Wiktionary for the name that this organization would be called by in mainland Chinese society. I'm just saying that this location, where we have a clearly democratic, open society with a military not controlled by the People's Republic of China, has never been actually conquered by the People's Republic of China, a clearly totalitarian regime that is bent on forcing its will on the people there. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Wiktionary can handle mainland China forms of names for concepts and geography in Taiwan- it's a dictionary. This is an encyclopedia page, and we haven't shown 进 and 党 are used in the native language communications between the people in the society where this organization is located when naming this organization. It is unsourced material and constitutes a "non-native foreign language form" that is useful on Wikipedia versions written in that language, but not on English Wikipedia. An English Wikipedia page doesn't need to force mainland China lingustic forms on Taiwan unless there is some specific justification. It is not yet shown that Taiwan uses those particular characters in this context. Singapore is different from Taiwan. (Note again, in rare cases, some simplified characters are in use in Taiwanese society- I'm saying that these two particular characters are not demonstrated to be in use in Taiwan in this context.) On Mandarin Chinese Wikipedia, things are different: simplifed Chinese characters are part of the language of that Wikipedia, and hence to not show the form including 进 and 党 would prevent that Wikipedia from being fully useful to the readers. Here, English Wikipedia is telling English speaking readers what the native language name for this organization is. 进 and 党 are parts of an unsourced name, that is, a non-native foreign language term. Don't be swayed by "precedent" arguments: slavery was law and precedent in the United States until the conscience of the people rejected it; similarly, imposition of non-native lingustic forms is totally contrary to the purpose of an encyclopedia and it should definitely be reviewed. In fact, it is contrary to the guiding purpose of including foreign language material on English Wikipedia: to show the readers the name used in the native language between the native people. It's like including Russian language forms for Estonian geography articles in anticipation of conquest one day or in anticipation that sooner or later, Estonia will have to accept Russian linguistic forms. When Estonia actually chooses Russian as the official language or is actually conquered, then we can discuss this issue for English Wikipedia, but in the absence of reunification with Mother Russia, Estonia has its own policies and plans for its language, which should be reflected on English Wikipedia. Same here. This push for superfluous foreign language forms on English Wikipedia is a backwards political concept from a totalitarian regime that is bent interfering with language in Asia and destroying local languages like Cantonese and Min Nan for political gain and is seeking here to make a soft power move to interfere with normal operation of Wikipedia. The intent is to put a non-native lingustic form from an alien regime and an alien political organization on par with the actual form used by the actual people in the actual organization. It is clear that the PRC never did and will never have actual control of Taiwan. Pretending Taiwan does not have its own norms and standards in language that do not need to converge with those of the PRC is PRC policy, not Wikipedia policy. If Singaporean society can choose to use simplified Chinese characters, can Taiwanese society choose not to? Should that choice be ignored in deference to the implied demands of a totalitarian regime? It is not a joke or slander to call the PRC a repressive totalitarian regime my friends, and Taiwan is actually an open society. Thanks for your time. Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:29, 20 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: My view of Levivich's closure is that the vast majority of articles should display both: he did state "most editors noted that there is room for case-by-case exceptions" and so I feel for each page which one wants an exception there needs to be an explanation why, and other editors should agree on each exception. BTW I would oppose doing traditional only for President of the Republic of China since discussions about Mainland China and the PRC would involve the pre-1949 ROC president and the topic of "China" is relevant to that term just as much as it is relevant to Qing Dynasty or ancient Chinese figures. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:50, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Closer's comment - TLDR: Both should be displayed by default; exceptions should follow WP:BRD and WP:ONUS. - Thanks for the ping. Of course, just because I closed that discussion doesn't mean I have any authority over anything. But I read the discussion again and I still have the same opinion about consensus: there was consensus in the discussion to include both as a default position. Yes, case-by-case exceptions can be made; even putting aside that particular RFC, the principle that exceptions can be made is documented in the fifth pillar and WP:IAR policy. In terms of whether a specific exception should be made or not, that's outside the scope of that discussion (and I have no authority to make a decision). My personal opinion as an editor is that in the spirit of WP:ONUS policy, it is up to the editor seeking to make an exception to gain consensus for that exception, and per the WP:BRD guideline, if someone makes a bold edit because they think an exception should be made (e.g., removing the simplified form so only traditional is displayed), and that bold edit is reverted, then there should be a discussion on the talk page and the reverted edit shouldn't be reinstated until and unless there's consensus for the exception. Lev!vich 17:57, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

The continued WP:NOTDICT reasoning, despite the verbose formulation above having been clearly rejected by both and  is getting disruptive. Your work elsewhere is great content addition, this had better not come to the same MOS-related outcome that had occurred at the end of Jul 2019. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 16:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I would like to ask: Do you recognize that this organization does not use the characters 进 and 党 to describe its own name and that Taiwan society at large is not using those characters to describe this organization? Geographyinitiative (talk) 16:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Still rehashing the same arguments, and the This push for superfluous foreign language forms on English Wikipedia is a backwards political concept from a totalitarian regime above is WP:SOAPBOX-violating BS that is ironically using a political typification that was accurate as of the 1970s at latest; and what does that make Singapore (a Simplified-official region), then? . Open an RfC at Talk:Democratic Progressive Party or I will have no other option but to file a second report at WP:AN/EW. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 16:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I know what you are thinking, but just hear me out. If you have a society that isn't using certain lingustic forms, how can you yourself, personally, justify adding those lingustic forms into their encyclopedia article? You think the arguments I am making are invalid, but this is not about 1970s China-Taiwan relations: this is right now. They are not using 进 and 党  in the name of this organization right now in this context (as far as we know right now). That's the problem you're not seeing. Imagine if Taiwan forced lingustic forms on another area (that the area had never used in historically) into the English language articles of Wikipedia. Imagine if the Wikipedia page for your home had an alien name written on it, put side by side with the name you and all your neighbors had used all your life, masquerading as if it were equally as representative of your local linguistic habits or history as the real name you really use. China is at 10/100 in freedom and Taiwan is 93/100, and the PRC seeks conquest of Taiwan, which it can not actually achieve. This methodology is forcing PRC standards, something the people in Taiwan aren't using, onto the ROC, and forcing the English speaking world to accept that. Why do it? Are you morally comfortable with that position? WP:NPOV does not allow extra names not used in the native language communications of the people in the area; under WP:NAD the material is Wiktionary's area, not Wikipedia's. All the simplified forms actually used in Taiwan should of course be displayed, and there are of course some topics that bridge between the cultures involved. Geographyinitiative (talk) 16:40, 21 September 2020 (UTC) (modified)
 * My disgust at the "totalitarian regime" remarks is that said typification of the mainland was last true only as of the 1970s. Anyhow, no I am not going to hear you out on this one without an RfC, because no new arguments whatsoever are being presented here. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 16:55, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * CaradhrasAiguo, you really can't force a lingustic form not used in Taiwan onto a Taiwan topic. The dictionary function of Wiktionary tells us anything we need to know about alternative names for Taiwan controlled areas. This is an encyclopedia: in the true spirit of an encyclopedia, no encyclopedia article could ever include foreign language material not used by the people involved in an organization (or used in the actual society the organization is in) in an article on an organization like this. There are exceptions for displaying various forms used in Taiwan in various cases of course! I'm saying this case doesn't seem to warrant it on its face. Are there any arguments for inclusion of the forms with 进 and 党 here in the case of this particular page? Please be sensitive to the feelings of the people actually in Taiwan. Simplifed character forms are justified on Mandarin Chinese Wikipedia articles about Taiwan, because those forms are part of Mandarin Chinese but those forms are not necessarily needed here in English Wikipedia articles. Geographyinitiative (talk) 17:02, 21 September 2020 (UTC) (modified)
 * All of the above, particularly Please be sensitive to the feelings of the people actually in Taiwan is WP:RGW messianic claptrap. This is a vast overstating of the influence of (or the degree to which the average reader in Taiwan would react to) a single template, embedded after an article's infobox (on all current settlement and many entity articles). Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 17:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Uninvolved comment: I agree with both WhisperToMe and Levivich that the consensus and close of the aforementioned RfC was to display both simplified and traditional in general, with possible exceptions arising from consensus on specific cases. This means that the removal of the simplified characters at Democratic Progressive Party and President of the Republic of China in this particular dispute requires consensus at their respective talk pages. For the former, I have opened this talk page section for continued discussion about that particular article. — MarkH21talk 09:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Notification about an RfC on Infobox Chinese at Democratic Progressive Party
There is an RfC here about whether Democratic Progressive Party should be one of the MOS:CHINA exceptions to including both Simplified Chinese and Traditional Chinese in the Infobox Chinese. The participation of interested editors is appreciated. — MarkH21talk 18:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

RFC on referring to leader of the People's Republic of China in articles
For leaders of the People's Republic of China who concurrently held the titles of paramount leader, General Secretary of the Communist Party of China, President of the People's Republic of China, and Chairman of the Central Military Commission, should Manual of Style/China and Chinese-related articles say that they should be referred to as: 02:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC) Note: this situation has only occurred for Jiang Zemin, Hu Jintao, and Xi Jinping.
 * 1) "Leader ____"
 * 2) "Paramount leader ____"
 * 3) "General Secretary ____" or "Secretary ____"
 * 4) "President ____"
 * 5) This should not be included in Manual of Style/China and Chinese-related articles

Survey

 * Option 1 or 3: The President of the People's Republic of China is a ceremonial position akin to the Queen of the United Kingdom, Emperor of Japan, President of India, President of Israel, President of Bangladesh, President of Germany, etc. It is not a position of importance and would be imprecise for the role that Xi Jinping has within the Chinese government.The General Secretary of the Communist Party of China is both ade jure and de facto government position (i.e. it is not solely a party position) and is the highest ranking official in the PRC order of precedence. Keep in mind that China is a one-party state, wherein the leader of the CCP is the leader of the PRC by the PRC Constitution. This was cemented in the 2018 amendments to the PRC Constitution.Regarding Xi Jinping specifically, reliable sources use both "President" and "General Secretary" when referring to Xi Jinping. From Google News, there are 240 hits for "Secretary Xi Jinping" and 244 hits for "President Xi Jinping", which isn't a conclusive difference. The paramount leader denotes the de facto leader of the PRC even when the titles do not coincide (e.g. Deng Xiaoping), but is not used frequently by RSes when one person holds all of the listed titles.Diplomatically, Xi Jinping has been called General Secretary: 2019 WSJ report about how the US Department of State has made it a point to not call Xi by “President”, more recent usage in June. — MarkH21talk 03:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 4. I just did a quick survey of the top Google News results for "xi jinping", and the vast majority use "President Xi Jinping". We're not here to pick the most technically correct option; we follow common usage in reliable sources, and that is "President". -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Unless you see “Dictator,” “Despot," or “Mass Murderer” up there I wouldn’t worry about us setting aside political correctness and choosing the most technically correct option. All the options given are regularly used by WP:RS, there is no requirement that we pick the most used name simply that we pick from among the names commonly used by WP:RS. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 06:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Option 1, since "President" is properly a title given to leaders of republican states. Authoritarian regimes have always tried normalizing their leadership, but as the running joke goes, the difference between a "Republic" and a "People's Republic" is akin to a chair vs. an electric chair. I understand that there may be differences of opinion here; the question is whether we're aiming for accurate political terminology or prefer to prioritize Google's search statistics. Bstephens393 (talk) 05:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That kind of thinking feels like WP:RGW to me; Wikipedia should follow the style of a majority of neutral reliable sources. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠</b> 01:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's about righting great wrongs -- the term President has certain political and historical connotations. I admit that its use has become markedly less accurate over time. This is why I wrote: the question is whether we're aiming for accurate political terminology or prefer to prioritize Google's search statistics. Bstephens393 (talk) 04:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Option 3, option 1 would also work in most cases. I personally like Paramount Leader but it seems to have faded from use. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 06:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 5. Depends on the context. President might come up in sources about foreign relations, (General) Secretary when party affairs are discussed and (Paramout) Leader in the larger historical outlook. This inheret dependence on context is reflected by the fact that the opinions regarding this RfC are all over the place. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:15, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 5I do see the republican connotation in president as seen here https://www.scmp.com/news/world/united-states-canada/article/3094669/us-officials-switch-calling-chinas-xi-jinping. Refer him as the source does. If not, don't use the label.Manabimasu (talk) 06:49, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 2 it is not always the case that the person who holds political power in the People's Republic of China, holds all senior political positions. For much of his time, Deng Xiaoping did not hold senior political positions, yet he was undoubtedly (per sources) the leader of the People's Republic of China. Alssa1 (talk) 19:27, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

 * By the numbers from Google News at least, there are 240 hits for "Secretary Xi Jinping" and 244 hits for "President Xi Jinping" (quotes necessary otherwise articles mentioning any president would be a hit). It's not a massive difference for common usage, and the former includes a variety of publicatons, e.g. The Washington Post, The Diplomat, Wall Street Journal (x2), Slate, The Atlantic, Quartz, Foreign Policy, LA Times, The New Times, Taiwan Times, Hong Kong Free Press, The Australian, DW, The New Indian Express, The Jamestown Foundation, Foreign Policy Research Institute. It's not a clear-cut case for RS preference. — MarkH21talk 03:52, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Going through the sources, it looks like a lot of the instances of "Secretary Xi Jinping" are actually quotes, whereas "President Xi Jinping" is mostly said in the paper's own voice. So the question becomes, do we follow what most world leaders use, or what most newspapers use? I think the latter is closer to Wikipedia's style. -- <b style="color:red">King of ♥</b><b style="color:red"> ♦</b><b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 04:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm missing something, all of the sources that I just listed use "Secretary Xi Jinping" in their own voice and not just in quotes. — MarkH21talk 04:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, but you only listed 16, when there are hundreds or thousands of globally prominent publications around; I can easily double your number on the other side. Being able to come up with examples just shows that something is not rare, but is fruitless for determining which of two options is more common. -- <b style="color:red">King of ♥</b><b style="color:red"> ♦</b><b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 04:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course it's not demonstrative. You’ve pretty much said my point: that looking quickly at Google hits doesn't produce a clear-cut case for either; a variety of quality reliable sources use both President and General Secretary to refer to Xi Jinping. I don't think that a quick survey of the top Google News results for "xi jinping" (from your !vote rationale) is sufficient. — MarkH21talk 04:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it's different. You hand-selected those examples to prove your point. I went into this with an open mind and took a random sample, and based my decision off of that. -- <b style="color:red">King of ♥</b><b style="color:red"> ♦</b><b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 05:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * But are you still basing your decision based on the first few results out of hundreds of hits? There are roughly the same number of hits for both on Google News and the ordering isn't indicative of anything, so the proportion within the first few results doesn’t really say much. — MarkH21talk 05:31, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * But it does. If the total number of hits are comparable, and "Secretary" is more frequently found in quotes, then by mathematical necessity "President" is more frequently found in prose. -- <b style="color:red">King of ♥</b><b style="color:red"> ♦</b><b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 13:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's dependent on one showing that across all of the hits, "Secretary" is more frequently found only in quotes than "President" is. You can't really do that without going through all of the hits. — MarkH21talk 13:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I checked all the pages, and that is the case. -- <b style="color:red">King of ♥</b><b style="color:red"> ♦</b><b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 15:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * All 484 pages?! — MarkH21talk 15:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * By "all the pages", I mean I've randomly sampled from each of the 25 pages of results for each of the two terms. The difference is so stark that a 10% sample easily achieves statistical significance. -- <b style="color:red">King of ♥</b><b style="color:red"> ♦</b><b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 15:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: The parallel situation in North Korea uses supreme leader (corresponding to paramount leader) for Kim Jong-un, despite his position as Chairman of the State Affairs Commission (corresponding to Chairman of the Central Military Commission) and in lieu of the head of government Premier of North Korea (corresponding to Premier of the People's Republic of China) and figurehead head of state President (corresponding to the figurehead President of the People's Republic of China). — MarkH21talk 01:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Chinese personal names in article text
Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy. If this talk page is not the pest one to addreess the issue, please advise abouot a better venue. Lembit Staan (talk) 03:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Chinese placenames
Based on a discussion at Talk:An Giang Province about Vietnamese provincial placenames, I am interested in whether Chinese placenames should change as well.


 * All the provinces of China are the primary topic for their name - though Neimenggu and Xizang are translated.
 * Prefecture-level cities (地级市) generally have the city as the primary title, and there is no distinction between the city and the eponymous prefecture-level city. Xi'an is mostly about the historic city of Xi'an, but also includes information about Xi'an (sub-provincial city)
 * Over the past 40 years, almost the entire territory of China has been re-organized into prefecture-level cities, and they are approximately equivalents of Departments of France.
 * For counties/districts, there often is minimal if no reference to the area in the English language. These are titled such as Tiexi District, Anshan or Heishan County.
 * There are enough overlaps that I think we should avoid titles like Zhenxing District even if they are unique. We should (similar to WP:USPLACE) always include a region.
 * Should the disambiguating region be a province or a 地级市? We can't always use just a province, Tiexi District, Shenyang and Tiexi District, Anshan are both in Liaoning (and both are Tiexi 铁西).
 * Most of China's 30,000 townships do not have articles. When they do, they are titled as Hedong Township, Dayu County which seems fine to me.

The possible options I see for third-level subdivisions (区):
 * Tiexi District, Anshan
 * Tiexi district, Anshan
 * Tiexi District, Anshan 地级市 (yes, this violates WP:USEENGLISH, but Tiexi District, Anshan Prefecture-Level City is just silly)
 * Tiexi district, Anshan prefecture-level city
 * Tiexi District, Liaoning (with Tiexi District, Shenyang, Liaoning where necessary)
 * Tiexi district, Liaoning
 * Tiexiqu, Liaoning
 * Tiexi, Liaoning

Thoughts? User:力 (powera, π,  ν ) 21:27, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I kind of lean towards WP:AINTBROKE here i.e. any change is probably more trouble than it's worth. However if pressed to select one I prefer the style of Tiexi, Liaoning per WP:CONCISE, periodically longer disambiguation will be needed, but that can be handled on a case by case basis. Equal choice with doing nothing. 202.53.171.50 (talk) 01:14, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any need for long, clunky titles with disambiguators like "Anshan 地级市" or "Anshan prefecture-level city". It seems to me "Anshan" is enough.
 * I prefer "Tiexi District" over "Tiexiqu", to follow common usage (English-speakers and English-speaking sources usually translate 区 as "district" rather than saying "qu").
 * If we have to pick, I'd say that for sub-prefecture-level divisions the default disambiguator should be the prefecture-level city rather than the province. It would seem silly to have Futian District at "Futian District, Guangdong" instead of "Futian District, Shenzhen". But this may be something to decide on a case-by-case basis. Using the province as a disambiguator may be more sensible for towns and county-level cities than for districts. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:27, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Came here from notification at Talk:An Giang Province. My impression is to agree with a leaning toward WP:AINTBROKE.  WP:AT deals with disambiguators and if they are required.  The disambiguators themselves are not particularly useful for a Western/English reader, since the terminology to describe the geopolitical hierarchy does not correlate with "conventional" meanings (more simply, the words used don't mean what I usually expect them to mean).  This is not a matter resolved by the article title but internally.  Cinderella157 (talk) 04:07, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Not much need for a change of convention here, but when district or province or such are used, and are not mostly capped in sources, we should lowercase them. In the case of Tiexi District, lowercase is common enough (in book and news sources) that I'd lowercase them. We're about done with "province" in the Vietnam case, but ran into a lot of neighbor Laos and Cambodia ones that are still capped, so need to bring that up for fixing. Dicklyon (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Historical and alternative transliterations (restored unresolved discussion from archive)
(I have restored this discussion that was previously archived, because of valid concerns that were left unaddressed. See my response at bottom of thread for details. -Firejuggler)

Historical and alternative transliterations of Mandarin Chinese are importanːt to display on Wikipedia. This is because those transliterations were/are used in written materials related to China before/outside of Hanyu Pinyin derived forms. If you delete those forms ("sp per WP:PINYIN") or if you delete local language transliterations ("Foochow Romanized is not the PRC standard"), you erase history in a very Orwellian way. I say, if you can find a good source or sources for an alternative or historical form, then add it in a note somewhere on the page. Hanyu Pinyin is great, but Hanyu Pinyin is a Johnny-come-lately in terms of the understanding of the Mandarin Chinese speaking world in the English language. One of the reasons our Mandarin Chinese language related geography pages are weak is because everything written about those areas in English before Wikipedia was written with forms that some users reflexively scrub from those pages. Ignoring history leads to...nothing on the page. Come on people. History happened. Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC) (modified)
 * I agree that I may not be the best at wording, so if my wording is poor, yeah let's work on that. But we need something in here about not erasing historical or alternative forms because people are misinterpreting 'default pinyin' as 'delete non-pinyin'. Yikes. Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 'The Eleventh Edition is the definitive edition,' he said. 'We're getting the language into its final shape -- the shape it's going to have when nobody speaks anything else. When we've finished with it, people like you will have to learn it all over again. You think, I dare say, that our chief job is inventing new words. But not a bit of it! We're destroying words -- scores of them, hundreds of them, every day. We're cutting the language down to the bone. The Eleventh Edition won't contain a single word that will become obsolete before the year 2050.' Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:20, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The vast majority of my work on Wikipedia is in doing foundational work for Chinese language related geography topics that are seriously neglected- usually stubs etc. If you have any tips or suggestions, let me know. I think one of the critical reasons that these articles are weak is that Wikipedia has approaching zero respect for historically-used transcriptions from Mandarin etc (as demonstrated by above). This leads to the inability of people who read Chinese-related English language works from the 18th/19th/20th century to search for and successfully find locations they read about. I am slogging through this work to attempt to make it possible for Wikipedia to actually cover Chinese-related geography. Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * While I sympathize with your position, I'd like to remind you that any substantial changes to MOS or Wikipedia guidelines require consensus, which you clearly have not obtained. Instead, you've been edit warring against multiple respected editors to unilaterally insert your preferred language. If I'm not mistaken, you were blocked for similar behaviour not long ago, and I'd hate to see a productive editor like you being blocked again. So please stop edit warring (and I suggest you to self-revert your latest revert before someone else does). -Zanhe (talk) 23:52, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I've pointed out a disastrous consequence of the current wording of the Chinese MoS, which is that some users interpret it to mean that you can outright delete historical and alternative geographical name forms in favor of Hanyu Pinyin derived forms. I can take a block, but what I can't take is a Wikipedia which does not inform the readers. However, in order to avoid charges of edit war or disruption and let everyone get back to making an encylopedia, I am going to have to stop editing this Chinese MoS page for the time being. I can't discuss stuff if I feel my account is under threat during the discussion. But I am glad you can see where I'm coming from. I hope some change like what I proposed will be made at some point. Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:05, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * GI, you raise a valid concern with edits such as these, but you had best not take a block over another MoS matter, lest we all lose. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 20:28, 2 October 2019 (UTC)


 * raised legitimate and persuasive concerns above. From what I gather from 's response, other editors reverted all BOLD changes he attempted to make; yet, apparently, when GI opened a discussion, and made a thorough case for his proposed changes, they all refused to discuss.   (except for  who acknowledged the validity of GI's points; Zanhe responded, though he did not discuss, but merely warned GI that if he continued to edit war he risked being blocked). I do not agree, though, that the status quo of any guideline may be de facto unchangeable by means of editors wishing to retain the status quo refusing to discuss! The "onus", yea, is on the editor seeking change - but if that editor makes efforts to engage in discussion, editors opposing the change can't just refuse to engage! That goes against every principle this project is based on. Please address. Ty Firejuggler86 (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * This is nuts. If it's still going on,, you're just dealing with y that has no broad support. You just need to shine a light on it.


 * 1st, do provide the alternative names at the Wikidata and Wiktionary entries on the places if you have the time. It's more their focus and here you do need to be sensitive to . It's probably more time efficient to have a table and script something or look through projects here to work with script kiddies to add your information. Certainly we should have Wade-Giles, Postal Map, Legge, and EB versions of all names at those projects.


 * 2nd, we have |w= and |psp= fields in Infobox Chinese precisely because those forms are already known to be encyclopedic and necessary to historical understanding of these places. Use that template and those fields as needed.


 * 3rd, be understanding about legitimate concerns. We're honestly past the point where "Kwongchow" really belongs in the lead sentence of an article about Guangzhou. We may be past the point where "Canton" even belongs there. This isn't a one-size-fits-all situation. Most English speakers visiting Yingkou probably are actually looking for the treaty port of "Newchwang" under one of its names because that was the era when that city was most important internationally. Most English speakers going to Guangzhou these days would only ever refer to it as that, even if the language is Cantonese. I think the sensible path forward isn't to flood lead sentences (which is objectionable) or even the history section. It's better to have a anchor template with Etymology and Toponymy above a #Name or #Names section after the lead paragraph going through the Chinese name(s), the different traditional and simplified characters, and the tones and then the various English transcriptions and alt names it may have. See Xi'an for an example. It may be past time to insist that such Name sections be a part of every Chinese location article so there's always a place to include clear links to the articles on characters, romanization, and tones and we can finally clean up the way lang-zh ridiculously formats traditional and simplified characters as separate languages.


 * 4th, use rfd to request broader discussion by interested editors across the entire project, possibly as well as adding neutrally phrased requests for more feedback on relevant projects like WPCHINA. No one supports making things shittier and less useful for our s. If some people have gotten misguided on what others need to know, just reach out to the larger community to remind them. — Llywelyn II   02:39, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Capitalization of romanized titles
Continuing from last time, this has come up again based on increasing prevalence of sentence case in scholarship. As far as I can tell, they're just mistakenly copying each other or giving preference to their local European capitalization rules and ignoring the PRC's published standards and those used on Taiwan (here's a copiously footnoted legal citation guide overseen by a Taiwan district court judge presumably annoyed by everyone's continuing confusion on the point).

If the PRC has published other guidelines or house style guides at the major Chinese journals has changed, though, that's fine. Just present that. Otherwise, we should just link from the mistaken format to articles that consistently use the correct one. — Llywelyn II   01:19, 3 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Chinese title capitalisation
 * This is something that has weighed on my mind for quite some time and I'm glad that you raised it with your good faith edits to Xinxiu bencao. If you actually looked at the sources cited in the article, it is clear that Chinese titles are capitalised sentence-style, rather than headline-style for English-language works. That is to say only the first letter of the first word should be capitalised... This is the academic convention and WP:PINYIN absolutely does not contradict what I've just said. This should be clarified elsewhere and as you pointed out Category:Chinese medical texts (and many others!) is flush with bad titling (but I haven't the inclination to edit them right now). Cheers, KINGofLETTUCE 👑  🥬 13:52, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The reason that so many of those works have title caps is that each word of the title should be capitalised per WP:PINYIN ("English Wikipedia uses pinyin as the default Romanisation method for Chinese characters") because, as Section 4.9.2 in this source points out, pinyin title cap rules are the same as English (i.e. "If a proper noun consists of two or more words, capitalize the first letter of each word."). User:LlywelynII noted this in the MOSCHINA talk page a while back with no objection and the relevant Wikipedia article calls for this practice as well.  Others sources may have their own house styles, but those typically do not override Wikipedia's own (e.g. The Economist does not capitalise "second world war").  — <span style="border:1px solid #93010b;background:#ef0000;padding:2px;color:#efe6e6;text-shadow:black 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em; font-family: Georgia;"> AjaxSmack  19:01, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Appreciate the elaboration, but I'm not buying it. I hardly find that a lone editor's spiel should be taken as gospel truth, and neither should the status quo be seen as unchangeable. It's very simple to me: it's simply incongruous to insist on using our own "house style" when the very sources cited don't render the titles that way! (Ironically, Llywelyn's random example of "Honglou Meng/meng" backfires, as a quick Google search shows that scholars worth their ilk refer to it as "Honglou meng". Same goes for virtually any other major Chinese work, with exceptions like the I Ching. There is some admission of simply wanting to avoid the hassle and confusion of changing the status quo, in that they recognise that they don't actually better than some hypothetical "powerful citation" but somehow titling Chinese works sentence-style "appears" to be "wrong".) I will also note that Naming conventions (capitalization) explicitly gives us this latitude: "Capitalization in foreign-language titles varies, even over time within the same language. Retain the style of the original for modern works. For historical works, follow the dominant usage in modern, English-language, reliable sources." KINGofLETTUCE 👑  🥬 20:56, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Nah. You don't have to buy it. You do need to buy one of the authoritative sources on pinyin (or find a free copy online) and share your findings if you want other people to buy what you're selling. You can't default to a "dominant usage" that doesn't actually exist, since transcriptions of titles is all over the place among the Chinese themselves (who consider romanized titles a learning aid to the actual character titles) and the scholars who write about Chinese from within the traditions of their own languages' capitalization rules. You also can't just talk about it in random people's talk pages. You need to take it MOSCHINA.


 * Otherwise you end up with exactly what I was talking about: You thinking you're right and creating needless makework as people edit war all over the place and you eventually ending up with administrative sanctions since you're the one not following the MOSCHINA style guide. You may be perfectly right that there's an established convention now to create ugly and confusing European-style sentence case forms of Chinese titles within English. Go prove it and get it added to the style guide. — Llywelyn II   00:58, 3 December 2022 (UTC)


 * This obviously isn't binding but these guys—including a Taiwan district court judge—were trying to improve legal citations from Chinese sources with copious reference to the available style guides and use standard title case (with correct PRC pinyin treatment of e.g. de) consistently. It really is worth looking for actual sourcing like that since for each "I hit Google", I can give you, "yeah, well, I went to Google Scholar and, well, they're just inconsistent." — Llywelyn II   01:12, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The above discussion was copied and pasted from UT:AjaxSmack to elicit wider input. — <span style="border:1px solid #93010b;background:#ef0000;padding:2px;color:#efe6e6;text-shadow:black 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em; font-family: Georgia;"> AjaxSmack  01:23, 3 December 2022 (UTC)


 * The basics to me: 1. Capitals don't exist in Chinese so "retain the style of the original" doesn't work.  2. English capitalises titles.  3. Pinyin rules call for capitalising titles.  4. Sources are mixed.


 * It's hard to understand adopting Slavic/Romance caps rules in this case. — <span style="border:1px solid #93010b;background:#ef0000;padding:2px;color:#efe6e6;text-shadow:black 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em; font-family: Georgia;"> AjaxSmack 01:40, 3 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm confused. Is this about work titles?  Or about proper names?  Can we see some examples of where there's disagreement on the right capitalization?  Dicklyon (talk) 02:09, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We're talking about the correct capitalization of literary works who were originally titled in Chinese characters. For an example, if you don't just use Xiyouji, should 《西游记》 be transcribed as Xiyou Ji or Xiyou ji in English discussions? Here, obviously the solution would be to use Xiyouji or Journey to the West most of the time, but (a) how should you correctly write the pinyin transcription of the title's characters when you do that? and (b) many other Chinese works are as/more famous under their transcribed names than any English equivalent or have names so long that writing them as a single word isn't an acceptable option.


 * Right now, Dream of the Red Chamber starts
 * Dream of the Red Chamber (Honglou Meng) or The Story of the Stone (Shitou Ji) is a novel composed by Cao Xueqin in...
 * KOL would prefer that it read
 * Dream of the Red Chamber (Honglou meng) or The Story of the Stone (Shitou ji) is a novel composed by Cao Xueqin in...
 * — Llywelyn II   02:52, 3 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Well, work titles are proper names, so I'd say discuss either/both. Xinxiu bencao is the example that prompted this discussion. — <span style="border:1px solid #93010b;background:#ef0000;padding:2px;color:#efe6e6;text-shadow:black 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em; font-family: Georgia;"> AjaxSmack  02:54, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification that the bit above about "proper noun" was a red herring. I have no particular knowledge or opinion on the pinyin rules, so I'll stay out of that. Dicklyon (talk) 02:56, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It isn't a red herring. Like AS said, titles are proper nouns and that's what the current pinyin rules call for. You're right that capitalizing languages that don't have letters is a hornest's nest. We want to be descriptive instead of prescriptive but it's just a complete mess descriptively and you'd need to include everything. We just need a consistent house style that's as authoritative as possible. — Llywelyn II   03:00, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry my reply above might be out of sync or out of place. But I disagree on titles being proper nouns.  We have style guidelines for work titles precisely because they are not the same as proper nouns.  The "Section 4.9.2" guideline on proper nouns is not necessarily the right answer for work titles. Dicklyon (talk) 03:05, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's a list of titles from the same source (previous edition) as "Section 4.9.2" treating work titles just like other proper names. — <span style="border:1px solid #93010b;background:#ef0000;padding:2px;color:#efe6e6;text-shadow:black 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em; font-family: Georgia;"> AjaxSmack 03:41, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I listed this discussion at WT:MOSCAPS to see if there are more knowledgeable inputs on this. Dicklyon (talk) 03:11, 3 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Let me just rehash my point in case it got swamped by the other editors' output: if all or all but one of the sources cited write Xinxiu bencao, it seems schizophrenic to insist on Xinxiu Bencao just because a general pinyin guide suggested so. I do believe that I can default to a dominant usage as far as each individual work is concerned (e.g. all leading scholars referring to the work as Xinxiu bencao for some strange reason...) but obviously we might be here for much longer if we're trying to grope at some general principle. even in the paper that you linked, there is in fact a section on "Titles of Japanese and Chinese works" (pg. 32) that contradicts the earlier guidance (and the writer admits that the Chicago Manual of Style is one of the most important sources on citing Chinese material, a.k.a the sort of "best" authority that you're looking for).  KINGofLETTUCE 👑  🥬 10:00, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not schizophrenic in the least. The fact that the first page of results from Google Scholar provides only use of "Xinxiu Bencao" and absolutely none for "Xinxiu bencao" is pretty representative of what a mess this subject is, which is the whole point of a style guide. Even if our page did list use every single authoritative reference on the subject (which is obviously highly dubious given the Google Scholar results), that would still be a that isn't particularly helpful.


 * I'm glad you read through the cites, but you would've seen it doesn't "contradict" the "earlier" guidance in any meaningful way. The authors provide their view (English title case), they quote the relevant parts of the Chicago Style Guide (French-style sentence case), and they quote the relevant parts of the Bluebook (English title case). Yeah, the sources are inconsistent. Afaik, this is the most recent English copy of the authoritative rules for official pinyin usage. The rules on titles start on page 43ish, although you can see examples of the use of Title Case throughout the work. That might've been updated and the update might've just been in Chinese so far or only available offline. Dunno. — Llywelyn II   13:18, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd take the GScholar results with a pinch of salt. We should be more discerning than that. The most authoritative references, not least of all the Routledge Handbook of Chinese Medicine, do without a doubt write the name properly, and this isn't something that can be simply confirmed thru a quick glance at what an algorithm spews out. Not all sources are created equal. Still, I take your point on local consensus and I'll wait with bated breath for a wider community consensus to emerge. In the meantime, I hope to be able to continue deferring to what the sources that I'm citing (and not including the likely non-authoritative sources "out there") say. KINGofLETTUCE 👑  🥬 13:36, 3 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Use lowercase, since case usage in sources is very inconsistent. See first paragraph of MOS:CAPS.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:27, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Let's stop this capping madness. Agree with SMcCandlish. <b style="color:darkgreen">Tony</b> (talk)  04:05, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you & . I hope we can finally put this inane matter to rest. Cheers,  KINGofLETTUCE 👑  🥬 13:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Suggested new section - historical articles
Greetings all! I've recently had a few discussions (here and here) on whether the general romanization guidelines for Chinese apply to historical articles. In both cases, the final consensus was yes, but it would be helpful to have a section or at least a few sentences on this page to point people to that directly addresses this question. There are some nuances that might require elaboration (like that you should use the pinyin version of the period-accurate name rather than just the modern name, and that parenthetical references to older romanizations might be useful in some articles). Thoughts? SilverStar54 (talk) 19:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC) I don't think we need to recommend a place for this information if it's not critical to understanding the topic and only used to facilitate verification, by which I mean we should not explicitly prefer footnote, prose, optional cite parameter, or whatever. And I'm hesitant to use language stronger than recommendation for this practice. Folly Mox (talk) 19:57, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * My reading of the prior conversation is that the only carve-out really desired here is that verification is accessible without having to learn multiple romanisation systems. I feel like we do pretty well on historical names and are all on the same page. Open to correction, of course.I think the best place to put this would be right after the Tsingtao example, something like "Where a source uses a romanisation that must be converted to pinyin, consider providing the spelling used in the source to ease verification by other users."
 * I believe that would be sufficient to address the issue raised in the above-referenced discussion. I also like the advisory nature of the proposed wording. Kanguole 21:38, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, and it's concise, unlike the discussions that led to it. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I also like this sentence. But can we also make it explicit that the first sentence in WP:PINYIN applies to historical articles even when contemporaneous primary/secondary sources used a different form of romanization? I know that this is already implied, but unless we explicitly mention historical articles, I think a lot of editors like User:Mjroots will simply assume that we didn't mean it that way. For someone unfamiliar with Chinese romanization, Wade-Giles and Postal look like period-accurate names. SilverStar54 (talk) 04:39, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

✅ in this edit, since this has been open over a month with no objections. Added a final smol bit about applicability of WP:MPN per comment immediately above this one. Feel free to delete the final, undiscussed sentence if it's deemed unhelpful. Folly Mox (talk) 02:47, 14 May 2023 (UTC)