Talk:Taiwan (disambiguation)

---

Untitled

english=Formosa

traditional=臺灣

simplified=台湾

pinyin=Táiwān

wade-giles=T'ai-wan

bopomofo=ㄊㄞˊㄨㄢˉ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.8.110 (talk) 06:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Removals: Chinese Taipei; Taiwan, Province of China

Removed:

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

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

Regardless of any silliness at the UN, the Republic of China certainly does exist, they had elections rather recently, their government is involved in regular talks with the PRC and has a fairly well equipped defense force. Trying to pretend they don't exist is silliness at best. Arker 04:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• Response:
  • They might want "Chinese Taipei", and all you need to is modify the description for it to "The interantional designation for the Republic of China (otherwise known as Taiwan): Chinese Taipei"
  • "Taiwan, Province of China" contains "Taiwan" most prominently, so I don't see why that isn't a valid place to point to. The term exists. If you don't like the link, put a "see 'redirect:destination' " instead.
  • 132.205.93.89 22:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then, why do you delete all references to Taiwan, Province of China from the disambiguation page? Redirects exist to allow people to get to the article that contains the information they're looking for on the proper page. Proper protocol would mean that you change references to redirects to point directly to the redirect target, to reduce load on the servers. So, why did you remove the link this time? "Taiwan, Province of China" redirects to "Chinese Taipei", so, obviously, since "Taiwan, Province of China" should properly be listed on the disambiguation page, the see Chinese Taipei would be there.

That Chinese Taipei is linked to from the Taiwan article is neither here nor there, since this is a dab page, and its links are independant of whatever is on the Taiwan article page. That people would look for Chinese Taipei as a meaning of Taiwan is entirely relevant to it being on the Taiwan dab page.

The whole article of "Chinese Taipei" dwells on why Taiwan is called Chinese Taipei, and not Taiwan or Republic of China, so it should appear on the Taiwan dab page because of that.

That Taiwan, Province of China redirects to Chinese Taipei, also means that Chinese Taipei should be on the dab page.

"Taiwan, Province of China" should appear on the dab page because it's Taiwan, Province of China, that much should be self-explanatory.

Redirects exist for a reason. But since they are redirects, are you going to delete all information about the redirected information because they are redirects?

I've listed this at WP:RFC because we are having a major disagreement on proper content.

You want a dab page that has a redirect target listed? Ironsides lists USS Constitution, the detination of the redirect Old Ironsides.

132.205.45.110 18:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please sign your comments

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

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

3rd opinion on link to Taiwan, Province of China

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

And why would that not be? I have pointed out that "Taiwan Province" is also commonly referenced as "Taiwan". Maybe not in your community, but surely in others. I've also pointed out other explanations as well. Liu Tao (talk) 15:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I've pointed it out in the Talk:Taiwan article, not here... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liu Tao (talk • contribs) 15:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Taiwan/ROC

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

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

It's not incorrect to call the ROC "Taiwan". This is the common name of the ROC; this is how it's called by most media organization; and it's the name under which the ROC is known by most people (at least in English speaking countries, which is the audience we write for on en.wikipedia). To avoid an edit war, I'm fine with the Taiwan/ROC compromise though. Laurent (talk) 21:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

To say that it is also Taiwan is to say that the ROC and Taiwan are the SAME entities, which we have all largely agreed they are not.

In one sense of course they are not. Taiwan is the place, region, or country. ROC is the government. The government does not compete in sporting events as "Chinese Taipei". But it does participate in groups like the WTO using the informal name "Chinese Taipei" (the formal name is much longer).

WikiLaurent is also right that the ROC is known by most people as Taiwan. Readin (talk) 21:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

How many times must I say it? RoC is not a frickin government, it is a STATE and is composed of a government, territory, and population (the basic parts for a state). ROC itself is also a place, region, and country. Taiwan only covers the Island or Province (depends on usage), and not the whole of the ROC. People of Kinmen and Matsu are represented by Chinese Taipei too, which obviously makes Taiwan NOT the only range covered by the Chinese Taipei or ROC. Taiwan is NOT the territory of the ROC, it is A territory of the ROC. As for the ROC being referred as Taiwan, it is already mentioned 3 lines above, to mention it again is superfulous and unnecessary as well as could be considered as POV. Also, to call the ROC "Taiwan" is only correct in the common usage and speech (AKA slang) where it is commonly used as so. As for technicality, political, and 'official' context, to refer to the ROC as "Taiwan" is incorrect. And even if the ROC is commonly referred to as "Taiwan", it is only common in SOME places, not ALL. Long story short, the reference of the ROC as "Taiwan" is NOT UNIVERSAL. There are still places, communities, and societies where the "ROC" and "Taiwan" are not used synonymously and are differentiated. Liu Tao (talk) 23:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

This is inappropriate, I'm spending hours of my time debating with you guys, and you guys just respond with a few words or just ignore me. Either you guys keep debating or you are forfeiting to my points. I'm offering a debate, but you guys are refusing to participate in it. If you're gonna be like this, then you shouldn't be undoing other people's edits based on these points of which you refuse to touch upon on. Liu Tao (talk) 18:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with some of the things you say, and some of your arguments are irrelevant on Wikipedia because you seem to ignore the policies. For instance, there's no point to keep repeating that calling the ROC "Taiwan" is "incorrect" since Wikipedia doesn't care about what's "correct" or not. We care about the facts, as documented by reliable sources, and the sources tell us that the ROC is more often called "Taiwan" than "the ROC". So, per the WP:COMMONNAMES policy - and if we want readers to know what we are talking about - it's the name we should always use on Wikipedia. Obviously it's not going to happen so we need to reach a compromise. "Taiwan/ROC", "ROC (Taiwan)" or "ROC, commonly known as Taiwan" are good compromises in my opinion, and the second one was actually used by the government at some point. Laurent (talk) 20:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

You want veriability? It's something called "common sense". You got something who's name is "Republic of China" and you call it "Taiwan", obviously that is not correct. You claim that readers won't know what we're talking about, says who? Have you done a survey. As far as I can see, I don't see why they wouldn't know what we are talking about. The ROC article, first sentence, "Republic of China, commonly known as Taiwan". Wow, if a reader doesn't even read the first sentence of an article, the lad's not a reader. Even if we still end up renaming the ROC article to "Taiwan (state)" or something like that, we've still to differentiate it from the island, province, region, etc. That is the point I am trying to make, not about the frikin names of the different entities. Liu Tao (talk) 06:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Move request

• Taiwan (disambiguation) → Taiwan
• Taiwan → Taiwan (island) or Taiwan (islands)

There is no single primary topic for "Taiwan". It may refers to the geographical island and the islets immediately around it, or the modern Republic of China at least from the 1990s onwards. By doing so incoming links to Taiwan can regularly be corrected like those directing at Washington or Georgia. relisted --Mike Cline (talk) 18:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC) 61.18.170.226 (talk) 16:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose renaming. I disagree with rationale above. In my estimation, Taiwan clearly refers to the island. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 18:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
• Strong support. Taiwan can refer to the island, island group, any of two provinces or last but not least a country. I would guess to most people outside East Asia it refers to the country. To avoid any confusion of the readers all topics should be named precisely. I suggest Taiwan Island for the island article, that is the way island articles are called in Category:Islands of the Republic of China, i.e. avoid "(island)" which is also not usable in text, where Taiwan Island is very well usable. Anyway Taiwan (island) is much better than Taiwan. Huayu-Huayu (talk) 23:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC) I would even support moving Taiwan to Taiwan (island) and leave a redirect behind if there is no majority for the move of the dab page. Huayu-Huayu (talk) 13:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Evidence for confusion 1: See Category:Islands of Taiwan - since Taiwan is the island article, the islands included in that category are islands of Taiwan the island??? Are they ON the island, i.e. inside lakes? If you check, some are not. Huayu-Huayu (talk) 12:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Evidence for confusion 2: Taiwan the wannabe island article states: "Taiwan's rapid economic growth in the decades after World War II has transformed it into an industrialized developed country and one of the Four Asian Tigers." So, then Taiwan here refers to a country, right? Huayu-Huayu (talk) 12:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Evidence for confusion 3: Republic of China, the country article reads: "This article is about the sovereign state on Taiwan since 1949. For its territories, see Taiwan." It's territories see Taiwan? But the Taiwan article says "This article is about the island." that means it is about an island, i.e. one of the territories island. Huayu-Huayu (talk) 12:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Evidence for confusion 4: Even at Taiwan (disambiguation) there exists confusion, the intro reads in the first line: "Taiwan, officially Republic of China (ROC), ... mostly composed of area of Taiwan." Taiwan is mostly composed of Taiwan? Why is the ROC listed first, if the plain name is about the island? Huayu-Huayu (talk) 12:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Evidence for confusion 5: Geography of Taiwan reads in the intro: "Taiwan is a medium-sized archipelago" and links the word "Taiwan" to the Taiwan island article. Huayu-Huayu (talk) 20:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Compare with Category:Islands of Ireland. 42.3.2.237 (talk) 12:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Thanks for pointing there. Huayu-Huayu (talk) 20:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support I urge everyone participating here who thinks there is a primary topic to give Taiwan (disambiguation) a good look before deciding anything. Until a few months ago, I had no idea how confusing the whole Taiwan/ROC/island naming situation was. I would have expected Taiwan to be about the country that is on the island, but I can see now how it can refer to either the island or the nation/government officially known as the Republic of China which has physically moved from the mainland to the island. I didn't know that before, and I suspect many searching for "Taiwan" won't either. Only a dab page can quickly convey this to the user who searches for "Taiwan". --Born2cycle (talk) 01:07, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
  • And even at the disambiguation page there exists confusion, the intro reads: "Taiwan, officially Republic of China (ROC), ... mostly composed of area of Taiwan." ??? Huayu-Huayu (talk) 01:21, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, if that's where people searching for "Taiwan" will land, we better make it more clear! --Born2cycle (talk) 01:30, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Exactly!!! And the dab page should list the island group separately. Huayu-Huayu (talk) 01:38, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree. 42.3.2.237 (talk) 11:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support, as a step in the right direction. Jenks24 (talk) 04:44, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose (struck, see indented reply below), reluctantly. This is a step in the right direction, but it's not a big enough step and it'll be inappropriately pointed to to oppose a future movement of ROC->Taiwan. Yes, there are many closely related subjects to which Taiwan may refer, but I disagree that we don't have a primary topic. In the vast majority of English language sources, Taiwan refers to the country as a political entity, with geographic meanings coming in a far but not-insignificant second. In my view, the first and biggest step here needs to be to get a good 'this is what the Taiwan country article will look like' up and vote on that. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 05:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  • What is worse, to have Taiwan as an island article, or to at least admit it could also refer to the country, i.e. to have a disambiguation page? Would you maybe at least support to move the island away from "Taiwan"? As you, I think for most people outside East Asia, Taiwan refers to the country. But I don't know how the situation is for people from Japan, PRC, ROC and Korea. Huayu-Huayu (talk) 12:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I'll clarify better. My ideal solution is Taiwan→Taiwan (island), and Republic of China→Taiwan. In view of this I support Taiwan→Taiwan (island) but suggest instead a redirect, not a move, of Taiwan to Taiwan (disambiguation). This leaves the door open later for the second potential move of ROC->Taiwan. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Taiwan redirecting to Taiwan (disambiguation) is a WP:MALPLACED disambiguation page, and would be fixed as a non-controversial move by moving the disambiguation page to the base name. The door would still be open to a second potential move of ROC → Taiwan regardless -- if that move request were successful, the disambiguation page would simply be moved again. It's an easy move, and there's never any reason for "X" to redirect to "X (qualifier)" or "X (disambiguation)". -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
        • Noted on the MALPLACED topic, I'd forgotten about that one. My concern that the move will be pointed to as precedent of consensus remains though - it may be run of the mill from a procedural point of view, but minority opinion (whether it be support or oppose) sometimes has a tendency to grasp at straw(men) to resist a move. I'd want to be clear that my support for Taiwan being the DAB page is temporary and that I will support a future move request to put ROC at Taiwan. Some editors have put a lot of effort into sandbox versions of the affected articles and when they put that to a vote (which should have been soon, until this one popped up), my support will move from this proposal to that one. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 02:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, this is even more confusing for readers. They would expect some full article, not a DAB page. I'd prefer Taiwan → Taiwan (island) and leaving a redirect behind. -- Luk ^talk 10:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree. See below. 42.3.2.237 (talk) 11:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

That solution presumes that the primary topics for both Taiwan and Taiwan (island) are the same (the topic of that article). In that case, per WP:TITLE, Taiwan is preferred as the title for concision. If we prefer Taiwan (island) to Taiwan on the grounds that Taiwan is ambiguous, then we're saying Taiwan should be a dab page. In other words, you can't have it both ways; it's either too ambiguous to be a title and so should be a dab page, or it's not. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I also suggest that having Taiwan redirect to Taiwan (island) is not the best choice. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• Weak oppose ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 11:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
• Partial support. Support moving Taiwan to Taiwan (island). Leave Taiwan as a redirect to the Taiwan (disambiguation). Basically agree with Luk above. 42.3.2.237 (talk) 11:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  • As above, that's a WP:MALPLACED dab and would be addressed by moving the dab to the base name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
• Mild support—I would have thought Taiwan should be a redirect to Republic of China. So barring that, maybe it should be a disambiguation page if there is no primary topic. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support No matter what happens to Taiwan, be it a redirect to the ROC or a disambig, this island isn't the primary topic. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose We should do what we do for other island countries, like Iceland, Madagascar, Sri Lanka, Singapore and Cuba: have a single article covering the country and the island. In each of those examples the country also includes some minor islands, but the difference is not considered sufficient for separate articles. Kanguole 00:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • This request doesn't touch on whether or not the country and the island articles for Taiwan should be merged. Many islands, such as Great Britain, Ireland and Micronesia, are having separate articles for the island(s) and the country. 61.18.170.97 (talk) 10:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
    • The naming is directly connected with the question of merging: the argument for making "Taiwan" a disambiguation page rests on the country and island being treated by separate articles, which is not what we do elsewhere in similar cases. In each of the 3 examples you gave there is a much larger difference between the territory of the state and the island (or islands in the last one) than is the case here. Kanguole 11:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
      • I agree with you, but considering the articles do exist, wouldn't this move be an improvement? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure it would. Currently someone who searches for "Taiwan" arrives at an article that has half what he/she might be looking for and is one click away from the rest. The proposal here is to send them to a dab page, where they have to decide which article they want. Suppose they want to know about the economy – doesn't matter, both articles have that. Culture? That's in the island article, but I wouldn't have guessed. Education? See the ROC article. This whole area has far too many dab pages leading to technical forks, though it's better now than it used to be. Kanguole 17:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
          • I would think if they were trying to find out about anything other than Geography they would choose the country page (unless of course they have no idea what the ROC is, which is possible). Culture should be in the ROC article. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
            • It's true that we have a content fork here with a lot of undesirable overlap, representing two opposing conceptions of the country. Editors who want to emphasize continuity with the republic founded in 1912 have built up the Republic of China article, while editors wishing to focus on its current state have built up the Taiwan article as a draft of what much of the country article might look like. Our objective should be to repair this fork through a merger, and I don't see slashing that draft as a step towards that goal. Kanguole 10:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
            • Besides, we already have an article on the Geography of Taiwan. (Yes, that says it covers the group of islands, but the main island is 99.5% of their land area.) Kanguole 21:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
    • We don't have to look only at islands. Italy and Apennine Peninsula got different articles. Turkey, Asia Minor and Anatolia got different articles too. 203.145.92.206 (talk) 04:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
      • There's quite a significant difference between Italy and the peninsular some of it resides on, ditto with Turkey and Anatolia. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Qualified support I support having an article on "Taiwan (island)" for the island itself. But there needs to be an article called "Taiwan" for the country. It must not be a DAB. John Smith's (talk) 15:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment -- WP has decided that the name "Taiwan" should be used for the present polity, officially called the "Republic of China" to distinguish it from its mainland predecessor and from Peoples Republic of China. The problem is that it is strictly only the name of the main island. The decision that the country is Taiwan means that that should certainly not be a dabpage, but a page on the state. That article needs a dab-hatnote to another article which can cover the other uses, but I do not think that ought to be called a disambiguation article, becasue they will all be about aspects of the same thing. This is not a fully formed solution to the problem, but I hope that it will help others come up with one. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Even if the country should be called "Taiwan" in some written text, it does not mean that the country is the primary topic. One can have one meaning of a word in special contexts and another one in other contexts. Like depending on context Washington can have a specific meaning, but still it is ambiguous. There are no special cases for countries in the WP dab system. Huayu-Huayu (talk) 14:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support Neither is primary topic. 203.145.92.206 (talk) 04:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support move. 141.0.8.238 (talk) 13:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support. The primary topic of "Taiwan" is not the island but the country. That a small cadre of editors refuses to recognize the end of the Chinese Civil War in 1949 should not cause Wikipedia to perpetuate an inaccuracy. Making "Taiwan" a dab page is a step in the right direction. —  AjaxSmack  04:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

  If the article on the country were called "Taiwan", would it be sensible to have a separate article on the island comprising 99% of its territory? Kanguole 10:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

  Not, but the proposal here doesn't address that issue. It does, however, represent a step in the right direction — the island is not the primary topic. I'm of the same mind as you on the utility of a single article (I once proposed merging the useless Korean Peninsula article with Korea) but see this move as positive development —  AjaxSmack  01:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

  It seems to me that the goal should be a merge of the two articles under the common name. This request seems be a step in the opposite direction, as the move of the dab page to the plain title would have to be undone. In the meantime the maze of pages is that little bit more complicated and we inflict another dab page on everyone searching for this term. Kanguole 02:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

  Incidentally, Taiwan has about 10,000 incoming links from other articles, which this move will turn into dab links that need "fixing", even though the error is at the other end of the link, i.e. what is located at "Taiwan". Kanguole 12:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

  A bot can probably deal with the redirects if we assume they are correctly linked already, and if not, it will allow us to fix all the errant ones. As for the dab page, it's very easy to move it back to disambiguation if another article, say a merged one, is found to be primary. This move really won't affect any merge proposal one way or another. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment – I've added {{movenotice}} to both affected articles. Kanguole 11:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Support - Most readers want to find information on the Republic of China when they search Taiwan. A disambig page gives the the chance to either find the RoC article, or the article on the island. A very good move in the right direction! Definitely move. Peter (Talk page) 21:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support and move Republic of China to Taiwan.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 16:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. There is already a hatnote at Taiwan (the current article about the island). We don't need to direct people to a disambiguation page. 203.145.92.208 (talk) 20:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose Most people want to find information about the people, place and culture when they look for Taiwan (just as when they look for any other country). The scope of the Taiwan article needs to be officially expanded (it already covers more than just the landmass). The current situation needs correcting, but removing the Taiwan article is a big step in the wrong direction. 68.230.182.210 (talk) 20:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
• Important Comment - currently there is a heated debate on Talk:Republic of China about moving that article to Taiwan. I'm not sure what that would mean for this discussion either way. I've proposed there forming a central page upon which we can try and form some ordered consensus on the naming of all Taiwan-related articles. LukeSurl ^{t c} 23:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• If this page move is enacted, then the proponents of the move you describe above will attempt to wait for some time and see the number of views of [[Taiwan (island)]] and [[Republic of China]] as further evidence in favour of their schemes. GotR ^Talk 01:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• STRONG OPPOSE There is no need to move Taiwan to "Taiwan (Island)" as it makes absolutely no logical sense to do that! This illogical and unnecessary move will confuse readers from the general public. Let the Taiwan article remain as it is, the current Taiwan and NOT "Taiwan (Island)". Let us merge the Republic of China article with this Taiwan article instead! 123.192.93.138 (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose The article is about Taiwan, and following the same format as other island nations such as Iceland, we should keep it just as Taiwan since the Iceland page is not Iceland (Island). 118.167.169.74 (talk) 10:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Many of the opposes (a good example being the one above) come from a desire to have the country article at Taiwan, or the confusion that the Taiwan article is about the country. These opposes don't contradict the supporting argument that the island is not the primary topic, and I suppose actually agree with that idea, as they want the country to be the primary topic. CMD (talk) 14:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I oppose this because I think that the primary topic for the name "Taiwan" is the island country. The main reason this topic is split between two articles (unlike the cases of Iceland, Cuba, Madagascar and Sri Lanka) is that some people want to call the country and the island by different names. This move will be a step away from the goal of a single article, will perpetuate the confusing distinction between the country and its territory, and will create an unnecessary dab page (the cost of which many here seem to underestimate). Kanguole 17:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

They aren't just two different names. The country and the islands aren't coterminous, which is the case of none of the island-countries that you suggested. Taiwan wasn't part of the ROC before 1945 (although Quemoy, Wuchiu and the Matsu Islands were), and even in 2012 there are remote islands of the ROC that aren't considered to be part of Taiwan. Further, I don't think this move is that much relevant to the debate on whether the articles Taiwan and Republic of China should be merged. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 18:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, all four of the island-countries mentioned include other islands besides the main island. older ≠ wiser 18:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Some of the islands of the ROC are part of Taiwan, such as the Green Island, the Pengchia Island, and the Pescadores. Some other islands aren't part of Taiwan, such as Itu Aba, Quemoy, and so on. It's just like the Copeland Islands and the Rathlin Island, which aren't part of Great Britain although they are part of the UK. In the case of Iceland, e.g., all islands are part of Iceland. The same is true for Cuba, etc. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 08:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Those other islands you're referring to comprise 0.5% of the land area of the country, with 0.33% of the population, which hardly seems enough to justify a distinct article for the rest. The Copeland Islands and Rathlin Island of Northern Ireland (which is part of the UK) are completely irrelevant. Kanguole 17:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. The Copelands and Rathlin aren't comparable at all. Although the remote islands of the ROC are insignificant in terms of geography, population size or size of economy, they are important to the contemporary ROC and modern Chinese history in general in terms of politics, history and location. Further, Taiwan (including the Pescadores and the rest of the Taiwanese Archipelago) wasn't part of the ROC before 1945 (yet Quemoy, Wuchiu and the Matsu Islands were). In comparison Iceland the island has always been part of Iceland the country or the Danish/Norwegian dominion, and Cuba the island has always been part of Cuba the country or the former US unincorporated territory/Spanish colony. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

They're important to be sure, but that doesn't justify separate articles for the whole country and the part of the country that has 99.5% of the land and 99.67% of the population. The territory before 1945 is of course relevant to historical articles, and we also have an article on the History of the Republic of China, but most of the literature sees the events of 1949 as a major watershed creating a new situation, for which they use a new nomenclature. It is that situation we should describe. Kanguole 17:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Great Britain perhaps constitutes 97% of the population of the UK, and probably more than 97% in terms of size of economy. The same may perhaps be true for Honshu with respect to Japan, the Lower 48 with respect to the United States, Metropolitan France with respect to France, or Mainland Portugal with respect to Portugal. By the same token I see no reason why we cannot have an article specifically about Taiwan, the main island or the islands as a whole. Further, an important factor is that the Taiwanese islands had a significant separate path of history, and as a result a culture different from the rest of the ROC. But after all this isn't immediately relevant to the move request here. You may want to bring that up instead at Talk:Taiwan or Talk:Republic of China. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 18:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a little bit of clarifications.. 1949 is a watershed, yet the ROC didn't become commonly known as Taiwan from that point onwards, but possibly two or three decades later. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 18:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how it is a step away from a single article. A merge request is independent of any sort of move, and will actually clarify the distinction between the country and article in some ways, such as the temporary prevention of readers clicking on misplaced Taiwan links that were meant to go to the country going to the island instead (and possibly being very confused about this). Could you elaborate on what the cost of a dab is? CMD (talk) 17:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

It's hardly independent, as the rationale for this move is the awkward split between the country and its territory so that people can use a different name for the country. I've described the loss of convenience to readers from a dab above, and commented below about the cost of "fixing" the dab links this will create (effort that will have been wasted if we ever reach a sensible structure). It will just create a useless and costly mess. Kanguole 18:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

That may have been the original reason the page is split, but for now it's best to argue based on current content. I do agree with your opinion, but I think that while the dab is in place it will help readers who would otherwise hit an island article explicitly not focused on the country, which doesn't help them at all. I believe there will be another request to move Republic of China --> Taiwan after this request closes (no matter what the result of this is), which will have to include this move as well, if you're interested. CMD (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe we'll get good results by accepting the content and just moving it around. For example much of the current content of Republic of China won't make sense under the title "Taiwan", and conversely people will expect a country article to cover a lot of stuff that one doesn't. And I also view a dab a less useful than what we have now, as I've already said. If I'm planning a visit to a place, I'll want to know about its history, geography, wildlife, government, economy, culture, cuisine, etc. In the case of Taiwan, I'll find about half of that in the current article, with a hatnote telling me where to look for anything I don't find there. Not as good as Madagascar etc, where I'll find it all in one place, but better than a dab where I'll find none of it and have to guess which article has what I'm interested in. Kanguole 19:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

There are countries that you cannot expect the same thing. The article on the Netherlands, for example, hasn't got much about the culture, wildlife, cuisine, etc., of the BES islands. There are always exceptional cases that we got to work on with special arrangements, and in this case, neither the island (or the islands as a whole) nor the country is the sole primary topic. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. Republic of China is the only country article in Wikipedia lacking coverage of the history, geography and culture of the territory it occupies. Kanguole 23:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

What about South Korea, Republic of Ireland, Pakistan, South Sudan, to name a few? And Republic of Ireland#History in particular? All these articles on divided regions need some certain degree of adaptations from the general norm of other country articles. I'm not suggesting that the ROC article cannot be substantially improved. Just that it can never be compared with articles such as France or New Zealand. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 10:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

They all have coverage of the geography and culture of the area, and only the RoI article has a truncated history. Kanguole 11:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Dab links need to be fixed by humans – see WP:DPL. If you look down that page you'll see that they're working on just under 20,000 links to the top 500 articles, the top one of which has 238 links. I can't imagine they'll be pleased when Taiwan pops up with over 10,000 links. Kanguole 02:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

  So no worries about the work this move will create for other editors, then? Or are the supporters offering to fix a thousand dab links each? Kanguole 11:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't think it's going to be more difficult than fixing the incoming links to Ireland, Washington, Macedonia, Turkey, Congo, Micronesia or Georgia. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 21:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I expect this is an example of what the WP:DPL people call a WP:CONCEPTDAB, as all the meanings of "Taiwan" on the disambiguation page are variations on one concept, unlike say Turkey (the country) and Turkey (bird), which have nothing in common but their name. Kanguole 00:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The bird is actually named after the country. But yes Turkey is a relatively more remote example. Still there are incoming links to Turkey that actually refer to the bird. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 10:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support I have to say this. There are over nearly 1 billion Ghits about the island itself, the sovereign country commonly known as "Taiwan" by foreigners and its culutre. But, there's no primary topic about the word. ApprenticeFan ^work 04:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• STRONGLY OPPOSE Taiwan is the "common name" as indisputably used by the international media for the democratic island country officially known as the Republic of China (Taiwan). Redirecting this article to "Taiwan (Island)" would lower the status of Taiwan from that of country to just a territory, which is precisely what supporters of the People's Republic of China (PRC) would prefer to label it out their continuous efforts to try and claim Taiwan by waging a media war to deceive the general public into believing the Chinese communist propaganda that Taiwan is a so-called "23rd Province" of the People's Republic of China (PRC), which is absolute rubbish with no real world logical justification. The Taiwan article must treated equally in the same manner as other island nations such as the above mentioned Iceland as well as other island nations such as Cuba, Jamaica and Japan in order to comply with Wikipedia policies. If there needs to be any move or redirecting of the article, then I give full support for redirecting the Republic of China (Taiwan) article to the Taiwan article. 118.163.7.55 (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The proposal isn't about moving the country article to Taiwan (island). It's about moving the island article to Taiwan (island). 218.250.159.25 (talk) 21:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

To the closing admin, this is another oppose made under the assumption that this page is about a country, something the move would help to rectify. CMD (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The island of Taiwan and country of Taiwan are the same and all information pertaining to the "island" should be placed in the same article as the country in the same format as other island nations such as United Kingdom, Japan, Cuba and Iceland. Nowhere on any of these articles are the information separated, they are all on the same article because the country and island information should be together.118.163.7.55 (talk) 22:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• I think that the article about the island be moved to Taiwan (island), while the article on Republic of China (the country) should be moved to Taiwan (Taiwan, officially known as Republic of China [...]). Therefore, I would oppose the move of Taiwan (disambiguation) to Taiwan, but conditionally support the move of Taiwan to Taiwan (island). — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 23:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Support per Born2cycle and ApprenticeFan. GotR ^Talk 23:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Relisting comment - unless there's significant movement on this one way or the other, consensus is unlikely. Much better policy based arguments must be made by either side to sway the other. Right now its a stalemate.--Mike Cline (talk) 18:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)