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)

Dab links

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

Edit request

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

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.--Ankit Maity ^TalkContribs 11:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a disambiguation page and all these are taken from the text of the relevant Wikipedia articles. 202.189.108.140 (talk) 12:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: As you say, this is a DAB and not a good place to go into details like "recognised by 22 UN members and the Holy See." Celestra (talk) 15:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the concerns raised above by Celestra. Would the proposer agree with simplifying that clause with "partially recognised sovereign state"? 218.250.159.25 (talk) 09:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

 Not done:First of all, the proposer has not provided reliable sources. And secondly, the consensus tells the proposer is wrong.--Ankit Maity ^{Talk|Contribs} 11:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

What sources would you expect for a disambiguation page? And by the way I don't think there is anything wrong with what he or she proposed. Just that, as Celestra had pointed out, it's too detailed on its partially recognised status. Could you point out what exactly is wrong? 218.250.159.25 (talk) 11:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, actually I meant the detail only.--Ankit Maity ^{Talk|Contribs} 08:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that's rather detailed - to replace the opening paragraph with the script proposed. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 13:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Closing the move request

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

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

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

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

Well we could simply ignore all IP editors and users with small numbers of contributions. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

As it was relisted on the 6th February I'll be giving this until next Tuesday at the earliest, if anyone has any objections by then feel free to make them. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sitting on the fence on the outcome of this proposal, but I don't think either you or I or anyone with a vested Wikipedia-ideological interest in the outcome should be closing this as it appears to be controversial.--Jiang (talk) 00:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Seconded. The quicker way would be to post on WP:AN or a similar noticeboard and ask for administrative attention in closing this. GotR ^Talk 00:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I did so a couple of days ago at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Mlm42 (talk) 06:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

It's fine with me if you close it.. having dragged on for multiple weeks now, it seems pretty clear that it's not going to end in a move anyway. To me, WP:CONCEPTDAB pretty clearly says not to make a disambiguation page in cases like this.. WP:CONCEPTDAB suggests that the "Taiwan" article should either be about the main island, or about the country (sorry if the word "country" offends anyone). Mlm42 (talk) 18:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

On my reading, WP:CONCEPTDAB suggests that the "Taiwan" article should treat the country, the island group and the main island as the same broad topic, and explain the small differences between them in the text. Kanguole 18:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, the country and the island aren't coterminous, and neither of the two concepts is the primary topic. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Right, that's kinda what I meant. Mlm42 (talk) 20:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

That's not how I'd have closed the discussion.

I have had a fairly careful read through the discussion and I'd have almost certainly have closed it as move. Most of the oppose !votes are talking about their view of whether Taiwan should be about the Republic of China or not, and there is only a single argument in favour of the current position which implies that the island is the primary topic for Taiwan - given the number of people who either think the Republic of China, or neither article is the primary topic, then it is fairly clear that the current status quo is inappropriate - additionally the affect on the Republic of China article should be minimal, so people opposing on that grounds should be ignored - other than making it more popular as people who are confused about the current hat note are less likely to be confused by the modal dialog that is a disambiguation page, especially if we limit the disambiguation page to only showing the two most obvious possibilities. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

But the problem is that a lot of the support votes are not actually in favour of what is being proposed.. they are in favour of a move from ROC to Taiwan. And their arguments, combined with WP:CONCEPTDAB, should prevent "Taiwan" from being a disambiguation page. So I really don't think it's a good idea to close this as a move. Mlm42 (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

That's true Mlm42, but if you ignore bad supports as well as bad opposes, I still think policy arguments come out on for a move. I believe that's what Eraserhead1 meant. Of course, I'm involved, biased, confirmation bias, etc etc. There's no denying it's an awful mess though. CMD (talk) 04:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the arguments favour a move, but which move? How does one get around WP:CONCEPTDAB, if "Taiwan" is made into a disambiguation page? Mlm42 (talk) 06:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Its pretty clear the the primary meaning of the term isn't the island, therefore WP:CONCEPTDAB doesn't apply. While there are some support arguments that aren't clear they can easily be ignored - the good support arguments outweigh the good oppose ones.

The only part where there is some controversy is whether Taiwan should be a redirect or a straight disambiguation page, but frankly that's a minor issue compared to the overall move request and that the disambiguation page should be at Taiwan rather than Taiwan (disambiguation) is clear from the guideline WP:DABNAME. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how you can claim that WP:CONCEPTDAB doesn't apply. All the entries in the DAB page are about variations of the same broad concept, the place called "Taiwan", which is precisely the situation CONCEPTDAB describes. Kanguole 13:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

I'm not claiming the island is the primary topic, but rather that the primary topic is the island country (think Iceland, Cuba, Madagascar or Sri Lanka). That is the broad concept of which the country, island group and island are small variations. Kanguole 14:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, but neither the current position, or the position after the move satisfies that view.

Moving Republic of China to this location isn't under discussion on this page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

No, but since we're considering change to the status quo, it is entirely legitimate to think about which change will best serve our readers (by getting them quickly to what they're looking for). Dab pages should be avoided wherever possible (and that's what CONCEPTDAB seeks to do). Kanguole 14:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I suggest we agree to disagree and allow the closing admin to make the decision. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

218.250.159.25

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

I'm inclined to agree, and will ignore their view with regards to closing this. User:42.3.2.237 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has commented fairly extensively above and was also clearly very heavily involved at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Could you cite the official Wikipedia policy that discriminates contributions by IP editors? 218.250.159.25 (talk) 11:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no such policy I'm aware of, and positive contributions from IP editors are very welcome. But in discussions which require knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and conventions, comments from IP editors (especially ones whose first contributions were last week, such as yourself) are obviously not going to be given the same weight as comments from experienced editors. If you want your comments to be taken more seriously, then I suggest you get an account. Mlm42 (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You can't assume or assert IP editors to be less knowledgeable of Wikipedia's politics and conventions than registered editors. You have to judge from what the editors, IP or registered, actually say in the discussions. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

But you are failing to realize one of the main problems with IP addresses: multiple people could potentially use the same IP address. This lack of accountability is problematic.. so although IP editors are welcome to raise points in discussions, they should not expect their opinions to be given the same amount of respect as editors who are willing to register and take some accountability. I don't really understand why you don't just get an account.. in some ways it's more anonymous, since people don't know your IP address.. Mlm42 (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

If there is no such policy, editors and especially administrators have no basis to discriminate them. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 20:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess the policy you're looking for is Wikipedia:Consensus. Things aren't decided by vote, and not all opinions are equal. That's just the way it is. Mlm42 (talk) 20:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Still that isn't a basis to discriminate opinion from IP contributors just because they don't register. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it? I guess it depends on what kind of discrimination. Could I ask why you don't want to register? Mlm42 (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I have tried to point out to the multiple IP editors on related pages that it's much easier to keep track of a conversation involving MlM42, Eraserhead1, SchmuckyTheCat, Jiang and HiLo42, than one involving 218.250.159.25, 202.189.108.245, 59.188.42.63, 118.163.7.55 and 123.192.93.138. (Yes, all those IP addresses appear above.) I'm certainly not good at keeping track of (up to) twelve digit numbers (even though I actually worked as an IT network engineer for some years!), and I'd expect most other people would have the same trouble. Humans give each other names for good reasons. Totalitarian regimes have forced people to be known by numbers at times rather than names in order to dehumanise them. So yes, it's legal to choose not to register, but why on earth would you do it? It certainly leaves me thinking that such editors are somewhat odd. HiLo48 (talk) 06:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

IP editing is fine if all you want to do is make a few spelling corrections, or possibly make 1-2 comments on something or add something controversial, beyond that really you should register. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there any basis from Wikipedia policies? 218.250.159.25 (talk) 13:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Re HiLo48: Do you have any telephone number, passport or SSN#? 218.250.159.25 (talk) 13:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)