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

"or in an infobox clearly visible" should be specified, as this is already standard practice

@JohnBlackburne: Regarding this edit.

It's not a "significant change" to a "long-established guideline". I fixed the wording to accurately reflect how the guideline is applied in articles, and to be more in accord with more authoritative guidelines that (appear to) directly contradict the wording before my edit. MOS:FORLANG, for instance, forbids the use of more than one foreign equivalent in the lead sentence, to prevent cluttering between "Topic X ... is Y." Admittedly, all four of Traditional Chinese, Simplified Chinese, Hanyu Pinyin and Wade-Giles could be taken as just one foreign equivalent, but that would really contradict the spirit of FORLANG, if not the letter, as four between two and four different ways of writing the Mandarin equivalent of the topic's name is more cluttersome than two foreign equivalents that are both written in the same writing system as English.

And I literally can't recall ever seeing a Wikipedia guideline that gave a specific instruction, and linked to an "example" article that had, for as long as I can remember, contradicted said instruction. Seriously, look at the Li Bai article and tell me where in the first sentence are both the Chinese characters and the Hanyu Pinyin representation for [his name].

The burden is actually on you to find where the previous wording was supported by a consensus, because otherwise the guideline should be worded descriptively, to reflect how articles on Chinese topics are actually written, and most of the best articles with the most watchers do not conform to your wording. Mao Zedong, for example, has 972 watchers, and I find it hard to believe that none of them have ever read MOS:CHINA if your wording is actually a "long-established guideline".

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Guidelines are established by consensus, i.e. by discussion such as here, so here we are. Your first point is incorrect. WP:LEAD does not override this guideline, instead it is the other way round. This guideline provides language-specific guidelines which are not covered by the general guideline. At times that means it will seem at odds with general guidelines, such as WP:LEAD. But that means we should not use WP:LEAD to rewrite this guideline. We should look for other evidence, or other arguments.

Having both Chinese and pinyin is normal and in line with MOS:FORLANG which has an example with Ukrainian and the Romanisation of it. Having both Traditional and Simplified is unusual and is only done when appropriate. The same is true of other Romanisations, such as for Cantonese. I agree that having multiple Romanisations for Mandarin is normally redundant; pinyin is overwhelmingly used today, and any other adds nothing. There may be particular cases though when it is useful, such as when an older Romanisation is the basis for the name of the person/place in English. As with providing traditional with simplified Chinese it should be left to editors judgement.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I guess the argument is that if all this information (and more) is there in {{infobox Chinese}}, it's redundant clutter to repeat it in the opening sentence, and breaks the flow of the text. I have some sympathy for that, especially where people are insisting on additional forms of a name. Kanguole 01:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@JohnBlackburne: Guidelines are established by consensus, i.e. by discussion such as here, so here we are. Ideally, yes, but in this case, if you cannot point to a prior consensus for your wording, the default position should be to describe how the majority of prominent articles already are written. That is the de facto consensus when no prior discussion has taken place. Perhaps a large number of obscure articles with one significant contributor each are in accordance with your wording, but the ones that have been pored over by a lot of long-term contributors generally don't seem to be so. WP:LEAD does not override this guideline, instead it is the other way round. Please read WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. If a small group of editors on the Chinese WikiProject or on this talk page (I'm not sure how much overlap there is there) take the view that Chinese articles should be written one way, and the overwhelming community consensus that led to the current wording of MOS:LEAD says otherwise, the latter takes precedence over the former. The one exception is if there are some special arguments to be made for an exception to the general rule which, like I said a few weeks ago on the LEAD talk page, I am open to. But I don't even think the local consensus is against my wording here: the guideline as you reverted it contradicts itself, by citing an article on a well-known Tang poet as an example of the guideline, but the article in question actually contradicts the guideline. It's not like the Li Bai article is overrun with editors who have no understanding of the Chinese language and are enforcing a general guideline that isn't working for Chinese articles; if it wasn't working for Chinese articles, then Chinese articles wouldn't already be overwhelmingly in line with it.

Having both Chinese and pinyin is normal and in line with MOS:FORLANG which has an example with Ukrainian and the Romanisation of it. Except that Ukrainian and the romanization of it are small and generally don't clutter the lead sentence a whole lot; this is not really the same as Chinese articles, of which quite a few have good reason to give two different native script equivalents and some even two or more romanizations. Having both Traditional and Simplified is unusual and is only done when appropriate. The same is true of other Romanisations, such as for Cantonese. Now we're talking! That's an interesting argument and I might be inclined to agree with it, but the guideline here still should account for such problems. Let's say we rewrote it to say that, if it seems appropriate to provide more than one Mandarin romanization or a romanized form of a topolect pronunciation, then only one romanized form should be provided in the lead sentence and the rest should be included in an infobox. We're in quick sand when it comes to, say, removing pinyin romanizations from the lead sentences of Taiwanese articles or all Mandarin romanizations from the lead sentences of Hong Kong articles, but that's another question. I agree that having multiple Romanisations for Mandarin is normally redundant; pinyin is overwhelmingly used today, and any other adds nothing. Hold on, I didn't say that. When it comes to reliable sources on classical Chinese literature written in English and published by university presses, Wade-Giles still appears to be the preferred system, so cutting WG completely from articles like the aforementioned Li Bai is unacceptable (although I have no problem limiting it to inclusion in the infobox, since Wikipedia is entitled to an in-house style). As with providing traditional with simplified Chinese it should be left to editors judgement. I don't know. Again, in most articles only one is really relevant, except to people who are very interested in gaining a deep knowledge of the topic. For the average reader, simplified characters are little more than off-topic window-dressing in articles on Tang poets, and the same is true of traditional characters in articles on the films of Zhang Yimou. Even if we are leaving it to editors' judgement, shouldn't we provide this kind of advice for them?

@Kanguole: No, that's the argument for having the information in the infobox as opposed to the lead sentence, which is not what my first comment was really about (although it is what most of the preceding paragraph is about). I don't actually have an opinion on whether it should be one way or the other, and that wasn't what motivated me to make the edit that was reverted. I think that, whether consensus is that we should go one way or that we should go the other, the wording of this guideline should accurately reflect that. I don't see anywhere on this talk page that the current wording was established by consensus, so all we have is articles that have been edited a lot of times by a lot of different editors. Historically, I've edited a lot more articles on Japanese topics than Chinese, and MOS:JAPAN also contravenes the letter, if not necessarily the spirit, of MOS:FORLANG, and I have never had a problem with that. The problem is that, with Chinese topics, the preponderance of articles that require three or four parenthesized foreign equivalents is quite large, which I had always assumed was why Infobox Chinese works the way it does and why so many prominent Chinese articles don't give Chinese equivalents in the first sentence. As I said, I don't actually have a strong opinion on this (see my recent edits to WT:MOSLEAD where I was arguing the opposite case), but the wording of the guideline should accurately reflect, if not a clear community consensus, common practice as indicated by the status quo of the affected articles; it should not reflect an artificial ideal that runs contrary to common practice.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment: I've long felt that our leads' opening lines need a good de-cluttering, but I'm also a fan of including linguistic information in an accessible form. I think the best option would be to specify that the opening line should have one set of characters (either S or T, as appropriate), with pinyin being included only if the article's topic is known primarily as a translated term (for example, Communist Party of China), and I don't think it's needed (in the opening line) even for cases like Tsien Tsuen-hsuin; all the other character, dialect, and other linguistic information could then go in a nice {{Infobox Chinese}}. This seems the cleanest and most robust solution to me. It's about time we discuss this, as the original doctrine on the opening sentence–infobox issue was created in this edit, which, as one can see, dates to July 2004 (12½ years ago), back in Wikipedia's infancy.  White Whirlwind  咨  02:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@White Whirlwind: That solution is also fine by me, but I'd probably add that if we are using the pinyin (without tone marks) for a proper name that's usually written in WG in English we should also include the WG. If we are going to call the articles Laozi and Bai Juyi then hiding the more common English spellings in the "Transcriptions" tab in the infobox is silly.

It's also not entirely clear what you mean by "accessible form"; I agree with you on that point, but I had always assumed that the reason a lot of articles don't include this information in the opening sentence is because Infobox Chinese makes it redundant (indeed, there's no point including the Simplified, Traditional and various romanizations in an infobox, if they are already in the opening sentence).

Then there's the problem that I'm largely responsible for, that this started as a discussion of MOS:FORLANG and its relationship to this page, but actually if the title of the article is a Chinese proper name (as the examples I gave about) it's not really the same as if it's a translation. If we are using the pinyin spelling without tone marks as the title, then should the tone-marked pinyin be deprecated to the infobox?

I think we should make a list of the problems that need addressing:

1. If the title is a Chinese proper name written in pinyin (without tone marks) and the article includes an infobox, should the Chinese text be included the opening sentence?
2. If the title is a Chinese proper name written in pinyin (without tone marks) and the article includes an infobox, should the tone-marked pinyin be included the opening sentence?
3. If the answer to (1) is "Yes", should it be only one of Simplified or Traditional?
4. If the answer to (3) is "Yes", which form for which articles?
5. Should the maximum limit on the number of Chinese forms of a name included in the lead sentence be set at two, and if it is necessary to go over then all Chinese forms except the name of the article be in the infobox rather than the opening sentence?
6. Do any of the above deserve to be considered but ultimately not addressed specifically on this MOS page?
7. If the article title is not in pinyin, should non-tone-marked pinyin be discouraged?

Have I missed anything?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

By the way, I hadn't actually noticed until "Ctrl+F"ing WP:LEAD for "Chinese" just now, but actually most instances of it are under WP:LEADCLUTTER, where a mostly-Mongolia-related-but-also-China-related article was explicitly called out. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Replying to this: Ideally, yes, but in this case, if you cannot point to a prior consensus for your wording, the default position should be to describe how the majority of prominent articles already are written. No, that is not how it works. At the top of this guideline, as on most others, it has Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page. If you therefore want to change the guideline you should first seek consensus, perhaps with a RFC on the particular change you want to make. As White whirlwind noted this has been a long established guideline, one probably thousands of editors have referred to and not had a problem with. It might be time to change it, but it should not be changed lightly.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

At the top of this guideline, as on most others, it has [...] Again, the text you quoted and I cut assumes guidelines are authoritative and already have been formed by consensus. In this case, the clear consensus was already in favour of my wording, as it didn't change an authoritative guideline to say what I wanted it to say; it changed the wording to match how the guideline is already being implemented and apparently has been for a long time. The wording as you restored it is self-contradictory, and you still haven't accounted for this. If you therefore want to change the guideline you should first seek consensus, perhaps with a RFC on the particular change you want to make. Again, this isn't about what I "want". I don't really care which style we go with (although I lean slightly toward the one in use in the example article over the one prescribed in the text). I would be happy to open an RFC to determine whether we should go with the style prescribed in the current text of the guideline or the style employed in the cited example, but you need to help me figure out exactly what else, if anything, the RFC should be about. (Please read the list of questions above and tell me if I missed anything!) this has been a long established guideline, one probably thousands of editors have referred to and not had a problem with Then tell me why none of our articles except the stubs no one has edited and very few people have read actually follow it! Admittedly, your "thousands of editors" is likely an exaggeration (the page has 96 watchers, presumably almost all of them among the 373 members of WP:CHINA, and the number of editors who have read and understood the sentence in question and implemented it in writing articles is probably no more than three or four times that number), but I really can't imagine thousands of people have read the guideline carefully enough to be taken as approving of it, but not have read it carefully enough to notice that it contradicts itself. It might be time to change it, but it should not be changed lightly. It already has been changed. You may not realize it, but the majority of our well-established and frequently-viewed China articles already follow a new, apparently unwritten, version of the guideline. All I did was update the wording to match how it is implemented in articles, including in the Li Bai article. Yes, I admit that I do remember an old version of Wikipedia some years ago that did in fact include both the Chinese characters and the Hanyu Pinyin representation for [the names of articles on Chinese topics] in [their] first sentence[s], but it is no longer the case. At the very least, if you think the wording should not be updated to match the current trend, then you need to find another example to link to because, currently, the example contradicts the wording of the guideline itself. Personally I would much rather open an RFC to resolve this definitively, but if you are not going to help in forming the RFC question then I can't be held responsible. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@JohnBlackburne: I actually hadn't checked until just now, but the diff White whirlwind provided above actually showed that wording similar to my edit was put in place back in 2004. At some point since 2004, the text , or in a box to the right in the introduction. was removed. Can you point me to the consensus discussion that decided it should be removed? It seems a significant proportion of our articles, including the example linked, already follow the convention that was established in 2004 as opposed to the more recent wording. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@JohnBlackburne: I really need to be more careful. My change did not change the nature of this guideline in any way. It was a cosmetic alteration. Currently, the first sentence of MOS:CHINA#Introductory sentences reads Any encyclopedia entry with a title that is a Chinese proper name should include both the Chinese characters and the Hanyu Pinyin representation for their names in the first sentence. This appears to contradict the example of the Li Bai article and several others, but actually three paragraphs down we get Where there is more than one parameter in use in a given article a Infobox Chinese box can be used instead of zh. This removes the characters, romanization and pronunciations from the opening sentence, thus making it more readable[.] This means that the wording is on its face self-contradictory. The first sentence of the section should be changed to fix this. the a before Infobox Chinese should be changed to "an" as well, which is English grammar my Japanese 7th graders know. I'll implement the latter change now, and wait for your approval on the former since you already reverted it once and seem to be still under the impression that it was a substantive change to the nature of the guideline. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• @JohnBlackburne: I have reverted back per the above. That said, I looked at the page history a bit, and it turns out the above grammatical error was inserted by you a couple years back, when you made a significant edit to the guideline and in your edit summary misleadingly called it a "copy edit".[1] I cannot find any discussion on this talk page about how editors can "consider" adding both simplified and traditional characters, but you removed the statement that editors "should" add both. I'm sorry if I'm missing some context, and I'm sorry to nitpick, but it's something of a pet peeve of mine to have my minor stylistic fixes to PAG pages described as "significant changes" by users who themselves are (apparently) guilty of just that. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• Why go against the normative method used for articles about every other nation and language on Earth (excepting Japanese)? Peter the Great has like three iterations of his name plus the Russian and Russian Romanization in the first line. Every other article about a topic concerning a non-Roman alphabet language topic first gives the normative English spelling, then the non-Roman alphabet spelling and then a pronunciation guide for the foreign word. Shanghai has the characters right after the first word. Guangzhou Hong Kong and Hu Jintao do too. All four of these articles go on to have boxes with some specialized pronunciation info; something in the lead plus the box with specialized info seems perfect to me! Check out Seoul, Tehran, Isfahan, St. Petersburg, Vladivostok, Yangon, Mandalay, Yerevan, Medina, etc. Why go against the normative method for every other nation and language on Earth (excepting Japanese)? The real consensus that I see is to give some characters and a pronunciation guide in the lead and at the same time use the box for some of the more obscure info, like Wade Giles, Postal spelling, Pre-Wade Giles, Local pronunciations, Yitizi, literal translations, etc. I feel there is no need to hide the Chinese characters and Pinyin tone marks. Having that in the lead while simultaneously giving us a little side box with the specialized info seems perfect. I say, instead of saying either in the style guide, it should say and/or. Here's my change: Any encyclopedia entry with a title that is a Chinese proper name should include both the Chinese characters and the Hanyu Pinyin representation for their names in the first sentence and/or in an infobox clearly visible in the lead. Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:17, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Traditional and simplified Chinese markup

This needs to cover proper {{lang}}, {{lang|xx}}, and {{zh}} markup for distinguishing between traditional and simplified Chinese (generally) as well as different Chinese languages and dialects. An informal overview of this can be found here; we may need additional template work to be able to handle this. E.g. {{lang-zh_HANS}} does not exist, etc.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  22:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this is probably a good idea.  White Whirlwind  咨  14:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Any encyclopedia entry with a title that is a Chinese proper name should include both the Chinese characters and the Hanyu Pinyin representation for their names in either the first sentence or in an infobox clearly visible in the lead. The article title i

"Any encyclopedia entry with a title that is a Chinese proper name should include both the Chinese characters and the Hanyu Pinyin representation for their names in either the first sentence or in an infobox clearly visible in the lead. The article title itself is normally the pinyin representation with the tone marks omitted: "Mao Zedong", not "Máo Zédōng", unless another spelling is common (see below)."

This policy is absurd. Every article about a foreign language topic on Wikipedia has a little something about the relevant foreign word right after the English word in the article.

Why can't Chinese be normal too?

The decade of debates on the subject which I imagine you must have had to come to this ridiculous policy really makes no difference: it was the wrong conclusion.

This should be changed immediately. You can't see the characters for Li Bai's name when you open the page.

I love having the language box off to the side when you need it to explain some of the complicated aspects of a name or some of the rarer transcriptions, but's that's no reason to make it seem like there are no Chinese characters for the name Li Bai.

Every other langauge (except maybe Japanese?) doesn't do it this way.

"in either the first sentence or in an infobox" should be "in the first sentence and/or in an infobox"

Wake up. Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. This is an old issue here that dates to an arbitrary (wasn't discussed) addition back in 2007. It has come up a few times since but there's never been enough consensus to change it, if memory serves.  White Whirlwind  咨  20:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I would support including the characters and pinyin (with tone markers) in the lede, as a policy. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I propose that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) be merged into Wikipedia:Manual of Style/China and Chinese-related articles. The two have large overlaps and are both of reasonable sizes that the merging will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Szqecs (talk) 08:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

How does this merger make sense when MoS pertains to article content and Naming Conventions article titles? CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 14:09, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

The MOS pages for Canada, Ireland, Malaysia, France, Poland and Singapore all deal with titles. Szqecs (talk) 14:56, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the Chinese infobox display both Simplified and Traditional Chinese for all Greater China and/or Sinosphere-related subjects, or should it only display the relevant ones per territory/area?

A per these discussions User_talk:Kdm852#Chinese_infobox and User_talk:WhisperToMe#Chinese Naming: There is a question on whether the Template:Chinese infobox should display both Traditional and Simplified Chinese for all relevant subjects, or whether it should omit Simplified or Traditional Chinese depending upon the subject.

If only Traditional or Simplified forms would be displayed, then this could happen:

• Several Mainland China/People's Republic of China-related topics post-1949 and those of Singapore and Malaysia would only have Simplified Chinese
• Hong Kong, Macau, and Republic of China (Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, Matsu) topics would have Traditional Chinese

Thank you, WhisperToMe (talk) 17:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• That introduces risk of conflict WRT things like diaspora articles. For that matter, the Traditional Chinese alphabet isn't the only alphabet in recorded Chinese history either. Should all articles between Zhou and Qin use only Seal Script? I'd say, no, let's keep both alphabets in infoboxes where possible. Simonm223 (talk) 17:07, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
• The infobox doesn't distract from the flow of the text, so having extra information there harms nobody. Therefore, there's no harm in including both Simplified & Traditional characters in the infobox. Phlar (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
• I see no reason not to have both.  White Whirlwind  咨  20:24, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
• I too see no reason to not have both. Nowadays with global media, internet and communications people are exposed to both routinely. Only a few places set down rules over which is to be preferred, elsewhere including all western countries there are no such rules and you see both. So for a topic if it has distinct simplified and traditional forms both are correct, neither is better, and the infobox is the ideal place for both and any Romanisations that make sense.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
• I disagree, but first, let me lay out what I tried to suggest to the OP in our previous discussion. It wasn't that we should include one or the other, but that in some instances, one may be irrelevant. For example, simplified is never used in Taiwan, and I would suggest that as such, articles which are solely related to Taiwan should not include simplified characters (eg Maokong Gondola). It is misleading to the reader as it suggests both are equally applicable in said context and they aren't. Likewise, articles on topics which are solely within the scope of the PRC after the introduction of the simplified script should not include traditional characters (eg CMG Headquarters, which, you'll notice, it currently does not). For a number of different articles, there is an obvious case to include both:

• Articles about Chinese historical topics which extend beyond the introduction of simplified Chinese (eg Tongmenghui), or
• Articles which apply to both a simplified literate jurisdiction as well as a traditional literate one (eg Hong Kong Basic Law), or where both are commonly used (eg Malaysian Chinese Association) which, to address a previous comment, would include diaspora issues.

It seems to me that wikipedia is not a translation dictionary, and the idea is to give the reader a clear indication of the actual situation and not just as much information as possible. After all, the argument could also be used to include Japanese or Tibetan in the infoboxes since this gives more information to readers, but it's a distraction, and often not actually relevant. Also, since wikipedia gives the ability to link to the Chinese language articles as well, which can be switched from traditional to simplified script, and reader familiar with those can still really access this information if they are interested.Kdm852 (talk) 00:14, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

• You mean what gets used in |c= is displayed in two fields with both typefaces, or are we talking about an auto-converter here? Szqecs (talk) 03:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

• I'm talking about both. The general use, or inclusion, of each particular script based on the relevance to the content of the article.Kdm852 (talk) 03:21, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
• So you are talking about how the template should be used, rather than to change the template? Szqecs (talk) 03:46, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

* Not just the template, just seeking consensus on a stylistic issue of when and where to use which script, both scripts, etc, since there are regional differences. In a similar way to why there would be little sense in including the Cantonese romanisation in an article that was about an issue that didn't have anything to do with it. The inclusion itself suggests that it is significant to the issue, as opposed to simply being a transliteration. Kdm852 (talk) 04:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

• Have both. The Chinese infobox takes little space, and the extra information adds value at little cost. Most foreigners studying Chinese learn simplified characters, so having them is useful on English wikipedia. -Zanhe (talk) 03:14, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

• I would argue that's irrelevant, wikipedia is not a language textbook. It should be about which is relevant to the topic at hand. If the students of Chinese want to know the simplified or traditional form when it isn't given, they can check the Chinese wiki themselves very easily. For those who aren't learning Chinese and just want the information relevant to the article, giving both is often misleading. Kdm852 (talk) 04:38, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

• It would be great to have both across all topics. I see no reason to prioritize either on different topics. Hayman30 (talk) 09:01, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
• I don't know about Hong Kong, Macau, Singapore and Malaysia, but there is no consensus to apply these guidelines to Taiwan-related topics. Given the controversial nature, I would say Taiwan-related articles should not have simplified. Szqecs (talk) 09:49, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

• I mean my Chinese reading comprehension isn't the greatest, but what I can read is in Simplified, fwiw. So if there's an article that lacks Simplified text and I want to read the Chinese phrasing, I'm probably running Traditional through Google translate, which imposes a risk of errors. I suspect that in the (admittedly small) category of English / Mandarin bilingual foreigners with limited Chinese literacy, I've a relatively normal experience here. The Simplified has value/ Simonm223 (talk) 11:48, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

• As I said above, in this case you can check the simplified Chinese wiki. The purpose of wikipedia is not to teach you Chinese. You could use this argument to support the inclusion of any language translation, even completely irrelevant ones. Kdm852 (talk) 01:05, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• We should not rely on other websites, even the Chinese Wikipedia, in order to give relevant information we can easily give ourselves. The native names in the native scripts are relevant information; the name in other languages is not. —Kusma (t·c) 09:03, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• That's sort of my point. The Simplified Chinese form is not an "native script" in Hong Kong, or in Taiwan, and therefore should not be included.Kdm852 (talk) 09:18, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• We should keep both. It is difficult to determine exactly which articles should only have one of the scripts (Taiwanese singers that are big in mainland China? Taiwanese companies with factories in mainland China? Traditional Chinese is also widely used in calligraphy in all simplified-Chinese areas). We should only show just one if we don't know reliably what is correct for the other style (for example, both 台 and 臺 are frequently used in Taiwan-related traditional Chinese: Taiwan Beer is 台灣啤酒, the Taiwan Tobacco and Liquor Corporation is 臺灣菸酒公司). If there are possible variations, we shouldn't use our own, but stick with the sources. —Kusma (t·c) 09:03, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• I don't see it as being all that difficult. For Taiwanese singers who are popular on the Mainland, there is a case to be made that both be used (it would be somewhat akin to adopting an English name when touring overseas, which would also be included in the article). For the municipal government in a small part of Taitung city, there is not any need to include Simplified since it is not used in that context. I made the same point above when speaking about diaspora issues, I don't see it as being any more difficult than, say, knowing when to give Chinese as well as Japanese names for things (for example Japanese occupation of Hong Kong or Momofuku Ando). It should be a fairly simple matter to establish a few clear set of criteria, as I tried to do above, and if they are understood, there should be very few instances of contention. I think there could also be a parallel drawn between this and the use of Commonwealth vs US standards of English. Usually one or the other is used, but in instances where there is variation, and both may be applied, this is quickly and easily identified in the article (I am not saying an entirely different script is the same as different spellings, but merely trying to find some sort of precedent for a situation that at the moment seems to have none). Also, your point about 台 vs 臺 kind of reinforces my point; usually there is one officially used variation (in company names, for example), but on other occasions both may be used (as is the case for 台灣/臺灣), and when both are relevant, both are given, when there is only one, only one is used. Kdm852 (talk) 09:27, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment This is starting to look like WP:SNOW and WP:1AM here. While I respect Kdm852's passion, they have not provided a compelling case for excluding useful information whereas several editors have pointed out the utility of inclusion. Simonm223 (talk) 12:35, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support both styles for all Chinese world articles - While it is true Wikipedia isn't strictly speaking a Chinese dictionary/learning guide, it's important to know the Chinese characters to help find resources in Chinese about the subject. We do have automated converters and OCR readers, but sometimes those are inaccessible and it helps learning/memorizing both forms to find sources on either side of the strait. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:18, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Sino-

Should the prefix "Sino-" be used for both China and Taiwan? For example, Sino-Mongolian relations. Kaldari (talk) 22:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

No. "Sino-" as a prefix means China, i.e. China. It’s not really a separate word, just the prefix form of "China", just like Anglo is the prefix form of "English". For the example you give just search for "Sino-Mongolian relations" on the internet, and all the items it finds are to do with Mongolia and China today, at least when I try it. Seems it’s a popular thing to write about.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 08:16, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Agreed with above: No. This should only be used for topics as they relate to China. There's a list of national prefixes here [2] Kdm852 (talk) 08:47, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Naming administrative divisions of China within articles

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This RfC had two separate questions. There seemed to be a rough consensus that administrative level designations may be necessary for disambiguation depending on context. There wasn't consensus as to whether there is a specific administrative level cutoff above which disambiguation is always unnecessary, although there was agreement that major cities do not need administrative level disambiguators. For the second question of whether the administrative level descriptors should be capitalized, the raw vote was three editors who clearly support using lowercase letters (unless it's a proper name), two editors who appeared to support always using uppercase, and a remaining three editors who did not express clear opinions. Given a small numerical lead and that their arguments were more clearly rooted in existing guidelines (namely MOS:CAPS), I am going to close this as a weak consensus to use lowercase letters for administrative levels when the administrative level is not part of a proper name. I'll also note that if this question had been closed as "no consensus", the most relevant guideline to follow would be MOS:CAPS, leading to the exact same style recommendation. Finally, it wasn't explicitly discussed by most participants, but based on the examples of desired usage provided by various editors, it seems like there's an implicit consensus to not put administrative levels inside parentheses in article text. (non-admin closure) _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:46, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

---

Recently the WP:ITN nomination of 2019 Xiangshui chemical plant explosion made me realize that we don't have a consistent style for administrative divisions of China. Here's the full example:

On 21 March 2019, a major explosion occurred at a chemical plant in Chenjiagang (Town), Xiangshui (County), Yancheng, Jiangsu (Province), China.

Each of these parentheses represents an optional descriptor which can be seen in many English-language sources about China. (I have omitted the city level as it is very uncommon to append "city" or "prefecture" to the end of these.) For each level in question (town, county, province), we want to answer:

1. Should the administrative level descriptor be present?
2. If so, should it be written in uppercase (Chenjiagang Town) or lowercase (Chenjiagang town)?

Thanks, RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 05:29, 5 May 2019 (UTC). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:09, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: Adding RfC to increase participation. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• Hm. Given the largely-static provincial boundaries, and the sheer size of China, I'd vote yes to the first question; and for the former (letters in majuscule) for the second. However, I'd argue that prefecture-level city is needed; taking the Xiangshui example, I'd advocate the following: "Chenjiagang Town, Xiangshui County, Yancheng City, Jiangsu, China". (I've left off the "province" descriptor, for consistency. We wouldn't say "Manitoba Province", now, would we?) —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 04:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

  I think for the city we should just follow common usage, e.g. how its Wikipedia article does it. For big cities at least, something like Xihu District, Hangzhou City, Zhejiang, China just looks absolutely ridiculous. (By the way, on provinces, I think there is a big difference between English-speaking and non-English-speaking countries. Take for example, Gifu Prefecture, Japan, where prefecture is the first-level division in Japan. I'm not arguing that we should include "province", just that it is not obvious we shouldn't.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

  To my mind, adding the qualifiers in brackets every time seems needlessly tedious. I think it should suffice to use the names without the (town/city/province) since the format of the address should make it fairly obvious where the deliniation is, and if someone needs further clarification, they can follow the link. So, the above example would simply read: Chenjiagang, Xiangshui, Yancheng, Jiangsu, China. Kdm852 (talk) 05:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment In the circumstance that the locations are presented in successive words covering many administrative levels, then "Chenjiagang Town, Xiangshui County, Yancheng City, Jiangsu Province, China" would be useful to clearly establish what each entry in the short list is, ensure everything below the China level is presented consistently, and give a rough idea of the relationship of the entries. (No brackets needed, as it's not unusual to see Town/City/Province in sources.) However, outside of the situation where such a strict list is needed, and even in shorter lists of 2 or 3 levels, I wouldn't the descriptors by default. For the provinces certainly, there is plenty of usage in English sources without the word "Province", and I agree with above that for big cities it is unnecessary. CMD (talk) 09:10, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• Include the labels only when necessary in the context; do not capitalize them per MOS:CAPS (they are not proper names or parts of proper names but clariciation/disambiguation labels, like "cat" in "Siamese cat", and "state" in "New York state", and "nation of and US state of" in "don't confuse the nation of Georgia with the US state of Georgia". In proper name cases, do capitalize (e.g. Terrebonne Parish, Lousiana; County Down, Ireland). Also, do not specify locations in this much detail when not necessary to do so, for the same reason we do not write "San Francisco (city), San Francisco County, California state, United States of America".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, cities should not be appended with their administrative division, constitutionally, the administrative division is Province-County-Town, and prefecture is created after that, but for as long as I'm concerned, I don't think it would be necessary to append divisional rank above the county level, as most of those boundary rarely change. Viztor (talk) 02:15, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
• Include the labels only when needed in the context. Include a bit more "levels" info, but don't go overboard Agree with SMcCandlish's points which were the same ones I was going to make. To that I would add,due to the size of China, and the unfamiliarity of a typical English Wikipedia with internal Chinese geographical definitions, a bit more explanation or maybe info on one extra level is typically needed compared to, e.g. a place in the USA. North8000 (talk) 12:21, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
• Question 1 - Use administrative level descriptors when necessary for disambiguation, but not in other cases. Question 2 – Use lowercase.Naomi.piquette (talk) 00:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Citations of Chinese-language sources

A Following up the conversation here, there was a consensus that reliable academic sources on China do not use a post-surname comma in their citations but there seemed to be some confusion (and reluctance) about the difficulty involved in creating a new template to deal with the issue.

There's no such need. The existing default templates handle the formatting perfectly well, and how to use the |authormask= should simply be explained here.

B For people coming here to look at formatting for articles on China, we should repeat the rule at MOS:ROMANIZATION that the (in this case pinyin) romanization must be included for the English Wiki. It's the native name in characters and translation that are optional. (Personally, I've seen both: citations of Chinese sources that have only the characters—making it illegible to most readers without a cut/paste trip to Google Translate—and citations giving only translated names, making it difficult to find the intended source.)

C Whirlwind and specialist publications may follow Chicago Manual style of adding the Chinese characters immediately after the names of authors and titles but our house style is to put foreign text into parentheses. Seeing different formatting in the citations too often seems like it could start bleeding over into the articles; I'd think we should highlight that issue or have an optional citation example using parentheses for the foreign text.

That seems more contentious, though, so I won't emend that part of the guideline pending some discussion here. — LlywelynII 03:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh, D

...each word capitalized, the rest given in lowercase unless they are proper nouns...

is self-contradictory. Personally, I'm completely in favor of at least permitting use of Wikipedia's standard title case and capitalizations (e.g., Hànxué zhī Shū and Wenzi Gaige Chubanshe). I'm aware specialist publications avoid both (e.g., Hànxué zhī shū and Wenzi gaige chubanshe) but it seems like an eyesore unless the rest of the page follows French conventions as well.

If we're going to advise/mandate following pinyin's internal capitalization rules here, we should make that clearer, possibly link to the relevant article, and use it consistently. (The previous version of the guideline capitalized Hànyǔ Fāngyán Gàiyào but then wrote the publisher's name in the French style.) — LlywelynII 04:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I didn't realize that |author-mask= could be used in this way, and it's certainly better than putting everything in the |author= field, but I still don't think this page should be promoting it.

It is true that names of East Asian authors are often written without the comma in citations in specialist publications on Chinese or Japanese topics, where the target audience all know the convention, but Wikipedia is supposed to be a general-purpose work, targeted at a broad audience. In addition, Chinese and Japanese authors often publish on other topics that are likely to have wider audiences. In publications in global topics like the sciences, it is common to mark all authors' family names in citations in a uniform manner. For example, Nature uses "Zhou, L. P." and "Clark, J. D.", while Science uses "L. P. Zhou" and "J. D. Clark". This allows readers to identify the surnames (which are a key identifier of citations, and also used in short citations), without assuming knowledge of regional name conventions.

By the way, I personally find the aliases |surname= and |given= less confusing than |last= and |first= when dealing with Chinese and Japanese names, and especially when mixed with Western names. Kanguole 13:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

It's always good to have a discussion. Regarding the preference to have foreign terms in parentheses, I think it's fine either way. I avoid consulting unvetted essay-type pages like WP:Writing better articles as a matter of course, though. In any case, the issue of what so-called "specialist publications" follow is thornier than one might think, because rather than being abstruse and erudite things no one pays attention to, such publications tend to be the defining publications of the field in question, and so their (ostensible) idiosyncrasies can't just be brushed aside. This problem plagues WP:WikiProject Law and WP:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, which insist on using the rather sui generis Bluebook style in their articles for all sources, not just cases (a policy I disagree with). Regarding Kanguole's use of surname/given fields, I agree that it's clearer, but old habits and inculcations die hard.  White Whirlwind  咨  05:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with Kanguole's advocacy for usage of commas, a la Nature style, to make clear the surname ordering (I personally think those who don't know Chinese/Korean/Vietnamese surname ordering live under a rock). As to B in LlywelynII's OP, in some cases, due to the ambiguity of pinyin, strict-to-the-letter adherence of MOS:ROMANIZATION is impractical if one wants to "reverse engineer" the original title without clicking through multiple links; insistence on Mandarin pinyin romanization in Chinese-language sources is also an obvious non-starter for Hong Kong and Macau sources. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 06:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@Carardhras: that's not my policy or even ours. It's MOS:ROMANIZATION, is already what this page says, and is universal across Wikipedia. You're welcome to propose changing that, but it's not where we are now.

As far as mistreating Chinese names as western ones needing a comma, at the very least the page should be explaining how to use |author-mask= and that the option exists to format them correctly (afaik every nation on Earth now defaults to pinyin romanization of Chinese names which are written in this order; as Caradhras admits, that should at this point be as well understood as Beijing and Guangzhou: President Xi/Xi Jinping is on the news every week even if they missed Mao; the template further clarifies exactly what went into each field for the curious), despite the western default of Wikipedia's templates. Using |surname= instead of |last= isn't a major issue but it is silly: Chinese people might misunderstand 最后的名字 when they aren't taught better but Americans and Brits know exactly that "last name" is simply the much more common way to say "family name".

Apparently the wording should be clearer about the optional nature of the translations, as well, although I'll obviously leave that to Kanguole to decide. — LlywelynII 03:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I've given the argument for uniform treatment above, but I'll add that citations are different from running text, where one doesn't see "Smith, John" either. Kanguole 16:55, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I thought LlywelynII's B went without saying. The policy mandates romanizations, and just having characters à la carte has always been a no-no. I would support a proposal to mandate including characters, as well.  White Whirlwind  咨  18:49, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Historical and alternative transliterations

Historical and alternative transliterations of Mandarin Chinese are important 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)

@Geographyinitiative: 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)

@Zanhe: 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. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:28, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment: Do the traditional and simplified forms of Chinese count as the same name or different names in regards to eligibility of displaying characters?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus to display both Simplified and Traditional. A few editors limited their support for displaying both to the infobox, and most editors noted that there is room for case-by-case exceptions. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 23:04, 4 March 2020 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

---

@Geographyinitiative: The question is whether the Traditional Chinese or Simplified Chinese forms of Standard Mandarin count as the same name or as different names in regards to names of places or people. This determines whether both forms should be displayed in the Template:Chinese infobox, or whether only one or the other should. For example, would a simplified Chinese form of a name of a person in the Republic of China like leader Chiang Kai-shek be considered a "foreign language name" and therefore excluded from the template (see reasoning in this edit)?

(for people unfamiliar with Chinese history, the Republic of China controlled the Mainland until 1949, then moved to Taiwan, while Simplified Chinese was introduced in Mainland China by the People's Republic of China after that; Chiang never changed his allegiance from the ROC and remained on Taiwan)

This may affect multiple articles, including historical Chinese figures who lived before the advent of simplified Chinese characters so I believe it is necessary to do the RFC here.

For further info see:

• Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/China_and_Chinese-related_articles#Should_the_Chinese_infobox_display_both_Simplified_and_Traditional_Chinese_for_all_Greater_China_and/or_Sinosphere-related_subjects,_or_should_it_only_display_the_relevant_ones_per_territory/area? (previous discussion on whether articles related to Chinese should have both Traditional or Simplified forms)
• Talk:Chiang_Kai-shek#Simplified_character_names (discussion which triggered this particular RFC)

Pinging those involved in the first discussion and other interested parties:

• @Kdm852: @Szqecs: @Wefk423: @White whirlwind: @JohnBlackburne: @Simonm223: @Zanhe: @Hayman30: @Kusma:

WhisperToMe (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

• As I said before, Simplified and traditional should usually both be displayed. Which of the answers to the question implies that? —Kusma (t·c) 20:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support displaying both Simplified and Traditional: Partly because trying to only do one or the other would lead to more talk page conflicts, partly due to neutrality over the question of "what is China", partly because a typical reader interested in China-related topics would want to see both (see previous discussion), and partly because the purpose of Template:Chinese is to show the reader various forms of Chinese. If the ROC gov't only considers certain forms authoritative, it would be interesting info, but this is best footnoted instead of being used as a reason to exclude Simplified Chinese from the Chinese template of ROC-related articles. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:20, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support for including only relevant scripts I see the arguments listed above, particularly about starting a lot of arguments on talk pages about which script to include. However, as I have said before, I think it is inappropriate to include scripts on articles which aren't used locally, or relevant for some other specific reason. We don't include katakana or hangul on articles where it isn't relevant. And for those readers who are familiar enough in Chinese to want to know how to render the topic in the alternative script, it would be simple enough to check the Chinese version of the relevant page. If they aren't literate enough in Chinese to do that, I don't see how including both on everything could possibly benefit them. There are a great many articles where both will be relevant (such as important events in history, popstars, etc), but for topics which are only relevant in one context, it seems unnecessary at best and dismissive of the local context at worst. Kdm852 (talk) 06:37, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Please see my following comment: I probably meet your "not literate in Chinese", and would be helped. Imaginatorium (talk) 13:28, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support displaying both -- in general. Of course there may be exceptions, but I very strongly oppose the notion that because some bunch of people dislike this or that form, we should withhold information to avoid upsetting them. I am a (non-native) Japanese speaker, and not a Chinese speaker to any useful degree. In descriptions of Chinese topics the kanji (as I think of them) make the difference between total incomprehension and "aha!" understanding what is being talked about. In very many cases, given the "simplified" form only I am completely lost; occasionally the Chinese "simplified" form is more or less the same as the usual Japanese form , while the "traditional" form is hyperornate, and quite distant. (Example: trad: 體 simp/Japanse: 体) Imaginatorium (talk) 13:28, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why you said "because some bunch of people dislike this or that form", I don't recall using this as a justification at all, and it seems somewhat like an attempt to dismiss other people's arguments without engaging them. But, to your point about being a Japanese speaker who finds the inclusion of both scripts useful, I have a few quibbles. First, WP is not a language dictionary and I don't see why this argument applies here. If we are to consider this for Japanese, why not include all available scripts for all topics since it would help learners of XYZ language? Second, if this is the case, the you could check the Japanese version of the respective page; we wouldn't include Hangul for the benefit of people learning Korean. Also, the reverse isn't applied, Chinese scripts are not given for Japan-related articles (I am not including the overlap between Chinese scripts and kanji since the inclusion of the latter is as a form of Japanese, and not to give a Chinese rendering of the topic). The inclusion of Chinese text in WP articles is as a way to give the local rendering(s) of topics, and since there are places where Sinitic are spoken but do not use both scripts, the local variant should be the only one used. This is the way WP seems to work for every other language group I can think of (Ukraine articles do not always include Russian renderings, articles on India do not include renderings for languages which are not spoken locally, etc), so I don't see why the policy should be different for Chinese-related articles. Kdm852 (talk) 04:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• Only primary script in general, secondary allowed. Same reason why British English should be used for British topics. The problem with including both is that the internet has a bias towards simplified. For example, {{Lang-zh}} displays simplified first unless you set the order. Or {{Lang}} uses simplified typeface (technically the browser) unless you set script to traditional. There are countless Taiwan-related articles edited by users who don't know what they're doing and have mostly simplified typeface. Therefore we should encourage people to use traditional, only including simplified if they know what they're doing. Ythlev (talk) 18:58, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

•  Comment: From my experience Chinese templates tend to use different templates, Template:Zh in the lead, and Template:Chinese as an infobox to the side. Many articles use both, with Zh only including the variety of Chinese used in that locale (Simplified Chinese for post-1949 Mainland, post-1969 Singapore, and recent Malaysia, while other topics often use Traditional) unless "Template:Chinese" is not used (if the character count is relatively short) while both varieties of Chinese (Simplified and Traditional) are recorded in Template:Chinese to the side. As for the analogy re: British and American English, ENwiki articles on subjects like Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, eggplant, and coriander typically note both forms. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:38, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
•  Comment: Also note that Template:Chinese by default displays Traditional Chinese first, and one needs to set a flag "order=st" to display Simplified first. WhisperToMe (talk) 09:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support displaying both The RFC is about {{Infobox Chinese}}, not {{zh}} (or {{lang-zh}}) and per WhisperToMe's examples. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:11, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support displaying both — this is a longstanding practice that is perfectly justified given the "fuzziness" of the boundaries between the two varieties' uses across the globe and the minimal intrusiveness of including both. As I've said before, this is much ado about nothing.  White Whirlwind  咨  06:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• ROC exists The ROC has not been militarily conquered by the PRC and exists as a separate political entity that is about to have a Presidential election. The ROC just doesn't use PRC simplified forms in native-native communication in the ROC guys. It would be deceptive to the readers include the PRC's simplified forms in their pages without specific cause. Wiktionary, a dictionary of all languages, DOES include simplified forms for Taiwan locations etc. Why? Because it's a dictionary. But English Wikipedia must only include native langauge material on the relevant pages. Mandarin Chinese Wikipedia is justified in displaying all forms of all characters because they are an encyclopedia specifically made for Mandarin speakers. I would say specific justification for the inclusion of PRC forms in certain circumstances on English Wikipedia articles that are about Taiwan can be argued, for instance the 1992 Consensus page. Keep in mind that the PRC's 2013 linguistic standard [3], Xiandai Hanyu Cidian, and the historical usage in Mainland China justify inclusion of traditional character forms in the PRC. They are still using traditional characters in native-native communication in a limited capacity including road signs and elite academic work and in their connection with HK, Taiwan, etc. To say "we want all forms" in this box is like saying we need to teach creationism and evolution in the science classroom. Creationism has its place in a class on religion. Keep your creationism (PRC simplified forms) out of my science class (Free Area of the Republic of China). I have been banned once or twice for my opinions on this, so please don't directly respond to me. I am making a comment because of the good will conversations I had with another user who invited me to comment here. I do not want to continue participation. If you decide against this (which is literally impossible- you want minor geography in places that have nothing to do with the PRC and don't use the simplified character displaying non-native linguistic material???), then you are enforcing PRC policy on the ROC. Sounds dumb. That's my two cents; please don't get angry. Geographyinitiative (talk) 07:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support displaying both - There is a reason why Wikipedia in Simplified Chinese merged with the Wikipedia in Traditional Chinese to form Wikipedia Chinese edition. - 祝好，Josephua^(聊天) 14:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe: @Zanhe: On another note, should we update the guidelines for the Template:Zh in introductory sentences? Articles such as Zhou Enlai, Hu Jintao, Xi Jinping, Lee Hsien Loong, and Chen Shui-bian have opted out to use only one form in the Template:Zh in introductory sentences. Ironically enough, the example that the manual of style gives us on how to use the Template:Zh in introductory sentences, Zeng Guofan, the Zeng Guofan article omits the Simplified Chinese entirely in its introductory sentence. Other articles such as Mao Zedong, Deng Xiaoping, Ma Ying-jeou, Tsai Ing-wen, Lee Kuan Yew, Chiang Kai-shek, and Sun Yat-sen have opted to rid the Template:Zh in introductory sentences entirely. In summary, can we update the Manual of Style system based on these changes? - 祝好，Josephua^(聊天) 15:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support displaying both - I personally prefer traditional chars, but it's important to acknowledge that most Chinese-language publications today are printed in simplified chars. As a practical matter, people interested in topics about Greater China are likely to encounter simplified characters even for Taiwan/Hong Kong topics, and purging them from articles is not going to help readers. -Zanhe (talk) 18:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support displaying both in the infobox {{Infobox Chinese}}, as topics are not mutually exclusive in relevance to difference areas of Greater China. --Cold Season (talk) 00:44, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support displaying both but in the Info Box. As little distraction as possible. Most readers are general readers, and don't know any Chinese. Even my non-Chinese literate students would sometimes complain that the characters were daunting, even after my brilliant explanations. Sigh.ch (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Maps

@Horse Eye Jack, DreamLinker, Mardus, Krazytea, Citobun, Valentinian, Danstronger, Hzh, Jancarcu, Akira CA, Irony of prudent premise, Valentinian, Fleet ch, and Furfur:

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. CaradhrasAiguo (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#RfC on map of infected cases 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)

@Ythlev: 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)

@Akira CA: 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)

@DreamLinker: 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 [4]. 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 @DreamLinker: 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)

(edit conflict) 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.. CaradhrasAiguo (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 China phrasing is a by-product of the Taipei Times, itself cited by scholarly WP:RS as being pan-Green. CaradhrasAiguo ([[User talk:|leave language]]) 06:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@CaradhrasAiguo, Akira CA, and Horse Eye Jack: 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)

@DreamLinker: 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. CaradhrasAiguo (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. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:15, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

@Akira CA: 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!). CaradhrasAiguo (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 @Natureindex, Abhishek65628, The Account 1, Lakshmisreekanth, and Addicted04:, the file File:PRC_Population_Density.svg @LittleCuteSuit, Ythlev, Furfur, Shibo77, and Werran:, the file File:India_(orthographic_projection).svg @Goran tek-en, Palosirkka, Shibo77, Pahari Sahib, Tryphon, and Dbachmann:, the file File:Republic of Korea (orthographic projection).svg @알래스카나:, the file File:Republic of Korea (orthographic projection).svg @Tim commons, Air1056, and Sharouser:, the file File:Europe-Ukraine (orthographic projection; disputed territory).svg @Rob984: and the file File:Russian_Federation_(orthographic_projection)_-_only_Crimea_disputed.svg @Seryo93: 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[5]. 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.. CaradhrasAiguo (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 Wikipedia:WikiProject_Maps/Conventions and for that specific type of map (ortographic) it's Wikipedia:WikiProject_Maps/Conventions#Orthographic_maps. 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: [6]. 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. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 03:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

China

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 @Sdkb: 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 @Sharouser, CaradhrasAiguo, Geographyinitiative, and Goran tek-en:? 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

@Horse Eye Jack: 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#RfC on map of infected cases 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)

@Akira CA: 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)

@Horse Eye Jack: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)

@Akira CA: 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)

@Ythlev: 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)

@Akira CA: 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([7]), I hope to end this thread with a stable version :) Akira CA (talk) 07:22, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ythlev: 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

@Goran tek-en: @LittleCuteSuit: @PE fans: @Horse Eye Jack: @Sharouser: @CaradhrasAiguo: @Geographyinitiative: @Ythlev:
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)

 Done 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 ([8]) 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 Wikipedia:WikiProject_Maps/Conventions#Orthographic_maps. 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 Wikipedia: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:

“

Number of 2019-nCoV cases

  0–9

  10–99

  100–499

  500–999

  1000–9999

  >10.000

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 ^{⁂ Diskussion} 22:48, 4 February 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

”

Ythlev (talk) 06:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia: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

@Akira CA: 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)

@Ythlev: 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)

@Akira CA: 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)

@Akira CA: The map you restored to Islam in China doesn’t follow the conventions laid out Wikipedia: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)

@Horse Eye Jack and Ythlev: 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)

@Horse Eye Jack: 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. CaradhrasAiguo (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)

@Akira CA: 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'_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 Wikipedia:WikiProject_Maps/Conventions#Orthographic_maps is better than taking either China POV or India POV on this dispute.Thanks!PE fans (talk) 00:43, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@PE fans: 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)

@Akira CA: 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)

@Akira CA: 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)

@Ythlev: 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)

@Ythlev: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)

Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macau

@CaradhrasAiguo: Stop reverting already. This section makes future similar discussions unnecessary. It specifically refers to PRC, so maps of 200 years ago can still include Taiwan. It also says "indiscriminately", so using a different shade is still acceptable. It contains nothing against consensus. Ythlev (talk) 00:54, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Hatnote for Chinese names of people

In follow-up to the edits [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] 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 @Finnusertop and Valereee: --Cold Season (talk) 19:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Cold Season, 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)

Amendments

Information to be modified:

==Maps==

In general, Taiwan should not be included as a part of China on user-created maps. (discussion) (admin ruling)

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)

@NinjaRobotPirate: This is so ridiculous could you please intervene? Ythlev is again wasting everybody's time by treating Wikipedia MoS as a battleground to propagandize his political ideology. -- Akira😼CA 23:38, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose

1. Direct quote per WP:NPOV

Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them.

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.

2. Closed RfC per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Maps#RfC_regarding_claimed_territorial_boundaries_of_a_state

“ 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. You are misinterpreting the RfC by jamming the terms "China" and "People's Republic of China" with Taiwan nationalist POV

4. User:Swarm's decision is under question by multiple editors, and he hasn't reply yet.

“

• @Swarm: 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Manual of Style/China and Chinese-related articles and has been written in the Wikipedia: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)

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)

”

-- Akira😼CA 23:46, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@PE fans: 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#RfC_regarding_claimed_territorial_boundaries_of_a_state 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)

@Akira CA: 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)

@Ythlev: 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 again bypassed the examples of constitution of the Republic of China and Kuomintang because you struggle to find any counterarguments. You are not able to further justify your faulty interpretation of the admin's words, too, so it cannot hold your request anymore. The fact is There could be another user like you isn't a valid way to defend your edit request you are merely refusing to compromise base on what your "opponent" have done but not the nature of the policy itself. Doing so by rejecting any compromise is like treating Wikipedia as battleground in a unproductive way. 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)