Wikipedia:Requested moves

STRAW POLL open on where votes for "Requested Moves" should be placed see the discussion/talk page.

Requested moves is used to request, and vote on, article moves that are not straight-forward or that require the assistance of Wikipedia administrators. For example, the proposed move may be controversial, or technical expertise may be needed to merge edit histories. The move should usually be discussed on the talk pages of any relevant articles first, particularly where a page move may be controversial.

Page moves requested on this page may be actioned if is a rough consensus supporting the moving of an article after five (5) days under discussion here, or earlier at the discretion of an administrator. An archive of the discussion and votes on this page should be copied to the talk page of any relevant articles.

PLEASE NOTE:

• Requested moves is not the proper place to request renaming images or categories.
• Many moves can be accomplished by a registered user without administrator assistance by using the "Move this page" button.

Instructions

Relevant policies and guidelines

In discussing a page move, or making a move request, please consider following Wikipedia policies and guidelines:

• Wikipedia:Naming conventions
• Wikipedia:Proper names
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style
• Wikipedia:Disambiguation
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point

Requesting a page move

• Discuss the move on the talk pages of any relevant articles first, particularly where a page move may be controversial, before requesting the move here.

• Add a note to the talk page of the article you wish to move (not the article itself) using the Move template. This template should be inserted at the top of the page using the following text:

{{move|new name}}

replacing the words "new name" with the name of the destination page to where you wish to move the article. This produces the following text on the page where you inserted it:

• Add the details of the requested move to the top if the list of notices below. Please create the request in the style:

====[[original name]] → [[new name]]====
{reason for move} -- ~~~~ 
* Support/Oppose - reasons for your vote (optional) ~~~~ 

• Please sign and date all votes and comments, using the Wikipedia special form "~~~~", which translates into a signature and a time stamp automagically.

Voting

• Please vote by stating:
  • Support or Move (if you support the requested move)
  • Oppose or Object (if you do not support the requested move)
  • Neutral or Comment (if you do not wish to vote, but still wish to state your opinion or offer points for others to consider)

Votes qualified with "strong" or "weak" do not make the vote count any more or less than any other "Support" or "Oppose" vote.

• If you do not agree with the requested move, but do feel that a move of some sort is appropriate, please offer alternative destinations and article titles.

• Please sign and date all votes and comments, using the Wikipedia special form "~~~~", which translates into a signature and a time stamp automagically.

Notices

Please add new notices to the top of this section.

1 March 2005

Current events → February 2005

To fix loss of history via cut and paste. —Korath (Talk) 11:55, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

28 February 2005

Food and Agriculture Organization → FAO

The organization is probably better known by its acronym. Most wikilinks point to FAO, which is a redirect. I propose moving the article there. Jonathunder 00:35, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)

• Oppose as a colossal waste of time. Acronyms redirect to the full name of the organization. After the RM, SS → Schutzstaffel, currently however... CIA → Central Intelligence Agency, WTO → World Trade Organization, USOC → United States Olympic Committee, EU to European Union et cetera ad infinitum. As the FAO is a UN organization, it should be noted that articles regarding United Nations organizations are usually in full name with acronyms established as redirects: UN → United Nations, UNESCO → United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, UNICEF → United Nations Children's Fund, WHO → World Health Organization, etc. It would probably be a disambiguation mess if every organization were listed at their acronyms. Why then would it be logical—in the face of every other alphabet soup organization redirecting to the corresponding full name—to make the FAO any different? —ExplorerCDT 01:06, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • P.S. If you deign to think it important enough to warrant wasting our time with such nonsense, I would advise that your time would be better spent finding all the wikilinks that point to FAO and change them appropriately. —ExplorerCDT 01:06, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Neutrality^talk 01:39, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. It seems to be a general and good policy that abbreviations are not the titles of articles, particularly when I'm always suprised by what different things three letters can mean to different people with different backgrounds. Gareth Hughes 17:20, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Callsign (radio) → Call sign

Call sign was an unnecessary disambig page. I merged it with Callsign (radio) which had the bulk of the content. I think the main article should be at Call sign. (If someone strongly prefers Callsign, I won't argue much.) -- agr 21:50, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I prefer callsign. (Why would I call a sign?)   – radiojon 04:29, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)

Answer record → Answer song

Answer song previously contained a redirect to List of answer songs. Now someone has created an article on answer songs at answer record and. I have changed answer song to redirect at answer record but I'm fairly certain that the more widely used term is 'answer song', not 'answer record' and can't move it because of the existing redirect article. --Moochocoogle 18:53, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Neutral What a stupid term in the first place. But how original can those people get when their vocabulary is limited to "benjamins," "whore," "crackwhore," "kill," and "pimp." —ExplorerCDT 01:16, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

United States Free Soil Party → Free Soil Party

Pretty simple; there was never a 'Free Soil Party' except in the United States.--Pharos 18:27, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Cleaning up redirects after this move should be easy, as many already point to Free Soil Party (or simular). Jonathunder 19:10, 2005 Feb 28 (UTC)

Drafting → Technical drawing

This is in line with Category:Technical drawing, is widely understood (and similar to terms in other languages), does not have other meanings which must be disambiguated and is spelled identically in both British and U.S. English. No objections to this on the talk page. Warofdreams 16:52, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Support (with a partial counterproposal) — The "similar to terms in other languages" is irrelevant. This is, after all, the English Wikipedia. However, at issue: I'd counterpropose that Drafting (disambiguation) should be moved to Drafting, as military conscription and sports drafts are just as prominent in usage as the work of architects and engineers. And on the reference on that disambiguation page, I'd link Technical drawing at the end of the sentence rather than Drafting at the beginning of it. —ExplorerCDT 01:11, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree fully with moving Drafting (disambiguation) to Drafting if this page move is approved. Warofdreams 11:41, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Multilingual → Polyglot

There is a consensus on the talk page for moving this page back to Polyglot, since it is about noted people who speak multiple languages rather than multilingualism in general. I added a paragraph at the beginning on multilingualism in general, but it belongs in its own article. The original move seems to have been done without discussion, and the only reason it has not been moved back is because someone put in a new page named Polyglot. So please delete the current Polyglot, and I will incorporate its contents into a disambiguation section. I will split the current page into Multilingualism and Polyglot. --Erauch 16:29, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I'd support a splitting the page, one describing the phenomenon and neurology behind Multilingualism, and one becoming a List of famous polyglots.

27 February 2005

Ostfriesland → East Frisia

The general rule is to use the English name, which is East Frisia. Furthermore, most other articles on this subject use "Frisia" or "Frisian" rather than "Friesland", which seems to be reserved for districts and provinces with that as the official name (compare West-Friesland, Nordfriesland with Frisia, Frisian Islands, Frisian language). I brought it up on the article's talk page but there was no reply. -Branddobbe 22:56, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Support. A.D.H. (t&m) 23:16, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Support —ExplorerCDT 23:21, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support Jonathunder 01:02, 2005 Feb 28 (UTC)
• Support Alai 08:27, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Richard Keith Berman → Rick Berman

Though I haven't conducted any studies, I would imagine that Rick Berman of Star Trek fame is far more well known than Rick B. Berman, Washington lobbyist (who doesn't even have an article). I'd like to move Richard Keith Berman to Rick Berman, with a note at the top saying If you are looking for the Washington lobbyist, see Rick B. Berman. No one knows Rick Berman as "Richard Keith Berman" either. -Branddobbe 22:49, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Jonathunder 01:03, 2005 Feb 28 (UTC)
• Support. I'm the one who moved Rick Berman to Richard Keith Berman and I wish I'd just done what Branddobbe suggests here. AlistairMcMillan 02:22, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. FWIW, I've changed Rick B. Berman to Richard B. Berman as that name gets more hits in relation to the Center for Consumer Freedom, and that name should be added to the proposed dab header instead. --Viriditas | Talk 02:36, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Now that makes sense. I always find it strange to see a contracted first same with a middle initial -- and wince if anyone does it to my name. Alai 03:42, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. —wwoods 03:36, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Thank you Branddobbe. Acegikmo1 07:47, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Phoenix7718 10:04, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Economy of Taiwan → Economy of the Republic of China

and Holidays in Taiwan → Holidays in the Republic of China, Demographics of Taiwan → Demographics of the Republic of China, New Party (Taiwan) → New Party (Republic of China), Communications in Taiwan → Communications in the Republic of China, Highway System in Taiwan → Highway system in the Republic of China, Transportation in Taiwan → Transportation in the Republic of China, (Category:Airports of Taiwan → Category:Airports of the Republic of China)

This request is to make the titles of these articles to conform with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Political NPOV: " the word "Taiwan" should not be used if the term "Republic of China" is more accurate. ".

Note: If you do not agree with the said conventions, bring the issue to its discussion page. Please do not oppose this request because you disagree with the conventions. — Instantnood 20:08 Feb 27 2005 (UTC)

• By nominating I support renaming. — Instantnood 20:08 Feb 27 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose for the same reasons I've opposed all your other taiwan → ROC proposals. No one understands the ROC or its nuances, Taiwan is the prevalent Western usage. I (as several others here are) am growing tired of your forcing this issue down everyone's throats. Wikipedia is not a place for your personal or political agenda. —ExplorerCDT 20:56, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • In other words you disagree with the naming conventions. Please go to its discussion page. — Instantnood 01:12 Feb 28 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry, you're not the boss of me, I'll oppose what I want, when and where I want to...and I'll tell you where you can put that discussion page. Besides, we've already talked about recent, suspect changes to the naming convention you so like to tout that just coincidentally happen to suit your personal and political agenda. —ExplorerCDT 01:23, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • It has nothing to do with any political agenda, and I have no contribution to the naming conventions. — Instantnood 07:16 Feb 26 2005 (UTC)
      • No, but the pertinent naming conventions are the boss of you and everyone else. Here and now is neither the time nor the place to discuss your individual objections to the naming conventions. Those conventions are the result of a community consensus. All we're doing here is determining in what form they apply to the proposed move: if they apply, and I think they do, we have no choice but to rename the articles according to those conventions. --MarkSweep 13:58, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose as per ExplorerCDT, please see the reasons I've opposed all your other Taiwan → ROC proposals. Please stop this disruptive behaviour. Whilst I personally will not list you on WP:RfC, I would now be willing to certify any listing added by another - you have the right to ask your question once, maybe twice, but having gotten the answer you should not persist, jguk 21:48, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm in the same boat, but he's actually threatened to RfC me on other people's talk pages (yes, Instantnood, I see everything) for having the temerity to oppose his disruptive b.s. Am I wrong in likening him to one of those annoying little gnats that pester on a humid summer day? —ExplorerCDT 21:58, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I did not. BlankVerse mentioned about you at my discussion page, and I told her/him about an old RfC of you. — Instantnood 01:13 Feb 28 2005 (UTC)
      • Then what is all these trash on my talk page?--Huaiwei 10:49, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • I have never threatened to RFC anybody. — Instantnood 11:01 Feb 28 2005 (UTC)
  • Relax, and please stop the accusations. Discussing a proposed move is hardly disruptive behavior. --MarkSweep 13:58, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose As ExplorerCDT and jguk have both been told, there is no need to dumb things down for encyclopedias just because the masses of people are dumb and the media has to cater to these dumb masses. Our job is not just to inform but to educate. We shouldn't be using inaccurate names. However, in this context "Taiwan" is the appropriate term. Please use non-political terms for non-political topics. Economy is not political enough and by using "Republic of China" we make the POV claim that it is equivlant to its current territories. This point should be left ambiguous. --Jiang 00:56, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I do not consider Matsu Islands and Quemoy as part of Taiwan, just like Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales aren't part of England. The title "Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu" on Template:WTO already suggests just saying Taiwan is not accurate and exhaustive. — Instantnood 01:07 Feb 28 2005 (UTC)
    • I could also say that the ROC=China (Mongolia included). No term is 100% accurate. Note the usage of the term "Taiwan Area" by the ROC government to include Quemoy and Matsu, just like how all ROC legislation use "Mainland Area" to describe the PRC. It's even clearly defined by this law: http://www.mac.gov.tw/english/english/foreign/law1.htm --Jiang 09:40, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the interesting information. An alternative to "Taiwan Area" used by the ROC government is "free area", as in an appendix of its constitution, and in many other web pages. — Instantnood 09:56 Feb 28 2005 (UTC)
      • Quoted from a news article: " [Wang Jin-pyng] said that the Constitution stipulates a "free" area and a mainland China area, and that the statute governing relations of the people across the Taiwan Strait also mentions the "Taiwan area" and the "mainland area, " adding.. ". — Instantnood 10:12 Feb 28 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose --Spinboy 05:36, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: You're not supposed to nominate multiple articles so I dont think your request carries much weight, but I hope you're aware of Public holidays in the Republic of China, which makes moving the "holidays in Taiwan" article doubly pointless --Jiang 09:40, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • The holidays listed in Holidays in Taiwan are not only local ones, but includes many brought by the Kuomintang to Taiwan. — Instantnood 10:01 Feb 28 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. What Jiang said. And also, I might support the movement of some of these articles if they specifically pertain to political entities, but many of these articles do not. —Lowellian (talk) 11:23, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Everybody knows about Taiwan. Few people know or care about the nuances of nomeclature. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:30, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I think it's fair to say that on the order of a billion people do know and do care (or at least are forced to care) about the nuances of this particular piece of nomenclature. And the nuances are not particularly subtle either: if the definition of the terriotrial claims of the ROC were to change in certain directions, this could easily lead to a situation which the PRC has long classified as automatically triggering military action. It is quite important for stability in the region that both sides recognize that there is one single unit called "China" (though both may think they are it). If the ROC would officially start calling itself "Taiwan" in the current climate, they better be fairly confident in the abilities of their air force. --MarkSweep 13:58, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support tentatively. I don't think mass listing was a good idea. I agree with most of the proposed moves, but I have some reservations. Better to list them individually if we can all agree that the purpose of this discussion is only to determine how the naming conventions apply. --MarkSweep 13:58, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Basically agree. One does not have to be agree with each of the requests for agreeing with the general direction. But things have got to be settled to have it proceeded. — Instantnood 14:16 Feb 28 2005 (UTC)

• Support,because
  1. The main article about the political entity is at Republic of China.
  2. These articles about the political entity, not the island. There is no article on Economics of Java or Sakhalin or any other island. Same with Demography and other stuff.
  3. The Wikipedia naming conventions specifically cover that. Grue 16:01, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• OpposeUsing the name of Taiwan which is much more popular to refer the entity would not really downgrading the accuracy of this encyclopedia. Most of these articles made it clear that the subject discussed is under the control of ROC. No political implication, declaring independence, denouncing the sovereignty of ROC, or equate Taiwan to ROC, is suggested in these articles. In this arrangement people find their information easier.Mababa 07:07, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I guess you have misunderstood. As MarkSweep has mentioned in his comment, redirects can bring readers to the right article. The title is for accuracy, whereas the redirects bridge the gap between accuracy and popularity. With redirects, it wouldn't be harder for readers to locate the information they want. — Instantnood 09:49 Mar 1 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, for the very good reasons listed above by others Grutness|^hello? 10:06, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • The so-called good reasons are also applicable to justify having references to Wales in an article titled "Economy of England". Many places in the territories under ROC's control are not part of Taiwan. — Instantnood 10:21 Mar 1 2005 (UTC)

List of Taiwan-related topics (by category) → List of Republic of China-related topics (by category)

and List of Taiwan-related topics → List of Republic of China-related topics, Geography of Taiwan → Geography of the Republic of China

This is make the titles of these articles to conform with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Political NPOV: " the word "Taiwan" should not be used if the term "Republic of China" is more accurate. ".

This request is made separately from the block above, because of the possibility to have the article cleaned up to exclude topics which are ROC-related, but are not related to the island of Taiwan or province of Taiwan. A note on the link from Lists of country-related topics will be necessary, and Geography of Taiwan should be taken off from category:Geography by country.

Note: If you do not agree with the said conventions, bring the issue to its discussion page. Please do not oppose this request because you disagree with the conventions. — Instantnood 20:11 Feb 27 2005 (UTC)

• By nominating I support renaming. I can compromise with a clean up. — Instantnood 20:11 Feb 27 2005 (UTC) See below. — Instantnood 14:16 Feb 28 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose for the same reasons I've opposed all your other Taiwan → ROC proposals. No one understands the ROC or its nuances, Taiwan is the prevalent Western usage. I (as several others here are) am growing tired of your forcing this issue down everyone's throats. Wikipedia is not a place for your personal or political agenda. —ExplorerCDT 20:59, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons I have outlined many many times elsewhere on this page and others, jguk 21:51, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • In other words you disagree with the naming conventions. Please go to its discussion page. — Instantnood 01:16 Feb 28 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not all Taiwan-related topics are ROC-related topics, and vice versa. Each article should be taken case-by-case. These blanket, wide-ranging renames are harmful to Wikipedia. —Lowellian (talk) 00:53, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Similarly not all ROC-related are Taiwan-related. Seems like a clean up is somehow unavoidable. — Instantnood 00:59 Feb 28 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Not all Taiwan-related topics are ROC-related topics, and vice versa. They are not synonymous. --Jiang 00:57, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree with Jiang, the two topics are not synonymous. There should be two separate (but potentially overlapping) lists, mutually cross-referenced: one for topics that are pirmarily Taiwan-related (e.g. its indigenous population), and another one for ROC-related topics (e.g. its national anthem, which has nothing to do with Taiwan). --MarkSweep 14:05, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup and split. I now preferred a cleanup and spliting the two lists and the geography article, after reading Lowellian's and MarkSweep's comments. But I am afraid there isn't any precedants for a geographical entity (which is not a political entity) to have a separate article on its geography.
  If cleanup and splitting is voted down, renaming would by my second choice. — Instantnood 14:18 Feb 28 2005 (UTC)
  • I have just found that Geography of Ireland and Geography of the Republic of Ireland are separate articles, with different contents and emphases. Geography of Ireland does not mentions maritime claims, and mention both the political geography of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Facts and figures, and maritime claims of the Republic of Ireland are on the article Geography of the Republic of Ireland. — Instantnood 15:54 Mar 1 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Government comes and go. Taiwan stays eternally. The geography of Taiwan should be kept under Taiwan.Mababa 07:10, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • As did Formosa. —ExplorerCDT 08:27, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • (response to Mababa) 1) As far as I know there is no precedants for geographical entity to have an geography article, and 2) would you support a cleanup (to remove reference to Quemoy and Matsu, and territorial claims) and to create a separate article for geography of the ROC? — Instantnood 09:53 Mar 1 2005 (UTC)
    • New information, I've just now discovered Geography of Ireland and Geography of the Republic of Ireland are two different articles, with different contents. — Instantnood 15:54 Mar 1 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Not only is Taiwan the more widely known term (only one place consistently uses the term RoC - everywhere else in the world tends to favour Taiwan). It is clearly enough stated at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)#A modest proposal that matters relating to geography, Taiwan is the term to use. To quote: The terms "China" and "Taiwan" are perfectly acceptable in non-political contexts to designate geographic regions. Instantnood has been trying to force through these changes across a variety of Wikipedia pages, even though they run contrary to the views on the very pages he uses for support. I have no objection, however, to there being separate articles as Geography of Taiwan Island and Geography of Taiwan (Republic of China), as the two are not identical, any more than Bermuda Island and Bermuda, Hong Kong Island and Hong Kong, or Malta Island and Malta. Grutness|^hello? 10:03, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Whether it is well known or not is not part of our consideration. Redirects already help. Yes it is related to geography, but the article mentioned about Quemoy and Matsu until recently, and it still mentions territorial claims, which is definitely political. Taiwan, as a geographical term, does not include Quemoy, Matsu, Wuch'iu and islands in the South China Sea. The changes that I have nominated are largely based on the scope of the contents of the articles, e.g. Economy of the Republic of China but not Economy of Taiwan, because it is an article about the economy about the territories under ROC's control (i.e. Taiwan plus something else). — Instantnood 10:28 Mar 1 2005 (UTC)

Alternative solution 2

...is similar to AllyUnion's suggestion above, and would take a lot of organising, but hopefully it'd keep everyone happy. Parallel articles. There must be some way of making it so that,- rather than having a redirect, twin articles can be made with twin titles. One article would be called "X of Taiwan (Republic of China)", the other would be called "X of Republic of China (Taiwan)". The two articles would be kept as near identical as possible (perhaps requiring someone to check them every few days), and would be placed in separate subcategories that fed into the same parent category (called, for the sake of argument, X of Republic of China-Taiwan). it would work in very much the same way as the parallel wikipedias in different languages. As I said, it would take a lot of organising, but perhaps it would take less work than continually fighting InstantNood and his obsessive renaming crusade. Grutness|^hello? 10:18, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Would the discussion page of the naming conventions be a more appropriate place to find out a solution? — Instantnood 08:49 Mar 1 2005 (UTC)

Bioinformatics → Computational biology

The article titled "bioinformatics" is now much broader than just bioinformatics (as it discusses protein structure prediction, computer simulation of bio systems, etc.) We should reverse the redirects, so Bioinformatics redirs to Computational biology, and Computational biology has the content now at Bioinformatics. -- jdb ❋ (talk) 18:14, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose I see no discussion of the logic of such a change on the talk page, or any objection to content beyond the scope of the term "bioinformatics", which AFAIK explicitly includes all of the above, and is the more usual term, as I've encountered them. Alai 22:47, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There's no discussion of the logic of the change on the talk page because (a) the request to move was added all of four hours ago, and (b) the "move requested" banner says that the discussion will take place here, not there. I admit that bioinformatics is a loosely-defined term (due to its novelty and lots and lots of hype), but the root of the word is informatics, a field into which some things in the article obviously fall (biodatabases, for instance), and some things less obviously fall (physics-based protein structure prediction, for instance). In a complete Wikipedia, the Bioinformatics article would discuss a subset of the comp. bio. article. jdb ❋ (talk) 02:46, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sure, you're not obligated to discuss it there first, but if there was any feeling that the title was a poor fit to the subject, surely it would have come up already, in the course of editting the page, one way or the other? Y'know, someone saying "stop, you fools, that's not bioinformatics!" (or less melodramatically, but you get the idea). Yes, bioinformatics is the informatics of biological systems; how is that any different from computational biology? I've never heard a bioinformatics talk on biodatabases, but I've been to several (so described) on protein sequencing and structure. I still don't follow the distinction you're getting at, and it's not one I've ever heard a bioinformaticist/computational biologist make. Alai 06:26, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's not at all uncommon in the literature. Bioinformatics says it's concerned with "new developments in genome bioinformatics and computational biology", indicating both that there is a distinction and that the fields are close enough to be covered in the same journal. Likewise, Journal of Computational Biology says that it includes (among other things) "new tools for computational biology" and "relational and object-oriented database technology for bioinformatics". That there is overlap between the fields is undeniable, but that shouldn't stop us from picking the more general term. As to why no-one mentioned it before, I suppose that most people simply don't care. jdb ❋ (talk) 15:27, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't see that these demonstrate anything less than a 100% overlap, and certainly not that either term is more general than the other. The very title of the first journal is an assertion that Bioinformatics includes the full generality of the scope of the article. Possibly this is a matter of transatlantic usage: certainly the use of (unqualified) informatics to mean computing science is more common right of the Atlantic than to the left. If bioinformatics were to carry the same sense that "Medical informatics" does (i.e. medical information science) than I'd agree with you, but that's not the case, certainly as far as how it's used around here. Alai 19:48, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hm; you may be right. jdb ❋ (talk) 00:15, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose It is good as it is. Suitable references can be made to Computational Biology and refining its definition. Morever, the public perception for the word Bioinformatics is greater than for computational biology. One wouldnt want to see the user redirected to a new location when he wants to know something about Bioinformatics (which has enough to talk different things than Computational biology).Nattu

Er, we redirect people all the time from specific terms to general ones when we only have articles for the latter. I suppose the correct way to do this would simply be to write a cbio article, move the appropriate parts of bioinformatics there, and link back and forth. jdb ❋ (talk) 15:27, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

But it's not a more general term. The second remedy here seems to me to be worse; this is not two distinct topics, this is a single topic with two names, both of which are fully covered in the present article; and for which there's already a redirect, so there's no possibility of anyone 'missing' the article. Alai 19:48, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Image:Flag of Kurdistan.png → Image:Flag of Kurdish Autonomous Region.png or Image:Flag of the Kingdom of Kurdistan.png

For the sake of clarity it should be renamed (moved). Flag today is not used by the nation/state of Kurdistan as such a "thing" officialy does not exist. In various articles it is used to represent a region called Kurdistan. Now if we are talking about the extremely brief period of time which Kingdom of Kurdistan existed (disputed by scholars as the existance was between two treaties and lasted between 1920 - 1923, however there were no central authority nor was there an actual goverment. This may sound like an ugly POV but there was a french/british occupation in the region at the time, hence no real goverment can exist under occupation) the flag then should be captioned accordingly. The flag however does also represent the Kurdish Autonomous Region. The boundries of these two political entities are not identical, They can be represented by the same flag, they cannot be caption the same as that causes confusion. -- Cool Cat| My Talk 11:34, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Support Cool Cat| My Talk 11:34, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object — This flag is used by the Autonomous Region but is a general symbol of Kurdish nationalism (see Flag of Kurdistan). Kurdistan can mean a number of different things: it can mean the Kurdish Autonomous Region or Kurdistan (province), or a larger region that incorporates both of these with portions of eastern Turkey. This flag is a symbol for Kurds for all these Kurdistans. Gareth Hughes 16:34, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Agree with above, Kurdistan is less specific. zoney ♣ talk 16:58, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object this is not the place for renaming images. —ExplorerCDT 17:26, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, for all reasons mentioned above. A.D.H. (t&m) 17:34, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, same reasons as ADH. jdb ❋ (talk) 18:17, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Jonathunder 03:15, 2005 Feb 28 (UTC)

Its not properly captioned. What do you mean my nationalism? If you ask a PKK sempatisan, who will tell you they are kurdish nationalists, the proper flag would be the flag of PKK, it depens which faction you consider. Aside from the actual file the "Image description page" should also be renamed. --Cool Cat| My Talk 07:31, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Declaring some other nations territory as a part of your own at best will offned the people of that nation, for this case that would be Turkey. That would not fit the neutrality we seek on wikipedia, and frankly is rude. --Cool Cat| My Talk 07:31, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

26 February 2005

Saint Thomas University → St. Thomas University

This is the proper legal name of the institution. --Spinboy 04:49, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Is it? Prove it. The literature (the college's website, college books, etc.) are mixed when using Saint or St. Unless you prove otherwise, I'd prefer the unabbreviated "Saint." Pending that, provisional Oppose. —ExplorerCDT 21:48, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Look at their main website, and the provincial legislation that governs them. --Spinboy 05:38, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Also see under Schedule A. --Spinboy 05:45, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • That works for me. Thanks Spinboy. Vote changed to MOVE. —ExplorerCDT 06:40, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Move Seems pretty official to me, and certainly the common use. Also, consistent with the article as at present. Alai 06:30, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I don't oppose, but I think some clarification is needed. There is another move proposal under consideration below for this page. Also there are separate disambiguation pages for Saint Thomas University and University of Saint Thomas. They should be merged. And there is at least one other University of Saint Thomas, in Houston. A consistant approach is called for. --agr 22:10, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • They have different legal names. --Spinboy 23:03, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I think we want to avoid making the proposed move any more complex a 'package deal' than at present, but I pretty much agree. At a minimum the two disambigs should point to each other; possibly they should be merged, or duplicate each other's content in some form (if you wanted to list the four in a different order in each, say). And each of the four article should point to (one of) the disambig page(s). Can tidy that up either in advance or after the fact, if there's a degree of general assent. Alai 23:17, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: I still think we need University of St. Thomas (Minnesota) and University of St. Thomas (Texas) and St. Thomas University (New Brunswick) and St. Thomas University (Florida), as I began to suggest below. Now, if one uses St. and the other uses Saint. in their legal names, we don't need the parenthetical qualifications. —ExplorerCDT 08:21, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: This sounds okay to me, and have the main pages University of St. Thomas and St. Thomas University be disambig pages. --Spinboy 17:25, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • There is no pressing need for a disambiguation page if there are only two of each. That's what a disambiguation header is for. —ExplorerCDT 18:07, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Corinth, Greece → Corinth

I moved the content of Corinth (a link to Corinth, Greece and a list of insignificant US towns without articles) to Corinth (disambiguation), and I want to move this article to Corinth. I suggested this idea at the beginning of December 2004 (on talk:Corinth), and there was no response, so I'm getting on with it. As Corinth already exists I cannot move Corinth, Greece there without this process. — Gareth Hughes 21:23, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Support - reasons stated above. Gareth Hughes 21:23, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Obvious case for the most common meaning disambiguation. zoney ♣ talk 21:26, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support 'Insignificant' might be a tad harsh, but the Hellenic original carries the vast bulk of the meaning of the name. Alai 21:32, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Most of insignificant towns in the U.S. were named during the popularization of "Greek Revival" architecture and the frenzy for all things classical during the mid-19th century. —ExplorerCDT 21:33, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. —Lowellian (talk) 02:36, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

February 25 2005

St. Thomas University → St. Thomas University of New Brunswick

There are two St. Thomas Universities - this one and one in Miami, now on a separate page. I believe there is also a University of St. Thomas in the U.S. Virgin Islands, so I suggest we change this one and make the current page a disambig. --BDAbramson 20:02, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Currently Neutral, seeking answers to the following questions. 1- Is the Canadian institution's official name Saint Thomas University of New Brunswick? Because, apparently their website just says "St. Thomas University." 2 - Can we have Saint, and not St. (as apparently the article using the abbreviation is a redirect)? 3 - (just a point of information, not a question) - The need for disambiguation is more pressing than previously thought: University of Saint Thomas is the name of 2 schools, (1) in Saint Paul, Minnesota USA [1]; (2) in Houston, Texas USA [2]; Saint Thomas University is the name of 2 schools, (1) in Miami, Florida USA [3]; (2) in Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada [4]; However, the St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands institution is just a campus of the University of the Virgin Islands on the island of St. Thomas (the other campus on St. Croix). —ExplorerCDT 20:55, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Against. You can create a seperate disambig page and link from there. --Spinboy 21:12, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I went and looked, those other Uni's don't have any articles on Wikipedia. However, I went and created a disambiguation page in case they get one. Please feel free to edit it. --Spinboy 21:15, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: I recognize a need for disambiguation, but I think it would be more appropriate as a header, one STU dismabiguating to the STU, with a note saying there are two institutions named UofST. Just a header. —ExplorerCDT 21:46, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. See St. Thomas University of Miami - neither institution includes the name of the city in its name, so neither has a clear claim to being 'the' St. Thomas University. Each should have a page that reflects its particular locality, with a disambig for all possible St. Thomas U's. Also, it would be not be good to use Saint Thomas for one and St. Thomas for the other, as the terms are interchangeable, and neither specifically designates one school or the other (i.e. both schools use both spellings). --BDAbramson 21:36, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't agree with the naming of the STU-Miami article...if anything since the "of Miami" isn't part of the institution's legal name, it should be Saint Thomas University (Florida) or something of the sort, and yours Saint Thomas University (New Brunswick). Lastly, I don't think "St." should be used at all. I say eschew abbreviation and write it "Saint." —ExplorerCDT 21:42, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I completely agree as to ExplorerCDT's proposal for designating the locations - my entire concern is that it not appear that either institution is being stamped as the "official" St. Thomas University. --BDAbramson 05:08, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Provisionally Oppose. Unless St. Thomas University of New Brunswick is the title, or a recognised variant title, then St. Thomas University (New Brunswick) or St. Thomas University (Canada) would be preferable and clearer, as and when a redirect is needed, and I'm not convinced it is at present, given the lack of of a (non-substub) article for the other. I'm also confused as to why the article is currently at Saint Thomas University when the article text claims that St. Thomas University is the corect name. (But counter-proposing any of the above moves while this one's being contemplated might be to complicate matters unduly...) Alai 21:46, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm confused as to why the article has that name as well. Someone went and re-named it, but it's legal name is St. Thomas University. There is now a disambig header on the article. --Spinboy 04:44, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Grey (colour) → Gray

Several days ago, this article was moved from American spellings to Canadian spellings in both a page move (Gray (color) to Grey (colour) and the text in the article. However, I'm pretty sure that this is the meaning of the word gray that people normally think of when they think of this word, and so I say that this article can be moved to Gray. Note that other articles the dis-ambiguation page links to will not change their titles, and the dis-ambiguation page itself can be named Gray (disambiguation). Georgia guy 02:55, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK, I did some more homework here. The page started with American spelling in July 2004. It continued with American spelling until last week when User:Cennet changed all the spelling to British, and moved the page (title) to British spelling (when you look at the history you see the new title, even when looking at older edits.) This is a clear violation of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Usage_and_spelling which states;

If an article is predominantly written in one type of English, aim to conform to that type rather than provoking conflict by changing to another.(Sometimes, this can happen quite innocently, so please don't be too quick to make accusations!)

and

If all else fails, consider following the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor (that is, not a stub) to the article.

This article was incorrectly changed from American to British spelling. And the user who did it has only six edits, all to do with the page move. Duk 20:09, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Grey is not an exclusively Canadian spelling, and while largely a British usage, it was the original spelling, and Gray is just an American variant. While UK-influenced English predominantly uses Grey, American usage is roughly split between both Gray and Grey. As an aside, the Dictionary Society of North America recently released reports on the growing usage and increased popularity of British English spellings in the United States...blaming the phenomenon in part for the large number of UK-expatriate editors who take publishing jobs in the United States and influence the language in the editing and production. Etymologically, it comes from the Middle English grei and further back from the Old English graeg. The disambiguation at Gray is fine as it is, and given the variety of topics covered (people, physics, color) all the more necessary. LASTLY, we have a policy around here about not bickering between American English and British English usage, please read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), which establishes the policy stating American spellings need not be respelled to British standards nor vice-versa and states that alternate spellings may require redirects...which is done appropriately here. —ExplorerCDT 06:30, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment The question of word origins isn't really relevant here. Both spellings are valid in American English (personally, I don't think I use one spelling consistantly, nor do I really notice which I'm using). It probably doesn't help that although 'grey' may be closer to the british roots, I know a bit of German and 'gray' is close to 'grau'. Both usages are common in the States, and while our policy is not to make a fuss about these things, we're left with the question of whether, when people break that agreement and move stuff around, we should undo their efforts as a deterrent against future things of that kind. I'm not sure if we should in this case or not. In any case, as, if I'm any example to go by, for this word I don't think any speaker of English would find 'grey' wrong (Americans regularly see both and many like me don't even notice), and many non-American speakers of English would find 'gray' wrong, perhaps it's best to leave it at 'Grey'. I don't feel strongly enough about it to actually vote. --Improv 14:32, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. This page should probably either be moved back to Gray (color)] or all the internal links to Gray (color) should be changed to Grey (colour). Moving it to a third place would solve nothing and would also create secondary redirects which would, I believe, fail. I have some sympathy with the placing of the article at Gray but not if the redirects aren't fixed. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:25, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object. I concur with ExplorerCDT. *Christiaan 18:30, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Echo above statements. violet/riga (t) 18:51, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object As per above, jguk 19:11, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Confused Looking at the history, the article seems to have been started with American spelling and continued that way until last week [5]. Is this right? If so, then the policy is clear; articles should be standardized to the spelling they started in. When did the page move from American to British spelling happen?Duk 19:50, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • The answer can be found by clicking on Gray (color), removing the re-direct by clicking on the link, and then clicking on "history", and it will have just one edit labelled "Move to Grey (colour)". Georgia guy 19:53, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Grey is accepted in the US. Gray is not accepted elsewhere where US English is not used. zoney ♣ talk 20:12, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Grey Restore to original spelling The page started as American spelling, stayed that way for eight months and was changed to British spelling in violation of policy. The user who made this changed had no previous edits, and never edited another page. This makes me suspect that he knew it was wrong when he did it (by checking out a new user name just for this purpose). Duk 20:19, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK, I just can't swallow a blatent policy violation, so I'm going to pretend it didn't happen. Grey is the better spelling for reasons listed above. Changing my vote to keep Grey.

• Object The Manual of Style also says, "If a word or phrase is generally regarded as correct, then prefer it to any other word or phrase that might be regarded as incorrect." 'Grey' is correct in British English and in U.S. English; 'Gray' is correct only in U.S. English, so the former should be preferred. If the user accidentally did the right thing, thinking he was being bold and underhand, you're still at liberty to object to the use of a sockpuppet by way of an RfC... Alai 21:21, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. "Grey" is occasionally seen in U.S. usage but "gray" is far more common. The sporadic occurrences of "grey" give no reason to depart from our policy of honoring the original spelling. True, we don't want to bicker about spelling, but if we let the unilateral undiscussed anti-policy probable sockpuppet move stand, the effect will be to generate more bickering about spelling. JamesMLane 21:50, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • "Sporadic"? DSNA says the usage is roughly 50-50 across the United States, and that at least 20% of the country favours "-our" endings over "-or" as in colour, honour, etc. Though I disagree with the anon's move, it is in line with Wikipedia's common use naming convention.—ExplorerCDT 22:04, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not a professional lexicographer, but I find both the DSNA assertions astounding. Were they perhaps including Canada? I just did my own half-baked research by searching the archives of the New York Times for each term. "Gray" returned 19,655 articles, while "grey" returned only 2,270. Obviously, both totals will be distorted by people named Gray or Grey and by other proper nouns, but that cuts both ways -- the first hit for "grey" is an article about homelessness that mentions a Zane Grey western. Similarly, "honor" gets 20,989 and "honour" only 119; "color" is 24,617 and "colour" is 93. JamesMLane 23:15, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • I have no idea what the DSNA is. But a search of the NY Times can only reveal what the NY Times' style guide says about the matter. It will offer no comment whatsoever about how Americans not writing specifically for the NY Times spell the word, jguk 23:41, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • FYI: DSNA = Dictionary Society of North America. —ExplorerCDT 03:29, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • I agree that the Times usage isn't definitive. That's one reason I called my research "half-baked". I thought that going to the Times archive was at least a little better than just conveying my personal opinion -- which is that, even among Americans not writing specifically for the New York Times, "gray" is far more common than "grey" and that "honour" and "colour" are virtually unknown. By the way, the Dictionary Society of North America ([6]) probably merits an article, despite its apparent lapse on this particular subject. JamesMLane 03:52, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. A.D.H. (t&m) 00:07, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. We should not encourage the behavior of users like User:Cennet who change all the spellings to "grey" when it was originally at "gray." That, if anything, is clearly out of line with Wikipedia's policies on British/American spellings, about leaving spellings as they originally were when the subject is not specifically British or American. —Lowellian (talk) 02:34, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • The policy says not to change American spellings to British ones (or vice versa). But it doesn't say not to change exclusively American spellings to ones recognised in Britain (etc) and America (see the American Heritage Dictionary, or Merriam-Webster). Indeed, the examples of avoiding 'alternate', etc, rather approves of doing so. The objective, as I understand it, is as great a mutual comprehensibility as possible, not to uphold 'linguistic first strike' at the cost of all else. Alai 02:53, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • On that we can agree. —ExplorerCDT 03:29, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually, we can't. The references to the WP:MOS being policy have recently been removed as a couple of editors believed that as there was no vote to make it policy, it wasn't policy (although personally I believe that it has effectively been accepted as policy by acclamation, but I lost out there). Ergo, there is no policy either way, jguk 13:21, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • What leads you to believe that "colour" is acceptable American English? A.D.H. (t&m) 04:52, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd be perfectly in favour of a move to Grey (color), if either a) that question is of my belief, or b) any help. (Again trying to resist the temptation to start a move counter-request...) Alai 05:49, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • this would be my preference. Duk 13:02, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Cennet was, I think, ill-advised to make the change (and would have been better occupied doing some more useful editing) — but, first, the change appears not to be across U.S./U.K.-English lines ('grey' does seem genuinely to be the much more common spelling world-wide, and even fairly common in the U.S.), and secondly, once it's done why waste further time changing it all again (especially to a third option)? Reverting it as a deterrent would only work if likely future culprits had any idea of what was done in this case — but that seems pretty unlikely. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:33, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Gray is a surname, Grey is a colour, in the majority of the English speaking world. Kiand 16:17, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Why is there even a vote when the style guide is clear? Allowing this to stand could encourage more needless language squabbles or worse. Maurreen 17:54, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't mean to be snide or anything, but have you read the arguments offered by previous voters? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:05, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I've read them and I agree with Maurreen. If your reference is to your point that "future culprits" won't know about this decision, my response is: I don't mean to be snide or anything, but have you read the arguments offered by previous voters, in particular the evidence that Cennet is a sockpuppet who knows perfectly well what the rule is? It's not at all impossible that, if this move stands, then "Cennet" will wait a decorous interval to make it look good, and then show up under yet another name and stage another guerrilla attack on the MoS. In addition, even aside from the deterrent effect, I just don't think that rulebreakers should be rewarded by getting their desired outcome as a result of their rulebreaking. JamesMLane 03:14, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • No, it wasn't to that; it was to the fact that the style guide isn't clear on this, as we're not concerned with a simple difference between U.S. and U.K. English; 'grey' is both U.S. and U.K., 'gray' is only U.S. As for rulebreakers not getting what they want — fair enough, but I also don't think that there's much to be gained in cutting your nose off to spite your face. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:53, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Agreed, what James Lane here says makes a lot of sense. —Lowellian (talk) 11:15, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. — Instantnood 18:43 Feb 27 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Grey is the better spelling, but this article should be at Grey, not Grey (colour). Foobaz·✐ 01:11, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Move. Neutrality^talk 16:40, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Move. Original move to grey violated policy, and must be undone; it was AE and must stay AE, or we'll wind up in move requests again and again. Besides, Google supports gray for the colour. --A D Monroe III 22:33, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • See above, where various people point out that 'grey' is used in both U.K. and U.S. English, whereas 'gray' is used only in U.S. English — thus it isn't a simple matter of the difference between two variants of English. (And I'd not trust Google to tell me anything of this sort. Dictionaries are more useful and reliable.) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:53, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support <via edit conflict> BrokenSegue 01:39, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I am pursuaded by what James Lane wrote. Jonathunder 03:25, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)

Yorkshire Pudding → Yorkshire pudding

No need for capitalisation. sjorford →•← 10:44, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Move in accordance with naming convention. Jonathunder 17:55, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think "Yorkshire Pudding" is a proper noun and as such shouldn't be capitalized in accordance with the naming convention. Further, the British convention for capitalizing key words moreso than the Americans should win out, considering this is a British dish. —ExplorerCDT 18:01, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Move See for example the Guardian style guide Alai 18:26, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • So you want to lowercase "Yorkshire" too? —ExplorerCDT 19:05, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Not especially, and that's moot as regards the article title. Alai 21:28, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. violet/riga (t) 23:23, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support — this isn't an Americanism/Britishism issue: Wikipedia style for headings and titles is reasonable enough. Yorkshire is always capitalised as a proper noun. Neither pudding nor Yorkshire pudding are proper nouns, the p is not capitalised in body text, and (according to Wikipedia style) should not be capitalised in headings either. Gareth Hughes 00:13, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

February 24 2005

Internet censorship in China → Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China

The article is clearly about Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China, as implemented by the government of the People's Republic of China. —Lowellian (talk) 08:25, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Support. See above. —Lowellian (talk) 08:25, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support This is a move you can easily do yourself without requiring an admin to move it. The destination page doesn't exist, so there are no conflicts like getting edit histories merged, and stuff, so just use the move button at the top of the page (next to history). —ExplorerCDT 16:47, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • ExplorerCDT, you don't need to tell me that. Anyway, I am an admin. I am listing this page here because it is potentially a controversial move. —Lowellian (talk) 01:02, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose at the time being. The article is clearly about Internet censorship in mainland China, i.e. the PRC excluding Hong Kong and Macao. I support moving to "Internet censorship in mainland China". (Please add {{move}} to the article. :-D ) — Instantnood 07:49 Feb 24 2005 (UTC)
  • Conditional support if a notice in italic is added to the top of the article to tell readers the article is about Internet censorship in mainland China, without affecting users in Hong Kong and Macao. I remain oppose if the notice is not added. — Instantnood 18:37 Feb 27 2005 (UTC)
• Support. A.D.H. (t&m) 17:09, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I don't think the firewall affects Hong Kong users, so IC in PRC would be a more suitable title. prat 01:23, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • But HK is part of the PRC (but not 'mainland' China -- small caveats to both those assertions). Alai 05:54, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. This rule is set by the government of the PRC. There is no political entity called "mainland China".--Huaiwei 06:51, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:47, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I would like to suggest an alternative to the move of title. The Internet censorship does not affect users in Hong Kong and Macao. "Mainland China" is a term referred to the PRC with Hong Kong and Macao excluded. The alternative I suggest is "Internet censorship in mainland China". Please see also the relevant discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Insurance companies of the People's Republic of China. — Instantnood 17:08 Feb 25 2005 (UTC)
  • Mainland China is not a clearly defined term. It lacks clear delimiting in both a political and a temporal sense. prat 23:45, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Politically: I would suggest that some, such as Taiwanese and those referring to the PRC/ROC split would include Hong Kong and Macau in the term 'mainland China', whereas others such as yourself may argue otherwise. prat 23:45, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Temporally: If in fifty years time the name of the country changes, an article that is properly written should not require changes. Rather than being a history article (where 'History of China' is accepable as a cross-dynastic reference) this censorship article is firmly rooted in one government. I believe associating it with that government is the clearest way to define the article both now and in the future. prat 23:45, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Politically it is seldom used to include Hong Kong and Macao (see Talk:Mainland China). In colloquial speeches, these terms are often not clear cut. This article is firmly rooted in one government, but the suggested title is referring to censorship in (the entirety of) the territories under this government, but that's not the case. — Instantnood 07:22 Feb 26 2005 (UTC)
        • I agree with Pratyeka. The focus of this article is the policy of a specific government. —Lowellian (talk) 02:28, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Article title is perfectly understandable as it is, no need to have a longer title for the sake of it, jguk 19:14, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • The article title is POV, that's why it needs to be changed. —Lowellian (talk) 02:28, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
• support. --Jiang 06:01, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Holding pen

February 23 2005

Steve Avery (baseball) to Steve Avery

The disambig for Steve Avery is unnecessary, as the other person with the name is an obscure musician. I've added a link to that person's article to the pitcher's page. IMO, disambig pages should not be created for the promotion of little-known people. MisfitToys 18:40, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Apparently the obscure musician won't be keeping his name much longer, whatever the legal reasons may be. As to the musicians article...I'm thinking that's a VfD candidate if ever I have seen one. —ExplorerCDT 19:54, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The [Name of Country] → [Name of Country]

and XXX of/in [Name of Country] → XXX of/in the [Name of Country]

Note: this request is only applicable to names of countries and territories that need the "the" article, such as the Gambia, the Marshall Islands, the Northern Marianas, the Philippines, and the United Kingdom.

There was a debate over the title of the article Netherlands, and the article was moved to The Netherlands. Nevertheless, it has been a general rule that the articles "the" are left out for articles titled "[Name of Country]", but to keep them for articles titled "XXX of the [Name of Country]", except the Gambia (see Talk:The Gambia). This request is for the consistence of titles. — Instantnood 01:12 Feb 23 2005 (UTC)

Relevant conventions: Wikipedia:Naming conventions and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beining of name). — Instantnood 03:53 Feb 23 2005 (UTC)

• As I stated on RM's talk page, I'm growing greatly concerned with the recent precedent of recommending large blocks of pages. In order to keep the moves controllable and accountable, and to give the contributors a scale of how comprehensive this requested move is, would you kindly provide a list of how many (and which) pages will be affected by this move? —ExplorerCDT 02:46, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that these kind of issues should not be discussed here, but on naming policy talk pages. If there is a consensus there, someone should move them without bringing them up here. john k 03:37, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • The naming conventions are there with little dispute. This request can be removed once the articles are moved according to the relevant policies. — Instantnood 04:47 Feb 23 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually, conventions are merely guidelines. See Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. —ExplorerCDT 05:50, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • (to ExplorerCDT) The Gambia and The Netherlands to Gambia and Netherlands. There could be more. And subcategories of categories cannot be shown during system recovery of Wikipedia. — Instantnood 03:58 Feb 23 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd like a list of ALL the articles you want to move, and if a block is consistent, then vote on it as one unit, otherwise it may be necessary to vote on certain pages, individually, case-by-case. Not every article you could propose or apply this to has a cookie cutter solution. I do not want just a general XXX of the Netherlands, I want a list. I wager the administrators who would end up executing such a move would like to know where they're going rather than have to hunt-and-peck for articles. Administrators aren't slaves to your request. It's your request...you do the legwork. What articles SPECIFICALLY do you want to change? —ExplorerCDT 05:46, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • The Gambia and The Netherlands are the only pages identified. Categories are now disabled temporarily for server recovery. — Instantnood 06:30 Feb 23 2005 (UTC)
        • The server is now recovered. Besides The Gambia and The Netherlands, other pages include The Netherlands (disambiguation), Category:Elections in Gambia, Coat of Arms of Bahamas, List of political parties in Gambia, Category:Elections in Netherlands Antilles, Category:Geography of Solomon Islands, Category:Elections in Bahamas, List of political parties in Marshall Islands and List of hospitals in Philippines. — Instantnood 10:32 Feb 24 2005 (UTC)
          • I would say that in this kind of 'in' pages, the would be included: Elections in the Netherlands, see for my general comment below, were I am in favour of the move. Gangulf 13:41, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• So far, Oppose as it relates to "The Netherlands" because it isn't just one "netherland" if you know the history of the country (that's akin to saying you'd move the article on the Scottish Highlands to Scottish Highland just because you think it's just northern Scotland and because Wikipedia prefers the singular). As to "The Gambia" I know I've only known the name "Gambia" to be inextricably connected with its definite article, but I'll have to check into questions of usage before I walk away from being Neutral - I do know that we don't generally refer to Sudan and Congo anymore under the colonialist "The Sudan" and "The Congo." —ExplorerCDT 05:46, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Strongly agree. If one looks in a traditiona encyclopedia, one would find both countries under Netherlands and under Gambia. There is no Netherland, I agree, but including 'The' is not necesary. One doesn't move the article Scottish Highlands to The Scottish Highlands. Furthermore, I was surprised that some moved Netherlands to The Netherlands during the discussion on that move with at the same removing the discussion from this page. Gangulf 10:28, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Strongly Agree. The Scottish Highlands example is quite right. Just because we put "the" in front of a name for grammatical reasons doesn't mean that it forms an integral part of the name that has to go in an article title. If we have Netherlands at The Netherlands we ought to move United States to The United States. That would be ridiculous in both cases. In article and category titles like "History of ..." then "the" should clearly be included. — Trilobite (Talk) 00:30, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Since United States is where the U.S. article is, the appropriate names are Gambia and Netherlands. —Lowellian (talk) 01:09, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Jonathunder 01:12, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)
• Support, albeit not agreeing to using "the" at all in some cases (Ukraine, Sudan, etc.) zoney ♣ talk 20:16, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

February 21 2005

XXX of/in Macao → XXX of/in Macau

A previous request of moving Macau to Macao has been rejected in the talk page of Macau. However, we have residue references to Macao as part of page titles or categories, such as Current events in Hong Kong and Macao. I would propose renaming these for consistency.

• Support - As explained above.--Huaiwei 11:53, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose at the time being. The request was voted down largely because of the lack of incentive, as the title "Macau" is nothing problematic, and therefore people voted to keep the title as it is. While in a test of prevalence in English "Macau" gave more hits, the government of Macao uses "Macao". In the discussion there wasn't any decision over the preference of "Macau" over "Macao" for all pages across Wikipedia. (The discussion is archived at the Talk:Macau. It took me some time to find it out. :-) ) Although different language versions of Wikipedia can have different editorial policies, the spelling of Macao/Macau adopted in other language versions of Wikipedia deserve to be taken as reference. — Instantnood 13:15 Feb 21 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I disagree. The Macau government spells their own territory as macau, and that includes in English documents. The best way to name a city is to follow domestic spelling, and this has been mentioned in the earlier vote.--Huaiwei 13:34, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • The government of Macao spell "Macau" in Portuguese, and "Macao" in English. If the domestic spelling rule applies, "Macao" should be used on the English version of Wikipedia. — Instantnood 13:39 Feb 21 2005 (UTC)
      • Not true. As a matter of fact, they are using both in their English texts at present, and are moving towards Macau over Macao. In fact, international English media publications has already shifted to using Macau over Macao in their English texts.--Huaiwei 07:00, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • I don't read its websites very often, and I can't tell whether they're moving towards either side. — Instantnood 19:01 Feb 27 2005 (UTC)
• Support as I fought hard to keep Macau from being moved before. I don't remember Instantnood being a party to that conversation so how does he know or dismiss it as failing because of a "lack of incentive." Actually, internet and popular usage, Macau's government policy (they don't just use "Macao"), diplomatic usage, issues of transliteration, and a few other concerns led the Macau → Macao move to be opposed by many, not some perceived "incentive." Instantnood, stop speaking out of your ass. —ExplorerCDT 16:30, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Neutrality^talk 16:54, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• support. use common and official spelling--Jiang 17:49, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: The English spelling used by the government of Macao is "Macao", although it uses "Macau" as its official spelling in Portuguese (see both English and Portuguese versions of its website). A Google test gives more hits for "Macao Special Administrative Region" than "Macau Special Administrative Region". The German, Spanish, French, Interlingua, Slovenian, Finnish and Swedish versions of Wikipedia uses "Macao" as their titles, while Malay, Portuguese and Dutch versions uses "Macau". — Instantnood 19:50 Feb 21 2005 (UTC)
  • Meanwhile, the url reads "Macau", and not "Macao". A would-be tourist to Macau goes to a site called "www.macautourism.gov.mo" and not "www.macaotourism.gov.mo", when "Tourism" is obviously an English word. Its the "Macau Government Tourist Office" and not "Macao Government Tourist Office", when the title is obviously English too. And of coz, what word appears in the main page of that site? "Macau", and not "Macao." Clearly, I can find an example of "Macau" being used in English documents for every "Macao" you can find, but that is not the point. My point is the government is indeed favouring a spelling of "Macau" over "Macao", and that should be what we are reflecting.--Huaiwei 07:00, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks for providing a counter example. I have briefly glanced through the government directory of the English version of its website, and the choice between "Macao" and "Macau" is divided even within the government. We're not in a position to judge which should be used. I would treat this spelling inconsistency in the same way as British-American differences. — Instantnood 17:36 Feb 25 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. A.D.H. (t&m) 21:00, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Philip Baird Shearer 14:35, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Macao is common English spelling. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:37, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • No offence, but it isn't. It's the spelling that the PRC wants the English world to swallow. We covered this the last time Macau was proposed to be moved to Macao, but for your sake I'll repeat it. Please see Talk:Macau#Request_for_Move_discussion for the full debate from last time. English results on Google (as they've changed since last time around): Searching for Macau -Macao 5,130,000 hits.[7] and Macao -Macau: 1,580,000 [8]...without qualifiers—Macau: 5,330,000,[9] Macao: 1,710,000 [10], and Australian, British and US Government use "Macau" more predominantly. Please reconsider your opposition in light of these facts. —ExplorerCDT 19:30, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • It is indeed an interesting piece of information. I am not sure what the PRC government could have done, but "Macao" is definitely not a creation by the PRC government. An island in Hong Kong called "Lantau" has also got an alternative name "Lantao". Both "Macao"/"Macau" and "Lantau"/"Lantao" were given by the Portuguese who were the first Europeans visiting the southern China coast. The PRC government could have done the same to force the world "to swallow" to spelling "Lantao", but it hasn't. "Lantau" is the predominant spelling. The choice between "Macau" and "Macao" was perhaps arbitrary. And I am interested to know about the evidence of ExplorerCDT's claim. — Instantnood 20:50 Feb 26 2005 (UTC)
      • What claim do you want substantiated, gnat? As to "Macau" vs. "Macao" the difference comes from a nuance in Portuguese phoneticization being the most etymologically correct, as it was the Portuguese who had to write an equivalent of the name from the Chinese (if I recall it meant something like "Bay of A-ma") since it was their colonial pursuit. Macau is correct when transliterating the original Chinese name into Portuguese, and its usage dates back to the first lease of Macau in 1557, appearing on maps predominantly as "Macau" throughout the age of exploration into modernity. It does appear on maps occasionally with the typo Magau. The Macao usage is as a result of a system of transliteration from Portuguese texts into English in the 19th century that is no longer accepted by translators, as it was a system designed for adapting Spanish and Italian pedagogically for English-speakers. The fact remains, however, that despite the PRC's attempts to compel the English-speaking world to use "Macao" (they succeeded in doing so at the UN), the English speaking powers officially use Macau. So, the Reds in Peking have gotten the proverbial "up yours" from the diplomats in the English speaking world. —ExplorerCDT 21:25, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • P.S. As to Lantao, the reason we largely probably don't care...most Westerners don't know that Hong Kong is more than one island, and don't know anything other than "Hong Kong." I do, and FYI I spell it Lantao as that's the spelling I'm more familiar with. However, I didn't really care for Hong Kong, but the time I've spent in Macau (which I absolutely love) leads me to fight this vigorously. —ExplorerCDT 21:30, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Still.. I don't see any evidence that the guys in Beijing want the English-speaking world "to swallow" the spelling of "Macao", intentionally, and to make them give up the spelling of "Macau". And even if it's true, it's not a valid reason to support or oppose to either spellings. Both are common in English.
          • Hmm, I guess you don't think going around the international community demanding the English spelling be "Macao" doesn't count? I concede, both are common. But if google is an indicator, it's 4:1 in Macau's favour. —ExplorerCDT 19:15, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Both Lantau/Lantao and Macao/Macau came from Portuguese, and share the same problem in their spellings in English. That's why I used it as an example. I didn't care whether you're familiar of the island or not.
          • Do you think I care that you don't care? —ExplorerCDT 19:15, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • One more thing, no offense, remember about the third bullet point under this section. — Instantnood 18:53 Feb 27 2005 (UTC)
          • What does "Amend, edit, discuss" have to do with this? Geesh you are increasingly annoying, first by being doggedly persistent in forwarding inaccuracy, now you're bringing up irrelevant stuff. —ExplorerCDT 19:15, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Abdullah Öcalan to merge with PKK

The Abdullah Öcalan article is a summary of PKK. Abdullah Öcalan should be a redirect to PKK and info in Abdullah Öcalan should be merged with PKK, as neither article is complete without the other. Hence I vote for the move.

• OPPOSE First, sign your comments...otherwise your request is useless and will be ignored. Second, if Öcalan is a notable figure (which he appears to be) he should have his own biographical article...one better written than this. —ExplorerCDT 16:31, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - Öcalan and the PKK are both notable enough to deserve entries. No value in combining them into a single entry. Guettarda 16:38, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Both notable in their own right, separate articles make sense. -- Curps 18:32, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Opppose. Separate topics, each notable. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:34, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Also, I'm not sure this request even belongs here. This project is for moving pages, not deleting them. Jonathunder 19:12, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)

February 20 2005

Schutzstaffel → SS

SS → SS (disambiguation), and make SS a redirect to Schutzstaffel

I'm changing my proposal (if a may) to address the concerns about consistency in the naming of the Nazi articles, but still having SS go straight to Schutzstaffel. I believe this is what Michael Z proposed below. This will still have all the current links to the disambig page go without having to pipe them. Thsi changes a few of the rationale I listed below; ignore the ones that no longer apply. -R. fiend 00:50, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is actually a request for a move back to where the article existed before. It was moved some months ago with few votes on it. I believe the name SS is better for several reasons.

1. The current title violates Wikipedia naming comentions, which state that the title should be "what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize." Everyone calls the Schutzstaffel the "SS". I doubt most people even know what SS stands for, but they know what the SS is.
2. There must be more than a hundred links to the current SS dab page, and, as far as I call tell, almost 100% of them are meant to link to Schutzstaffel.
3. At this stage, the organization is basically called the SS. All the other things on the SS page are mere abbreviations. People don't search for "social security", "short stop", "swallow sidecar", etc. by typing in "SS"; they type in their names. Not so with Schutzstaffel. Even those who know what it stands for will likely search for it as "SS".
4. An argument against it being listed under "SS" was based on the most popular google results. Google searches don't rank by common useage, but by most popular pages. When I google SS my top result is listed because "ss" appears in the web address itself. Hardly terribly relevent; and I doubt most people typing "SS" in an encyclpedia search are looking for the California Secretery of State. The most common result from text in a page is for form SS - 5. Is that it's most popular use?
5. For what it's worth, the other reference books I have seem to all list it under "SS".

I hope I've made my point. Obviously there would be a header at the top linking to a SS (disambiguation) page. If it is voted to be kept where it is I ask as a courtesy that those who oppose the move will help disamibguate a few of links to the current SS page. I won't feel like doing it all myself. -R. fiend 21:52, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• OBJECTION. All the Nazi Germany articles are consistent, be it Sturmabteilung (the SA), the Sicherheitsdienst (the SD), or Volkssturm, or Kraft durch Freude (the KdF), or the other alphabet-soup agencies of the Third Reich. All the people I know know what SS means (not that they necessarily can translate Schutzstaffel, but they know what it is)...which must mean the folks (god love them) are dumb wherever you are. The redirects work fine, as people who type in SS get redirected there anyway through the disambiguation (and people do use SS for social security too often). It is also consistent for acronym government agencies to be redirected or disambiguated to the full name, as CIAredirects to Central Intelligence Agency, DEA to a disambiguation page that leads to Drug Enforcement Agency, FBI to Federal Bureau of Investigation, MI6 and SIS to its official name the Secret Intelligence Service (MI5 is the black sheep). This is a major league

waste of our time as there is no pressing need to move these, and there are too many alternative English language uses for SS that dedicating SS to just the Schutzstaffel in light of consistency and the overwhelming need for disambiguation is utterly ridiculous. —ExplorerCDT 22:12, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• • Yeah, most of my friends are stupid. That's it. Those who have a substantial interest in WWII know what it is, but somehow it's not terribly important to the others. I wonder why? Now what is more of a "major league" waste of time, taking a minute to register a vote on the move, or piping "Schutzstaffel" into a couple hundred links all over wikipedia? Are you going to help with the latter? -R. fiend 22:41, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks for a nice out-of-context cutting and pasting of my conversation regarding your other proposed move (your aborted attempt to move Schutzstaffel to SS which you have since removed) which is deliberately deceptive on your part (make me appear as though I'd oppose a sensible move by moving my comments to somewhere it didn't apply). I'd support this incarnation of your request contingent on there being a disclaiming header pointing to SS (disambiguation). —ExplorerCDT 16:36, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • What the fuck are you talking about? I didn't cut or paste any part of anything you've written. I merely changed my proposal at the top to what I consider a decent compromise. I announced it was a change, and it was based on what other's objections. Since yours was the first objection it was pretty clear that the altered proposal came after you had written your spiel. Try not to fly off the handle already. -R. fiend 18:36, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • There. I've even added a break to show which votes refer to the old proposal and which to the new. Hope you're happy now. -R. fiend 18:41, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect SS → Schutzstaffel. Simple compromise, satisfies some of both sides' concerns. —Michael Z. 2005-02-20 22:40 Z
  • I would support this as well: SS → SS (disambiguation), and make SS a redirect to Schutzstaffel. Dab header at the top of Schuztstaffel for those who came their via SS (as I imagine many would do). -R. fiend 22:54, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. SS should be a primary disambig page with the SchutzStaffel as its primary topic. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:43, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object SS (disambiguation) does a very fine job of listing what every possible abbreviation should stand for. Also, this argument that "most people dont know what SS stands for and thats why we should move it" is pretty weak. A lot of eduated people in the english speaking world are very interested that SS does mean Schutzstaffel. And, all arguments aside, Schutzstaffel that IS the name of the group. We open up a door here to move and change every Third Reich article from SD, SA, and many others. Lets leave everything alone and as it is. The article titles are fine the way that they are. -Husnock 20Feb05

---

• • Note: Original comments above this line refer to initial proposal to move Schutzstaffel to SS (although a few responses have come after). Below are for the new proposal to redirect SS to Schutzstaffel. Please add new posts below.
• Support redirect SS → Schutzstaffel. User:Anárion/sig 12:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support redirect SS → Schutzstaffel. Guettarda 16:27, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. zoney ♣ talk 17:08, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is just as often social security, secret service, or an abbreviation for semis, to say nothing of steamships, sworn statements, and saints. While the overwhelming majority of wikilinks will indeed be for the Schutzstaffel, a great many people turn to the encyclopedia when looking up unknown acronyms. A.D.H. (t&m) 19:31, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Support When I hear "Es Es", I don't think of any of those other things, but he disambiguation notice at Schutzstaffel takes care of them. —Michael Z. 2005-02-21 20:54 Z
• Support, although I'd much prefer just moving Schutzstaffel to SS. This is much the most common usage, and I can guarantee you that the vast, vast majority of English speakers have no idea what SS stands for. Hell, the vast, vast majority of English-speakers don't even know what the SS was to begin with. But even of those who do know, I can't imagine that more than a tiny percentage are actually aware of what it is the German acronym for. john k 03:42, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support redirecting SS. -Sean Curtin 03:12, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

article and categories about the Democratic Republic of the Congo → made consistent

Various article and categories (see Category:Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo and Category:Congolese_culture have inconsistent naming conventions, referring the Democratic Republic of the Congo variously as Congo (DR), Congo (DRC), Congo (Kinshasa). Also, some use the term Congolese, which as an article or category title is confusing as it can refer to the nearby Republic of Congo. I think all of the articles should read x of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. - XED.talk 13:00, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• List all the articles in question. I have grave concerns over these recent bulk requests, and I doubt administrators like to hunt and peck for the articles you want to see moved. Besides, how can we adequately vote without a list to see the extent of this request? —ExplorerCDT 06:46, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Support (conditional). The content of the articles or categories titled "Congo" or "Congolese" related to the Republic of the Congo should not be moved. — Instantnood 15:08 Feb 20 2005 (UTC)
• Support - BanyanTree 19:26, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. User:Anárion/sig 12:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This Side Of Paradise → This Side of Paradise

Decap the 'of' to eliminate a redir. TSoP originally was a Star Trek episode; as most people are probably looking for the F. Scott Fitzgerald novel rather than the TV show, I moved TSoP to TSoP (Star Trek episode); unfortunately, the redir left behind prevented me from moving TSoP (novel) to TSoP -- if an admin would be kind enough to delete the redir and rename the page, that would fix it. jdb ❋ 07:28, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• As one of my favourite novels, I was disappointed upon seeing such a pathetic stub. I totally support. —ExplorerCDT 16:17, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Jonathunder 18:17, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)
• Support. User:Anárion/sig 12:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. —Lowellian (talk) 09:30, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

IDM releases - Fakes → Untilted

Article concerns faked leaks of a sigle album and thus should be placed in an article for that album. -- Sund 01:59, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Support this is the craziest thing i have ever seen, we have to restore some semblance of order to this article. alibosworth (although i would like to hear any reasons for this mad system of redirects)
• Oppose. There are many things titled (ironically) "Untitled," and to be honest, I'm not sure that this article wouldn't be better off on VFD. A.D.H. (t&m) 03:32, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • It's untilted. Not sure about the VFD; I tend to stay away from albums. --SPUI (talk) 09:19, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral Usually on VFD the vote would be something like "Delete...When the album comes out, come backand write the article if becomes notable" but right now, I'd recommend for VfD (which I'm tempted to do). Is it "Untitled" or "Untilted"? AND...why is it a double redirect? —ExplorerCDT 05:27, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support this should have never been moved.
• Support This article's existence is really out of kindness to the Record Label Records crew. It's unnecessary entirely, but at least in Untilted it will be less silly. <3, Junjk

February 19 2005

AirTrain (JFK) → AirTrain JFK and AirTrain (Newark) → AirTrain Newark

These are the official names for the lines. --SPUI (talk) 01:30, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Go ahead. Who's protesting this? jdb ❋ 01:41, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The man is putting me down with page history and "this page cannot be moved". In theory this page should only be for these cases. --SPUI (talk) 09:18, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• As a repeated AirTrain JFK customer...Support. —ExplorerCDT 05:24, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Jonathunder 18:22, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)
• Seems reasonable. Support. Tomtomtomtomtom 04:07, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Image:China_flag_large.png → Image:PRC_flag_large.png

To conform with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Political NPOV. (I'm not sure if it's Wikipedia's procedure to move an image on this page.) — Instantnood 13:19, Feb 19 2005 (UTC)

• By nominating I support renaming. — Instantnood 13:19, Feb 19 2005 (UTC)
  • This is not the place for changing the name of images. You can do that yourself. Simply rename it on your own computer and go through the upload process, relink the image. Further, I don't think you should be relying on a naming convention that has been edited back and forth on the topic of China vs. PRC and Taiwan vs. ROC for the past few weeks with divisive controversy. —ExplorerCDT 18:11, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes I know it could be done in that way. But it would be nothing difference from copy and paste moving of an article.
      Would you mind providing any evidence to your argument " a naming convention that has been edited back and forth on the topic of China vs. PRC and Taiwan vs. ROC for the past few weeks with divisive controversy. "? — Instantnood 17:46, Feb 19 2005 (UTC)
      • If you knew it could be done that way, why didn't you do it? Are you helpless? As to the proof you seek, look through the edit history...hardly any proof of a consensus on this "convention." Do you feel some inexorable need to waste our time with such indolent nonsense? —ExplorerCDT 19:50, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Copy and paste moving is not encouraged on Wikipedia, and in my opinion the same applies.
          The section on political NPOV of the set of conventions that I have quoted from is not edited "back and forth for the past few weeks with divisive controversy". All the sentences I have quoted have been there since January 2004. Some of the sentences and ideas have been there since July 2003. — Instantnood 18:37, Feb 19 2005 (UTC)
          • I guess the December 2004/January 2005 don't count because they don't suit your argument. This is one thing YOU can do yourself, simply as I detailed the procedure above. Why don't you stop this horseshit and take the damned initiative? —ExplorerCDT 22:55, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
            • • There's no need for that kind of language. While I think Instanood may be overdoing the number of pages he or she wants moved, I am still appreciative that Instanood went to this page first to request the moves rather than unilaterally just making such potentially controversial moves. —Lowellian (talk) 09:32, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
            • There wasn't any edit regarding the section on Political NPOV in December 2004. The January 2005 edits by the anonymous contributor with IP address 24.46.97.196 were reverted in 35 minutes. — Instantnood 09:19, Feb 20 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is getting silly. -- Curps 20:16, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support PRC is correct in this case ObsidianOrder 20:52, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• support this is just a damn image. if you want to reupload it and change all the links yourself, then be my guest. You might want to deal with the Taiwan flag too. no need to list here.--Jiang 02:10, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support, although this is not technically a move candidate—upload the image under another name, change the relevant links, and request that the original be deleted. A.D.H. (t&m) 03:14, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you. — Instantnood 09:23, Feb 20 2005 (UTC)
• Support. User:Anárion/sig 12:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Kemal Atatürk → Mustafa Kemal Atatürk

This is an after-the-event request, really. Someone has done an extremely sloppy copy-and-paste job to move the content of the former article to the latter address. The history needs to be merged in. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:45, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've switched it back, for now at least. I think I'd oppose the move, since he's generally known as either Mustafa Kemal or Kemal Atatürk, not Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. john k 20:31, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Makes sense. Coolcat is a bit new so he doesn't always know the right way to do stuff, but he seems to be settling down and producing some good edits and settling down to the Wiki way. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:34, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hmm...he yelled at me for doing it, and immediately reverted back. john k 02:18, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm also not a big fan of this, from his user page:

I only watch topics I am knowlegeable in. You are welcome to challenge my edit in the topics discussion. Do NOT edit what I added/modified without discussing. At least tell why you made the change (grammer and spelling fixes are alwats...always welcome). I will be "policing" the folowing articles.

john k 02:19, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Show him some kindness. Please do not bite the newcomers --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:52, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose — Kemal Atatürk is most widely known. — Davenbelle 12:33, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Having read the arguments I also oppose. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:45, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. User:Anárion/sig 12:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Agree. Main article be: Mustafa Kemal Atatürk with Kemal Atatürk as a redirect. Most widely known argument isnt 100% acccurate. A lot of people refer to him by his last name as there is only one Atatürk. I am used to him being refered by his full name after the establisment of the last name law(or whatever you want to call it). Before the Law, he was reffered as Mustafa Kemal. Historians tend to refer him by his first two names as before the law he did not have a last name. By the way, I am trying to get used to the way wikipedia goes. Give me time to adjust to diplomacy :P. --Cool Cat| My Talk 13:33, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Neutrality^talk 16:57, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Kemal Atatürk is common name in English. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:25, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Guys, the guy has a full name. That has to be his full name. A redirect from Kemal Ataturk would work, I really dont understand what the fuss is about. It's not the way people refer to him. In a casual conversation he is reffered by last name. In any book he is refered by his full name.

• Support.Zfr 12:40, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Stick with the name used most often in English. Jonathunder 01:09, 2005 Feb 28 (UTC)

It is not though. Have you ever read a well-written book which he is in recently? People refer to him my his last name, Ataturk or his first two names Mustafa Kemal. Never seen/heard anyone refer to him in any other way... O_o --Cool Cat| My Talk 07:23, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

An interesting input: on 25 Aug 2002 the article was created as a redirect to Mustafa Kemal Ataturk on 30 May 2003 was a redirect to Mustafa Kemal Atatürk until 6 Jul 2003 when a stub article was introduced. That user is not an admin so that means it was not a move. There was a duplicate basicaly. In the near history of article. I dont see when the merging actualy happened, constant vandalism has hit this article hard, thats clear. --Cool Cat| My Talk 08:06, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

GM Daewoo Motors → GM Daewoo Auto and Technology or GM Daewoo

The original name of this South Korean automaker was in fact Daewoo Motors; however, the operational parts bought out by General Motors were reincorporated as GM Daewoo Auto & Technology company with a short name of GM Daewoo, GM DAT (or GMDAT) being even shorter and informal name - see GMDAT.com. These official and short names are listed right at the beginning of the GM Daewoo Motors article, clearly conflicting with Motors in the title name. --DmitryKo 09:40, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I thought GMDAT was a different company. But if you're sure that they changed the name, then I support the move. Thanks for bringing the discussion here. --SFoskett 15:46, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that GM Daewoo Auto & Technology Co. has been the company name right from the start - see the official PR on its public launch (the same text reformatted to a much better layout can be found at AutoIntell news). It makes a specific mention of "design, engineering, research & development" branches of the newly-formed company.

All of the three names are used interchangeably by GM staff, as shown by GM Asia Pacific Operations and GM Daewoo builts diesel plant. The source of confusion could be the fact that Koreans use GM Daewoo as short name for the company, emphasizing its history and somewhat equal partnership with GM, while Americans are also using GMDAT abbreviation widely, effectively downplaying the importance of Daewoo brand. Both of these short names still refer to GM Daewoo Auto & Technology Co., established in 2002 by GM (through its Holden branch), Suzuki and SAIC on the assets of then-bancrupt Daewoo Motors Co. --DmitryKo 18:40, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Resume: On a second thought, I think shorter GM Daewoo title suits the purpose of naming the article much better than full company name, so I'll just relocate it and fix the double redirects myself. Please move this discussion to the Talk:GM Daewoo. --DmitryKo 15:08, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

February 18 2005

Science and technology in China → Science and technology in mainland China

The article deals with scientific and technological development of the PRC since its establishment in 1949, without any coverage of Hong Kong and Macao, which were former European exclaves until 1997/1999, and are now special administrative regions of the PRC with their own governments. The section on history has been moved to a separate article titled History of science and technology in China. — Instantnood 18:39, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)

• • Quoted from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Political NPOV: " Hong Kong and Macau are generally not considered part of Mainland China, but are under the jurisdiction of the PRC. Thus, it is appropriate to write "many tourists from Hong Kong and Taiwan are visiting Mainland China." ". — Instantnood 18:52, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)
• By nominating I support moving the article. — Instantnood 18:41, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)
• oppose. if there's anything significant from HK and Macau, then add it. i don't see why not. and what do we do about technology pre-1949? this is overdoing it --Jiang 18:56, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Hong Kong and Macao should have separate articles. Hong Kong and Macao are not part of the PRC from 1949 to 1997/1999, and they currently have their own governments, with their own policies and developments in science and technology. — Instantnood 19:42, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)
    • They can both have separate articles and have mention in this article. However, the mainland is many times larger and dominates. And as you said, "China" has been "mainland China" for much of history. For the ease of use, please dont unnecessarily complicate things. --Jiang 21:48, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • They are not and should not be covered in this article. As I have mentioned, they have their own policies, and their own path of development. The title of an article has to be accurate to tell the scope of its content. — Instantnood 22:50, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)
        • The can exist as separate articles. They can be linked to, mentioned, etc. Either theyre important enough for mention, or theyre so insignificant/separate that mention is not necessary. If the move were necessary as you argue, then theyre signficant enough for mention. It's absurd to be forcing ancient/imperial Chinese development into an article with "mainland China" in its title when the term wasnt used until the rise of Communist China. --Jiang 05:02, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • Contents of ancient development are not part of this article. They are not forced to be include in an article with the title "mainland China". — Instantnood 12:49, Feb 19 2005 (UTC)
            • It's a continous civilization. it's not necessary to force them off if they fit the same page. if they dont fit, we use summary style, not splitting --Jiang 02:06, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
              • I fully understand why you oppose a split. Nonetheless it is not really a "continuous civilisation" in present-day context. The 20th century seen a separated development of science and technology in different parts of the region of China, each with different influences and inputs. — Instantnood 09:35, Feb 20 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Needless change to a more confusing term, jguk 19:03, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia has to be accurate, NPOV and encyclopedic. If one wants to know what mainland China is, it's just several clicks to take you to the article about mainland China on Wikipedia. — Instantnood 19:40, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Cumbersome to qualify something that does not require qualification. —ExplorerCDT 18:54, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • "China", "People's Republic of China" and "Mainland China" are not the same, i.e. China ≠ People's Republic of China ≠ Mainland China. — Instantnood 17:51, Feb 19 2005 (UTC)
    • Just like User:Instantnood = Jackass and = someone interrupting Wikipedia to make a point, but User:Instantnood ≠ some nice guy who avoids getting on peoples nerves with his inane bullshit. —ExplorerCDT 22:59, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Alright then. There's no common ground for wikipedians to discuss with you. — Instantnood 09:37, Feb 20 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose -- Curps 20:19, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose as ExplorerCDT said, cumbersome ObsidianOrder 20:51, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I agree that science and technology in mainland China between 1949 and 1999 should be distinguished from the situation in Hong Kong and Macao during the same time. (Also, continuing from 1999 on forwards, since there still is no homogeneity.) --MarkSweep 00:24, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • This disregards ancient/imperial/republican China.--Jiang
    • There is an article titled History of science and technology in China. The two articles are linked to each other at the "see also" section. — Instantnood 09:39, Feb 20 2005 (UTC)
• Support. A.D.H. (t&m) 03:17, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. By all means, add a subsection with reference to HK and Macau, and provide a link to a more detailed article if need be. We dont need different articles just because policies and governments are different.--Huaiwei 14:21, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • In what way is Hong Kong and Macao were part of China before 1997/1999? And how should homogeneity be justifed from 1997/1999 onwards? — Instantnood 15:19 Feb 20 2005 (UTC)
    • The title of the article dosent seem to have any timeframe built into it. It does not specify that you can only talk about scientific developments in China before the arrival of the colonists, during the era of colonisation, or after the handover alone. In addition, why are you suddenly launching into a question concerning whether HK and Macau are part of China or not in a page on science and tech?--Huaiwei 15:48, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • The current title suggests no time frame, but only content of mainland China after 1949 is included. Science and technological development prior to 1949 are covered by History of science and technology in China. To better reflect its content, the title had already been changed to "..mainland China", but was later moved back by Jiang.
        Hong Kong and Macao weren't part of China between the time they were colonised and 1997/1999, and share no homogeneity in science and development with mainland China even after 97/99. Naturally they are not covered by the article which focuses on the mainland since the establishment of the PRC. — Instantnood 19:05 Feb 20 2005 (UTC)
        • I can see that the article only carries material for China after 1949, and only on whats happening under the CCP. But that dosent mean we cannot EXPAND on the article to include the advancement of Chinese science and technology since 5000 years ago, and in all places whereby the Chinese view of science and nature is being practised. In fact, I feel History of science and technology in China should be merged with this page so that we can see a continous flow of information over time periods.--Huaiwei 08:30, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • Being a continuum fails to justify a merger of two articles. If it has to be divided into articles, the establishment of the PRC is a good point to be divided along. Many history articles are linked together by the "see also" section, or by a box (a template) that links to articles of the same series. — Instantnood 11:27 Feb 21 2005 (UTC)
            • Failing to expand on the article is not justification for splitting the article into multiple parts either.--Huaiwei 11:57, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
              • I did not say the article fails to be expanded. — Instantnood 13:24 Feb 21 2005 (UTC)
• Support. BlankVerse ∅ 06:16, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Much of the article should be about sci/tech within the entire Chinese cultural sphere for centuries before 1949. —Lowellian (talk) 09:20, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:38, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

February 16 2005

X in People's Republic of China → X in China

• Also X of People's Republic of China → X of China
• Also People's Republic of China's X → China's X
• etc.

There are a number of articles and categories with titles that use "People's Republic of China" in the title where just "China" would be more suitable, on grounds of "using common names". For instance People's Republic of China's trademark law and many other examples.

The use of "China" (in reference to current events and situations) in modern news media and everyday usage always refers to the territory, population, and society that is the People's Republic of China... the only political controversy is over whether China includes Taiwan or not. The term "Republic of China" is always used in full (or abbreviated to "ROC") — that is, the term "China" alone (in reference to current events and situations) never refers to the Republic of China.

For instance, when the news media refer to "China's economy" (a major topic these days), it is always the People's Republic of China's economy that is being referred to.

Exceptions: there are currently separate full articles on China and People's Republic of China, and History of China and History of the People's Republic of China. These are therefore not simple page moves, and are outside the scope of this "requested moves" page.

Note: the article Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) would be edited in accordance with the outcome of this vote and the votes below on ROC/Taiwan issues. However, the votes are not linked: voting for one does not imply voting for the other. -- Curps 22:35, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Support with condition PRC/China gets to use the term "China" as the name of the political entity; meanwhile, ROC/Taiwan gets to use the term "Taiwan" as the name of the political entity. Taiwan and ROC are interchangable as China and PRC when these terms are used to refering political entities. When the term "China" is being used in either political context or geographical context, it strictly refers to the territory under PRC jurisdiction. Territories outside of the current PRC jurisdiction depends on the context such as historical territories would be mentioned as part of historical territory. Taiwan would be only claimed by China as part of China, but not regarded as part of China. Provinces of China and the political divisions of China refers to the provinces of PRC with her claim over Taiwan. No articles of China would make Taiwan as part of it, only make claims of it. ROC is not China(here, PRC) or part of China(here, PRC). ROC should not be listed in a article which make it look like part of China/PRC.Mababa 04:59, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Saying the ROC and Taiwan are the same is not neutral. See this (from the PRC), and this (from Lee Teng-hui) for example, regarding the criticism of Chen Shui-bian for making such a claim. Certainly in the many times I've heard "China" being used, it does not strictly refer to, either in a politically, and especially and a geographical and cultural context, to the PRC. Your POV is one supporting Taiwan independence. We must represent all sides here. What if we regarded both the PRC and ROC to be part of China? What if we want to be ambiguous? What you propose is certainly not NPOV. --Jiang 05:31, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Yeah... I do see what you mean. Your statement "What if we regarded both the PRC and ROC to be part of China" is an obvious unification supporter's POV and I do not believe Wiki should have any thing to do with this statement though. Further, I do not think my proposal is supporting Taiwan independence by all means. I do not believe my proposal would ever damage PRC's claim over Taiwan nor bolster it. It is sheerly for connecting common perception to the Wikipedia so that we are not locked in our ivory tower and make a twisted encyclopedia that is not recognizable. PRC's claim would always be addressed as her claims as usually being processed here. There is a strong and clear need to have China to be directed to PRC in this Wikipeida for those readers searching information on PRC, and there is obviously some articles written not inline with the current naming convention and used China as political entity refering to PRC. I am only proposing a fair and easy solution so that no straneous or dramatic changes would be required to fix the current situation. I have been following the convention NPOV policy and most ROC related articles are quick to be fixed. Now I wish same priniciple would be applied to the POV in some articles using the term "China" as a political entity or we should change this policy to another fair and neutral usage. With the current poll land sliding toward opposition, I am confident that the wisdom envisioned in the NPOV convention dictating the term "China" would not be used refering any political entity (and often used to include ROC and PRC together under a political entity called as China) would be enforced and carried out.Mababa 22:25, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • China can be a geographical or a cultural area, that both mainland China and Taiwan belongs to. Saying Taiwan is part of this geographical or cultural concept of China does not necessarily means pro-unification. — Instantnood 13:01, Feb 19 2005 (UTC)
• Conditionally oppose - This not an issue of which political entity is China--that was the Cold War debate. This is over the definitions of the entity named China. By endorsing the "People's Republic of China" as the sole China, we are still making a political statement. This goes against the notion that China is a cultural/geographic entity that transcends regimes--almost no Chinese, and no one familiar with China, will dispute that this can be at least an alternative definition of "China" given how many dynasties have passed through. Those who hold the view that China is a cultural/geographic entity currently divided politically between the PRC and ROC are not few. The news media usage is not NPOV. It's meant to be simplistic since news is designed to be short and cater to the masses. Do you also recommend moving Republic of Macedonia to Macedonia and Republic of Ireland to Ireland because the media does the same? This is awfully western-centric because in a Chinese political debate where there are multiple sides, the neutral terms mainland China and Taiwan are used, never simply China and Taiwan. As an encyclopedia, we can be different. We are supposed to be neutral and to educate. Any confusion in the title can be cleared up in the text. When most/many Chinese refer to China, they do not refer simply to the People's Republic of China, but Greater China. Just walk into San Francisco Chinatown and you'll see the flag of the PRC and flag of the ROC appearing in equal frequency--the ROC flags aren't being flown by Taiwanese, they are being flown by Cantonese-speaking immigrants and their descendants. Given that this is a politically contentious issue, this deserves exception to the "use common names" approach. The same exception has been given to Macedonia and Ireland. Why not China? Furthermore, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) may not be changed without proper consultations on the proper talk page, in the least a note directing others to this page. This said, I oppose mainly in principle. References in the text to the President of the People's Republic of China should not be changed. I oppose strongly on that. But for Politics of China to sit where it is, I will remain neutral. There was lengthy debate on this at Talk:People's Republic of China/Talk:China archives. Unfortunately, some of these are lost to the software and we'll need further help to retrieve them--Jiang 05:21, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would be neutral on the Politics of China as well since it is clearly dedicated to the PRC (and no ROC involved), even this usage was not complying with the convention. As to the province of China and political divisions of China, they included ROC together with PRC under a political entity called "China" which is against the convention and makes a political statement endorsing the PRC's position :"There is only one China in the world. Both the Mainland and Taiwan belong to one China.[11]" This is clearly not neutral and should get fixed in a way that either making the article purely dedicated to PRC (just like the politics of China) or having the NPOV convention enforced, so that not a single political entity would be called "China."Mababa 22:25, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The concept of province to the ROC and to the PRC is more or less the same (except for the autonomous regions under PRC's system (or to be exact, mainland China's system), which are either titled provinces or regions/areas). Splitting the article on "province of China" into two is probably redundant. — Instantnood 17:59, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose (unconditionally). The treatment of the title of these articles depends on the scope of the content. If it is about China in general, without dealing with any government (such as calligraphy, history, etc.) or both governments are addressed (such as province of China), the title "X of China" or "Chinese X" should be used. If it involves the two governments, "X of the People's Republic of China" and "X of Republic of China" should be used. If Hong Kong and Macao are not covered, such as economy, trade, culture, customs, cinema, etc., "X of mainland China", "X of Hong Kong", "X of Macao" should be used, instead of "X of the People's Republic of China". The same should apply to templates and categories.
  I also oppose editing the naming conventions according to the votes on this page. It should be done at the discussion page of that article. — Instantnood 08:41, Feb 17 2005 (UTC)
  • • Comment: province of China involves a political power (a goverment called China in this case) exterting a state's sovereignty over territories. It is not something goegraphical. It is political and not neutral of the current article and your proposal in that talk page. Please understand that your political POV is not neutral.Mababa 22:25, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: On the other hand, there are two governments called China, so which one are you refering to?--Huaiwei 22:33, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Your question is my concern and also your own answer. Which one? Please take note that PRC vehemently objects "two China" and thus we should not bias against their POV. Nor should we make ROC part of PRC 'casue it's biased against Taiwanese. You are more than welcome to participate the POV dispute in political divisions of China if you have any suggestions. We need more opinions to solve the POV dispute.Mababa 00:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • For provinces, its the same thing for the ROC and the PRC, just like calligraphy of China. — Instantnood 18:01, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons given by Instantnood. --MarkSweep 09:10, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, for the reasons given bt Instantnood. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:39, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - XED.talk 10:35, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, vehemently even. The term China embodies and invokes different meanings to different people, and to assume that they all refer to the PRC alone goes against wikipedia conventions of respecting the views of all sides, as pointed out by Jiang and Instantnood above.--Huaiwei 21:56, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Jiang and Instantnood have said all that needs to be said. -- ran (talk) 02:19, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose ObsidianOrder 06:45, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, and assume bad faith. A.D.H. (t&m) 03:21, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Why bad faith? The Taiwan voting trend below seemed to indicate people wanted to abandon using "Republic of China" because "everyone just calls it Taiwan". For this reason I invoked "everyone calls it China", I thought surely these same voters would agree. And English speakers talking about "China" are just talking about a country, not mystical Tianxia. Inconsistency in voting here is frankly surprising. -- Curps 12:01, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I doubt if everyone who voted for the DPP is pro-independence. Some of them voted the DPP as an alternative to KMT, which was associated with "hēi jīn" (black gold). Indeed many polls show that the majority of people on Taiwan support neither independence (i.e. changing the official title to Taiwan and officially renounce claims on the mainland) nor reunification (or rejoining/joining), but to keep the status quo. — Instantnood 13:36 Feb 20 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose It will invoke a NPOV dispute. --Aphaea* 11:01, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. BlankVerse ∅ 06:23, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. POV. —Lowellian (talk) 09:45, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

List of metropolitan areas in Taiwan → Metropolitan areas in ROC (Taiwan)

Quoted from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese): "the word "Taiwan" should not be used if the term "Republic of China" is more accurate.". The original title of the article was Metropolitan areas in ROC (Taiwan), and was moved at 03:28, Feb 16 2005 by Jiang. Alternatives for renaming: List of metropolitan areas in the Republic of China, List of metropolitan areas in the ROC, and List of metropolitan areas in the ROC (Taiwan). — Instantnood 20:14, Feb 16 2005 (UTC)

• • Metropolitan areas in the Republic of China (ROC) is defined by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics of the Executive Yuan of the ROC. It applies to the entire territories under ROC's control, in other words it is not restricted to the island of Taiwan, or the province of Taiwan. (Although the outcome is that all metropolitan areas are located on the island of Taiwan.) — Instantnood 21:17, Feb 16 2005 (UTC)
• By nominating I support moving the article. — Instantnood 20:17, Feb 16 2005 (UTC) ( moving to List of metropolitan areas in the Republic of China — Instantnood 07:49, Feb 17 2005 (UTC) )
• OPPOSE for the same reasons I enumerated below at length in the Requested Move for Politics of Taiwan → Politics of the Republic of China &c. However, I would support a move to Metropolitan areas in Taiwan simply because the article is substantially more than a mere "List of." —ExplorerCDT 20:44, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Your proposed move does not make it more accurate since all these metro areas are located on the geographical island of Taiwan. The title is also ungrammatical and fails to convey that this is moreso a list than an actual article--Jiang 21:06, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • The article employs the official definition by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics of the Executive Yuan, but not the governments of Taiwan Province, Taipei Municipality and Kaohsiung Municipality.
  • Alternatives for renaming are also suggested. — Instantnood 21:22, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is a policy to use common names. --Improv 21:11, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Please also refer to Don't overdo it. :-) — Instantnood 21:23, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • ROC and Taiwan is not overdoing it or inaccurate like using "Tidal Wave" for "Tsunami." Also, the section you're citing does not say we shouldn't use the more common "Mark Twain" just because "Samuel Clemens" was the name on his birth certificate and other documents where he had to be legally recognized. —ExplorerCDT 03:34, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Using Taiwan to refer to the ROC is common, yet it is not accurate. — Instantnood 07:47, Feb 17 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. No-one outside America would understand the new name. Use the name everyone understands, "Taiwan", jguk 21:16, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think wikipedians who made up the conventions and placed the article at Republic of China are all from the states. — Instantnood 07:46, Feb 17 2005 (UTC)
  • You may be confusing two issues here: if a substantial number of people would be helped by the word "Taiwan", then appropriate redirects should be created. But that has no bearing on what the article should be called. Issues of understanding can easily be addressed in the first paragraph of the article. Using "the name everyone understands" is not necessarily accurate, universal, or NPOV. --MarkSweep 01:08, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Taiwan as the name of a geographical area (the island) is not controversial. -- Curps 21:38, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Matsu Islands and Quemoy are neither part of the island of Taiwan, nor province of Taiwan. Yet they are territories under ROC's control. — Instantnood 07:44, Feb 17 2005 (UTC)
  • If you read the article, you'll see that it is not about a geographical area. It is about the definition of what counts as a "metropolitan area" as defined by the ROC government. As such, it is primarily about the ROC and should have a title that reflects that. The words "list of" in the title are clearly misleading and may create the wrong impression that this article is about geography. It is not. --MarkSweep 00:59, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose I would prefer that any Taiwan/ROC article uses simply "Taiwan" ObsidianOrder 21:48, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • That involves modifying the conventions. Currently the article about the government is at Republic of China but not Taiwan. — Instantnood 07:45, Feb 17 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, it does. I would like to see the conventions changed. I would consider the following: PRC = the political entity. China = geographic region, includes Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macao, etc. Taiwan = political and geographic entity with the same status as a country. ROC = just a footnote under Taiwan explaining where the ROC name comes from and why it's used. Just my 0.02. ObsidianOrder 13:30, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • "Republic of China" is a much more accurate title than "Taiwan", for neither the island of Taiwan nor the province of Taiwan covers 100% of ROC's territories. The pro-independence politicians do not consider the Matsu Islands and Quemoy Taiwan's territories. — Instantnood 18:32, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose For same reasons as I cite in other move below.--Silverback 14:47, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • "Taiwan" is not an accurate term to refer to the government, and in fact those pro-independence politicians who also advocate changing the country's official title to Taiwan (or "Republic of Taiwan") do not regard Quemoy and the Matsu Islands of the ROC's province of Fukien as their territories. — Instantnood 18:27, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose As stated above, all the metropolitan areas listed are on the island of Taiwan. In addition, the vast majority of people outside of east Asia are more familiar with the name "Taiwan" than "Republic of China". Redxiv 18:02, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • The article is based upon a definition by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics of the Executive Yuan of the ROC, which is applied and applicable to all territories under ROC's control, i.e. not restricted to the island of Taiwan or province of Taiwan. — Instantnood 18:28, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)
  • I repeat: this article is not primarily about geography. It's about the designation "metropolitan area" as defined by the ROC government. --MarkSweep 01:08, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support, use official name. Grue 07:32, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support (but it needs a better target for the move). I was reluctant at first, but after reading the article in question, I have to agree. This article is about a standard set by the ROC government, and as such it is about a political entity (i.e., the ROC), not a geographic entity (i.e. Taiwan). --MarkSweep 00:31, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • The name suggested on the title of this section was the old name of the article, before moving by Jiang. I agree it needs a better target.
    Yes the standard is drawn by the ROC, and (to repeat) not by the governments of Taiwan Province, and Taipei and Kaohsiung municipalities. — Instantnood 13:48 Feb 20 2005 (UTC)
• Support. If this were simply a list, I would've opposed the move, but it does indeed appear to be an article about an ROC standard. A.D.H. (t&m) 03:25, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Moving would invoke ambiguity for many readers. --Aphaea* 11:02, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • The content of the article already tells the ROC is a government controlling Taiwan. The ambiguity issue can be easily solved by redirecting "..Taiwan" to "..the Republic of China". — Instantnood 13:43 Feb 20 2005 (UTC)
• Support Again, I'm not clear why anyone would oppose an increase in accuracy; that's what we're trying to achieve in this encycopædia isn't it? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:12, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Both "Taiwan" and "ROC" by themselves are ambiguous. BlankVerse ∅ 06:30, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Since these metropolitan areas are in the geographical region of Taiwan, there is no POV problem. The new name is clumsy and inelegant. —Lowellian (talk) 09:20, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Here's what I think should be the rule of thumb (a very, very simplified version of a rule of thumb; there are going to be complex exceptions): if the article is about geography, use Taiwan. If the article is about culture, use China. If the article is about politics, use Republic of China. —Lowellian (talk) 09:24, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. While the status of Quemoy and Matsu is obviously of encyclopedic interest, it is scarcely grounds to obfuscate articles about Taiwan by using a confusing, therefore not conveying information accurately to users who have not previously been initiated, name. Susvolans (pigs can fly) Did you know that there is a proposal to treat dissent from naming conventions as vandalism? 18:44, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Politics of Taiwan → Politics of the Republic of China

Quoted from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese): "the word "Taiwan" should not be used if the term "Republic of China" is more accurate.". — Instantnood 19:49, Feb 16 2005 (UTC)

The same applies to List of political parties in Taiwan → List of political parties in the Republic of China and Elections in Taiwan → Elections in the Republic of China. — Instantnood 19:51, Feb 16 2005 (UTC)

See also the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Politics of Taiwan. — Instantnood 10:54, Feb 20 2005 (UTC)

• By nominating I support moving the articles. — Instantnood 19:49, Feb 16 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Taiwan is far better known as the name, and the Taiwanese government and people prefer it. -XED.talk 20:11, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • half the Taiwanese population, probably those who voted for the current president, prefer it. see comment below.--Jiang 21:04, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • when half the Taiwnese population knows it as Taiwan, and the rest of the world knows it as Taiwan, then its pretty clear it should be called Taiwan. Even recent passports issued by the Taiwanese government are starting to emphasize the name "Taiwan". - XED.talk 21:45, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • That's the POV of the current governing party DPP and the president. In fact there was a debate over printing the word "Taiwan" on passports. — Instantnood 07:55, Feb 17 2005 (UTC)
        • Please take note: The debates exist. The general public supports the move.Mababa 01:28, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • Yes the debates exist. And the general public prefer keeping the current situation (neither reunification nor going independent). But that's not relevant, as its the Wikipedia's principle to be NPOV. — Instantnood 18:02, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Taiwan is a much better known name, G-Man 20:26, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • But it is not accurate. — Instantnood 07:56, Feb 17 2005 (UTC)
• OPPOSE. I recall that this and other Taiwan → Republic of China requests have been made on several previous occasions. And is should be noted that the naming convention you have chosen to cite has been edited back and forth over this issue without resolution or consensus for the past several weeks. Without any such resolution, it is impossible to apply this "convention" much less state that such an unstable tete-a-tete is in fact a "convention." However, these facts substantiate why I oppose this move: First–by renaming these items "Republic of China" you potentially can confuse people who may think they are reading an article about the "People's Republic of China." Second–Taiwan receives 44,700,000 hits on google [12], while "Republic of China" receives 3,880,000 [13] (however, in light of the confusion mentioned above, I have also searched under "Republic of China" -People's which reduces the total to 1,350,000 [14] and likewise to avoid confusion with Mainland China's "Province of Taiwan" I have searched "Taiwan -'Province of'" which reduced the Taiwan total to 27,100,000 [15]) While I don't advocate google test results without analysis, a 20:1 ratio after the search is qualified is sufficient in my opinion to judge "Taiwan" as the more common choice. Third–The general convention on Wikipedia has been to label articles using the conventional short form of a country's name, hence Politics of Mexico and not Politics of the United Mexican States, &c. Fourth–The CIA World Factbook has only a listing for "Taiwan" and none for "Republic of China", and further states on the Taiwan article [16] that there is no conventional long form of the county's name (which if there were would be "Republic of China" but according to the CIA, that doesn't exist as a CLF most likely because the U.S. doesn't formally recognize the government in Taipei.). The U.S. State Department refers to "Taiwan" in an article on the People's Republic of China (the mainland), but does not refer to any entity known as the "Republic of China" [17] also stating under Note 3 on a list of Independent States of the World With the establishment of diplomatic relations with China on January 1, 1979, the US Government recognized the People's Republic of China as the sole legal government of China and acknowledged the Chinese position that there is only one China and that Taiwan is part of China. Fifth, the article for Taiwan's/ROC's communist counterpart is China and their politics article as Politics of China, which is in keeping with the third premise I stated above. Sixth, Politics of the Republic of China is a cumbersomely long title for the article when concise brevity is generally the norm. The only counter position is that Taiwan only refers to one of the several islands under the control of the Republic of China, however, because the more common usage is to umbrella the ROC's islands as "Taiwan" in the same manner that the Hawaiian Islands are collectively called "Hawaii" in addition the fact that most of the English-speaking West refers to "Taiwan" popularly rather than the cumbersome "Republic of China," this counter position is moot. —ExplorerCDT 20:42, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The country template exists at Republic of China, not Taiwan. The article for communist China is at People's Republic of China, not China. On technical grounds, calling the Republic of China "Taiwan" is as much accurate as calling the United Kingdom "Great Britain". There's the island of Taiwan, which excludes the Pescadores and Quemoy/Matsu and there's the ROC's Taiwan Province, which excludes Taipei, Kaohsiung, Quemoy, and Matsu, and the PRC's Taiwan Province, which excludes Quemoy and Matsu. Neither of these definitions, either political or geographical, are completely synonymous with the Republic of China. In the case of the Hawaiian Islands, there's the political entity, the state of Hawaii. When President Chen made statements last year and the year before saying "Taiwan is the Republic of China and the Republic of China is Taiwan" there was widespread opposition by not only unification-leaning groups in Taiwan, but the People's Republic of China (as evidenced by Xinhua news reports protesting the statements) and the United States (seeming to suggest moves away from the status quo). Therefore, saying they are the same is not neutral. The US position is not neutral either: in recognizing the PRC, it "acknowledged" the PRC's position that the Republic of China is a defunct entity having been replaced by the PRC. Of course they can't call it the "Republic of China"... Please note that Foreign relations of Taiwan has been moved to Foreign relations of the Republic of China in the not so distant past. I won't take a stand on whether the politics article should be moved, since this is no big deal, but I would like to see some consistency. Either move this to ROC or move that one back to Taiwan. Foreign relations of the People's Republic of China should be dealt with similarly. --Jiang 21:04, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • It seems we have several articles...China, Mainland China and People's Republic of China. I believe, due to the reasons I stated above, that the consistent position should be naming the articles "Taiwan." —ExplorerCDT 21:09, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • However, among those, the template resides at People's Republic of China. The naming conventions have been well-enforced within articles for the most part. Try searching for references of "President of Taiwan" or "Flag of Taiwan" (you wont see these linked to in this manner). These pages are only such because the rules are being ignored--they existed before the templates were moved. If I wanted to play by the rules, I would support moving--Jiang
        • It is also a matter of consistence. — Instantnood 07:57, Feb 17 2005 (UTC)
  • (To ExplorerCDT) Nearly all webpages about "Republic of China" would mention the word "Taiwan", and "Taiwan Province" is not only a claimed province by the PRC, but also a streamlined province of the ROC (Taiwan Provincial Government website). By searching with "Taiwan" -"Province" it eliminate webpages about the Taiwan Province of the ROC.
    The US Department of State is POV, as the United States does not regard Taiwan or Republic of China as a sovereign state. And that's the prerequisite for any country to establish diplomatic relations with the PRC. The ROC is however listed as a special territory under the title "Taiwan" without dealing with the official title "Republic of China", probably to avoid any trouble from Beijing.
    "Taiwan" is not accurate. Matsu Islands and Quemoy are neither part of the island of Taiwan nor the province of Taiwan, although they are territories under ROC's control.
    The sentence from the conventions that I have quoted has been there without modification for months. (despite edits to the page over the past few months) — Instantnood 08:04, Feb 17 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: By googling "Taiwan" "Province" limit to .tw, only 41,400 came out[18]. Even the ROC did not provide much information on that province. The name "Taiwan" is still more representitive for that government than the official name "ROC" which has been for gotten by the rest of the world.Mababa 07:48, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia has to be accurate, NPOV and encyclopedic. Taiwan is simply not an accurate and NPOV designation. — Instantnood 18:05, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is a policy to use common names. --Improv 21:11, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • And unlike the naming conventions that Instanood cited, "use common names" isn't changed every other week. —ExplorerCDT 21:12, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • The naming conventions for China-related articles, spelling out the current setup, has been in place for over a year. The template has existed at Republic of China for nearly two years. What is being changed every other week? I certainly dont see anything.--Jiang 04:46, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • (to ExplorerCDT) the conventions from which I quoted has been modified several times over the past few months, but the sentence I have quoted has been there for many months. — Instantnood 18:07, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)
  • Please also refer to Don't overdo it. :-) — Instantnood 08:05, Feb 17 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. No-one outside America would understand the new name, which is totally misleading to non-Americans. Use the name everyone understands, "Taiwan", jguk 21:16, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think wikipedians who made up the conventions and placed the article at Republic of China are all from the states. — Instantnood 08:07, Feb 17 2005 (UTC)
• Support. The politics in question are those of the political entity called the Republic of China, which is not Taiwan. A.D.H. (t&m) 21:32, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose I would prefer that any Taiwan/ROC article uses simply "Taiwan" ObsidianOrder 21:46, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • That involves modifying the conventions. Currently the article about the government is at Republic of China but not Taiwan. — Instantnood 08:05, Feb 17 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Neutrality^talk 22:18, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Support, tentatively. While article related to geographical features should use Taiwan, this is an article specifically about politics. The state refers to itself as the "Republic of China", whether or not the ruling party is looking to change that. We do similar things with, say Republic of Ireland, which is obviously less commonly used than just "Ireland." john k 03:35, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support with condition Quoted from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese): "Wikipedia reflects the neutral reality and considers the term "China" not to coincide with any particular sovereign state or government.". This is a written Wikipedia NPOV policy stipulating the term "China" can not be used as any political entity. However, there are so many articles with titles of "XYZ of China" which are mostly dedicated to the political entity called PRC; and quite often, ROC/Taiwan is being included into part of these articles simply because Taiwan is currently ruled by a government bears a name with "China" in its official name. The result of these China/PRC articles is creating an impression that Wikipedia agrees with PRC's POV and regards Taiwan/ROC as part of China. Otherwise why should ROC be listed under a political entity called China? I would support current proposal, if what the naming convention stipulated gets enforced and upheld: making all the "XYZ of China" (which actually equates China to PRC) changed back to the name PRC and stops making China as a political entity. Otherwise, why is that the articles about the PRC are so privileged that they do not have to follow the convention and enjoyed the title of China and also have the advantage to include ROC into it, while the ROC articles are bounded by the convention and can not be called as Taiwan like the world outside of Wikipeida calls her? Specifically the Political divisions of China, and the Province of China. Perhaps it is time for us to change the policy so that PRC gets the name China and ROC gets the name Taiwan as political entities. One more comment, even in side the U.S., I bet quite some people can only recognize Taiwan and knows nothing about ROC.Mababa 04:06, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose In some of my research for wikipedia contributions, I've had to search, and have found Taiwan to be a far more useful key word, and because of that and the context in the articles, I have had to explicity reference Taiwan, even though I was wiki linking to the republic article. It must have been some strained politics that resulted in the wikipedia policy that is being cited.--Silverback 14:43, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Taiwan has never been a real official title for the government controlling the island of Taiwan, Pescadores Islands, Matsu Islands and Quemoy (plus the Pratas and some islands of the Spratlys). — Instantnood 18:12, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)
  • You're confusing two things: you're talking about making it easy for readers and editors to find and/or link to articles. That can be accomplished with redirects and disambiguation pages. But that's not what's at stake here. The question underlying the requested move is what would be the most accurate title for the article. While there can be many redirects, as far as the main title of an article is concerned, there can be only one. As explained many times before, "Taiwan" is inaccurate and POV in this context, so it should be replaced with a more accurate and NPOV term and appropriate redirects created. --MarkSweep 11:54, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment The Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Political NPOV section is badly flawed and contains a number of POV statements:
  * "Wikipedia treats the Republic of China as a sovereign state with equal status with the People's Republic of China"
  * "Taiwan... should be only described as part of the Republic of China"
  Anyone can agree or disagree with the above points of view. But they are just that, points of view (POV), which have been the subject of sharp debate over decades. Presence of POV statements in a section about NPOV is frankly silly, and it's deceptive to phrase this as some kind of Wikipedia official policy ("Wikipedia treats..."). This section Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Political NPOV is not some official Wikipedia policy listed under Category:Wikipedia official policy or Category:Wikipedia semi-policy; it's just another page that anyone can edit (and someone should). PS, I am not voting on this particular ROC/Taiwan issue, but I do have an interest in the PRC/China issue (see other requested move above). -- Curps 04:35, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • If you disagree with the rules, then please post on the relevant talk page to gain consensus to change them. Otherwise, the rules stand and cannot be simply ignored. These rules have been in place for over a year, nearly two years. Please check the page history of that page. Any additions are quickly reverted, like yours, without proper consensus. It just hasnt been tagged because it's existed for so long before categories even existed. this doesnt mean it isnt policy.--Jiang 04:46, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • It's very odd that you staunchly defend Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Political NPOV, yet you yourself ignore it completely by making the unilateral move "X in Republic of China" → "X in Taiwan" that Instantnood wishes to undo. He quotes the wording: the word "Taiwan" should not be used if the term "Republic of China" is more accurate. You yourself obviously believe this wording no longer applies, yet you didn't bother to post on the talk page. If your position is that "Political NPOV" section can just be ignored, you have no standing to object if others take the same position in the future. -- Curps 06:00, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • In that particular case, as I have answered to Instantnood, using "Republic of China" did not make it any more accurate or NPOV. All metro areas listed were on the island of Taiwan. The topic was non-political and geographical/demographic in nature. Thereofre, Taiwan should be used. I dont believe I ignored the naming conventions there. --Jiang
        • The definition that that article based upon is a definition by the ROC government, which is applied and applicable to all territories under its control. It is possible for some related or similar definitions by the ROC to be fit with places on territories outside the island or the province of Taiwan. — Instantnood 18:16, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)
    • Whatever happens to Politics of Taiwan is discussible or debatable. All these politics take place on Taiwan. If we want to add more historical review, we can always add the poltics of Taiwan during Japanese rule or even back to Qing or Dutch rule. It is really debatable if whether the move is necessary. I guess your proposal on redefining "China" is more foundamental; and your previous edits on the convention reverted by me are really POV moves that worth some discussion so that everyone can have a opinion to modify and finally reach a neutral point everyone's happy about. The key is: Talk is cheap; talk is free!! :)Mababa 06:26, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Not likely. Elections are also held on Matsu Islands and Quemoy. They are not part of the island or the province of Taiwan. Political events on Taiwan during Dutch, Qing and Japanese rule are covered by other articles. — Instantnood 08:27, Feb 17 2005 (UTC)
        • Comment: Those covered article can be merged or partly introduced in this article. I do not see a reason to make that move unlikely. With your support on enforcing the NPOV convention, I would assume you would also support stoping the usage of having the term "China" as a political entity.Mababa 21:57, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • Generally yes. — Instantnood 18:19, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)
  • (To Curps) The two sentences you have quoted is not POV. "Republic of China" is the current official title of the government currently governing Taiwan, Pescadores Islands, Matsu Islands and Quemoy (and many other islands, such as Taiping Island in the South China Sea). — Instantnood 08:27, Feb 17 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. I could agree with Elections or Politics in Taiwan (Republic of China). Gangulf 20:36, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • What about "Elections of.." or "Politics of the Republic of China (Taiwan)"? :-) — Instantnood 18:19, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)
• Support It is not the business of Wikipedia to declare Tawian's independence on their behalf. 172 20:54, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I do not see any implication of declaring Taiwan's independence here. PRC's claim over that administration on Taiwan is not further damaged or bolstered by all means. You might want to further explain how you interpret the political implication here.Mababa 21:57, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support there is no such country as Taiwan. Republic of China is the correct name. Grue 07:28, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment the Republic of China is a highly misleading title as it implies that it covers the whole of China, which it clearly doesn't, it covers a few islands of which Tiawan is the largest. The Tiawanese government may like to pretend that it is the legitimate government of China, but in the real world it clearly isn't. G-Man 19:36, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • The official name of China from 1911 to 1949 is Republic of China (ROC). Following the Chinese Civil War, ROC government retreated to Taiwan, and maintained a stable existence by effectively controlling the island of Taiwan, Pescadores Islands, Matsu Islands and Quemoy. The latter two are on the coast of the continent. The ROC also controls the Pratas Islands, and some islands of the Spratlys. The Communist Party seized control of mainland China following ROC's retreat, and established the People's Republic of China. The ROC has not formally renounced its claim on mainland China (and Tuva and Mongolia) until today.
    The territories that are currently under ROC's control covers not only the island of Taiwan nor the province of Taiwan. And in fact pro-independence politicians who also advocate changing the official title of the country to "Taiwan" (or "Republic of Taiwan") do not consider Matsu Islands and Quemoy as Taiwan's territory. — Instantnood 19:55, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)
  • The claim to all of China was unofficially dropped in 1991...--Jiang
  • The name "Republic of China" is both official and accurate. Even after 1949 it was meant to cover all of China, since the ROC constitution was never amended. This is contradicted by reality and you may think it is misleading, but then again you could bring a charge of being misleading against any "Democratic People's Republic" or the "Holy Roman Empire". That doesn't make those names any less appropriate as article titles. --MarkSweep 12:12, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support, to be consistent with the rest of WP this article should be moved over the redirect from politics of the Republic of China. We have plenty of articles about countries, and almost invariably they take the form "COUNTRY NAME" for the overview article and then "Politics of COUNTRY NAME", "History of COUNTRY NAME", etc. for the specialized articles. The situation is clearly more complex here, but for the sake of uniformity this should be "Politics of the Republic of China". As an aside, note that we have both history of the Republic of China and history of Taiwan, which are clearly distinct as they focus on different aspects. Another comment: Common names are sometimes wrong or misleading, e.g. "England" is used sloppily to refer to all of the United Kingdom, "Holland" to the Netherlands, etc. Likewise "Taiwan" is arguably imprecise, referring to a geographic entity and (at least informally and/or for some people) to a political entity, namely the ROC. There is no doubt that the political entity is meant here, so the narrower, more precise term should be used because it is unambiguous. It is only in certain historical contexts that it makes sense to talk about "Taiwan" in connection with politics, e.g. Political divisions of Taiwan (1895-1945) is clearly appopriate. --MarkSweep 00:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. For an encyclopedia to name its articles according to possible readers' ignorance rather than according to what's accurate is an appalling notion. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:21, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. As ADH says, the politics here is the politics of the political entity known as the Republic of China. Here's what I think should be the rule of thumb (a very, very simplified version of a rule of thumb; there are going to be complex exceptions): if the article is about geography, use Taiwan. If the article is about culture, use China. If the article is about politics, use Republic of China. —Lowellian (talk) 09:24, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

Compromise

I had some discussion with Instantnood and I suggested the compromise to name these kind of pages ..of Republic of China - Taiwan. I think this might be less POV Gangulf 22:14, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Gangulf agreed with "..of Republic of China (Taiwan)" but she/he prefers "..of Republic of China - Taiwan". — Instantnood 22:21 Feb 20 2005 (UTC)

• Are you saying that the compromise is to name or rename ROC-related pages currently named "Republic of China" to a new name substituting or incorporating "Taiwan?" Or using both simultaneously? or are you just patting yourself on the back and saying you had some discussion and made a suggestion? There is no entity known as the "Republic of China" it died in 1949, and the U.S. and other countries do not officially recognize a "Republic of China" but they officially recognize a successor state known as the "People's Republic of China." The West, in popular parlance, knows it simply and unconfusingly as Taiwan. You say ROC to the average Westerner and they'll immediately think Beijing. If that's the compromise, I continue my objections for the reasons enumerated hitherto. —ExplorerCDT 22:19, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Just being curious, would vote backed with false evidence be counted? — Instantnood 23:15 Feb 20 2005 (UTC)
    • Rhetorical appeals by deception don't work...here or elsewhere where you have tried to implement it. You claim false evidence, prove it. Otherwise, you're a mini-Goebbels repeating lies hoping that after a few times people will think them true. —ExplorerCDT 07:03, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • If I were repeating lies, probably I weren't the only one. — Instantnood 11:35 Feb 21 2005 (UTC)
        • You're alone on that one, mini-Goebbels. I make a habit of backing up my claims and rationale sufficiently...something evident if you read through my comments in opposition. —ExplorerCDT 16:45, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • Please, No personal attacks. Comparing someone to Adolf Hitler's Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels (twice!) is provocative and repugnant, and helps to discount any points that you might be trying to make. BlankVerse ∅ 06:08, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • trolling? the US did not recognize the PRC until 1979. It recognized the ROC until December 1978. The ROC represented China in the UN until it was replaced by the PRC in 1971. Neither usage is NPOV. Taiwan is not NPOV. We have no choice but to use the "whatever name the party exercises sovereignty over uses" rule. This is done at Republic of Macedonia, Diaoyu Islands, etc. Perhaps using both is a compromise--Jiang 03:53, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Trolling, no. Statistics show Taiwan is the most used in the general sense, and google shows a 20:1 margin for Taiwan over ROC. But if you don't want to step on anyone's toes we might as well use all three, ROC, Taiwan, and Province of Taiwan, in order to keep Instantnood, the Red Chinese, and everyone else happy. Mao is probably rolling over in his grave wishing posthumously that he nuked that stupid island. —ExplorerCDT 07:03, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Please stop it. I don't know if you're trolling, or if this is mere desparation; it's not important. But posting flame bait is just not cool. --MarkSweep 02:14, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd just add that while both "ROC" and "Taiwan" are POV, "Taiwan" is also actively wrong, in that neither side recognizes the entity referring to itself as the ROC to be coextensive with Taiwan. john k 06:39, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Never said anything about co-extensive, just stated long ago that a 20:1 margin on google of Taiwan vs. ROC and common usage should trump nationalistic sentiment and overcumbersome title construction. —ExplorerCDT 07:09, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • There is most certainly "an entity known as the 'Republic of China'." Whether that is an appropriate name is, of course, up for grabs, but that is certainly what it calls itself. And it is certainly referred to as that in the world at large, at least some of the time. john k 06:36, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • It calls itself that, sure, but does the world recognize it? No. Run a search through any newspaper and you'll see Taiwan is the word of choice, tromping usage of ROC. —ExplorerCDT 07:03, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • so newspapers, save the Communist Chinese media, use "North Korea" and "South Korea" over "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" and "Republic of Korea", respectively. Does that mean no one recognizes the latter usages? Perhaps the most important issue in cross-strait relations, especially within Taiwan, right now is the debate over the meanings of "Taiwan" and "Republic of China". There's no need for wikipedia to dumb things down. Newspapers have to keep it short, we dont --Jiang 07:57, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Much of the world may not recognise the government of the Republic of China as the sole representation of China, but that is entirely different from the recognition of the fact that the name Republic of China exists!--Huaiwei 08:25, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Right. Two dozens of countries maintain diplomatic relations with an entity called "Republic of China". Many of the rest keep de facto diplomatic relations with Taipei, although they have to avoid using "Republic of China" and angering Beijing. — Instantnood 11:39 Feb 21 2005 (UTC)
• I support the compromise of having both ROC and Taiwan being in the same title, and I am open to whether it takes the format of ROC (Taiwan) or ROC - Taiwan. The only issue is that it looks sadly "unprofessional" and quite unbecoming for an encyclopedia. Personally, I prefer XXX of Taiwan to be automatically redirected to XXX of ROC so long that the article is refering to the political entity of the ROC, and not merely the island of Taiwan.--Huaiwei 08:25, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Agree with Huaiwei. I can live with "Republic of China (Taiwan)" or something similar. In any case, this should not be a popularity contest. Here's another analogy: people say "ancient Rome" all the time to refer to either the Roman Empire or the Roman Republic or the city of Rome (which wasn't even the capital after things went south in the west). But that doesn't mean we have to be as imprecise here, just because most people don't care enough to get it right. --MarkSweep 02:14, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support compromise rename. Both "Taiwan" and "Republic of China" are ambiguous in this case. We need to keep in mind that the Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a newspaper or magazine, so it is the most accurate description, and not the most popular name, that should be used. Since the article is only about the politics of the modern-day Republic of China, the article should be "Politics of Republic of China - Taiwan" (with a redirect from "Politics of Taiwan"). BlankVerse ∅ 06:08, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose. Using hyphens or parentheses or whatever—no matter which case, this results is an extremely clumsy and inelegant construction for names. —Lowellian (talk) 09:35, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Perhapse it should be explained to everyone how the name "Republic of China (Taiwan)" can be used. Take [[Western Front]] and [[Western Front (WWII)|]] which wikipedia expands to similar looking links Western Front and Western Front. This is because Wiki treats names which end in brackets in a special way. The links are to different pages although they look the same. [[Republic of China (Taiwan)|]] will look like this Republic of China while [[Republic of China (Taiwan)]],without the "|" symbol, will appear on the page as Republic of China (Taiwan) Philip Baird Shearer 15:03, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Having "Taiwan" in brackets in titles is in fact a compromise to people who opposed "X of/in the Republic of China" because they thought it's confusing. "X of/in the Republic of China (Taiwan)" looks less confusing to most readers. It does not imply that there is another "Republic of China". "Taiwan" in brackets is not a disambiguation.
    In fact, Most of first paragraphs of these articles already tells the article they are reading is about a political entity called "the Republic of China" but it is based on "Taiwan". — Instantnood 09:32 Feb 24 2005 (UTC)

A time of crisis

What I see of the recent discussion over whether to use PRC, ROC, mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macao is that it reveals a deadlock over an encyclopedia built up by ordinary internet users. It is not easy to preserve the professional style of editing which an encyclopedia needs, as Huaiwei has suggested. People who supported and opposed the move had different concerns, whether to preserve accuracy, or to make it easy to use for average readers. If there isn't any ressolution to the deadlock, the number of votes for each side could be meaningless. — Instantnood 11:47 Feb 21 2005 (UTC)

• I've said this elsewhere before: We need a better way to enforce editorial policy (to the extent that this is desirable at all). It is pointless to argue about whether the ROC even exists on this page; we can have these arguments, but the sole purpose of this page is to decide whether and how pages should be moved/renamed. In this case, the (re)naming is governed by the naming conventions for China-related articles. Objections to and discussion of those naming conventions are simply out of place here. The only relevant question is whether the requested moves would result in better compliance with the naming conventions.
  What I'm advocating here is a better separation between policy making (deciding what the naming conventions should be) and implementation of policies. We cannot re-open policy discussions when it's time to implement an existing policy. The whole point of a separate policy is to ensure consistency and to centralize the discussion. And the best way to achieve consistency is to implement the policy uniformly. This requires that users be able to separate what they think is the Right Way To Do Things from what the policy says. On this page, we're talking about policy implementation. The only question we're trying to resolve is whether the original article name or the proposed new article name (or something else entirely) is more desirable according to the existing naming conventions. Personal opinions about the appropriateness of those naming conventions should play no role in the debate. --MarkSweep 02:39, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Alternative solution

It's too bad that we can't simply transinclude the page on one of the pages to the other. -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:20, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Is there any way out? — Instantnood 17:41 Feb 25 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Instantnood - please take on board that the term ROC is not widely understood, Taiwan is. Let me be blunt: I'm not the only one fed up with your pre-occupation of trying to convert all the Taiwan articles that are named in a way that everyone understands to a form that few understand and many would find most confusing. I had not even heard the term "ROC" before coming onto Wikipedia. Please stop! jguk 20:09, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Please bring the issue to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese) if you disagree with the conventions. Thank you. — Instantnood 20:32 Feb 27 2005 (UTC)

Procedure for admins

It is important to check to see if the redirect has major history; major history contains information about the addition of current text. (This is sometimes caused by the accidental creation of a duplicate article, or someone doing a cut-and-paste "move", instead of using the "Move this page" button.) Never simply delete such redirect pages, (which we need to keep for copyright reasons).

Major history

There are three ways to deal with a page move with a major history:

1. The "right" way is to merge the histories, using the procedure outlined here. This is a slightly fraught procedure, which on rare occasions doesn't work correctly. There are also circumstances (e.g. duplicate pages) where it's not the correct choice anyway. Once done, it cannot be undone, so don't pick this option unless it's definitely the right one.
2. Alternatively, the article and the redirect can be swapped. This leaves the bifurcated history, but has less chance of causing problems. Simply move one of the pair to a temporary name, and then delete the new redirect which that move will left behind at the original location; next, move the other page of the pair across to the first one's old location, and delete that left-over new redirect; finally, move the first one from its temporary location to its new name. You will then need to delete the new redirect at the temporary location, and finally fix the old redirect to point at the article again (at this point, it will be pointing to itself). This process also works where edit histories cannot be merged because edit history compression prevents one page being deleted.
3. Another option is for redirect pages with major history to be archived into a talk namespace, and a link to them put into the article's talk page. (An example of such a page is a Talk:Network SouthEast, which was originally created as a duplicate article at Network SouthEast and later archived, when the original article was moved from Network South East.)

Minor history

A minor history on the other hand contains no information, e.g. the redirect page Eric Tracy has a minor history but Eric Treacy (which incidentally is the correct spelling) could not be moved there because of a spelling mistake in the original page. Redirect pages with minor histories can simply be deleted.

Tidying up

Whichever of these various options you take, moving pages will create double redirects in any redirects that pointed to the original page location. These must be fixed; click on the "What links here" button of the new page location to check for them. It is the responsibility of the admin doing the move to fix these, though periodically a bot will fix any you miss.

When you remove an entry from this page (whether the move was accepted ot rejected), don't forget to remove the {{move}} tag from the page. It's worth periodically checking either Category:Requested_moves or here to see if any pages missed this step. Checking either of these regularly has the side-benefit of finding pages where people added the {{Move}} tag to the page, but didn't realize they needed to edit WP:RM as well.

Any significant discussion about articles that have been moved should be archived on the article's Talk: page, so that future Wikipedians can easily see why the page is where it is.

Admins volunteering to do tidying tasks should watch this page for new notices.