Talk:Narrow-gauge railways in China

Title

The title "narrow gauge railways in China before 1949 and narrow gauge railways in mainland China after 1949" looks stupid, but the title "Narrow gauge railways in China" is politically unneutral because narrow gauge railways in Taiwan are not included in this article. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 15:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

So add them. Problem solved. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

That's right, add it and problem solved! You agreed and it's consensus now. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 06:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: There was most support for the simplest title. Using "People's Republic of China" instead of "China" also gained some support but consensus did not quite emerge. Further discussion may be warranted, but I've moved it to Narrow gauge railways in China for now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC) — Martin (MSGJ

---

Narrow gauge railways in China before the civil war and narrow gauge railways in mainland China after the civil war → Narrow gauge railways in China —

• The railways didn't move during the war... move over redirect. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 20:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Nothing involving the word China can be considered uncontroversial, particularly when it refers to the People's Republic of China. Needs discussion, particularly in relation to our policy on the use of the word China. Skinsmoke (talk) 05:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Building on Skinsmoke's comment, suggest moving page to Narrow gauge railways in the People's Republic of China for added precision. I suspect it'll be easier to do this than to try to deal with the "China" issue, and might as well get this done all in one go rather than having to change it down the line. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 04:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Why? "... in China" is already a redirect, see the naming of this article from November 2009. This RM just returns the name from a ridiculous one to what it was. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
      • Comment Agreeing that the current name is ridiculous, but while we're moving, we might as well make the move conform to current practice. Regardless of the correctness of either point of view, Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Chinese)#Political_NPOV states: the official political terms "People's Republic of China" or "PRC" and "Republic of China" or "ROC" should be used in political contexts (that is, to describe the existing governments or regimes) rather than the imprecise and politically charged terms "China" and "Taiwan." As well, a quick look at Template:Asia topic shows that "China" on its own is not used in articles referring to either the PRC or Taiwan; this article should be no exception.--dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 18:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
        • That part of the NPOV guide has never had much support outside purely political articles. I can show you dozens of articles and categories named China or Taiwan, and "narrow gauge railways" is not a political context. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
• Support with extreme fervor. God, do we really have to wait another five days before moving it from this horrible title? As long as there are no other articles about narrow gauge railways in anything that might remotely be considered China, I can't see how anyone could oppose this (please don't prove me wrong, Wikipedians). If the article doesn't include information on someplace that could be considered China, just add it. Propaniac (talk) 18:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
• Comment It's also worth noting that this appears to be a sub-page of Transportation in the People's Republic of China. It would be logical to use the same format. Agreed that the current title is ludicrous. Skinsmoke (talk) 13:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose This move violates the NPOV rule. I suppose to merge it with Narrow gauge railways in post-war Republic of China instead. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 14:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
  • No, what violates the NPOV rule is giving undue weight to the fringe belief that China can't be called China because of a government in exile. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
• Move to Narrow gauge railways in mainland China? Page Narrow gauge railways in China before the civil war and narrow gauge railways in mainland China after the civil war does not seem to mention any railways on Taiwan. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  • We do not title articles "in mainland China". It can include railways from Taiwan. Nobody has added them. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

    But that will bring us into an edit war: if we add them, somebody will remove them, and then there'll never be a consensus, and the article will be protected and {{NPOV}}-flagged. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 17:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

    • The potential threat of edit wars over content should not affect how an article is named when that name is obvious and common. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • Strong support the move of this hideously named article. A fork can be made to the Taiwanese article. If we really have to split hairs because people will become either a) unnecessarily confused by the title and layout (unlikely), or b) mortally offended that Wikipedia uses the politically insensitive title (we are just one step down from the United Nations after all)): then this article can also be split into two (China before war, PROC after war). But until that's done, I support the move. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.