Talk:Republic of China

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject China (Rated Redirect-class)
WikiProject icon This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Redirect page Redirect  This redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Taiwan (Rated Redirect-class)
WikiProject icon This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Taiwan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Taiwan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Redirect page Redirect  This redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.


If you Google "Republic of China" -wikipedia, I don't think you can concluded that Taiwan is primary topic for this term. The second hit that comes up is about the 1912-1949 period. Results three to seven refer to the PRC. I suggest that the lemma be a list of topics related to ROC history, with explanations. A Not to be confused with the People's Republic of China hatnote is obviously necessary. Kauffner (talk) 05:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

An article will be drafted based on Kingdom of the Netherlands and French Fifth Republic pursuant to the recent move decision. But I would prefer that we wait another couple weeks and allow incoming links to stabilize before we do that. Or start it at Talk:Republic of China/draft first. This page will not be a disambiguation page. WP:CONCEPTDAB does not allow it. --Jiang (talk) 05:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I doubt incoming links will stabilise for awhile, but I agree with Jiang we should probably wait a bit. I suspect quite a few editors are slightly fatigued (or maybe that's just me), and there's quite a few move requests/category changes in various locations that are already ongoing (and with rather limited participation I may add, probably due to that aforementioned fatigue). We're more likely to end up with a good article if editors actually want to participate, rather than feel like they're being dragged into another quagmire. CMD (talk) 06:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Jiang regarding CONCEPTDAB. What about the suggestion of moving History of the Republic of China to here? Kanguole 07:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
On the other hand, edits like these suggest we shouldn't wait much longer to fill the void. Anytime you see someone break words within the same phrase into two links, not knowing which link to use, WP:CONCEPTDAB has been violated.--Jiang (talk) 08:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Ah. In that case, if anyone wishes to work on a draft they can go ahead. I can't find quite a few of the incoming links that the what links here tool tells me exist anyway. User:Jpech95/taiwan/Republic of China is still in existence, but will not be for long, so we can move that if we want to work off it. CMD (talk) 08:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
That draft is derived from an old version of the article now at Taiwan, so moving it to mainspace would amount to a copy-paste move, breaking the chain of attribution required by Wikipedia's licensing. In any case, a slightly updated version of the original text is still present in Taiwan#History.
But how would a proposed ROC article differ from the current contents of History of the Republic of China? Kanguole 11:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
User:Jpech95/taiwan/Republic of China does not contain any content that exists elsewhere. The history section has been copied and pasted and is too long. The first sentence contains a glaring historical inaccuracy, and we would be better of simply by copying the lead section of the Taiwan article (though not suggesting we do that).
The ROC article will contain elements of the present tense, not just an historical overview served at History of the Republic of China. In particular, it needs an entire section on the political status of the entity. I'll dump some section headers into Talk:Republic of China/draft. I don't have the time to fill them.--Jiang (talk) 17:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'd have to oppose this idea, Jiang. No other country got a separate article with its current full name. (The Kingdom of the Netherlands article is not quite comparable here, since 'Netherlands' (the European part plus three islands in the Caribbean) is technically one of the three constituent countries within the 'Kingdom of the Netherlands'.) Republic of China should serve as a redirect to Taiwan (which is for the time being the article for this country). All relevant materials are already available under Taiwan, History of the Republic of China and History of the History of the Republic of China (1912-1949). Jeffrey (talk) 19:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
See Holy See and Vatican City (countries template applied to Vatican City, but the legal personality of the state is embodied in the Holy See).--Jiang (talk) 01:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
It's bit amusing to compare such a rump state with the Holy See. Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic is probably a much better case for comparison. Jeffrey (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the redirection from "Republic of China" to "Taiwan" doesn't make any sense to me. Admittedly Republic of China includes Taiwan, it doesn't only means Taiwan. We all know that the history of ROC from 1912-1949 have much to do with mainland China. So I delete the redirection and I suggest a neutral page for Republic of China,with review of controversies between mainland Chiese and Taiwan people on the ROC after 1949 .(The page "Taiwan" is mainly about Taiwan, not ROC) Thegrenadier (talk) 22:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you are wrong: the article Taiwan is on the country by that name, more formally known as the Republic of China. That is why the latter redirects to the former. This was resolved not long ago in a long and involved move discussion, and is unlikely to be revisited soon – or at least if it were it would need a discussion of similar depth and detail to overturn the previous decision.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 22:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
And, as discussed above, we have the History of the Republic of China page as well, which covers the chronology of the political entity, both on the mainland and latterly on Taiwan. Correctly, the "Taiwan" page now covers its modern incarnation under that name; hence having a main page simply titled "Republic of China" - which would probably be fairly similar in content to that history page, if not a simple rename - would be implying that Taiwan was somehow not the modern manifestation of the ROC. Although there may be a case for making this redirect go to that History page rather than "Taiwan", or for making it a disambiguation page offering people the choice of going there or to Taiwan (or even to China proper), there is no way we can have substantive content, whether done in great detail or as an unorthodox stub per Thegrenadier's bid - which is being correctly reverted - under this title. As noted, you need to get some kind of agreement before making changes of this sort here, and you don't currently have it. N-HH talk/edits 07:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Given the number of incoming links, we should create something presentable at Talk:Republic of China/draft before making the article live as you did. The proposed scope of the article is covered by move decision at Talk:Taiwan/Archive_21#Final_closing_statement (JohnBlackburne is mistaken - the redirect is only supposed to be temporary.) To quote, "An article narrowly formulated about the government of Taiwan and its history can be created at Republic of China." --Jiang (talk) 07:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I think such an article would be useful. First, the ROC is an entity that has proven itself capable of existing independently of Taiwan even today officially considers itself to be China. Secondly, that entity has a continuous history that extends past its time in Taiwan. Thirdly, I recently found myself wanting to link to a Republic of China for information related to the ROC in the first half of the 20th century. It seemed nonsensical to link to the Taiwan article. Readin (talk) 16:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I think the utility of the article would only be seen if a draft was created. Perhaps we should redirect this to Government of the Republic of China, or turn it into a disambiguation page? We have a link for the first half of the 20th century, Republic of China (1912–1949). CMD (talk) 17:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Should the President of the Republic of China article say that it is about the president of Taiwan or the president of Republic of China (1912–1949)? Neither really fits. Readin (talk) 17:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
That's what happens when a position stays the same when the situation it is in changes drastically. Quite a similar problem emerges with governments in exile, although obviously the ROC didn't go into complete exile. As it's a currently existing position, it should be introduced as it currently is, as the president of Taiwan. The history of the position can come afterwards, similarly to how Taiwan is introduced as a current state, before its history is examined. CMD (talk) 17:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
This can't be turned into a disambiguation page, per WP:CONCEPTDAB. It's been proposed and shot down here.
There's no point in redirecting this article to either Government of the Republic of China or History of the Republic of China since it would make much more sense to move one of those articles here instead. I'm not opposed to either.
The only reason why we still have a redirect here rather than an article is because no one has taken the initiative to write one. That a separate article, rather than a redirect, exist at Republic of China was an integral part of the Taiwan move proposal, and formed part of the move decision. I helped draft and supported the Taiwan move proposal, but would have outright opposed it had the proposal called for Republic of China redirecting to Taiwan or being turned into a disambiguation page. Given the long and extensive discussion that took place, and the extra measures we sought in making the decision binding, we should not be deviating from the original proposal/decision without overriding consensus. The move decision is meant to reflect consensus.--Jiang (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Why not move Government of the Republic of China here? I think that makes sense. It should be expanded a bit after moving here. "Government of the Republic of China" is a bit of redundant name anyway, since the ROC is primarily a government. Readin (talk) 03:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
@Jiang: Although WP:CONCEPTDAB probably does apply, it is only (part of) a guideline, and I think we have a pretty odd case here that we can examine on its own merits. And if we are going to focus on the rules, we also have to factor in other guidelines such as WP:CONTENTFORK. Also, I don't see the disambiguation proposal being shot down in the discussion you linked to, just not being overwhelmingly supported. I appreciate the creation of a specific ROC article was included in the orginal move agreement - I'm sympathetic to the idea and for that article to be simply based on a move of the current History or Government articles. But it can hardly be said to have been the clincher for most people when it came to the overall move proposal and, as noted, the problem is that having a substantive article under that name suggests that modern Taiwan is somehow not the ROC, and it would arguably be a fork of some sort. Equally, the current simple redirect to Taiwan, although a decent holding point, is unsatisfactory, for the reasons I think most of us agree on; hence why I support a disambiguation page. N-HH talk/edits 08:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
On the closing statement it only says an article "the government of Taiwan and its history" can be created, not that it should. In this case I would say not for two reasons. First the article Government of the Republic of China already exists, so creating it would simply duplicate that. Of course there could be a redirect but that would surprise many people. It's clear many editors think that Republic of China should direct readers to the country, i.e. Taiwan, based on the move discussion and discussions before and since. By the principle of least astonishment therefore this should link to Taiwan, so all the many links in articles still work. If this were changed (to a DAB page or anything else) it would require fixing in thousands of articles which link here, as well as continual maintenance as editors in good faith add Republic of China links expecting them to link to the country.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 10:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
As it happens, I think people adding "Republic of China" in other articles when the rest of the world would simply say "Taiwan" is a problem all in itself; and if people didn't do that (or insist on preventing any corrections to existing confusing uses of ROC), the problem wouldn't arise. But obviously this isn't the forum to debate that, nor are page switches an appropriate way of forcing that issue (plus as you say, it involves a whole load of knock-on effects). My pro-disambiguation reasoning is based on the fairly reasonable assumption that people typing in ROC are probably looking for one of three equally likely destinations - the modern country of Taiwan, the historical incarnation of ROC on the mainland or, due to confusion about name, the People's Republic (ie modern China proper). Given that ROC is an incredibly rarely used term for Taiwan, there is a problem with assuming that is the one and only correct target and hence maintaining this as a redirect; yet, given that it is the official name and that Taiwan is the modern incarnation of the ROC, it seems inappropriate to have a fully separate susbtantive article under that name. N-HH talk/edits 10:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
It's true that in the real world people overwhelmingly use Taiwan to refer to the country, which is why the article is there. But in many contexts, including more formal and historic ones, the Republic of China is often used, and many articles here are historic or describe formal aspects of common terms. So there are many links to Republic of China, all or almost all of which are meant to go to the country. The overwhelming majority of people following such links would expect to find the country (as that is how they've been added). The few that don't can use the disambiguation links at the top of Taiwan, find the relevant topic within that article, or search using a precise name.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 11:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I think it's worth bearing in mind as well that we're going to have problems with linking whatever we do. Currently, content somewhere about something that happened in China in 1937 that refers to and links to "Republic of China" will send people clicking that link off, slightly oddly, to the Taiwan page (even if they can then move on). If instead we create a substantive ROC page, linked general references to the modern Taiwan in other articles where editors have, often for their own reasons, chosen to refer to it as the "Republic of China" will send people to that "Republic of China" page, effectively undoing - or at least neutering - the move by allowing and accepting parallel terminology and associated forked articles. Do we know what proportion currently of ROC references would be which? If they tend towards being mostly historical references, that weighs against the current redirect. If they're mostly to contemporary ROC/Taiwan (whether because of ideological editing, or appropriate references in technical/official contexts), maybe we're good as we are. But either way, as with people typing the term in the search box, it seems to me that straight "Republic of China" links, given the different things and eras they can refer to, are better sent to the current disambiguation page - in the short term that helps people get where they want without false steps, in the longer term they'll get fixed and piped appropriately. N-HH talk/edits 12:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The question then is "is there a primary topic?". I.e. among all the articles listed at Republic of China (disambiguation) is there one that readers are most likely to be looking for? And as reflected by that page there is, the current formal user of that name, commonly known as Taiwan. All the other uses, such as the government of China before 1949, are much less common, both by current usage and by interest in the topic.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 12:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
That may well be true, but I don't quite see how that page actually demonstrates or reflects that conclusion in itself. Is there some way to analyse use of the page, eg by digging up the stats as to where people who get to that page end up? If 90% go on to Taiwan, then fine. If it's much more diffuse than that, there's an issue. N-HH talk/edits 13:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
There are lots of stats to look at. Rather than articles here are the stats for this redirect and the DAB page. The former gets about 50x the traffic of the latter. So of those readers using the redirect (whether from an article or via the search box) only 2% find they are in the wrong place and use the DAB page to find the right one (and this ignores those that find the DAB page directly - the proportion that get there after erroneously visiting Taiwan might be even less than 2%).--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 14:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. The dab page is pretty invisible in terms of the number of links that go to it and due to its non-appearance in the search-box drop down, so it's not going to get much first-stop traffic for starters. I see that the stats, when analysed in terms of presumed subsequent stop-offs, suggest that people who end up at Taiwan from the ROC redirect are happy, but there are of course ways to move on to other ROC-related pages they might really have wanted rather than Taiwan without using the dab page link at the hatnote. Surely another important statistic is what proportion of those who do arrive at the dab page - as a first stop - go on to which of the pages listed there; which I guess is not so easy to divine, since AFAIK we can't tell how people got there or where they went afterwards. Apologies for getting all technical and being a bit persistent but I'm still not sure we have definitive evidence. N-HH talk/edits 16:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
ps:I'll probably drop this now as it's the weekend and it's all getting a bit too convoluted really. Plus, as noted earlier, I'm not totally opposed to the set-up in terms of the redirect, even if I think making the simple ROC page a dab is a slightly better option. My biggest beef is with the number of ROC references across articles, but, as noted, that's another debate ... N-HH talk/edits 16:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


Where did the Talk:ROC archives go? Apparently there was a decision to re-organize some articles and I would like to see precisely what that decision was and how it was made. Readin (talk) 19:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

All Talk:Republic of China/Archive N were relocated to Talk:Taiwan/Archive N, per the move request of the article. Jeffrey (talk) 19:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Article recreation[edit]

This article has been recreated per the original Administrators' decision in February 2012, see Talk:Taiwan/Archive 20#Final closing statement. To summarise, the original Administrators' decision had three aspects:

The first two aspects of the decision were implemented in February 2012. The third aspect was the subject of further discussion, here and at Talk:Taiwan#NPOV, which resulted in the creation of this article.

Please help to improve this article within the bounds set in the Administrators' decision of February 2012. Any changes beyond the scope of that decision, e.g. any move to either delete this article, or to replace Taiwan with this article as the main country article, is very likely to be viewed as extremely controversial and needs to be fully discussed with the wider community. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

  • I think most readers would expect an article entitled "Republic of China" to be about a government in China. This usage is likely to be confusing, and certainly not the way English language sources do it. Kauffner (talk) 12:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Based on my reading of the records, the view you mention was thoroughly canvassed during the Feb 2012 debates, and the Administrators' decisions took that into account alongside other views and other considerations to come down on the settlement in the final decision. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • The summary isn't quite right: the admins moved the previous "Taiwan" article to "Taiwan (island)". After a later discussion, that article was merged into the new "Taiwan" article. Kanguole 18:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the correction, I missed that step. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 19:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

PalaceGuard - you tell us that part of your rationale for recreating the article is "To create a new article at Republic of China narrowly focussed on the history and government of the state." Which state? In common language (a major factor in this whole discussion), a state is a place. The place has changed. The people doing the governing are all different. I see no logic at all in its creation. HiLo48 (talk) 02:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48, I am replacing my earlier comment here because I don't think it was clear. I think my reference to "state" up above may have been unclear as well. The state is the one commonly known as Taiwan now but officially known as the Republic of China - I am not contending that there are two states here. As was canvassed in the discussions that led to the original administrators' decision back in February 2012, while Taiwan coincides with Republic of China today, it would be stretching the English language to breaking point to call, for example, the Beiyang Government (that's the government of the Republic of China from 1912 to 1928) a government of Taiwan, which was why the administrators ruled in the end that it is better to describe the government and history of the Republic of China in a separate article. This is intended to reflect that resolution, and I believe it's a reasonable compromise.
An analogous approach can be seen, for example, in the way Wikipedia approaches Holy See, a sovereign entity which used to rule the Papal States but now rules the completely different Vatican City. I'm not suggesting the annlogy is that apt, but I see parallels there, which is why I am trying to impelment the administrators' decision as possibly the best compromise we can get here.
As I said separately on Talk:Taiwan, we can tweak the language here to make the distinction or connection clearer if you think that is needed, but I hope you agree that we can go forward in a spirit of compromise on the basis of the administrators' decision in February 2012.--PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 19:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Once again, the Republic of China and Taiwan mean the same in English, so one is a redirect to the other. The most recent discussion on this, just archived, is here: Talk:Taiwan/Archive_22#Split. The clear and near unanimous consensus was not to split Taiwan into two articles. Given that the article should not be split, at least not without a further discussion to see if consensus has changed. But given the overwhelming opposition only three months ago it seems unlikely a new discussion would come to a different decision.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 23:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Again, I contend that the discussion you cited and this article creation are separate issues. Readin, who opposed the split, responded positively to PalaceGuard008's userspace draft. Without a more careful review of the article's scope and potential to become a POV fork, I can't form an opinion on its appropriateness, but consensus is not as clear as you make it out to be. Start a straw poll below, maybe? wctaiwan (talk) 01:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
In the RfC, [[[Talk:Taiwan/Archive_22#Split]], I count eight editors opposing the proposal and none supporting it, other than the IP editor whose very first edit was the split proposal. So very clear consensus, 100% among registered/experienced editors. Yes, it would need another such discussion to overturn that consensus but really I don't see it changing so much in just three months.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 01:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
(ec) What I'm saying is that opposing the creation of a "Taiwan (country)" article specifically to accommodate the outlying islands (that's how the discussion was framed) is not the same as opposing a separate article to address the ROC as a state that has existed since 1911. To me, your most convincing argument so far is that History of the Republic of China already serves that purpose--which I think should be considered along with other factors to decide whether this article is the best way forward. But to interpret all opposition to the POV-pushing split proposal as opposition to this attempt conflates two different issues. wctaiwan (talk) 01:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

What is often not mentioned is that we already have an article narrowly focused on the government and its history, Government of the Republic of China. History of the Republic of China has an even narrower focus. I haven't seen a single draft that doesn't duplicate these pages. CMD (talk) 01:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but possibly an article in summary style to link those articles together would be a good idea. wctaiwan (talk) 01:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
But that's Taiwan. It contains sections on History, Government and Politics with links to the main articles. Where appropriate there are multiple links, e.g. to History of Taiwan and History of the Republic of China. Anyone navigating to Taiwan or Republic of China can therefore find these articles, if they want more detailed/specialised information than Taiwan which covers the whole country.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 02:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with HiLo48's usage of the word "state" as expressed here and elsewhere. While terms like country, nation, and state are often used interchangeably, they are also used with more specific meanings. For example America has a Secretary of State and hosts State Dinners. France and Australia have Ministers of State. The connotation would be quite different if we had a Secretary of Country hosting Country Dinners or a Secretary of Nation hosting National Dinners. "Country" tends to refer to the land and the people while "state" refers more specifically to the government. The country is "Taiwan". The state is "Republic of China". The Taiwan article should be about the country and people as well as the government that governs them. The Republic of China should be narrowly focussed on the government and the government's history. Whether or not everyone agrees with the use of the term "state" as being more focussed on the government, the admins made it clear it would be fine to make an article focussed on the government and its history. That government has always gone by the name "Republic of China". Readin (talk) 05:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

"State" includes the land and population a government rules, it doesn't refer to just a government. The requirements to be a state in the Declarative theory of statehood include having a defined territory with a stable population. That's why, for example, the Sovereign Military Order of Malta is often not called a state, despite being a sovereign government. "Country" tends to refer to whatever the speaker wants to refer it to. Anyway, as noted above, we already have an article focussed on the government and history, Government of the Republic of China. How would this one be different? CMD (talk) 10:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Now, as has been pointed out before, the attempts to eliminate this article makes it awkward for anyone who wants to look up the history of the ROC. As even an opposing editor has pointed out, there has been NO consensus for such a controversial change; therefore the article should be restored. Ngchen (talk) 03:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

As I pointed out it's not at all awkward. Whether someone uses Taiwan or Republic of China (when the redirect is working) they end up at the article about the country. This has sections on the history (one very large section with many subsections), with many wikilinks and prominent 'Main article(s):' links. So that article, Taiwan, is easily the best article to start at if you're looking for the history of the ROC and don't know or can't be bothered to type 'History of the Republic of China'.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 03:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
That would be true if the Taiwan article contained a section on the history of its current government. However it does not because some editors have taken the approach that the Taiwan article should cover only the history of the country (those things that survive changes in government such as people, land, culture, economy), not icluding the history of the state (i.e. the government). Readin (talk) 14:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
But that was not what Ngchen asked: they asked for the history of the ROC which is included. If you want the history of the government then Government of the Republic of China is your best starting point which includes a lengthy history section. It is easily found as it's linked at the top of the Taiwan#Government section.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 18:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Protection requested[edit]

I have requested that the page be protected to stop the slow revert-warring. wctaiwan (talk) 14:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

It'd be helpful if those who insist on drive by reverting could explain in the talkpage, or at the very least use a simple edit summary. CMD (talk) 15:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]

Please change the {{pp-dispute}} to a {{R protected}}. The former is breaking the redirect, the latter is I think the correct one for a redirect.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 03:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

(Note that {{R protected}} should be placed after the redirect on the same line)--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 03:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Done except that I put the {{R protected}} on a separate line. This is because the technical limitation no longer exists; previously it meant that anything not on the same line as the #REDIRECT [[]] would be ignored. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Taiwan which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Geography of Taiwan which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

I proposed that Government of_the Republic of China, History of the Republic of China and Republic of China (1912–49) to be merged to this article. This article should contain the comprehensive information about the state which continuously exists from 1912 (then commonly called China) to now (commonly called Taiwan). The resulting article should be very different from Taiwan as Republic of China is very different from Taiwan before 1949. -Miklcct (talk) 02:18, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Into what article? There is no such article as Republic of China, it is just a redirect, has been since the lengthy and thorough discussion. It would not be appropriate to effectively undo that, and re-create Republic of China, without a similar discussion. Until then it should stay a redirect, per the outcome of that discussion.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 23:37, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
To Miklcct and JohnBlackburne: Wow, even just the table of contents for Talk:Taiwan/Archive 20 ("the lengthy and thorough discussion" mentioned above) is dense. I'm going to remove the merge template, something I would never ordinarily do, after looking through that summarized discussion. It's just too thorough to do otherwise!
Miklcct, if you decide it's best to add the merger template back in, please explain how what you think should be done is different from the options discussed in Archive 20 in February-March 2012. I agree that your "Taiwan as Republic of China is very different from Taiwan before 1949" point is excellent, but I can't see how that wasn't taken into consideration in Archive 20. I suggest:
# summarizing your understanding of the result of Archive 20,
# stating whether or not you observe any deviation in articles' scopes since that time,
# explaining your proposal (since it might change after looking into the above), and
# clarifying the differences between your proposal and the current, post-Archive 20 structure of the related articles.
My real-life limitations probably won't let me make it back here, so good luck sorting through stuff and I hope this post helps! I thank you for your good work, either way, because I was looking into the scopes of of a slightly wider group of articles myself when trying to improve Government of China (disambiguation) and you saved me a lot of sifting. —Geekdiva (talk) 18:46, 18 July 2017 (UTC)