User talk:Jpech95/taiwan

Hello and welcome to the Taiwan Proposal talk page. Thank you, everyone, major or minor, who helped.

RM draft

I think this is a great proposal, just as before, and although I can see some vulnerabilities from the opponents, I think this should go through. I'd like to get everyone's opinion, and I'd also like to know what you plan on doing now. Do you think this is ready to go to proposal? And if so is it going to RM and/or Talk:ROC? Jpech95 01:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd start a new thread and show your work at the moment. Also suggest a formal RM. There is discussion about the naming convention atm so you might want to consider tying into that or waiting until that's resolved. I can't say what the best approach is. Maybe email Kauffner and Chipmunk for their views. John Smith's (talk) 08:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Because now that we're done, I don't want all this work to go to waste, I'm ready to do something about it. I'll keep in contact with Kauffer and Chipmunkdavis. Jpech95 22:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jpech95; take notice that somebody has already made this move request a couple days ago.. I think this move is probably misguided, but it nevertheless is getting a lot of responses. I much prefer your proposal; hopefully it will be put up for vote / discussion soon. Mlm42 (talk) 23:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't even know that Taiwan (disambiguation) existed. I'll look into it, and thank you for your support. Jpech95 22:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding this RM proposal.. you should be clear what is actually being proposed. In particular, link to the articles in question, and the draft articles which you are proposing replace them. For example, "User:Jpech95/taiwan/Taiwan -> Taiwan". As for the list of sources, there are lots.. instead of listing some (which may or may not be representative), consider linking to this list of sources. At the moment the proposal seems very one-sided.. we should be striving for neutrality in the proposal, so as to not bias the discussion. Mlm42 (talk) 09:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

A move proposal would have to be slightly one sided, as it is a proposition to do something, however it could be worded better to try and address opposing arguments in it. How's this for a hopefully clearer RM introduction (if slightly longer)?

The current Taiwan article is nominally specifically about the island called Taiwan, while the article for the state that is often called Taiwan is located at Republic of China. "Republic of China" is a legal name now rarely used outside Taiwan, and not dominantly used there either. Most Taiwanese seem to see its use as a simple way to avoid confrontation with Beijing, or at least that’s the gist of this report by Reuters. Following discussions about moving Republic of China to Taiwan, a proposed article that places the state at its WP:COMMONNAME and addresses the change in its prose has been written. This RM would allow the proposed article to replace the current island article as the primary topic for "Taiwan". "Taiwan" is the WP:COMMONNAME of the country by an overwhelming margin. All the most authoritative sources refer to it this way, with some prominent examples shown below (A slightly larger list is found here). The current naming situation is confusing to readers (many edits around the wiki, especially by IPs, link Taiwan when it refers to the state), and goes against what seems to be almost every other major English publication.

Chipmunkdavis (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

That seems better. Also, since the NPOV argument is so common it should be addressed clearly and concisely; perhaps at some point early on (either in the initial proposal, or directly below it). In particular, opponents of the move appear to view it as Wikipedia "taking sides", and the only neutral way solution is to keep it the way it is; this point is worthy of addressing right from the start, since it is the main (only?) argument against the move. Mlm42 (talk) 19:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

"The argument that the current title is needed for NPOV as making Taiwan a country would be a political statement is flawed. If picking Taiwan is a political choice, then picking the current name would also be a political choice. The neutral way to name our article would be to follow what other English sources use, and not decide based on our personal feelings as to what name implies what."

Something along those lines? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that looks great; thanks. Any idea when the proposal will actually be made? It seems about ready to go. Mlm42 (talk) 17:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea as well, I see the point. And, Mlm42, I'm pretty much waiting for the guy who really is in charge of this (IMO), Kauffer, to come back here so we get can this rolling. I agree though, we're reading. There's so many different proposals we just need to get this sorted out now and have some general consensus, not some tiny ones. Jpech95 21:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Please take out the statement "Most Taiwanese seem to see its use as a simple way to avoid confrontation with Beijing, or at least that’s the gist of this report by Reuters." This is a statement that can only be verified through statistically sound opinion polling, which the Reuters article doesn't even attempt to do, and in my opinion is not true. The way for this move proposal to succeed is to (1) justify it solely on common name and (2) de-couple the common name policy used for article titles from the accuracy requirements of article text. Once you try to descend into politics, you step into a minefield that has prevented this move from taking place with arguments centering on the NPOV policy. You will need to diminish the significance of political arguments based on NPOV and accuracy. For example, the Viet Cong would be opposed to being called the Viet Cong but we allow the article to reside there on the basis of common name. But by making a politically-based argument here, you emphasize the significance of politics in the debate and diminish the arguments pointing at the common name.

I would also take out "Republic of China is a legal name now rarely used outside Taiwan, and not dominantly used there either." You need to emphasize that the relevant usage is in English worldwide, and not in Chinese in Taiwan. If you make the argument that it's not used in Taiwan, then you welcome plenty of fodder telling you how this is not the case.

I can see myself supporting this move, but if presented with these arguments, I would be inclined to oppose.

For the usage examples:

• The CIA World Factbook states that Taiwan has no official name and lists Taiwan separately from the list of countries. This represent the US Government obligations to adhere to the One China policy. Clearly they have different standards and motivations and I would not use this as an example.
• The BBC, AP Stylebook, and Britannica are credited.
• The CNA quote does not really prove your point as Taiwan is used geographically. In the view that the Republic of China constitutionally encompasses the territory governed by the PRC, you cannot logically have "a new line of defense" for the Republic of China if the adversary is in Mainland China. I'm sure there are better examples.
• There cannot possibly be a worse article than the Taipei Times article citing a DPP resolution to promote your argument. It's no surprise that the DPP thinks Taiwan is a country. Your point in making this list would be to show that there is political consensus accepting Taiwan as the conventional short form for the Republic of China, not to show something obvious. You might as well quote the People's Daily to show that Taiwan should be referred to as part of China. A better choice would be an article from the China Post or the Central News Agency (post-2008) showing that the KMT supports such usage.--Jiang (talk) 00:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Jiang, you make some excellent points, and I definitely think we should incorporate them (are we free to edit to proposal directly?). I'm no expert in this area, so could you compile a list of what you believe are to most relevant usage examples? I also think including a good example of a Google hits comparison would be relevant.. such as comparing "Kinmen, Taiwan" to "Kinmen, Republic of China" (the first gets over 100 times more hits). Mlm42 (talk) 00:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

For the titling criteria

• The last sentence of "recognizably" is arguing personalities and is going to inflame those opposed. I would delete it.
• "Naturalness" should be titled "accessibility."
• Concision is a terrible reason and does nothing to counter arguments of accuracy and NPOV. Common names naturally lead to concision, but here, Republic of China is not all that unwieldy. We wouldn't be moving United States to America.
• For "consistency" you need to argue how this is different from Ireland, Kosovo, and Macedonia.

--Jiang (talk) 00:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Good points on the politics, although I see no need to explain to "decouple" title and text in the RM, as that would be a large tangent which isn't that important. In regards to "Republic of China is a legal name now rarely used outside Taiwan, and not dominantly used there either", this isn't about Chinese in Taiwan, but English in Taiwan. As for the titling criteria, those are directly copied off WP:CRITERIA, so I don't think we should change them. In regards to consistency, do we really have to explain how its different from Ireland and Macedonia? (It's not different from Kosovo, which was a split made without strong consensus to imitate the previous China setup.) I could probably just copy paste the explanations I've given in the talkpages if I can find them, but that would add significant text to the RM. If you feel it's necessary though, definitely doable. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we necessarily need to simply copy the points from WP:CRITERIA, which are very general; I think we should emphasize the most relevant points to this particular case. After all, policy and guidelines are there to describe general practices.. but general practice is determined through consensus, partially by massive move requests, as this one likely will be. That's why it's important to address the major points on both sides, preferably sooner rather than later in the move request. Mlm42 (talk) 02:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Note

I will be moving the RM to the user page so that it can be edited and then discussed here, since it seems the RM has become the center of discussion. I want to get an acceptable RM before we post it. Jpech95 02:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Technicalities

The draft "Taiwan" article seems to me to follow the conventions for country articles, and to cover the range of topics one might expect. However:

• A proposal to move these drafts from user space to article space will surely be summarily rejected by the WP:RM regulars as a cut-and-paste move. The proposal needs to be formulated in terms of existing articles, with the drafts as mock-ups of how the result is expected to look.
• The draft "Taiwan (island)" article seems to contain nothing that is not also in the draft "Taiwan" article, and the draft "Republic of China" similarly seems to be a subset of the existing History of the Republic of China. It seems hard to justify these as separate articles.

I think that what you're really proposing is that the current content of Republic of China (minus the pre-1949 history) be merged with the current content of Taiwan to form an article under the title "Taiwan", and that's what you'd need to say. Kanguole 01:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The original purpose of this was just to get a common ground for what we wanted to see changed in the articles, since the debate at the time over at Talk:ROC was endless, similar to what it is now. I understand your concern, and I don't really plan on using anything in what we set up here for anything more than a guide. The reason we created this, in my opinion, in light of the realities we now face as we try to move this into reality, is to gain a general understanding of what we want in the articles, and now we have to form our request to move now that we understand what we want. Jpech95 02:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I think we've agreed to drop the Taiwan (island) and Republic of China articles from the proposal, and just use the draft Taiwan article. Simplicity. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

So you plan to propose a merge? Kanguole 02:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I was under the impression we were shifting names on some articles, while changing some content to switch the name. I don't think we need to have the detailed information about the island at the article about the country, even if the article is called Taiwan, because that article, as I just said, is for the country, just how Austrialia is about the country, not the island/continent. But anyway I suppose a merge could work, but I wouln't compile information from both areas of Taiwan (geograpical and political) into one article. That's just me. Jpech95 03:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

It would be great to be precise about what is proposed. But aren't the current contents of User:Jpech95/taiwan/Taiwan a merge of those two articles (minus the pre-1949 ROC)? The Geography section, for example, seems to be the same as Taiwan#Geography. That seems to be in line with most country articles, which have sections on Geography, Politics etc (Wikipedia:COUNTRIES#Sections).

Australia (continent) isn't very relevant, as it also includes the rather large island of New Guinea, which is shared between two other countries. More similar are island countries like Iceland, Madagascar, Sri Lanka and Cuba, in each of which the country includes some minor islands in addition to the island of the same name, but the difference is not considered sufficient for separate articles. (Nor does the Australian mainland rate an article distinct from the country.) Kanguole 12:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't plan to propose a merge, because I really don't have the enthusiasm for that discussion right now. I'd expect it should be merged into Geography of Taiwan rather than Taiwan. That should be a discussion for another time, but if this is moved than the Taiwan page will resemble the Cuba, Iceland, etc. pages. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to harp on, but exactly what move are you proposing? Kanguole 12:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Republic of China --> Taiwan with the sandbox as an example final product probably. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

That was my idea, for the most part. Including Taiwan --> Taiwan (island). Jpech95 15:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Timing

Happy year of the dragon everyone! Tết is all over. I am out of excuses and beer -- and back from the unwired countryside. I say we go ahead with this proposal as soon the Taiwan (disambiguation) RM is closed. Kauffner (talk) 11:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

which version?--Jiang (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Kauffer, even though you are a bit delayed for the Lunar New Year. I agree, as soon as that is closed, we get hopefully get this moving. Do you think the proposal is ready to go, because we have some suggestions above to modiy some wording. We would be using the first one on the main user page. (to answer your question, Jiang) Jpech95 20:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Well it seems that none of my comments have been addressed in that version. I would only support the "alternate" as written--Jiang (talk) 00:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

We could work it into the first one. I feel that the first one explains more, and it looks better (it's largely political, I'm sure, if we look better, we'll get farther). What is it about the second one you like and I can try to merge the two, unless you really don't want me to. Jpech95 01:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

As I stated in my comment above, this move proposal should be based entirely on common name, not who thinks what in the political world, which would turn the move discussion into another political debating forum as before. It not so much about what I like in the alternate, but what I object to as being the rationale for the move in the longer proposal. I think the basic argument should be (1) for article titles (as opposed to article text) the main consideration is common name (2) the common name of the Republic of China as it exists in the present form is Taiwan as noted by multiple reliable sources. There is no reason to speculate on why the Taiwanese people/government use or retain the name Republic of China; that's outside the scope of our consideration.--Jiang (talk) 02:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I took the Reuters article out. Many editors may assume that the continued use of "ROC" on Taiwan reflects irredentism, so it needs to be pointed out that there is no longer any major faction in Taiwan demanding that Beijing, "give back our mountains and rivers." I added some annotations to the "Usage examples" subsection to show that official, ruling party, and opposition sources all use "Taiwan" to mean the state, without differentiating between the island and the ROC. I think this makes the same point while allowing the reader draw the conclusion. As far as the World Factbook goes, this is generally considered an authoritative source, especially on the issue of proper English-language country names. In the case of Taiwan, the article is written so as to comply with a U.S. law specific to Taiwan. All the same, the nomenclature used officially by the largest English-speaking country must be considered relevant. Kauffner (talk) 03:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

So everyone is clear, which move proposal will be the one copied over? Also, should the statement I worked above at Mlm42's urging countering the usual "ROC is NPOV" argument be included? CMD (talk) 10:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe the second one (alternate proposal) is being merged into the first so that the first has very few vunerabilities from our opponents. That's what I think, only considering the first one seems to explain more what we are trying to do. Jpech95 18:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep in mind that a possible vulnerability is that there might be a perception that the Move Request itself is biased; this would undermine the ensuing discussion and possible consensus. For this reason, longer proposals are not necessarily better. If there are further points editors wish to make, they can do so in the discussion. Maybe you could say some key points that you feel are missing from the "alternate" proposal? Mlm42 (talk) 19:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you merge them on User:Jpech95/taiwan so we can all see before it is copied in? CMD (talk) 22:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, the US Government has the same amount of aversion to using the adjectival form "Taiwanese" as it does the official form "Republic of China". There are some quirks to government usage, and I don't know if this should be presented there.--Jiang (talk) 02:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Why not? 218.250.159.25 (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

：The US legislation defines Taiwan as the island and the Pescadores (the same area as the Japanese colony), thereby excluding other ROC landmasses, namely Wuchiu, Quemoy, Matsu, and the islands in the South China Sea. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

True, the entire proposal could be considered biased to some. I'll try to do my best on merging them right now, and we can edit it as needed. I personally see few problems with the original RM, but others see a lot, so I'm just here to make everyone happy (the point of this entire thing in the first place...) Jpech95 00:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

While I understand the desire to present many points in the Move Request in support of the move, I think a long RM, as you are suggesting, is weaker than a much shorter version, such as the alternate proposal. Listing a handful of sources (as in "Usage examples") is not really convincing, because maybe there are many other sources that aren't listed; and essentially all of the points under "Titling criteria" have holes in them.. in particular, the conclusions from the stated google search results are very dubious, and liable to people arguing them. So I think these points make the RM weaker, not stronger.

To keep it simple, I would favour the alternate proposal.. I think it captures the most important points. Could I ask why others are opposed to this alternate proposal (if there is opposition)? Mlm42 (talk) 02:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

After Kauffner's modifications, most of my comments are no longer relevant. The new usage examples are more convincing; I'd certainly support the longer proposal now. Mlm42 (talk) 19:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

It fails to mention and explain the fact that Quemoy, Pratas, etc., are part of the modern Republic of China despite not being associated to Taiwan in any way before 1949. It also fails to mention and explain that this country Taiwan inherited the state organs, institutions, constitution, laws, etc. of the pre-1949 ROC and is still having all these in place. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 17:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

"The Nationalists, led by President Chiang Kai-shek, relocated from Nanjing to Taipei in 1949 at the end of the Chinese Civil War. Despite the fact that they now governed only Taiwan, Quemoy and the Matsu Islands, the Nationalists continued to claim sovereignty over all China." CMD (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't clarify in any way that Quemoy, the Matsu Islands, etc., aren't part of Taiwan despite being part of the ROC. And it doesn't mention at all the fact that the pre-1949 institutions, organs, constitution, laws, etc., are still carried on after the relocation until present day. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

But they are part of Taiwan, in the sense of the article. And if the government moves, then the organs move. It clarifies it as much as the current article. CMD (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Hawaii doesn't become part of North America just because it's politically part of the United States. By the same token Quemoy, Wuchiu, Matsu, Pratas and Itu Aba don't become Taiwanese just because they have remained in the hands of the Nationalists/the ROC. Meanwhile in the draft the coverage on the connections of the contemporary country with the pre-1945/49 ROC is far from sufficient. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 21:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I made some major changes to the opening paragraph. Again, I think it is best to argue that political considerations are irrelevant here. If political considerations were relevant, there would be less justification for the move. Also, you can probably get more support for this if you limit its scope.--Jiang (talk) 02:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

That the opposition favors "Taiwan" over "ROC" might seem obvious to you, but I wonder if most Wiki editors are that hip to Taiwanese internal politics. You also deleted the argument that googling "Republic of China" -wikipedia yields mostly results about the mainland. Kauffner (talk) 03:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Who favors what name in Taiwan is irrelevant in determining common name. It is only relevant when there are multiple common names and we have to pick among them. The argument here is that there is only one common name, and that is Taiwan.--Jiang (talk) 03:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Many editors seem to think they are upholding some political POV by voting for "ROC." So I think it is worth making the point that in real world published English, usage across the political spectrum is "Taiwan." (Yes, even People's Daily/Xinhua.) Kauffner (talk) 04:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps cite to Wikipedia:Article_titles#Non-neutral_but_common_names and defend accordingly. Policy permits non-neutral common names. Arguing whether Taiwan is or is not neutral will reach no end. If we argue "so what if it's not neutral", this is an article title not article text, then what's to counter that?

I'd say especially the People's Daily, instead of even the People's Daily. The cue is when KMT sources start using Taiwan and ROC synonymously. This has not been the case with official titles and institutions, but has been the case with general country references.--Jiang (talk) 05:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you know too much about this issue. A lot of people reading this proposal won't know what the "Republic of China" is, who uses this name, or what it means. So some "political" education on these matters is appropriate. Kauffner (talk) 10:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Anyone who is incapable of making informed decision should perhaps refrain from commenting on the proposal. The proposal should be comprehensible for those who in the very least have read the two articles in question. If they haven't even bothered to read the lead sections of these articles, then how is it possible for them to decide whether the move should proceed? All that is needed judge the proposal can be found in the first couple paragraphs of each article - having to read that much to determine what the current setup is and whether it is acceptable is a very basic task.--Jiang (talk) 18:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree. But it is basically impossible to make somebody admit that he or she hasn't read the relevant articles in question. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 21:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the People's Daily, they have to avoid the name "Republic of China" because PRC's official position is that the ROC had ceased to exist in 1949. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I reverted Jiang's rewritten paragraph; I don't think it was an improvement, and it contained some factually incorrect statements (such as: "Titles of articles on Wikipedia are determined exclusively by WP:COMMONNAME"). I don't fully understand Jiang's reasoning for a change.. what exactly is wrong with the current version? Mlm42 (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The terms "the government and state" "modern state" and "nation-state" are politically charged, biased, and imprecise. The proper terminology in reference to what is being moved is the use of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries which is used for both sovereign states and dependencies. Just as prescriptions such as "treat Taiwan as a sovereign state" have no place in Wikipedia policy, it is improper to imply politically charged assumptions in implementing Wikipedia policy. The words used here are (however unintentionally) endorsing a particular viewpoint in declaring Taiwan to be a nation-state (objectively a state perhaps, but calling it a nation runs into more problems).

Other than the factually incorrect citation of policy, what do you think is wrong with the strategy I am trying to use (1) limiting the scope of what this move proposal aims to accomplish and (2) discounting political arguments entirely rather than trying to forward such arguments such as "the Republic of China is a constitutional name now rarely used outside Taiwan." Again, how is what the Taiwanese people believe relevant in determining common name? The Reuters article which goes around interviewing selected bystanders in a famously pro-independence part of the island is garbage in the face of actual usage statistics.

The phrase "All the most authoritative sources refer to it this way" is also potentially inaccurate. Sources used both terms in different contexts. The argument to make is not that sources don't use Republic of China (read the linked China Post article), but that they use Taiwan as the conventional form of the Republic of China in a more common than they use Republic of China on its own.--Jiang (talk) 23:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply; yes, I see your point. I merged in parts of your version. I kept the reference to the Reuters report, but perhaps there is a better reference for the fact that "Neither name is politically neutral"? Are there any complaints with the current version? Mlm42 (talk) 01:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I suppose we should also provide evidence that the political entity is in fact the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term "Taiwan" (which is being discussed at Talk:Taiwan (disambiguation)). Mlm42 (talk) 01:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

May I have the diff link to your major changes to the opening paragraph, Jiang? 218.250.159.25 (talk) 21:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The authoritative sources on this subject are references like World Factbook, Britannica, Columbia, BBC, and AP. As far as these kind of sources go, "Taiwan" is just the name of the country, end of story. Let's not get sidetracked by KMT soul searching. When the country had international recognition, it was "Nationalist China". Since it lost recognition in the 1970s, it has been known almost universally as "Taiwan" internationally. So the English-language name was never about the DPP and the Taiwan independence movement. Kauffner (talk) 04:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure I see your point; are you suggesting a change to the proposal? Mlm42 (talk) 17:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

What's the rationale behind moving Taiwan to Taiwan (island)? This is not justified in the proposal. It seems the kind of articles that would be linking there would be very few, and its role could easily be handled by Geography of Taiwan. Why not use propose a merge of Republic of China into Taiwan?--Jiang (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I would love a merge, and agree a merge into Geography of Taiwan and the current Republic of China would be a very good idea. However, with many IPs and some users going on about how Taiwan is an island, keeping the island article will (I hope) avoid the discussion degenerating into some sort of "every island deserves an article" type discussion. CMD (talk) 00:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't quite see how proposing this as a move rather than a merge will change those arguments. The argument that ROC=Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, Matsu and not just Taiwan and that Kinmen and Matsu are part of Fujian are being forwarded as part of an accuracy argument and not quite that Taiwan island needs to have its own article; that is, if this proposal goes through, the title of the article will be inaccurate because the Republic of China consists of more than Taiwan. My response to that is discount the argument entirely: "the subtleties of meaning between these two terms and any purported political meaning should be left to the text of individual articles. The ultimate goal of article naming is to allow readers to retrieve material from the location they are most likely to seek it - this is the rationale for this move proposal."--Jiang (talk) 15:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

That's how it should work Jiang, but I'm tired of dealing with strawmen. I'm tired of explaining Macedonia and Ireland again. The discussion has gone in pointless circles. I'm willing to take every opportunity to reduce the possibility of another pointless and distracting argument. If consensus develops here to change this, then fine, but considering that it should be the Taiwan article that is merged into the current ROC and Geography articles, as that divides one article nicely into two areas, instead of shifting information from ROC (which is apparently GA) into Taiwan and shifting information from there to Geography, the move could happen anyway. CMD (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I also think a multiple-page move is the simplest step in this situation. The fact is, an article about the island of Taiwan already exists, so if someone wants to merge it with another article, then that is a separate argument, requiring a separate discussion. Such a discussion would distract from the main one, which is that the article with the country infobox at the top should be called "Taiwan", not "ROC". Mlm42 (talk) 17:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Macedonia and Ireland are relevant in the China case but not relevant here. The common name here has something of more specific scope than what is covered by the countries article. There's no need to explain those.--Jiang (talk) 03:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

And yet I've had to... CMD (talk) 12:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Macedonia isn't relevant, but somehow Ireland is. It illustrates how a geographical area can be different from a country. It also illustrates why Taiwan isn't like Sri Lanka, Iceland, Cuba, Malta, Jamaica or Madagascar. Apart from Ireland versus Republic of Ireland, another example may perhaps be Great Britain versus United Kingdom. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 18:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

If a title itself isn't accurate and precise, it's difficult for the scope of the article to be properly and unambiguously defined. Texts of articles change frequently and it's difficult to rely only on texts to define the scope of each of these articles. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 21:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The argument you are making here has nothing to do with the purpose of this page. The purpose of this page is to discuss how to draft a move proposal that is most likely to succeed. Discussion of the merits of the move proposal, and whether it should go through, should be made after the proposal has be formally made. It would help if you backed your assertions with Wikipedia policy. There's actually material there that mentions accuracy and neutrality - you should mold what is there to your advantage.--Jiang (talk) 03:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

What does Tết have to do with Taiwan or the ROC? 218.250.159.25 (talk) 21:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a community, the human touch helps. CMD (talk) 12:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid Tet isn't a Taiwanese or ROC festival, even though it falls on the same date and some of the practices are quite similar. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 18:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Here at Wikiville, we celebrate many things. Mlm42 (talk) 19:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

One has to demonstrate his or her familiarity with the subject matter if he or she wants his/her views to be respected. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 20:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Are we all happy?

So is everyone happy with the current RM proposal? What further improvements could be made? Mlm42 (talk) 05:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems clear enough. CMD (talk) 12:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I just made some edits - removed some speculation from the list of sources and tried to discount the importance of precision in article titles.

User:Jpech95/taiwan/Republic_of_China doesn't seem presentable. That's why I left it out in an earlier edit of the proposal.--Jiang (talk) 20:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Those look like good changes to me; but I removed the sentence regarding "The ultimate goal" of article titles.. because I'm not sure it's clear what the ultimate goal of article titles should be, and if there is one. In reality, I think titles should be determined by consensus, which in this case will likely be determined by a massive Move Request. Just because most people call it the "funny bone", doesn't mean we need to rename Ulnar nerve. Mlm42 (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Could you provide the diff link(s)? 218.250.159.25 (talk) 20:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Just click on the "History" button to see what has changed.. Mlm42 (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me add that my remaining concern is that this proposal doesn't quite say what to do with the Republic of China article, and people disagree on where to take it. The creation of the new Republic of China article would then be based on haste improvisation in that a redirect to Taiwan could not be allowed to remain, rather than through a consensus-based process. Back in Ancient Wikipedia, when we moved China to People's Republic of China, we had the new (non-PRC) China article drafted from scratch away from the main article space before we implemented the move, so we would not have the funny situation in which China redirected to People's Republic of China. Drafting the article before doing the move allowed people to get a better idea of what was going to happen before it did once it was decided China was not going to be solely about the PRC.

Since Republic of China is going to be created from scratch under this proposal, it seems reasonable to start Talk:Republic of China/draft - something that is not merely a sample in Jpech95's userspace in that the edit history would be moved into the main article space once the draft became ready.--Jiang (talk) 01:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

So there isn't currently an article to replace "Republic of China" (other than the one in Jpech95's userspace), so the default would be a redirect to Taiwan. The idea to create a Talk:Republic of China/draft seems reasonable to me.

I should point out that the RM at Talk:Taiwan (disambiguation) has now closed with a result of "no consensus". Mlm42 (talk) 16:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

What else is new. Well that opens the door for us to do what we've been waiting for. So I'll reiderate the question Chipmunkdavis asked yesterday: Are we ready? Because it seems like we are, once we can all agree that this proposal is what we want to show. Jpech95 17:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Two options: (1) Wait and complete Talk:Republic of China/draft before submitting the proposal, and have this draft article form part of the proposal; or (2) state in the proposal that the series of moves will not be implemented until Talk:Republic of China/draft is subsequently completed. I don't believe in redirecting Republic of China to Taiwan or having an article hastily written to avoid this situation. Those opposed to the move will be less inclined to oppose it if they are satisfied in what is going to replace it.--Jiang (talk) 17:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I think we probably shouldn't wait, if we can help it. It seems like User:Jpech95/taiwan/Republic_of_China is a good starting point; no article in Wikipedia is ever "finished", so I think it's more important to define clearly what should go in such an article, rather than to write a spotless article in its entirety. Mlm42 (talk) 18:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Wait, a good starting point for what? What would we use my ROC article as? I figured we were going to use my Taiwan and Taiwan (island) articles, to be honest. Jpech95 18:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

If I understood your proposal correctly, it would be the article that would end up at Republic of China? But maybe I misunderstood your proposal.. Mlm42 (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

My apologies, upon reading further upward, I see what you had intended. I don't know if some users would allow you to create a Republic of China/draft because of the opposition. Although I see what you mean by saying that we're just taking something directly from userspace and making an article out of it, but that's somewhat what I intended to do, unless its prohibited somewhere in WP policy. In any sence, my entire position was to just make moves using the articles we created here as guidelines. If that's not what you had in mind, that works for me too, I'm obviously open to discussion, I'm not even the one running this anymore pretty much. Jpech95 18:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not asking for a finished, spotless article, but we should in the very least agree on its scope which I don't think we have done. Otherwise people will be indicating "support" or "oppose" without knowing in part what they are supporting or opposing. Jpech95's article is basically only as a copy and pasted version of the history section of the existing article. If that were the "sample" we displayed, then why not propose that history of the Republic of China be moved to Republic of China? Alternatively, we could list existing articles as samples such as French Fifth Republic, Kingdom of the Netherlands, and Holy See.--Jiang (talk) 18:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

That was my reason for creating the ROC article, because I figured we could put the history of the Republic there, although currently the article is nothing more than a few paragraphs. Jpech95 18:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

My understanding was that Republic of China is to become is "an article like the French Fifth Republic article", which is maybe a better way to describe it, rather than getting too much into the details. On the other we should come to some broad agreement of the scope of that article, so people know what they're voting on. Mlm42 (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

That was my original idea, but I had little support, and the article in of itself (as you can see) was forgotten. What would you like to do with the ROC article, and/or do you feel its even important to the proposal? Jpech95 19:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't really have a preference, but maybe others here do? The important part of this proposal, it seems, is the "ROC -> Taiwan" part. Mlm42 (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it is quite unnatural and confusing to refer to a Taiwan-based entity as the "Republic of China". During it's notoriously pro-KMT "China lobby" period, Time magazine used "Nationalist China" and "Red China".[1] The "Nationalist China" terminology allows for a break in 1927, which IMO makes sense as well. Kauffner (talk) 13:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you think that we should even create an ROC article? Because if not we won't, I just thought way back in the beginning we were to create one, to focus more on either the history of government of the country itself, but I can see how it can be confusing. Jpech95 18:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking the ROC article that would explain where you could find ROC history, not have actual content. The history itself would be divided up as, Republic of China (1912-1928), Nationalist China (1923-1971), and just "Taiwan" for the post-1971 period. Kauffner (talk) 06:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we should modify the proposal regarding to ROC article to something more open ended:

• Redirect Republic of China to Taiwan. If there is sufficient demand, create a new article analogous to French Fifth Republic.

Thoughts? Mlm42 (talk) 02:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I would probably oppose this as I did last time on the grounds that a significant (perhaps majority) of mentions of "Republic of China" do not refer to the post-1949 entity. This is not like the People's Republic of China where there is a one-on-one mapping of the formal name and the common name, but a one-on-two mapping of both China and Taiwan as common names. On the one hand, the historical meaning of the term being significantly different from the current meaning means that a redirect makes little sense; on the other, historical and conceptual continuity between post-1949 and pre-1949 means that Republic of China cannot be a disambiguation page under WP:CONCEPTDAB. The only solution I see is to have Republic of China and Taiwan both be separate articles. Republic of China should use summary style to cover both current and historical usage of the term. Something like more like Kingdom of the Netherlands than French Fifth Republic but with history sub sections and no geography section.--Jiang (talk) 07:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I see; are you happy with the wording currently in the proposal:

• Draft an article at Republic of China, analogous to the article French Fifth Republic (see User:Jpech95/taiwan/Republic_of_China).

Or we could even remove the example article, if it's not in an acceptable enough state. Mlm42 (talk) 16:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm envisioning something that incorporate elements of both Kingdom of the Netherlands than French Fifth Republic. There should be a lengthy history section with subsections on the different political periods, as well as sections on government structure and foreign relations, and political status, but no list of leaders like in the Fifth Republic article. I don't think User:Jpech95/taiwan/Republic_of_China should be included without further improvement. So: "Draft an article at Republic of China, analogous to the articles Kingdom of the Netherlands and French Fifth Republic.--Jiang (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

"Draft an article at Republic of China, with elements similar to the articles Kingdom of the Netherlands and French Fifth Republic" would be better. Would you mind just adding the headers you'd like to see on Jpech95's draft page for now Jiang? Not critical for the move, but perhaps useful, as we could show the Jpech's draft as a framework. CMD (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Someone with the time: please get started!--Jiang (talk) 08:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

"Googling "Republic of China" -wikipedia suggests that many readers associate this phrase with the mainland, and not Taiwan at all." As a matter of logic and appearance, this is actually false. It just so happens that the three words for "Republic of China" form part of the four words for "People's Republic of China." Under the same logical reasoning, many readers associate Leopard 2E with an animal, not a tank at all.--Jiang (talk) 08:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

"Taiwan is overwhelmingly the WP:COMMONNAME, the term readers type in when searching for this subject.[2]" This addition also runs into logical reasoning problems. The google search assumes that everyone typing in "Republic of China" and "Taiwan" are looking for exactly the same thing, and expect either search term to spit out the same result. I might as well compare searches for "China" and "purple" and conclude that "purple" is overwhelmingly the common name for "China". There's not quite the same difference in meaning between "Republic of China" and "Taiwan" as there is for "purple" and "China", but for obvious reasons "Republic of China" and "Taiwan" don't quite mean the same thing. I wouldn't necessarily be searching "Taiwan" for something that happened in 1912. But there are probably more people searching about stuff in the present tense than there are people searching about 1912.--Jiang (talk) 08:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Google shows you the results that previous reader's picked in similar situations. So the implication of the results for "Republic of China" -wikipedia is that a lot of readers typed in "Republic of China" and then clicked the PRC government portal, the embassy in Washington, or the U.N. mission. Of course, there is a possibility of a technical glitch. Perhaps there are readers who know China is a people's republic, but can't be bothered to type in the word "people's". But it is in our advantage to give this result a straightforward spin: The ordinary slub on the Web has no idea that the phrase "Republic of China" has any connection to Taiwan. If nearly half the readers typing in "Republic of China" are actually looking for Beijing's official sites, that would mean "Taiwan" has an even greater advantage over "Republic of China" than it would appear from the Insights link. It's even grimmer for "ROC" when you at the regionals; A large percentage of the people typing in this phrase are in Taiwan. If you look at the associated terms for "Republic of China", only one of the top nine has anything to do with Taiwan. Kauffner (talk) 10:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The ordinary slub on the Web has no idea that the phrase "Republic of China" has any connection to Taiwan. While that may be true, your Google search is not evidence for that claim, as Jiang points out. Mlm42 (talk) 17:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

In fact, consider the search "republic of china" -"people's republic of china" -wikipedia.org, which gives me 35 million hits (when the numbers are that high, this usually just means "a lot"). One might be tempted to conclude from this that "ROC" is a widely used name for the country. In general, I think Google searches are difficult to use effectively and convincingly. Mlm42 (talk) 17:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I was talking about rankings, not result numbers. As far as your example goes, you obviously already know its meaningless. On the other hand, you put a similar example in the proposal. So I guess I'll put on my Google explainer hat. There is no way that Google can count to 35 million in 0.16 seconds of computing time. So this type of result number is an afterthought, a wild guess. Quotation marks make the numbers go up astronomically. They give "the green goldfish" as an example in WP:GOOGLE. Also, the -"people's republic of china" term does not effect the result number. Kauffner (talk) 22:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on your point based on what we know about the Google algorithm? I fail to make the same conclusions by looking at the search results alone.--Jiang (talk) 00:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is what Google has to say about rankings. See the third section on the page, "Serving results". Kauffner (talk) 05:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

That just says what the search algorithm is meant to accomplish, not that it succeeds 100% of the time. This simply cannot be accomplished in our case by the search engine without mind reading and tailoring search results to the specific human behind the enquiry. How does the search engine handle disparate intentions? That is, two people search using the same phrase: while Person A uses that phrase intending to find one thing, and Person B uses that phrase intending to find another. If both Person A and Person B are being logical, then how do the search results prove that Person A is a more common occurrence by a certain factor than Person B?--Jiang (talk) 07:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Move request - moving forward

I think you guys are getting too bogged down trying to do everything at once and also worrying about small details. It's going to have to be discussed by everyone else anyway. The main question should be how to refer to the modern state that is officially called "ROC" but mainly consists of one large island (Taiwan). Once there is consensus on that via a move request, a decision can be taken as to how to deal with the ROC in other respects.

You will note that someone is proposing to rename ROC to "ROC (Taiwan)". If there is too much delay the move discussion could go down yet another blind ally. This has been under discussion for several months. Sometimes you just have to press on to make something happen. I'm not suggesting that you have to put something up right now, but maybe you should agree to finalise the proposal by Saturday to bring things to a head. John Smith's (talk) 23:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

You make a good point. We've been saying for a while we'd show this to everyone, and I think for the most part everyone agrees that the proposal is okay, and so if we can send it out and get the ball rolling, going after what was orignally planned for back in November, with a few modifications, we might be able to get this show on the road. Jpech95 01:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess one thing that's still unfortunately holding it up is the RM discussion that has been re-opened (sigh) at Talk:Taiwan (disambiguation), which would technically affect this proposal if successful; but a consensus at this would presumably supersede that one. Anyway, I'm fine with moving forward with this RM even though that other one hasn't been (re-)closed. Mlm42 (talk) 03:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I went over and told Mike Cline a thing or two. Kauffner (talk) 07:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I feel good knowing that most people involved here are ready. I'd like to get everyone's opinion. Are we ready to go submit this as an RM? I assume we want to submit it directly to WP:RM and not have to go through the nonsence over at Talk:ROC, unless we have to, which I hope we don't. I for one think that we are ready, and seeing that others are, I'd just like to get the general agreement and someone can get this offically moving. Jpech95 21:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

If Jiang is happy. All the important points are there anyway, and I suppose if there is anything missing we can state it during discussion. CMD (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with the current text.--Jiang (talk) 00:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

@Jpech, someone will need to start a new section at Talk:Republic of China, and include the move request template (detailed instructions here). A bot then links to that discussion from WP:RM.

Our proposal is a bit more complicated that a usual move request, since it involves changing a good amount of content as well. But it's probably okay to just stick it all in after the "reason =" part of the move template.

Big move discussions sometimes require a certain amount of enforced organization, to keep things tiny.. for example, it's sometimes desirable to move other people's non-voting comments from the "voting" section to the "discussion" section. This would prevent people refuting every single vote they don't agree with (which people are almost certainly going to do). Mlm42 (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, and just when I thought I knew how Wikipedia worked. Well, I really would hate to have to go back to the people over at Talk:ROC because they're still going at it. As long as someone here knows how to do the request properly I'm happy. But since CMD, myself, and I would assume you, all agree we are pretty much ready, I would get Kauffer and Jiang's input and then we could say let's do this. Yes, no, maybe so? Jpech95 23:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

No reason to go back to Talk:ROC. Put an RM template on the talk page of the proposed article. This page should probably be spiffed up a bit with headers and such first. Kauffner (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank goodness someone agrees with me about not going back to those crazies lol. Only thing is I don't see the RM template you said you put up. Jpech95 00:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

What? User:Jpech95/taiwan/Taiwan is a sample article. It cannot be moved into the article space. The one and only place where the RM should be filed is Talk:Republic of China. I agree that the discussion going on there is plainly acrimonious. I don't see a way out of the mud wrestling that will ensue, but hopefully this will put an end to it.--Jiang (talk) 00:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I think he was putting it at that page's talk page, not the article. Although I would just have put it here, it works. He just wanted to show us what the RM would look like. So then, are we posting it on both ROC and Taiwan? Because I think if we plan on moving both we have to put it on both, but I could be wrong (again). Jpech95 00:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It should just go at the ROC talkpage. All related pages should be alerted with a section pointing to the RM on that page. CMD (talk) 00:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Alright. Jpech95 00:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The RM has to be on, "one of the talk pages of the affected articles" (WP:RM), in this case Taiwan or the sample article. That's way the template is designed to be used, and it is the way virtually every RM is done. I certainly don't want see it on Talk:ROC. Of course you can move sample articles to article space. There is even a move button on top of the page. I've set it up so someone can just pull out the <nowiki> and we roll. Kauffner (talk) 01:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it's best practice to put the RM discussion on the talk page with the most traffic and discussion.. which is clearly the ROC talk page. An admin will help sort out the details of how the move is actually implemented at the end (assuming we end up getting consensus on something). Mlm42 (talk) 01:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Taiwan gets a lot more traffic. It got 634,251 page views in the last 90 days, compared to 440,880 for ROC. Not that those stats have anything much to do with where we should put the RM. Kauffner (talk) 02:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to the talk pages. There's just so much discussion at Talk:ROC about exactly this topic, it seems like the best place to have it. Mlm42 (talk) 02:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Two things: (1) user edit attribution rules mean that we cannot simply replace Taiwan with Jpech95's subpage. If the goal is to simply replace the content at Taiwan and not mess with Republic of China for the time being, all that is needed is consensus at Talk:Taiwan, not a requested move. I don't think this was ever the intention though. (2) the WP:RM discussion should be at the article being moved. Since there is basically no justification for moving Taiwan to Taiwan (island) in the proposal (other than to get it out of the way), then the discussion should be at Talk:Republic of China. Placing the request at Talk:Taiwan will highlight this lack of justification in the proposal - as I've been arguing, why not just call it a merge? --Jiang (talk) 07:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I would have thought the fact that we can't copy and paste the sample article would be a reason to RM it, but no one else seems to see it that way. Kauffner (talk) 10:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The sample article was created by copy and paste (plus further editing) so moving it to mainspace would be a copy-and-paste move. Kanguole 10:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Move on?

The question is simple: Are we ready to post our RM or should we wait and fix a few things? I'd like to especially hear from Kauffner, Chipmunkdavis, Jiang, and Mlm42. And by the way, guys, thank you so much for putting in so much of your time into this. Jpech95 00:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

From the above discussion, I think we're all ready (probably more than ready.. this is certainly the most preparation I've ever seen going into an RM; it's probably some kind of record). :) I suppose it would look something like this, pasted at the bottom of Talk:Republic of China:

==Requested move (February 2012)==
{{subst:move-multi
| current1 = Republic of China
| new1 = Taiwan
| current2 = Taiwan
| new2 = Taiwan (island)
| reason = Proposal: *Move [[Republic of China]] to [[Taiwan]], and modify the content (see [[User:Jpech95/taiwan/Taiwan]]) *Move [[Taiwan]] to [[Taiwan (island)]], and modify the content (see [[User:Jpech95/taiwan/Taiwan (island)]]) *Draft an article at [[Republic of China]], with elements similar to the articles [[Kingdom of the Netherlands]] and [[French Fifth Republic]]. The current [[Taiwan]] article ... (just copy and past the proposal here)

}}

And don't worry about the on-going drama at that talk page.. an actual RM should focus people's attention. Cheers, Mlm42 (talk) 01:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess its because this is a sensitive topic we had to talk about every possibility. And good point, an actual RM might get their attention we hope. Anyone else? JPECH95 01:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a proposal to rename the ROC article as "Taiwan", which is quite different from the idea I thought we were working on. Kauffner (talk) 01:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

From the beginning, my whole point was intending to move the ROC to Taiwan and Taiwan to Taiwan (island), so that the basics of WP:COMMONNAME could be applied. I thought that's what you thought it was. What did you plan to do, Kauffer? (Not being mean, I just want to know because you're one of our main people and it worries me that now you find the final product to not be what you wanted). JPECH95 01:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

@Kauffner.. ??? The thing is, in RM proposals you have to propose something, and ROC -> Taiwan is the "essence" of the proposal. In reality, the RM proposal is not that simple, since content will change (hence the draft articles).. but basically, it's a ROC -> Taiwan move, which is why that's probably the best way of describing it. Mlm42 (talk) 01:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Kauffner, are you okay with the proposal? JPECH95 02:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I assumed the plan was to RM the sample article to the Taiwan lemma. There was already an ROC-to-Taiwan RM back in November. Kauffner (talk) 02:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

We are using the article we created as the basis, its not just going to be a simple move, from what I had in mind, it would be that plus changes to fit in from what we had planned. We plan to move the articles, but the articles we created here weren't a waste of your time, they're the basis of the foundation for the ones we're going to create with the move, at least that's what I understand. I think there's a policy against moving things directly from user pages anyway, I could be wrong (wouldn't suprise me if I was). JPECH95 03:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I've seen RMs from user space before, so I'm pretty sure there is no guideline or policy issue. But if people freak out about it even on this page, it's probably not such a good idea. Kauffner (talk) 07:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

@Kauffner, I think that's what the proposal says the plan is. What exact form that "move" will take is (at least partially) up for the closing admin(s) to sort out (i.e. whether the page from user space will get "moved", or if the ROC page will get "moved" to Taiwan, or how content would be copy-pasted, or what happens to the revision histories.. etc etc..). The RM is meant to kick off a discussion to see where the consensus is on this; I think this proposal frames things in a better way than the November RM.. and also, I think the consensus winds have shifted a bit since then. Mlm42 (talk) 03:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Being clear on this point may save trouble later: there can be no question of copying userspace text derived from articles back into mainspace. It would sever the chain of attribution that is required by Wikipedia's licence, and it would also lose changes that have been made to those articles in the interim. The aim should be to repeat in mainspace the transformations by which the prototypes were constructed. Kanguole 09:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the chain of attribution is key.. I assumed the admins would be able to to tricky things by shifting around edit histories to ensure the license isn't violated; but you're right, it might be easiest to use the drafts as prototypes, and just remake the changes in article space. In any case, the RM discussion should be about what the final product looks like, not how we get there. Mlm42 (talk) 18:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll do it this way, to make life easier. (Although isn't that what I've been trying to do from day one, make this easier?) Mark whether or not you support and why. I hope that this way if there is any final problems, we can finish it and post our RM.

Jpech95: Support. JPECH95 03:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Kauffner: No time like the present. Onward, terraced bay-ers. Kauffner (talk) 07:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Chipmunkdavis: Do it. CMD (talk) 19:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Mlm42: Support. Mlm42 (talk) 03:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Jiang:
Go ahead! Jiang (talk) 07:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm logging out for the night. For me, it's close to 11 and I have to wake up early to get my education. Now, I do hope soon that we can finally get this moving. My worst fear now is that the dumbnuts on Talk:ROC are going to argue about this for another year or five. JPECH95 03:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Alright, yay, we have everyone I wanted. Who wants to post the RM? JPECH95 23:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. Feel free to help with keeping the discussion organized. Also, I hope it's okay, I listed the five editor's names as "co-writers". Mlm42 (talk) 23:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Republic of China#Requested Move (February 2012). Mlm42 (talk) 23:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Mlm42. And thanks so much for your involvement as well. JPECH95 23:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)