Template talk:Taiwan topics

Size of the fonts

I am hoping to get the fontsize smaller. Can someone help me with that? Mababa 06:03, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sub-categories

I am hoping to put all the sub categories into this template in the future for easy reference, too. Mababa 06:04, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

categories

Hmmm, the template belongs to no categories, but the discussion page does. Hmmm. (I was looking for a way to find similar templates.) Jidanni 00:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Adding (Taiwan) to the ROC

Please refer to Template_talk:Politics_of_the_Republic_of_China--pyl (talk) 08:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Most of contents in this Template describe as Taiwan in chief~ not only politic! This is just a web-encyclopedia,The main purpose should made readers to be clear about the matter for this subject. we should stand an angle of vision for readers who might disunderstand, not only to edit by your own position,but also have misgiving about other readers.--ILVTW (talk) 06:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

template has too much

The template should focus on the ROC, not on Taiwan. The ROC is the government. The "Administration" section should stay. The ROC as a government had a history in China before moving to Taiwan, so a "History" section should be present. Most of what is in the Society, Culture, Economy and Geography sections should be in Template:Taiwan topics rather than here. Readin (talk) 17:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the economy stuff and some of the culture stuff (particularly cinema, media, music, sports, things like that—entertainment-related stuff) could still stay, as it's more related to the country that is the ROC, rather than the hunk of rock that is Taiwan. Same for society, a few things (such as LGBT rights) could probably stay, while others could go. I imagine all of the geography stuff could go. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The cinema grew up in Taiwan and started during Japanese sovereignty. It is Taiwanese much more than Republican or Chinese. Media, music, sports and things like that also have their roots in Taiwan, not in Republican China. They are more Taiwanese than Republican Chinese. Readin (talk) 00:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Content duplication with Template:Taiwan topics

These two templates have a fairly significant amount of duplication. With the country article now located at Taiwan, I believe Template:Taiwan topics should be the main country template and the majority of this template's content should be there (and much of it already is). However, once the country-related links are stripped, there's basically only the administration section left in this template. Do people think there's enough content related to the Republic of China (the government, as distinct from the country of Taiwan) to justify it keeping a separate template, or should the government items be merged into Template:Taiwan topics and have that serve as the main template for both purposes? Personally I'm in favour of the latter. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 22:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree, it makes sense to get rid of the ROC template and merging relevant content with the Taiwan one. John Smith's (talk) 08:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Same here, although I personally have not recently seen the "Taiwan" template, assuming it is similar to the ROC one, along with the fact that, well, the moves were made, there should be no reason not to. JPECH95 20:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. There are many topics that aren't related to Taiwan at all, or span across a longer timeframe that predates the lost of the Chinese mainland. Jeffrey (202.189.98.142) (talk) 22:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Null? Jeffrey (talk) 11:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes? – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 19:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Please put the merge on hold. As I have said, some topics don't belong to the Taiwan template. Jeffrey (talk) 15:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Suggested move

Template talk:Republic of China (Taiwan) topics → Template talk:Taiwan topics – to match the template. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• This one is just technical, so I think it can be G6'd, assuming no one objects. Kauffner (talk) 00:09, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. What's the point to move the template to a talk page? Jeffrey (talk) 02:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks Kauffner for fixing the move request.[1] This talk page belongs to the template box that was specifically for the ROC. It should be kept here as it is. Discussions for the Taiwan box or the merged box should take place at Template talk:Taiwan topics. Jeffrey (talk) 02:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support, the talk page at Template talk:Taiwan topics is currently set to redirect to here, but the template itself is at Template:Taiwan topics. Technical move for the talk to match the template, this should not be controversial. – NULL ‹talk›
  ‹edits› 06:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
• Why wasn't this moved with the template? CMD (talk) 13:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Probably an oversight on my part. Since Jeffrey disruptively removed the redirect to add a comment over there, I believe the page will need to be moved by an admin now since the target has an edit history. – NULL ‹talk›
    ‹edits› 06:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• You'd better stop lying, Null. That talk page already had other edit history before I add a piece of comment there.[2] Even without my comment admin's involvement is necessary to move this talk page there. There was nothing to do with your oversight. Jeffrey (talk) 12:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC) 14:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• Jeffrey, that's an entirely negligible edit history, formed by automatic actions and bots. Null is right in noting that your edit was the first action that needs merging. CMD (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• Negligibility is irrelevant, since admin's involvement is necessary anyway if this move request is passed. I sincerely don't think what I pointed out at Template talk:Taiwan topics belongs to this talk page. Jeffrey (talk) 17:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• Chip that's because they have evolved into two separate navboxes some years ago, until Null merged them. In my opinion this talk page should be preserved as an archive for the old box that Null has effectively killed. It shouldn't be merged or renamed. Jeffrey (talk) 12:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• The ROC navbox was created back in January 2005. Three years later in June 2008, a separate navbox was created for Taiwan (over a template redirect). The two boxes co-existed for nearly four years until Null merged them few days ago. In short, the two talk pages wasn't the result of template move. They were two templates. Jeffrey (talk) 14:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment We don't normally merge the talk pages when we merge two articles or two templates. We preserve the talk page of the redirected article or template as archive. Jeffrey (talk) 00:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
  • The talk pages were always merged, both Template:Republic of China (Taiwan) topics and Template:Taiwan topics used the same talk page, Template talk:Republic of China (Taiwan) topics. Editors have used this talk page to discuss both templates, it makes sense that with Template:Taiwan topics as the main template and Template:Republic of China (Taiwan) topics as a redirect, the talk page should be moved to match its associated template. – NULL ‹talk›
    ‹edits› 00:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Ever since Taiwan was spin off to another template by Readin in June 2008, this talk page had always been the talk page for {{Republic of China topics}}. Before June 2008, there was only one template and this was the only talk page. Jeffrey (talk) 01:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Template talk:Taiwan topics has redirected here since its creation. This page has been the talk page for both Taiwan topics and ROC (Taiwan) topics. Now that the template is at Taiwan topics and ROC (Taiwan) topics is a redirect, the talk page belongs with the template. The talk pages of these two templates have always been merged. – NULL ‹talk›
        ‹edits› 01:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)