Template talk:Taiwan topics

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Sub-categories

message: 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)
thread_title:  categories 

message: Please refer to Template_talk:Politics_of_the_Republic_of_China--pyl (talk) 08:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding (Taiwan) to the ROC 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  template has too much 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  Hello Null? Jeffrey (talk) 11:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes? – NULL ‹talk›‹edits› 19:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Content duplication with [[Template:Taiwan topics]] 

message: Do Hsinhai Revolution, Warlord era and Nanking decade belong to this navbox? (Btw I've relocated Taiwan independence from the governance section to the politics section.)  Jeffrey (talk) 10:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section 

message: Should ROC-specific topics be demerged from this navbox? They are not actually relevant to Taiwan. Jeffrey (talk) 21:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  De-merging 

message: This one keeps reverting since Taiwan is a "sovereign state". It's technically the Republic of China (founded in 1912) which they have Taiwan since 1945. However, I am proposing is to create separate ROC infobox or move some ROC history to the China topics. ---Wrestlingring (talk) 14:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not conforming to WP:NPOV to assert that Taiwan is a sovereign state and that the ROC has Taiwan since 1945. --Matt Smith (talk) 14:31, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is just plain confusing. On the one hand you go to edit war in order to put lots of stuff about mainland China and ancient China into the template. At the same time, you suggest to move things out from the template to a new one about ROC. Please decide what you want. Also: If you want to get any response to this query, you need to make your proposal more specific. What do you actually suggest? --T*U (talk) 19:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: Anyone want to create separate ROC infobox or move some ROC history to the China topics? 

message: My last change was reverted with the rationale "WP:NOTBROKEN". But that is not a valid rationale to keep redirects in this case, as infoboxes are an exception to that guideline - see WP:BRINT. The reason is so whenever the navigation box appears in an article listed in the box, the link is replaced with bold unlinked text, emphasising the connection between the template and the page, and stopping anyone clicking on the link for no reason. It is normal therefore to remove redirects from navigation boxes like this one.
They can still be piped, to stop repeating obvious classifiers such as the name of the topic (Taiwan/Republic of China), or to disambiguate between similar and related entities, such as a city and a county. But the piped link should be a direct one, not a redirect.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 14:21, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Not Broken'