Talk:Taiwan (disambiguation)

message: :english=Formosa
:traditional=臺灣
:simplified=台湾
:pinyin=Táiwān
:wade-giles=T'ai-wan
:bopomofo=ㄊㄞˊㄨㄢˉ  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.8.110 (talk) 06:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I would like to read this discussion and try to give a neutral opinion, but I can hardly even make out what the stances are because most remarks are unsigned. Jiang, I personally would not answer unsigned remarks. Also, : can be used for indentation when replying. Piet 15:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears everything is signed to me. 70.51.8.110 (talk) 06:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Please sign your comments

message: I have read the above dispute and from studying the links to this page, I do not believe that a link to Taiwan, Province of China (nor to Chinese Taipei) would be helpful to those who stumble upon this page. JeremyStein 18:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And why would that not be?  I have pointed out that "Taiwan Province" is also commonly referenced as "Taiwan".  Maybe not in your community, but surely in others.  I've also pointed out other explanations as well.  Liu Tao (talk) 15:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I've pointed it out in the Talk:Taiwan article, not here...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liu Tao (talk • contribs) 15:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  3rd opinion on link to [[Taiwan, Province of China]] 

message: * Taiwan (disambiguation) → Taiwan
* Taiwan → Taiwan (island)
There is no single primary topic for "Taiwan". It may refers to the geographical island and the islets immediately around it, or the modern Republic of China at least from the 1990s onwards. By doing so incoming links to Taiwan can regularly be corrected like those directing at Washington or Georgia.relisted-since the last relisting there has been both supports and opposes but maybe progress toward consensus.  Another week may demonstrate the ill-advised nature of the premature close on 11 Feb, --Mike Cline (talk) 01:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Note to closer, this discussion is marred by SPA and socks. 218.250.159.25 has extensive commentary here that doesn't make sense to strike, that IP has since been blocked. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
*Oppose renaming. I disagree with rationale above. In my estimation, Taiwan clearly refers to the island. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 18:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree. 42.3.2.237 (talk) 11:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

text:  Agree.  See below. 42.3.2.237 (talk) 11:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

text: That solution presumes that the primary topics for both Taiwan and Taiwan (island) are the same (the topic of that article).  In that case, per WP:TITLE, Taiwan is preferred as the title for concision.  If we prefer Taiwan (island) to Taiwan on the grounds that Taiwan is ambiguous, then we're saying Taiwan should be a dab page.  In other words, you can't have it both ways; it's either too ambiguous to be a title and so should be a dab page, or it's not.  --Born2cycle (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

text: I also suggest that having Taiwan redirect to Taiwan (island) is not the best choice. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

text: *If this page move is enacted, then the proponents of the move you describe above will attempt to wait for some time and see the number of views of Taiwan (island) and Republic of China as further evidence in favour of their schemes. GotR Talk 01:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I oppose this because I think that the primary topic for the name "Taiwan" is the island country.  The main reason this topic is split between two articles (unlike the cases of Iceland, Cuba, Madagascar and Sri Lanka) is that some people want to call the country and the island by different names.  This move will be a step away from the goal of a single article, will perpetuate the confusing distinction between the country and its territory, and will create an unnecessary dab page (the cost of which many here seem to underestimate).  Kanguole 17:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: They aren't just two different names. The country and the islands aren't coterminous, which is the case of none of the island-countries that you suggested. Taiwan wasn't part of the ROC before 1945 (although Quemoy, Wuchiu and the Matsu Islands were), and even in 2012 there are remote islands of the ROC that aren't considered to be part of Taiwan. Further, I don't think this move is that much relevant to the debate on whether the articles Taiwan and Republic of China should be merged. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 18:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, all four of the island-countries mentioned include other islands besides the main island. older ≠ wiser 18:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the islands of the ROC are part of Taiwan, such as the Green Island, the Pengchia Island, and the Pescadores. Some other islands aren't part of Taiwan, such as Itu Aba, Quemoy, and so on. It's just like the Copeland Islands and the Rathlin Island, which aren't part of Great Britain although they are part of the UK. In the case of Iceland, e.g., all islands are part of Iceland. The same is true for Cuba, etc.  218.250.159.25 (talk) 08:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Those other islands you're referring to comprise 0.5% of the land area of the country, with 0.33% of the population, which hardly seems enough to justify a distinct article for the rest.  The Copeland Islands and Rathlin Island of Northern Ireland (which is part of the UK) are completely irrelevant.  Kanguole 17:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. The Copelands and Rathlin aren't comparable at all. Although the remote islands of the ROC are insignificant in terms of geography, population size or size of economy, they are important to the contemporary ROC and modern Chinese history in general in terms of politics, history and location. Further, Taiwan (including the Pescadores and the rest of the Taiwanese Archipelago) wasn't part of the ROC before 1945 (yet Quemoy, Wuchiu and the Matsu Islands were). In comparison Iceland the island has always been part of Iceland the country or the Danish/Norwegian dominion, and Cuba the island has always been part of Cuba the country or the former US unincorporated territory/Spanish colony. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: They're important to be sure, but that doesn't justify separate articles for the whole country and the part of the country that has 99.5% of the land and 99.67% of the population.  The territory before 1945 is of course relevant to historical articles, and we also have an article on the History of the Republic of China, but most of the literature sees the events of 1949 as a major watershed creating a new situation, for which they use a new nomenclature.  It is that situation we should describe.  Kanguole 17:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Great Britain perhaps constitutes 97% of the population of the UK, and probably more than 97% in terms of size of economy. The same may perhaps be true for Honshu with respect to Japan, the Lower 48 with respect to the United States, Metropolitan France with respect to France, or Mainland Portugal with respect to Portugal. By the same token I see no reason why we cannot have an article specifically about Taiwan, the main island or the islands as a whole. Further, an important factor is that the Taiwanese islands had a significant separate path of history, and as a result a culture different from the rest of the ROC.  But after all this isn't immediately relevant to the move request here. You may want to bring that up instead at Talk:Taiwan or Talk:Republic of China. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 18:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

text:  Just a little bit of clarifications.. 1949 is a watershed, yet the ROC didn't become commonly known as Taiwan from that point onwards, but possibly two or three decades later. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 18:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

text: I don't see how it is a step away from a single article. A merge request is independent of any sort of move, and will actually clarify the distinction between the country and article in some ways, such as the temporary prevention of readers clicking on misplaced Taiwan links that were meant to go to the country going to the island instead (and possibly being very confused about this). Could you elaborate on what the cost of a dab is? CMD (talk) 17:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's hardly independent, as the rationale for this move is the awkward split between the country and its territory so that people can use a different name for the country. I've described the loss of convenience to readers from a dab above, and commented below about the cost of "fixing" the dab links this will create (effort that will have been wasted if we ever reach a sensible structure). It will just create a useless and costly mess. Kanguole 18:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That may have been the original reason the page is split, but for now it's best to argue based on current content. I do agree with your opinion, but I think that while the dab is in place it will help readers who would otherwise hit an island article explicitly not focused on the country, which doesn't help them at all. I believe there will be another request to move Republic of China --> Taiwan after this request closes (no matter what the result of this is), which will have to include this move as well, if you're interested. CMD (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe we'll get good results by accepting the content and just moving it around.  For example much of the current content of Republic of China won't make sense under the title "Taiwan", and conversely people will expect a country article to cover a lot of stuff that one doesn't.  And I also view a dab a less useful than what we have now, as I've already said.  If I'm planning a visit to a place, I'll want to know about its history, geography, wildlife, government, economy, culture, cuisine, etc.  In the case of Taiwan, I'll find about half of that in the current article, with a hatnote telling me where to look for anything I don't find there.  Not as good as Madagascar etc, where I'll find it all in one place, but better than a dab where I'll find none of it and have to guess which article has what I'm interested in.  Kanguole 19:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There are countries that you cannot expect the same thing. The article on the Netherlands, for example, hasn't got much about the culture, wildlife, cuisine, etc., of the BES islands. There are always exceptional cases that we got to work on with special arrangements, and in this case, neither the island (or the islands as a whole) nor the country is the sole primary topic. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all.  Republic of China is the only country article in Wikipedia lacking coverage of the history, geography and culture of the territory it occupies.  Kanguole 23:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  What about South Korea, Republic of Ireland, Pakistan, South Sudan, to name a few? And Republic of Ireland#History in particular? All these articles on divided regions need some certain degree of adaptations from the general norm of other country articles. I'm not suggesting that the ROC article cannot be substantially improved. Just that it can never be compared with articles such as France or New Zealand. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 10:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  They all have coverage of the geography and culture of the area, and only the RoI article has a truncated history.  Kanguole 11:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  The coverage on their pre-contemporary history, for example, are all briefer than usual. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 23:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

text:  Don't think it's going to be more difficult than fixing the incoming links to Ireland, Washington, Macedonia, Turkey, Congo, Micronesia or Georgia. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 21:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

text:  I expect this is an example of what the WP:DPL people call a WP:CONCEPTDAB, as all the meanings of "Taiwan" on the disambiguation page are variations on one concept, unlike say Turkey (the country) and Turkey (bird), which have nothing in common but their name.  Kanguole 00:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  The bird is actually named after the country. But yes Turkey is a relatively more remote example. Still there are incoming links to Turkey that actually refer to the bird. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 10:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

text:  The proposal isn't about moving the country article to Taiwan (island). It's about moving the island article to Taiwan (island). 218.250.159.25 (talk) 21:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

text: To the closing admin, this is another oppose made under the assumption that this page is about a country, something the move would help to rectify. CMD (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The island of Taiwan and country of Taiwan are the same and all information pertaining to the "island" should be placed in the same article as the country in the same format as other island nations such as United Kingdom, Japan, Cuba and Iceland. Nowhere on any of these articles are the information separated, they are all on the same article because the country and island information should be together.118.163.7.55 (talk) 22:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

text: I agree consensus on this proposal seems unlikely; the proposer was probably unaware of the fact that another (probably bigger and better) proposal will be made shortly, for a move from ROC -> Taiwan. But that RM is being delayed until this RM is closed. Mlm42 (talk) 18:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

text:  I agree partially with CMD that some of the votes above should be counted with special care. Some editors might not be aware at the time of their vote that the current article at Taiwan is about the island(s) instead of the Republic of China. There was in fact a clear consensus if these votes were discounted. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 22:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: But any vote can be misinformed and none can be 'discounted'. The current article at Taiwan goes far beyond the island's geography and includes a section on Government as well as some very detailed content under a History subsection "Republic of China rule" with all the relvant links. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 02:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest to clean up these articles roughly following the lines of Ireland (island) and Republic of Ireland. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 11:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

text: A nation is a community that, having done great things together, wishes to do more. At least that's how Ernest Renan defined it in "What is a Nation?" Kauffner (talk) 12:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Take a look at nation-state and nation. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 12:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are very interchangeable terms IP, there's no point making a fuss about such semantics on a talkpage if they're understandable. CMD (talk) 13:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's difficult to discuss if we keep saying wrong words to refer to the wrong things. This is an encyclopedia, and it has to be accurate. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 13:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

text:  I'd consider this move request to be a kick-off of subsequent move requests. A huge umbrella move request involving too many changes would usually be difficult to be debated. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 23:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

text: I literally don't understand your point. Compared to China this move would be "incorrect" but it doesn't currently match China either, so I don't see what you are getting at. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I'm reading, the proposal is suggesting that information on the Taiwan article be merged into the Taiwan Island article, and the article itself be turned into a disambiguation page so that when people search for the word Taiwan, they'll land on the disambiguation page and have the option of navigating either to the Republic of China article or the Taiwan Island article. I'm pointing that if this is the way most editors think things should be done, it should be consistent throughout all articles (or at least the more popular ones). Perhaps China is not the best example here, so let's look at Korea instead. The Korea article is not a disambiguation page, but rather an article about the history and culture of the Korean people. There are separate articles about Republic of Korea and Democratic People's Republic of Korea, as well as an article about the Korean Peninsula. If the Korea-related articles are to be organized in the same way as this proposal is suggesting, the Korea article would have to be turned into a disambiguation page, with the Republic of Korea, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, and the Korean Peninsula articles listed on it. I do not see such a proposal on the Korea-related articles. If you can convince me that this is going to be retroactively applied to other existing articles, it would be easier for me to support this move. --Kevkchan (talk) 17:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes and no. This proposal involves no editing (or perhaps only very minor modifications) to the content of the two existing pages. The disambiguation page currently at Taiwan (disambiguation) will be renamed Taiwan, and the current page at Taiwan will be renamed Taiwan (island) or (islands). 218.250.159.25 (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that's easier to understand. I'm downgrading my opposition to Conditional Oppose pending assurance that consistency will be maintained throughout other articles. --Kevkchan (talk) 21:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

text: The entire point of this move request is to make Taiwan a disambiguation page. Taiwan Island as a separate article (beyond the current content at Taiwan doesn't currently exist. Korea is different in the sense that there isn't a modern nation state called just Korea. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Both sovereign states carrying the name Korea, namely the ROK and the DPRK, are typical examples of nation-states. There's no sovereign state by the name Taiwan, and the ROC contains more than one ethnic group. Comparisons can be drawn between Taiwan and Korea (or Korean Peninsula), or between Taiwan and similar cases like Ireland or Great Britain, that the country and the geographical entity aren't coterminous. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 20:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, as long as there's some form of consistency throughout similar cases. I'm downgrading my opposition to Conditional Oppose pending assurance that consistency will be maintained. --Kevkchan (talk) 21:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This proposal will have zero effect on any article text. It's simply flipping the island page from the primary namespace to a disambiguated title. CMD (talk) 04:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

text: And then procedurally reopened. It will be closed again within a day or two. CMD (talk) 23:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

text: I've raised the issue of the reverted close at AN/I.  Kanguole 15:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move request (2012) 

message: While fixing typos, I noticed that some of the links resulted in redirections—e.g., Taiwan (island) to Taiwan and Ilha Formosa: Requiem for the Formosan Martyrs to Ilha Formosa: Requiem for Formosa's Martyrs. I have amended each to the correct article name. However, I would query the need to include the latter one at all, since it will probably never be involved in any disambiguation issue. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 01:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dab links 

message: To remove Taiwan (island), Republic of China, Free Area and Taiwanese archipelago from section one. And to replace the opening paragraph with - "Taiwan is an island (see Taiwan (island)) in northwestern Pacific Ocean and the main island of the Taiwanese archipelago. It is also the largest island of and hence the common name for the Republic of China (ROC), a sovereign state officially recognised by 22 UN members and the Holy See. The territorial extent of the ROC has since the 1950s been confined to its Free Area, which includes the Taiwanese archipelago, as well as some islands on the other side of the Taiwan Strait and a few atolls in the South China Sea. Taiwan or Tai Wan may also refer to the followings:". 202.189.108.245 (talk) 07:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.--Ankit Maity  TalkContribs 11:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is a disambiguation page and all these are taken from the text of the relevant Wikipedia articles. 202.189.108.140 (talk) 12:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not done: As you say, this is a DAB and not a good place to go into details like "recognised by 22 UN members and the Holy See." Celestra (talk) 15:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the concerns raised above by Celestra. Would the proposer agree with simplifying that clause with "partially recognised sovereign state"? 218.250.159.25 (talk) 09:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not done:First of all, the proposer has not provided reliable sources. And secondly, the consensus tells the proposer is wrong.--Ankit Maity  Talk|Contribs 11:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  What sources would you expect for a disambiguation page? And by the way I don't think there is anything wrong with what he or she proposed. Just that, as Celestra had pointed out, it's too detailed on its partially recognised status. Could you point out what exactly is wrong? 218.250.159.25 (talk) 11:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, actually I meant the detail only.--Ankit Maity  Talk|Contribs 08:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's rather detailed - to replace the opening paragraph with the script proposed. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 13:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

text:  I agree. It's meant to tell it's a not-so-recognised state. 147.8.246.68 (talk) 06:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  That sort of explanation belongs in an article.  This is just a disambiguation page, intended to help users quickly find the article they're looking for.  Kanguole 13:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  It isn't meant to be explanation, but to put the interlocked concepts together in the lede. 147.8.102.108 (talk) 12:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Introductory paragraphs belong in articles, not disambiguation pages (see MOS:DAB).  Kanguole 13:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

text: There isn't any objection apart from the closing admins. 147.8.102.108 (talk) 12:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request (2012) 

message: In his closing remarks  Mike Cline suggested that " the other titling initatives [sic] relative to China do bear on this decision and should be allowed to move forward with encumbering them with the chaos that might follow the requested moves." Yet I'm afraid to my understanding there's no other retitling initiatives currently or in the near future relative to China apart from the ROC and Taiwan. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 20:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There are 3 or 4 comments in the move discussion above about other ROC and Taiwan moves.  Maybe I shouldn't have said China, but should have been more specific --Mike Cline (talk) 21:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The word "China" sounds a bit ambiguous. It isn't easy for some of the editors here to tell whether you are talking about the People's Republic of China across the strait, or the China region in general. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 14:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closing remarks by Mike Cline

message: ... is just another filibustering IP address and probable sock. Don't feed the trolls. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
:I'm inclined to agree, and will ignore their view with regards to closing this.  has commented fairly extensively above and was also clearly very heavily involved at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you cite the official Wikipedia policy that discriminates contributions by IP editors? 218.250.159.25 (talk) 11:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no such policy I'm aware of, and positive contributions from IP editors are very welcome. But in discussions which require knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and conventions, comments from IP editors (especially ones whose first contributions were last week, such as yourself) are obviously not going to be given the same weight as comments from experienced editors. If you want your comments to be taken more seriously, then I suggest you get an account. Mlm42 (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't assume or assert IP editors to be less knowledgeable of Wikipedia's politicscies and conventions than registered editors. You have to judge from what the editors, IP or registered, actually say in the discussions. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: But you are failing to realize one of the main problems with IP addresses: multiple people could potentially use the same IP address. This lack of accountability is problematic.. so although IP editors are welcome to raise points in discussions, they should not expect their opinions to be given the same amount of respect as editors who are willing to register and take some accountability. I don't really understand why you don't just get an account.. in some ways it's more anonymous, since people don't know your IP address.. Mlm42 (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  If there is no such policy, editors and especially administrators have no basis to discriminate them. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 20:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess the policy you're looking for is Wikipedia:Consensus. Things aren't decided by vote, and not all opinions are equal. That's just the way it is. Mlm42 (talk) 20:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Still that isn't a basis to discriminate opinion from IP contributors just because they don't register. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't it? I guess it depends on what kind of discrimination. Could I ask why you don't want to register? Mlm42 (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have tried to point out to the multiple IP editors on related pages that it's much easier to keep track of a conversation involving MlM42, Eraserhead1, SchmuckyTheCat, Jiang and HiLo42, than one involving 218.250.159.25, 202.189.108.245, 59.188.42.63, 118.163.7.55 and 123.192.93.138. (Yes, all those IP addresses appear above.) I'm certainly not good at keeping track of (up to) twelve digit numbers (even though I actually worked as an IT network engineer for some years!), and I'd expect most other people would have the same trouble. Humans give each other names for good reasons. Totalitarian regimes have forced people to be known by numbers at times rather than names in order to dehumanise them. So yes, it's legal to choose not to register, but why on earth would you do it? It certainly leaves me thinking that such editors are somewhat odd. HiLo48 (talk) 06:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: IP editing is fine if all you want to do is make a few spelling corrections, or possibly make 1-2 comments on something or add something controversial, beyond that really you should register. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is there any basis from Wikipedia policies? 218.250.159.25 (talk) 13:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: We aren't talking about formal policies. And I'm certain you know that. To even ask the qeution shows how obstinate you are being here. We're talking about common sense. And I'll be quite blunt. The IP editors are not displaying common sense. HiLo48 (talk) 20:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's my choice not to have a registered account. And I respect your choice to discriminate IP editors on a personal basis. But, no matter how, please be civil and familiarise yourself with Wikiquette. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 15:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

text: Re HiLo48: Do you have any telephone number, passport or SSN#? 218.250.159.25 (talk) 13:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Stupid, pointless, irrelevant question, typical of the debating style of many of the IP editors here. Rather than discussing the points I made, you tried to deflect the discussion in another direction. That tactic will never win your 60 year old war for you. It just makes you look silly and actually damages your ancient political cause. (On which I again state I have no opinion.) HiLo48 (talk) 20:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: We all are living in a civilised world with telephone numbers, passports, membership numbers, and all those sort of things. It's pointless to pretend that you don't. While I do know the shortcomings for not having a registered account, I hope you can understand that Wikipedia isn't a place for labelling, but a place for meaningful and intellectual collaborations. Even if people are named and therefore can be more easily identified, we don't rely on their names. We rely on the actual content of their contributions. That particular 63-year-old war isn't relevant to me at all. It's way too remote for me to have any personal stance about it. What I care about are hard facts. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 15:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read your own words: "a place for meaningful and intellectual collaborations". Several people told you that having no name makes it difficult for other people to systematically collaborate with you. Yet you are choosing to ignore this, so don't be surprised that collaboration will be difficult for you as well. Yes, we don't rely on people's names. But we do rely on their names in order to remember who said what a month ago on some subject. You will have to work hard so that other wikipedians begin to respect 218.250.159.25. At the moment you are doing poor job at this. All you said about your rights to the way of self-identification is right and good, however for some psychological reasons your efforts do not speak "freedom fighter", but rather "smartass".   Last Lost (talk) 21:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I know there are psychological reasons for some people, especially among those who resist to go into any detail and insist to talk only about common names. But the reality is that we should never judge a piece of comment because of the name of the contributor. Some universities have a policy not to let students to put their names on exam papers, only their student numbers. That's meant to avoid the influences of names on grading. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 12:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: 218.250.159.25

message: I removed the translation after the main wikilink for two reasons: 1. MOS:DABOTHERLANG recommends against it and 2. Even if we were to include a translation, it should be 台灣, which is the common name for the island (and according to some, for the state as well). wctaiwan (talk) 08:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I just realised I've probably misunderstood the style guide—it's saying that if a meaning is just a foreign phrase spelled in English, it probably shouldn't be included, so it doesn't apply here. However, I still think the removal was proper, as the translation is immediately available through the wikilink, and its previous placement doesn't really give more information to a reader unfamiliar with the subject. wctaiwan (talk) 12:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be useful to just have 台灣, to distinguish it from 大灣, but I agree that there's no real possibility of confusion here.  Kanguole 12:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  - I don't think the Chinese characters are necessary for Taiwan, since the names are available in the articles anyway. But if in case they're included, traditional characters should be used instead. Don't impose the simplified characters across the strait. Meanwhile, I don't understand why the village in Sai Kung is removed. Further, I believe the layout with a leading paragraph and two sections looks neater. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 14:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, removing Tai Long Wan, Sai Kung was a mistake.  As for the layout, the old format was repetitious.  Kanguole 14:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see. I agree with trimming. But I guess it's better to retain the two subheaders. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 15:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing (台湾岛, Táiwān Dǎo) 

message: Should that page be linked somehow since "Taiwan" could refer to just the island not the state? --Mika1h (talk) 23:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should.  I'm not sure why your edit was reverted except that perhaps the link should be included in the list of links rather than in the topic sentence.  There is a style manual for disambiguation pages.  The editor who reverted your change referenced it but it may not have been clear to you he was doing so.  The style manual is here. Readin (talk) 00:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

text: I agree. It should not be in the first line, as there should only be one link, to Taiwan, in that line per the guidelines, e.g MOS:DAB#Linking to a primary topic. But it is certainly a possible target for those coming here, so should have an entry, and I have added one.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 00:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Geography of Taiwan]] 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Taiwanfu and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 26#Taiwanfu until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Taiwanfu" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Please add
* Province of Taiwan
* Taiwan Prefecture
-- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 23:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the prefecture. I didn't add the disambiguation page to this disambiguation page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:57, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

text: Happy Editing--IAmChaos 06:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit request

message: 台湾永远只是一个国家，等到台湾不来参加中华人民共和国的全国人民代表大会再等到联合国合法席位给到台湾再说吧 46.232.122.145 (talk) 15:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  台湾 

message: See Talk:Taiwan#Rename Taiwan and only the ROC is a country not the word “Taiwan”. ZeehanLin (talk) 04:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complex political situation