Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
NA This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the quality scale.
More information about this page...

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) page.
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed.
Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Archived discussions:

IMPORTANT NOTICE Please update your watched pages!

Some recurrent discussions have dedicated talk pages. For discussions about the appearance of people's names Please use Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/Names.

Contents

[edit] The pinyin drive

The Tien-tsin and Nanking treaties article were recently relocated to Tianjin and Nanjing. (A meaningless edit was made with the latter one to prevent it from moving back.) These treaties involved not only China. They were signed in both Chinese and English (and for the former, in various other languages too). The names of these treaties were adopted into English as Tien-tsin and Nanking. The name change of the cities should have no effect on the names of these treaties. Michael G. Davis 17:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The city of Tianjin and Nanjing are still very much in existance with the same name, if I recall correctly. The said treaties, although concluded decades ago, and still in existance, I believe also. Kindly explain the need to keep spellings in their "adopted versions at the time of signing".--Huaiwei 16:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
The English versions of the treaties are not adopted versions. They were signed in both English and Chinese. Michael G. Davis 09:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Can we find photocopied versions of both the treaties? That's the best way to verify if those treaties are actually called "Treaty of Nanking" and "Treaty of Tien-tsin" on the documents themselves. We need to differentiate between the documents actually using those titles, and those titles having been perpetuated by secondary sources on the simple basis that those treaties were signed at cities that were called "Nanking" and "Tien-tsin" at the time. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "First" and "second" given names?

To quote the current guideline: There should be no space between the first and second given names. There are suitations when two pinyin syllables are joined together, they become ambiguous, for example jingao can be jing ao or jin gao; xian can be xian or xi an. The pinyin convention adds a ' symbol to resolve ambiguity, for example, jin'gao vs jing'ao. When using Wade-Giles, a dash should be put between the first and last given names, and the second given name should not be capitalised. (for example, Lee Teng-hui, not Lee Teng Hui)

I have never thought of a Chinese given name as being two names. Surely it's one name that may be composed of two separate Chinese characters? For example, Lee Teng-hui would never be referred to as Lee Teng in the way that western people commonly use only one forename. The characters "teng" and "hui" form a two-syllable name.

I suggest the following alterations:
There should be no space between the first and second syllables of a given name
When using Wade-Giles, a dash should be put between the two syllables of a given name, and the second syllable should not be capitalised. JRawle (Talk) 22:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

With personal names, we can't create consistency where it does not actually exist. "Use common names" should apply.--Jiang 07:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
The convention states this principle a few paragraphs above JRawle's quotation, which deals purely with names under the common romanization schemes. I offer a proposed revision below that incorporates JRawle's amendments (in italics), has a structure that reflects Jiang's concern and makes various changes that hopefully improve the logic and style (in bold). Matt 20:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I'll take silence as consensus and change the article. Matt 17:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed revision of Names => Names of people

[edit] General principle

The encyclopedia should reference the name more familiar to most English readers. For most historical figures this means that the encyclopedia entry should reference the Chinese name (romanized in Hanyu pinyin) rather than the English name, with a redirect from the English name. However, there are exceptions for figures whose English name is more familiar (such as Confucius) and for figures who were raised in non-Chinese societies and whose Chinese names are unfamiliar (such as Vera Wang and Maya Lin).

[edit] Order of names

Personal names in Chinese, unlike Western names, present the family/clan name first. Unlike other instances where this occurs, it is standard practice in English to also present the family name first (for example, Mao Zedong, Deng Xiaoping).

There is an exemption for people whose Chinese name is familiar but with English ordering (for example, Wen Ho Lee). In this case, the primary entry should be under the English ordering with a redirect from the Chinese ordering.

[edit] Romanization of names

Chinese names should be written in Hanyu Pinyin unless there is a more common romanization used in English (for example, Chiang Kai-shek, Sun Yat-sen) or when the subject of the article is likely to prefer a non-pinyin romanization as is often the case with people from Taiwan, Hong Kong, and overseas Chinese communities (for example, Lee Teng-hui, Tung Chee Hwa).

When using pinyin for a Chinese name, pinyin spacing and capitalization conventions should be used. This includes keeping the family name separate and the given name capitalized. Some given names have only one syllable (for example, Li Yong). Many have more than one syllable, but the different syllables are never indicated by spacing, hyphenization, or capitalization. There should be no space between the first and second syllables of a given name , (for example, Jiang Zemin).

However, there are two exceptions to avoid ambiguity. Sometimes it is necessary to show whether the name has one syllable or two (e.g. xian can be xian or xi an). Sometimes it is necessary to show where the syllable break lies (e.g. jingao can be jing ao or jin gao). In both cases, the pinyin convention adds a ' symbol to resolve ambiguity, for example, jin'gao vs jing'ao.

When using Wade-Giles, a dash should be put between the two syllables of a given name, and the second syllable should not be capitalised (for example, Lee Teng-hui, not Lee Teng Hui).

[edit] I humbly propose a change of the "Political NPOV" section

Hy, I had a long and exausting debate about the name China inside of Talk:China. That article is about the Chinese civilization (and not about "China" as everybody understands it: the present country - de facto the PROC), and I propose that we move that article towards that name (i.e.:Chinese civilization). Following that, I propose that we move the current "PROC" - article towards China. To finish it we should also move the "ROC" - article towards Taiwan. This is IMHO the overwhelming view and use of all these names in the English-speaking world.

My reasons for this are the following:

Almost all "country-articles" in Wikipedia use the common name of a country. This is not the case of "China" (i.e.: the PROC). This should be changed.

While the precise status of Taiwan is debatable, this issue can be easily explained (I would write: "de jure unrecogized, but de facto independent country searching for wider international recognition" - or something similar).

Many won't like it but it is simply the truth: in the English-speaking world the PROC is simply recognized and named as "China". The ROC is simply recognized as "Taiwan". Wikipedia should follow this (trend?, fact?, truth?, reality?, rule?). To use the NPOV-rule is IMHO a very poor excuse. Since when is being fair and being accurate POV? Flamarande 13:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Taiwan in many people's opinion is a de facto independent state with an official or de jure name of ROC.--Jerry 19:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
There is no NPOV reason to say the PRC is not China. It isn't a NEUTRAL POV, it's the POV of hardliners in the ROC, a tiny minority. In essence it gives undue weight to that minority viewpoint, something the NPOV policy discourages. SchmuckyTheCat

I disagree, because:

  1. Taiwan has not always been under the control of the Republic of China
  2. Under UN official policy and consensus, the island of Taiwan is considered part of China as its UN designation is Taiwan, Province of China
    1. Although it is UN policy that the People's Republic of China is the only legitimate government and state in China, however, the term Province of China is meant to be ambiguous as there are different definitions of what China is and different definitions who is the legitimate of China.
  3. 24 sovereign states around the world, who are UN members, recognize the Republic of China as the sole legitimate government and state of China.
  4. The Republic of China, between 1911 and 1950, ruled all of China and therefore has a long history outside of Taiwan.
  5. Moving the articles would be a violation of our NPOV policy due to the reasons I have stated above.
    1. Here at Wikipedia, we treat both the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China as legitimate Governments of "China"

What you might consider as fair and accurate will in the end on serve to push one, maybe two, POVs which is a big no-no at Wikipedia. And I want to remind you that NPOV is one of Wikipedia's core values. nattang 01:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

We do not "treat both the PRC and the RoC as legitimate Governments of 'China'" We treat the RoC as an entity that calls itself China. That is a serious misunderstanding.
24 nations have treaties with the RoC. The language in the treaties is political convenience. And, at 10% of UN members, that is a severe minority. Minority viewpoints should be well-represented, and there is plenty of in article verbiage about previous/former/current RoC claims (and vice versa) but treating them equally is not neutral, in fact it is undue weight. Understand NPOV; it is not that all viewpoints are treated equally, it is that all viewpoints are represented accurately.
Previous RoC history is irrelevant.
The current text in this guideline is simply wrong - and in fact does not have wide consensus when looked at from the entire project. It may be impossible to change because of the political views of those who watch this page, but an examination of incoming links to the China article make it plain as day that the rest of Wikipedia in every other subject matter doesn't follow this guideline. The current guideline is wrong, it exists because the first groups of editors had a heavy KMT contingent. However, I don't see it changing because the KMT view can always veto any change. SchmuckyTheCat
I don't see what is wrong with the guideline, from what I can see, it neither pushes a PRC POV nor does it push a Pan-Blue POV nor does it push a Pan-Green POV. Changing it in accordance to what Flamarande is proposing will push it towards one or two POVs and exclude others which is what we wish to avoid. nattang 02:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
NPOV does not mean "No POV". You do not achieve a neutral POV by removing all others. In this instance, we are providing readers with what they didn't come for: an explanation of China devoid of politics. This is a prescriptive stance. Does the article at China describe the main use of the term? It does not. In essence, it does push a pan-blue POV, because it is pan-blue politics that prescribe this usage.
Please re-read WP:NPOV and WP:Naming conflict. The arguments you are making are specifically pointed out as NOT in line with the policies. SchmuckyTheCat

This proposal wouldn't be relevant if we adopted the proposal for the disambiguation page, as suggested on Talk:China. I'd suggest resolving that question first. If China turns into a disambiguation page (like America), then leaving People's Republic of China and Republic of China where they are would seem to be the most practical solution. --Folic Acid 03:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

DAB pages should not be used as a lazy cop-out to avoid politics. There is a primary topic to the word "China" and that is the current country named China. SchmuckyTheCat
I wouldn't call a disambiguation page a "lazy cop-out" - I'd call it compromise and consensus, especially considering the two sides of the issue are unlikely to budge from their current viewpoints. --Folic Acid 04:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I support the disambiguation page for a single reason: An article about the Chinese civilization should be located under "Chinese civilization"; I think noone can seriously oppose this reason. As for what I think should be found under "China" see above. But a disambiguation page can be supported as solution until the wider community pronounces itself (this could take months or even years and my view may get defeated - or not). Until now only 4-5? users seem to care about this issue and this number is simply far too small (and no this does not mean that the majority support the present situation, it simply means that the wider community either don't know about this issue or simply don't care much about it). We should request wider arbitration. Flamarande 07:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
To answer the points issued by Nat (see above)
Nat's point 1) France has not always been under the control of the French Republic, yet you will find it in the article "France". The same happens with the overwhelming majority of other country-articles
Nat's point 2 and 2.1) This isn't a site of the UNO but is supposed to be a encyclopedia, see my points 5 and 6.
Nat's point 3) These 24 states aren't the English-speaking community. Please take a look at all my points above.
Nat's point 4) This should certainly be shown in any article about Chinese history. A section called "Nationalist China" is a must, no doubts about it.
Nat's point 5 and 6) That's why I'm hereby proposing that we change the current policy, it doesn't reflect itself in the English language and the use of of the name "China" in the English-speaking world.
To finish: I honestly consider that to say that PROC is considered to be "China" in the English-speaking community, and by the, English-speaking community simply a fact. Please take a look at all my points above. Flamarande 08:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Your answer to my first point isn't sufficient nor does it fit the situation. France's situtation is different. For France, the French Republic is the successor state to the Ancien Régime (the French Kingdom) and is currently ruling France that is why the article is called France. Taiwan is an island that has been under the Dutch in the 1500/1600, then a Ming General, then the Qing until the late 1800 when the Japanese won the first Sino-Japanese War, for the next 40 to 50 years until 1945, Japan ruled Taiwan, then it was "given back" to China, which was under Chiang and the ROC. From 1945, when the ROC was still based on Mainland China, to 1949, the ROC ruled Taiwan and Mainland China concurrently. The ROC was only restricted to Taiwan Post-1950. Moving the ROC from its current name would be irresponsable, ignorant of history, and would essentially be pushing a quasi-Pan-Green POV. nattang 08:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
That's why a History of Taiwan-article exists, which seems to explain the issue well and leads to further articles. Flamarande 08:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

All the instances cited here relate to modern politics and media. When I want to eat Chinese food, admire Chinese paintings, climb China's sacred peaks, talk about how the Mongols invaded China, or note that many immigrants in California are of Chinese ancestry, am I referring to the PRC? Absolutely not. Or possibly. The thing is that in many instances the PRC (or any modern political entity) is completely irrelevant, so it's not as clear cut as it has been portrayed here. We have PRC at its own location for the same reason we have Republic of Ireland and Republic of Macedonia (both involved in similar territorial disputes on whether the political entity encompasses the historical/cultural entity).--Jiang 08:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

And yet if you are talking in English with someone and the conversation is about "China", both of you are talking about the PROC. The modern political entity is very relevant if you compare that any other country like Germany, France, Canada, etc. This isn't about Chinese food, paintings, mountains, etc it is about the meaning of the name "China" in the English-speaking community.
The two countries you mentioned are good points, no doubts about it. Notice that "Ireland" can refer both to the Republic of Ireland and to the whole island (a geographical feature). There is a diffrence between the two, but "China" is not an island and never was any geographical feature (in other words: China was/is never ever understood as a geographical term, it was/is always understood as a country). Therefore we shouldn't compare "China" with "Ireland". And "Macedonia"? This is indeed an unclear issue. Yet "Macedonia" hasn't any of the 6 points going for it. In fact the name-conflict is always made very clear in the media, international organizations and events (the name cards), encyclopedias, dictonaries, etc (in all of them FYROM or something similar appears - never simply "Macedonia"). This isn't the case with "China" (see my six points right at the start). Flamarande 08:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Guys, is it not true that when you hear China, you automatically think about the PRC? (at least you don't think about the ROC) And isn't it true also that the ROC is commonly known as Taiwan? I don't think it is POV at all to move ROC to Taiwan, PRC to China and China to Chinese civilization. The pre-1949 ROC can be moved to Nationalist China.--Jerry 18:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Flamarande: The problem is that people (sometimes the same person) use "China" to mean different things. When people refer to "China" (in the modern context) they can mean (notice I don't define PRC here) "mainland China", "mainland China, Hong Kong, and Macau", or "mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan". Even the CIA World Factbook is confused: it posts a map including Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan under its "China" entry but proceeds to list economic and demographic data that excludes these regions. The Hong Kong entry is clearly inconsistent too: it states that "Hong Kong became the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) of China on 1 July 1997" but then says it is "bordering the South China Sea and China" (how can you border something you are part of?). So no, when you and I are talking about China, even in modern context (which does not describe most links pointing to the China article), we are not necessarily referring to the People's Republic of China in its entirety (and we would have to agree on what constitutes the People's Republic of China in its entirety in the first place).

But this is besides the point. When you and I are talking about China, whether the PRC is relevant depends on context. If it is about politics, then yes, it is relevant. If it is about the stuff we bother to mention in the current China article, then no, it is not relevant. I fail to see the connection. The beauty of Wikipedia is that m:wiki is not a paper. We can afford to explain the difference between the "Republic of China" and "Taiwan" and the "People's Republic of China" and "China" where print encyclopedias could not afford separate articles for similar entities. Unlike news articles, we don't need to simplify facts and situations for our audience - we can explain them in their entirety. How do we best educate people? I think the current setup best accomplishes this.--Jiang 01:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I've read the whole of both discussions and I'vem amazed at how civil we've been on such a controversial topic - a real credit to Wikipedia. I'd like to offer some suggestions regarding reaching a consensus, and what that might be.
Suggestions about how we reach consensus
  • 1. This page is the right place to discuss for a series of moves that has implications for hundreds if not thousands of wikilinks across the encyclopedia, and involves a page which an external peer review considered a significant example of our work.
  • 2. Flamarande claimed "I (sic) had a long and exausting debate about the name China inside of Talk:China." This debate has lasted for less than a week, and proposes to overturn a status quo that results from years of debate (we have nineteen pages of archives from these talk pages!). It almost exactly replicates the original discussions back in 2002, when someone proposed moving the PRC article to China, then someone proposed a dab page. One of the results of that was a definition that "China is a geographical territory in eastern Asia whose borders have varied over the millenia of its history".... Please don't rush this, particularly since our decision may influence whether I and millions of others even have the possibility of editing Wikipedia.
  • 3. Flamarande: Could you please provide reliable sources for your claims above? Which other encyclopedias say China=PRC? Can you link to photos that show PRC ambassadors labelled as China? The "accurate and reliable" dictionary disagrees with you, as does the Royal Mail. I support your call for academic rigour, so can you please give us evidence, rather than assertions?
Suggested conclusions
  • 1. We should keep the status quo, because Larry Sanger's argument that the China article should be treated like the Korea and Ireland articles still stands. These are disputed areas, and it is vital that we properly describe both the present states and the earlier integrated national entities.
  • 2. We should keep the status quo, because of Larry Sanger's argument that while English speakers almost always say China when we mean the PRC, we do not always mean the PRC when we say China. China built the Great Wall. The PRC did not (though it did build Badaling).
  • 3. We should keep the status quo because it describes the particular situation of China. Yes, "Almost all "country-articles" in Wikipedia use the common name of a country." Yes, "This is not the case" with the China article. But Flamarande continues with a non-sequitur assertion: "This should be changed."
  • 4. Instead, we should be hesitant to create a Chinese civilization article because Chinese civilization is linked to the concept of China in a way that has no parallel in Western civilization. In the words of Lucian Pye, "China is a civilization pretending to be a state". This should not be pushed too far, and we should recognize the contributions of Chinese outside China, from Singapore to San Francisco, but China is the best place to begin describing Chinese civilization.
  • 5. Furthermore, we should not create a Chinese civilization article because this is not a simple, straightforward category either: read Han Chinese, Zhonghua minzu and the associated talk pages to see why. Look at Chinese New Year, and see the shades of grey between Han customs, PRC customs, Chinese customs and East Asian/Confucian customs.
Seektruthfromfacts 00:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


The fact that this conversation has continued to be civil is a credit to the relevant parties - and only shows that the current standard of debates in Wikipedia is low, way too low - it's a sad fact :(.
About your points in Suggestions about how we reach consensus:
  • 1) the number of participants in the debate continues to remain too low IMHO.
  • 2 - actually a wholeseries of points) I'm sorry but I'm not a pro in these debates (1st one), I felt it was exausting - the size of the debate speaks for itself. As I get more experienced and hardened in Wikipedia debates my perspective about such procedures may change though (I'm not sure if I even want to gain this experience :).
The compromise you mention is just that: a compromise (IMHO out-dated and an unfair reflection of the use of the name "China" in the English-speaking community, see my 9 points). The overwhelming majority of countries could also be considered to be - "insert country" is a geographical territory in "insert region" whose borders have varied over the millenia ( in the case of Egypt, Iraq, Iran and possibly Mexico - in the case of the other countries replace it with "centuries") of its history." But they aren't, are they? When we speak about a country we usualy are speaking about the current country. When we are speaking about an "older version" (e.g.: "With Louis XIV France was a major power in Europe.") the context of the conversation tells us of this fact.
Please take a look at History of France - see the box at the right side? History academia gives us the proper titles/labels - which Wikipedia in turn then uses in its articles, but the name "France"- article is about existing state (IMHO the proper place). This is also the case of the vast majority of the "country-articles". It is my proposal that we follow these examples and also apply them in "China".
Notice especialy the older examples mentioned above: What will we find at Egypt, Iraq, and Iran? The current countries that's what we will find - unlike "China".
About the influence of the propossed move(s) upon the Blocking of Wikipedia in mainland China (You mentioned this above). First, I somewhat ressent that you mentioned this point at all. I understand your reasoning as "We should keep the current situation because if we change it the PROC may block us even further" (if I mistook your point I apolagize).
Wikipedia doesn't and should not bow before the pressures of the Chinese goverment. Wikipedia does not censor itself (Tianameng square massacre, liberty, democracy, etc) like Google, and god-knows-how-many-other-companies who censor the informations they provide to Chinese customers, due to pressure of the Chinese goverment. Accuracy should not bow before political pressures of certain regimes and political lobbies.
On the other hand have you ever considered that the present situation - the "China"-article isn't about the PRC - could have a negative impact? By correcting this - in accordance of the overwhelming use of "China" in the English language - it could have a positive influence. (I'm somewhat ashamed to use this argumentation - but Seektruthfromfacts used it and it could scare some well-meaning users away).
  • 3) I thought that everybody allready saw at some the debates inside the UN security council, etc... and I didn't realize that I had to provide real evidence for my 9 points (as in a court of law). I stand corrected and will provide such evidence soon (other users might help me here). I thank you though (you are fair) because you provided a photo showing the ambassador of China with the name-card and while the Royal Mail-site includes a "(Republic of)" it also has a Taiwan-page (i.e.:the Royal Mail recognizes that the present ROC is called "Taiwan" - so basicly there is only a single candidate for "China" for the Royal Mail).
About your points in Suggested conclusions
1) Larry Sanger's argument is faulty: The name "Ireland" can refer to the Republic of Ireland and to the island (a geographical feature). The Republic of Ireland doesn't own the whole island of Ireland; that's why there is an ambiguity. The name "China" however was/is understood always as a country in the English language. Therefore we shouldn't compare "Ireland" with "China". North Korea and South Korea are two fully recognized countries. In everyday language, the media, the UNO and other international organizations both names are used and none of the two is simply recognized under "Korea" (allthough we tend to favour South Korea). It was the same case of Germany. Before the re-unification you spoke about West Germany and East Germany and none of the two was simply recognized as "Germany".
2) Larry Sanger's argument is IMHO a red herring: We also do not always mean the French Republic when we say "France" (e.g.: France built the Arc de Triomphe but the French Republic didn't). This aplies to all countries.
3) It doesn't describe the particular situation of "China". When we are speaking about "China" we are speaking about the PROC (see my 9 points above).
4) So basicly an article about the Chinese civilization shouldn't be found under "Chinese civilization"?
5) All of which can and should be mentioned and explained in the article Chinese civilization with the appropiate links. Flamarande 12:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] China rename attempt still going on???

All these comparisons are extremely faulty in their own rights. This is equivalent to having an article like "United States civilization" on chinese wikipedia because too many people say America, USA, US, United States of America, and no one in the Far East can decide on what's the best name. So let's just move it to a civilization page, and have the disembig page be the default. There is nothing more bizarre than saying Confucius lives in [[China Civilization|China]]. Is obvious that "China" is the name of the country. Why are we still trying to come up with replacements. Benjwong 00:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You have to read carefully the discussion above. Some users reject the move of the current China-article (which is about the Chinese civilization) towards an article with the title "Chinese civilization". The "disembiguation page - proposal" was also rejected (to be fair: by users from both sides). Currently the Move-proposals are deadlocked. I can only hope that more users participate and that a larger consensus (i.e.: clear majority) emerges (I don't know if enough users even know about the proposals, or even care about one side or the other). Flamarande 02:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I read the above. I think you guys are still trying to make a move without knowing "why". Are users really confused by the name "China"? Shouldn't we be moving France, since they have an even longer disembig page, and may lead to even more confusion. Benjwong 03:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Flamarande, have you read throught the 19 pages talk:China discussion that Seektruthfromfacts mentioned. Based on what he said, there were already an discussion on this issue before, and it's probably very hot. That's the reason so few people join this new discussion. And it looks like the current situation is the result of that big discussion. In addition, wikipedia is an encycropidia. For any encyclopidia, I never heard or saw it's a good thing to only talk about the meaning of a word of it's most recent usage and throw all its historical/minor usage away. I also could not understand why the explaination of China should only include the meaning when it refers to P.R.China and throw all the historical/civilization meaning of this word away, especially consider the thousand years of history of China. What you suggest is to only keep the current 50 some years thing of the word "China" and ignore all it's usage/meaning on the thousands of years of the word "China". This will simply not work. Augest 03:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think what started as one proposal under good faith by Flamarande has since spiral into too many different scattered proposals. Because this can be time consuming, I am trying to see what the goal is still? We don't necessarily have to change anything. People are ok with a hot topic. But what is not okay is killing hours for some unknown purpose. Benjwong 04:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Look Aug, I never thought that the propossed moves would recieve major opposition (had I known...I probably would never presented them). So let me ask you something: When you talk about "China" as in "I want to travel to China." about which country are you talking about? The PROC, none other. That's a fact, simple as that. When talking about Taiwan everybody means the ROC. When you are talking about the Chinese civilization you're talking the "Chinese civilization". You know it, I know it, everybody knows it. This standard is followed in almost all country-articles. The only thing I think is that these articles (China, Taiwan, Chinese civilization) should truly be about "China", "Taiwan", and "Chinese civilization". Proper paragraphs can explain further historical/civilization meaning of this word and this seem to work splendidly in all the other country-articles. Is China such a truly unique case? Can't we compare China with France (or Iraq, Egypt, etc), as an example? I think that these reasons plus the 9 points are enough reasons Why we should make the "moves".

The other side presents all these arguments (comparing them with Ireland, FYROM, North and South Korea), saying that the name "China" is ambigious, that the moves would require too much work, that in Chinese there are terms like "mainland China", that the propossed moves are the same as taking sides with the PROC, implied that if we make the moves the PROC could block Wikipedia even further, etc ... But take a look at my 9 points (and the evidence I collected); were they rejected in anyway (along with evidence)? No, instead of showing that they are wrong or false the opposition fully avoid them. IMHO they don't have a case, and they know it, and they are just being stuborn. They want to ride out the storm agin, again, and again and block out the outside reality. Wikipedia claims to be a encyclopedia, but it isn't because true encyclopedias don't have or use the NPOV excuse. They rather explain the issue. Seriously, grab your geographic encyclopedia at home, flip it up at "China", and what will you find? The PROC, nothing else, alongside a good resume of Chinese history (with a proper Nationalist China paragraph). You know it, I know it, everybody knows it, but Wikipedia doesn't seem to know it. I vote that we make the moves and I rest my case. I have further articles to improve. Flamarande 14:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Flamarande, I appreciate your passion on this issue, and I'm glad that we've had this disucssion. However, I fully agree with the post by User:Seektruthfromfacts. This discussion has happened before - indeed, it was the very first discussion on Talk:China. There wasn't consensus for a move then, and there isn't now. The arguments haven't substantively changed either on either sides, your nine points notwithstanding. In my opinion, there isn't a compelling reason for a move - restatement of old reasons isn't compelling. You're right about Wikipedia - it does claim to be an encyclopedia, but I'd propose that it's different than previous iterations of encyclopedias. It's not limited by real estate (for lack of a better term), so it has the ability to fully explore all the nuances of a particular topic, whereas other older-generation encyclopedias don't. We don't have to limit ourselves to one definition of "China" - we can write as much as we'd like about any topic we'd like, including all the various different meanings that "China" could possibly have. Thus, I think that we shouldn't try to emulate obsolete methods of cataloging knowledge. In any case, speaking for myself, I want to make it clear that I appreciate your efforts, and respect your passion for making this a better place. Cheers, -Folic Acid 15:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I still fail to see the validity in your points, particularly the first claim you make that 'In the English language when someone speaks about "China" he is talking about the country (PROC). When someone is speaking about the ROC he uses the name "Taiwan"'. Let's dicuss them one by one (to address your point of having them ignored):
1) This statement is dependent on context. When someone is talking about "China" in a general political sense - or any sense that requires the assumption that a singular sovereign state exists that is called China - then it is true that "China" refers to the PRC and "Taiwan" refers to the ROC. However, such references do not anywhere approach the full proportion of all references to China. My point can be made here: Special:Whatlinkshere/China. In how many of those links is the PRC even relevant? An overwhelming majority, this disproving the validity of this statement.
2) True, but only somewhat. The media tends to use China to refer to "mainland China" (excluding HK, MO, and TW) - not always the PRC in its entirety (and definitely not the PRC according to the PRC). Is this really what we want to happen? The media is not our main source of guidance. We are an encyclopedia, not a news source. The news media has limited room and readers with limited attention spans. They must dumb everything down and use the most colloquial of terms for their readers to glean the news (as opposed to the background) in the shortest amount of time. Instead, as an encyclopedia, we have to strive for accuracy, and as a wiki encyclopedia, can afford to throw around terms with opportunity to clarify (ie through the use of links.
3) The names used by international organizations have no bearing on what names we use as an encyclopedia except for organization-context dependent references. For example, Taiwan in Olympics articles is listed as "Chinese Taipei" in post 1984 contexts. And the PRC is indeed listed as "China" under the UN members list but out in full in the APEC listing (to reflect organizational listings). Other than that, I don't see how this is the criteria we should follow. Are we to make every reference to the ROC pre-1972 be "China"?
4) See no 3. True, but how is this relevant to wikipedia policy? And that the Royal Mail insists on having "People's Republic of China" written out in full supposed to mean something?
5) In my experience with academia (at least in the field of Chinese history), this is simply not true. The preferences Ive encountered for contemporary references are "PRC" and "Taiwan". I don't know what you need to see for me to prove my point.
6) m:wiki is not a paper. Just how many of these encyclopedias even mention full names? Since we are not a paper, we can discuss the issue in more depth by having separate articles. They are limited by the number of pages they can print. With our Summary style, we can produce hiearchies of specificity. Should we delete/merge any article that Britannica does not have? I think the ability to create more articles of varying levels of specificity is one of Wikipedia's advantages over Britannica.--Jiang 22:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
If we are going to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, we only have to determine one thing: To an English speaking audience of generalist readers what is the most common use of the term "China".
Opposers aren't answering the points at all concerning Wikipedia's policies, while they seem to concede that amateur audience say "China" when they mean the PRC.
Wikipedia:Naming conventions: "Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity," while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature."
The majority of English speaking non-specialists who type "China" into the search box expect to find the current country named "China". Which is the PRC. Whether some other country also calls itself China is irrelevant. Whether there are other things named China (like pottery) is also irrelevant.
Wikipedia:Naming conflicts: "A naming conflict can arise on Wikipedia when contributors have difficulty agreeing on what to call a topic or a geopolitical/ethnic entity. These generally arise out of a misunderstanding of the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy."
We are violating the NPOV policy by denying to place the People's Republic of China article at China. First, we are giving undue weight to those who claim some other use of the word China (ie, the KMT). Second, the article naming portion of NPOV calls this what it is: a POV fork.. The content at People's Republic of China does not exist at the common name of the country because of the political beliefs of those who do not like the PRC. This is classic politics in the region to deny that the term China refers to the massive landmass, and most populous nation in the world that has been there with that name for millenia simply because of the current government.
The most common use of a name takes precedence; If the common name conflicts with the official name, use the common name.
Thus, our guidelines tell us plainly that the People's Republic of China article belongs at the title, "China".
More: Do not invent names as a means of compromising between opposing POVs.
Using the China article as a placeholder for an article on the civilization, or the proposal to use a disambiguation page, is an invented compromise. KMT supporters cannot deny the use of the term China to the PRC because of their minority POV.
From the general to the specific:
One thing Jiang specifically mentions, which proves this point, he says generalist media says "China" when they mean something else. Yes, exactly. Wikipedia is a generalist encyclopedia. It is our job to introduce and describe the more specialist terms like "mainland China", "People's Republic of China", "Republic of China", "imperial China", etc. It is specifically against Wikipedia policy to push the specialist terms at general readers. We cannot make readers hunt for the information they want simply because "we know better". We must title our articles with the most common use of the term at the most common name for the term. We then move, by disambiguation headers, and by prose in the text, to teach the more specific terminology. It isn't that our article at China, about the civilization, is more accurate; but, that it isn't what the generalist reader came to find.
SchmuckyTheCat
Schmucky, I think you are pointing out a contradiction. You are assuming every person who is looking for the name "China" is here for the PRC. Which.... is itself a specialist term. If we are shooting for the generalist encyclopedia, then "China" the umbrella term encompassing all of the history is the only logical choice. Benjwong 02:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
The primary topic of those looking for "China" is looking for the country named China. Our article for that is at PRC. We have a preference for the present at Wikipedia; Russia, France, Japan etc, all have long histories where the current government is not representative of the historical. France, the article, represents the country of France. China, the article, does not represent the country most commonly knows as China. SchmuckyTheCat

First, I fail to see how we are "inventing names as a means of compromising between opposing POVs". "China" the country/civilization and "China" the sovereign state are not mutually exclusive entities. None of what is currently located at "China" is in the least bit made invalid by the existence of the PRC. Second, the current setup merely serves different contexts, not different POVs. A POV fork implies that the articles themselves are written according to different political slants on the basis of the name used: this is not the case. The China article is not anti-PRC and the PRC article is not pro-PRC. How is this a POV fork? This is a matter of accuracy more than it is a matter of compromise. Third, by claiming that we are "denying to place the People's Republic of China article at China" (as if it where entitled to it by virtue of existence) we are reducing ourselves to nationalist/legalist/moralistic arguments that Wikipedia:Naming conflict explicitly tells us to avoid. The accusations being made here specifically against certain Wikipedia editors evokes the subjective question "Is the use of the name politically unacceptable?". That is not a question to ask. Whether the current setup is the work of the KMT supporters is irrelevant. Argue facts, not personalities. We don't care who is behind this, and nor should we make the assumption that anyone supporting the current setup supports the KMT. How is the current setup POV? In what ways would the PRC object to our content?

I think STC points out a contradiction in the naming conventions between the "use common names" rule and the "avoid ambiguity" rule that is not sufficiently addressed by Wikipedia:Naming conflict.

Be precise when necessary; don't title articles ambiguously when the title has other meanings. As stated above with my example of the CIA world factbook being inconsistent, there is ambiguity involved with the term "China". While China often means PRC, it also means mainland China or what the PRC claims to be the PRC (note these are likely extremes). Moreover, Wikipedia:Naming conflict calls for disambiguation to be used when "A name used by one entity may well clash with a name used by another entity." This implies that there is sanction for separate articles. So whether some other country also calls itself China is not irrelevant. And whether there are other things named China (like pottery) is also not irrelevant. As stated, when ambiguity persists, we can only determine things on a case-by-case basis.

Lastly, in suggesting that we introduce terms at a greater precision than the news media, I am not suggesting that we push specialist terms. If there is ambiguity or potential misunderstanding (eg use of "Republic of China" in contemporary context), then we have to introduct it in a less confusing way (eg insert Taiwan in parenthesis). But this pertains to the text within articles, not what we name them. If there is a name more accurate than another, we go by the more accurate name. If the meanings can significantly differ, we create separate articles. Other encyclopedias cannot afford this. Other encyclopedias do not also have to deal with millions on context-dependent links that magnify any inherent precision or imprecision present in article names in content. On the same note, the PRC isnt what our reader reading about Chinese calligraphy came to find either. The links already reflect this. --Jiang 03:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

"the current setup merely serves different contexts, not different POVs." The current setup is an arrangement based on POV. That's the problem.
"How is the current setup POV?" Because it denies the term "China" most often refers to the country most commonly called "China".
On disambiguation and precision: Disambiguation is necessary when there is no primary topic. The country, "China", is clearly a primary topic.
"If there is a name more accurate that another, we go by the more accurate name." That is fundamentally incorrect. We use the most common name, not the most accurate name. Russia, not Russian Federation. North Korea, not DPRK. France, not French Republic.
SchmuckyTheCat
I think you are still looking for some kind of compromise move without a legitimate reason. China is still the main term above all. Please don't make it seem like the PRC has bad representation. The 2nd sentence in the China article is an immediate link to the modern day country. To use the most common name, you need to move PRC to mainland China, New China or even the more politically unfriendly term Communist China. I am sure few would argue the number of times that term has shown up in the media worldwide. Benjwong 18:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
"China is still the main term above all". Right. Exactly. SchmuckyTheCat
I am saying A and you are saying B. We are talking past each other. I fail to see how any of this is an expansion or deviation from your previous post. Whether the current setup is based on POV is irrelevant. Whether the current setup is POV is relevant. The current article is indeed on the "country" China. There's a subtle distinction between country and state. Special:Whatlinkshere/China more often than not refers to the country, not the state.
Russia is not more inaccurate than Russian Federation. Official names are not necessarily more accurate when there is no ambiguity involved. However, as shown with the CIA World Factbook, there is ambiguity involved.
I would be interested in seeing - from an ease of use point of view - how many people a) arrive at China from using the search box and b) arrive at China from using internal links, and of those, how many a) immediately click on the PRC article and b) click on some other article. Is it really the case that people are coming across an article they did not expect to see, or have we linked these articles in enough places to make the overwhelming number of visits contextually appropriate? --Jiang 19:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
"There's a subtle distinction between country and state." Not at the article named "Russia" or "France" or any other country named article. So, why is it for China? Therein lies your POV problem. SchmuckyTheCat
I'm discussing the formal meanings of terms. So how could terms not apply without Wikipedia being wrong? Ireland is the country, the Republic of Ireland is the sovereign state. Yes, the distinction applies to Russia too, but it is just not necessary to reflect it in the article title for lack of ambiguity. --Jiang 04:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
The name "Ireland" can refer to the Republic of Ireland and to the island. The Republic of Ireland doesn't own the whole island of Ireland; that's why there is an ambiguity. The name "China" however was always understood as a country - where is the ambiguity?. Therefore we shouldn't compare "Ireland" with "China". And you avoided "France". Flamarande 18:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
The name "Ireland" is used by the media to refer to the sovereign state. The media rarely uses it to refer to the island.
True, China is understood to be a country, but what is China the country? The media uses it to refer to mainland China. The PRC government uses it to refer to mainland China+Hong Kong+Macau+Taiwan. The U.S. State Department uses it to refer to mainland China+Hong Kong+Macau. And the CIA World Factbook is confused.
What applies to Russia also applies to France.--Jiang 21:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
The current "PROC" -article seems to explain all these issues nicely:
Quoting: "The People's Republic of China (Simplified Chinese: 中华人民共和国; Traditional Chinese: 中華人民共和國; pinyin: Zhōnghuá Rénmín Gònghéguó listen (help·info)), commonly known as China, is the largest country in East Asia and among the largest countries in the world.[1] With a population of over 1.3 billion , roughly a fifth of the world, it is the most populous country in the world. Its capital is Beijing.
The Communist Party of China (CPC) has led the PRC under a single-party system since the state's establishment in 1949. The PRC is involved in a long-running dispute over the political status of Taiwan. The CPC's rival during the Chinese Civil War, the Kuomintang (KMT), retreated to Taiwan and surrounding islands after its civil war defeat in 1949, claiming legitimacy over China and Mongolia while it was the ruling power of the Republic of China (Taiwan). The CPC regards the KMT's claims as illegitimate. The term "Mainland China" is often used to denote the areas under PRC rule, but sometimes excludes its two Special Administrative Regions: Hong Kong and Macau." End quote.
If we made only a few changes (to maintain accuracy and following the main NPOV-policy) it could easily serve for a "China"-country article:
Something like this: "China (Simplified Chinese: ? - I don't know any Mandarin), officialy the People's Republic of China, is the largest country in East Asia and among the largest countries in the world. With a population of over 1.3 billion , roughly a fifth of the world, it is the most populous country in the world. Its capital is Beijing.
The Communist Party of China (CPC) has led China under a single-party system since the state's establishment in 1949. The PRC is involved in a long-running dispute over the political status of Taiwan (which would be a link to "Taiwan" - the unrecognized state). The CPC's rival during the Chinese Civil War, the Kuomintang (KMT), retreated to Taiwan and surrounding islands after its civil war defeat in 1949, claiming legitimacy over China and Mongolia while it was the ruling power of the Republic of China (Taiwan). The CPC regards the KMT's claims as illegitimate. The term "Mainland China" is often used to denote the areas under PRC rule, but sometimes excludes its two Special Administrative Regions: Hong Kong and Macau." End of the entry.
Notice that every point is explained. All the terms: "China" and "PROC" (which are treated like all the other country-articles), "mainland China", the special status of Hong Kong and Macau, and even the issue of Taiwan is presented fairly. The claims of the two sides (PROC and ROC). Don't forget that the links would also lead to the main articles which explain everything fully (they aren't here as I only copied the text). And don't forget that the little "dab-links" right at the beginning over the main text. All your points about the possible meanings of "China" and also being a country-article like all the other country-articles. Of course good texts about the "History of China" and the "Chinese civilization" with proper links towards the proper articles (with the right names). What could be possibly wrong with such an article? Even if a particular point isn't here it can easily be included and explained. This is what is commonly understood when we speak in English about "China" and this is what the article "China" should be (IMHO). Flamarande 16:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Now you are really baffling me. You are unhappy with the China article because you have to read 2 lines in before the first PRC link. But you are ok with the PRC article description even though you have to go 2 paragraphs deep before it describes its relation to Taiwan, HK, Macau etc. Benjwong 03:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm unhappy because the current China-article is about the Chinese civilization (which should be its real name) and not about "China" - the country (as it is understood in the English language and followed in the other country-aricles). Jiang argues that there are several understandings of China (the country) (mainland + including or not Honk Kong, Macau, and Taiwan). I show a text which explains clearly all these issues and now you say "you have to go 2 paragraphs deep"? You are forgeting the little links which would appear right at the beginning. Flamarande 12:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

We are talking about the location of the article, not the text within the article. The lead of the PRC article is supposed to be NPOV, and I think it succeeds in this task. But the claim being made here is that, because this body of text is titled "People's Republic of China" instead of "China", it is somehow POV? I don't see how. Calling the article "Red China" or even "Communist China" would be POV, but calling it "People's Republic of China" (what it calls itself) is not.

I still don't see the validity of the six points being forwarded as justification for renaming. Just because the text in the article fairly describes any political dispute does not make the equation China->PRC (note I didn't write PRC->China) always true.--Jiang 10:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but you agree that the entry it at least fair and NPOV (your points are explained)? The "moved" articles would have to be further improved no doubts about it. Flamarande 12:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Flamarande I think you still have this association that China is just a civilization, and PRC is a country. That is the sense that I get out of many of these proposals. Benjwong 01:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Civilization

One question that doesn't seem to be addressed here is: Why is China the only country who should get an article on its civilisation? You don't find pages on Indian civilization and Greek civilization, although you do find Western civilization and Persian civilization -- which are redirects to Western culture and Culture of Iran. There is also an article on Culture of China. I'm just wondering, why is China so special that people want to give it an article on Chinese civilisation? Is it because there is something peculiarly wonderful or special about China and its civilisation? Or is it simply because the political controversy surrounding the modern state (PRC) makes it impossible to set up a page that is entitled simply "China"? Bathrobe 08:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually the word "civilization" was never set in stone. Here are some of the heading according to the log changes.
  • On June 13, 2003 changed to - Alternate meanings: * People's Republic of China, Republic of China, China (pottery)
  • On August 16, 2003 change to - Alternate meanings: People's Republic of China, Republic of China, China (pottery), China, Michigan
  • On November 4, 2003 changed to - Alternate meanings:People's Republic of China, Republic of China, China (pottery), China (disambiguation)
  • On December 24, 2003 changed to - For alternate meanings, see China (disambiguation).
  • On August 28, 2004 changed to - This article is about the geographic entity known as China. For other meanings, see China (disambiguation)]].
  • On May 1, 2005 changed to - This article is on the nation of China, unconnected to any political state. The state commonly referred to as "China" is described at People's Republic of China. For other meanings, see China (disambiguation)
  • On May 2, 2005 changed to - This article is on the notion of China unconnected to any political state. The state commonly referred to as "China" is described at People's Republic of China. For other meanings, see China (disambiguation).
  • On May 3, 2005 changed to - This article is on geographic and cultural aspects of China. For the state commonly referred to as "China," see People's Republic of China. For other meanings, see China (disambiguation).
  • On May 6, 2005 changed to - This article is on the Chinese civilization. For the state commonly referred to as "China," see People's Republic of China. For other meanings, see China (disambiguation).
  • On August 23, 2005 changed to - This article is on the Chinese civilization(s). For the modern-day state commonly referred to as "China", see People's Republic of China. For other meanings, see China (disambiguation).
  • On January 11, 2006 changed to - This article is about the Chinese civilization. For the regimes that govern China nowadays, see People's Republic of China and Republic of China. For other meanings, see China (disambiguation).
  • On January 11, 2006 changed to - This article is about the Chinese civilization. For the modern-day Communist state, see People's Republic of China. For other meanings, see China (disambiguation).
  • On January 11, 2006 changed to - This article is about the Chinese civilization. For the two regimes that govern the territory of China nowadays, see People's Republic of China and Republic of China. For other meanings, see China (disambiguation).
  • On January 11, 2006 changed to - This article is about the Chinese civilization. For the two polities that govern the territory of China nowadays, see People's Republic of China and Republic of China. For other meanings, see China (disambiguation).
  • On January 13, 2006 changed to - This article is about the Chinese civilization. For the Communist Party-led state, see People's Republic of China. For other meanings, see China (disambiguation).
  • On January 13, 2006 changed to - This article is about the Chinese civilization. For the two polities that govern the territory of China nowadays, see People's Republic of China and Republic of China. For other meanings, see China (disambiguation).
  • On January 13, 2006 changed to - This article is about the Chinese civilization. For the state known as China in common usage, see People's Republic of China. For other meanings, see China (disambiguation).
I am not going to list them all, but there are at least 30 changes of the word "civilization" ranging from state, country, communists, republic, you name it. The only thing that never changed, is the fact that China belonged to the original pre-1911 entity. Benjwong 16:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
The article is not meant to be limited to "the civilization" (which is very loaded on its own). The People's Republic of China article should be a subarticle of the China article.--Jiang 21:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
is it simply because the political controversy surrounding the modern state (PRC) makes it impossible to set up a page that is entitled simply "China"? Yes, Bathrobe, that is pretty much the issue. SchmuckyTheCat

[edit] Change the current disputed "NPOV policy" and make the moves yes or no? Please vote (don't argue).

Yes Flamarande 14:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - Wikipedia is not a Democracy and Polling is not a substitute for discussion. --Folic Acid 15:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. Whether it's democracy or not. I think I have read all the points stated by User:Flamarande and already gave a full consideration of his points. Based on my understanding of his proposal, I would disagree with the proposal that User:Flamarande made. Due to my time restriction, I may not be able to join and follow all the possible discussion/vote on this issue. In case that happens for the same categories of discussion, please count my vote of disgreement on the move of article "China". Thanks, Augest 03:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming/Merging China-related articles

I think it is necessary to start this discussion again, because I think this is very important. My English-speaking skill is limited so forgive me if you cannot understand some of the things that I'm trying to explain.

The common name naming conventions state that "Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." And I believe the Chinese naming conventions aren't quiet accepted by everyone, and I don't think they are treated with common sense. In short, I believe the Chinese conventions should be more standardized with the common name conventions on this issue.

I believe that the following moves/merges would be done if we only follow the common name naming conventions (which we should do):

There would be a lot more minor moves, these are just the major ones.--Jerry 22:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

see my post on 03:32, 5 October 2007 re Wikipedia policy. The solution to controversy over "Naming conventions (Chinese)" is not to ignore them. It is to try to come to a new consensus. If we don't agree, we don't simply shove the page under the rug. Anyone up for some refactoring?
I believe the Nationalist Party did not exist from 1913-1919, so applying the term "Nationalist China" to any period before 1928 is inqdequate. And the term was more commonly used for Cold War-era Taiwan than 1928-1949 era China.--Jiang 06:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
This discussion is intended to reach a consensus, so I'm not trying to ignore anything.
My bad on Nationalist China, I was just trying to distinguish it from the Communist China. If Nationalist China doesn't work then Republican China probably would.--Jerry 21:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Might I remind you guy that China was a piece of shit, no offence, that the warlords fought over until the sino-japanese war, which made the country even shittier, and any Chinese State became near-decent was in the late 70s (ROC probably a little earlier like the late 50s and early 60s). Between 1910s and the 1950s, China was essentially a failed state, no economy, no stable government, warlords or armed political parties fought here and there, and anyways the articles Nationalist China and Republican China both redirect to the History of the Republic of China which is all that those two periods are, plain old history and events. And another thing, the Kuomintang did exist in 1913, just under the name, Revive China Society, and was not recognized by the international community as the so-called "ruling" party of China until 1928, when Chiang began his Northern Expedition, even after that "campaign", Chiang had no effective control over the country as he was fighting all his political rivals at once. My point is both the "articles" Nationalist China and Republican China are good where they are at the History of the Republic of China, because they would be crap articles if it were divided from the rest of the Republic of China article. nat Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?! 04:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Well then, maybe we can move History of the Republic of China to Republican China, which would be a Chinese Dynasty style article that covers a period after the fall of the Qing Dynasty and before the CCP took over. (see User:DownUnder555/sandbox, I think this user has pretty good ideas). So the moves would be like this:
I think that will be a solution to many issues.--Jerry 13:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

We've responded to DownUnder555 on many occasions and at length. The problem we have is that we have essentially separate regimes going under the same names. There's a somewhat clear succession of governments, but a less clear succession of states. From 1912 to 1928 we have a continuous political entity, and from 1927 to the present we have another. But then, territorially speaking, the political entity extends from 1912 to 1949 only. It's just so messy that we can't simply create countries templates for Warlord vs. Nationalist China in the way we can separate Zaire from the Democratic Republic of the Congo. So I really don't see how moving "History of the Republic of China" to "Republican China" accomplishes anything. "Republican China" is a historical era label, not the name of a state, so simply tacking on a template under that name is inadequate.

I'm not convinced of the benefits of the last two changes. Why lose precision when we can afford to have it?--Jiang 23:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

We can't agree on 1 move before, we shouldn't propose 5 different moves now? To move ROC to "Nationalist China" would be like ignoring all the other subgroups at the time and calling it "KMT China". I would agree moving ROC post-1947 to Taiwan officially, except they haven't gotten a UN seat. For now there are many ways to help improve the articles. Moving isn't one of them. Benjwong 00:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure if it will NPOV to move ROC post-1947 to Taiwan, as Taiwan does not offically change the name of their country/state yet. Again, it's not just a UN thing. As I pointed out before, Taiwan had a seat in UN until sometime in 70's. Do we want to change the offical state name of Taiwan in Wikipedia even before Taiwan change it itself? Not mention PRC still claims Taiwan as part of China. So we choose to ignore the claim of PRC and help Taiwai to change its offical country/state name... Augest 01:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

As I was saying, despite the fact that the ROC is in fact the official name for Taiwan, Taiwan is the common name for the country. And I agree that it's not a UN thing, the UN is not considered neutral for many people.
And there are people that believe Taiwan is a de facto country with a de jure name of the ROC.--Jerry 00:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Flamarande made some good proposals in the Talk:China discussion page. They seem to be meeting some resistence, but the problems they would solve are still ongoing. No one seems to be able to say what "China" is. The map is impossible to draw because it is different depending on the definition of "China" that is used. The article has many places that show a strong POV that Taiwan is part of China, however it is difficult show exactly why that is a problem or propose a better wording when I can't figure out what the article is about. There seem to be claims that the article is about "Chinese civilization", yet the discussions center around Chinese politics.Readin (talk) 05:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Political Entities vs. Civilizations

2) Larry Sanger's argument is IMHO a red herring: We also do not always mean the French Republic when we say "France" (e.g.: France built the Arc de Triomphe but the French Republic didn't). This aplies to all countries.

I do not think Larry Sanger's argument says that - I do think that your comment applies to all countries and that there should be a page on the "civilization" of that place instead of the CIA Factbook style summary currently in place. Am I the only one of this opinion? (could you point me to where I could read more about this issue on wikipedia?)--Keerllston 05:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Have you read his argument at all? Quoting: "It is simply and straightforwardly wrong to say that, in English, "China" means the PRC. No, it doesn't. In English, the word is highly ambiguous. Sometimes, people mean the PRC plus Taiwan (and their unified history, culture, language(s), etc.). Sometimes, people admittedly do mean the PRC, but that's only when the context is clear. Insofar as the decision to make the China article about the PRC was based on this false assumption, I think it was a mistake. --Larry Sanger"
Please note how "in English the word ("China") is highly ambigous" and that that only "Sometimes, people (...) do mean the PRC" - Gee, I can only wonder how the UN, the White House, the EU, CNN, BBC World, Times, and The Economist, etc keep using "China" in their speeches and reports in English without creating alot confusion to the average citizen, watcher and reader. For example a report about "an archeological discovery in China" is truly ambiguous (was the discovery made in the PRC or in Taiwan?). Come on, if the discovery had been made in Taiwan you can bet that the report would be: "an archeological discovery in Taiwan". And notice the logic of your proposal with the example of France: 1st create an article about the "French civilization", but with the title "France" as we follow the present example of the present article of "China". An user is looking information about France and types in the search field: France he gets the article about the French civilization. Flamarande (talk) 16:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
The word "China" is often less ambiguous when placed in context (e.g. "China opposes giving Hong Kong universal suffrage in 2012." "Falun Gong is banned in China." "China is the third largest country in the world." "Confucian was a philosopher who lived in 5th Century BC China" "China vetoed the admission of the People's Republic of Mongolia to the United Nations and condemned the Peiping regime for interference in its internal affairs."), but as my examples show, the term can mean vastly different things. This causes problems not in specific instances of normal usage, as in media usage, but in trying to come up with a comprehensive definition/explanation (i.e. article) of the term.
While the media seeks to stay somewhat neutral, the UN, White House, and EU cannot due to political maneuvering. U.S. State Department regulations state that Taiwan can neither be implied to be a part of China or not be a part of China.
An "an archeological discovery in China" is not ambiguous, but you wouldn't say the same thing for ""an archeological discovery in Hong Kong" either.
I think no one here is suggesting that "China" should be a forbidden word because it is ambiguous. And why do we have to keep assuming that the "China" article has to be on the "civilization". Let's bring it back to its 2004 version before someone decided to purge large sections of the article.--Jiang (talk) 09:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't get why Hong Kong is excluded from People's Republic of China and even mainland China on Wikipedia. With 1,840,000 ghits, Hong Kong, China is certainly a common term. It would not be bias to say "an archeological discovery in China" for the discovery in Hong Kong. In Taiwan, people refer to the Chinese people as mainlanders or more recently, simply Chinese people. These people do not exclude the Hong Kong people or the Macau people.--Jerry 15:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
"China vetoed the admission of the People's Republic of Mongolia to the United Nations and condemned the Peiping regime for interference in its internal affairs." How old is that example? The use of "Peiping" should give us some clue. There was a time that people in the west used "China" to refer to "ROC" for political reasons. But even then it often had to be clarified with terms like "free China" or the less politically correct "our China". But now, when you say "China" people don't think of ROC or Taiwan. And a sentence like you provided would have people scratching their heads for a moment if they know the politics and history, or simply assuming it was the PRC that blocked entry if they don't.
The example "Confucian was a philosopher who lived in 5th Century BC China" is a better example of how "China" doesn't always mean PRC. Going back to the discussion about re-organizing the "China" page, this is a good example of what disambiguation pages are for. The articles for India, Britain, Egypt and America all have a similar situation of multiple uses. The all either go straight to a disambiguation page, or go first to the modern state and provide a reference to the disambiguation page. China, which has far more meanings and uses, needs a disambiguation even more than those other examples. And it is even more important that the "China" article not try to cover all meanings of the word, but instead focus on one.Readin (talk) 15:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
The articles at Special:Whatlinkshere/China would not be better served by replacing "China" with "Chinese civilization" in line. Why force people to pipelink when they don't need to?--Jiang (talk) 04:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Maybe China should be redirected to mainland China.--Jerry 15:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
The term "mainland China" is really only relevant post-1949. For the same reasons, "mainland United States" is used frequently in Hawaii, but almost unheard of on the mainland itself.--Jiang (talk) 02:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
It's not about giving reason to why it's being excluded from the term, but the fact that it is. e.g. [1]
Clearly, the term "China" can both include and exclude Hong Kong.--Jiang (talk) 04:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
If the "China" article were about the PRC, it would naturally include the dynasties and peoples that preceeded it on the same land. This is quite common when discussing the history of a country. A history book on "France" will talk about the modern state that everyone means when they say "France", but it will also talk about the states, kingdoms, empires, tribes, etc. that existed in France before the current Republic. Such an article on "China" would have no problem inlining in articles about Chinese civilization.Readin (talk) 09:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Emperor X of Y"

I posted this at the "history standards" talk page, but nobody has responded, so I thought I'd try it here. Emperor X of Y is a terrible naming convention for Chinese emperors, particularly when it means using weird name forms that are never used in English. Han Wudi is much more often called "Wudi" than just "Wu", and Han Wudi is a much simpler and more natural name form than Emperor Wu of Han. I'd much prefer forms like Han Wudi or Tang Taizong to the current form. At the very least, I'd propose dropping the "Emperor" and bringing it back in to the posthumous forms, when necessary. E.g. Wudi of Han and Yangdi of Sui (and Taizong of Tang), instead of Emperor Wu of Han, Emperor Yang of Sui (and Emperor Taizong of Tang). john k (talk) 14:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Wudi of Han and Yangdi of Sui are misleading in that they imply that Wudi/Yangdi are personal names.--Jiang (talk) 00:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
How do they imply it any more than the current form? At any rate, what about Han Wudi and Sui Yangdi? john k (talk) 01:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Specifically, "di" is implied to be part of the name instead of a title. No comment on Han Wudi/Sui Yangdi. I've seen both Han Wudi and Emperor Wu used in different sources.--Jiang (talk) 01:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how Wudi of Han implies "di" to not mean "Emperor". And isn't the whole point of the posthumous name that "Emperor" is part of the name? john k (talk) 02:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to add that, at the moment, we seem to go to great lengths to avoid ever using the untranslated forms. In Emperor Wen of Han, for instance, the "Wendi" form only appears in the infobox title. Same thing for Emperor Yang of Sui. This is absurd. In the posthumous name box, at least, we ought to give the full, untranslated posthumous name, and then give the translation, rather than the current way, where we only give a partially translated form. john k 18:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Only people fluent in Chinese will understand that Wudi of Han translates to Emperor Wu of Han instead of Emperor Wudi of Han (per Western royalty naming convention). It's either all in English, Emperor Wu of Han, or all in Chinese, Han Wudi. A mix of both is confusing. I have no objection to changing in text references in the article from "Emperor Wen of Han" or "Emperor Wen" to "Han Wendi" since the name is already explained in the article infobox. --Jiang 21:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
"Emperor Wu of Han" is not all in English. All in English would be "The Martial Emperor of Han". The problem with the current system is that it somehow makes an artificial distinction between "di", which is apparently not part of the name, and thus has to be translated, and "Wu," which is part of the name, and thus isn't translated. But in fact, the whole thing is a descriptive posthumous name. The text itself should of course explain that "Wudi" mean "Martial Emperor", that "Wendi" means "Civil Emperor," that Yangdi means "Slothful Emperor," and so forth. "Emperor Wu of Han" is not all in English. It seems to me that if we can only have "all in english" or "all in Chinese," our choices are Han Wudi and Martial Emperor of Han. Emperor Wu of Han is surely more of a hybrid form than Wudi of Han, in that in the former we have partially translated the posthumous name. john k 22:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Wu is the name, di is the title, even though the two are never separated. "Emperor Wu" appears commonly in academic literature.--Jiang 06:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not denying that "Emperor Wu" appears in stuff. My impression is, though, that "Wudi" and its variants are more common. I'd add that I still don't really understand this distinction. The guy's name was Liu Che. That is the only name he has that is a name in the western sense. Han Wudi means "The Martial Emperor of Han", and is a posthumous appellation given to him as a way of identifying him. "Wu" is obviously the unique part of that appellation, since "Han" he shares with all the other members of his dynasty, and "di" with all other emperors, period, and, in English, it is sometimes treated as being his name, but I'm not sure I understand how a common adjective is any more of a name than a common adjective + a common noun. And I'm still not sure why "Emperor Wu of Han" is supposed to be the "fully translated" version of the name, when obviously "Wu" can also be translated, and often is. You are the one who said that a partially translated form was unacceptable, and "Emperor Wu of Han" is clearly just as much a partially translated form as "Wudi of Han". If anything, it gives as strong a false impression as "Wudi of Han" would, in that it implies that "Wu" is a normal name, when in fact it's a posthumous description. My basic feeling is that we should not be worried about giving false impressions in the titles of articles. Titles of articles should be for identification - false impressions and such can be dealt with in the article, as necessary, or through links to other articles that explain the concepts. And again, my preference is that we go for the fully Chinese version, Han Wudi, etc. Do you object? Are there other people who might object? john k 16:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

"Emperor X of Y" is inelegant, but it's less confusing than "Y Xdi," in that a non-Chinese speaking person would not easily be able to tell "di" as "emperor," and so, yes, I do object, and I object strongly, to, for example, changing "Emperor Wu of Han" to "Han Wudi." Same for, for example, "Tang Taizong" -- it looks very much to the naked eye to be a person with the family name Tang and the personal name Taizong.

What I would not object to, but I'd like to hear more discussion on, is changing to personal names entirely -- Liu Che, for example. (The Chinese Wikipedia articles are already largely, although not consistently, using personal names.) This also avoids inconsistencies across dynasties, although it does present unique problems for Yuan Dynasty and Qing Dynasty emperors. (Aixinjueluo Fulin might not be a particularly good way to refer to Shunzhi Emperor, for example, although I do not like the current title either.) --Nlu (talk) 19:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Using personal names is much worse than the current situation. We should use the most commonly used names, and in almost all cases, that is not the personal name. I don't think that "confusingness" ought to be a consideration here. The article name is merely an identifier. What exactly it means can be explained in the individual articles, and in articles on imperial nomenclature. And certainly for Ming and Qing Dynasty emperors, the current standard of using era names makes the most sense. "Kangxi Emperor" and "Qianlong Emperor" and so forth are clearly the most common ways of referring to those monarchs. john k 07:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
But an encyclopedia needs to be useful. Being confusing reduces the utility of not only these articles on emperors, but every single other article that links to them -- perhaps more so, because the contexts in those linking articles might not allow a reader to quickly make the connection that the person linked to is an emperor. Deliberately reducing the usefulness of articles is not a good thing. --Nlu (talk) 07:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Piping means that the context in other articles can always be provided, and in this case, I don't think it's necessary, since the fact that someone's an emperor can always be stated in the text that is not being linked. The location of an article ought to have no impact on the text in articles that link to it. Beyond that, I don't think "Han Wudi" is terribly confusing as a title. No more so than John of England, or Charles the Bold, or Atahualpa, or Mansa Musa, or Al-Hadi, or Ashoka, none of which make clear that the person cited is a monarch. As far as the supposed misleadingness of the "Tang Taizong" form, in terms of leading people to think it's someone with family name Tang and personal name Taizong, yes, it obviously looks rather like that. The actual fact of the matter will be clarified in the article itself, which would explain that the guy's personal name was Li Shimin, that Tang is the dynasty name, and that Taizong is his temple name. Various other articles can further clarify. john k 16:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, and unless there is a clear consensus agreeing with your position, there shouldn't be a change. --Nlu (talk) 17:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I very much object to using personal names. It is, and has been, considered highly inappropriate to refer to an emperor by a personal name. Only a handful of Western historians (and they are in the minority) do this, and I've only seen it done for the Ming and Qing emperors on the notion that era names should not refer to people at all. The only exceptions are those emperors who became prominent before they became emperors. The prevailing forms are "Han Wudi" and "Emperor Wu".--Jiang 02:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Not to mention that it would also be anachronistic and misleading. Manchu clan names did not function as surnames and did not appear next to given names like Chinese surnames.--Jiang 02:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Indeed - although Puyi is probably another exception. We do, I think, call some of the three kingdoms, sixteen dynasties, etc., rulers by their personal names, no? E.g. Cao Pi. john k 07:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Place names: Town

I noticed there was a user recently who moved a bunch of articles about 镇-level governments in China from "X" to "X Town", citing this naming convention as justification. It's true that it does currently give "X Town" as an option for disambiguation. Is this really a good iidea? The formation "Somethingthing Town" sounds very awkward in English. Wouldn't [X (town)] be a better option, at least in the case of places that can reasonably be described as actual towns? In some of these cases, I'm not really sure why they need to be disambiguated at all ... they could just stay at "X".—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 05:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the use of "Town" following the name of the place does not read well in English (as in the recently retitled Batang Town), as it is non-standard usage. If there is confusion due to multiple place names with the same name, "town" may be added in the title in parentheses, following the place name. Badagnani (talk) 07:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Batang might even be an instance where the town is notable enough that it doesn't need to be disambiguated.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 19:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About ROC/Taiwan Naming Conventions

Sorry about opening this can of worms again, but because of my recent dispute with another user on this, not only I learned for the first time this policy exists, but also I found it somewhat misleading.

On the "Taiwan" usage as a geographic location (the third column), I proposed we change the "PLACE COMMA Taiwan" to "PLACE in Taiwan" because the "PLACE COMMA Taiwan" format can be interpreted in a political context, while "PLACE in Taiwan" leaves no doubt that "Taiwan" is used in a geographic context, i.e. "located in Taipei City in Taiwan" or "located in Kaohsiung City in Taiwan". --Will74205 (talk) 00:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree. In the geographical context, Taiwan is always referred to as "Taiwan" - it isn't political at all to say "Taipei, Taiwan". It's much more natural to keep the current format. John Smith's (talk) 10:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with John. Using Republic of China in any context makes it political. In most cases, we don't want to bring politics to the Taiwan-related articles, although there are some exceptions. Anyways, I think the current conventions are good enough.--Jerrch 15:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Well you may not take "PLACE COMMA Taiwan" format politically, but the point is it can be interpreted politically, or at least opens the door to it, as this format usually signify administrative hierarchy, i.e. what we write when we mail someone. So change to "PLACE in Taiwan" format will leave no doubt that this is a geographic location. --Will74205 (talk) 18:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Quoted from past discussion: For nonpolitical articles linking to Taiwan as a geographic area has been accepted usage in the past as it makes no judgments on legitimacy/political status. So keeping articles from becoming political has been a consensus.
Using Taiwan also follows WP:UCN.--Jerrch 18:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I am not getting what you are disputing on my proposal. I am proposing instead of using PLACE, Taiwan format, use PLACE in Taiwan format. I am not disputing the use of "Taiwan" in geographical context, but what to make sure that if we want to use it in geographic context, use it in a way that leaves no doubt it is a geographic location. --Will74205 (talk) 19:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why "PLACE, Taiwan" wouldn't be in geographical context. In my opinion, it's not only in geographical context, it is also in common usage (and we should always use the more common term).--Jerrch 19:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Even if it does sound political, is there any dispute that Taipei is politicaly in Taiwan? It is either in Taiwan province, or an independent Taiwanese state, or both. When we say "Albany, New York" or "Peoria, Illinois", that doesn't imply that New York or Illinois are sovereign polities.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 20:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
(unindenting to level 1) Actually, no. Based on the Republic of China's administrative divisions, Taipei is a special municipality that is not a part of Taiwan Province. --Nlu (talk) 20:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, good point. I forgot about that.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 20:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
But it is geographically located on the Taiwan Island, and in the Taiwan Area. That doesn't imply that Taiwan is a sovereign nation.--Jerrch 21:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
But this then creates a problem with places that are not on the island of Taiwan, such as Liouciou and Orchid Island.
Regardless of politics, as the current consensus that WP:NPOV calls for the reference to Republic of China to be remaining as such (although I generally prefer "Republic of China (Taiwan)" myself), I do not believe a reference such as "Taipei, Republic of China" violates NPOV principles. It does not endorse or disapprove the idea of ROC as a separate state and does not endorse or disapprove the idea that its official name should be changed to Taiwan. Its current official name is not Taiwan. --Nlu (talk) 21:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I understand. We would mention the ROC in Taipei, but for other non-political things in Taipei, I don't see the point in mentioning it. For things not located on the island, Taiwan (ROC), or ROC (Taiwan) is fine.--Jerrch 22:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Personally I would not support Taipei, Republic of China in a case such as this because we go back to the old problem of the common reader going "huh? I thought Taipei was in Taiwan, not China". Don't overcomplicate things. John Smith's (talk) 11:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

If we wanted to be politically neutral, we would simply recognize the government controlling the area and call it "PLACE, Republic of China". However we don't want to offend anyone so let's ask, "if you were sending a letter there, where would you send it to?" Of the addresses that would work (PLACE, Taiwan) or (PLACE, ROC) or (PLACE, Republic of China) or (PLACE, Republic of China (Taiwan)), simply (PLACE, Taiwan) seems the most understandable to English speakers and the least likely to offend. Readin (talk) 18:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. But I do want to clarify, the fact that Taiwan is officially administrated by the ROC is not hidden. We just don't need to be redundant by mentioning the political status of Taiwan in non-political articles.--Jerrch 02:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, so this question is coming from a debate about how to describe the location of Songshan airport? The article does say, within a few sentences, that the airport serves the president of the Republic of China. So at least in this article, the information is right up front. For other articles, the whether the political question is "hidden" depends in part on how you view Taiwan. To most English speaking people, Republic of China is the formal name for the country commonly known as Taiwan. So saying "Taipei, Taiwan" instead of "Taipei, ROC" is no different from saying "Pyongyang, North Korea" instead of "Pyongyang, DPRK". On the other hand, if you imagine Taiwan to be a province of China (whether you consider China to be ROC, PRC, or something else), then saying "Taipei, Taiwan" is like saying "Chicago, Illinois". So it covers all views. And regardless of which view you take, it still accurately provides the location.
As for Taiwan's territories off the main island, or out side of the administrative provincial areas, the question can be more complicated. But I don't think there is an answer that will satisfy everyone. Since the objective is to provide location information, I think the mailing address test should apply. And again, "PLACE, Taiwan" works. Readin (talk) 16:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

We need to be clear on what we mean by "Taiwan":

We are not fully consistent with the island. I think, that in formulating the current policy, we failed to account for some redundancy. At Songshan Domestic Airport we had a dispute over whether to say that the airport is in "Songshan District, Taipei City, Republic of China in northern Taiwan" or in "Songshan District, Taipei City, Taiwan". The former, IMO, is unquestionably more informative than the latter and should be the preferred format.

As a string of political divisions, the current guidelines sanction the use of "Republic of China" in the form "Taipei County, Taiwan Province, Republic of China". In the same way, when we are explicitly referring to administrative heirarchy, "Songshan District, Taipei City, Republic of China" should be permitted. Otherwise, District, City, and Republic of China all have to disappear at once (and why provide less when we have room for more?).--Jiang (talk) 07:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Why not specify that the ROC is on earth orbiting Sol in the Milky Way? I think simplest, most understandable, with the same information is "Songshan District, Taipei, Taiwan" (most people know Taipei is a city - there is a Taipei County but when people say "Taipei" the city is assumed). If someone doesn't know where Taipei, Taiwan is they can click the link. Readin (talk) 16:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Because Earth, Sol System, and Milky Way are not political. This is why I proposed change the geographic reference "PLACE, Taiwan" to "PLACE in Taiwan" to explicitly state "Taiwan" is used as a geographic location, nothing more, nothing less. --Will74205 (talk) 04:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
My objection to using "PLACE in Taiwan" is that it is such an uncommon construction that it would be going so far to avoid any hint that Taiwan might be a country that it would actually express a POV that Taiwan is not a country or a province. It is already a stretch to have an article dedicated to Taiwan the "island" rather than following standard Wikipedia naming conventions that specify that the common name for a nation state be used as the name for the article on that nation. But too refuse to use the commonly understood way of specifying a location is too much. The information being conveyed is not the political status, it is the location, and everyone understands the location of "Taipei, Taiwan". Readin (talk) 06:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
This dilemma is stemmed by the original policy to not include anything political in non-political articles, and treat "PLACE, Taiwan" in geographic context only. But because the "PLACE, Taiwan" format usually denotes administrative hierarchy, it also can be treated in political context. So the two options I see is to 1) use the "PLACE in Taiwan" format to explicitly use "Taiwan" in geographic context or 2) allow the use of "Republic of China" in non-political articles. --Will74205 (talk) 04:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what dilemma you're referring to. Earlier I thought you were worried about offshore possessions of Taiwan (like Orchid Island), but your preferred proposal to use "PLACE in Taiwan" would do nothing to resolve that problem, because "Orchid Island in Taiwan" would make even less sense than "Orchid Island, Taiwan". Further, you're proposal to use "PLACE, ROC" is non nuetral. It gives the impression that Taiwan has to be treated specially because it isn't a country like other places. After all, we don't refer to "Seoul, ROK", we say "Seoul, South Korea" because the convention is to use the common name. While one might argue using "Taiwan" thus takes the POV that offends Chinese, we mostly dodge that arrow because Chinese see Taiwan as a province, and it is quite normal to use "PLACE, PROVINCE" to identify a location if the province is well known. Furthermore, the use of "PLACE, ROC" would be misleading to people who don't know the difference between PRC and ROC. They might think they need to get a passport from the officials in Beijing in order to visit. Readin (talk) 09:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Like I said before, "PLACE, Taiwan" can be interpreted politically, i.e. this PLACE is in a country named "Taiwan". While "South Korea" equals to "ROK" in every sense, "Taiwan" doesn't equal to "ROC" since for a good part of its history, ROC was in mainland China, but I don't want to argue over the question on whether the ROC today is equal to ROC before 1949 here. For places not on the island of Taiwan, the format "PLACE, Republic of China (Taiwan)" will do. Furthermore, I am not arguing to change the policy completely, just on the third column of the policy, allowing the inclusion of "Republic of China" when referring to a location, in the same time not removing any reference to "Taiwan". Or alternatively, we could use "PLACE in Taiwan" format to avoid any ambiguity on how to interpret "Taiwan" in "PLACE, Taiwan" format. --Will74205 (talk) 10:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
And like I said, using "PLACE in Taiwan" can be interpreted as a POV to imply that Taiwan is not a country or even a province. There really is no NPOV on this issue (well, my view is NPOV, but what I really mean is given current opinions there can be no consensus on what is NPOV). The way we traditionally get NPOV is to give all sides, but we really can't do that concisely enough to be pratical when providing locations. What our goal should be then is to provide accurate meaningful information while offending as few people as possible. "PLACE in Taiwan" is jarring because it is not the normal way of providing location information, and it will cause people to stop and wonder why that construction is used and then to be offended. "PLACE, Taiwan" is what people expect to see. It is accurate. It tells people the location. And because it can be interpreted many ways while still providing the same accurate information, it is less likely to offend.

I'm saying that the ability to interpret "PLACE, Taiwan" is more of a strength than a weakness. If we were defining "Taiwan", we wouldn't want ambiguity. If we were writing about Taiwan's political status, we would want to avoid ambiguity. But we're not providing information about Taiwan, we're providing the location of a place, and saying "PLACE, Taiwan" provides the same information no matter how you interpret it. This is a strength because it allows people to interpret it in the manner least offensive to them. Readin (talk) 16:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

To me, adding references to the Republic of China to non-political articles is even worse than adding the Political status of Taiwan, which I believe no one would ever think of doing so. And, like Readin is saying, I think the "PLACE, Taiwan" format is far more better than "PLACE in Taiwan" for the same reasons.--Jerrch 22:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
But it is the current format that doesn't sit well with me. Past argument against including "Republic of China" reference has always been to keep the article "political neutral". The current format opens the door to interpret "Taiwan" as a country without recognizing Taiwan is administrated by the Republic of China. It is this reason that I felt "PLACE in Taiwan" format will avoid making this determination by explicitly state "Taiwan" is a place, without any room for political interpretation. --Will74205 (talk) 09:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
While it is possible to select a certain interpretation of "PLACE, Taiwan", it is equally possible to select another interpretation. The term is neutral between those interpretations. You only get offended if you really really want to. Readin (talk) 23:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
If someone is reading a political interpretation into "Place, Taiwan" then they already know the politics and are inserting their own self-bias into what they are reading. If someone does not know the political situation, they won't make any interpretation based on "Place, Taiwan". Those in the second category will open that can of worms if they open the Taiwan article itself, which opens with a disclaimer. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Well, my proposal will eliminate the current "many interpretation" status, and thus limit how people can inject their own bias. My view is, if the third column deals with using "Taiwan" in geographic context, then use it in a way that doesn't leave rooms for other interpretation. Otherwise the only other fair way is to allow the inclusion of "Republic of China" in location reference, as part of official administrative hierarchy, i.e. "Kaohsiung City, Republic of China in southern Taiwan". --Will74205 (talk) 09:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I thought it was agreed to not include political hierarchy in non-political articles.--Jerrch 13:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed modification to current policy

After some thinking, I found that the only place where I have concerns in the current policy was that the current policy doesn't take into account for the special status of Taipei City and Kaohsiung City. The reason is that in the third column, the "PLACE, Taiwan" format is correct for all other cities and towns in both geographic and political division context, while "Kaohsiung City, Taiwan" or "Taipei City, Taiwan" format is incorrect in political division context because they are not part of any political division named Taiwan. My reason for respecting the correct political division is that "PLACE, Taiwan" format cannot avoid being interpreted politically, and this format, as in other articles, usually reserve for "PLACE, ONE-LEVEL-UP POLITICAL DIVISION". So I proposed the following change (change in Red) so to include the correct political division hierarchy with respect to its location in Taiwan:

Republic of China or ROC Either Republic of China (Taiwan) or Taiwan (Republic of China) Taiwan Taiwan Province
  • When identifying the state and attempting to differentiate it from the PRC (eg. "Taipei is the capital of the Republic of China (Taiwan).") In general, this only needs to be done once, subsequent references to the ROC need not include "(Taiwan)". Exceptions can be made if there is a very long separation between mentions of the ROC.
  • When identifying the state in a general, non-specific way (eg. "The American Institute in Taiwan serves as the de facto embassy of the United States to the Republic of China (Taiwan).")
  • When providing disambiguation in articles with Republic of China in their titles, though generally this only needs to be done once (eg. The Republic of China Navy is the maritime branch of the armed forces of the Republic of China (Taiwan))
  • When identifying nationality (eg. "Lee Teng-hui is a citizen of the Republic of China (Taiwan).")
  • When identifying a location outside the island of Taiwan (eg. "Magong City is the capital of Penghu County, Taiwan (Republic of China).")

--Will74205 (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the proposal. We just don't include ROC in non-political articles. The pre-established consensus was that we only include the ROC when stating the official administrative hierarchy (which should only be in political articles or articles of administrative districts).--Jerrch 03:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with the assertion that "PLACE, Taiwan" cannot avoid political interpretation. I also disagree with the proposal. I find the use of the term "city" as in "Taipei City" and "Kaoshiung City" strange. "Taipei, Taiwan" and "Kaoshiung, Taiwan" are the common usage. The city is dinstinguished from the county by using the term "county". For example, "Taipei" and "Taipei County" are different places. At least, that has been my experience. Readin (talk) 04:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

My opinion on Will74205's proposal is this -- it's necessary for accuracy's sake for something like this, because as it stands, "Taipei, Taiwan" and "Kaohsiung, Taiwan" are both factually incorrect in that these cities are not parts of Taiwan Province. It would be analogous to "Washington, Maryland" (which is arguably geographically correct in that Washington D.C. was carved out of Maryland) but certainly not factually correct. However, my proposed alternative to Will74205's proposal would be to use "Taipei, Republic of China (Taiwan)" and "Kaohsiung, Republic of China (Taiwan)." --Nlu (talk) 05:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying that every single time I've seen a news article with the byline "Taipei, Taiwan", it has been factually incorrect? You're saying the many times I addressed mail to "Taipei, Taiwan" and it was delivered, it was only delivered because the post office goofed? Taipei is indeed on the island of Taiwan. So is Kaohsiung. If you want more clarity, the article on Taipei should say "It is administered as part of ...". But for telling people where something is (like the location of Taipei 101), saying "Taipei, Taiwan" is unambiguous. Readin (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
You are forcing people to interpreted in only one way "Kaohsiung, Taiwan => Kaohsiung on Taiwan island" when the general usage for city locations is not. Either Nlu's or my proposal is correct in all interpretations. --Will74205 (talk) 17:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
No one's interpretation is "wrong." We are not "forcing" people to interpret stuff. And what do you mean by "general usage?" As far as I know, "Kaohsiung, Taiwan" is a more common usage.--Jerrch 00:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
"Kingdom of Wei" is also a more common usage (in English, anyway) than "Cao Wei," but is factually incorrect and therefore shouldn't be used. The situation is similar here. --Nlu (talk) 02:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
"Taipei, Taiwan" is not factually incorrect. Neither is "Taipei, Republic of China" the point of the chart is to say we aren't going to change things back and forth based on the POV of individual editors, neither are we going to prescribe one format as being the correct one. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
I can agree with Nlu's proposal, allowing the "Taipei, Republic of China (Taiwan)" when referring to a location in Taipei City. The reason I found the current guideline less than desirable is that it only allow "Taipei, Taiwan", which is correct only in geographic context but incorrect in political context. My point is that why use a format, at least in the case of Taipei and Kaohsiung, that is partially correct, when we can use either my proposal, "Taipei, Republic of China in northern Taiwan", or Nlu's proposal, "Taipei, Republic of China (Taiwan)" that is correct in both geographic context and political context. We cannot ask the readers to only treat "Taipei, Taiwan" format in geographic context but not looking at it in political context. So it is better to have a format that is correct in both context. --Will74205 (talk) 21:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to put these exceptions in column two. I don't see anyone insisting on only "Taipei, Taiwan" SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Actually, I do insist on only "Taipei, Taiwan," but only on non-political articles. If you want to include "Taipei, Republic of China (Taiwan)" in a political article such as Beitou District, go ahead, I don't mind at all. But if you're going to add references to the "Republic of China" in every article related to things or buildings in Taiwan, I will have to disagree.
You can forget about what I just wrote. Because you said in political context, and just to inform you, the current convention already says that in political context, "ROC (Taiwan)" should be used.--Jerrch 23:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
No, I meant even when used in non-political articles, one cannot tell readers not to treat "Taipei, Taiwan" in political context. Because of this, the location information has be correct in both geographic and political context, otherwise it would only be correct in one interpretation, but not in another. --Will74205 (talk) 02:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm still confused. If I address a letter to "Taipei, Taiwan", will it arrive? If I fly or sail to Taiwan and drive around without ever leaving Taiwan, can I reach Taipei? It seems the only way one can claim Taipei is not in Taiwan is to take a very political view of things, and to take a very Non NPOV first by treating Taiwan as a province rather than the more common usage as the informal name of a country, and 2nd by claiming it is a province as defined by the ROC rather than the PRC. Given all that, using anything other than "Taipei, Taiwan" is to push a POV. Readin (talk) 04:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
"Taipei, Taiwan" is not incorrect in both contexts - unless you insist that "Taiwan" cannot be synonymous with "Republic of China" politically. Is that the case? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Well, "Republic of China (Taiwan)" is certainly more accurate than just "Taiwan", since Kaohsiung and Taipei are not part of any political entity that has Taiwan in its official name. So, in an interpretation that respects official administrative division, "Taipei, Republic of China (Taiwan)" is certainly more correct than "Taipei, Taiwan". My proposal or Nlu's proposal was intended to take into account of the special status of Taipei and Kaohsiung. --Will74205 (talk) 05:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
"Taiwan" is used, just fine, as the official name. That's why the guideline allows either. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
I propose this change because other editors use this guideline to exclude "Republic of China" when referring to a location in Taipei or Kaohsiung. My proposal simply was to allow the inclusion of "Republic of China" due to Taipei and Kaohsiung's special status. --Will74205 (talk) 09:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Will74205, it does not look like there will be a consensus on this as it stands, and therefore I think it might be wise to close the discussion, unless you want to consider trying to get more comments on this by filing a RfC. --Nlu (talk) 09:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it seems there are less than ten people interested in this topic. However, even the original consensus was made with inputs from less than ten editors. I'll try a RfC at a later date. Thanks. --Will74205 (talk) 11:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this calls for a clarification of the existing guidelines. Under Taiwan Province it states that the term should be used "When referring to a specific location within the formal administrative hierarchy". This rule should also apply to "Republic of China" as it is also a almost exclusively political (rather than geographical/cultural) term. In the same way "county, Taiwan Province" is acceptable under current guidelines, "Taipei, Republic of China" and "Kaohsiung, Republic of China" should be acceptable when "referring to a [district or city] within the formal administrative hierarchy".--Jiang (talk) 23:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Some editors think that "Republic of China" should not be included in a non-political article at all, even when the location reference is to a district in Taipei, such as the case in Taipei Songshan Airport. I think this is a gray area, as the location reference denotes a political division, so the reason for not allowing the inclusion of "Republic of China" would be invalid since it is already political. I believe this is the main issue of what we have been arguing for the past few weeks. --Will74205 (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
How is Taipei Songshan Airport political? Why does its location have to be political. It's in Taipei. Taipei is in Taiwan. That's enough information to get me to the right city and pay a taxi driver to take me to the airport. And I don't even care if the taxi driver is DPP, KMT, CPP, or GOP. When I say "Taipei Songshan Airport in Taipei, Taiwan", no one objects no matter what their political leanings, and no one is confused. Trying to introduce "ROC" politicizes something that isn't political. Readin (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I am talking about the location reference, not the article. --Will74205 (talk) 18:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
How is the location reference political? The location remains the same no matter who is running the place. Readin (talk) 18:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Are you even reading my comment? I said that because the location is referenced to a "district in Taipei", it falls to a gray area that referring to a "political division" in a non-political article. --Will74205 (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, a "district" in Taiwan is a political division, not just an informal reference to a place, as it has a district office and a politically defined boundary. --Will74205 (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The last bullet point in the Taiwan Province column can be copied verbatim into the Republic of China column. The example even has "Republic of China" already linked in it.--Jiang (talk) 20:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Place names: City

The disambiguation guide currently gives "X City" as option for disambiguating the names of "cities" (i.e. Jilin City and Huangshan City). "Cities" seems to include various types of local governments, among them the 地级市 (dìjí shì, prefecture-level city). Now, I agree that the form "X City" is a more palatable phrase in English than "X Town" is—at least, it is, when the thing referred to, X, is a city. The problem, though, is that many dìjí shì in Mainland China are actually not cities. As the article prefecture-level city says, "A prefecture-level city is not a 'city' in the strictest sense of the term, but instead an administrative unit comprising, typically, both an urban core (a city in the strict sense) and surrounding rural or less-urbanized areas usually many times the size of the central, built-up core." Usually, a dìjí shì is at least named after a city or town in it, but "Huangshan City" is an example of one that is not—it is named after a tourist site instead. So, it seems like there will be a lot of cases where it is misleading and confusing to give an article a title with "City" in it. "X (city)" is even worse, because then we give the impression that the narrator is saying that this thing is a city (just as Vatican City is fine but Vatican (city) would be quite wrong). I'm not sure what a better solution is, though. I moved Huangshan (city) to Huangshan (shi), where it stayed for about six months before it got moved back, but I can understand that would be objections to X (shi).—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 00:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Municipality?
Bathrobe (talk) 02:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that would definitely be better than "city", but it would basically still have the same problems. "Municipality" and "city" are close to synonyms; the dictionaries I've consulted are inconsistent or vague about the distinction, but "municipality" seems to focus more on the form of government, rather than simply the urban pattern of settlement. That's a plus. Still, "municipality" seems like a bit of grandiose name for many of the more out-of-the-way dìjí shì.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 22:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Manchuria

User:SchmuckyTheCat recently removed:

Although the use of the term "Manchuria" is considered by some to be somewhat objectionable when used in Chinese, it is largely considered a non-political and non-objectionable term when used in English.

In explanation he said:

Republic of China, Taiwan, and variations thereof - remove useless sentence. nobody uses Manchuria in modern english. anyways, as a suggestion it's prescriptive

I still use "Manchuria". If the term is no longer used in modern English, what is the term in use these days? What is meant by "as a suggestion it's prescriptive"? Readin (talk) 20:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't suggesting that usage of Manchuria in the modern geographical context is no longer used. But as my reading of this guideline has been that it was suggesting "Manchuria" could be an alternative name for "China" or "Mainland China" or "Mainland China -Tibet". I don't think anyone has used Manchuria as an alternate name for China since WW2.
On reading your objection I realize this may be referring to the modern usage being objectionable in Putonghua, but not English (which I'm ignorant of, if that is the case). If that is the case, re-word it slightly and put it back. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I've never heard of "Manchuria" being used to refer to all of China. I'll look at the context and see if that was implied. Readin (talk) 21:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

If someone has ever heard "Manchuria" being used to refer to all of China than the context certainly fits with your interpretation that such a usage was being condoned. I'll leave it out mainly because I don't know enough about that usage nor enough about Chinese sensitivities regarding the word for me to write something accurate and useful. Readin (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Readin. Manchuria is not used for the whole of China; it's used for the Dongbei area.
Bathrobe (talk) 03:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Is it an offensive term? Does this sentence belong in the political NPOV section of this guideline? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
"Manchuria" is certainly not the favourite way of referring to Dongbei in China (that's why they call it "Dongbei"). The main reason is probably the wartime Japanese state of Manchukuo. This is the usual stuff -- this area is an inalienable part of China, the Manchus have been totally assimilated to the Chinese, etc.
Bathrobe (talk) 06:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
But as the removed sentence said, "Manchuria" is not offensive in English and the term "Dongbei" makes no sense in English. Generally though, I rarely hear "Manchuria" used to refer to that part of China in the modern sense, but frequently in the historical sense. It's like saying "Gaul" or "Nubia", totally inoffensive but mainly used in historical rather than modern contexts. I wouldn't say I'm going to "Manchuria" next week; I would say I'm going to "northeast China". But I would have no problem talking about Japanese actions in Manchuria in the 1930s. Readin (talk) 06:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


This discussion seems to have drawn to an end. In summary, SchmuckyTheCat made a good-faith edit, and has had the good grace to admit it was based on a misunderstanding. The discussion stalled on whether the term is controversial. This summer 2007 dispute makes it very clear that it is. However, this sentence has been in the convention since the very first draft, way back in 2003, which indicates some degree of consensus.

So do we have a consensus to restore the Manchuria naming convention? Matt's talk 04:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Hakka

User:SchmuckyTheCat recently removed reference to the word "Hakka" on the grounds that no one knows the work Hakka in English. I find it hard to accept this reasoning. People who have no knowledge of Chinese ethnic groups obviously don't know the name Hakka. People who've come into the field of Chinese studies and suddenly discover, possibly via Mandarin, that there is a group called the 客家 Kèjiā are obviously to be congratulated on broadening their knowledge. But if such people lack general knowledge and haven't read much in English about China, is that a good reason for saying that "nobody knows the word Hakka"? The word is out there; it's known by anybody who's done any reading about Chinese culture or customs. Not knowing the name Hakka is actually pretty unforgivable for anyone who considers him/herself to have any knowledge of China. As for people with no acquaintance of Chinese studies and don't know the name Hakka, these are the same sort of people who've never heard of Karens, Igbos, or Afars. Is that really a good basis for deciding that the name should disappear from Wikipedia? Bathrobe (talk) 03:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is the diff [2]. I haven't removed Hakka from Wikipedia. Here is the article, Hakka.
In this case, I know who the Hakka are. But this statement, "Hakka is the preferred name for that group even though the Mandarin word for that is something completely different phonetically" in the political POV section, does not make sense. Who is "that group"? What is the Mandarin word for "that". We have a pronoun without an antecedent here, in a straggler sentence that sits alone as a paragraph. Not only does it not make sense, but in English whoever "that group" is, unless it refers to those in the Hakka article, are not referred to as "Hakka" in English. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
The deletion of the sentence is fine and can be justified on a number of grounds. Saying that "Hakka" is an unknown word in English isn't one of them. I'm not contesting the deletion, merely the justification given.
Bathrobe (talk) 06:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jiedushi

I have been editing/creating a number of Tang Dynasty articles, and I am almost at a stage where I'm getting into mid/late Tang Dynasty, when the offices of jiedushi were created and became prominent. The current usage of jiedushi in articles are a bit ambiguous and confusing, and I think some clarification/disambiguation in usage is required. This is what I currently propose:

  • While using the term as an office held by a person, use "jiedushi (military governor) when referred to the first time in the lead and first time in a section of the article, and then only jiedushi thereafter.
    • Possible variant: use "military governor (jiedushi) when referred to first time in the lead and first time in a section of the article, and then only "military governor" thereafter.
  • When used in an article to refer to a specific jiedushi office rather than a specific person (e.g., Pinghai Jiedushi), use the term directly -- but --
  • When used to refer to the region or area of responsibility governed by the specific jiedushi office rather than the office or the person, use "<name of office> Circuit" (e.g., in the case of Pinghai, mentioned above, "Pinghai Circuit") --
    • Unless the jiedushi in question is specific to a roving army (e.g., Shuofang Xingying Jiedushi (朔方行營節度使)) in which case use "Shuofang Expedition Army" or
    • Unless the jiedushi in question is specific to a military base or bases (e.g., Heyang Sanzhen Jiedushi (河陽三鎮節度使)) in which case use Three Garrisons of Heyang"

Thoughts? --Nlu (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't see any problems with those, so can't really give much thoughts. Aquarius • talk 08:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Move proposal

See Talk:Ume#Requested move. Badagnani (talk) 04:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Naming Conventions

In light of the new Republic of China regime, Wikipedia needs to re-evaluate the naming conventions. Beautiful Formosa (talk) 06:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

A beautiful sentence. What exactly are you proposing? Flamarande (talk) 12:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Probably yet another one of those gigantic mess involving arguments/flaming/AGF issues/etc. (which evidently had lead to nowhere constructive) like the one above. Not to mention that the contents are probably just going to be the same. I'd expect more of these to happen (and, with reasonable suspicion from me, the same person). Vic226說 07:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blanks in place names

Interesting discussion at Talk:Xinhua Lu Stadium#Requested move on a requested rename from Xinhua Lu Stadium to Xinhualu Stadium. No consensus was reached. I have suggested that further discussion might take place here:

  • There seems to be no current Wikipedia naming convention governing this situation.
  • English usage seems divided.
  • A similar question probably affects many other articles.

I can argue it either way in terms of:

So, I'd be happy for either convention to be adopted. Perhaps a slight preference for removing the blanks. But either seems acceptable, and either will save us time in the future, time that can then be spent on improving articles. Other comments? Andrewa (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hanyu Pinyin alternative names for Taiwanese names?

Hanyu Pinyin is one of the standards promoted in Taiwan. Taiwanese people and place names are often referred to using Hanyu Pinyin as it is the most studied and used romanization method for Chinese words. Should Wikipedia provide at least alternative Hanyu Pinyin names next to the traditional names for convenience? --Atitarev (talk) 06:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

That's already provided by the Chinese support template introducing characters and romanization. As a rule, the bolded term is the most common term. Pinyin is not used for provincial and sub-provincial divisions. Thus, even though Taipei uses Hanyu Pinyin for its street signs, "Taipei" itself is never romanized "Taibei". Likewise, Hsinchu is not romanized as a sub-provincial city, but Jhudong is romanized using Tongyong Pinyin and a sub-county division of Hsinchu County.--Jiang (talk) 14:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
It's simply is another sensitive topic like traditional/simplified characters but it shouldn't be, not the Chinese writing. I am familiar with the guide, which is just a guide and I respect that there are original, better names. I haven't suggested to rename the article or put the Pinyin name at the front. It's enough to use google to see how many pages have alternative names for the Taiwanese cities. Anglophones may not even guess how to pronounce some of the old romanisations, which are not following even the current Tonyong Pinyin transcription. Alternative names are important to correctly identify place names.
I can remove the boldface, if you insist but can I at least add a couple of words about the alternative spelling, which is used? Pinyin pronunciation is different, it has tones and may not be found by search engines. --Atitarev (talk) 02:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Toned pinyin picked up by search engines as are redirects. Just make sure the pinyin redirects to the common spelling. Listing pinyin twice is redundant, and I don't see the point. It's not commonly used anyways.--Jiang (talk) 02:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I do see the point as the Hanyu Pinyin or Tonyong Pinyin (HP) names are heavily used on the Internet. Some even insist on having spelling Hanyu Pinyin as the main, not the alternative name. I don't think it needs to be but HP correctly reflects the pronunciation of Chinese names (meaning language, not necessarily belonging to China) and is understood unambiguously by English speakers. This site provides different spellings for Taiwanese names (I don't agree with all the comments) http://www.pinyin.info/taiwan/place_names.html. --Atitarev (talk) 13:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Please don't try to force a disputed change in the formatting until you have gained consensus to change the guidelines. I don't see evidence that Hanyu Pinyin or Tongyong Pinyin names for provincial and sub-provincial divisions are of nearly significant frequency as traditionally romanized names. In addition, I don't see anyone suggesting that the names of these articles be moved to their pinyin renderings. Furthermore, the claim that pinyin correctly reflects the pronounciation of Chinese names is disputed and irrelevant, as Wikipedia policy is based on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) and the fundamental problem here is adding the additional line into articles is redundant.--Jiang (talk) 16:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Is the question whether pinyin should be in the first line, or whether it should be the title of the article (or redirect)? I really find having Hanyu pinyin somewhere at the start of the article very useful. For example, I didn't know how to pronounce Ma Ying-jeou's name - I don't have a TV and read all my news online! - until I saw Mǎ Yīngjiǔ. That tells me instantly how to pronounce it, including the correct tones. However, I don't think articles should be automatically redirected from their pinyin spelling. I can't see many people looking for Ma by entering "Ma Yingjiu". Naturally, the article title, and the bold text in the first line, should be the spelling most commonly used - even if it's in a non-standard system of romanisation! JRawle (Talk) 22:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Combination Western forename + Chinese names

In contrast to the naming convention regarding Western names, the Chinese conventions are to put the family name first and the given name second. But what to do with the many Wikipedia biographies about Chinese people from Hong Kong? A lot of them also use Western forenames. For example: Rita Fan, which the full name in the lead was stated as Rita Fan Hsu Lai-tai. This is confusing, because a Westerner can think that her given name is "Rita" and here family name "Fan Hsu Lai-tai". But I think that her family name is "Fan", her given name "Hsu Lai-tai", and she also has a popular name or Christian name "Rita". I tried to fix this problem by putting the name Rita between quotation marks, thereby getting the following result in the lead: "Rita" Fan Hsu Lai-tai. The same I did with the name in the lead of the biography of Andrew Wong: "Andrew" Wong Wang Fat. According to WP:MOSBIO, popular names can be put between quotation marks.

Can someone please give advice whether this is correct? Thanks, Demophon (talk) 08:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I would say names shouldn't be put in quotation marks if it's part of their official or legal name. The part in quotation marks should be for nicknames, not for something that would be on their passport or legal documents. In the case of Rita Fan, you should write her name just as she would. If that's "Rita Fan Hsu Lai-tai", write that. People can see which is her commonly used forename and surname from the article title. If there's any ambiguity, you can always add a note explaining.
Putting the English name in quotation marks won't help westerners who aren't in the know anyway! It doesn't do anything to indicate which Chinese name is the surname or given name.
Incidentally, her Chinese given name is surely Lai-tai; Fan and Hsu are both surnames. Traditionally, Chinese women don't take their husband's surname, but they might place it in front of their own on official documents. So at a guess, she was born Hsu Lai-tai, and added "Fan" after marrying Stephen Fan Sheung-tak. However, in this case, it seems she does prefer her husband's surname for everyday use.
I suggest changing the article to remove the quotes, and add a sentence explaining about her given name and two surnames! Kind regards, JRawle (Talk) 22:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)