Talk:Taiwan (island)

Proposed replacement for WP:NC-TW

A proposed replacement for WP:NC-TW has been made: Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Chinese)#Proposed_replacement_for_WP:NC-TW. Please comment on that page.--Jiang (talk) 02:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Poor writing

"In fact, since PRC's establishment, it never controlled any of the territories the ROC government currently governs."

This is poor writing. "In fact..."? Which fact? Just state what needs to be stated, or at the very least cite the facts that you're referencing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bastett (talk • contribs) 23:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Removed. Cheers, CMD (talk) 23:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Redundant article; proposed move into the Taiwan article

Republic of China has moved to Taiwan; now it's time to merge this article into the that article. Taiwan needs a geography section and information from this article could be incorporated into that new section (along with a paragraph about the other smaller islands that make up the ROC/'Taiwan'). Other information about the island of Taiwan could perhaps also be incorporated into the Geography of Taiwan article and other similar articles.

When People's Republic of China moved to China a new Chinese civilisation article was created to house the old China article's content. It lasted a few days. This should ideally be the case with this article, because its purpose has gone now that we accept ROC and Taiwan are one the same. We should be making every effort not to confuse readers and this article, with its economy, politics etc. sections, is just overlapping with the Taiwan article.

How we implement the merge can be discussed here by people who know a lot about the topic. I just can't see any good arguments in favour of keeping this article going. -- Peter ^{Talk page} 16:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I would not use the China move as a guide as what happened there was exceptional. The formerly 'China' article that was moved to Chinese civilization had no reason to exist: it exisited in part to maintain the fiction that "China" does not commonly refer to the PRC. The island of Taiwan though is a real thing, a real island. It does largely coincide with the borders of the ROC, which is probably why it became the common name of the state. But it is a distinct thing, unlike China and the PRC. Compare e.g. the British Isles, which although they almost coincide with the United Kingdom aren't the same and are distinct articles.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Peter's suggestion. Now that the country article is called Taiwan, there's no reason to keep them separate. Yes, the country has a little more territory than the island of the same name, but the overlap is so great (over 99%, much more than GB/UK), that it's much easier to treat them together and note the differences where relevant. Kanguole 17:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I certainly think the main Taiwan article needs more on the history and the detail of the island proper, rather than being set up as if it has only existed as long as the ROC has existed (indeed, that's how the original move proposal that has now been agreed was framed. The point is that both the history of both the island(s) itself and, latterly, the ROC feed into what world now knows as Taiwan. Hence material should definitely go over - probably to the point where this page is left pretty much gutted and pretty much redundant. However, even though there's a rather obvious difference in terms of proportions of the part to the whole there - even more so than for Britain/British Isles/UK etc - there might be a case for a rump, fairly stubby article similar to the Hong Kong Island one? N-HH talk/edits 19:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think a very short, purely geographic article on Taiwan island could stay, but all of demographics, culture, economy etc. should move to the main Taiwan article. Perhaps with a brief politics section (explaining how the island's sovereignty is disputed)
I have moved some information from that article to the Taiwan article (the culture section), but I think we should be a little hasty before moving any other sections straight away. For example, I've reverted the religion section back to the earlier revision because the new info was almost entirely unsourced. Sections from this article need sourcing and copy editing before being merged into the Taiwan article. -- Peter ^{Talk page} 19:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The culture section shouldn't be moved. The culture of Taiwan is noticeably different from the rest of the ROC. Those faraway islands weren't part of the Japanese colony and received no Japanese influence, and on some islands they have languages different from Taiwanese or Min-nan (e.g. Puhsien in Wuchiu, Mindong in the Matsus). Jeffrey (202.189.98.142) (talk) 22:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Hong Kong Island is an even smaller proportion of Hong Kong, so I'm not sure that's a model to follow. I think the situation here is closer to Iceland, Cuba, Madagascar and Sri Lanka.

Country articles usually have a Geography section, and what would such a section for Taiwan look like, if not the current Taiwan (island)#Geography plus a paragraph or two on the smaller islands? That is exactly what was envisaged in the model article in the proposal. And we already have a geographic article, namely Geography of Taiwan. Kanguole 21:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The geography section should perhaps point at Geography of Taiwan, Geography of Kinmen, Geography of Wuchiu and Geography of the Matsu Islands as the main articles. And no. Iceland, Cuba, Madagascar and Sri Lanka aren't comparable. Kinmen, Matsus, Wuchiu, Pratas and Itu Aba are like Labrador to the province of Newfoundland. They aren't part of Taiwan. Jeffrey (202.189.98.142) (talk) 22:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The Hong Kong government recognizes the whole territory as "Hong Kong" though. The Republic of China does not recognize Fujian Province as being part of Taiwan Province. Since Wikipedia renamed the countery to Taiwan rather than the government, the Hong Kong (or Madagascar or Jamaica) examples aren't applicable. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Not only aren't they part of Taiwan Province. They are neither part of 'Taiwan' as a geographical concept. There's a phrase "Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu", which is considered to be a variant of "Free Area". Jeffrey (202.189.98.142) (talk) 07:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion there should be an article on the geographical region of China, just like de:China (Kulturraum), or Ireland. Jeffrey (202.189.98.142) (talk) 22:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Everyone acknowledges that the country is more than the island; perhaps we also agree that there is substantial overlap. This sort of relationship between potential topics is common in Wikipedia, and not just for country articles. It then becomes a matter of editorial judgement whether, in each particular case, we serve our readers better by treating the overlapping topics together, with text to distinguish them as required, or separately, which can involve repetition of content. It varies with the particular case, depending on the degree of overlap and other factors. As for which cases this one most closely resembles, here is are some administrative units compared with islands of the same name:

Administrative units and percentage in island of the same name

Units	Area	Population
Taiwan	99.1	99.1
Iceland	98.9	98.7
Cuba	94.7	99.2
Australia	98.8	97.8
Tasmania	91.2	99.3
Ireland	116.2	139.3
Malta	77.8	94.6
Newfoundland	29.4	94.8

(I couldn't easily find the data for others that have been mentioned.) Kanguole 12:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I think we can follow the arrangement of Great Britain and United Kingdom, or Ireland (island) and Ireland (country) (or perhaps Korean Peninsula and Korea too). Jeffrey (202.189.98.142) (talk) 15:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

By the way Kanguole. I think you slightly missed the point. It isn't only about population, geographical size, economic output, or their names. It also depends on whether or not the smaller islands are geographically, historically and culturally associated to the main island. Jeffrey (202.189.98.142) (talk) 15:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I know that's your point, but in terms of whether two articles are justified, I think it's outweighed by the fact that the more distant islands are such a tiny part of the country. Real encyclopedias, such as Britannica, seem to think so too. Kanguole 16:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

And that was the conclusion of the move discussion and all the evidence presented - that today, all those island and territories are associated with Taiwan, to the extent that the term Taiwan is usually taken to include them. Let's not fight over that basic principle again. The issue then becomes how we treat and marshal info, and reflect any differences between the main island and those outlying parts, if and when necessary. N-HH talk/edits 16:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I refrained from commenting here for a while so that I could assess how we handle other articles, and I believed that Taiwan (island) did deserve its own article. I've come to the conclusion that this isn't possible. Comparable articles such as Madagascar (island) and Cuba (island) redirect to Geography of Madagascar and Geography of Cuba respectively. I think this is the correct way of handling Taiwan (island) as well. Any history content should be merged with History of Taiwan, any geography content should be merged with Geography of Taiwan, and the article should be made a redirect to Geography of Taiwan. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 01:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The Taiwan article lacks summaries of the history and geography of the place. Those things are here, at the article formerly known as "Taiwan". I'm proposing that we move them and leave this title as a redirect. Kanguole 08:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

As per NULL above, I see no reason why we shouldn't treat this content in the same way as has been done for Madagascar, Cuba and other such island territories. Otherwise this article is a WP:CONTENTFORK. The existence of this article was essentially an anomaly created by the naming dispute, a dispute that held back the development of several articles. Now that has been settled, merging and redistributing this information would be the sensible way forward in our process of creating for Taiwan a "normal" suite of articles for such a territory. LukeSurl ^{t c} 22:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's only a result of a naming dispute and that there's no other reason. Are Newfoundland (island), Bahrain Island, Pulau Ujong, Malta Island or Zanzibar Island content fork too? Jeffrey (talk) 11:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC) 11:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Bahrain Island, Pulau Ujong and Zanzibar Island certainly are (or was, in the case of Bahrain). You seem to be the only one who thinks the relationship of Labrador to Newfoundland is comparable to the relationship of Kinmen and Matsu to Taiwan. Malta is a more intermediate case (I've added it to the table). Kanguole 11:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Labrador was for some time in history not part of the colony or of Newfoundland as a geographical concept. Kinmen and Matsu have never been part of Taiwan, as a province, a colony or a geographical concept. Jeffrey (talk) 11:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you put forward this example in both recent RMs, but you seem to be the only one who sees the situations as similar, perhaps because the differences are so obvious.

Perhaps it would help if you could outline how you envisage the division of material between this article and Taiwan, History of Taiwan and Geography of Taiwan. Kanguole 11:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The two concepts are clear enough to me as an average person. One of which is the country, the other a geographical concept that exclude Quemoy, Matsu, Wuchiu, Pratas and Itu Aba. Jeffrey (talk) 15:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Why now?

While I understand the point here, I wonder why no one brought it up long ago between the overlap in the articles Taiwan and Republic of China, which are now Taiwan (island) and Taiwan, respectively, because the overlap was almost certainly there for a while well before the move was thought of. JPECH95 20:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I guess there's some momentum now to sorting broader issues/problems out, in the light of the title changes - both because it has brought more eyes to the articles but also because people I suspect are now happier to get involved in the detail now the basics of article title have been sorted and the pages put under the "right" names. People might just have thought they were a mess from the title down and there was little point in doing or suggesting much. Lipstick and pigs and all that. As I said, I think it may be worth saving some content overlap (which was, as well, an issue that did crop up a bit in the move discussion of course). N-HH talk/edits 20:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Completely understandable, too, of course. And I had kind of expected this, people who wanted to sort out all the articles. And I'm sure that Geography of Taiwan and Taiwan (island) have some overlap as well. So this is where you need to go into a basis of smaller moves and remodeling, so to speak. I'd be willing to help discuss this with anyone interested assuming that some don't act like how they did on the move request. JPECH95 23:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Amen to seeing better behavior! RevelationDirect (talk) 05:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The issue has certainly been raised many times before. The two articles under different titles were built up by different groups of editors with different conceptions of the country. The division was supposedly that "Republic of China" was about the government and "Taiwan" about the rest, but there was overlap in the History, Economics and Demographics sections. Now that the articles have the same title, we can repair that content fork.

The move proposal envisaged even greater overlap. Indeed all the content of the model Taiwan (island) article is also in the model Taiwan article. That's an appropriate structure for a country article, but it also means the other article is redundant. Kanguole 10:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Republic of China content

What is now called the Taiwan article tells us that the island was created in 1912. Clearly the current content of the Taiwan article doesn't reflect the name change yet and I think the real question is where the pre-1949 Republic of China content will end up. Maybe the article will live up to it's new name and become about the island of Taiwan or maybe it will continue to be about the Republic of China and just be called something else. I would favor giving that article more time to figure out what the Wikipedia community wants it to be before deciding on this merger. Additionally, there are articles on Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China and Taiwan Province, Republic of China that should also be considred with article restructuring at that time. RevelationDirect (talk) 05:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The Taiwan article should be about Taiwan. Material that is about the ROC and not Taiwan, for example pre-1949 material, can be moved to the History of the Republic of China article. (In my opinion this article should be renamed "Republic of China" now that that lemma is free.) Kauffner (talk) 05:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

There's also Republic of China (1912–1949). --Cybercobra (talk) 06:07, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I've raised this issue at Talk:Taiwan#History section, which seems a more appropriate place to discuss it. Kanguole 10:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you, Kauffner, that such a shift in content is warranted although the consensus to rename didn't seem to advocate such a shift. I'll follow up on Kanguole's discussion. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Reverse the merger

The two concepts are not identical, and some of the materials are specifically about the geographical-historical-cultural region and do not actually belong to the article for the country. It's a good thing to be bold, but being bold isn't the excuse to ignore lesser known facts and differences. Jeffrey (talk) 22:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Consensus was in favour of the merge. Do you have any new arguments that haven't been presented yet? – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 23:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

If you look at other country articles, you'll find that it's standard practice to cover the geographical-historical-cultural region. Kanguole 00:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Back when it was Formosa

The Formosa Expedition of 1867 was regarded as a failure in United States Naval history. The Taiwan Expedition of 1874 marked the successful deployment of the Imperial Japanese Army and Imperial Japanese Navy. What a difference a name makes! --Pawyilee (talk) 15:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

For the component of the country, and in line with the articles on the same topic in other languages. 203.145.92.200 (talk) 13:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

It was largely agreed that this page should redirect to Geography of Taiwan. There is nothing in that short stub that isn't included in various other ROC-related articles. -- Peter ^{Talk page} 13:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I just deleted a whole shitload of meaningless text above, which cluttered up this talk page and served no meaningful or useful purpose. Talk pages are not dumping grounds for whatever you like to dump. If you would like to view the text, use the talk page history. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Geography of Taiwan which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:30, 30 April 2019 (UTC)