Talk:2011 in Taiwan

Proposed move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result was move all except 1912 and 1949. Further discussion may required to obtain a clear consensus on those two, but for now it appears that there is little support for moving them. bd2412 T 03:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• 2011 in the Republic of China → 2011 in Taiwan
• 2010 in the Republic of China → 2010 in Taiwan
• 2009 in the Republic of China → 2009 in Taiwan
• 2008 in the Republic of China → 2008 in Taiwan
• 2007 in the Republic of China → 2007 in Taiwan
• 1978 in the Republic of China → 1978 in Taiwan
• 1975 in the Republic of China → 1975 in Taiwan
• 1969 in the Republic of China → 1969 in Taiwan
• 1961 in the Republic of China → 1961 in Taiwan
• 1978 in the Republic of China → 1978 in Taiwan
• 1975 in the Republic of China → 1975 in Taiwan
• 1969 in the Republic of China → 1969 in Taiwan
• 1961 in the Republic of China → 1961 in Taiwan
• 1959 in the Republic of China → 1959 in Taiwan
• 1958 in the Republic of China → 1958 in Taiwan
• 1957 in the Republic of China → 1957 in Taiwan
• 1956 in the Republic of China → 1956 in Taiwan
• 1955 in the Republic of China → 1955 in Taiwan
• 1954 in the Republic of China → 1954 in Taiwan
• 1953 in the Republic of China → 1953 in Taiwan
• 1952 in the Republic of China → 1952 in Taiwan
• 1951 in the Republic of China → 1951 in Taiwan
• 1949 in the Republic of China → 1949 in Taiwan
• 1912 in the Republic of China → 1912 in Taiwan

– Use Taiwan because this is a descriptive title without any special considerations. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 06:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support: Should be an automatic non-controversial move following on from move of Republic of China to Taiwan as a result of Requested move process. Skinsmoke (talk) 10:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. There was no Taiwan in 1912! The Republic of China was the only China then. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Necrothesp makes a good point though. Perhaps 1912 in the Republic of China could be renamed to 1912 in China, as a sort of reverse C2D with Category:1912 in China. --BDD (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Also if anyone is inclined, 2011 in the Republic of China and 2011 in Taiwan should be merged before any move takes place. Not sure how we got two of those. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 18:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

That's a tricky job with the RM in progress. But how about this... I'll merge 2011 in the Republic of China into 2011 in Taiwan. Other RM outcomes on this subject strongly suggest this RM will be successful, but if it isn't, we can worry about moving 2011 in Taiwan back to the RoC name. --BDD (talk) 18:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• Strong oppose' 1912 in the Republic of China is definitely not 1912 in Taiwan, since it was under Japanese administration at that point. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 22:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

You're not the first to notice that that article may be a different case. Do you oppose moving the other pages? --BDD (talk) 22:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Also Strong oppose 1949 in the Republic of China, which is also not 1949 in Taiwan. The ROC did not evacuate to Taiwan until December, so for most of that year, it was still on the Mainland. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• Most of these articles need to be deleted. They contain hardly any content.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose for 1949 and 1912 for obvious reasons per 65.92.180.137. However, I won't insist on either direction for anything ≥1956. GotR ^Talk 01:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I vainly hope that was meant in jest. If not please strike that snidey and irrelevant comment. It has no place here. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 04:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose moving the ones for 1912 and 1949. I find some of the rest tricky because they focus on events related to the state, which would make ROC more appropriate... but should they? I also agree that many of these need to be deleted. And Jeebus these are some obscure, selective timelines... >.< wctaiwan (talk) 02:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Changing terminology from a governmental entity to a geographical one doesn't make sense when said government's territory has changed over time. 1912 and 1949 should definitely be left alone. If consistency is important, all should be left alone. Cckerberos (talk) 05:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment This may be beyond the scope of this move request, but given the lack of content in many of these articles, I think the better solution is to merge them into China, Taiwan, Republic of China (1912-1949), etc.--Wikimedes (talk) 16:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. I have to agree with the users who brought forth the suggstion to delete or merge these set of articles. It's like several "History of..." articles spread out until unmanageable proportions versus the little content.--Cold Season (talk) 17:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support. "Taiwan" is better than "Republic of China," which I am sure confuses a lot of readers. Taipei was recognized by the U.N. as the government of China until 1971. So "Nationalist China" is an option for 1949 to 1971. But definitely "Taiwan" for 1972 to present. Kauffner (talk) 06:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose 1912 and 1949, need more thought on the rest (but 1949-1971, like Kauffner said, is different). I would say more here, but I'm trying to not insert bias... - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 18:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: I would agree that 1912 and 1949 need to be treated differently (merge into 1912 in China and 1949 in China?). However, the point that Kauffner about the period between 1949 and 1971 is a bit of a red herring. Even prior to 1971, the WP:COMMON NAME for the island state (certainly on this side of the Atlantic) was Taiwan, and Republic of China was only really used when it was necessary to explain who was occupying the seat at the United Nations. Some of us are old enough to remember the influx of goods marked Made in Taiwan! Skinsmoke (talk) 04:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: On second thoughts, looking at the content of 1949 in the Republic of China, there seems no reason at all why it shouldn't move to 1949 in Taiwan. Skinsmoke (talk) 04:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Calling Taiwan the "Republic of China" was never a mainstream usage. But "Nationalist China" was certainly a common phrase, see here or here. Of course, "Taiwan" was common as well. Kauffner (talk) 06:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: Just glancing at an archive search on Google News, it looks like the term Nationalist China was largely an American term. There are instances of its use in Australia, Canada and Scotland, but the overwhelming majority of references are from the United States. The term was used in the United Kingdom during World War II (when Nationalist China referred to the part of the mainland under Chiang Kai-shek's armies), but it looks like most British newspapers seemed to favour Taiwan after 1949. Skinsmoke (talk) 10:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose for 1912 and 1949. There was no Taiwanese state in 1912. However, both articles are stubs, and a redirect or merge may work.--Ninthabout (talk) 13:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: No disagreement on 1912, as stated earlier. However, the only entry for 1949 refers to the nationalists moving to Taiwan and setting up their capital in Taipei. That seems appropriate to move to 1949 in Taiwan. Skinsmoke (talk) 14:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  • No objections. There isn't enough content to justify an article, so I would prefer a redirect of all the 1949 and pre-1949 pages to Republic of China.--Ninthabout (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.