Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria/Archive5

The China-Taiwan mess

My apologies for breaking the page hierarchy - hopefully temporarily - but please bear with me. This whole mess doesn't easily fit under either deletion or addition.

After long and at times frustrating wrangling over at tfd, an interesting fact has emerged as relates to the whole China/Taiwan business. The way the stub categories are organised is as follows:

China-stub (for non-geographic stubs relating to China in general and/or mainland China in particular)
Taiwan-stub (for non-geographic stubs relating to Taiwan a.k.a. RoC)
China-geo-stub (for geographical articles about either country/area/place)

However, what has actually happened is that Taiwan-stub contains 75 articles, of which all but seven are geo-stubs. If they were in the category they should be in, we'd have a very full China-geo-stub category and an almost empty Taiwan-stub category.

I would like to propose the following (and no doubt Instantnood will suggest improvements :)

Sino-stub (for non-geographic stubs relating to either China. The HK categories would also be subcategories of this)
RoC-geo-stub (or Taiwan-geo-stub, for geographical stubs relating to you-know-where)
PRC-geo-stub (for geographical stubs relating to P.R. China )

Comments gratefully received. Grutness|^hello? 11:39, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Makes sense, but please call it Taiwan-geo-stub. The term RoC just confuses people - I hadn't even come across it before seeing Wikipedia and I doubt I'm the only one, jguk 13:13, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Jguk here. Susvolans (pigs can fly) Did you know that there is a proposal to treat dissent from naming conventions as vandalism? 13:32, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My hope was to call it Taiwan-geo-stub... other have been pushing to name it RoC, though 9see looong discussion on tfd). I'm pretty sure the term RoC is very rare except in Taiwan itself. Grutness|^hello?

I agree that they should be China and Taiwan, with Sino-stub relating to culture. --YixilTesiphon 02:54, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

I was actually about to creat a Taiwan-Geo stub category before this mess/debate blew up. I wish that I had fixed the categorizing problems and properly sort the Taiwan-related and Taiwan-Geo stubs earlier. As for the current proposal, I am not certain that social/historical events occured in Taiwan should be categorized into Sino-Stub either. The Dutch period certainly shouldn't. The Japanese rule period shouldn't either. It is even disputable that ROC rule in Taiwan is absolutely illegal and does not conform to international laws. Let alone the PRC's claim. The aboriginal people in Taiwan continued practicing head hunting even during the Japanese rule in the 20th century. Though the some Chinese people did imigrated to Taiwan, it does not make the island part of China. (Just like the Chinese imigrants in the U.S. would not turn U.S part of China either.) I think Taiwan, which is enriched with its own culture and history distinct from China, should have a Taiwan-stub in addition to the proposed Taiwan-Geo Stub. I would stand neutral if the Taiwan stubs were put under China stubs as long as we remind the readers about the political status of Taiwan in the China-stub pages. With the whole truth and nothing but truth being presented in these mess/sensitive areas, readers would make their own educated judgement on this topic.Mababa 04:02, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Given that there are only currently seven stubs in Taiwan-stub that would fill this new category, it's simply not enough to warrant a separate category. It would be a sensible idea to put a NPOV comment about the relationship between China and Taiwan at the top of the stub category, however (putting it actually in the template could be a bit messy). If you can think of a term that will cover everything which could currently be called "China P.R." and "Taiwan" nicely and simply without confusing anyone, please do so. I suggested the term "Sino" to avoid people saying "Yes it is X...no it isn't X... here have a look at these pages, they'll prove that technically it should be X even if no-one calls it X... if it's X what about the offshore islands...". Taiwan is what 99% of people around the world call it, and it would be confusing to call it anything else (as has already been shown by a small minority of people using China-geo-stub correctly - clearly very few people considered that taiwan was "China", and instead considered it Taiwan). But technically, if you were the most pedantically pedantic of pedants, you wouldn't accept that name. Similarly China... what do we mean by that term? "Mainland" China (which includes non-mainland Hainan)? The People's Republic of China? The Republic of China? Grutness|^hello?

08:28, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mainland China includes Hainan, like Continental United States does, say, Long Island. Interestingly, it excludes Alaska on the same continent. These terms are always more confusing than the words suggest. :-D — Insta ntnood 18:14 Feb 25 2005 (UTC)

Actually, in many parts of the world and for many purposes Alaska is regarded as part of the continental United States - as the article points out. It's just not part of the contiguous United States. Not that that's got much to do with Taiwan. Grutness|^hello?

Hmm.. right. It's much like something to do with Hainan. — Insta ntnood 19:12 Feb 27 2005 (UTC)

I understand there are some guidelines specifically for stub categories, such as number of articles needed, and some of the mess must have to be solved here. The controversy, however, is currently discussed on several related pages, including WP:RM, WP:TFD and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese). — Insta ntnood 18:22 Feb 25 2005 (UTC)

(response to Grutness) Thank you for your comments. With you comments, I am glad that someone understand the plight and also familiar with what is really going on in this MESS. :) However, I personally do not favor the suggestion using Sino-stub for Taiwan's non-geo related articles. Today, a pro-Chinese unification news paper in Taiwan announced the percentage of Taiwanese recognize a separate identity other than Chinese has reached a historical high. Only 14% of the Taiwanese residents thinks themself to be more a Chinese than a Taiwanese[1]. In other words, the majority of Taiwanese do not recognize themself as Chinese. Moreover, if the language/culture origin dictates the usage of the Sino-tag, then should we include Singapore (a country with 77% of Chinese population[2]) as well? Then we could have US-stubs under Britain-stub. Furthermore, the current Mandarin culture was enforced with military power brought by ROC government which arguably does not have legitimate sovereignty over Taiwan since 1945. Culture is really not a reason. The whole world celebrate Christmas or Santa Clous, and no one really thinks himself as Jewish or Turkish.

In my opinion, I think it would be a good idea to have PRC and ROC stub categories to tag political related stub articles. And we can have Taiwan and China stubs to tag non-political related articles. Of course, Taiwan can be put under the cap of China/or sino-stub if we note the political status of Taiwan in the China-Stub category and thus do not bias against the 23 million Taiwanese people. With the low number of Taiwan stubs, we should simply tag them as stubs, rather than put them under Sino-stub, which is the synonym to the China-stub. The number of Taiwna-stubs could be easily solved by scouting for short articles or creating new articles. Is it really that imperative to include these Taiwan-related stubs under China/Sino stub right now or perhaps we can simply tag them as Stub-stub and wait for 100 Taiwan-related stubs to initiate one Taiwan-stub?Mababa 04:42, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In many parts of China people consider their local identities more important than the national identity, as each of the different places has its own language, culture, cuisine and lifestyle. I would say people on Taiwan are on a further extreme, owing to Taiwan's unique location and history. Hong Kong people also possess some sort of self-recognition and consider themselves different from the people in the mainland. They won't be hestitant to say they are ethnically Chinese, but many of them would probably be reluctant to say their citizenships are Chinese (which implies they are citizens of the PRC). Possessing a local identity does not necessarily means they are untied with the rest of the nation.

For some countries ordinary stubs and geography stubs are tagged with the same template, and grouped under the same category. Perhaps the same can be done with the ROC at the time being. — Insta ntnood 19:24 Feb 26 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I have just came to realize that Taiwan-related stub contains almost >70 Taiwan-geo stubs which would almost warrant creating a Taiwan-geo-stub.Mababa 07:28, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(response to jguk and Susvolans) "Taiwan" and "Republic of China" are not the same, although geographically they overlap considerably. — Insta ntnood 06:58 Feb 25 2005 (UTC)

Just a little bit of information. For people who are interested to know why it was so controversial about all these titles, you can read the following articles or sections and get some clues: Republic of China, Political status of Taiwan, Taiwan Province, Quemoy, Matsu Islands, Lienchiang, Taiping, People's Republic of China, Mainland China, Taiwan (as an island), Political divisions of China#Disputed province, Legal status of Taiwan, History of Taiwan, History of the Republic of China, Chinese civil war, Taiwan under Dutch rule, Administrative divisions of the Republic of China#Claims over mainland China and Mongolia and Template:WTO. — Insta ntnood 06:55 Feb 25 2005 (UTC)

Foreign relations of the Republic of China, UN General Assembly Resolution 2758, Taiwan Relations Act and China and the United Nations — Insta ntnood 18:50 Feb 25 2005 (UTC)

Pratas Islands — Insta ntnood 08:59 Feb 28 2005 (UTC)

Chinese Taipei, Chinese Taipei#Other references to Taiwan and China Airlines — Insta ntnood 09:41 Mar 4 2005 (UTC)

Fukien Province — Insta ntnood 18:55 Mar 4 2005 (UTC)

If it's good enough for the BBC, it's good enough for me. [3] [4] [5] Grutness|^hello?

06:03, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hmm.. Perhaps you'll be interested to read about the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Political NPOV section and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)#A modest proposal. — Insta ntnood 08:59 Feb 28 2005 (UTC)

I have - please note the following statement on the latter of those pages: The terms "China" and "Taiwan" are perfectly acceptable in non-political contexts to designate geographic regions, e.g. "culture of Taiwan" or "languages of China". Grutness|^hello?

09:46, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Right. "Culture", and "cuisine" as well, are very good example that they're on the extreme end and almost have nothing to do with any government, and are not related to the outlying islands of the ROC which are not part of Taiwan. This is not the case for articles such as geography, demographics and economy, which involves the government's territorial claims, statistics compiled by the government, trade issues and official title used by the delegation to the WTO, respectively. Non-Taiwan-related aspects of the ROC complicated the issue. There was a debate on whether Quemoy and Matsu should be included in the article Geography of Taiwan. — Insta ntnood 12:26 Feb 28 2005 (UTC)

...geography, by definition, is the method of referring to geographic things. Such as the designation of geographic regions. Thus geography automatically qualifies under the statement I listed. Grutness|^hello?

22:41, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Regime comes and go. Taiwan last forever. Geographic Taiwan should be kept as an separate article from the Republic of China.Mababa 07:28, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(response to Grutness) You're implying Wales and territorial claims can be included in an article titled "Geography of England"? Well.. to repeat, territories under ROC's control = Taiwan plus something. :-P — Insta ntnood 11:07 Mar 1 2005 (UTC)

No. Wales and England have a long-established border agreed upon and accepted by both the British Government and the Assembly of Wales, so to do that would be as ridiculous (especially on St. David's Day!). What I'm suggesting is that if Gozo can be included under Geography of Malta, New Territories under Geography of Hong Kong, St George's under Geography of Bermuda, Rathlin under Geography of Ireland, Isla de Pinos under Geography of Cuba, Marie-Galante under Geography of Guadeloupe, the Aegadian Islands under Geography of Sicily, Juan de Nova under Geography of Madagascar, Maria Island under Geography of Saint Lucia, the Goat Islands under Geography of Jamaica, Pelican Island under Geography of Barbados, Gaspar Grande under Geography of Trinidad and Tobago, and Surtsey under Geography of Iceland - when none of these places are part of the island or islands named in the title of the article, then - in exactly the same way - Matsu can be included under Geography of Taiwan. Grutness|^hello?

12:53, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is because Taiwan is not the name of any country (well, at the time being). Cuba, Babardos, Trinidad and Tobago, etc. are all countries, while Taiwan is not. Marie-Galante and Aegadian Islands are both geographically and politically part of the département d'outre-mer of Guadeloupe and the autonomous region of Sicily respectively. Taiwan can be an island, and can be a province. The island or the province is the main component of the territories under ROC's control. But Taiwan isn't the ROC, or vice versa.

Some islands are part of Taiwan, with little dispute, to name a few, Pescadores, Orchid Island and Green Island. Some are not, e.g. Quemoy, Wuchiu, Matsu, Taiping, Pratas. Quemoy, Wuchiu and Matsu are part of Fukien province, and are on the other side of the strait, i.e. closer to the coast of the continent. All these islands are, like Taiwan, components of the territory currently under ROC's control.

Taiwan becomes the common reference to the ROC because 1) it is the main component of the territory under ROC's control, 2) many countries which have diplomatic relations with the PRC cannot call it the ROC officially, 3) the PRC considers itself the sole legitimate government of China, 4) China usually means the PRC, to many people, and 5) the pro-independence people in Taiwan favour it.

One more thing: the New Territories is not an island or a group of islands. :-D — Insta ntnood 15:09 Mar 1 2005 (UTC)

I never said they were. But if you want to restrict this extensive list to islands then I'm quite happy to make that Tsing Yi or Lantau. If you wish to restrict the argument to political control over islands not technically part of the same province, then a comparison might be that UK-geo-stub contains articles about the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, despite neither being part of the United Kingdom. Grutness|^hello?

00:01, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Topics about the Channel Islands sounds to be a much better example for comparison. But they are crown dependencies of the United Kingdom, sort of an extension of it. Some islands of the ROC are not part of Taiwan, and Taiwan doesn't have possession. Whatever the discussion here ends up, I can compromise on the title of the template. My bottom line is the texts inside the templates, and the titles of the categories. — Insta ntnood 00:25 Mar 2 2005 (UTC)

Is any consensus ever likely?

It's now been a very long week since I put this here. My original suggestion was China-geo-stub, Taiwan-geo-stub, and Sino-stub. It would be nice to split the non-geo items into two, one for each of the two "Chinas", but with only seven non-geographic items relating to Taiwan/RoC, and with a substantial overlap likely in any historical items, it seems difficult to work out how that could be achieved. It would be nice to reach some form of consensus, or at the very least a decisive majority, one way or the other as regards the geo-stubs though. Can I suggest that we purely and simply put our favoured names for two separate geo-stubs down (preferably in the form X-geo-stub), with a minimum of debate and counter-debate (that has surely gone on long enough), and see whether we're anywhere near some kind of decision? (My vote is still China-geo-stub and Taiwan-geo-stub). Grutness|^hello? 13:10, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Basically agree, and you know well about my vote, Mainland China-geo-stub and ROC-geo-stub. — Insta ntnood 15:15 Mar 1 2005 (UTC)

I am in favor of the simpler "china-geo-stub" and "taiwan-geo-stub". When you start talking in technical political terms, the stub templates become less useful because the average person has trouble using them. -Aranel ("Sarah") 16:48, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I can compromise on having redirects at template:china-geo-stub and template:taiwan-geo-stub to template:mainland china-geo-stub and template:roc-geo-stub, or the other way round, to avoid the trouble. My vote on geostubs for the texts of the templates, and the categories they link to remains "ROC.." and "Mainland China..". — Insta ntnood 18:42 Mar 1 2005 (UTC)

I can compromise on "Republic of China (Taiwan).." or "ROC (Taiwan).." too, for the texts of the templates and the titles of the categories of geostubs. — Insta ntnood 01:34 Mar 1 2005 (UTC)

Here's an idea. They are geographical region stubs, are they not? Taiwan refers to the little island. China refers to the thing part of Asia. We leave the political stuff related to either of them out of it. Okay? -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:42, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well it's in fact much more complicated than many people might think. If the PRC wasn't broken off from the ROC in 1949, there would be little doubt that Taiwan is part of China (the geographical region). And in fact Taiwan is on the outermost of the continental shelf of Asia. — Insta ntnood 09:52 Mar 5 2005 (UTC)

I'm not talking about who broke off who. I am referring to a region. A geographical region. The Wikipedia is not to involve itself in politics and should not. Should we care who rules over China? Yes, but only for factual reasons. Should we care who rules over the region that is referred as Taiwan? Yes, but only for factual reasons. Articles dealing with geographically located places on the region which is referred as Taiwan should use the Taiwan-geo-stub. Articles dealing with geographically located places on the region which is referred as China should use the China-geo-stub. Geographically located are the key words here. Places that exist in the area that is commonly referred as China should not belong in the Taiwan-geo-stub. Places that exist in the area that is commonly referred as Taiwan should not belong in the China-geo-stub. Under the definition, we place anything that is geographically defined as China under the China-geo-stub. Geographically, by this I mean nothing that is considered disputed. To use the POV term, mainland China is what I am referring to. Okay? We already know what the geographically named location of Taiwan is. Let us leave anything that is geographically defined in the area of the region that is known as Taiwan and has historically been known as Taiwan under the Taiwan-geo-stub. By changing it to the ROC-geo-stub, you are referring to a location which is ruled by a government. We are defining a geographical location by its name not its governance or political status. -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:58, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No. It was because of politics that made Taiwan (the island) being part of China the geographical region is disputed.

There are places controlled by the ROC which are not geographically part of Taiwan, for instance Quemoy, Matsu, Wuchiu and Pratas. Under the proposal below they will be tagged with Template:Taiwan-geo-stub. — Insta ntnood 14:37 Mar 5 2005 (UTC)

I personally do not see a problem if we sort Qingmon and Matsu into China-geo-stub separately from the rest of Taiwan geo stubs. If that's your point, you have my full support. Geographical articles of Taiwan should be sorted into a geographical entity, not a political entity, such as ROC. Taiwan-geo-stub could be a sub-category into China-geo stub, as long as the readers are informed about the political dispute over Taiwan and the political implication of this sub-categorization to keep this move neutral.Mababa 06:48, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I support having the stubs sorted along contributors' interests, not necessarily along geographical or political boundaries. Having subcategories could be a bad thing that stub articles would be incorrectly tagged. Hyperlinks between the categories is better than subcategorisation. — Insta ntnood 08:49 Mar 8 2005 (UTC)

I think you are suggesting having stubs sorted according to one's POV. I wonder if that is neutral though. I actually likes your idea separating Taiwna and other Quemoy and Matsu islands a lot. At least that's a guideline with a neutral basis. Or perhaps you have other better idea?Mababa 09:00, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There's no perfectly NPOV option. By sticking to contributors' areas of interests is indeed a compromise. It's pragmatic. — Insta ntnood 15:19 Mar 9 2005 (UTC)

Please note that it was you initially brought up the issue that Quemoy and Matsu islands should not be listed under Taiwan, otherwise constitutes POV. And I agreed with your opinion that they should be treated as part of China; and I even supported a solution in line with your idea. If this does not work I am not sure what else would make you happy. Please also note that you are perhaps the only one in this discussion colunm insists on removing Quemoy and Matsu islands from Taiwan category. And now you are suggesting a categorization according to one's interest, not necessarily along geographical or political boundaries, a proposal I am not sure what exactly that is. Please clarify this amorphous and mysteric proposal. If geographical and political boundaries could not be used as clear guide-lines for sorting stubs, please, lecture on us on how one's interest would serve better. According to your focus on Taiwan and also your guide-line, I propose we can merge ROC, Taiwan and HK stubs and make a new stub category called Instantnood-stub.Mababa 05:27, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Geo-stubs proposal

Hopefully the following proposal will be at least reasonably agreeable to all those involved in this argument. For the time being I intend to leave the idea of general stubs aside, and concentrate on geo-stubs. The currently existing China-stub and Taiwan-stub should suffice for now for general articles.

Unless any forthcoming objections are strong ones, I inted to make a Template:Taiwan-geo-stub, to feed into Category: Republic of China (Taiwan) geography stubs. I also intend to change the destination of the existing Template: China-geo-stub to Category: People's Republic of China geography stubs. The latter I may need help for, from admins who are more au fait such things (will a simple redirect do the trick?). Hopefully the compromise of simpler names for the templates and more precise names for the categories is acceptable to everyone.

I'll leave it a couple of days before making the changes, in order for any further points to be raised. Grutness|^hello? 08:26, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I oppose. There's no need. All this does is confuse people and add the POV that the ROC is the legitimate government over these areas, despite most nations supporting Beijing's position, jguk 09:19, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. Which are you opposing, the category name? If so, please suggest an alternative - preferably one that will keep everyone happy. (This could be tricky - I'm seriously beginning to think that, in order to keep everyone happy the only possible name would be Category:The area that likes to be known as the Republic of China but which most people call Taiwan but which also includes several small chains of islands which are controlled by this "country", "rebel region" or whatever you wish to call it but aren't geographically part of Taiwan itself geography stubs. Which is possibly a tad on the long side).

As to the POV, although I tend to agree with you, that follows Wikipedia's policy on the naming of the place, as Instantnood will no doubt point out.

Would people be happier if the category was Category: Taiwan (Republic of China) geography stubs? Grutness|^hello?

09:43, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Right. By compromising with "Republic of China (Taiwan)" I'm already not following the naming conventions. The naming conventions says "Republic of China" should be used, without Taiwan in round brackets. — Insta ntnood 09:52 Mar 5 2005 (UTC)

(response to jguk) I don't think they really are supporting Beijing's position. They have to establish diplomatic relations with Beijing, first to counter balance the Soviet Union during the cold war, and later for trade. In the beginning the ROC government under Chiang (the elder one) broke up ties with these countries, for he thought he's the legitimate one and "the legitimate one would not stand along with the illegitimate one". Later and until now it is the prerequisite set up by Beijing for all countries. — Insta ntnood 09:52 Mar 5 2005 (UTC)

(response to Grutness) Thanks. A little additional request: to have Template:ROC-geo-stub redirected to Template:Taiwan-geo-stub, and to link Template:China-geo-stub to Category:Mainland China geography stubs. Would it be possible? — Insta ntnood 09:52 Mar 5 2005 (UTC)

The whole purpose of making the stub name Taiwan-geo-stub and the category name "Republic of China (Taiwan)" was in the interests of compromise. I'm not really convinced that having a duplicate ROC-stub will help anything, especially seeing that the general geography stub is Taiwan-stub. If there is a demand for it, though, there's no reason why it couldn't also be added, redirecting to Taian-geo-stub. As to "mainland China", you have been arguing all along that we should use the official names - mainland China is not the official name. There is nothing wrong with using "People's Republic of China geography stubs" - and before you ask, yes, that would make "Category:Hong Kong geography stubs" a subcategory of it. Grutness|^hello?

05:59, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well yes, and I'll have to compromise if the consensus is made to have it directed to "Category:People's Republic of China geography stubs". However I am afraid Hong Kong-related geostubs will be be tagged wrongly. Editors who are interested in expanding Hong Kong-related articles wouldn't be sensitive to go to the parent category and to dig them out. :-P And of course under my suggestion "Category:Mainland China geography stubs" and "Category:Hong Kong geography stubs" can be linked by hyperlinks.

"Mainland China" is the official name used by the PRC government and the Hong Kong government to refer to PRC territories with Hong Kong and Macao excluded. Its usage on Wikipedia is also stated at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Political NPOV. — Insta ntnood 11:03 Mar 6 2005 (UTC)

(Re: Grutness) I'm interested in seeing how this will play out-- although, from my point of view, this is one of the items that leaving as "Mainland China" and "Taiwan" would work due to the fact that Geo-stubs are, by definition, not politics. Like Instantnood's comment directly above me, a link from RoC-Geo --> Taiwan-Geo is theoretically correct because RoC is the political entity located on the island of Taiwan-- so RoC-Geo being redirected to Taiwan-Geo works. Just my idea. Penwhale 19:46, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

IMHO stub categories should be sorted along editors areas of interests, and therefore separate categories for mainland China and Hong Kong, and geography stubs of, say, Matsu, be tagged with Template:ROC-geo-stub rather than China (meaning mainland China or the PRC). — Insta ntnood 22:10 Mar 5 2005 (UTC)

That's the whole reason this mess developed in the first place. (response to Penwhale) I too am interested to see how this will woprk out. I'm beginning to feel that it would have been easier to resolve this by leading a delegation to Taipei and Beijing to demand reunification! :) Grutness|^hello? 05:59, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Or separation will do. :-D — Insta ntnood 11:04 Mar 6 2005 (UTC)

Geo-stubs proposal 2

Sigh. Let's try again.

Category:Mainland China geography stubs and Category:Hong Kong geography stubs would both be subcategories of Category:People's Republic of China geography stubs.

Any objections?

(An alternative option would be to have Categories called Taiwan geo. stubs and Mainland China geo.stubs, and allow articles on Quemoy et al to be double stubbed to both categories, but I suspect that, from a political poitn of view, that would be worse than all the other options mentioned). Grutness|^hello? 10:02, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks very much Grutness. No objection about this proposal. But then as I have mentioned, I prefer hyperlinks between the categories to subcatagorisaion. — Insta ntnood 16:19, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your diligence in solving this mess. I would stand neutral on this proposal, with the caveat that ROC=\=Taiwan. However, I still prefer to sort Geo-stubs according to the geographical demarcations. i.e. Quemoy et al to be sorted into China instead of Taiwan. I wonder if anyone would really object this arrangement and how this could be worse than other proposal. Quemoy et al were bona fide geographically part of China( as a geographical entity). No political POV is implicated.Mababa 06:40, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I understand that, you understand that, Instantnood and the others involved in this debate understand that. But that does not guarantee that it won't offend some people. The boundaries and specifics of the two entities that call themselves China are a delicate subject (and, sadly, international news suggests it is becoming more delicate daily). I'll set to with this shortly, then. And that will only leave the non-geographical stubs... Grutness|^hello? 07:07, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Instantnood

Since this page has been mentioned in an RfC against Instantnood, I felt I should mention it here. I've already put in my two-cents worth into the discussion here, but I will sumarize my opinion: Although Instantnood has been vigorously arguing his points, nothing that I've seen justifies the filing of an RFC against him. BlankVerse ∅ 08:54, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hong-Kong-related discussion

Merge Hong Kong

There are currently 6 stub categories for Hong Kong

Politics of Hong Kong stubs 3
Hong Kong education stubs 4
Hong Kong geography stubs 59
Hong Kong people stubs 12
Hong Kong stubs 46
Hong Kong-related stubs 18

(number at end is approx number of articles)

Is there a procedure to get these merged into a more reasonable number of fewer categories? RJFJR 02:25, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

The last two should definitely be merged

I'll second that - merge 5 and 6 Courtland 04:56, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)

..., but I do believe the HK wikipedians' notice board would disagree with the other (just like the Canadian one would object to merging away Canada-bio-stub) They will simply be listed as subcategories of Hong-Kong-related stubs, I say. --Circeus 03:40, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

I know I'm biased, but the general HK stub and the HK geo stub look like the only viable ones to me. But who knows, more HK people, politics or education articles may turn up. The last two should definitely be merged though - they seem identical. is this a remnant of the old Hong-Kong-stub vs HK-stub argument? Grutness|^hello?

05:52, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How about consulting the HK board on the issue, see what they think. Getting into a war now won't help --Circeus 17:59, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Of course. The only reason I made my comments here is it's probably better if we reach a consensus or at least discuss different views we might have, so that we have some coherent point of view when we go over there. I'm certainly not suggesting we ignore their opinions! Grutness|^hello?

22:37, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Good point :). I must admit that any HK stubs I've noticed when looking though stub or substubs in the last couple of days I've tried to remember to put in the right subcategory to help out! Grutness|^hello?

5 and 6 are already merged and fixed before the discussion started here. There is a known bug with categories linked by templates. The articles in the old category wouldn't be moved and appear in the new one until they are edited and saved. — Insta ntnood 06:53 Feb 23 2005 (UTC)

I heard from ntnood that "To create a new stub template/category, normally at least 100 stub articles are needed." It seems appropriate that all the categories should be collapsed into one stub by this standard.Mababa 03:04, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Quoted from #3 of WP:WSS/Policy "Stub categories may be resorted but should not be deleted if the stub category reaches less than 100 articles.". :-D — Insta ntnood 09:39 Feb 24 2005 (UTC)