Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Taiwan/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Station article titles

Currently, rail station article titles are quite inconsistent and some ambiguous. I propose the following standard.

Most rail stations are TRA stations, so they should have the simplest names: X Station. Those with conflicting names with other countries or TRA stations should use X Station (Taiwan) or X Station (COUNTY). Those with conflicting names with other systems with separate articles should use X Station (SYSTEM), such as Taipei Main Station (Taoyuan Metro), Hsinchu Station (HSR). The tricky part is station complexes. I propose we stick with WP:UCRN: Zuoying Station (HSR), Taichung Station (HSR) etc. Finally is station names with the same metro names. We could use Taipei Station, but given that there is a Taipei Metro, and given what people call it in Chinese, we should use Taipei Railway Station. We should also use Kaohsiung Railway Station, Taichung Railway Station and Taoyuan Railway Station. Szqecs (talk) 15:07, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Update: I have a new proposal for the naming convention: Naming conventions (Taiwan stations), modeled after the one for the UK. Sorry for the trouble. Szqecs (talk) 08:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

If you make disambiguation pages, please fix all incoming links. If you don't intend to fix the links don't make the page. Also, please observe Wikipedia:Requested moves: if you are going to move an existing page with incoming links to create a disambiguation page, you must file a move request there and obtain consensus first. bd2412 T 05:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Recruit new editors for your project?

Happy new year! I've been building a tool to help WikiProjects identify and recruit new editors to join and contribute, and collaborated with some WikiProject organizers to make it better. We also wrote a Signpost article to introduce it to the entire Wikipedia community.

Right now, we are ready to make it available to more WikiProjects that need it, and I’d like to introduce it to your project! If you are interested in trying out our tool, feel free to sign up. Bobo.03 (talk) 19:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Please come and help...

A requested move debate at Talk:Taiwan independence movement#Requested move 12 January 2018 could benefit from your input and expertise. Please help!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  07:13, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Please use DMY date format instead of MDY

Most of the world and most of Wikipedia uses DMY (Date format by country). The official system in Taiwan isn't MDY either. Please use DMY instead of MDY.

User:Multivariable Szqecs (talk) 12:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Please see MOS:DATE. Thanks! -Multivariable (talk) 12:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I've read it and I know there is no hard rule. However, I believe using the international standard will improve readability for most people and would be beneficial. Szqecs (talk) 12:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't we use the format most widely used in English-language content in Taiwan? I believe that this is the general rule for Wikipedia language style, including for dates. As such, I'd say it should be MDY, as that is what I most frequently see, from government (Presidential Office and MOFA) to media (Taipei Times, CNA, Taiwan News and China Post).27.247.167.139 (talk) 06:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Naming conventions proposal for Taiwan stations

Hi. I am proposing a naming conventions for Taiwan stations for better consistency. Feedback welcomed at User talk:Szqecs/Naming conventions (Taiwan stations). Thanks. Szqecs (talk) 08:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Pinyin and Romanization

I was wondering why is hanyu pinyin used when there's an actual romanization?

For instance this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Legislative_Yuan have their names in Chinese, English (romanized) and pinyin. The pinyin column doesn't make sense because there's already a romanized way for non Chinese speaking people to read. It also doesn't help to identify them because their official names are not written like that.

This could be further extended to most Taiwanese articles where pinyin is added.

Asoksevil (talk) 08:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

W-G romanization does not provide sufficient information for pronunciation, and is generally not used except archaically in Taiwan, as it's basically deprecated. Pinyin is the modern standard for rendering Chinese in the Latin alphabet, includes tone marks, and is much more widely known than W-G. It adds a great deal to have a pinyin pronunciation given in the article, and also fits with other articles on subjects with Chinese names. Taiwan also uses pinyin for various place and street names, and has been moving away from W-G romanization for quite awhile. I recognize that most Taiwanese don't necessarily know pinyin, but equally many don't know W-G, and suggesting using zhuyin (the actually most common input method/pronunciation guide for hanzi in Taiwan) would be entirely absurd on the English wikipedia. siafu (talk) 07:28, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks for showing up.

First of all, let me clarify that this is not a debate of what system is better, I am not advocating that W-G is better than HP even though there are clear examples where it is superior to HP for pure phonetics sounds like letters (C,X,ZH,Q,E, etc) whereas HP is better in other areas such as the removal of apostrophes.

So again, what I am saying here is that HP does not add any added value to the article because: 1. There is already a "romanization of the name" (no transcription needed people who are not familiar with Chinese characters). If Tsai Ing-wen name is written like that, there is not point on clarifying that under HP should be Cai Yingwen. It is like if someone's personal name is written "Jacques" and you rewrite it as "Jacks" because that's how it is accepted in other forms.

That being said, let me quote your answers.

"W-G romanization does not provide sufficient information for pronunciation, and is generally not used except archaically in Taiwan, as it's basically deprecated."

People's names are not meant to provide "exact pronunciation in the English language" it is at the person's own discretion to choose what system they want to use to transliterate it as long as it is complied with the country's rules of romanization. Taiwan has a lot of flexibility here according to MOFA: https://www.boca.gov.tw/sp-natr-singleform-1.html (you can choose HP, W-G, MPS II, combination of several, etc) compared to Japan where they use Hepburn for passports but they teach Nihon Shiki. So W-G does provide sufficient information to pronounce it because you are not aiming for a 100% match in the original language but a way to render that characters into roman letters. W-G, is still the de-facto system for personal names, famous places and institutions used by the large Taiwanese population and they want to keep it as it is (with the hyphen) to distinguish themselves from the Chinese. In no way this system is "deprecated". The system will become deprecated if it is no longer used for transliterating Chinese names into Roman alphabet and the majority of the population of Taiwan decides to stop using it.

"Pinyin is the modern standard for rendering Chinese in the Latin alphabet, includes tone marks, and is much more widely known than W-G. It adds a great deal to have a pinyin pronunciation given in the article, and also fits with other articles on subjects with Chinese names"

Again, we are not debating what system is better we are just debating that having roman letters in whatever transliteration system is good enough. HP is not a flawless system and require mastery of it. Tongyong Pinyin also has tone marks and it is used by the southern part of Taiwan. HP would only fit in articles that are Simplified Chinese or China-related stuff, akin to using British spelling and words for British articles and American spelling for American or USA-related articles.

In addition, not all articles Taiwan-related articles have HP, only some of the have it (for instance, Taipei, Kaohsiung, Taichung don't have any references in the article except in the "box for transliteration") therefore it wouldn't be consistent because we have not decided whether we should"

1. Remove HP from articles and leave it where the transliteration box is 2. Add HP to all articles and the transliteration box. 3. Remove HP altogether from both sides.

I am advocating for just leaving HP in the transliteration box considering that we have added other forms of transliterating. If no transliterating is needed I would just erase all of them and leave it with the official spelling and the Chinese characters.

"Taiwan also uses pinyin for various place and street names, and has been moving away from W-G romanization for quite awhile."

Taiwan uses HP for street names, stations only in the northern part of Taiwan while the southern uses Tongyong Pinyin. Some known places have retained their W-G spelling (Hsinchu, Taipei, Taichung, Kaohsiung) while others changed like Ilan became Yilan. Other historical places had their HP name reverted to to W-G or other forms such as Danshui became Tamsui and Lugang became Lukang.

"I recognize that most Taiwanese don't necessarily know pinyin, but equally many don't know W-G, and suggesting using zhuyin (the actually most common input method/pronunciation guide for hanzi in Taiwan) would be entirely absurd on the English wikipedia"

Using ㄅㄆㄇㄈ in the Taiwanese Wikipedia could be useful to transliterate words of English for pure pronunciation purposes as it will be more accurate than using pre-defined Chinese characters, however zhuyin in English articles should have the same value as then transliterating that article names into other system like cantonese, POJ, HP, TY, etc. Asoksevil (talk) 11:38, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

HP would only fit in articles that are Simplified Chinese or China-related stuff, akin to using British spelling and words for British articles and American spelling for American or USA-related articles. This is patently untrue. Why is pinyin present in Names of Seoul then? And this is a bad comparison to WP:ENGVAR, as pinyin is the standard romanization in both the PRC and ROC, whereas Received Pronunciation isn't even enshrined as a standard anywhere in UK statutes.

HP does not add any added value to the article because: 1. There is already a "romanization of the name" (no transcription needed people who are not familiar with Chinese characters) What of those who are in the process of learning the language, then? This recurring "HP doesn't add anything to articles" argument may be valid when it pertains to the lede of the vast majority of articles on Chinese Wikipedia, but even the zhwiki entry on Taipei has HP in its {{Infobox Chinese}}. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 23:24, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

"This is patently untrue. Why is pinyin present in Names of Seoul then? And this is a bad comparison to WP:ENGVAR, as pinyin is the standard romanization in both the PRC and ROC, whereas Received Pronunciation isn't even enshrined as a standard anywhere in UK statutes."

It appears you have not thoroughly read my message and you are obviously confused on some terms.

1. Received Pronunciation, as it names says, it is an accent not a standardized way of writing, therefore it makes not sense that you are making an analogy to compare it with romanization as accent has nothing to do with writing. There is a clear difference between American spelling and British spelling which was the analogy I used when I compared it to HP and WG as both have their own way for describing the same concept. You may see that America-related articles are written in American English while British related articles are written in British English. What happens when we are talking about articles that are not related to any of them? (the case of the names of Seoul) Let's say for instance, an article talking about Spain. Should we use British spelling or American spelling? I do not know the answer but considering that Spain is in the European Union and that EU uses British English and most schools in Spain teaches British English, it makes more sense to use British English. Now, if there's a consensus among the people who write the article or a new rule from Wikipedia that specifies how it should be, then we should stick to those rules. Point here is that there isn't an agreed consensus in the Taiwan Project Wikipedia about how to proceed with romanization.

2. While HP is the official romanization method for both PRC and ROC, every city/county and subdivision of the regional administration in Taiwan has full authority and discretion to use whatever system they want, akin to Taiwanese citizens usen WG instead of HP for their names (and that involve everything, from street names, to business names, etc). In addition, Wikipedia is not affiliated to the Taiwanese government, therefore rules dictated by the aforementioned authorities should not have impact here. What it is needed is a consensus among the wiki contributors on what to do, and again, if you resort to your argument that "HP is ROCs standardized way" is it the government's way of doing it, not what the Taiwan Project of Wikipedia.

3. HP is present in that article because it is the most well-known romanization method, however one could add WG and any other method if they wanted since there's no rule that forbids them for using it.

"What of those who are in the process of learning the language, then? This recurring "HP doesn't add anything to articles" argument may be valid when it pertains to the lede of the vast majority of articles on Chinese Wikipedia, but even the zhwiki entry on Taipei has HP in its {{Infobox Chinese}}"

1. While I agree that having HP characters next to the Chinese characters can help improve learning for those who know how to use it, it is not an argument for "transcription/romanization of the name" as we are not talking about whether you are learning or not, but whether it can be read.

Let me be very clear here. I sam totally fine with HP appearing on the {{Infobox Chinese}} alongside other romanization systems but I am against having it on words that are already romanized.

--Asoksevil (talk) 17:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

RfC on manual of style and naming conventions for Taiwan-related articles

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No consensus Szqecs (talk) 05:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

---

Should Taiwan-related articles follow Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/China and Chinese-related articles or should there be separate pages? Szqecs (talk) 15:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

There are a few issues with Taiwan-related articles following the two policies:

1. The specifics of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) does not apply to Taiwan, such as administrative units and transport.
2. The title Wikipedia:Manual of Style/China and Chinese-related articles is NPOV, since manuals of style generally only deal with single nations and don't involve sovereignty disputes. Szqecs (talk) 15:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Seeking expertise

Morning. I've proposed that Zhang Xueliang be moved per the appropriate WG spelling; there's no reason a Pinyin spelling should be applied retroactively for a Taiwan-related historical figure (both of which are reasons the WG spelling should be used, as is the case for Chiang Kai-shek). I didn't expect it to be controversial as it seems straightforward, but there is some seemingly uninformed opposition. As I'm sure some of you in this project are more educated on this specific matter and more articulate than me, I'd appreciate your input at Talk:Zhang Xueliang. Thank you. 60.248.185.19 (talk) 00:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Ice Creamusume

I've started a discussion at Talk:Ice Creamusume#Merger discussion to merge Wu Si-hsuan, Chung An-chi, Tseng Te-ping, Chao Kuo-jung, Chiu Tsui-ling, Ku Yun, and 1st Zui Bang! to Ice Creamusume. These people do not have any notability beyond being in Ice Creamusume and do not need to have their own article in my opinion. 1st Zui Bang! also holds no notability with no sales and ranking information. Any input on whether the articles should be merged is appreciated! lullabying (talk) 21:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Changhua-Kaohsiung Viaduct

Has anyone traveled on this bridge? There is a question about it at Talk:Changhua-Kaohsiung_Viaduct -- GreenC 13:23, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Should Template:Chinese always display both Traditional or Simplified Chinese, or should it only display the relevant written forms based on territory

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/China_and_Chinese-related_articles#Should_the_Chinese_infobox_display_both_Simplified_and_Traditional_Chinese_for_all_Greater_China_and/or_Sinosphere-related_subjects,_or_should_it_only_display_the_relevant_ones_per_territory/area? WhisperToMe (talk) 17:04, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_China#Category:Chinese_emigrants_to_Taiwan

You are invited to this discussion. Timmyshin (talk) 19:25, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Article names and romanization

Su Jia-chyuan is currently a redirect to Su Chia-chyuan. However, the three cited English-language sources, published in Taiwan, Taipei Times, Want China Times, and Focus Taiwan News Channel, all say Su Jia-chyuan. The article is also internally inconsistent, using Su Jia-chyuan in one place and Su Chia-chyuan in the others. WP:CHINESE § Romanization isn't much help, either, suggesting that pinyin is the correct romanization – in this case, Sū Jiāquán, according to the article lede. Which is the proper name for the article? Personally, I'd go with the sources, swapping the article and redirect.

In a related matter, the article refers to Chang Wen-ing, but the cited source (TT again) uses Chang Wen-ying (for which we don't even have a redirect; note pinyin is Zhāng Wēnyīng). Should Chang Wen-ing be moved to Chang Wen-ying? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 14:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

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. Szqecs (talk) 15:26, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Official profile:Su Jia-chyuan Szqecs (talk) 15:29, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done Moved both articles, commons category trees, edited wikidata. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 07:10, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Republic of China or Taiwan

After reviewing the most recent talk archive, and the pages involved in the naming discussions, it seems that the current consensus is "Taiwan" in article names and infoboxes, with something like "Taiwan, officially Republic of China" or "Republic of China, colloquially Taiwan" used in prose where necessary. When I see changes like this, am I justified in reverting and can I cite policy or at least guidance somewhere?

What about pages like Taiwanese local elections, 2018, which are internally inconsistent in their use of the two names? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:08, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Election result symbol

In tables like Taiwanese local elections, 2018 § Results, the symbol seems to be used to indicate winners of elections/referendums, but without a tooltip or note explaining its meaning, or that of no symbol at all (which is apparently used for the loser). Shouldn't there be a note on the result column and/or tooltip on the symbol explaining it to the readers not familiar with this custom? Is the symbol necessarily red? It seems like there should also be a "loser" symbol for referendum results, which would normally be something like N, as opposed to Y for the winner. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:28, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

RfC on English variety and date format in Taiwan-related articles

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closure was requested at WP:ANRFC, and the discussion is stale. Reading through it, I adopt the "Closing statement (WIP)" that was written by @Szqecs: There is consensus to prefer no particular style. Where there is dispute, the principles of MOS:RETAIN and MOS:DATERET should be followed. No consensus on the exact implementation of these guidelines. (bolding added) That user was involved in the discussion, but their assessment is correct. If you have any questions about this close, feel free to ask me. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 04:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

---

Should Taiwan-related articles use one particular English variety and date format or retain existing styles according to MOS:RETAIN and MOS:DATERET? Szqecs (talk) 07:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Fyunck(click), User:Moxy, User:Mr. James Dimsey. Szqecs (talk) 04:52, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Closing statement (WIP)

There is consensus to prefer no particular style. Where there is dispute, the principles of MOS:RETAIN and MOS:DATERET should be followed. No consensus on the exact implementation of these guidelines.

Survey (English variety and date format)

• comment Maybe avoid a survey? As to Taiwan especially, I don't know about that, but if there is a concern with style in content within one project's purview, then editors can seek a third, international, neutral style to defuse any inherent political or social baggage. Or just reword the sentence to npov, not hard really. I haven't thought about a solution to data at infoboxes, that is often more awkward to resolve. cygnis insignis 08:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
• Follow the RETAIN principle. English is not an official language there, nor a major minority's first language in that country. Professionals tend to pick up some of it, for international trade reasons, and it's being considered as possible official language for that reason, but it's not there yet. The US has a long-standing trade-and-ally relationship, but I'm skeptical that's enough of a national tie, and we don't have any well-sourced linguistic information on the patterns of usage there and whether they lean toward British, American, or some other dialect, or have forked like Canadian. Update: It's been suggested below that a discussion at Talk:Taiwan#Spelling determined to use American English. Though wikiprojects and one-article local consensus do not WP:OWN whole categories of articles (it's not possible for WP:CONLEVEL policy reasons and because most articles are within the scope of multiple projects), the discussion is probably worth examining for any good evidence that might have been presented there. Even the person who brought this up concedes that no consensus was reached on date format. There have been many previous discussions on the lack of a connection between MOS:DATERET and MOS:RETAIN; they are separate for a reason. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:51, 8 December 2018 (UTC); revised 17:29, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Should the format used by the commonly-cited RSs be considered as evidence?
    • Taipei Times uses 2018-12-09 on their front page, but "Sun, Dec 09, 2018" in articles.
    • Focus Taiwan News Channel uses "12/08" on list pages and "2018/12/08" in articles.
    • Taiwan News uses "2018/12/08" on list pages and articles.
    • Taiwan Today uses "2018/12/09" in the common header, but "December 07, 2018" in article lists and articles.
    • Want China Times used "Sunday, December 28, 2014" in the header, but "2014-12-24" in articles.
  • None of them appear to use DMY. (cont'd below) —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:41, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
    • No, for multiple reasons: 1) journalism doesn't indicate "national style", only journalism style (e.g. the British press engage in numerous practices that do not agree with mainstream British style guides, and same goes for American news publishers and American style guides [beyond the journalism-specific AP Stylebook]); and 2) news sites are usually published with a blog/CMS software package that was most often designed in the United States and which must be manually reconfigured to use a different date format than what it shipped with, which is almost always either MDY or YMD; it's quite common for non-US news sites to not get around to it and to continue using either largely American-style MDY dating, or ISO-style YMD dating – whatever their software arrived with.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:29, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
      • Based on my experience as a U.S. commercial, international software developer, I would be happy, but surprised, to see YMD as a common default in U.S.-developed software. I also disagree with the assertion that some of the (apparently) largest news sources in the country, both government and independent, are somehow too lazy or unprofessional to set their date format to one their readers expect. We're all volunteers here, and we seem to care a great deal (which gives me hope for humanity ). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 18:56, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

        See WP:IDONTKNOWIT and spend 5 minutes looking around. Plone, for example, defaults to ISO dates and getting it to stop can be challenging [1]. WordPress and many other of the top CMS and blog packages default to MDY. I really don't care what you vague feelings you have based on what you've seen before; Ockham's razor tells us to accept the plausible explanation rather than try to imagine a wild one. The simple, obvious explanation for why various British blogs and news sites are using MDY or Y-M-D dates (often just in specific coded instances like publishing dates on stories or on datestamps of readers' comments, but not in their actual journalistic prose), in a dialect that is utterly, overwhelmingly standardized on DMY dating, is that the software is doing it and they've not gotten around (or cared) to change it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:39, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

  • (cont'd) I would suggest ISO 8601 ("2018-12-08") is probably a common "on-the-ground" format (though MOS:TIES and MOS:RETAIN govern any changes to existing articles). Should we canvass Category:Wikipedians in Taiwan for input on what is commonly used? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:41, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia does not use ISO dates in running text (or for much of anything other than sortable date columns and in tables, and it's permissible to use for for access- and archive-dates in citations, though even that is subject to frequent controversy as inconsistent and "reader-hateful"). We should default to the same DMY format as the entire rest of the world, unless we have far better evidence than news sites of a strong Taiwanese preference for MDY. There is no strong connection between date formatting and the spelling of words like "theatre/theater" and "color/colour", with the sole exception that the US prefers "theater" and "color" and also leans toward MDY dates (and not in every field; MDY is the US military standard, and is also common in banking, the sciences, and various other fields even in the US, and is completely dominant worldwide). The desire to impose DMY dating on Taiwan is extreme and dubious, and thus would require very strong evidence for us to do it. A preference for American spellings, and inconsistent formatting at Taiwanese news sites is not such evidence.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:29, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): For those of you who don't believe that DMY is used in Taiwan: [2]. Szqecs (talk) 16:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Evidence of DMY usage and 24-hour time can be found in the U.S. in the military and airports; YYYY-MM-DD is popular in various areas of computing (for reasons); neither would be appropriate for U.S. articles in general, though. I'll note the video's title starts with "2018/09/05", though the author's name ( おうしせい ) is written in Japanese Hiragana script, FWIW. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 18:31, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

U.S. military/government MDY is debatable. It was certainly DMY at various places and times. I don't think it's reasonable to discount the format used by RS's. It seems like the most reasonable way to know what consumers expect. If we were to survey people on the ground, what are their opinions based on? I would say that the media they consume (i.e. our RSs) is primarily responsible for influencing their desired format, even more now than in the past.

To be clear, I don't know the answer. I have a feeling that YYYY/MM/DD is common, maybe expected, and certainly understood (though I'd prefer the correct ISO-8601 hyphens to slashes as a reasonable solution for WP). It would be nice to get some input from Wikipedians in Taiwan. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 19:17, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• Dont care what order.....but the month should be spelled out in the infobox as its the first time a date is seen in the article and will establish the order for future dates eliminating confusion later with dates like 10/10 or 01/10. As per MOS:DATEFORMAT "Only where brevity is helpful"...abbreviations are not helpful in the lead and in fact cause confusion.--Moxy (talk) 05:06, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

  And what if I don't know which month 'December' is? The lack of knowledge of the reader is no reason to write in a certain way. The yyyy-mm-dd format is an international standard. If one does not understand it, they can always read about the topic. Szqecs (talk) 05:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

  Why go out of your way to make it hard for our readers? Always think of whats best for our readers ...dont make them run around when we have the power to solve it here and now. The norm is to spell it out no matter what order...FA examples Canada - India - Australia - Japan.--Moxy (talk) 05:55, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Why does Taipei Times, Focus Taiwan News Channel etc make it hard for their readers? For the same reason Fyunck(click) insists on not using DMY, which I guess is that using national conventions is somehow more appropriate. Szqecs (talk) 07:02, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

What?? Sun, Dec 09, 2018 Taipei-time home page spells it out even more then we do and no date at Focus Taiwan that makes the home page look outdated off the bat (bad marketing on there part.) As I said there is no good reasons not to spell out the month in the infobox no matter what order as per the norm all over.--Moxy (talk) 07:15, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually if I recall, often I see YMD in Taiwan sources but the month is represented by a Chinese character. That is very different than using a number for the month. The Taipei Times front page uses both MDY and YMD (in number format), as does Taiwan Today. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:32, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

often I see YMD in Taiwan sources but the month is represented by a Chinese character. I've never seen that before. Szqecs (talk) 07:36, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Refer to the above examples by AlanM1. Numerical YMD is used all the time. Szqecs (talk) 07:38, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Only on sites published with CMSes that shipped with that as their default output. It's completely broken evidence. Good evidence would be what the preponderance of recently-published Taiwanese books are doing – nonfiction from reputable publishers for an adult market.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:29, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: I don't know what you mean by 'CMSes'. You are absolutely right that YMD is only used outside sentences, as display. I propose that YMD be used in the same manner. Szqecs (talk) 07:56, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@Szqecs: CMS, in this context, means content management system.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:17, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Can you cite some evidence of your assertion regarding CMS default date formats, specifically as related to the media sources I identified above? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 15:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Download every major content management system and see what it does with dates. The majority of them default to either American format or YYYY-MM-DD (I know this from professional experience, but I'm not going to spend days setting up demos of them for you). This is why you'll see those date styles in various British, Indian, Australian, and other online blogs and news sites with surprising frequency, despite DMY being overwhelmingly more common in those dialects.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:20, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

• YMD dates in tables, infoboxes etc, retain English variety and date formats everywhere else. The yyyy-mm-dd format is an international standard, and used for tables and infoboxes (MOS:DATE). For everything else, retaining existing styles is neutral and hopefully avoids controversy. Szqecs (talk) 05:18, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

  I repeat: Wikipedia does not use ISO dates in running text (or for much of anything other than sortable date columns and in tables, and it's permissible to use for for access- and archive-dates in citations). See MOS:DATE.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:29, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

That is what I mean here, outside sentences. Szqecs (talk) 16:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• Big problem - There's a huge problem with the word "retain" in this RfC. This topic was discussed heavily at Talk Taiwan with American English now being the consensus there. It was shown that American English is taught in schools and that it is the preferred version of English in Taiwan. Taiwan's strong ties to the USA were also a big factor in that consensus and conforms to MOS. As far as dates, Taiwan uses YMD. The trouble with that is that at wikipedia we can only use numbers in that style format, so 2018-2-24 is the only choice. We are not supposed to use 2018 February 24. Taiwan would actually use 2018-(Taiwanese Character)-24. Taiwan occasionally uses MDY but certainly prefers YMD. I personally find it harder to quickly read YMD in number format styling, but that might just be me. The problem is the word "retain." The editor who started this RfC has systematically been erasing all American English from Taiwan-related article for at least a year.... extensively in early 2018, so retain from when?

Tennis Project usually goes with the style of English used by the player's residence/citizenship, including dates. So Andy Murray would use one version while Andre Agassi would use another. I have a hard time grasping why we would use British English in Taiwan articles at all and that would go against recent consensus at the Taiwan article. Plus we have some Taiwan articles where both styles of English are mixed up in the prose. What to do with those. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:13, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

American English now being the consensus there.

The consensus you mention is non-existent, as I vividly recall many users not agreeing with you, especially with dates. See the comment by SMcCandlish above.

Consensus was reached on American English, but I agree that dates were mixed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:19, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

the fact that some people use americanisms in asia because of exposure to american media etc does not mean we shouldn't use standard English on a Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.96.14.189 (talk) 17:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC) Szqecs (talk) 07:31, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

What? We aren't talking Asia as a whole here... we are talking Taiwan. And it does use standard English, just not British English. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

This was someone's comment. There was no consensus to go either way, and there still isn't. Szqecs (talk) 09:35, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

And it was added to the conversation by an anon IP 3 months after consensus. There was no reason to even be watching that topic anymore. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:43, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Taiwan's strong ties to the USA were also a big factor in that consensus and conforms to MOS.

It was demonstrated to you that you misinterpret the MOS.

No it was not. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:19, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes it was. "Articles on topics (e.g. Special municipality (Taiwan)) with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country (Taiwan) should generally use the date format most commonly used in that nation (Taiwan)." Special municipality (Taiwan) has no ties to the US and Taiwan most commonly uses YMD, but it is not English-speaking, so it doesn't apply at all. Szqecs (talk) 07:31, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Taiwan has very strong ties to the USA and teaches American English in its schools. It absolutely uses YMD and only occasionally MDY. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

It is not mentioned what 'strong ties' mean in MOS, but based on the way it is worded ('topic'), I'm pretty sure it means New York has strong ties with the US by being a part of it and that Donald Trump has strong ties with the US by being its president. If the fact that Taiwan is close with the US constitutes 'close ties' to you, what about Taipei Metro? None of its trains are made in the US. What ties do you see? Don't twist the meaning of guidelines for your argument. Szqecs (talk) 09:35, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

retain from when? ... we have some Taiwan articles where both styles of English are mixed up in the prose. What to do with those.

According to MOS:RETAIN and MOS:DATERET, the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety and date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article. Unless you want to continue the edit wars, I would say this is the best solution. Szqecs (talk) 07:13, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

That can certainly be done (though not preferred by me), but the mass changes you made all year long would certainly not qualify under that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:19, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): reading MOS:DATERET more carefully: If an article has evolved using predominantly one date format, this format should be used throughout the article. Taiwan has used dmy in the infobox since August 2009 as far as I can tell. Szqecs (talk) 10:04, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

On that, I believe you are correct. It won't always hold water though. If someone had created the Pete Sampras article with DMY, but after awhile someone figured out that was wrong for an American player, it would be changed to MDY and backed by the entire Tennis Project. If a random editor tried to change it back they would be reverted by many. Taiwan is a little trickier to be sure. They use YMD almost exclusively which really can't be used here per guidelines. In important items, it seems when they don't use YMD they use MDY, but as you pointed out, in things like train stations they will also use DMY. They teach American English in schools but it's not clear whether that includes the date style of American English. I will certainly be a stickler to use only American English grammar in Taiwanese related articles, but you have also shown that DMY is not as out of place with Taiwanese articles as I originally believed and I will just go with the flow of what everyone decides or MOS:DATERET. I won't be reverting dates on Taiwan articles in the future unless I happen upon one that has long used MDY and someone changed it recently to DMY.

For the record, I'm American but because of so much genealogy work I tend to write out my dates as DMY... it looks a little better and takes less typing. However if I'm only using month and day, writing or conversation, it's almost always MD (so Dec 25 or Dec 25th, not 25 Dec). Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:54, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

It seems to me that "strong ties" are inherited, unless specifically disinherited for cause. If pageA is about a place in countryB, it should naturally use the same language variety and number formats, unless there is a specific reason not to do so, like pageA being an enclave or it being about a topic (like military history) which specifically uses a different format in practice (and therefore sources). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 14:15, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

• Prefer no ENGVAR or date format—English is not an official language of Taiwan, nor does MOS:TIES apply. Any consensus reached here to use a particular style would not be binding and could not override MOS:RETAIN. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:20, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Question – Is anyone contributing to this thread actually in Taiwan or have they spent any recent time there? (Not suggesting anyone in particular is/isn't, just asking for clarification/declaration – I'm not there, and have only been there on layover) Surely, there must be Taiwanese Wikipedians? What is the right way to go about soliciting their input, if we're not getting it here? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 15:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm a native. Szqecs (talk) 15:29, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Question – If we were to find that yyyy-mm-dd (ISO 8601) is, indeed, commonly used (whatever that means), is that sufficient to override the guidance against its use in text? I've lost track of which guidelines/essays/rules/whatever take precedence. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 15:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Comment – I disagree with using different formats for displayed dates within an article (though I didn't always). Because it was acceptable to use yyyy-mm-dd (of which I'm a proponent) in cite access dates, I did so, but that seems to have fallen out of favor (or been clarified), and I can see why – it's just ugly and confusing to have different formats within the same cite or even nearby. The issue of sorting in tables is easily handled with {{Dts}} and friends. Whatever format is decided upon, it should be used consistently, IMO. (Ideally, the articles should render in the date format chosen by the reader. My projects always did it, but it was a difficult technical issue for WP in the past, IIRC. Now?) —[AlanM1(talk)]— 15:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: I've cited sources, and now add Microsoft's NLS page for Taiwan. There's apparently a similar IBM resource that is cited at Date format by country (currently a deadlink – trying to rescue it).
You've mis-read me, again. Clearly, you've had enough of the discussion. If you want to wave your hands and disregard my life experience, fine, but why is yours any more valid? Why isn't the "simplest explanation" to take the sources at face value for styling dates the way they intend, instead of trying to come up with a reason they don't show what you think they should? Even if what you're saying about some blogs not bothering to set the date format is true, that's a far cry from assuming, without evidence, that multiple, apparently important sources, do so too. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 21:57, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

How is a nearly decade-old, abandoned page from Microsoft (not an expert on language) a reliable source for anything, other than what Microsoft liked to do at the software level in Windows Vista? While that page does suggest defaulting to YMD order, it provides for eighteen date formats for Taiwan. This is the exact opposite of proof that the Taiwanese uses a consistent date format, though it is evidence that Microsoft believed in 2009 that they prefer a particular date-element order; but we know from other evidence that they do not consistently do even that. It's a moot point anyway. WP has a prescribed set of date formats (in DATEVAR), and ENGVAR only applies to English and in cases of strong national ties, nor does it apply strongly to dates; ENGVAR and DATEVAR are separate for a reason. English is not a majority language in Taiwan, and as in many other countries where that is the case, we do not adopt local date formatting from them and impose them on English Wikipedia articles that happen to be about that country or culture. Many countries do not even use the Western calendar system (other than in international commerce, where they have little choice). We do not write articles about Arab and Muslim subjects using the Islamic calendar, despite it being central to the cultures in question. Given that Taiwanese English-speakers using this site will have no trouble understanding "3 May 2007" or "May 3, 2007," there is no strong argument for imposing something confusing to everyone else using this site, like "2007/5/3" or whatever variant you want to use. PS: Whether Taiwan does on average lean toward YMD order says nothing whatsoever about the validity of my observation that CMS systems mostly ship with DMY or (occasionally or for specific kinds of output) YMD defaults; they're completely severable matters.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:14, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Information update/correction

Hello everybody, in the Did you know? section, there are a few mistakes or old information.

• There are now 16 nationwide recognized indigenous ethnic groups
• The part about renaming Ketalagan Boulevard: According to Ketagalan Boulevard it was renamed in 1996 by Chen Shui-bian when he was mayor of Taipei, he became president only in 2000. --Aryon48 (talk) 09:55, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Taiwan train station naming conventions

Please join the discussion here on the naming conventions of Taiwan's train stations. --Jiang (talk) 14:06, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

zh:购买台湾计划 (Plan to purchase taiwan)

Just letting you know that there is an interesting scoop that might or might not be worthy for transclusion to here - the plan for US to purchase Taiwan akin to the Alaskan purchase.

• [3]

137.74.150.79 (talk) 13:18, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on Minnie Chan of the South China Morning Post on the reliable sources noticeboard

There is a discussion on the reliability of Minnie Chan's reports in the South China Morning Post on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Minnie Chan's reports on the Chinese military. — Newslinger talk 09:18, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

RfC on using plain name titles for administrative divisions in Taiwan

Should article about administrative divisions in Taiwan use plain names instead of full official names (e.g. Tamsui instead of Tamsui District)? Ythlev (talk) 14:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

According to WP:CONCISE and WP:UCRN, the words "District" and "City" are unnecessary. Ythlev (talk) 14:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• Agree that plain names are preferable, except in cases where using the plain name would make it unclear which exact place is being referred to. Called by bot. -Darouet (talk) 05:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• I also agree that plain names are preferable, except in cases where using the plain name would make it unclear which exact location is meant. --BushelCandle (talk) 21:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• I agree as well, so long as there is no confusion caused. Tchouppy (talk) 13:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose if you are talking about the title of the article (not just references to it in prose). Researching random entries in this list of districts, I see that many are already dab pages (e.g., Songshan, Shimen, Shuangxi) or even articles already (e.g., Datong, Luzhou, Bali) because there are other places with the name, primarily in China. That's why the articles are mostly titled "name District" now. I don't see a bunch of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC arguments being successful. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 19:45, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't think naming an article X District is a good way to indicate that it is in Taiwan. With respect to WP:CRITERIA, it fails recognisability and precision. There is a standard regarding how to name ambiguous place names: "X, Taiwan". Ythlev (talk) 14:25, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Sounds good to me. What I opposed is the removal of the disambiguating suffix altogether, which would be impractical, given existing dab and primary articles by those names. The ", Taiwan" suffix also makes pipelinking easier with WP:PIPETRICK. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Controversy at The Lancet.

Please see this and other edits there. Input from knowledgeable editors requested. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 09:30, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

This issue has been published in Taiwan and foreign media. Taiwan medical association, which stands for all physicians in Taiwan, and the vise president of Taiwan, who stands for the official POV of Taiwan, are also included. There's by no means a minor or insignificant POV. Randykitty demands this issue to be talked about a year from now to be file-able [4] is also double-standard compared with the events in 2014 and 2010, which were added in a few months and a few days since occurred.--111.243.232.158 (talk) 15:51, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

POV-pushing(?) regarding the status of Taiwan in certain articles

There is currently a discussion at WP:AN/I regarding [5]. The thread is Possible shared account/paid editing?. 194.207.146.167 (talk) 12:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

In the news

Please review Talk:Taiwan#In the news. Is there a more general forum to mention when a nation says it will focus its will on Wikipedia? Shenme (talk) 04:26, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Question at Reference Desk about 炕, 焢, and 爌

Hi Friends, can any Hokkien speaker drop by the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language and help answer a question there about a translation? Many thanks 70.67.193.176 (talk) 01:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

RfC on limiting romanised names in Taiwan-related articles

Should the use of romanised names in Taiwan-related articles be limited in accordance with MOS:FOREIGN? Ythlev (talk) 08:06, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Some editors forget that this is English Wikipedia and sprinkle romanised names for various Chinese languages in articles such as Rail transport in Taiwan. The infobox of Taiwan used to have various romanisations for ROC. I don't see how any romanised Chinese name is relevant to an English speaker when there is an English name. Ythlev (talk) 08:12, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Should the use of romanised names in Taiwan-related articles be limited in accordance with MOS:FOREIGN? Yes, obviously. But I didn't find any example in Rail transport in Taiwan of names of Chinese languages that have different English names, so maybe you asked the wrong question. I also fail to see what romanization has to do with it. I do see a peculiar practice of giving the names of rail lines in several languages other than English; maybe that's what you wanted comments on. I think that's useful information, though just barely. MOS:FOREIGN is inapplicable to that, since the article does refer to these rail lines by the English names. It then supplies additional information about those lines: what they're called in the native languages. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:13, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

But I didn't find any example An example is Tâi-oân Thih-lō͘, which is different from Taiwan Railways Administration. It is a Chinese name written in the Latin script. I don't know how else to phrase it. I also fail to see what romanization has to do with it The issue is that non-Mandarin languages don't have standard scripts. But they can be easily represented with Chinese characters, so there is very little reason to include romanisations. Ythlev (talk) 07:07, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure we need a unified rule for this. In some contexts, several romanisations may be useful (in particular if they represent distinct languages and cultures like Hakka and Hokkien), in other contexts, they are probably not. In general, I find it useful to include the local name of things if it can be done in an unobtrusive manner (say, as in Wenshan District). In the Taiwan Rail article, having several transliterations in all of the tables is a bit overkill IMO. —Kusma (t·c) 09:57, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

"I don't see how any romanised Chinese name is relevant to an English speaker when there is an English name." It's obviously relevant, since it indicates something about the pronunciation of the name for people who do not read Chinese characters. And not everyone encounters these names in written form (ever heard of ... a movie?). And some written sources are apt to use romanised names here and there, anyway. And so on. That said, no we do not need a forest of romanizations. Usually just whatever one is most conventional for the country in question, other than on topics of broad international significance (e.g. Taiwan itself). There's a better argument to remove the Chinese characters than to delete all romanizations, frankly.  — AReaderOutThataway ^t/_c 09:45, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Taiwan Railways Administration

An editor has requested that {{subst:linked|Taiwan Railways Administration}} be moved to {{subst:#if:|{{subst:linked|{{{2}}}}}|another page}}{{subst:#switch: project |user | USER = . Since you had some involvement with 'Taiwan Railways Administration', you |#default = , which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You}} are invited to participate in [[{{subst:#if:|{{subst:#if:|#{{{section}}}|}}|{{subst:#if:|Talk:Taiwan Railways Administration#{{{section}}}|{{subst:TALKPAGENAME:Taiwan Railways Administration}}}}}}|the move discussion]]. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:09, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Category deletion discussion

Please come participate in the discussion here. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:33, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC about article format for elections in Taiwan

Which of the following formats should Taiwan election articles follow? Ythlev (talk) 00:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• A (loose): Every type of election has their own articles (presidential, legislative, referendums)
  • A-1: Nine articles for every type of local election
  • A-2: One article for all local elections (e.g. 2014 Taiwanese local elections)
  • A-3: Draw a line somewhere to divide local elections (e.g. 2018 Taiwanese municipal elections)
• B (overview and individuals): For combined elections, an overview article for the election event and articles for each type
  • B-1: More weight on individuals (e.g. 2016 Taiwan general election)
  • B-2: More weight on overview
• C (unified): Each election event has only one article
• Other

Threaded discussion

Notifying users (Number 57—Teohlouis—Vycl1994—Ramone122—CaradhrasAiguo—Geographyinitiative—Sumanuil—KylieTastic—Frietjes—Kaihsu)

I'm personally leaning towards B-2, as different election types are reported on together, and they certainly affect each other. Ythlev (talk) 00:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• The RfC is not entirely clear, and I don't think it's being held in the right place – WT:E&R would be more suitable as this is more about election articles than Taiwan. As the pings did not work, I would advise scrapping this one and developing one with a clearer scope to be hosted at WT:E&R.

For what it's worth, I think the local/municipal election articles should be merged into overview articles (British local election articles like 2019 United Kingdom local elections cover elections at several different levels of local government). I am also personally in favour of single articles on presidential/parliamentary elections held on the same day (general elections); the current articles – particularly the legislative election ones – contain far too many tables and very little prose and are impenetrable to the casual reader. Number 57 11:58, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

RFC on whether Simplified and Traditional Chinese characters count as the same name

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/China_and_Chinese-related_articles#Request_for_comment:_Do_the_traditional_and_simplified_forms_of_Chinese_count_as_the_same_name_or_different_names_in_regards_to_eligibility_of_displaying_characters? WhisperToMe (talk) 07:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Looking for input

See Talk:Soong Mei-ling#Title and name. Since there was an RM (albeit poorly attended), would appreciate some input there on what to do. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion about wikipedia "Wikipedia:Manual of Style/China and Chinese-related articles"

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/China and Chinese-related articles#Maps, which is about a wikipedia that is within the scope of this WikiProject. Ythlev (talk) 06:40, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Maps

There has been a dispute regarding Taiwan on maps of China. It inevitably led to the discussion about the status of Taiwan, so I thought I would reply here.

@Akira CA: excluding Taiwan from China indicates the support of the POV that "Taiwan is not part of China", which also contradicts NPOV. Therein lies the problem. If you think that, then you've wasted a load of everyone's time trying to reach a compromise. That idea has been rejected time and time again, on Taiwan-related articles and elsewhere. I believe in that this long time convention fits best with NPOV principle. That could have been a compromise if you didn't violate NPOV. The administrator has now ruled that Taiwan should not be included by default. I don't need to compromise with someone who doesn't. Ythlev (talk) 07:44, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ythlev: First, check Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps#RfC regarding claimed territorial boundaries of a state to get a picture of the broader consensus before posting duplicate discussion. The result of that RfC is

“ There is broader support in the discussion for the position that it is impractical to impose an encyclopedia-wide rule to circumstances that will vary substantially from place to place, and that in each case it is best to settle disputes over the appropriate boundary maps through local discussion on the talk pages of the articles affected. ”

Second, remember to @PE fans: if you want to quote directly from him.
Third, don't repeatedly cherry-pick other user's comments, as PE Fans also agrees that if there is no distinction from the mainland, inclusion of Taiwan indicates the support of the POV that "Taiwan is part of China" and contradicts NPOV. The matter is whether Taiwan can be included in maps of China if it is already made distinct (from mainland China) to reflect its disputed status, like what have been done in
File:People's Republic of China (orthographic projection).svg
The administrator apparently has read your "consensus-establishing" version and falsely believes that was a long-established MoS. -- Akira😼CA 08:25, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Just a reminder, Chinese Wikipedia — with Taiwanese using traditional Chinese being one of the largest usergroups — guidelines explicitly states that

“ Wikipedia should reflect neutral facts, meaning that the government representing China should not refer to either the Beijing government or the Taipei government ”

“ Wikipedia remains silent on whether the two sides of the Taiwan straits are one country or two countries, whether the Beijing government or the Taipei government represents the sole legitimate government of China, and whether the full name of the country of China is the Republic of China or the People's Republic of China. ”

“ When making a non-political comparison with Taiwan, the term "mainland China" should be used, and "Taiwan" should not be juxtaposed with "China" (to express "Taiwan" is not a part of "China"). ”

here zh:Wikipedia:避免地域中心#政治. This should be taken into account because even if different Wikipedia are based on different languages, NPOV is the shared pillar policy of all Wikipedias. And I'm very sure you have a decent edit history on Chinese Wikipedia. -- Akira😼CA 08:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

in each case it is best to settle disputes over the appropriate boundary maps through local discussion That does not mean there should be a discussion for every map because that is even less practical. PE Fans also agrees that I have not cherry-picked anything. I am totally aware the user wants Taiwan on the maps, however the user was also willing to compromise. I don't know when they wrote that statement but on the most recent version of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/China and Chinese-related articles by PE Fans, they wrote "Taiwan should not be included if there is no distinction from the mainland.", meaning inclusion of Taiwan was to be encouraged, but not required. Update: I just realised the sentence at the top was actually written by PE Fans, not you. So really neither of you are willing to compromise. Chinese Wikipedia That has been brought up in various move discussions of Taiwan-related articles, in no small part, Taiwan. Ythlev (talk) 09:25, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

You are jamming the terms "China" and "People's Republic of China" with Taiwan nationalist POV. Though on English Wikipedia "China" refers to PRC in most cases, such usage is ambiguous when engaging with Cross-Strait relations and should be replaced by "People's Republic of China" or "mainland China". Therefore even Taiwan can be excluded on maps sepcifically of the People's Republic of China (which I agree), it still can't be excluded completely in maps about China, since doing so completely ignored significant points of view — the Constitution of the Republic of China and Kuomingtang — and thus violates NPOV. Yes voice from Taiwan nationalism and DPP do count, so even in maps of China, Taiwan need to be coloured as disputed, but as long as the flag of the Republic of China is still flying high above the Presidential Office Building, excluding Taiwan completely from China, not merely the People's Republic of China, is a violation of WP:NPOV. -- Akira😼CA 12:19, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

To give an example, notice the difference between File:Rail map of PRC.svg, which excludes Taiwan, and File:Rail map of China.svg, which includes Taiwan. -- Akira😼CA 12:24, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Just FYI Akira_CA what ZH wikipedia chooses to do is irrelevant to what we do here on English wikipedia. You either don’t understand NPOV policy or yeah, I’m not gonna beat around the bush you just clearly don’t understand NPOV policy. If your argument requires replacing large parts of the manual of style with radically different text of your own invention its probably not a strong argument or one you should be making. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Stop projecting your lack of understrand of the NPOV policy on me, and stop personal attack when you have to reply something but don't have any evidence. I also can't see why the argument requires replacing large parts of the manual of style with radically different text of your own invention, are you making a straw man? -- Akira😼CA 05:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

On global maps such as File:World_marriage-equality_laws_(up_to_date).svg, the long time convention is that everyone compromises and marks only areas controlled by each country. On country specific maps such as File:Europe-Ukraine_(orthographic_projection;_disputed_territory).svg or File:PRC_Population_Density.svg, the long time convention is to use a third color to indicate claimed uncontrolled territories. The way of marking disputed territories as disputed territories makes it possible for people holding different political points of view to collaborate. For example, India people can collaboration with Pakistan people if Kashmir is marked as disputed, Russian people and Ukraine people can collaborate if Crimea is marked as disputed. I don't know why Ythlev keeps violating this long time convention? PE fans (talk) 16:29, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I oppose the push of the POV of either side in a territory dispute. For example, I oppose both "Taiwan is part of China" and "Taiwan is not part of China". Why did Ythlev think that I only oppose the second thing? PE fans (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

You also reverted my edits removing Taiwan, so you also rather have undistinguished Taiwan than no Taiwan. As for the convention, conventions can change. In this case, consensus requires it to. It is more than an issue about maps, but also an issue of about POV. Ythlev (talk) 17:32, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

By the way, the maps you two have referred to are mostly orthographic maps specifically about territory. Is the convention the same for other kinds of maps?

This map File:PRC_Population_Density.svg was the one discussed in the talk Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/China_and_Chinese-related_articles#Color_for_disputed_territories_(Taiwan_and_Arunachal_Pradesh). I'm not the only editor who reverted your edits removing Taiwan. I never said I prefer undistinguished Taiwan than no Taiwan.PE fans (talk) 17:44, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I said that "However, Taiwan should not be included if there is no distinction from the mainland" and wanted to include it into MoS.PE fans (talk) 17:49, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Whatever. You are not the main problem anyways. Ythlev (talk) 18:09, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Decribe other editors as problem violates WP:BATTLEGROUND don't do it again thanks. -- Akira😼CA 23:20, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm amused by how you can get offended by that. Your are in a dispute. If that's not a problem I don't know what else to call it. Ythlev (talk) 05:18, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

RFC Discussion: Definition of Houston's Southwest Chinatown?

Please see the request for comment Talk:Chinatown,_Houston#Definition(s)_of_Chinatown_used/cited_by_the_article_Request_for_Comment_(RFC) regarding how Chinatown (the Southwest one) in Houston should be defined. The Chinatown is relevant to Taiwan as several people/businesses have Taiwanese backgrounds.

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 01:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Merging Yilan line, North-link line, Taitung line or alternative

Seeking advice and guidance on merging these articles based on the merge resulting in the West Coast line (Taiwan) by @Ythlev:. See Talk:Yilan line for my initial post. Harrison Kuo (talk) 03:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

/* Revelation */ Added a link to the cited book, but I don't read Chinese so I can't find the most relevant pages. Can someone check this reference and improve the citation?

I took an interest in the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1987_Lieyu_massacre#References but would like to improve the references to corroborate the story. I added ref 7, to the book at OpenLibrary.org, but don't read Chinese.

I am asking for a volunteer to identify the most relevant diary entries by page number

I am also looking for an online archive of the "South China Morning Post" that covers May 1987. I would like to find the article (vaguely) mentioned in the second paragraph of the "Revelation" section.

Similarly a link to an archive copy of the June 5th 1987 edition of the Independence Evening Post would be very helpful.

Thanks, in advance, for any help you can offer!

Rwolf01 (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Page moves and article titles

I've noticed some articles that were moved to titles that don't agree with WP:ZHNAME and WP:COMMONNAME, namely Wen-Chung Pan and You Si-kun. I've restored them to the common names Pan Wen-chung, and Yu Shyi-kun, with the help of requested moves where necessary. Lai Ching-te and William Lai are equally WP:PRECISE, but William Lai is slightly more WP:CONCISE. This last page move could be evaluated within the context of WP:UE and WP:NCUE–the rationale on Talk:Lai Ching-te seems to invoke WP:OFFICIALNAME, which is usually secondary to WP:COMMONNAME–but I note that English language publications of the Central News Agency frequently use Lai Ching-te, while the English-language Taipei Times and Taiwan News prefers William Lai. The Taiwan News has covered Lai's use of his English name specifically, so MOS:IDENTITY may be in play here.

Seeking advice and commentary from any active editor, but courtesy ping to the movers and move requesters: @Asoksevil, Favonian, Geographyinitiative, and Ythlev: Vycl1994 (talk) 04:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Here is my perspective: there are names that we have to make up for people, and then there are the names that people use in their daily life or used historically. My goal is to make up names as little as possible and respect the names they actually used. I have a TOCFL certificate in which Pan Wen-chung writes his name as Wen-chung Pan (if I remember correctly- I will look for that certificate). At the time, I think I had also found other material with this ordering. It's not a critical thing, by I am in favor of letting people keep the names they used in their lifetime (or would have accepted or might have been referred to with in the journalism of the day) if a clear pattern can be shown rather than appointing them new names and rewriting the history to fit some sense of order or regularity. The Wade-Giles forms (etc old romanization schemes) of every China-related topic in the 19th and 20th centuries is critical to show on Wikipedia because all literature from that time would have been written with those romanization schemes, so if we ignore it now in the service of our new God Zhou Youguang, nobody will be able to find those people on Wikipedia. Imagine trying to read a book or map from 1970s USA: you'll never know who anybody is or was unless you can speak Mandarin Chinese and figure out Wade-Giles on your own. Onerous. The Hanyu Pinyin can always be given right there in the lead section if needed. Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@Vycl1994: Hello- I found my Level 5 TOCFL certificate. Mr. Pan signs his name in Chinese characters and then signs his name as "Wen Chung Pan" followed by a printed form of his name as "Wen-Chung Pan". I think I gave other sources that showed that 'Wen-Chung Pan' is the preferred ordering for the name of this person, and I think the inclusion of the dash is normative in printed form for Wade-Giles names in Taiwan. I believe in doing things on a case by case basis, and in this case I believe I have strong evidence of a preference for given name first. Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC) (modified)

In Pan's case, MOS:IDENTITY advises going by preference if a WP:COMMONNAME cannot be established. However, the WP:NCUE/WP:UE sources I've cited before, the Taipei Times, Taiwan News, and Central News Agency make it quite clear that the common name follows WP:ZHNAME. To use another example, which has not been discussed here, I don't advocate the move of Han Kuo-yu to Daniel Han, simply because English-language sources do not use it enough to justify it being the common name. In Han's case valid WP:SPS means his English name merits inclusion in the lede, as does Lai's English name. Because Lai in particular made it "unclear which [name] is most used" by reliable sources, I followed that section's advice to use the term that the person or group uses."

Several East Asian academics and sportspeople who have worked in the United States and Europe do have their article titled in western name order, because their name appears that way in reliable sources. Chien-Ming Wang and Kwang-chih Chang come to mind. Pan's notability stems from his career in Taiwan, and so it follows that WP:ZHNAME would be adhered to in independent and reliably sourced coverage of him. Vycl1994 (talk) 22:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@Vycl1994, Favonian, Geographyinitiative, and Ythlev:}}

I think foreign media plays a role in using the preferred name, however I believe foreign media should follow official media guidelines for publication (which usually means the one made by the state). As you may have noticed, major Taiwanese media (whether it is public or private) always try to use the Chinese characters next to its romanization so if you can read Chinese, then you'll read the Chinese name and if you cannot read Chinese, you'll read the romanized one. I believe this was implemented after some media misspelled some names and made it confusing for readers.

Therefore I believe there are cases where the romanized version Chinese is used exclusively and others were it isn't. For instance Lai Ching-te, official sources such as the Legislative Yuan or the https://english.president.gov.tw/, https://english.president.gov.tw/NEWS/5549, https://english.president.gov.tw/News/5237, makes it clear that that Lai Ching-te is the exclusive use of it, there's no mention of his English name. Whereas for Joseph Wu, the current minister of foreign affairs, is always as Joseph Wu and not Jaushieh Wu: https://english.president.gov.tw/News/5210, https://english.president.gov.tw/News/5475

Following these guidelines, I believe we should be using how official state media uses. Foreign media and others will follow suit. Asoksevil (talk) 14:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Lai, foreign media has not followed suit on the use of his romanized name. This illustrates why, on English Wikipedia, WP:COMMONNAME usually takes precedence over WP:OFFICIALNAME. WP:UE and WP:NCUE advise looking at English-language, independent sources. My previous posts on this page have relied on the Taipei Times, Taiwan News, and Central News Agency, so I started this post with recent foreign coverage of Lai's invitation to the National Prayer Breakfast in the United States, all of which uses William. The next two new sources are the Taiwan Development Perspectives published in 2008 by the National Policy Foundation in Taiwan. Copper's Taiwan at a Tipping Point (2017) is academic coverage that mentions the 2014 Taiwanese elections. The rest are English-language coverage of the 2019 Democratic Progressive Party primary. Even English-language sources that mention Lai's romanized name lead with his English name. Vycl1994 (talk) 18:50, 8 March 2020 (UTC) Somehow, I managed to skip Annette Lu, Jason Hu, and Frank Hsieh in this discussion up to this point. For their common use of an English name, check the reliable sources used within each article. 01:22, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@Vycl1994:

I don't believe foreign media are following government's guidance on what names to used, if that were the case there wouldn't be William Lai, only Lai Ching-te. That means that if foreign media for whatever reasons they decide to give him another name (let's say Will) and all foreign media agree on that because another one started it, would it make sense to call it Will Lai when we know for certain that the individual himself and the official publication which he had authorize has used another name? (Lai Ching-te).

To me at this point we are prioritizing what other people (foreign media) think it's "best" instead of looking what the person with decision making power wants (Lai and government of Taiwan). Therefore, I still stand by point that if the individual wants to be referred to himself as Lai Ching-te (even though he previously may have used William as more friendly/easier to remember name) we should keep using Lai Ching-te. As soon as one of the media start referring to Lai as Lai Ching-te (which they will probably do once he becomes officially Vice President) we shouldn't see William Lai anymore. Otherwise, how will foreign media substantiate their claims of using this name? Because at this point we think it has a point because foreign media uses it but we don't know what's their source for using it so as soon as this is cleared up then they will revert to Lai Ching-te as they will cite Taiwan's government's guidelines.

Asoksevil (talk) 14:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

English Wikipedia relies on WP:COMMONNAME as used the in a variety of English-language sources to establish article title, many examples of which I have provided above. Wikipedia follows the sources, Wikipedia is not the source and should not be favoring one over another, just because it is an WP:OFFICIALNAME. The first sentences of WP:OFFICIALNAME say that People often assume that, where an official name exists for the subject of a Wikipedia article, that name is ipso facto the correct title for the article, and that if the article is under another title then it should be moved. In many cases this is contrary to Wikipedia practice and policy.. It is clear at this point the move is premature because William Lai still dominates English-language sources. I've offered evidence before that Lai himself uses William, so the majority of English-language sources are matching his chosen MOS:IDENTITY. Terry Gou is another good example here, as English-language media predominately spell his surname Gou, even though the official hanyu pinyin romanization system transliterates "郭" as Guo. Wade–Giles seems to be the preferred romanization system in Taiwan, according to WP:ZHNAME, so the official Wade–Giles spelling Kuo Tai-ming is given in the infobox, without moving the article to Kuo Tai-ming. Vycl1994 (talk) 23:21, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Lastly, (I hope), please review Talk:Shinzo Abe#Requested move 2 March 2020. That section argues a similar move, which was closed on 11 April at its current and stable title. Vycl1994 (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I've discovered more moves today that I have restored to their pre-move titles. They are Saidai Tarovecahe (Wu Li-hua) and Sufin Siluko (Liao Kuo-tung). I can only stress again that WP:COMMONNAME is preferred over WP:OFFICIALNAME, as judged by reliable sources that follow WP:UE and WP:NCUE. I used Chinese Wikipedia to help me determine the common name in these cases. See zh:伍麗華 and zh:廖國棟, as opposed to Payen Talu and Kawlo Iyun Pacidal, whose articles are listed under the Chinese Wikipedia common, but transcribed names of zh:巴燕·達魯 and zh:高潞·以用·巴魕剌, respectively. In pursuit of WP:COMMONNAME, I used Chinese Wikipedia to help me name every article I created and subsequently placed into Category:Aboriginal Members of the Legislative Yuan.

2015 Bali water park explosion is not at all WP:PRECISE enough, because the primary topic is an Indonesian province, with many more places included on this large list. In addition, though Paris is transcribed as zh:巴黎 and Bali District is zh:八里區, without tonal markings, both appear in the Latin alphabet as Bali. WP:NDESC/WP:PRECISE require unambiguity, not exacting accuracy. For instance the 2014 Taipei Metro attack could also be described as the 2014 Jiangzicui metro station attack, but that title is too precise and therefore unhelpful, because people unfamiliar with the Taipei Metro cannot easily identify the location of the attack. Before 2020 ROCAF UH-60M crash was moved to an article title conforming to military aircraft incidents, it was 2020 New Taipei helicopter crash. 2020 Wulai helicopter crash would be more WP:CONCISE than the "New Taipei" title, but, again is unhelpful because readers of the English Wikipedia are unlikely to know each and every one of New Taipei's districts. Vycl1994 (talk) 01:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus Pandemic - Professor Ih-Jen_Su

I've recently created a new page for Professor Ih-Jen_Su and his work on SARS and Coronavirus, in which Taiwan is well ahead of most countries. He has been in the international news quite a bit recently. Would appreciate any thoughts on this.

In particular, I have cited some local news sources, but am relying on Google translate as I do not read or speak Mandarin. If anyone who knows the language could have a look at my citations and make sure I have translated correctly in the article it would be great. merlinVtwelve (talk) 02:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Including native scripts of author names in citation templates?

In Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#Citing_native_scripts_of_the_author's_name_and/or_title_of_a_work_in_Citation_Style_1 I inquired about the ability to include native scripts of titles of works and of authors. It turns out the citation template does allow input of native scripts of titles, but it does not have this capability for authors yet. In Chinese studies it is useful to know the hanzi of an author for a Chinese language works, so I suggested allowing the ability for native scripts of authors too. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on article scope of Democracy in China

I’ve raised a question whether the article scope of Democracy in China should include post-1949 ROC / Taiwan. See the discussion here. Guidance is welcome! — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:46, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Chen Hongming - underlying sources OK?

I was asked to review Draft:Chen Hongming. I would like this project's members for help to ensure that the underlying sources are OK.

Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 15:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe: I spot-checked three of the articles (what are currently references 1, 3, and 5) and they all seem okay: accurately reflected in the article, significant, reliable, and independent. A quick look at the other ones checks out as well. Hope that helps, sorry if it's a little too late. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 23:05, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@WhinyTheYounger: It's all fine! Even though the article's now in the mainspace it's great to get extra confirmation. Thank you for checking! WhisperToMe (talk) 23:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Presidential cats of Tsai Ing-wen (Think Think and Ah Tsai) – Help requested

An issue has arisen with the images on the article about President Tsai Ing-wen's Presidential cats at Think Think and Ah Tsai. The images on the page have been nominated for deletion, despite having a Non-Free Use Rationale for their use. I uploaded these images some time ago, however I do not have any experience with Image Deletion Nominations, and would appreciate if Project Taiwan members could add their opinions at the following links. merlinVtwelve (talk) 03:24, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion of files:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2020_July_7#File:Think_Think_and_Ah_Tsai,_Presidential_cats.jpg

The files can be viewed directly at:

Discussion at Help talk:Citation Style 1 § Taiwanese Mandarin

 You are invited to join the discussion at Help talk:Citation Style 1 § Taiwanese Mandarin. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 01:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

RFC on whether to use Pinyin or Wade Giles for Zhang Xueliang/Chang Hsueh-liang

Hi! Please see Talk:Zhang_Xueliang#RFC_for_Pinyin_vs_WG_names WhisperToMe (talk) 16:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Women in Red Asian women contest

From 1 October to 31 December, Women in Red is running a virtual contest on Asian women. In November, this will coincide with Wikipedia Asian Month. We look forward to strong participation from all those interested in improving coverage of women from Taiwan.--Ipigott (talk) 19:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Notification about an RfC on Infobox Chinese at Democratic Progressive Party

There is an RfC here about whether Democratic Progressive Party should be one of the MOS:CHINA exceptions to including both Simplified Chinese and Traditional Chinese in the {{Infobox Chinese}}. The participation of interested editors is appreciated. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Flamecrest

Hi WikiProject,

I just noticed that one of the most amazing birds, endemic to Taiwan, has an article with no photo! Flamecrest. The illustrations don't really do it justice. I don't know how common they are, but for those of you who live in Taiwan, go get a picture! :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:57, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Update to peer review page

Hi all, I've boldly updated your project's peer review page (Wikipedia:WikiProject Taiwanese politics/Peer review) by updating the instructions and archiving old reviews.

The new instructions use Wikipedia's general peer review process (WP:PR) to list peer reviews. Your project's reviews are still able to be listed on your local page too.

The benefits of this change is that review requests will get seen by a wider audience and are likely to be attended to in a more timely way (many WikiProject peer reviews remain unanswered after years). The Wikipedia peer review process is also more maintained than most WikiProjects, and this may help save time for your active members.

I've done this boldly as it seems your peer review page is pretty inactive and I am working through around 90 such similar peer review pages. Please feel free to discuss below - please ping me ({{u|Tom (LT)}}) in your response.

Cheers and hope you are well, Tom (LT) (talk) 00:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Teresa Teng

There is a discussion at Talk: Teresa Teng about whether her article should lead with the name "Deng Lijun" or "Teng Li-chun" that would benefit from input from this WikiProject. Your input is welcome. _dk (talk) 03:06, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

RfC on reliability of Taiwan News

There is a request for comment on the reliability of Taiwan News. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § RfC: Taiwan News. — Newslinger talk 05:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Pro-ROC camp (Hong Kong)#Requested move 16 February 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Pro-ROC camp (Hong Kong)#Requested move 16 February 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 18:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Commons upload of entirely different image

Hi, I reverted an image because it was entirely different than the original image on the file. This one: File:Flag_of_Hsinchu_County.svg

Please also look at this one where an entirely different image has been uploaded to Commons. File:Flag_of_Taitung_County.svg <-- I believe this should be reverted.

However, I wanted to ask for guidance in case the Taiwan project members have a reason for allowing this. As far as I know, in Commons a new image should be uploaded if it is very different. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 03:14, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

"長賜輪"/"Ever Given"

Recently "長賜輪" was removed from en:Ever Given, as it was missing an RS, and was questioned as if it was an official name. The Chinese Wikipedia uses zh:長賜輪 (zhǎng cì lún) as its pagename. Does anyone know if this is an official name, either in Chinese of the ship operator, or in Japanese of the shipowner? Japanese Wikipedia uses ja:エヴァーギヴン (evuāgivun) -- 67.70.27.246 (talk) 00:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

How to call ambassadors to the Republic of China in Taiwan?

Input will be appreciated to the ongoing discussion at Category talk:Ambassadors to Taiwan § Ambassadors to the Republic of China. Place Clichy (talk) 11:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Category naming: Taiwan or Republic of China?

This is being discussed for some categories at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 May 5#Category:Ambassadors of China to Eswatini. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

New Page Patrol

New Page Patrol needs experienced volunteers

• New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles, including Taiwan related articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
• If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions and review our instructions page. You can apply for the user-right HERE. --John B123 (talk) 12:35, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

2021 Taiwan drought draft

I've started Draft:2021 Taiwan drought and will be working on it for the next couple of days. Additions and other edits are welcome. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 16:39, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Here's the corresponding article on zh.wikipedia, in case it's useful: zh:2021年臺灣旱災缺水危機. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ganbaruby, in terms of Manual of Style, an infobox, photos and categories might be really good to improve the article. In terms of content, probably you can add sections about 'Mitigation efforts' (by the gov, NGO, public etc) and also maybe 'Future mitigation efforts' (e.g. increase capacity of current dams, planning to construct new dams, enact new regulations about water conservation etc. :) Chongkian (talk) 04:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Is there already an article on the growing number of airspace violations by the PRC?

If not, it's likely worthwhile to create one, seen the frequency and growing intensity (record levels are being broken regularly now). Interested in what others think. Morgengave (talk) 20:26, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Probably at this point of them, that information is best to be written as part of Cross-Strait relations article, maybe you can create a new subheading something like 'Borders', 'Current development' or something like that. Chongkian (talk) 01:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Using bot generated list for New articles page

Hi all, any thoughts on using a bot generated list for the new articles page? The bot generated list can be found here at User:AlexNewArtBot/TaiwanSearchResult. Several other Wikiprojects are already using its generated list for their /New articles page. (e.g. Hawaii, India). The bot only reports new articles created within the last 14 days. I've updated its rules recently to let the bot be able to capture them more accurately. This way, we would be able to capture articles that many others have created that may not be on our active members' radar, including templates, drafts, and categories. Admittedly it's not very visually easy to parse compared to what's on the page now. However, if there are no strong objections, I will make the change on Dec 3, 2021 (or sooner if there are a lot of support). Twoggo (talk) 01:47, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

The new articles page has been converted to use bot generated results as there are no opposition. Twoggo (talk) 06:08, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

That new page listing looks good. I'm ok for that ;) Chongkian (talk) 00:13, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Naming of Taiwan representative missions articles

What is the standard of naming articles of Taiwan's offices that serve as their de facto embassies? At the end of the title after the comma is it the name of the city where the office is located or the name of the country? Or should the article have "in [name of the country]" in the title? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Translation and notability help

I started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chin Chun Motor Co., Ltd. without noticing that the Chinese Wikipedia article existed. I'm seeing if someone would be able to take a look for translation and notability purposes. SL93 (talk) 06:52, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Greg Hsu#Requested move 8 May 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Greg Hsu#Requested move 8 May 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 何をしましたか？那晚安啦。 13:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi 您好, 我可以用中文討論這個'請求'嗎？謝謝您！Doedoeneoneo (talk) 09:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

我們在討論他的英文名字是什麼。我覺得沒有辦法用中文解決這個問題。 —Kusma (talk) 12:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

"Formosa" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Formosa and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 4#Formosa until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Vpab15 (talk) 21:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikimedia ESEAP Conference 2022 on November 18-20 in Sydney, Australia

The Wikimedia East, South East Asia and the Pacific also known as ESEAP will be having an in-person conference in Sydney, Australia on November 18-20. ESEAP is a regional collaborative composed of nationalities & Wikimedia affiliates of Indonesia, Taiwan, Australia, Korea, Thailand, Philippines, Malaysia, Myanmar, New Zealand, Hong Kong, and Vietnam. Membership also include nationalities and informal communities of Brunei, Cambodia, China, Japan, Laos, Macau, Mongolia, Papua New Guinea, Singapore, and Timor Leste.

The goals for the conference are:

• Strategic discussions: ESEAP Hub governance, process of moving from an informal group to more formal structure aligned with the Hubs/Minimum Criteria for Pilots
• Partnership, Tools & Skills: Outreach and community collaboration support networks; building a network of skill sets so that communities in the region can provide extra outreach support and collaboration across the region; and
• Leadership development through building networks that encourage new and wider diversity of participants to enable future growth

For more information, please visit the conference page.

Scholarship application (subsidized air fare, accommodation, and relevant fees) is ongoing. You may go to the scholarship page to know more. Deadline for scholarship application is on 24 July (Sunday) at 12:00 UTC (see your local time) .

We also call for volunteers to the following committees:

• Scholarship committee
• Program submissions review committee
• Communications committee
• Onsite & technical volunteers

For inquiries, please reach us at eseap.confwikimedia.org.au.

Thank you! --Exec8 (talk) 04:49, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Formosa (disambiguation)#Requested move 6 August 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Formosa (disambiguation)#Requested move 6 August 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vpab15 (talk) 21:49, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Taichung line#Requested move 11 September 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Taichung line#Requested move 11 September 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 04:37, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Item on talk page for Penghu should be reviewed

On the Talk page for Penghu under "Political Development of the Pescadores" there are some talking points I would deem inappropriate. While contradicting facts already agreed upon elsewhere on the page the author also makes some pretty egregious political statements that could be categorized as propaganda. I have noticed similar rhetoric had been taken down when they appear on other pages related to Taiwan. It is also unclear on who posted it and when. On top of that it includes ideas touching on conspiracy and not fact, and the entire thing ends with a threatening tone towards the public. I was told I shouldn't remove it myself but I am unsure who's attention I should bring it to for review and possible deletion. Could someone help? Please and thank you. 209.160.133.10 (talk) 18:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Reliability of Taiwan News

You might be interested in this discussion as the reliability of Taiwan News is questioned by some editors. Right now they think it's marginally reliable. 45.119.82.101 (talk) 17:52, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Addition of Taiwan to List of counties in China

An anon added Taiwan to List of counties in China here Also see Talk:List of counties in China#Taiwan. Is this addition OK? Also, the anon, 174.95.137.59 (talk · contribs) made other edits, some rather rapidly as if they had a plan, that seemed to conflate PRC and Taiwan. I undid some. The anon's IP appears to have changed. Thanks Adakiko (talk) 23:16, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:The Buddha

The page which had been Gautama Buddha was unsuccessfully proposed for a change to Siddhartha Gautama, then successfully changed to The Buddha, and is now being proposed for a change to Buddha. Your input and expertise would be most welcome at: Talk:The_Buddha#Requested_move_25_November_2022 Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Input requested

Your input is requested to help resolve a disagreement at Talk:2022 Chinese military exercises around Taiwan#Source removal. Thank you. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 19:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)