Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/China- and Chinese-related articles/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

@

There is no consensus for that application. And, by your own reasoning, your own wanton modification of hatnotes (not just maps) is itself disruptive and a violation of

WP:BRD. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language

) 22:45, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Ythlev, I see no reason not to make the consensus reached at

Horse Eye Jack (talk

) 11:09, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

@Ythlev: Against, for China-related maps excluding Taiwan violates NPOV as Taiwan officially terms Republic of China. An encyclopedia Wikipedia reflects the world as it is, not as some wish it to be, doesn't it? Though for People's Republic of China related map your claim is definitely true. Akira CA (talk) 11:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

@Akira CA: I believe your confusion is because you consider "China" and "PRC" as different entities. However, on English Wikipedia China = PRC.--DreamLinker (talk) 11:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

@DreamLinker: This indicates (including the Tian'anmen Square protesters), and Pan-Blues are marginalized on English Wikipedia (unlike on Chinese Wikipedia) and they shouldn't be. That's a serious threat to the encyclopedia's neutrality. Akira CA (talk) 12:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Pan-blue and pan-green only apply to domestic Taiwanese politics not to international opinion on the China-Taiwan conflict. I note that in terms of domestic Taiwanese politics both the DPP and the KMT agree that Taiwan/ROC has never been a part of the PRC and is not currently part of the PRC [1]. An argument that ROC and PRC are one nation is a Mainland not a pan-blue argument.

Horse Eye Jack (talk

) 20:39, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

And I have nevet state ROC and PRC are one nation. Even in international opinion the use of the term Taiwan as opposed to China is not a consensus. While the WHO and UN regard Taiwan as part of China straightforward, CIA also makes map of China which includes Taiwan. The status of the term Taiwan is highly disputed and English Wikipedia should be neutral on this, pushing either side is POV. Akira CA (talk) 00:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Then can you explain why you think "Pan-Blues are marginalized on English Wikipedia (unlike on Chinese Wikipedia)"? Pan-blues and pan-greens in general would have the exact same opinion on the conflation of Taiwan and China, both are very clear that Taiwan is not and has never been a part of the PRC. The CIA is definitely not a

Horse Eye Jack (talk

) 01:51, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

But Pan-Blues do consider Taiwan is a part of China, and the only China in the world is Republic of China, in short, ROC exists. The "consensus" on English Wikipedia that "China = PRC; Taiwan = ROC" takes the position of most supporters of Taiwan independence that the PRC is the government of "China" and that Taiwan is not part of China, defining "China" as only including Mainland China, Hong Kong, and Macau. It neglect major viewpoints—Pan-Blues and the

WP:NPOV is non-negotiable. Do I make myself clear? Akira CA (talk

) 04:55, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, need to @DreamLinker: here. Akira CA (talk) 05:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Thats not what most pan-blues believe... Please provide a source to back up your extraordinary claim. You actually have not made yourself clear, far from it.

Horse Eye Jack (talk

) 05:19, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The above nonsensical post is an instant disqualifier for speaking on any modern ROC political matters. The following aren't even from Ma Ying-jeou's presidency, but the KMT's current contiguous spell in opposition: Eric Chu: "We will achieve economic prosperity for the whole Chinese nation through cooperation between the two sides across the Taiwan Strait", 'Han Kuo-yu called on Thursday (Nov 14) for a return to a consensus with the mainland that there is only one China, but rejected Beijing's formula for Hong Kong-style "one country, two systems" unification.'. Also, from your own source: It has always believed that “one China” refers to the Republic of China (ROC) established in 1912 … which has independent sovereignty, although its jurisdiction is currently restricted to Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu, the KMT said in a written statement.. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 06:33, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

You want to see an instant disqualification? You seem to have forgotten this little incident you were involved in

Horse Eye Jack (talk

) 06:42, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

This coalition tends to favor a Chinese nationalist identity over a separate Taiwanese one from Pan-Blue Coalition.

As mentioned above, the point of disagreement between the Pan-Blue and the Pan-Green camps has been their different positions on the issue of unification with China versus Taiwan independence. from The Taiwan Voter, Christopher H. Achen; T. Y. Wang.

President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has said mainland China is the territory of the Republic of China (ROC) in an interview with a Japanese magazine, the first time Ma has made the official claim since he took office in May. Ma said under the ROC Constitution, the ROC 'definitely is an independent sovereign state, and mainland [sic] China is also part of the territory of the ROC.' from Taipei Times.

As indicated earlier, during its authoritarian rule of the island, one of the major tasks of the KMT government was to foster Chinese consciousness and its accompanying Chinese identity so that local residents would accept the view that China was their motherland. Throughout the several decades after 1949, the leaders of the KMT upheld the principle of “one China,” of which Taiwan was considered to be a part. Even after Lee Teng-hui became president, he was careful not to challenge the One China principle for fear of offending the party’s old guard. from The Taiwan Voter, Christopher H. Achen; T. Y. Wang.

Do basic researches next time before commenting on things you unfamiliar with. Akira CA (talk) 06:18, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

You should have finished that Ma piece... You missed "The ultimate goal is to end hostility with Beijing, sign a peace agreement with China and march down the road of sustainable peace and prosperity, he said.” None of those sources make the point you want them to, the ones that come close only do so in a historical context. Only a tiny minority of pan-blue supporters reject the existence of the PRC, as your own sources indicate most accept that there are currently two countries even if in the future many would like those two countries to unify. There is no need to talk down to other editors, there are no experts on wikipedia. We are all equal.

Horse Eye Jack (talk

) 06:38, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

The ultimate goal in that 8 Oct 2008 Taipei Times article is clearly not a direct quote of Ma, and the deliberate sign a peace agreement with China phrasing is a by-product of the Taipei Times, itself cited by scholarly WP:RS as being pan-Green. CaradhrasAiguo ([[User talk:|leave language]]) 06:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@

You’re entirely right we are, sorry about that. On something like

Horse Eye Jack (talk

) 07:32, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for off the track. Yes despite my concerns on the neutrality of "PRC = China", maps are best to exclude Taiwan in articles about PRC. If you don't have time just put "Map of PRC + Taiwan" in the captions to show distincitons. Removing the map is definitely not a good way, and that's why I oppose removing this as it's really informative. Akira CA (talk) 07:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Break

As I mentioned, on English Wikipedia China = PRC and Taiwan = ROC. Government of China = Government of PRC. Personally I do have some concerns that it reduces the nuances. However, it seems that the consensus for this has been established for quite a while because most English media use China to mean PRC and Taiwan to mean ROC. While I don't necessarily agree, based on the current English Wikipedia rules (reliable sources in English media) I also find it hard to argue against it.--DreamLinker (talk) 13:26, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Admittedly I agree, though I think "media usage" is not a valid way to defend such view. (consider

Overseas censorship of Chinese issues) Akira CA (talk

) 13:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

@

article title policies were to apply, with absolutely no bearing on article content. They did not even endorse an en masse move of all applicable article titles to the shortened versions, so, unfortunately, your understanding of site policy implications is incorrect. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language

) 16:18, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

So in your mind the consensus is to be inconsistent and use Taiwan for the main article but ROC for others? Not according to this, this, or this. Ythlev (talk) 16:58, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

The early 2012 move did not give endorsement to the moves of articles such as

WP:NC-ZH has unassailable first order of precedence. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language

) 17:15, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

@

WP:UNDUE: "articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." Ythlev (talk

) 13:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

"

democrats, and Pan-Blues are all minorities" is a really extraordinary claim, even DPP rules under the name of Republic of China. Otherwise "Taiwan, officially the Republic of China (ROC)" won't be the first sentence of Taiwan. Akira CA (talk

) 13:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Pan-Blues are minorities is a really extraordinary claim In the whole world, yes, they are minorities. DPP rules under the name of Republic of China. The ROC rules the free area regardless of which party and its publications do not include the mainland. We are not talking about names. If you like, I'm totally fine with replacing all instances of "China" with PRC, then removing Taiwan from maps. Ythlev (talk) 13:56, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

This blanket approach will not work, as articles on a geo-cultural context (i.e. markedly apolitical) will be full of maps such as these (prepared by the CIA, no less!). CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:18, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Ask any student of

Horse Eye Jack (talk

) 05:35, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

If a map is absolutely necessary and a CIA map is the only one available, then maybe. That's not the case. Including Taiwan in user-created maps like File:PRC Population Density.svg serve no purpose except propaganda. Ythlev (talk) 06:58, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Color for disputed territories (Taiwan and Arunachal Pradesh)

This is a discussion on the colors of maps. The current version of the Chinese map File:CHN_orthographic.svg used dark green to mark land controlled by the People's Republic of China, and light green to mark land claimed but not controlled by People's Republic of China. This convention has been used for many other maps, not only for China-related articles. In a recent edit in the file File:PRC_Population_Density.svg, Ythlev challenged this long time convention and moreover, he wanted to write his point of view in a Manual of Style section. Since any substantive edit to Manual of Style should reflect a broad consensus, I would hope to hear the opinions about which Manual of Style of maps should we use: (1) dark green to mark land controlled by the People's Republic of China, and light green to mark land claimed but not controlled by People's Republic of China, no color or not shown for other land. (2) dark green to mark land controlled by the People's Republic of China, no color or not shown for other land? I would like to invite all of people involved in the file

Personally I prefer the dark green/light green/white decomposition, because marking the disputed territory as disputed is more neutral.PE fans (talk) 20:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I'm also one that prefers the dark green/light green/white decomposition. These territorial disputes remain unresolved for either side, and the map should reflect this for the sake of neutrality, as with other maps on Wikipedia. LittleCuteSuit (talk) 20:33, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

This isn't a break and then a tangent from the old discussion its an entirely new discussion, please change the heading to reflect that. In general I like the dark green/light green/white decomposition but I don’t find such maps to be appropriate for the vast majority of uses on wikipedia. We should reflect the way the world is in terms of facts on the ground not the way some people think it should be.

Horse Eye Jack (talk

) 20:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I've changed the title to "Color for disputed territories (Taiwan and Arunachal Pradesh)" because whether Taiwan should be included in a map of PRC or not is the issue discussed by the section "Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macau". If most people suggest the dark green/light green/white decompositionm then this section should be rewritten as "In general, Taiwan should be discriminately included in content related to the People's Republic of China, such as in statistics and maps". If most people suggest the dark green/white decomposition, then the sentence "In general, Taiwan should not be indiscriminately included in content related to the People's Republic of China, such as in statistics and maps" can be kept. Let's wait for more peoples' opinions. PE fans (talk) 23:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Disputed territories in general are inappropriate in maps not meant to illustrate a country’s view of itself such as on that country's main page, e.g.

Horse Eye Jack (talk

) 00:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I see. So you prefer dark green/light green/white decomposition for articles like China and prefer dark green/white decomposition for articles like File:PRC_Population_Density.svg.PE fans (talk) 00:22, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

As its PRC specific and wouldnt ever be used on anything besides

Horse Eye Jack (talk

) 00:29, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

This discussion is about China and Chinese-related articles and the issue that whether such articles should include claimed territories of China. The same rule applies to whether a Ukraine-related article should include Crimea, whether a Syria-related article should include the territories controlled by ISIL, but is not applicable to regional or global maps. PE fans (talk) 01:09, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Isn't that what I said?

Horse Eye Jack (talk

) 01:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Now let's wait for other people's opinionsPE fans (talk) 01:30, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Just to be clear this sort of map would not be appropriate on a Chinese related page, just China related ones and then only on *some* China related pages (those which are specifically about the PRC and not say Chinese culture or folk religion). In *all cases* it would still be *preferable* to use a map which doesn't conflate China and Taiwan.

Horse Eye Jack (talk

) 01:37, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Personally I prefer the dark green(Mainland and HK and Macao)/medium green(Taiwan)/light green(South Tibet or most of Arunachal Pradesh, Senkaku, and etc)/white decomposition, because PRC and ROC nominally claim that China is a single gountry. --Sharouser (talk) 05:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand, both sides claim to be the only legitimate "China" but only the PRC claims that both sides are part of a *single* country. The Taiwanese are clear that they see two separate countries. See[2].

Horse Eye Jack (talk

) 15:19, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

No, you are either conflating polities with the vague notion of "country" or intentionally mis-representing that source yet again. Direct quote from that Taipei Times (pro-pan-Green) source: It has always believed that “one China” refers to the Republic of China (ROC) established in 1912 … which has independent sovereignty, although its jurisdiction is currently restricted to Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu, the KMT said in a written statement.. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 03:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, exactly what it says... For the KMT “one China” refers to the ROC not a China which is a combination of the ROC and the PRC. Independent sovereignty very clearly means not part of the same country.

Horse Eye Jack (talk

) 03:30, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea of which "Manual of style" you are talking about as there is no link. I edited File:India_(orthographic_projection).svg on request and in that kind of work I use the conventions that we (graphic workers) try to stick to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Maps/Conventions and for that specific type of map (ortographic) it's Wikipedia:WikiProject_Maps/Conventions#Orthographic_maps. That is what is preferred to be used with any country regarding Subject's area (country, province, state, etc.), Other areas part of the same political unity, Claimed uncontrolled areas, Outside area, etc.

So for me it's clear, use the conventions we have. --Goran tek-en (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

The main reason for this discussion is because

WP:Manual of Style/China and Chinese-related articles to ask for the removal for claimed uncontrolled areas of PRC in other maps. He said it was a "consensus", but I think a broader consensus need to be achieved about this issue. PE fans (talk

) 19:14, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

So to me this is really two separate issues.

• Different opinions regarding claimed uncontrolled areas. This can't be an issue just in that part of the world so wikipedia must have some kind of convention how to deal with this, so stick to that. If a user is removing claimed uncontrolled areas and the convention is to show them, that user should be informed of that and handled according to that. One person can't be considered to have "consensus" when it comes to such things, in my opinion.
• On this page
  WP:Manual of Style/China and Chinese-related articles
  I can't see anything regarding different colors in maps so then the convention I linked to above should be used here also.
  

If for some strange reason you would put in something about colors in maps (in the manual) and it would be consensus about that it would probably create problems. I as a graphic worker can't be aware of all those different manuals if I'm not informed of them when I work on a request, and most requesters might not know about them or will forget to inform about them. So stick to the overall conventions we have. --Goran tek-en (talk) 20:17, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

In the section Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macau, Ythlev proposed a "consensus" that "Taiwan should not be indiscriminately included in content related to the People's Republic of China, such as in statistics and maps" and his understanding of this sentence is to remove Taiwan and Arunachal Pradesh from the PRC maps. However, it seems that the convention is to include Taiwan and Arunachal Pradesh discriminately (i.e. use a different color such as light green) in PRC maps. I will count your opinion as supporting the current conventions dark green/light green/white decompositionPE fans (talk) 22:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I see no disagreement between what Ythlev is asserting is consensus and the dark green/light green/white decomposition... The word “indiscriminately” is key here.

Horse Eye Jack (talk

) 22:54, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

There are three status: (1) discriminately included (dark green/light green/white), (2) indiscriminately included (dark green/dark green/white), (3) not included (dark green/white/white). Ythlev said that "not indiscriminately included", i.e. (1)=(3)>(2) but his understanding of this sentence is (3)>(1) as he did in File:PRC_Population_Density.svg. I doubt Ythlev's statement that (3)>(1) and ask a broader consensus to compare (1) and (3). If more people prefer (1) than (3), then clearly the sentence "should be discriminately included" is better than "should not be indiscriminately included". If more people prefer (3) than (1), then "should not be indiscriminately included" can be understood as a broader consensus.PE fans (talk) 03:38, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh yeah, we have completely different interpretations of what “indiscriminately” means in that sentence. The sentence is "In general, Taiwan should not be indiscriminately included in content related to the People's Republic of China, such as in statistics and maps” so we’re not talking about discriminating it on the map but about indiscriminately including maps with do discriminate when its not directly relevant to the topic. Do you understand?

Horse Eye Jack (talk

) 03:45, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

The word "indiscriminately" has three meanings: [3]. My understanding is the third one "not kept apart or divided" but maybe your understanding is the second one "thoughtless"?PE fans (talk) 04:07, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I’m a native english speaker, which meaning is being used here isn’t ambiguous to me.

Horse Eye Jack (talk

) 04:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Anyway, reaching a broad consensus on supporting either (1) or (3) is better than only opposing (2). It's better to have a "what we should be" than "what we shouldn't do" in the manual of style article.PE fans (talk) 04:14, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I don’t see a larger issue here beyond your misunderstanding about what the the word indiscriminately meant in context, there seems to already be clear consensus.

Horse Eye Jack (talk

) 04:21, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

as he did in File:PRC_Population_Density.svg If you want to change it from (3) to (1) I won't stop you, but I won't personally be doing the different shade BS. Taiwan is not part of the PRC and including it in such maps serve no purpose except propaganda. Ythlev (talk) 15:28, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Invoke the coloring scheme proposed by Sharouser. It seems to be a farce logically to use the same schematic for Taiwan, controlled by one of the rival governments in the One China dispute, as Arunachal Pradesh, Senkaku, which are controlled by India, Japan, etc., which are not central to said dispute. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 03:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

All territory outside of the control of the government of the People's Republic of China is just that: outside of the control of the People's Republic of China. No special colors are needed- everything they don't control but claim in Beijing is just that: "claimed". "Claimed" is one color, regardless of the rationalization behind the claim. Do we need a special third color for the Senkaku Islands which are both claimed by Taiwan but also administered by Japan? That's a kind of half-way between the India-controlled areas and Taiwan (ROC). No- I think no rainbow of colors is needed: one color for territories claimed but not administered is sufficient. We don't need to push the One-China Policy here. Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

All claims over all territories that are not actually administered by a particular government will inherently be different in particulars of the claim, but they are the same in that they involve a territory outside the control of the government making the claim. These two claims are just sovereignty claims that are not realized in actual practice. The PRC has never ever controlled these areas. Same color for all claims. Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:14, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

It has been a week since the first discussion. Many people have expressed their opinions. It seems that a majority of people support the dark green/light green/white decomposition. Accordingly, I will change the sentence into "In general, Taiwan and Arunachal Pradesh should be discriminately included in content related to the People's Republic of China, such as in statistics and maps" in the main page. "In general" means that sometimes there may be exceptions, but this applies to most articles. "Taiwan and Arunachal Pradesh" means that we treat Taiwan and Arunachal Pradesh equally. "discriminately" means that we need a clear distinction between the area controlled by PRC and the claimed uncontrolled area, "included" means that the disputed territories should be included rather than excluded, "content related to People's Republic of China" means that the guideline is applicable to PRC-related articles, or China-related articles when "China" is understood as PRC (such as File:PRC_Population_Density.svg), but is not applicable to articles related to Chinese language or Chinese folk religion, and is not applicable to global articles such as File:World marriage-equality laws (up to date).svg, "statistics" means that we include the data of Taiwan into articles like Provinces of China, but a clear distinction is important, and moreover, we can only add up the numbers of mainland China, "maps" means that we include Taiwan and Arunachal Pradesh into a map of PRC using a color different with mainland China. PE fans (talk) 02:42, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

There is no consensus for that change, especially as the use of discriminately is just plain odd. As I have stated before I think the only issue here is your less than fluent level of English and your insistence on reading indiscriminately out of context. There has also been almost no discussion on this point: ""Taiwan and Arunachal Pradesh" means that we treat Taiwan and Arunachal Pradesh equally.” so its kind of odd to bring it up as supposed consensus.

Horse Eye Jack (talk

) 03:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

If you want to request an uninvolved editor close the discussion or something like that you can, but please do not unilaterally declare a consensus.

Horse Eye Jack (talk

) 03:22, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Currently, more than 2/3 editors support that "Taiwan and Arunachal Pradesh should be included in PRC-related articles using a different color" and I would hope that the uninvolved editor @Sdkb: can close the discussion about that part.

As for the topic that "we treat Taiwan and Arunachal Pradesh equally". Do you want to discuss more about this with @Sharouser, CaradhrasAiguo, Geographyinitiative, and Goran tek-en:? If yes, you can open a subsection titled "Should Taiwan and Arunachal Pradesh be treated equally?" and continue the discussion there. PE fans (talk) 04:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

You have comprehension problems. As far as I can tell, you are the only one who thinks that. Ythlev (talk) 05:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Ythlev, the whole lack of basic reading comprehension is getting weird.

Horse Eye Jack (talk

) 16:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Here's another map used on the Provinces of China page:Geographyinitiative (talk) 07:46, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Consensus

@

"discriminately included” is literally gibberish in english. The consensus isnt "In general, Taiwan should not be indiscriminately included in maps of the People's Republic of China (RfC).” it is “In general, Taiwan should not be indiscriminately included as part of China on maps. On maps which are meant to show the PRC’s POV then Taiwan may be shaded differently.” or "In general, Taiwan should not be indiscriminately included in content related to the People's Republic of China, such as in statistics and maps (RfC). Hong Kong and Macau can be included in such content, but distinction from the mainland is advised.” How on earth did you come to your understanding of consensus?

Horse Eye Jack (talk

) 04:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

And yet I have never mentioned "discriminately" or whatsoever. The consensus certainly is "In general, Taiwan should not be indiscriminately included in maps of the People's Republic of China (RfC).", because the title of this discussion is simply Maps, while the RfC is on map of infected cases. "Hong Kong and Macau" are rarely mentioned in the whole thread and I have no idea why they are there. How on earth did you come to your understanding of "basic reading comprehension", or are you simply reverting my edit because it is my edit?

You misunderstand, its only acceptable (but not preferable) to include Taiwan in maps which are explicitly of the PRC... This discussion was originally about about broader maps such as regional or global maps, the consensus is that on those maps it is inappropriate to conflate China and Taiwan.

Horse Eye Jack (talk

) 04:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

And what I've done is adding "However, a use of different shade is acceptable.", you really seems to be reverting my edit because it is my edit. Akira CA (talk) 04:35, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I will reword it. "related to PRC" is really vague too. Akira CA (talk) 04:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I reverted your edit because you falsely claimed consensus on an unclosed and unfinished discussion... You’re focusing on the wrong sentence, the first sentence grossly misstates consensus. Please dont continue to imply that there is anything personal going on here.

Horse Eye Jack (talk

) 04:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

However the Hong Kong part still shouldn't be there, and the jump from map to content also misstates the consensus (which I corrected in my edits). Akira CA (talk) 04:45, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

HK was a part of the original consensus

Horse Eye Jack (talk

) 04:50, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@

Horse Eye Jack (talk

) 06:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@

Horse Eye Jack:The consensus was replacing with a map of mainland China so it is kind of implied, however feel free to launch another discussion if you want. Though I might not engage in it as I think that's trivial... Akira CA (talk

) 06:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, how about the current version on Taiwan? I've removed Arunachal Pradesh for now though I think they are similar. I might not be engaged in the discussion around Arunachal Pradesh (if any) too. Akira CA (talk) 06:29, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I support the current version of Akira CA. There are two discussions. The first discussion is about regional or global maps such as the only two maps

People's Republic of China and the consensus is to include Taiwan using a different shade. The current version of Akira CA reflects not only the first consensus, but also the second consensus.PE fans (talk

) 14:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Also the discussion on color is entirely separate from the original discussion, there are two discussions and you appear to be trying to combine them. Also would you mind explaining your edit summaries? "Indeed, no censensus has been reached yet” and "There is a consensus, and it is certainly this one.” appear to pretty directly contradict each other.  

Horse Eye Jack (talk

) 04:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand what you means, isn't supporting "colouring Taiwan with light green" means "use of a different shade to indicate Taiwan is acceptable"? My first edit summaries is an error, and I'm now referring to the latter one. Akira CA (talk) 04:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

As mentioned by Horse Eye Jack, there are two discussions. This first discussion is about regional or global maps and the first consensus is that "In general, Taiwan should not be indiscriminately included in maps of the People's Republic of China (RfC) in regional or global articles". The second discussion is about PRC related articles such as File:CHN_orthographic.svg and the second consensus (I mean supported by most editors but not all editors) is that "However, inclusion using a different shade is recommended in PRC related articles." Is it wrong? PE fans (talk) 04:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I think less PRC related (its such a vague category) and more maps which are intended to show the PRC’s POV, but yes I agree thats pretty much consensus.

Horse Eye Jack (talk

) 04:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Got it. I make the wording more explicit this time (as the originial sentence only say "related to the People's Republic of China"). Akira CA (talk) 04:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

This version is quite nice. Thanks! PE fans (talk) 05:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Akira CA: Your latest version does not reflect consensus at all. That RfC resulted in Taiwan being removed from such maps, which contradicts "should be illustrated separately" as you wrote. Ythlev (talk) 19:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ythlev: again, both the discussion here and the RfC is on "maps" only, please do not edit it to the broader "content" please. How about the current version? I make the distinction between PRC maps and regional & global maps again according to Horse Eye Jack and PE Fans. They are indeed different discussions...Akira CA (talk) 02:26, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

@

By the way, HK and Macau were mentioned in that RfC. What I wrote was in line with the results that There is slightly greater preference for the map of mainland China, though supporters of replacement generally state they are fine with either. Ythlev (talk) 06:00, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Rules is determined by consensus, not by what consensus implies. In fact, the RfC implies nothing and all your words are simply

WP:OR. PRC maps and regional & global maps is suggested by Horse Eye Jack, and supported by PE fans and myself. As far as I can tell, you are the only one who cannot understand that. Akira CA (talk

) 06:09, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

As for HK and Macau, they are merely mentioned but not well-discussed in the RfC, where there was consensus to list Taiwan separately but no consensus for listing Hong Kong and Macao separately. Nobody has ever "recommended" shading Hong Kong and Macau differently in the thread, where is map is simply replaced by a mainland China one. I'm very puzzled that you keep imposing non-existent ridiculous implications on the RfC. Akira CA (talk) 06:16, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:OR? Are you serious? All policies and guidelines are OR. No OR refers to content, not policies and guidelines. Rules is determined by consensus, not by what consensus implies. We're establishing consensus right now. The consensus is that "a map that lumps the PRC and Taiwan together violates NPOV". If an RfC is made for lists, you think the results would be different? you are the only one who cannot understand that. So I am 1 in 4. Does it make sense to write something that a quarter of editors can't understand and would ignore? That's what

WP:CREEP addresses. Ythlev (talk

) 06:24, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

imposing non-existent ridiculous implications on the RfC I am establishing consensus based on results of an RfC in which many users participate. PE fans is establishing from scratch and only three users agreed so far. And yes, I am extending the discussion to beyond maps because there can't be an RfC for everything (I mean, how many users are here?). The existing attitudes towards issues should be respected. Ythlev (talk) 06:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Indeed you are not establishing consensus, — that splendid term is far from what you've done. You're indeed assuming there is a consensus (a consensus which only you agreed) and adding it to the community guidelines with 0 discussion. Akira CA (talk) 06:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I have not. "Bold changes to policies and guidelines are sometimes the best way to allow the encyclopedia to adapt and improve". So I ask you now, what problem do you have for extending it to lists and to HK and Macau? Ythlev (talk) 07:24, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Did you see the red box when you are editing...While you may be bold in making minor changes to this page, consider discussing any substantive changes first on the page's talk page. Editors of policy and guideline pages are strongly encouraged to follow WP:1RR or WP:0RR standards. Adding a brand new guideline is definitely not minor changes. Akira CA (talk) 07:16, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Consider. I have raised discussions on other issues better only to get no responses. That's why best way to allow the encyclopedia to improve is to just go with it. My edits have lasted longer than yours. I certainly haven't reverted your edit twice. You still haven't answered my question. Ythlev (talk) 07:24, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

To answer your question, Yes, you have problem of not reflecting the consensus when making a substantive edit to the page, and "Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus."

This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.

Akira CA (talk) 09:05, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

The whole discussion and the RfC are under the name of Maps. Nobody has ever mentioned lists and other content except you, so you are essentially establishing consensus with yourself only... Community guidelines are made from consensus, how on earth did you come to your understanding of consensus? I also make the wording explicit for you to understand without comprehension problems. Akira CA (talk) 06:28, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, to achieve consensus editors need to cooperate. Keep reverting everything, including my uncontroversial improvements (orthographic map one and "Taiwan can be included", which you admitted that's as far as consensus goes) is far from that. Akira CA (talk) 06:33, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the ideas themselves I disagree with inclusion and wording, and I've updated it. Ythlev (talk) 07:08, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Let's put down mice for a while and discuss below for the current version([4]), I hope to end this thread with a stable version :) Akira CA (talk) 07:22, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ythlev: Because of the RfC is not about "maps specifically about the People's Republic of China" (as Horse Eye Jack stated) but only regional & global maps, It might not be a good idea to use the main template. The colour discussion and the RfC are seperate and accounts for each of the two sentence. Akira CA (talk) 08:08, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Summary

@

The wording is problematic. "Taiwan can be included" as the leading clause is encouraging inclusion. The leading clause should be "there is no universal agreement on whether Taiwan should be included". Ythlev (talk) 07:33, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Moved to the the end of the sentence. Akira CA (talk) 08:03, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

... using a distinct shade to represent the territory as uncontrolled, is always required. ... not be included indiscriminately as a part of the People's Republic of China in general. Guidelines are in general, in general. No need to make it so wordy. Ythlev (talk) 07:33, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done Akira CA (talk) 08:03, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

not be included indiscriminately as a part of the People's Republic of China On global maps, disputed areas are either coloured separately from the claiming country or not shown because trying to associate them is impractical. Ythlev (talk) 07:53, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Better to preserve this part. Akira CA (talk) 08:03, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I think it's better to replace the first sentence "including Taiwan is acceptable if distinction from the mainland is made to reflect its status" by "including Taiwan is recommended but not required if distinction from the mainland is made to reflect its status". The word "acceptable" gives the reader the impression that a majority of editors prefer dark green/white/white decomposition but have no objection to dark green/light green/white decomposition or dark green/medium green/light green/white decomposition but in reality, a majority of editors prefer either dark green/light green/white decomposition or dark green/medium green/light green/white decomposition but have no objection to dark green/white/white decomposition. I think the opinions of a majority of editors rather than the opinions of a minority of editors should be reflected. PE fans (talk) 14:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

As for the regional or global maps such as

2019–20 coronavirus outbreak, a majority of editors in the Rfc support the exclusion of Taiwan rather than inclusion. However, there is a clear different between regional or global maps such as File:COVID-19_Outbreak_World_Map.svg discussed in Rfc and maps specifically about the People's Republic of China such as File:PRC_Population_Density.svg discussed in the section "Color for disputed territories (Taiwan and Arunachal Pradesh)"PE fans (talk

) 15:16, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

majority of editors prefer either dark green/light green/white decomposition Proof? Ythlev (talk) 15:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I said "Personally I prefer the dark green/light green/white decomposition", LittleCuteSuit said "I'm also one that prefers the dark green/light green/white decomposition", Horse Eye Jack said "In general I like the dark green/light green/white decomposition but I don’t find such maps to be appropriate for the vast majority of uses on wikipedia" and later said that "only on *some* China related pages (those which are specifically about the PRC and not say Chinese culture or folk religion)", Sharouser said "Personally I prefer the dark green(Mainland and HK and Macao)/medium green(Taiwan)/light green(South Tibet or most of Arunachal Pradesh, Senkaku, and etc)/white decomposition", CaradhrasAiguo said "Invoke the coloring scheme proposed by Sharouser", Geographyinitiative said "Here's another map used on the Provinces of China page: File:China_administrative_claimed_included.svg". Isn't it a majority? PE fans (talk) 15:45, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Horse Eye Jack wrote after that In *all cases* it would still be *preferable* to use a map which doesn't conflate China and Taiwan. Horse Eye Jack has been clearly against inclusion from the very beginning. Geographyinitiative: All territory outside of the control of the government of the People's Republic of China is just that: outside of the control of the People's Republic of China. No special colors are needed Are you trying to cherry-pick comments in your favour or do you really lack reading skills? Ythlev (talk) 19:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Geographyinitiative said: "All territory outside of the control of the government of the People's Republic of China is just that: outside of the control of the People's Republic of China. No special colors are needed- everything they don't control but claim in Beijing is just that: "claimed". "Claimed" is one color, regardless of the rationalization behind the claim. Do we need a special third color for the Senkaku Islands which are both claimed by Taiwan but also administered by Japan? That's a kind of half-way between the India-controlled areas and Taiwan (ROC). No- I think no rainbow of colors is needed: one color for territories claimed but not administered is sufficient. We don't need to push the One-China Policy here. All claims over all territories that are not actually administered by a particular government will inherently be different in particulars of the claim, but they are the same in that they involve a territory outside the control of the government making the claim. These two claims are just sovereignty claims that are not realized in actual practice. The PRC has never ever controlled these areas. Same color for all claims." Could you read this more carefully? It's clear that Geographyinitiative's argument is against the suggestion dark green(Mainland and HK and Macao)/medium green(Taiwan)/light green(South Tibet or most of Arunachal Pradesh, Senkaku, and etc)/white decomposition and to support the suggestion of dark green(Mainland and HK and Macao)/light green(Taiwan, South Tibet or most of Arunachal Pradesh, Senkaku, and etc)/white decomposition. PE fans (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

It's clear who had cherry-picked the comments of Geographyinitiative PE fans (talk) 20:53, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

There is a reminder that I, LittleCuteSuit, Sharouser, CaradhrasAiguo, Geographyinitiative are already 5 editors. Even if you count you, Horse Eye Jack and Akira CA as the supporters of the complete removable of Taiwan on maps specifically about the People's Republic of China, 5:3 is already the majority. PE fans (talk) 21:02, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

There is a concern ([5]) that if no distinction from the mainland is made to reflect its status, the inclusion of Taiwan into a PRC map seems like a biased support of the political point of view that "Taiwan is part of PRC". I oppose this political point of view as much as the biased political point of view that "Taiwan is not part of PRC". So my suggestion is "On maps specifically about the People's Republic of China, including Taiwan is recommended but not required. However, if included, a distinction from the mainland is required to reflect its status." This reflects that a majority of editors support either dark green/light green/white decomposition or dark green/medium green/light green/white decomposition compared to either dark green/white/white decomposition or dark green/dark green/white decomposition. PE fans (talk) 01:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

5:3 is already the majority

Have you read

WP:TALKDONTREVERT

carefully? "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever. Limit article talk page discussions to discussion of sources, article focus, and policy. If an edit is challenged, or is likely to be challenged, editors should use talk pages to explain why an addition, change, or removal improves the article, and hence the encyclopedia. Consensus can be assumed if no editors object to a change. Editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material, or who stonewall discussions, may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions. Consensus cannot always be assumed simply because editors stop responding to talk page discussions in which they have already participated.

The goal of a consensus-building discussion is to resolve disputes in a way that reflects Wikipedia's goals and policies while angering as few contributors as possible. Contributors with good social skills and good negotiation skills are more likely to be successful than those who are less than civil to others. "

Please do not anger the editors LittleCuteSuit, Sharouser, CaradhrasAiguo, Geographyinitiative simply because they stop responding to talk page discussions in which they have already participated. Their opinions such as "These territorial disputes remain unresolved for either side, and the map should reflect this for the sake of neutrality, as with other maps on Wikipedia" explains that their support of inclusion with distinction reflects the

WP:NPOV

principle, which is an "existing policy". It clearly carries weight.

I agree with you that "they wrote they prefer a certain colour scheme when either are available". This can be made clear in MOS. However, there is clearly a benefit: Marking disputed territories as disputed reflect the

WP:NPOV

.

We can avoid the risk of

coronavirus map by saying that "On global and regional maps, Taiwan should not be included as a part of the People's Republic of China (PRC) in general." This sentence is clear to editors and easy to follow. PE fans (talk

) 13:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I have changed the sentence to "On maps specifically about the PRC, Taiwan should be included if and only if a distinction from the mainland is made to reflect its status." The meaning is clear: if a distinction is made, Taiwan should be included. If there is no distinction, Taiwan should not be included. This statement avoids the risk of either green/green/grey or green/grey/grey.PE fans (talk) 13:52, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Marking disputed territories as disputed reflect the

WP:NPOV If that's the case, editors can already follow that policy and add the colours. By risk, I mean for PRC maps. If someone misreads the sentence adds Taiwan using green/green/grey, that violates NPOV more than not including. Ythlev (talk

) 16:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

To avoid this risk, we can either make the "only if" bold or write another sentence "However, Taiwan should not be included if there is no distinction from the mainland." Which do you prefer? PE fans (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

What differences are there between those and the current version exactly? Ythlev (talk) 16:20, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Users who think "not including violates NPOV" are already going to go ahead and use green/green/grey without ever reading this. Ythlev (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

By the way the idea that not including something violates NPOV is pretty absurd. New Zealand is often not shown on world maps. Does that violate NPOV? Ythlev (talk) 16:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

If their is no difference in meaning, why not write out things clearly as "On maps specifically about the PRC, Taiwan should be included if a distinction from the mainland is made to reflect its status. For the convention on colouring Taiwan and other disputed areas, see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Maps/Conventions#Orthographic_maps. However Taiwan should not be included if there is no distinction from the mainland". These sentences make it clear when it should be included and when should not. If Users use green/green/grey without ever reading this, you can replace their map by dark green/light green/white and ask them to read this manual to follow the NPOV principle. I will support you if you do this in the future. PE fans (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

It is indeed inappropriate to exclude New Zealand from a global map. In general, in a global map like

Vatican city is shown on the map. PE fans (talk

) 16:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

The sentence "Taiwan should be included if a distinction from the mainland is made to reflect its status." doesn't make any logical sense. What does make logical sense is ""Taiwan should be included if a distinction from the mainland can be made to reflect its status." But then it's not clear when the distinction "can" be made and when it cannot (I'm not even sure if you've considered it). Excluding New Zealand is inappropriate but it has nothing to do NPOV. The map maker isn't saying "New Zealand does not exist". A map of the US that doesn't include Guam isn't saying Guam isn't a part of the US. I still think your version of saying Taiwan should be included violates NPOV and mine is neutral. Ythlev (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the best sentence is "Taiwan should be included if a distinction from the mainland can be made to reflect its status." The situation of when it's possible and when it's not possible varies case by case and can be decided by users. For example, it's clearly impossible to include with distinction on a global map like File:COVID-19_Outbreak_World_Map.svg and this has been stated clearly in another sentence. However, it shouldn't be hard for maps like File:PRC_Population_Density.svg. PE fans (talk) 17:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

In the map File:COVID-19_Outbreak_Cases_in_the_United_States.svg, Guam is included. PE fans (talk) 18:09, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I meant a map about the US that does not include Guam like File:High Speed Railroad Map of the United States 2013.svg implies nothing of its status.

The situation of when it's possible and when it's not possible varies case by case and can be decided by users And what does a user do if they cannot? Ythlev (talk) 19:17, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

If you can do it, then you can do it. If it's not the case, then you can't do it. What's the meaning of cannot decide whether you can or can't? PE fans (talk) 20:50, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

If you are able to find a high speed railroad maps of Guam and other US territories and put them in the map of US, then you are encouraged to do it (like the case of COVID-19 map). If you don't want to spend time on doing so, then you are assumed by default as "can't do it" and you don't need to do it. You can wait for other people to do it. However, if other people already put them in the map of US, then I think deleting them on purpose indeed indicates your support of "Guam is not part of US" and it wouldn't be appropriate to do so. PE fans (talk) 21:05, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

To avoid confusion, we can replace the word "can" by "be able to".PE fans (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

But there is no policy saying "Guam should be included". It's just not necessary and has nothing to do with it's status or POV. if other people already put them in the map of US, then I think deleting them on purpose indeed indicates your support of "Guam is not part of US" and it wouldn't be appropriate to do so. Is that your concern? That a green/lg/grey map would be replaced with a green/grey/grey version? Then it should be written more accurately. Ythlev (talk) 03:59, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

And I highly doubt anyone would do that. The core of the issue is that there is no consensus on whether to include or not. I am capable of doing so, but I won't because although indicating it is claimed territory is technically correct, why should I put in the extra work? Why should editors be told to put Guam on US maps if they are able to? Ythlev (talk) 04:10, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

And don't tell me there is a consensus based on the above. You asked a question about colours and get a conclusion whether to include Taiwan or not? Before this thread was started, it wasn't even clear if Taiwan was within the scope of this manual. Have you proposed this idea on Wikipedia:WikiProject Taiwan? Ythlev (talk) 04:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I started the discussion in order to resolve the edit war in File:PRC_Population_Density.svg when you replaced green/lg/grey by green/grey/grey. I asked people which version do they prefer and it turns out that a majority of editor prefer green/lg/grey. Why do you keep ignoring the opinions of a majority of editors? PE fans (talk) 05:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Please read

WP:DISRUPTSIGNS carefully, it's not a good thing to "repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits" Why do you repeatedly disregard the opinions of LittleCuteSuit, Sharouser, CaradhrasAiguo, Geographyinitiative and I? PE fans (talk

) 05:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I started the discussion in order to resolve the edit war. And you have. "Taiwan can be included", which means I won't replace it anymore. I asked people which version do they prefer. You asked one question and made an unrelated conclusion. The coronavirus RfC found that a map that lumps the PRC and Taiwan together violates NPOV. You and a smaller number of users then say maps of China are different from world maps and that including Taiwan on China maps are okay. That is questionable on its own. If you can overrule consensus by making a new distinction, then we need a discussion for everything, which means you need to specifically ask if users should be told to include Taiwan. Ythlev (talk) 05:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

By the way, in that RfC, users also supported maps of China without Taiwan:

“

I have uploaded a new map without Taiwan, Arunachal Pradesh and the small border areas in Himachal Pradesh, all claimed by the PRC. The map includes a new color scheme (with >10.000 cases). Please feel free to discuss it and to make suggestions for improvements. --Furfur ⁂ Diskussion 22:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC) This map looks good to me! I support replacing the current one with Fufur's map. The next question is what to do with the animated one. --haha169 (talk) 03:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC) Good map, I strongly support the replacement. Personally, I consider it preferable to completely remove the dashed borders of both Aksai Chin (claimed by India) and Arunachal Pradesh (claimed by China), because this information has nothing to do with the coronavirus epidemic. Fleet ch (talk) 14:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC) Support replacement with this map. It covers the areas where the PRC exercises sovereignty and not others, and so reflects the areas covered by the statistics being reported by the PRC government. I approve of the dashed lines along the lines of control in the contested areas: That is NPOV and reflects the political reality. EMS

”

Ythlev (talk) 06:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Just a separate note, the coronavirus map is replaced because no distinction from the mainland is made. Inclusion with distintion has never been questionable, and was indeed a part of the convection on WikiProject Maps. Also the replacement was a mainland China map, not a China map without Taiwan. Akira CA (talk) 07:43, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

The RfC was about replacing File:COVID-19 cases in Greater China.svg, which does have a colour for disputed areas so it can be done, yet many users still supported the above grey version. So yes, it is questionable. Even more questionable to write Taiwan "should" be included. Ythlev (talk) 08:44, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

That's just your imagination. The original map is on Greater China, not PRC, so it makes no sense to shade the areas as disputed. And there has already been a mainland map (by Jabo-er) so why paying efforts? In addition, many editors support a mainland map in the RfC because Taiwan is not the epicentre and is relatively unaffected by the outbreak, which is bound to the specific context of the article (coronavirus outbreak) and cannot be applied elsewhere. Replacing a Greater China map by a mainland one in an article about a specific outbreak, is essentially irrelevant to removing Taiwan from all PRC maps. Besides, Furfur has also edited File:PRC Population Density.svg, which colours Taiwan purple. Akira CA (talk) 09:13, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

The original map is on Greater China, not PRC The map is labelled as Greater China but coloured based on PRC sources. Greater China is also not a common way of grouping statistics. Most people don't even know what "Greater China" means. Again, you are creating a new distinction where most people consider them the same in an attempt to overrule consensus. Taiwan is not the epicentre If not being as severe is the reason not to include Taiwan, what reason is there to include Taiwan on File:PRC Population Density.svg? At the end of the day it is still about POV, as the RfC concluded. Writing "Taiwan can be included" is already a compromise. Ythlev (talk) 10:07, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Greater China is also not a common way of grouping statistics. I agree and that's why I support the replacement myself, therefore I can't be attempting to overrule consensus, which is the replacement of the Greater China map and nothing else. Also, comparing to the RfC of a specific article, the long-established convention on WikiProject Maps apparently represents the consensus of a broader community and suits the MoS — which is supposed to affect all articles — better. The current version is surely the most appropriate one so I'm not going to change it anymore. Have a nice day~ 祝好 Akira CA (talk) 10:25, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I don’t want to be mean but the passage as currently written was pretty obviously not composed by someone fluent in the English language which is certainly a requirement for crafting any MOS content. I don't think that the last two sentences which explain

Horse Eye Jack (talk

) 05:09, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@Akira CA: I don't know why you bothered with the lengthy discussion if you plan to violate the policy. Taiwan can only be included if it is distinguished, so maps without distinction must be either removed from Wikipedia or replaced with NPOV version, yet you are obstructing both actions. Ythlev (talk) 06:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ythlev: No I'm not. What you should do is uploaded a separate version of mainland China map on commons and replaces the current map on Wikipedia. (that's exactly how Furfur's mainland map replaces the Greater China map) Otherwise you are violating both wikipedia guidelines and common policies. -- Akira😼CA 06:07, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

However I'll make a distinction for now. Leave it to me. -- Akira😼CA 06:13, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

You should be doing that. You want there to be a map but there is no neutral version available. Until then, the map currently on those pages violate NPOV so should be removed. Ythlev (talk) 06:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Note that remove before replacement has never been suggested in the RfC, so it is always better to wait for (or contribute youself) the NPOV version instead of mass purging the informative image immediately. Whatever I have made distinction on the maps now. -- Akira😼CA 06:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Just a note, clear cache before viewing the page. -- Akira😼CA 06:36, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

It is a general Wikipedia policy that content must be NPOV, so non-neutral material should be removed or replaced, whichever is sooner. Ythlev (talk) 06:54, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Please recheck (or check)

WP:NPOVHOW and read "Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage.", Thank you. -- Akira😼CA

07:11, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

The fact that it misinforms is consensus. Whether it "can" be rewritten is up to the user who spotted the misinformation, and I say no. Ythlev (talk) 08:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@Akira CA: You can replace File:Rail map of China (high speed highlighted) WP.svg with a version in line with this MOS if you want, but since you used Commons to circumvent Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia files are preferred over Commons files from now on. Ythlev (talk) 10:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

You still haven't responsed to your violation of Commons policy and the reasons for removing the file, circumvent is definitely not one of them. -- Akira😼CA 10:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what you want me to say. You also over-wrote those files. I think you don't agree with the consensus from the

coronavirus RfC and trying to find ways to get around it. Ythlev (talk

) 10:41, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Your words fails completely as I am replacing the map myself with a NPOV version, a version that has been acknoledged in MoS, how can this be circumvention? -- Akira😼CA 11:13, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

It is not about the version of the file itself. The fact it is hosted on Commons means it does not have to be neutral (which I would never have thought of were it not for you). That's how ridiculous your justification for reverting me is. Commons files don't have to be neutral? Okay, we stop using files there. Ythlev (talk) 12:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@

There is also File:Rail map of China (high speed highlighted).svg, File:Folk religious sects' influence by province of China (alternate).png, File:Buddhism in China (China Family Panel Studies 2012).png, File:Chinese ancestor-gods belief by province of China (Chinese Spiritual Life Survey 2010).png, File:Christianity in China (China Family Panel Studies 2012).png, and File:Taoist Church influence in China (alternate).png. Akira CA has violated the compromises we all spent so long establishing. Ythlev (talk) 15:30, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh jeez I hadn’t seen those. Yeah unless there is a good explanation that pretty clearly appears to be editing against consensus, especially as Arunachal Pradesh doesn't look like its demarcated as disputed in any of them at all.

Horse Eye Jack (talk

) 16:30, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Horse Eye Jack and Ythlev: Are you two amusing yourselves? Arunachal Pradesh is clearly not included in any of these religion maps.

-- Akira😼CA

@

Horse Eye Jack: I don't see Arunachal Pradesh included under PRC / Tibet AR control on the current version from 06:28 UTC 13 Mar either. You wrote your comment at 16:30 UTC 13 Mar. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language

) 05:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I don’t see it either, thats the problem. Consensus was clearly "Taiwan and other disputed areas” not just Taiwan.

Horse Eye Jack (talk

) 14:34, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@Akira CA: Could you shade Arunachal Pradesh in File:Rail_map_of_China_(high_speed_highlighted).svg and use "no data" color with shade for Arunachal Pradesh in File:Folk_religious_sects'_influence_by_province_of_China_(alternate).png, File:Buddhism_in_China_(China_Family_Panel_Studies_2012).png, File:Chinese ancestor-gods belief by province of China (Chinese Spiritual Life Survey 2010).png, File:Christianity in China (China Family Panel Studies 2012).png, and File:Taoist Church influence in China (alternate).png? Taking a NPOV on Aruncachal Pradesh as in the file Wikipedia:WikiProject_Maps/Conventions#Orthographic_maps is better than taking either China POV or India POV on this dispute.Thanks!PE fans (talk) 00:43, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@PE fans: For the rail map I've already done it here File:Rail map of China (high speed highlighted) WP.svg, you can upload it to Commons but remember not to overwrite but create a separate file. For the religion maps I can't draw the accurate borderlines with the tools I have. If you want to include Aruncachal Pradesh you might use another blank map to derive works on. -- Akira😼CA 00:50, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit on File:Rail map of China (high speed highlighted) WP.svg. I spent one hour to try to draw accurate borderlines but I haven't figured out the solution. Due to the outbreak of coronavirus in United States, I have to spend more efforts on preventing it so that my participation of Wikipedia will be limited recently. Hope that everyone stays safe in this crisis. PE fans (talk) 00:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

In the oldest version of

2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. PE fans (talk

) 01:54, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@Akira CA: Are you two amusing yourselves? I think you are amusing yourself by insisting that Taiwan be on File:Rail map of China (high speed highlighted) WP.svg when the article High-speed rail in China does not deal with Taiwan and explicitly states that Taiwan is on a separate article. Ythlev (talk) 05:50, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• I'm indeed amused by your excessive use of whataboutism to circumvent my question. -- Akira😼CA 05:54, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@Akira CA: Stop bringing the dispute to the noticeboard as the admin said. Arunachal Pradesh is clearly not included in any of these religion maps. So the maps are saying AP is not a part of China but Taiwan is. Basic logic, not hard to understand at all. Ythlev (talk) 06:43, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ythlev: Apparently it's not me who mentioned "another user". And no, the map only indicates Taiwan is disputed like what've been done in all orthographic maps. Please stop using Straw man to portray the map as POV pushing, it's not. -- Akira😼CA 06:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ythlev:Still I don't understand why excluding Arunachal Pradesh deserves a removal, is Horse Eye Jack trying to show excluding disputed areas violates NPOV to an extent that the map must be removed? -- Akira😼CA 06:57, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Selectively including disputed areas violates NPOV. You either include all or none.

WP:NPOV is a core policy and is non-negotiable. So yes. Ythlev (talk

) 07:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

It seems so hard for you to admit your ally simply misread the map. -- Akira😼CA 07:10, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

A: not their ally. B: I didn’t misread anything. Using terms like ally and enemy violates

Horse Eye Jack (talk

) 14:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

In follow-up to the edits [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] in which hatnotes using the {{

The user has made these edits with the unilateral assertion that "Hatnotes should be for disambiguation, not explanatory notes on naming conventions" (according to the user's edit summary). This is false, as it runs counter to the MOS here and the widespread usage of hatnotes for names (as exemplified by Category:Hatnote templates for names even beyond Chinese names). This kind of edit should be more than a drastic unilateral action against established convention. --Cold Season (talk) 11:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

My assertion was in accordance with

WP:HAT

, which states in its first paragraph that "their purpose is to help readers locate a different article if the one they are at is not the one they're looking for". That said, the use of hatnotes for surname clarification does go way back to the 2000s, so I am in that sense trying to change convention (or, to frame it another way, trying to update an outmoded practice). Since we could easily update the policy if needed, I think it's more useful to discuss overall principles than debate policy — the basic argument for the change is that putting it in a hatnote, the very first thing readers see after the title, is positioning way too prominent for what is basically trivia.

Inserting the template into those articles was somewhat an application of

WP:SILENCE

that there isn't exactly a firestorm of opposition waiting to rally in defense of the status quo.

Given the above, and also the fact that variation here is unlikely to confuse (or even be noticed by) casual readers, I'm going to restore the edits for now. I'm interested to see what perspectives others here have and happy to discuss further. Cheers, Sdkb (talk) 19:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it was BOLD and I reverted you per

WP:MOS-ZH or anything else on a wider scale. Great, three users have been discussing it on a low-traffic user talk page about something that has large-scale ramifications. For courtesy sake, ping @Finnusertop and Valereee: --Cold Season (talk

) 19:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Cold Season, thanks for the ping! Totally willing to discuss. For transparency's sake, I made a similar experimental change at Zhang Dongju --valereee (talk) 19:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

You are the main contributor of that article, so editorial discretion is very warranted and I have no desire to question that judgement. Regarding the wider change, I do not see the merit of it, as a hatnote serves well to explain Chinese names (and therefore the title) in a clear, quick, and clean manner without hiding it in a footnote. --Cold Season (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

The merit I see is in decluttering. The top of an article is valuable real estate, so to speak, and should be reserved for the most important items, which for a biography is the person's name, date of birth/death, photo, title or very basic life description, and (if applicable) the navigational tool of traditional disambiguation hatnotes. A clarification of Chinese naming practices is useful, yes, but it just doesn't stand among the other things I just listed. The fact that Xi Jinping's family name is Xi isn't so important as to be worth noting before noting the fact that he's the president of China. Therefore, I think some amount of de-emphasis is warranted, and an inline footnote seems like the way to go for that. Does that help clarify where the impetus for this is coming from? Sdkb (talk) 21:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree, the main benefit is decluttering the head, which sometimes has multiple hats, which is just distracting and makes an article feel unreadable right from the start. --valereee (talk) 22:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Valereee and Sdkb that there is a significant decluttering benefit and I would support making this an officially acceptable style variation however I also agree with Cold Season that it probably should have been discussed here first.

Horse Eye Jack (talk

) 16:01, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I also think the inline citation might be a better option, as I've long thought that hatnotes are a little bit ugly. Just talk it out, we're all friends here.  White Whirlwind  咨  03:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

This is not a Chinese-specific issue; discussion should be broadened and taken to somewhere more general like Category talk:Hatnote templates for names or Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography (with headsup at lots of other Wikiprojects). Personally I think this type of headnote is a travesty and I would support a general deprecation of hatnotes in favour of footnotes to explain non-English personal-name practices. I would not support making Chinese an exception to the practice for other languages (even though I hate that practice). jnestorius^(talk) 21:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure many people are watching the category talk page, but I sent out an invitation to this discussion there a month or so ago. I created a similar template for Korean names and someone else created one for Spanish names, so it's not fully an outlier at this point. My hope is that, now that surname footnotes have gotten off the ground, they will percolate throughout WP and increasingly replace surname hatnotes. Sdkb (talk) 10:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

• Weakly support footnotes in the absence of anything major such as accessibility issues. I am quite indifferent to this, but I think it should be uniform across articles, so I support the change if someone will use something like a bot or AWB to change it. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:58, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose I read all the links of previous discussions, none of which give a policy based rationale. The purpose of the encyclopedia is to provide freely shared knowledge to readers. Readers do not have a clue, for the most part, of decluttering, hatnotes, disambiguation pages or any of the internal wikijargon. They go to an article for information. One of the most important immediate concerns is "is this person who I was looking for". Like a legal headnote, hatnotes immediately provide that by explaining what name and alternatives with the same name. Burying the name in a footnote, which most people do not read, is a surefire way of obscuring people and making it far harder, not simpler, for people to find information. It also has the potential to generate misinformation as without clear naming understanding, other people using our freely distributable information can erroneously make naming errors. This type of discussion should be community-wide as its implications on naming are far more complex than the three or four editors who have been involved in each of the prior discussions. SusunW (talk) 15:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose largely per SusanW. I don't see a compelling argument that the current system is an issue. If consensus emerges to switch to this system for Asian naming customs though, it needs to be applied to all naming customs, and replace templates such as {{Spanish name}}, as well. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:35, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support here and for all naming customs notes. These notes apply specifically to the name, not the page in general. --Khajidha (talk) 00:59, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

This Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/China and Chinese-related articles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Information to be modified:

==Maps==

In general, Taiwan should not be included as a part of China on user-created maps. (

References supporting change: ANI. Ythlev (talk) 16:07, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

The administrator NinjaRobotPirate said that "Anyway, the MOS is under discretionary sanctions. If I find people are disrupting MOS pages, I'm going to become irritable and probably block them". I fully support NinjaRobotPirate's decision. Everyone is busy with their daily life, and may be unusually busy recently if the daily life is affected by the coronavirus. It's meaningless to waste energy on endless edit wars. Please respect the fact that different people have different points of views. It's better to express disputed territories as disputed rather than choosing either side so that Russian editors and Ukrainian editors won't have an edit war on Crimea, Indian editors and Pakistani editors won't have an edit war on Kashmir ... I hope that people with different points of views can collaborate together. PE fans (talk) 19:56, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose the change -- Akira😼CA 04:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

1. Direct quote per

WP:NPOV

Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them.

Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.

conflicted significant points of view are listed in the discussion below.

2. Closed RfC per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Maps#RfC_regarding_claimed_territorial_boundaries_of_a_state

3. General preference of shading disputed territories disputed in

discussion

above

4. The requester admitted [14] he misinterpreted the admin. (see discussion below)

5. The requester misinterprets the coronavirus RfC by boardening its domain inappropriately and jamming definitions of political terms with single sided POV. (see discussion below)

6. User:Swarm's comment is under question by multiple editors, and he hasn't reply yet.

-- Akira😼CA 23:37, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I have to admit the Ythlev is an expert in misleading the topics. By saying "The second is by PE fans, who tried to overrule the consensus. The user asked on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/China and Chinese-related articles how Taiwan should be coloured on maps of China. A small number of users expressed Taiwan should be coloured as a lighter shade. The user then concludes that maps of China should include Taiwan and tried to force it into the MOS, in direct contradiction with consensus", he gave other people the impression that our key point of debate is on whether disputed territories should be drawn as the same color of a country or a different color of a country. If these are the only two choices, then a majority of editors including me will choose the second one because this is the current conventions on global maps or other maps when there are only two choices available. I was not surprised that the admin Swarm supported the second one. However, in reality, the main topic is a different one: the main discussion is about the file File:PRC_Population_Density.svg and other similar files. In 2010-2013, many editors have spent lots of efforts to draw the border line and colors on the map File:PRC_Population_Density.svg and in 2018, even the small issue about the border line has been carefully treated. The version of Furfur used a third color to treat disputed territories in a careful manner. Even the small islands were drawn in the map. In 2020, Ythlev removed the disputed territories rudely in the sense that when deleting the claimed but not controlled territories on the map, the sentence "claimed but not controlled by China" was not removed. Moreover, he keeps trying to rewrite the MoS to support his version despite being warned by the admin NinjaRobotPirate that "the MOS is under discretionary sanctions". I requested for comments about File:PRC_Population_Density.svg on Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/China_and_Chinese-related_articles#Color_for_disputed_territories_(Taiwan_and_Arunachal_Pradesh) and a majority of editors supported the careful, long time version of Furfur than the version of Ythlev. I don't know why he keeps overruling this consensus by saying that the supporters of Furfur's version are "A small number of users". PE fans (talk) 03:28, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Hey just FYI the thing on Ythlev’s talk page isn't a warning its a discretionary sanctions alert, you should know that because the admin in question placed an identical alert at

Horse Eye Jack (talk

) 04:23, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@PE fans: Everyone is busy with their daily life. That's why it makes no sense to say 5:3 is a majority when it contradicts an RfC made shortly before. People generally do not have the time to discuss something they just concluded. That does not mean they agree with you. If these are the only two choices, then a majority of editors including me will choose the second one. Not Akira CA. Here are the priorities of you two and the rest of the community.

• PE fans: map with distinguished Taiwan → without Taiwan → no map
• Akira CA: distinguished Taiwan → undistinguished Taiwan → no map
• Consensus: without Taiwan → distinguished Taiwan → no map

Anyone with normal English comprehension would interpret the current guidelines as PE fans version, but not Akira CA. Ythlev (talk) 06:09, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think I mislead anyone. From the above, your opinion still contradicts consensus. Ythlev (talk) 06:14, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes you ARE misleading. You are misinterpreting the coronavirus RfC by broadening the case of a specific map in a specific article to all maps on En Wiki, despite Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Maps#RfC_regarding_claimed_territorial_boundaries_of_a_state concludes there are no such consensus and maps are to be determined case by case. Even not to mention the colour discussion above has a clear preference on "dark green/light green/grey", which is

• Consensus: map with distinguished Taiwan → without Taiwan → no map

It's your pro-independence political POV:

• Ythlev: without Taiwan → no map → distinguished Taiwan → undistinguished Taiwan

contradicting everybody's opinion and the established consensus. -- Akira😼CA 06:29, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't care what you think about my comments. I can't take you seriously if you take things personally like reporting me for edit-warring where I clearly haven't, or taking offence in a comment such as "you are not the main problem". Ythlev (talk) 06:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

It's actually you who take it personally...reread

WP:CIVIL for calling others "problem" and reconsider if your behaviours are appropriate. -- Akira😼CA

06:40, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@Akira CA: If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements. A map of the US without Guam is not a statement that Guam is not a part of it. Ythlev (talk) 06:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

But nothing says We should make US maps without Guam too. Your words are in favour of my argument. -- Akira😼CA 06:33, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Your words are in favour of my argument If you think this is some sort of race to see who wins, again, I can't take you seriously (

WP:NOTHERE). Ythlev (talk

) 06:37, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not showing anybody is winning...but only you contradict yourself, that's it. You are also told to assume good faith. -- Akira😼CA 06:42, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

My point was a map without something implies nothing about its status, no more than a blank map of a country implying the country is empty. Ythlev (talk) 06:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

So why nothing says Guam should be excluded in US maps? You still haven't answered my question. If inclusion and exclusion implies nothing about POV then there will be no guidelines on this matter at all. -- Akira😼CA 06:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

The fact is, although I've been told not to disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, I'm pretty sure Spain maps with Catalonia shaded grey will be removed in the name of NPOV. US maps without Guam can exists simply because the territory is uncontroversial. -- Akira😼CA 06:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Because there has not been a discussion. And no, inclusion does imply something. If you see an forest on a map, that means it's there. If you don't see one, there may be a forest, there might not. The idea that exclusion of Taiwan violates NPOV is absurd. Ythlev (talk) 06:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

That's your own justification with no evidence nor community consensus to back it up. I'm pretty sure Ukraine maps without Crimea or Spain maps without Catalonia will be replaced in the name of NPOV. Until you have any evidence to support your claim, the absurd claim remains hypothetical. -- Akira😼CA 07:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

The administrator has already confirmed this to you. Claiming that this is POV is irrelevant. Ythlev (talk) 07:04, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

If HEJ is correct (on editing MoS requires English skill, hopefully not) then the above speech disqualifies you to edit MoS instantly...The admin is saying that we cannot overrule MoS even we think there is a POV dispute, not excluding any territories on any maps implies nothing about their status. I see no links in these two arguments and they are *completely* irrelevant: one is about MoS and WP community guidelines, the other is about maps and their neutrality. -- Akira😼CA 07:18, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

You know...it is really tedious and unconstructive to "amend" community guidelines if you even can't get the most basic ideas right...When can we set a full stop to this time-wasting discussion? -- Akira😼CA 07:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

The admin's words are not super clear. Nevertheless a few things are obvious. the community's consensus. The RfC is not the only exhibit of such consensus. The fact that Taiwan is generally not on articles titled "X of China" also reflects that. the corresponding MOS guideline The guidelines does have this: When discussing geography, those places within the territorial control of the People's Republic of China should generally be said to be in "China". Ythlev (talk) 07:36, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@

WP:NPOV). The current version is the best version. -- Akira😼CA

09:29, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

To a separate point, I admit my edits on the Religion maps are bad decisions, and I've already corrected them on the Taiwan matter. Can we finally set an end to this bitter discussion and stick to the current MoS that has taken us lots of effort and compromises to reach? -- Akira😼CA 09:36, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

In addition, many articles titled "X of China" have the entries "This article is about X in the People's Republic of China, for X of the Republic of China, see X in Taiwan". But such articles still do not include Taiwan. The equivalent of that for maps is captions, not the map itself. Can we finally set an end to this bitter discussion. No, we cannot. Last time you said let's end this I thought you were willing to compromise. I thought the principle of Taiwan should not be included if there is no distinction from the mainland is what we all agreed on but it turns out you don't know what compromise means. There could be another user like you. Ythlev (talk) 10:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ythlev: The equivalent of that for maps is captions, not the map itself. proof?

You also bypassed my other examples, which surely count as significant points of view; you bypassed the WikiProject Maps RfC completely; you again bypassed the

WP:NPOV

— If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements. — too, as your Guam & US analogy fails due to the misinterpretation.

The fact is There could be another user like you isn't a valid way to defend your edit request, since you are refusing to compromise merely base on what your "opponent" do but not the nature of the policy itself. Doing so by rejecting any compromise is treating Wikipedia as battleground with focus on winning in place of building encyclopaedia with adequate community guidelines. I hope you could reconsider your rejection to compromise as I apologize for what happened on the religion maps. -- Akira😼CA 11:09, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Proof? Do you agree with Taiwan not being on articles "X of China" or not? If not, further explanation is meaningless. You believe your opinion trumps consensus. you again bypassed the constitution of the Republic of China. North Korea is called the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, so on a map of democracies, North Korea should be on it. Ythlev (talk) 13:56, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Judging other editors base on political beliefs and false analogy, and yet still bypassing questions? OK just keep mass purging maps. Debating with you is a total shame on my contribution history. -- Akira😼CA 14:23, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a

edit protected}} template. Izno (talk

) 00:08, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ythlev:, cut it out. You cannot cite one admin's post (while distorting it to claim it supports your edit request), while ignoring the one above refusing your edit request. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

@Swarm and Izno: The issue was examined by an administrator who said the community's consensus and the corresponding MOS guideline is fairly unambiguous: By default, Taiwan should not be included. The MOS should be updated to prevent future disputes. Ythlev (talk) 21:33, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ythlev: You don't get to re-open an edit request just because an admin answered it against your liking. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 22:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Question: If Taiwan is to be colored by default on maps of China, is China to be colored by default on maps of Taiwan? Or vice versa? I cannot see that it would be appropriate to do it differently for the two entities in question. --Khajidha (talk) 01:09, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

As far as I know no editor has suggested that we apply these arcane and antiquated territorial claims to maps of Taiwan which might tell you something about whether this argument is really about MOS issues or is just political POV pushing.

Horse Eye Jack (talk

) 22:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Please, check Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese) § RfC: "mainland China" or "China" in article titles. --MarioGom (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

There is a new proposal for adding to the romanization section of the guidelines. I support adding the following:

Sometimes, famous names are written in the old spelling rather than pinyin either because of tradition and consistency with historical records or because English-speakers will more easily recognize the old name. For example:

• The mathematician Shiing-Shen Chern (陈省身) is usually written Shiing-Shen Chern and S. S. Chern rather than Chen Xingshen.

• The Nobel-prize winning physicist
  Chen-Ning Yang
  (杨振宁) is written Chen-Ning Yang and C. N. Yang rather than Yang Zhenning.

Henry Capital Hill 3 (talk) 16:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

The guideline already says:

English Wikipedia uses

Romanisation method for Chinese characters, except where an alternate form of a word is used by modern reliable secondary sources

.

which is in line with

Yangtze River. Kanguole

17:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Duly noted. I have fixed the wording of the section so that it gives the 'criterion once and right'. I have added your example of Sun Yat-sen, and as for the other examples, I have trimmed them down so they sound less verbose. Moreover, giving more examples always helps, especially since these people are quite famous, and researchers in these specific fields will see their names quite often.

I hope this version pleases us both, and if so, have a nice summer.Henry Capital Hill 3 (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

No, it was already done once. You're adding a scond criterion that partly repeats the first and partly alters it. And the examples are still bloated. In this context, the name is sufficient. Kanguole 17:56, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I removed the second criterion since it seems to be a point of contention, and I trimmed the examples further so that they just give the name. These edits are not meant to upset anybody, just to help improve the page and give more examples.Henry Capital Hill 3 (talk) 18:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Where there is more than one parameter in use in a given article an {{

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/China and Chinese-related articles#Introductory sentences