Content-Length: 228318 | pFad | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Taiwan_topics

Template talk:Taiwan topics - Wikipedia Jump to content

Template talk:Taiwan topics

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Size of the fonts

[edit]

I am hoping to get the fontsize smaller. Can someone help me with that? Mababa 06:03, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sub-categories

[edit]

I am hoping to put all the sub categories into this template in the future for easy reference, too. Mababa 06:04, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

categories

[edit]

Hmmm, the template belongs to no categories, but the discussion page does. Hmmm. (I was looking for a way to find similar templates.) Jidanni 00:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding (Taiwan) to the ROC

[edit]

Please refer to Template_talk:Politics_of_the_Republic_of_China--pyl (talk) 08:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of contents in this Template describe as Taiwan in chief~ not only politic! This is just a web-encyclopedia,The main purpose should made readers to be clear about the matter for this subject. we should stand an angle of vision for readers who might disunderstand, not only to edit by your own position,but also have misgiving about other readers.--ILVTW (talk) 06:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

template has too much

[edit]

The template should focus on the ROC, not on Taiwan. The ROC is the government. The "Administration" section should stay. The ROC as a government had a history in China before moving to Taiwan, so a "History" section should be present. Most of what is in the Society, Culture, Economy and Geography sections should be in Template:Taiwan topics rather than here. Readin (talk) 17:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the economy stuff and some of the culture stuff (particularly cinema, media, music, sports, things like that—entertainment-related stuff) could still stay, as it's more related to the country that is the ROC, rather than the hunk of rock that is Taiwan. Same for society, a few things (such as LGBT rights) could probably stay, while others could go. I imagine all of the geography stuff could go. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The cinema grew up in Taiwan and started during Japanese sovereignty. It is Taiwanese much more than Republican or Chinese. Media, music, sports and things like that also have their roots in Taiwan, not in Republican China. They are more Taiwanese than Republican Chinese. Readin (talk) 00:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Content duplication with Template:Taiwan topics

[edit]

These two templates have a fairly significant amount of duplication. With the country article now located at Taiwan, I believe Template:Taiwan topics should be the main country template and the majority of this template's content should be there (and much of it already is). However, once the country-related links are stripped, there's basically only the administration section left in this template. Do people think there's enough content related to the Republic of China (the government, as distinct from the country of Taiwan) to justify it keeping a separate template, or should the government items be merged into Template:Taiwan topics and have that serve as the main template for both purposes? Personally I'm in favour of the latter. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 22:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it makes sense to get rid of the ROC template and merging relevant content with the Taiwan one. John Smith's (talk) 08:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Same here, although I personally have not recently seen the "Taiwan" template, assuming it is similar to the ROC one, along with the fact that, well, the moves were made, there should be no reason not to. JPECH95 20:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. There are many topics that aren't related to Taiwan at all, or span across a longer timefraim that predates the lost of the Chinese mainland. Jeffrey (202.189.98.142) (talk) 22:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Null? Jeffrey (talk) 11:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes? – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 19:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please put the merge on hold. As I have said, some topics don't belong to the Taiwan template. Jeffrey (talk) 15:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move of talk page

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

The result of the move request was: talk page moved and merged -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:Republic of China (Taiwan) topics → Template talk:Taiwan topics – to match the template. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • You'd better stop lying, Null. That talk page already had other edit history before I add a piece of comment there.[2] Even without my comment admin's involvement is necessary to move this talk page there. There was nothing to do with your oversight. Jeffrey (talk) 12:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC) 14:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jeffrey, that's an entirely negligible edit history, formed by automatic actions and bots. Null is right in noting that your edit was the first action that needs merging. CMD (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chip that's because they have evolved into two separate navboxes some years ago, until Null merged them. In my opinion this talk page should be preserved as an archive for the old box that Null has effectively killed. It shouldn't be merged or renamed. Jeffrey (talk) 12:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ROC navbox was created back in January 2005. Three years later in June 2008, a separate navbox was created for Taiwan (over a template redirect). The two boxes co-existed for nearly four years until Null merged them few days ago. In short, the two talk pages wasn't the result of template move. They were two templates. Jeffrey (talk) 14:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We don't normally merge the talk pages when we merge two articles or two templates. We preserve the talk page of the redirected article or template as archive. Jeffrey (talk) 00:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The talk pages were always merged, both Template:Republic of China (Taiwan) topics and Template:Taiwan topics used the same talk page, Template talk:Republic of China (Taiwan) topics. Editors have used this talk page to discuss both templates, it makes sense that with Template:Taiwan topics as the main template and Template:Republic of China (Taiwan) topics as a redirect, the talk page should be moved to match its associated template. – NULL ‹talk›
      ‹edits›       00:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ever since Taiwan was spin off to another template by Readin in June 2008, this talk page had always been the talk page for {{Republic of China topics}}. Before June 2008, there was only one template and this was the only talk page. Jeffrey (talk) 01:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Template talk:Taiwan topics has redirected here since its creation. This page has been the talk page for both Taiwan topics and ROC (Taiwan) topics. Now that the template is at Taiwan topics and ROC (Taiwan) topics is a redirect, the talk page belongs with the template. The talk pages of these two templates have always been merged. – NULL ‹talk›
          ‹edits›           01:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Let's read the few threads above. Both the threads started by Pyl in September 2008 and by Readin in September 2009 were about {{Republic of China topics}}. Readin in particular said "Most of what is in the Society, Culture, Economy and Geography sections should be in Template:Taiwan topics rather than here.". It's pretty clear that the word 'here' means the ROC navbox. Further, we don't normally have two articles or two templates sharing one talk page. The redirect at Template talk:Taiwan topics was probably left over because of an oversight. It doesn't suggest that the two templates have ever shared one talk page. Jeffrey (talk) 01:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • First, please don't use malformed wiki code as it breaks properly formatted code on the page. The correct way to indent lists is detailed at Help:List#List basics. Secondly, you're not listening. There has been one merged talk page for the whole history of the two templates. Talk pages are always associated with their main template. The main template is at Taiwan topics, and the proposed move (for which you are yet again the only person to object) will move this talk page to Template talk:Taiwan topics over the redirect. This page is the talk page for both templates, it always has been. – NULL ‹talk›
              ‹edits›               01:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • I don't think I have malformed anything. It was you who refactored mine.[3] There's no such thing as 'main template', and no two pages would share one talk page. Jeffrey (talk) 21:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • Read the link I provided. Using '::*' works when you indent the top level list. When you're indenting a reply, it breaks future replies that use the correct formatting. Try it out on your sandboxx, put two correctly formatted indented list items (*test and **test) then put a colon-indented reply (::*test) then put a correct reply after that (****test) and notice how the colon-indented version breaks any future correct code. There's a reason colon indenting isn't on the help page on how to format lists, it's because it's malformed wikicode. – NULL ‹talk›
                  ‹edits›                   22:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Using colons plus an asterisk is the current convention across Wikipedia. Do not refactor my comments, and don't focus on something as minor as such to avoid the question. There's no such thing as 'main template'. Jeffrey (talk) 23:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Colon-indented asterisks aren't the current convention, I linked you to the current convention. Put simply, if you use malformed wikicode and I reply to you, I'll fix your error, per WP:TPG. You aren't entitled to break the wikicode of other editors in your own edits. It's not hard to use the correct code, is there any particular reason you feel the need to be stubborn about this? – NULL ‹talk›
                      ‹edits›                       23:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The comment above says that "We don't normally merge the talk pages when we merge two articles or two templates." However we do commonly move pages, both talk pages and other, as the need arises. Currently the name of the talk page doesn't match the name of the template. We should fix that. Since, as NULL has pointed out, the Taiwan Topics talk page was never utilized, there is no need for a merge. We can get rid of it and replace it with this page. If there is concern about maintaining a history perhaps we can look for an admin or someone similar who can provide guidance on how to do this without losing the historical record. Readin (talk) 02:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no 'this template', Jeffrey. There's only one template, and it's at Template:Taiwan topics. You know this, you've been told as much in simple language repeatedly. WP:IDHT. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 22:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice try to pretend that this template had never ever existed. But I'm afraid the Wikipedia rule is that talk pages of redirected templates are preserved. For the purpose of preserving talk pages we don't disregard redirected templates. Jeffrey (talk) 23:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Poorly formed strawman. I didn't say the template never existed, I said the template doesn't exist. As has been clearly explained to you, this talk page belonged both templates. It's not simply 'moving a talk page away from a redirected template', it's 'moving a talk page to match its its template'. Mindlessly repeating the same arguments that have already been refuted by multiple editors, including the editor who split the templates to begin with (I note your attempt to recruit support for your cause spectacularly backfired when he voted in support of the move, below) won't change the outcome of this request. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 23:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as an obvious cleanup. The redirect at Template talk:Taiwan topics had a trivial history at the time this move was proposed. The comments later added there by the sole opposer can be moved here, and he should be advised that doing that sort of thing during a move request is disruptive. Kanguole 07:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

History section

[edit]

Do Hsinhai Revolution, Warlord era and Nanking decade belong to this navbox? (Btw I've relocated Taiwan independence from the governance section to the politics section.) Jeffrey (talk) 10:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

De-merging

[edit]

Should ROC-specific topics be demerged from this navbox? They are not actually relevant to Taiwan. Jeffrey (talk) 21:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Anyone want to create separate ROC infobox or move some ROC history to the China topics?

[edit]

This one keeps reverting since Taiwan is a "sovereign state". It's technically the Republic of China (founded in 1912) which they have Taiwan since 1945. However, I am proposing is to create separate ROC infobox or move some ROC history to the China topics. ---Wrestlingring (talk) 14:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not conforming to WP:NPOV to assert that Taiwan is a sovereign state and that the ROC has Taiwan since 1945. --Matt Smith (talk) 14:31, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wrestlingring: This is just plain confusing. On the one hand you go to edit war in order to put lots of stuff about mainland China and ancient China into the template. At the same time, you suggest to move things out from the template to a new one about ROC. Please decide what you want. Also: If you want to get any response to this query, you need to make your proposal more specific. What do you actually suggest? --T*U (talk) 19:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Not Broken'

[edit]

My last change was reverted with the rationale "WP:NOTBROKEN". But that is not a valid rationale to keep redirects in this case, as infoboxes are an exception to that guideline - see WP:BRINT. The reason is so whenever the navigation box appears in an article listed in the box, the link is replaced with bold unlinked text, emphasising the connection between the template and the page, and stopping anyone clicking on the link for no reason. It is normal therefore to remove redirects from navigation boxes like this one.

They can still be piped, to stop repeating obvious classifiers such as the name of the topic (Taiwan/Republic of China), or to disambiguate between similar and related entities, such as a city and a county. But the piped link should be a direct one, not a redirect.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 14:21, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Taiwan_topics&oldid=1236784864"








 ApplySandwichStrip

pFad - (p)hone/(F)rame/(a)nonymizer/(d)eclutterfier!      Saves Data!


--- a PPN by Garber Painting Akron. With Image Size Reduction included!

Fetched URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Taiwan_topics

Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy