Talk:Taiwan Area
(Redirected from Talk:Free area of the Republic of China)
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Taiwan Area article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 2 years  |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 7 July 2008. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 | On 2 September 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from Free area of the Republic of China to Taiwan Area. The result of the discussion was moved. |
Requested move 2 September 2024
[edit]- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved. I see consensus to move. Best, (closed by non-admin page mover) Reading Beans 08:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Free area of the Republic of China → Taiwan Area – It seems like Taiwan Area is more common and easy to understand. Donttellu8 (talk) 05:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: The current opening paragraph appears to violate WP:ISATERMFOR. Is the topic of the article the area or the term? I suggest the area should be clarified and emphasized more than it currently is. — BarrelProof (talk) 16:54, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- @BarrelProof, the article appears to be specifically about the use of the term. If it were about the area, then it possibly should be merged. DankJae 20:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Both are terms. That latter is more commonly used. Matt Smith (talk) 02:24, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Are those terms really synonymous? In that phrase, "area" is not consistently uppercased. I am still not convinced the article is just about the terminology and not about the area to which the term applies. — BarrelProof (talk) 03:43, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- When being properly uppercased, they are synonymous. The article content can be about the terminology or the area to which the term applies; it doesn't matter. Matt Smith (talk) 04:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Are those terms really synonymous? In that phrase, "area" is not consistently uppercased. I am still not convinced the article is just about the terminology and not about the area to which the term applies. — BarrelProof (talk) 03:43, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Support, Taiwan Area seems more concise.
- SirBrahms (talk) 08:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Weak support on the basis of a more WP:concise title.
- 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 21:14, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Support. It seems a concise term and is used in legal and official functions. Lewisguile (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Term both more concise and commonly used. Even Chinese Wikipedia refers to it as "Taiwan Area" Zinderboff(talk) 15:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Delete "fully"
[edit]| − | The '''Taiwan Area''', | + | The '''Taiwan Area''', also the "'''Taiwan Area of the Republic of China'''", the '''free area of the Republic of China''', [..] |conventional_long_name = Taiwan Area |native_name= {{nobold|{{lang|zh-tw|臺灣地區}}}}
|
The "fully" sentence was added by me after I requested to move the page. At the time, I thought it was self-evident, but in fact, it is not very rigorous. There is no explicit abbreviation-to-full name relationship between the two terms. Similarly, the "long name" mentioned in the "Nomenclature" section below is not written that way either. @Matt Smith: ?8 (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Matt Smith:
If you repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits, your edits will appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. See WP:DISRUPTSIGNS 4.a. . ?8 (talk) 15:58, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry about that. I can't recall that I saw the previous notification of your pinging me, or maybe I saw it and quickly forgot it due to having to handle other things first. I have no objection to your proposal. Lastly, I would like to point out that your use of "repeatedly" is inappropriate because I almost don't disregard questions, let alone repeatedly doing that. Matt Smith (talk) 08:58, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- The word "repeatedly" is quoted from the original text and may not fully apply to your situation. Additionally, the sentence begins with "if," which does not imply that you have already engaged in such behavior. If this has caused you any trouble, I sincerely apologize. ?8 (talk) 08:29, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry about that. I can't recall that I saw the previous notification of your pinging me, or maybe I saw it and quickly forgot it due to having to handle other things first. I have no objection to your proposal. Lastly, I would like to point out that your use of "repeatedly" is inappropriate because I almost don't disregard questions, let alone repeatedly doing that. Matt Smith (talk) 08:58, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
