Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/NPOV/China or PRC vs. mainland China

IMPORTANT: Please read Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/NPOV#..of China or ..of the PRC → ..of mainland China for discussion taken place. Please read the articles listed here before you cast a vote.

This is not a debate on the naming conventions, but its enforcement. Do not vote against the moves because you do not agree with the naming conventions. If you do want to comment on the current naming conventions, please do so at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese).

The list below is not a full list. If you think there is any article, template or category missing, nominate them.

The moves do not apply to some articles and categories, such as the followings.

Articles

Categories

Please vote using this format: #~~~~ - Optional comments.

Like Wikipedia:Requested moves, a >50% majority is needed for a move to be passed. The poll will be closed 30 days from today (12:40, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)), or 7 days after the last vote is cast, whichever the earlier.

Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Discussion" or "Comments". — Insta ntnood 12:40, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

OPEN POLLS[edit]

Communications in the People's Republic of China [edit]

Move to Communications in mainland China
Votes: 4
Support: 50%

Note: This article covers only communications in mainland China.

Support

Instantnood 12:40, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
ran (talk) 16:26, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Roadrunner 17:07, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
ugen 64 23:17, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments

'

Cinema of China [edit]

Move to Cinema of mainland China
Votes: 3
Support: 67%

Note: This article is about development of cinema in mainland China. Because of the number of linked articles, many links will have to be fixed if Cinema of China is changed into a disambiguation to Cinema of mainland China, Cinema of Hong Kong and Cinema of Taiwan.

Support

ran (talk) 16:27, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
Insta ntnood 16:49, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

ugen 64 23:17, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments

'

Economy of China [edit]

Move to Economy of mainland China
Votes: 4
Support: 50%

Note: This article covers the economy of mainland China.

Support

Instantnood 12:40, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
ran (talk) 16:26, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC) The current arrangement implies that Hong Kong and Macau aren't even a part of the PRC.

Oppose

Roadrunner 16:55, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
ugen 64 23:17, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments

'

Education in China[edit]

Move to Education in mainland China
Votes: 4
Support: 50%

Note: This article talks about the education system of mainland China.

Support

Instantnood 12:40, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
ran (talk) 16:26, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Roadrunner 16:55, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
ugen 64 23:17, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments

'

Environment of China[edit]

Move to Environment of mainland China
Votes: 4
Support: 50%

Note: This article is about the environmental issues in mainland China.

Support

Instantnood 12:40, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
ran (talk) 16:26, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Roadrunner 16:55, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
ugen 64 23:17, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments

'

Human rights in China[edit]

Move to Human rights in mainland China
Votes: 3
Support: 33%

Note: This article talks about the human rights issue in mainland China.

Support

Instantnood 12:40, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
Strong support. ran (talk) 16:26, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Roadrunner 16:55, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
ugen 64 23:17, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments

'

Media in China[edit]

Move to Media in mainland China
Votes: 4
Support: 50%

Note: This article talks about the media in mainland China.

Support

Instantnood 12:40, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
ran (talk) 16:26, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC) Current arrangement implies that Hong Kong and Macau aren't a part of the PRC.

Oppose

Roadrunner 16:55, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
ugen 64 23:17, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments

'

People's Republic of China's trademark law[edit]

Move to Trademark law of mainland China
Votes: 1
Support: 100%

Note: This law is only valid, applicable and applied within mainland China.

Support

Instantnood 12:40, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments

'

Reform of the political divisions of China[edit]

Move to Reform of the political divisions of mainland China
Votes: 3
Support: 33%

Note: This article deals with the reform of the administrative divisions within mainland China.

Support

Instantnood 12:40, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Roadrunner 16:55, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
ugen 64 23:17, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments

'

Tourism in China[edit]

Move to Tourism in mainland China
Votes: 3
Support: 33%

Note: This article is about tourism in mainland China. Reference to Taipei and Kaohsiung should be taken out, and be moved to a separate article.

Support

Instantnood 12:40, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Roadrunner 16:55, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
ugen 64 23:17, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments

'

Transportation in China[edit]

Move to Transportation in mainland China
Votes: 4
Support: 50%

Note: This article is about transport in mainland China.

Support

Instantnood 12:40, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
ran (talk) 16:26, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
Phlebas 15:11, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Roadrunner 16:55, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
ugen 64 23:17, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments

'

Internet in China[edit]

Move to Internet in mainland China
Votes: 4
Support: 50%

Note: This article talks about the Internet in mainland China.

Support

Instantnood 12:40, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
ran (talk) 16:26, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Roadrunner 16:55, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
ugen 64 23:17, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments

'

Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China[edit]

Move to Internet censorship in mainland China
Votes: 4
Support: 50%

Note: This article is about Internet censorship in mainland China.

Support

Instantnood 12:40, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
Strong support. --ran (talk) 16:26, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Roadrunner 16:55, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
ugen 64 23:17, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments

'

Category:Airports of the People's Republic of China[edit]

Move to Category:Airports of mainland China
Votes: 3
Support: 33%

Note: If the move is approved, Category:Airports of the People's Republic of China will serve as the parent category of category:Airports of mainland China, category:Airports of Hong Kong and category:Airports of Macau.

Support

Instantnood 12:40, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Roadrunner 16:55, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
ugen 64 23:17, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments

'

Category:Banks of the People's Republic of China[edit]

Move to Category:Banks of mainland China
Votes: 3
Support: 33%

Note: All articles in this category are about banks in mainland China.

Support

Instantnood 12:40, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Roadrunner 16:55, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
ugen 64 23:17, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments

'

Category:Chinese newspapers [edit]

Move to Category:Newspapers of mainland China
Votes: 4
Support: 50%

Note: All articles in this category are about newspapers in mainland China. Further, "Chinese newspapers" is ambiguous with "Chinese-language newspapers".

Support

Instantnood 12:40, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
ran (talk) 16:30, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Roadrunner 16:55, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
ugen 64 23:17, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments

'

Category:Chinese media[edit]

Move to Category:Media in mainland China
Votes: 4
Support: 50%

Note: Articles in this category are about media in mainland China.

Support

Instantnood 12:40, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
ran (talk) 16:31, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Roadrunner 16:55, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
ugen 64 23:17, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments

'

Category:Companies of the People's Republic of China[edit]

Move to Category:Companies of mainland China
Votes: 3
Support: 33%

Note: All articles in this category are about companies of mainland China. This category corresponds to list of companies in mainland China, see also talk:List of Chinese companies.

Support

Instantnood 12:40, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Roadrunner 16:55, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
ugen 64 23:17, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments

'

Category:Law enforcement in China[edit]

Move to Category:Law enforcement in mainland China
Votes: 4
Support: 25%

Note: All articles in this category are about law enforcement within mainland China.

Support

Instantnood 12:40, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Roadrunner
Necrothesp 03:37, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
ugen 64 23:17, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments

'

Category:Laws of the People's Republic of China[edit]

Move to Category:Laws of mainland China
Votes: 3
Support: 33%

Note: Courts in mainland China have no jurisdictions over Hong Kong and Macao. All laws, except those listed in Annex III of Hong Kong's and Macao's Basic Law, are not valid, applied and applicable in Hong Kong and Macao.
If the move is approved, category:Laws of the People's Republic of China will be the parent category for category:Laws of mainland China, category:Hong Kong law and category:Macao law, as well as the articles on constitutional documents, and laws in Annex III of the basic laws.

Support

Instantnood 12:40, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Roadrunner 16:55, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
ugen 64 23:17, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments

'

category:People's Republic of China roads and expressways[edit]

Move to category:Roads and expressways in mainland China
Votes: 2
Support: 100%

Note: Articles in this category are on the roads and expressways in mainland China.

Support

Instantnood 12:40, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
ran (talk) 16:32, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments

'

category:Transportation in China[edit]

Move to category:Transportation in mainland China
Votes: 3
Support: 33%

Note: All articles in this category are about transport in mainland China.

Support

Instantnood 12:40, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Roadrunner 16:55, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
ugen 64 23:17, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments

'

category:Chinese universities[edit]

Move to category:Universities in mainland China
Votes: 3
Support: 33%

Note: This category corresponds to list of universities in mainland China.

Support

Instantnood 12:40, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Roadrunner 16:55, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
ugen 64 23:17, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments

'

category:Museums in China[edit]

Move to category:Museums in mainland China
Votes: 3
Support: 33%

Note: Articles in this category are about museums within mainland China.

Support

Instantnood 12:40, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Roadrunner 16:55, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
ugen 64 23:17, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments

'

category:Cities in China[edit]

Move to category:Cities in mainland China
Votes: 3
Support: 33%

Note: This category corresponds to the list of cities in China#List of cities in mainland China. The definition of "city", namely "prefecture-level city" "county-level city, is only applicable within mainland China. Hong Kong and Macao have no definition of city.

Support

Instantnood 12:40, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Roadrunner 16:55, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
ugen 64 23:17, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments

'

CLOSED POLLS[edit]

Add title here[edit]

There is no closed polls at the moment.

Discussion[edit]

THIS IS RIDICULOUS[edit]

I'm sorry, this is ridiculous - why are we going to look at each individual section instead of conforming to a single, comprehensive naming convention? The individual vote setup makes no sense. In any event, my vote in every instance is to keep China as China (not Mainland China, not the People's Federal Democratic Soviet Socialist Republic of the Nation of China, just ... China). I've been there, the people are nice. The food is great. Bathrooms... not so nice - but did I mention the food? -- 8^D BD2412^gab 13:47, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
The blahblahblahrepublic of China does not exist. Mainland China, however, is an unambiguous, clearly-defined term that constitutes a natural part of the self-conception of China and Chinese people, and is used in PRC legislation. Thus your analogy does not hold. -- ran (talk) 16:24, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
Actually not. The term "mainland China" isn't used that much in PRC legislation or for that matter the official media in the PRC. The term that I see most often in the People's Daily is zhongguo neidi. If the problem is that the articles on the PRC don't include Hong Kong and Macao, which are part of the PRC, then we can include Hong Kong and Macao in the text of the article. Roadrunner 17:11, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Try this google search. "mainland China" -"Hong Kong" -"Macau" -"Macao" -"Taiwan" site:gov.cn.

This article writes " communications between mainland China and the foreign countries ", and this piece of press release on trade is interesting too (" trade of goods between mainland China and Denmark reached ").

This article on Finnair website writes " The airport has excellent connections to other parts of mainland China as well as Hong Kong and Macao.
Here are some of the examples I cited before
Latest Satistics on SARS on Mainland China (15/04/2003) [1]

Education System in Mainland China [2]

Regulations of the State Council for Encouragement of Investment by Overseas Chinese and Compatriots from Hong Kong and Macao [3]

Reform gradualism and evolution of exchange rate regime in Mainland China (a speech delievered by the governor of the People's Bank of China) (doc format) [4]

And I cannot agree to include Hong Kong and Macao into articles about mainland China. — Insta ntnood 17:21, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
Strange. Last time I checked, with the exception Victoria Island in Hong Kong, Macau and the rest of Hong Kong are on mainland China. Chris 23:27, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
...That's not even the definition of "Mainland China". Hainan is in mainland China, Kowloon is not. Mainland China refers to all of the PRC minus Hong Kong and Macau. Terms like this simply come into use and they are defined by convention. For example, if you ask a Hong Kong resident what "dailou" (the Mainland) means... he/she certainly isn't going to point to Kowloon.... instead he/she points to Shenzhen, across the Shenzhen River, and all of Mainland China that lies beyond it. -- ran (talk) 04:59, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Fully agree with Roadrunner. He stated that "the term "mainland China" isn't used that much in PRC legislation". For anyone to disprove him, he has to show that the PRC actually uses the term "mainland China" often. The above selection hardly seems "often" enough, especially when compared to just how often competiting terms are used. I similarly cannot see any problem with articles having a XXX of PRC title, and with the two SARs having subsections in that article, if there are any differences to speak of neccesiting this subsection.--Huaiwei 20:14, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
When there's an article about mainland China as an economy, is there any reason to include Hong Kong and Macao as part of it? Are Hong Kong, Macao and the mainland one economy? — Insta ntnood 20:49, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

And the World is one economy too. So?--Huaiwei 01:16, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There isn't an article about the economy of mainland China. There is a dab page pointing to four economies, PRC, explanatory text that the SARs have different economics, and then Taiwan. Roadrunner has it exactly right. SchmuckyTheCat 22:07, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is a DAB page pointing to four different economies, so that Hong Kong and Macau are treated separately from the PRC. And yet one of them is called Economy of the People's Republic of China? Don't you see something bizarre (if not positively Hong Kong separatist) about this arrangement? And yet you accuse Insta of being a HK patriot? -- ran (talk) 01:26, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

And the simple solution is to remove the links for HK and Macau, and leave only the PRC and ROC on the page, dont you think?--Huaiwei 01:40, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Don't forget the wonderful disambiguation at the top of Economy of the People's Republic of China: This article is about the economy of Mainland China. Wonderful! An article that is not named after what it describes! How about we rename it to Economy of Asia. But leave the note about the article being about Mainland China. That'll solve all possible confusion. --ran (talk) 01:31, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

If you are fretting over the article "not naming what it describes", shall I edit the page to show you how it can be solved without renaming anything?--Huaiwei 01:40, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How? Sure, you can spend the next hour or so adding all of the CIA figures in Economy of HK and Macau to Economy of the PRC, but what does this accomplish? Chances are you're still going to need separate articles for Hong Kong and Macau. And what happens to the figures of Mainland China that are already there? Are you going to start another article just on Mainland China too? -- ran (talk) 01:51, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

I just did the changes to Economy of China and Economy of the People's Republic of China. Problems solved. No need for any renaming of articles, and I did not take too long to do it. Meanwhile, the third paragraph which talks about the two SARs in Economy of the People's Republic of China could see some room for expansion to explain why the subsequent sections only talks about mainland China until the last section on the SARs.--Huaiwei 02:39, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Did you add the HK and Macau figures for GDP, per capita, labour force, oil, natural gas, imports and exports etc. to the main article? You haven't updated the currency section either -- the Renminbi is not the currency of HK or Macau. In fact, most of the sections continue to have no application whatsoever to the SARs, such as in the "Foreign Trade" section where we have: According to IMF statistics, China's global trade totaled $353 billion in 1999; the trade surplus stood at $36 billion. China's primary trading partners include Japan, Taiwan, the U.S., South Korea, Hong Kong, Germany, Singapore, Russia, and the Netherlands. This is the old article about Mainland China in all but name -- arguably worse, since it doesn't even carry the old disclaimer anymore.

In other words, attempting to treat Mainland China, Hong Kong, and Macau as one economic entity, and describing them all in one article, is an artificial way of arranging things. -- ran (talk) 04:07, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

The third paragraph is the one which already carries an explaination on the two SARs. As I already explained, it includes the possibilities for further expansion in explaining why the subsequent sections are not inclusive of the economies in the two SARs. The present disclaimer is for Economy of China, where it was moved from. Why should there be a disclaimer in a page on the PRC refer to the ROC? You say the "Foreign Trade" section has nothing to do with the SARS. Yet there is already a link to Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement in that section, which obviously refers to trade and economic links between the three entities. Do the PRC consider trade with the two SARs are international, despite how the two SARs call their trade with the rest of China? This page, like any other page, can be presented to refer only to Mainland China. At the same time, it can also be presented to refer to the PRC. Why is there resistance to do the later? This is not an attempt to treat the three economies as one, because the contents from three pages was not merged. Rather, the PRC page should provide ample links and explaination of the special status in the two SARs. Apparantly, interpretation of either format as "artificial" or not lies with the viewer still.--Huaiwei 11:00, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why should there be a disclaimer in a page on the PRC refer to the ROC? - I mean the disclaimer that used to be on top of Economy of PRC. The article is still predominantly about Mainland China, with all of the statistics provided and nearly all of the background info applying only to Mainland China. I provided a few examples. And yet the article now claims to be about the "PRC", and even the disclaimer, clarifying that it's just about Mainland China, is gone. That makes it more misleading.

This page, like any other page, can be presented to refer only to Mainland China. At the same time, it can also be presented to refer to the PRC. Why is there resistance to do the later? - as has been amply demonstrated by this very article, because it's an artificial way of doing things. -- ran (talk) 14:42, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

I suppose some folks find it difficult to stomach any page which has a configuration like:

XXX of the People's Republic of China (page title)
- XXX in Mainland China (subsection)
- XXX in Hong Kong (subsection)
- XXX in Macau (subsection)

It greatly disturbs them for some reason.--Huaiwei 01:16, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh... cmon, take a look at the current articles on the economies of the "PRC" (in reality Mainland China), Hong Kong, and Macau. If you want to go and merge those three together please go ahead. Have fun juggling the subsections. -- ran (talk) 01:26, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

I merely pointed out a proposal which seems to disturb some people. In fact, some of the smaller articles are already arranged like this, and I do not see why it cannot be done for others.--Huaiwei 01:40, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You mean articles like Homosexuality in China? Sure, that's because the Hong Kong section is rather small, and also because the article talks about Ancient China as well. If and when it gets too big, I'm in full support of splitting it into separate articles about Ancient China, Mainland, HK, Macau, and Taiwan. -- ran (talk) 01:51, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Where was this announced[edit]

Again Instantnood is running a poll to get what he wants when the lsst discussion ran out just weeks ago. This poll was only announced on less than ten user pages for 25 or so articles See the original announced list. It wasn't announced on Requested Moves, it wasn't announced on VfD or CfD. It wasn't announced on the talk pages of the articles to be moved! It wasn't announced on my user page and I created many of these categories. I oppose every single move here without reading them all. I vehemently oppose the term "mainland China" in the title of any article or category. SchmuckyTheCat 14:29, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hello SchmuckyTheCat. Could you please be a little bit more patient? That's what I am now doing. I would appreciate if you can give me a hand. :-D — Insta ntnood 14:54, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Last time I gave you a hand several days after the poll started because it was obvious you were trying to game the results. This time, in good faith, I will be patient, but note that you didn't make a far and wide proclamation until after jguk put it on VfD and I made this complaint. SchmuckyTheCat 15:29, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Check the time record and you can tell jguk nominated it on VfD right after this page was created (less than 15 minutes). — Insta ntnood 15:37, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

(section title)[edit]

I'm sorry, but I see absolutely no merit in this poll. It's goes to into pointless detail and it seems to be about fairly uncontroversial issue. Is there any consensus for this initiative? Peter Isotalo 15:09, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Some people may agree that articles should be renamed according to the naming conventions, but it does not apply to, perhaps, a few of the pages. Therefore it is necessary to assess each case. — Insta ntnood 15:37, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Precisely what naming convention is being "enforced" by this vote? I see nothing on the main page that mandates the use of the term "mainland China" in any circumstance. This seems like (another) page move request en masse, simply using a non-standard mechanism to do it. Alai 16:51, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As Ran has pointed out in her/his remarks to her/his vote, the current treatment implies Hong Kong and Macao not part of the PRC. The naming conventions say "Hong Kong and Macau are generally not considered part of Mainland China, but are under the jurisdiction of the PRC. Thus, it is appropriate to write "many tourists from Hong Kong and Taiwan are visiting Mainland China." ", "mainland China" is the term to use to avoid implying Hong Kong and Macao not part of the PRC. — Insta ntnood 16:56, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

And from the words of that convention: "Hong Kong and Macau are generally not considered part of Mainland China, but are under the jurisdiction of the PRC. Thus, it is appropriate to write "many tourists from Hong Kong and Taiwan are visiting Mainland China."" Neither of these terms entails that the term Mainland China MUST be used in all relevant circumstances, and it does not even seem clear what the term is supposed to mean, and true reflection of its ambiguity. Clearly, multiple interpretations can be made from the convention, and as we can see, political agendas do appear to be enforced by pushing through particular interpretations.--Huaiwei 20:18, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're, again, speculating or suspecting that there're agendas. — Insta ntnood 20:49, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

I notice you have been highligting this "speculation" thingy ever since there is a WP:RFAr#User:SchmuckyTheCat_.26_User:Instantnood, and from the discussion you had with Jiang in User_talk:Instantnood#Re:arbitration? If there is evidence to insist that NPOV is lacking, it will be pointed out. Having a political POV is of coz a political agenda. And meanwhile, that seems to be an interesting response coming from you, considering my reply was not targetted at anyone. Makes me wonder....--Huaiwei 01:26, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Justification for this page[edit]

I am quite disturbed by the existance of this page. Do all previous debates arguing against the convention come to nought? Are previous rounds of votes which had already been carried out for some of these mentioned categories and articles now invalid? And worse, is the above an attempt by its creater to get what he wants once and for all, after so much controversy which has gone on since he appeared in this site?--Huaiwei 15:24, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Proposals to change the naming conventions should be done separately. If that is successful, the ~~pages~~ titles of the articles and categories will have to be renamed accordingly, to the revised set of naming conventions. — Insta ntnood 15:37, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

And according to your logic, discussions on the conventions should take place AFTER this page?--Huaiwei 15:56, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No. — Insta ntnood 16:09, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

So can you justify the existance of this page?--Huaiwei 20:19, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Interesting way of induction. Did the previous discussions serve the purpose of assessing the applicability of the naming conventions to each of the articles and categories? — Insta ntnood 20:49, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are asking about? Please use simplier sentence structures.--Huaiwei 01:27, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, previous discussions led to agreement between you and Instantnood that the conventions were insufficient for determining the policy on all articles relating to the PRC/mainland so each article should be decided on a case-by-case basis. So isn't that what this page is trying to accomplish? --Umofomia 03:11, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is a distinctive difference between the two. The "agreement" you refer to says that each case should be accessed on a case-by-case basis. However, apparantly both of us interprets that differently. I believe the convention cannot be used for what it is supposed to do, simply because it is under severe contestations which calls for a review. Instantnood insists that the convention should stay as it is, and should be adhered to religiously. So when I talk of a case by case basis, it means each situation is reviewed independently from what the conventions says. Anyone is entitled to disagree with the convention and vote accordingly. To instantnood, however, he insists that these all voters in this page must agree to the conventions first. Which of coz leads me to question...why bother to vote then, if the convention is supposed solve all issues anyway? What does he mean by agreeing to look at each case individually, when he calls for 100% compliance to this convention? I fail to see any logic in his actions here, unless someone else can untangle this mess for me?--Huaiwei 06:06, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(section title)[edit]

This is getting silly. The least controversial way of dealing with any naming controversy is to make the article mainly about mainland China (which is about 90% of the article) and have annotations and links to Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macao as special cases when appropriate. The reason for this is that it means that the screaming occurs in the articles themselves rather in the naming of the article. This is much less disruptive, and it allows one to tailor the article to fit the specific situation (which might change).

I should also point out that this issue doesn't fit political lines. Mahbaba and I come from completely different sides of the political spectrum, but we seem to be in agreement about how the articles should be named.

I should also point out that this great renaming becomes silly if you actual go and *read* some of the articles which have been extensively modified to take into account different points of view. For example, the article Economy of China is a stub that then goes into different articles.

Roadrunner 16:55, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please kindly take a look at the edit history of Economy of China. It was moved after the discussion was started at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/NPOV#..of China or ..of the PRC → ..of mainland China. — Insta ntnood 17:13, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)