The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete all. -Mairi (talk) 22:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggested to list here from WP:WSS/D. Redirect the above templates (ALL unproposed) to Taiwan stub counterparts. impactF= 23:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete would be a first preference - ROC is not used in stub naming (we've had this argument on other stub names before). If not, then redirect would be a second option. Grutness...wha? 00:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. But, User:Nihonjoe pointed out at WP:WSS/D that people would quote "likely [to] keep creating them otherwise" and most of the ROC templates were created by User:Montemonte. Should they be change into redirects like User:Nihonjoe suggested?? - impactF= 01:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I strongly doubt it, and there are good reasons for not having them. This is the first time these templates have been made, and the Taiwan equivalents have been in use for years. Given how long the Taiwan ones have been in use without redirects having been made, i doubt they'd be likely to be remade again in a hyurry. In any case, as I pointed out, we deliberately don't use "ROC". We don't for several reasons: 1) With the exception of U and US, we don't use abbreviations at all (though there are still early template redirects for New Zealand and Hong ong, since they were originally at NZ- and HK- prior to the formalising of stub naming (in both cases, these redirects are deprecated and will hopefully eventually be removed); 2) Though the Republic of China is the primary usage of ROC, it does also refer to other things, so can be ambiguous; 3) "Republic of China", though used to refer to the country also now informally as Taiwan, can be confusing since the term also refers to Mainland China between 1912 and 1949, so the exact usage of any stubs called "ROC-X-stub" can be ambiguous; 4) The term "Republic of China is still controversial in some quartters, and there is nothing more difficult to deal with on Wiipedia than edit-warring on stub templates. Any changes can affect not only dozens of articles, but also both templates and categories-as such, one edit acts as a multiple edit across a slab of articlespace, templatespace, and categoryspagce. If you think that the term is straightforward and non-controversial, I advise you to have a loo at the history of comments on Template talk:Taiwan-stub and elsewhere;5) As with similar circumstances in other countries, it leaves the door open to dozens of other potential redirect names, which defeats the purpose of standardised naming. Given that we have PRChina-X-stub as the standard for the people's republic, ROChina-X-stub should in theory be standard for Taiwan, no? Or would it be RoChina-? or RoC-? Or TaiwanRoC-? or TaiwanROC-? (BTW, none of these has ever been made, either, though they are all equally viable, which further suggests the ROC- types wouldn't be remade in the foreseeable future). Similar situations have been discussed in the past with regard to the lies of US-stub (UnitedStates-stub, America-stub, USA-stub, Us-stub, Usa-stub, UnitedStatesofAmerica-stub, UnitedStatesofAmeriica-stub, Unitedstates-stub, ...). Where possible just using one name without redirects is preferable for all stub templates for this reason, unless the redirect is the sort which could form a liely later split into a separate stub type. Grutness...wha? 02:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Further note: Some of these problems of ambiguity seem to already be arising -several of the articles using ROC-stub don't refer to the current (Taiwanese) Republic of China at all, but refer to the history of China pre-1947 (in which case, they should be using China-hist-stub. Grutness...wha? 02:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
        • That is a lot...Took me a while to read the paragraph :). I got your many points, we should delete them to standardize the stub names. So, we should just put all those "ROC-X-stubs that don't refer to the current (Taiwanese) Republic of China at all" to China-X-stubs then. Like {{ROC-politician-stub}} stubs can be put into {{China-politician-stub}}...etc. - impactF= 06:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
          • I told you there were a lot of reasons (and I am pretty verbose :) As to the ROC ones that aren't taiwan-specific...mmmm...not sure. That would certainly be the current system, and it's the main reason we had plain "China-' types for things like history, since so much of Chinese history is of a time before the currently existing split into PRC and ROC. I'd say that pre-1947 articles should get prrbably get a standard China- type, but I'd certainly be willing to consider alternatives. Grutness...wha? 06:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
            • I think that's a great solution, putting non-taiwan ROC stubs into China-X-stubs. I found a note that someone (I think it was you, Grut, put in PRChina stub category: For articles relating to China in general - including any relating to China before 1949, use {{China-stub}}. Wasn't that an excellent suggestion? Also, I was wondering, why is Taiwan stubs put under PRChina stub cat but not China stub cat?? - impactF= 18:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
              • Note: Should I put {{sfd-t}} in all ROC-x-stubs? - impactF= 19:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
                • Might be a good idea. As to "why is Taiwan stubs put under PRChina stub cat but not China stub cat", I'm not sure exactly where you mean, but the Taiwan- types definitely shouldn't be subtypes of the PRChina- ones. Grutness...wha? 23:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
                  • I meant should Cat:Taiwan stubs be under Cat:People's Republic of China stubs? P.S. I put the {{sfd-t}} in all ROC-x-stubs. - impactF= 02:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
                    • No, that shouldn't have been in there (and isn't now!) Grutness...wha? 03:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
        • I don't care how it is going to be named. And after reading Grutness' arguments it appears that ROChina-stub or RoChina-stub is more logical. The problem with these stub articles is that they are not directly or immediately related to Taiwan, but they are more likely to be taken care of by Taiwan-based Wikipedians or Wikipedians interested in Taiwan matters. For example, mainland Chinese politicians and generals who followed the Kuomintang to Taiwan and retired and died there, or a newspaper that was founded on mainland China and relocated to the island of Kinmen with the Kuomintang. Montemonte (talk) 18:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Keep all or keep Template:ROC-stub There is still chances of expanding the articles. I don't object to redirect or anything but I think they will still be used in the future. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 07:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Of course there's still a chance of expanding the articles. All that's been proposed is the deletion of these templates, which are for exactly the same thing as others which have been in use for years. "Taiwan" is universally used for stubs on Wikipedia, so all that will happen is that ROC-stub will be replaced by the long-standing, correctly-named Taiwan-stub. Same with the other types listed-they'll be replaced with the existing stub templates. Grutness...wha? 19:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Montemonte (talk) 18:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete ROC-hist-stub.

Closed on behalf of Xeno.— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete both of them (both unproposed)?? However {{Taiwan-hist-stub}} can be used in the future... impactF= 23:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete the ROC one, keep the Taiwan one in upmerged form - but remove the permcat from the template, which shouldn't be there. Grutness...wha? 00:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Strongly against your argument: Taiwan is an island; ROC is a country, they do not equate. Additionally, ROC history is huge, especially during the time of mainland rule, from 1912 to 1949, on mainland China. Taiwanese history only has to do with just the island. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Please read Grutness' argument above relating to why the name "ROC" is not used. - impactF= 22:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Comment. ROC-hist-stub change to redirect, see the above comment. - impactF= 01:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    • See response above for numerous reasons not to. Grutness...wha? 02:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Agree Check above response for my suggestion. -impactF= 06:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Keep All or keep just the Taiwan one. There is still much to expand in Taiwan's history. I see no reason to delete both of them. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 07:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

ROC is just as important as Taiwan. Taiwan is just an island X by Y kilometres across, the ROC was a country half the size of Russia from 1912 to 1949, before it fell to the PRC. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

*Keep both. Montemonte (talk) 18:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was upmerge. -Mairi (talk) 22:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Unproposed, the stub count is at 45, not enough for a stub category. impactF= 23:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• First choice would be "try to find 15 more". If that can't be done, then upmerge pre nom. Grutness...wha? 00:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I found two more and I added the stub temps. 47 is still not enough though. I didn't find any more TW road stubs. - impactF= 01:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: This wasn't tagged with {{sfd-c}}, so it might be worth waiting a few more days. Grutness...wha? 02:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.