Template talk:ROC

Proposal

This template was changed to "Republic of China (Taiwan)" from "Republic of China" per the tentative agreement at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Proposed guidelines. Although the label will be mostly used correctly, there will be cases when "Republic of China" or "Taiwan" are better labels. I propose creating {{ROC2}} and {{ROC3}} labels to deal with the potential issues. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 08:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think a second template with Republic of China (on Taiwan) should be created and this one should be reverted back to just having Republic of China TingMing 21:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think not, this is enough.--Jerry 22:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jumping Cheese agrees with me that we should create more. Republic of China (Taiwan) is not accurate at all. TingMing 22:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Jerry on this one. It keeps the people who want the "official name" up happy, and it keeps the people who want "Taiwan" up there happy. - Pandacomics 05:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be weird if the template refers to the Republic in 1912(1945)-1949, and currently the Taipei administration also exercises sovereignty over those non-Taiwan islands of Matsu and Kinmen. As an identical template has long existed here (showing Republic of China (Taiwan)), it is unnecessary and time-wasting adding the name Taiwan on this simply "ROC" (1912-present)" template - 210.0.204.29 01:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I with no doubts reverted User:Folic Acid's edits which has never been discussed. There is no need to include the name of Taiwan as there is another age-old template which already did. And I rather see it was User:Folic Acid who added Taiwan without ANY discussion in the very first place, so please dont tell me "please discuss before removing text" MainBody 08:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is only ONE China, the base concept. The only confusion is that Mainland, inclusive of all the self province, Macao and Hong Kong are rule under Communist Party of China, while Taiwan inclusive those surround islands are under government by the democrats parties. If you were going to do paper work, Constitution of both sides stated they own the whole China and claim illegal regime of the other. However, in actual, they are practicing their power each on of their province isolated from the other. CPC base themselves in Beijing and ROC based themselves in Nanjing(aka Nanking) but now Taipei, Taiwan. Same logic, still it is odd to name PRC as "PRC(Beijing)". Hence, making equivalent of Taiwan to the ROC is in fact not correct. Regards ChowHui 10:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this issue. You may use standard invocation by entering {{ROC}} and receiving Republic of China. You may also use variants by entering {{flag|Republic of China}} with some add-ons - {{flagicon|Republic of China}} [[Taiwan]] (resulting Taiwan) or {{ROC}} ([[Taiwan]]) (resulting Republic of China (Taiwan)). Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 13:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"{{ROC}}" for Republic of China and "{{ROC-TW}}" for Republic of China (Taiwan). Why waste time creating chaos as these two templates have simultaneously existed well for ages? If anyone of you has such special feeling on the latter's naming, just use this template yourself. Stop making the situation complex! MainBody 16:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, the way I see it is that this template would apply to China prior to the 1949 split, seeing as China at the time was indeed called the Republic of China. Then the 1949 split came along, and that's where you get {{ROC-TW}} and {{PRC}}. Pandacomics 07:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this template not link to China?

Why does the template link to Republic of China and not simply China? in the first place, the ROC in 1912-49 was the whole of China as far as the world was concerned; it was not the present government of Taiwan. Secondly, comparable templates do not link to specific states/regimes, e.g. the French Fifth Republic, especially when they only control a rump of the previous geographical entity. Grant | Talk 09:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because China is an article about a geographic region and a civilization, neither of which is associated with a flag. The article at Republic of China includes the 1912-1949 period, so I don't see what the problem is. If you want the wikilink display text to read "China", use {{CHN-ROC}} to get

China. Hope this helps, Andrwsc 15:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of what the link in the template says. I don't think the template should point to the ROC article at all. China is much more than a "geographic region and a civilization", it is a nation. ROC now means Taiwan. It is not right that the many articles now using this template link to an article on a state which last controlled the mainland 58 years ago and now only governs Taiwan. Grant | Talk 12:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ROC does not mean TAIWAN! ROC and PRC are parallel legal government of China. Both legally represent China, however, they practice their power in region isolated from each other. They are just 2 party in a civil war. ChowHui 16:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are going round in circles. There is no ambiguity about China, so there is no reason for the template to link to Republic of China. Grant | Talk 06:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure there is. The flag is not associated with the target article at China, so it would be an inappropriate wikilink. The very first line of that article directs the reader to the two "modern political entities", and both Template:ROC and Template:PRC have the correct wikilinks, because those two flags are associated with those two political entities (respectively). Andrwsc 06:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrwsc, but we have no template that allows for the fact that one internationally-recognised state existed in 1912-49, which is a problem in many history articles. The present flag of the ROC was simply the Flag of China, in 1912-49; the official name "Republic of China" only became significant because of the "two Chinas" after 1949.

So it is an appropriate wikilink, because it is the non-POV way of doing things. The way things are now, one could get the impression that Taiwan was fighting World War II rather than the whole of China. Which is very confusing because Taiwan was a Japanese colony at the time!

You say: "The very first line of that article directs the reader to the two 'modern political entities'" Yes, and.....? Grant | Talk 07:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And.... the point is that there are two parallel main articles about the respective governments, and these correspond to the two flag templates I mentioned. There is no distinct article for 1912-1949 China only (it is included in the article at Republic of China), which is why Template:CHN-ROC (producing

China) is currently used to represent that political entity for that period of time. I also note that we have Template:TWN (for

Taiwan), so there are various options for editors to choose the appropriate flag template depending on the context. There is also {{flag|Republic of China|1912}} (

Republic of China) for the 1912-1928 flag, and {{flag|Qing Dynasty}} (

Qing Dynasty) for pre-1912 China. Again, lots of choices for editors, depending on the context of the article they use them in. Andrwsc 07:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some more thoughts: The article at Republic of China includes the standard infobox with the expected flag. The article at People's Republic of China also includes the standard infobox, with its flag. It is only natural to expect that the two flag templates that wikilink to those respective pages use the same flags. I note that China does not use Template:Infobox Country or territory, instead using a custom infobox that focuses more on the geography and languages. I think your debate is misplaced here, just focusing on these flag templates. There is massive consensus for the current article structure for China, Republic of China and People's Republic of China, and unless those articles change names etc., then I think any changes to the flag templates are unjustified. Andrwsc 07:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the problem is still not clear to you, I will put it another way: one article covers both mainland China 1912-45 and Taiwan 1949-. These are completely different geographical areas and this is liable to confuse lay readers with little or no knowledge of the history or politics.

Anyway, have fun with your template; I will simply create {{Template:China (1912-49)}} and use as appropriate. Grant | Talk 09:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not confused at all. The main point here is exactly as you state: "one article covers both mainland China 1912-45 and Taiwan 1949-". This template shows the correct flag and best name for that single article. If you change the main article structure, then the flag templates can be adjusted accordingly.

Also, I still fail to see how linking any flag template to China will work. That article multiple periods of history, so no single flag image is appropriate. Andrwsc 20:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you plan to use this 1912-1949 template, Grant? I'm not clear on where it would be appropriate. Andrwsc has already said that China doesn't refer to one specific time period, but spans a number of different political entities. Republic of China, and Andrwsc says, incorporates the best flag and name for that article. Where else could your template be used? _{Folic_Acid | talk} 20:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have already explained that it is not appropriate to have the present template in articles about the period of 1912-1945, because "ROC = Taiwan" in the minds of many present-day readers and during that period Taiwan was a Japanese colony and was not even part of the ROC. This is highly confusing to ordinary readers who don't know the history.

In essence the ROC is a state, not a country (look up the two concepts if you don't understand the difference between them), as its borders have varied to such a phenomenal extent that they have covered mutually exclusive areas at various times. This makes use of the name, without some qualification such as "1912-49", confusing and unsuitable for an encylopedia. Grant | Talk 11:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In re-reading your comments, Grant, it sounds like you're taking issue with the article Republic of China covering both the modern state as it exists today, and also covering the history of the country, which, as you say, has widely varying borders and definitions. Perhaps a better solution would be to author an article on the History of the Republic of China (or whatever you'd like to call it) that would cover the post-Qing Chinese state (and would clarify the bits about what territory the ROC governed in the various timespans you specify), and leave the Republic of China to speak about the modern state. I'm certainly not opposed to another template - I'm just trying to understand where it should or would be used, and how to differentiate it from other ROC-related templates. If you'd like to collaborate on a ROC history project, I'd be happy to help - perhaps we could carry that discussion over to the Taiwan WikiProject and/or the China WikiProject. _{Folic_Acid | talk} 13:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mistake my purpose. I started thinking about these issues because of this template's use in inappropriate contexts, not because of any deep knowledge of Taiwan, PRC or China in general.

Moreover, I have yet to hear a convincing explanation of why we have so many China templates, all of which point to a particular state and yet we have absolutely none that represent the geo-cultural country/nation of China, as is the case with (e.g) Template:IND (which has had many different states/regimes at the national level), Template:RUS {ditto) and Template:BRA (ditto).

If this is — as I am now beginning to suspect — simply a matter of political correctness in relation to the ROC/KMT historical claim to the mainland, all I can say is this: with Taiwan now pushing for independence, any claim to de jure authority over the mainland must logically have ended, just as de facto authority over the mainland ended in 1949. Grant | Talk 14:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which inappropriate contexts are you referring to?

And no, I don't think this is a matter of political correctness. However, I'm still not clear on why, if you believe there are too many China templates already, there ought to be another one for a 37-year span of history. With regard to a country/nation template, I have no particular objection to that, but I think that's a new point that goes beyond the scope of our discussion to date. How would you propose going about that? _{Folic_Acid | talk} 15:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you, Grant, that this is not an issue of political correctness. It is as I stated above – a matter of internal Wikipedia consistency. I don't even follow your supposedly contrary examples. If you look at the target wikilink for {{IND}}, the first line of the article at India states:

This article is about the modern Republic of India. For other uses, see India (disambiguation)

Similarly, the article wikilinked from {{RUS}} is clearly about the current Russian Federation only, with links to previous states. I would also note that since those previous states also have their own articles, so do we have individual flag templates for them:

{{flag|Russian SFSR}} → Russian SFSR
{{flag|Soviet Union}} → Soviet Union (and Template:USSR is also available)
{{flag|Russian Empire}} → Russian Empire (also has various flag variants)

How about Germany? Lots of choices there!

{{flag|Germany}} → Germany (or simply {{GER}} or {{DEU}})
{{flag|West Germany}} → West Germany
{{flag|East Germany}} → East Germany
{{flag|Nazi Germany}} → Nazi Germany
{{flag|German Empire}} → German Empire

Those five unique target articles exist, so a flag template is available for each one. The treatment of China is no different. I would also note that in every example I've provided here (including the Chinese articles), the target wikilink for every template points to an article with the standard country (or former country) infobox. Every article is about a particular nation/state. I don't think there is any "geo/cultural" articles about any nation that has a flag associated with it. How could we? Flags represent nations and governments, not civilizations. Andrwsc 17:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, it seems that French Fifth Republic is a bogus article which should simply be a re-direct to France.

Do neither of you see the ambiguity and potential for confusion that exists? That is the key question. Can you point me to the particular policy which says that flag templates must link to a state?

Andrwsc, in the cases you mention above, the present day states are closely connected to the geo-cultural countries/nations. The ROC is a rare exception in this respect. Also, it is not true that flags always represent governments; for instance, many flags have emerged as popular/sectional symbols first and have later achieved official status.

Folic_Acid, once again, the inappropriate contexts are articles about China in the key period of 1912-1945, during which time Taiwan was not part of the ROC or any Chinese state. Grant | Talk 22:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't see any confusion here. I'm not trying to be difficult or argumentative with you — I honestly really don't see the problem. As for policy about how flag templates are used, there isn't any. I'd say there isn't even a guideline about what the wikilink target ought to point to. But I will say there is incredibly strong consensus for the current situation, with many, many thousands of transclusions of the existing templates.

As for the 1912-1945 period, Template:CHN-ROC is certainly used on many military history articles for precisely that purpose. Andrwsc 22:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another thought: I really think the biggest issue for you is that the ROC history from 1912-1945 is included in the same article as the current nation on Taiwan. I think you ought to take this discussion there, and work on getting that article split. If that happens, the template wikilinks can be adjusted to follow. Andrwsc 22:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since they are parallel legal government, I suggest they should both include the history of 1912-1945 and make reference to each other in the separated articles. Although, It is more proper to put the nation history of 1912-1945 on the ROC, and start the PRC with the history of foundation of CCP/CPC. A complete history of a continuous goverment, and a complete history of a later form government. ChowHui 23:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"ROC" and Russia

A heads up for this talk-page.

As covered by numerous sources, including Reuters, "ROC" is to be used as the code for Russian athletes at the 2020 Summer Olympics. As the template {{ROC}} points to Republic of China, there may be some necessary decisions made, and quick, about how to deal with the identical codes referring to different entities.

Sources:

doktorb _words^deeds 17:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 16 July 2021

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please remove the two interlanguage links [[ja:Template:ROC]] and [[zh:Template:ROC]]. They are already linked by wikidata, so are redundant. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 10:36, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done firefly ( t · c ) 13:08, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]