Talk:Republic of China (Taiwan)

Erm,..

This is total uncalled for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.71.35 (talk) 19:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

I agree with Pyl. It is better to have an article to discuss the background of this phrase. It was political and definitely an interesting story in Chen Shui-Bian's term as president. Montemonte (talk) 19:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's really that important, I'd suggest either putting it in the article on Chen, or in the article on the Four Stage Theory. _{Folic_Acid | talk} 06:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about putting it in the article on "Republic of China" and having this page redirect there. It is really a minor topic.Readin (talk) 01:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it is minor, then let's just leave it back to a historic explation of the term and stop arguing here. I don't see anything wrong with a historic explanation of the term, as that's what encyclopedias. I don't quite understand why we can't explain the term here and it is more desireable to explain the term in another article. This indirect approproach doesn't quite make sense to me.

The Chinese version of the article has done this and I see good reasons for it. This is neutral, instead of arguing what the term means. There are actually more contents to be translated, but before this is solved, I am not doing anymore translations. It is possible that I might be wasting my time then.--pyl (talk) 05:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see the reason why this naming term needs its own page, separate from either the Naming Conventions or the Four-Stage Theory of the Republic of China. If it's truly notable, it's notable as a subset of one of those two pages. _{Folic_Acid | talk} 07:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because this naming convention has nothing to do with Wikipedia's official naming convention. This naming convention is about the ROC's official policy, not Wikipedia's.--pyl (talk) 08:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]