Talk:Republican China

Untitled

A redirect is inadequate since Republican China does not refer to the Republic of China (Taiwan).--DownUnder555 05:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article Republic of China does not have Taiwan in parenthesis after its title. It is on BOTH pre 1949 and post 1949 Republic of China. As such, the redirect should be fine. --Ji ang 07:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about the name of the article, but you're wrong about the redirect. A redirect means that Republican China is equivalent to the Republic of China. This is incorrect. Republican China is the Republic of China from 1912-1949. I mentioned "Republic of China (Taiwan)" in an apolitical way in order to point out that ROC 1949-present is not relevant to someone looking for "Republican China". I understand what's in the Republic of China article having made plenty of edits to it.--DownUnder555 17:34, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects are often used for POV, inaccurate, or misspelled terms. The redirect does not imply that "Republican China" is synonymous with the "Republic of China" in its entirety. Having a former name redirect to a current one is standard practice in wikipedia. For example, Phillip Morris redirects to Altria Group when the former name no longer refers to the company post-2003. Another example: German Samoa and Western Samoa are outdated terms that redirect to Samoa. --Ji ang 19:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Republican China is not a POV, inaccurate, or a mispelled term. You claim it does not imply synonymity--then how does one find out that Republican China is not the same as Republic of China? If there are other cases, it is possible they may need to be corrected to. By redirecting, you cannot solve this problem. I'm reverting back to a longer explanation with links.--DownUnder555 13:16, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wait several days and see no response before reverting. I would appreciate if you did the same. Non-synonymous terms are often still redirected. I provided examples. If you feel "Republic of China" does not accurately explain the term "Republican China", then please add an explanation. But not every redirect is explained. The other cases should not be "corrected". There are countless examples of this in wikipedia and this is in line with the redirect policy. If you disagree, bring this up at the policy page. --Ji ang 20:07, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong about the policy page. These are not synonyms or misspellings. Give me a category. There would be a complete misunderstanding if it was a simple redirect.--DownUnder555 09:59, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Other names, pseudonyms, nicknames, and synonyms" --Ji ang 10:22, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not. It's not just another name for the ROC. That's what other names, pseudonyms, and nicknames means. Find another category cause that's not it. They aren't equivalent!--DownUnder555 11:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is another name. Again, convention established over the past four years dictates that redirects need not be for exclusively synonymous terms. They don't need to be equivalent! Alternatively, you can interpret it as part of being the group "Sub-topics or closely related topics that should be explained within the text".

how about redirecting to history of the Republic of China as a compromise? This article would contain too little information and too much exclusively redundant information to stand on its own. Wikipedia is not a dictionary.--Ji ang 09:49, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see no examples given that show redirects for cases that are anywhere close to the current one. They don't need to be exact synonyms but this isn't even close. So what if it isn't a dictionary? This is not an obscure word.--DownUnder555 16:50, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

example: German Samoa and Western Samoa redirect to Samoa. --Ji ang

These are former names. That is not the same thing. I'm redirecting and adding information so that Republican China is clear. You did not do this but merely made a redirect, leaving a big problem. How do you try to solve what you think is a problem by merely creating another one? The key is there needs to be a way for the reader to figure out what Republican China is. In every other case I've seen, there is an explanation. You seem to want to conflate Republican China with the Republic of China, my guess is for political reasons. Why didn't you do the work and write an explanation in the main article if you felt a redirect was necessary? Ridiculous... --DownUnder555 17:53, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

suggest deleting the Republican China

thers was not or is not such a country called “Republican China”.Ksyrie 04:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete

I've requested this be deleted as there's another, more populated, disambiguation page on the subject LampGenie01 (talk) 01:15, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This should not redirect to the disambiguation page because "Republican China" refers exclusively to the period 1912-1949. The current redirect is accurate. It is never used to refer to modern day Taiwan. --Jiang (talk) 19:17, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Republic of China (1912–1949) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Republic of China (1912–1949) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]