Talk:Republic of China (1912–1949)

The article is confusing the lead sentence seem to imply ROC has ceased to exist

The current first line of lead is that: "The Republic of China (ROC) or simply China was a sovereign state based in mainland China from 1912 to 1949 prior to its move to Taiwan." This could be read to imply that the ROC ceased to exist after its move to Taiwan.

I understand the intent after reading through the edit histories. It seems the use of "was" is because the ROC currently being a sovereign state is contentious due to both ROC and PRC claiming to be the legitimate government of China. Hence, I propose the fix:

"The Republic of China (ROC) or simply China was a sovereign state based in mainland China from 1912 to 1949 prior to its move to Taiwan which it currently controls."

I suspect there will be some contention around saying ROC controls Taiwan, but I believe it's quite fair to say ROC governs Taiwan. ROC may claim to be the legitimate government of mainland China, but as of right now, it is clearly currently administered by the PRC. Similarly, the PRC may claim to be the legitimate government of Taiwan but as of right now, it is clearly administered by Taiwan.

I welcome alternate ways to fix this. I just believe that the current lead sentence fails to clearly communicate the current existence of the ROC. Mathchem.21 (talk) 05:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

In my mind it's not really even an issue of rightful sovereignty or who governs Taiwan (seems to be the ROC to me)—it's pretty clear there's an intact legal continuity between the ROC in 1930 and in 1960. The issue is that: how do you talk about a prior stage of an existing sovereign state in a way that makes it clear that while there was continuity, the state is very different now? It's not quite the same, but I think immediately of Papal states, which also speaks in the past tense, despite there being a legal throughline between it and the present Vatican. Remsense聊 15:10, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

True. Good analogy. Alexysun (talk) 19:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Culture section?

All other nation pages I've seen have a section for the culture of a nation. I certainly think the republic of China had in many eays a culture distinct for the PRC and imperial China. The shanghai music scene and early evolution of the qipao immediately come to mind for me, and I'm not even well educated on the subject. 2A02:AA1:1049:D53C:22ED:8627:7F7D:C25D (talk) 12:15, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

To be plain: this article is egregiously overweighted on political and military history. There's much more to say in literally every other dimension, but we simply haven't done so. Remsense ‥ 论 12:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Such is the way of such articles on en.wiki. In addition to additions, it may be worth seeing how much of this article should be a briefer summary of History of the Republic of China. CMD (talk) 13:31, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Someone interested in focusing on this issue could adapt material from the history section of various cultural pages -- for example, I know there is plenty of Cinema of China material during the ROC era, including material I added using academic sources. That might be the quickest way to help give some balance. JArthur1984 (talk) 23:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Here's some sources:

• Zhang, Yingjin (2015). A Companion to Modern Chinese Literature. Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-1-118-45162-5.
• Denton, Kirk A. (2016). The Columbia Companion to Modern Chinese Literature. New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-17008-6.
• Lufkin, Felicity (2019). Folk Art and Modern Culture in Republican China. Lanham, MD: Lexington. ISBN 978-1-4985-2630-2.
• Merkel-Hess, Kate (2016). The Rural Modern. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-38330-9.
• Kaske, Elisabeth (2008). The Politics of Language in Chinese Education. Leiden: Brill. ISBN 978-90-04-16367-6.
• Zhang, Qing (2023). China’s Intelligentsia in the Late 19th to Early 20th Centuries. Boston: Walter de Gruyter. ISBN 978-3-11-066110-1.

Recent changes regarding the historical definition of the ROC on mainland with present-day Taiwan

The recent contentions regarding the relation between the ROC on mainland and present-day Taiwan have made the article unstable. As one side still regard the ROC as an existing state that based in Taiwan, against people who consider the pre-1949 ROC as a historical state that was ceased on mainland and already succeeded by the communist government in Beijing. Personally I oppose the action to delete the ROC’s retreat to Taiwan, which was trimmed only for the reason of reducing article length. It’s oversimplified the historical discourses between two different views. Sheherherhers (talk) 07:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

This is not quite right, and it may be because you focused on the first sentence without reading the whole first paragraph clearly enough. The ROC’s retreat to Taiwan is already in the first paragraph, a couple of sentences later. So it hasn’t been “deleted”. But it’s needlessly repetitive to add retreat to Taiwan in the first sentence as well. We just need retreat to Taiwan in ONE of these places only. It’s poor writing to re-introduce the same concept only a pair of sentences apart. JArthur1984 (talk) 14:30, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Those two views don't appear to be in opposition. If one "side" is arguing the ROC exists in Taiwan and the other "side" is arguing it has ceased on the mainland, those sides agree. At any rate, I don't see why the article should be reinforcing either "side". If this section refers to this edit, I agree with JArthur1984 that there is no need to mention the retreat/relocation to Taiwan twice in three sentences, and don't see how the repetition or removal affects either of the narratives you mentioned. CMD (talk) 14:41, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

There was no dispute about its sovereignty and the first sentence still sounded like the ROC ceased to exist, so I made a few changes. Vacosea (talk) 08:30, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Why was the Significance of the name section as well as Sun's quote removed?

That entire section was removed by @JArthur1984: with no justification. I get that it was an unsourced translation, but at the very least some references to the widely reported original quote should've been kept.

This article on a government website

Results on Google Books Mazamadao (talk) 12:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

You've confused yourself by not correctly comparing different versions of the page. You're comparing a 2022 edit to the latest version of the page following my most recent edit. As the diff you provided states, "(570 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)". Whatever you're talking about is not from my most recent edit (which added a wikilink in the culture section), but somewhere in the 570 intervening edits by more than 100 users.

Please read more carefully before you criticize others. JArthur1984 (talk) 15:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

My apologies to JArthur for accusing them of something they had nothing to do with. Clearly I had an oversight with my expedient navigation through the history page. I've found the "culprit", User:Finell, and they did provide their justification, and a reference link is still there.Mazamadao (talk) 15:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, it's quite all right. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:42, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

"Undue"

@Remsense: According to Wikipedia:UNDUE, the very link you provided, "undue" is about how much weight is given based on "viewpoints."

"Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view. Views held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as the flat Earth)."

It's about what's germane to the topic at hand. If the topic is about flat earth, a fringe view, there should be more flat earth stuff, but also some amount of spherical earth stuff. Giving too much weight to flat earth beliefs in an article about Earth would make it seems more significant than and not as fringe as it actually is.

So what did I represent in the section specificially named "Name" of the article specifically entitled "Republic of China (1912–1949)"? Some linguistic background as to why Sun Yat-sen avoided 共和国. It was Japanese, and the Japanese used it for western republics. What of 民主国? It is similar to Sun's ultimate choice, 民国, and may be related. Why this section named "Name"? 民国 is part of the name, and due to its uniqueness given the context at the time, when 共和国 and 民主国 were already well-established. Why this article? It was the exact time when confusion of terms and the choice happened. Why the mention of the first articles of those constitutions? Those are instances where all three terms converge. None of these are views, much less fringe views, they are facts, you can check the sources for yourselves. I was careful not to give "undue" weight (another kind of "undue" I guess) to the genuine minutiae, such as the etymology of 共和国 and 民主国 themselves.Mazamadao (talk) 19:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@Mazamadao—to be clear, I think this stuff is fascinating, but I wanted to add that there are several more linguistically focused articles where this level of detail more clearly belongs, like Names of China or even Zhonghua minzu. This article should provide a brief survey of the terms since they have historical import like you say, but this is ultimately about a whole state—many articles about broad subjects spend too much time in a metadiscussion about the terminology associated with the subject in lieu of other aspects of the subject itself in a way that is absolutely undue. "Undue" is broader than just opposing political positions—it broadly means we try to reflect the weight the totality of sources ascribe to each aspect of a subject, see also the WP:BALANCE section which directly follows WP:UNDUE. This wasn't exactly a dictionary entry, but it's also worth taking a look at Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary for more. Remsense ‥ 论 19:02, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense: I disagree that it "clearly belongs" to Names of China. The word 民国 is unique to the Republic of China and Republic of Korea. It belongs to an article about those two countries, not the names China, Sina, Shina, Zhongguo, Zhonghua, Huaxia. Perhaps it could belong to an article about "republic", but that's not very defensible on the English Wikipedia because you'd only be explaining a word that's way too specific to two Asian countries.Mazamadao (talk) 19:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

It is a name of China. As such, it is clearly a main topic to be discussed on Names of China, which surveys various names of China. Remsense ‥ 论 19:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Agree to disagree. 民国 is only "a name of China" if China (and subsequently Taiwan) were the only countries on this Earth with it. That's completely false.Mazamadao (talk) 19:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I mean, this is firstly a confusion of orthography with language—the Korean state's name was in Korean, even though it was written with the same logographs as the Chinese state's name, which was in Chinese. Also, your point still doesn't follow. Even if a Chinese state called itself the United States of America for a brief time, that would still obviously be a discussion central to the scope of the article Names of China. Remsense ‥ 论 19:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense: What in the world are you even on about? Confusion of what? How do you think linguists attribute similarities in modern vocabularies among Japan, China, Korean and Vietnam? They just happened to use the same logographs? Just using fancy buzzwords doesn't make you any more cogent, or coherent to begin with. Lee:2013 stated that it was plausible that the Korean chose 民国 specifically to curry favor with their host country at that time, which was the Republic of China. The word 民国 would only be a "name" if it singly, in concept, referred to a specific entity. But it's a common noun. Your argument only followed if by "Names of China" you also include such abbreviations as "the Republic" or something like that. 民国 would only be used as such in very specific circumstances, like within Taiwan and Korea themselves, the way a Chinese person would refer to their country as 共和国 ("the Republic"), or a Brit would refer to their country as "the Kingdom", or an American would refer to theirs as "the States".Mazamadao (talk) 19:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm trying pretty hard to be patient with you, so please be a little bit more patient with me in return, thanks. Remsense ‥ 论 19:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

So, if this discussion is more narrowly about the term 民国, then it's even less in scope for this article, which is holistically about a country. A linguistic discussion of 民国 is only relevant here insofar as it relates to 中华民国, the native name of the subject of the article. Discussion that is not directly relevant is a tangent that is undue in the article.Remsense ‥ 论 20:31, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Right. The way I think about it, your viewpoint is "understanding the ROC requires an in-depth discussion of etymology as such". This is not a viewpoint duly reflected in the sources. I understand that's a bit of an abstract jump, but it is the spirit of the policy holistically.

I would suggest briefer summary, mainly. You managed just above to describe the contours of the issue in about 50 words. With your addition, the Name section was around 800 words and fills up an entire screenful, which I do think is undue in proportion to the rest of the article, as encyclopedia articles like this should very roughly stay under 10,000 words. Could you try summarizing what you think is important in a paragraph? The detailed discussion can go in another article which is linked to. Remsense ‥ 论 19:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense: Sure, but I'm working on another article. Perhaps what we could do is to shift the section down in the mean time? At the end of the day, even most popular dictionaries don't even bother explaining what 民国 is about, which is the only reason why that section should exist in the first place. Perhaps rename the section "History of the term 民国" for those who are only interested in Chinese linguistics?Mazamadao (talk) 19:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I kept the most relevant parts, but the first paragraph you added had nothing to do with the Republic of China. There was something in the end that might be relevant but the section was already very long, especially when other no less important aspects are summarized in only a few sentences. Vacosea (talk) 19:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

POV or periodization

Should relocation be indicated for the year 1949 in the infobox immediately below the list of names? Because it is mainly the PRC "government's perspective the ROC ceased to exist in 1949" (see Name section), I don't think this should be treated as periodization like Western Zhou [1], whose end was not a result of a civil war. Vacosea (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

There's no indication of that. I pointed out an analogy to Western Zhou, periodized by their being kicked out of one place to another without there being this insinuation about it being something else. It was certainly the result of a political struggle if not a civil war, and I don't see a logical reason for seeing the situations as distinct for our purposes. I think it's worth being careful about this, but from my comparatively detached perspective this simply does not ooze or give any particular credence to the PRC party line. I get why it might have that connotation for others who are bombarded with different propaganda, but all I can do is look at what we're saying and see it as totally distinct from what the PRC would say. Remsense ‥ 论 20:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 22 September 2024

Republic of China (1912–1949) → Republican China – Primarily per the naturalness and concision WP:CRITERIA. The use of "Republican China" as a term referring to this periodization and its associated state is simply ubiquitous in English-language sources, such as The Cambridge History of China. By contrast, merely "Republic of China" is not used as a term referring specifically to the pre-1949 period, so a parenthetical disambiguator is arguably inappropriate. On that note, this change would also more elegantly distinguish the scope of this article from that of Taiwan.

This specific move was previously suggested in 2018: suffice it to say, I did not find the opposing arguments convincing. Heading a few potential objections off at the pass: firstly, historiographical labels function perfectly well as article titles in situations like these, cf. July Monarchy, Revolutionary Catalonia, Nazi Germany. Secondly, several editors argued the terms are not synonymous, or that "Republican China" refers only to the mainland during this period; these seem clearly dubious to me, and no further explanation or evidence for such distinctions was provided in the previous discussion.

One final note: I was motivated to pose this RM as the result an offsite discussion with Generalissima, who was asking about the current naming situation and pondering about starting an RM herself; I then offered to do it instead.

References

Remsense ‥ 论 00:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Taiwan and WikiProject China have been notified of this discussion. Remsense ‥ 论 00:59, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Support. Makes sense, unambiguous, and concise. I remember reading a relatively recent review titled "In the parlour with The Cambridge History of China" or something similar, which sassed the series's use of somewhat superseded historiographic methods and quaintly antiquated Wade–Giles. So I think it's not necessarily true in all cases that Cambridge History of China is an appropriate exemplar of common use (especially the earlier volumes), in this case it's fine / good. Folly Mox (talk) 14:54, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Crossley, Pamela Kyle (2018). "In the Parlor with The Cambridge History of China". Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies (review). 78 (2): 477–490. doi:10.1353/jas.2018.0030. TWL Folly Mox (talk) 15:00, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

For a more modern source, the Encyclopedia of Modern China generally uses "Republican China" as a shorthand for the 1912-1949 period, while "Republic of China" is used for both Taiwan and the mainland government.

and for a less modern source, there's the Biographical Dictionary of Republican China, one of the most cited sources on the period.

Pong, David, ed. (2009). Encyclopedia of Modern China. Vol. 1–4. Charles Scribner's Sons. ISBN 9780684315669. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:21, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment: My opinions are not strong on this page title, so I make this comment to further explore the logic not to suggest an outcome. Would Republican-era China be better in terms of heading off historiographical objections, or does it add length without having a practical benefit? JArthur1984 (talk) 17:36, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

It feels clunky to me, and I am not sure an editor would admit one but not the other (crossing my fingers...) Remsense ‥ 论 17:41, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I suspect Republican-era China may fall afoul of WP:COMMONNAME. My inclinations are informed by this data visualisation. Folly Mox (talk) 23:00, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

You have both persuaded me that there is no further value to be had in "era". My preference is not overly strong as I am not troubled by the existing name, but I do now support the proposal. JArthur1984 (talk) 00:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Support as the proposed name is more WP:NATURAL than the current. - Amigao (talk) 22:21, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per the strong consensus at the 2018 RM. While the proposed title avoids the parenthetical, it is not more accurate, nor more recognizable. I'll note that this article has gone through an impressive nine previous RMs, none of which resulted in the article being moved. Best to leave well enough alone; see WP:BROKE. 162 etc. (talk) 22:41, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

  Per the explanation given above by Remsense, it is both more accurate and more recognizable, mainly due to being the primary term used by reliable sources. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Discursory sidequest Folly Mox (talk) 00:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I find eleven: Talk:Republic of China (1912–1949)/Archive 1 § Move (2011; target: History of the Republic of China (1912–1949)) Talk:Republic of China (1912–1949)/Archive 2 § Requested move: Republic of China (1912–1949) → Republic of China (2012) Talk:Republic of China (1912–1949)/Archive 2 § Requested move 14 April 2017 (target: Republic of China (1912–1949), but the page title at the time was Republic of China (1912–49)) Talk:Republic of China (1912–1949)/Archive 2 § Requested move 30 April 2017 (target: Republic of China (1912–71)) Talk:Republic of China (1912–1949)/Archive 2 § Requested move to "History of China (1912-49)" (2017) Talk:Republic of China (1912–1949)/Archive 3 § Requested move 1 May 2018 (target: Republican China) Talk:Republic of China (1912–1949)/Archive 3 § Requested move 25 May 2018 (target: Republic of China) Talk:Republic of China (1912–1949)/Archive 3 § change the title to The time of the R.O.C. Government in Mainland China (2020) Talk:Republic of China (1912–1949)/Archive 4 § Requested move 9 August 2020 (target: History of China (1912–1949)) Talk:Republic of China (1912–1949)/Archive 4 § Requested move 8 November 2021 (target: China (1912–1949)) Talk:Republic of China (1912–1949)/Archive 4 § Requested move 23 December 2022 (target: Republic of china Mainland period) [sic] Any editor is welcome to refactor this comment to include |nopage=y if they think it will improve readability of {{sectionlink}} output. Folly Mox (talk) 23:27, 22 September 2024 (UTC) Seriously? Nine of these are straight up detailed at the top of the talkpage if you're not on mobile? What a waste of time 💀 Folly Mox (talk) 00:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC) Uninterestingly, this article does have a non-empty move history: moved to Republic of China (1912–49) in June 2013 per guidelines, moved back September 2017 as a result of Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 129 § WP:DATERANGE ambiguity and stylistic concerns, moved to The time of the R.O.C. Government in Mainland China in February 2020, reverted eleven minutes later. Folly Mox (talk) 23:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC) Here's something that's not an argument one way or another, but I looked at anyway because I have problems: most sister projects use a date span in the title (could be because en.wp does or for their own reasons), except for Mongolian, Karachay-Balkar ( Courtesy link: Karachay-Balkar), Korean, and Chinese. This last one explains the undiscussed eleven-minute pagemove in 2020. Folly Mox (talk) 00:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. I don't have much to add to the discussion except to say that I personally have encountered "Republican China" only uncommonly when reading about the country during this period; it's more of an alternate name, a la Third Reich. The current title is a little longer but to me it's much clearer. ErrorDestroyer (talk) 07:11, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

• Could you explain why you characterize the 2018 RfC as having established a strong consensus? No external evidence or clarifying dialogue was provided by those opposing, even after such was provided challenging their initial positions. If we were committed to taking WP:NOTADEMOCRACY to its logical conclusion, I think you'd have to characterize the 2018 RFC as establishing no consensus. It should also go without saying that "there's nothing broken" is not itself a valid reason for why something is not broken: I saw the big list and decided this was worthwhile regardless and articulated at least a plausible case not previously addressed. Remsense ‥ 论 23:58, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

  While RMs are WP:NOTAVOTE, the proposal saw no support at all aside from one editor (I'm also disregarding the OP's contributions, as the account was found to be a blocked sockpuppet.) One of the commenters also linked a Google ngram which indicates that "Republican China" is not the COMMONNAME. While it's been shown that some sources do use "Republican China", I'm agreeing with the previous consensus that it's not a better title.

  I'll also note that Republican China is currently a dabpage and is therefore ambiguous. 162 etc. (talk) 03:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  Regarding the dabpage, I doubt many people would use the term "Republican China" to refer to post-1949 ROC on Taiwan though. The post-1949 ROC on Taiwan may be known as "Free China" or "Taiwan" but not so commonly as "Republican China". --Wengier (talk) 03:58, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  The disambiguation page means that someone out there decided to make a bad disambiguation page, and the ngrams was completely specious evidence for what was being claimed, given what terms it was actually comparing. Remsense ‥ 论 07:00, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose COMMONNAME appears to be Republic of China, which is also its official name. This is a country not history article. Vacosea (talk) 20:56, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  This is an article about a period of a country's history. In what way would the articles linked above not be analogous? Remsense ‥ 论 20:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  They are much more about periods that did not involve complete regime changes. Vacosea (talk) 21:13, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  This is not the case for July Monarchy. See also Bourbon Restoration in France. Remsense ‥ 论 21:56, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  In the examples given above, the Kingdom of France only changed its monarch, the German Reich also kept its name, and Catalonia was not really a country per se. In my view that's why they can be described as periods of the Kingdom of France or the German Reich, as opposed to the more drastic change going from the Qing dynasty to the Republic of China. Vacosea (talk) 21:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

  I can't really trace the logical thread here, but now I'm starting to worry I'm badgering everyone who voices their opinion in this RM, so I'm not really sure how to properly communicate what I feel are well-founded refutations without coming across as territorial or dismissive. Remsense ‥ 论 23:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

  I should have added these links. Compared to Republic of China, "Republican China" is rarely used both before [2] and after 1949 [3]. Vacosea (talk) 21:13, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  I do not see how the first link targets description of the period pre-1949. Remsense ‥ 论 21:57, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  I want to make the following statement specifically: when people say "Republic of China", they are usually referring to the state 1912–present, not only until 1949. Remsense ‥ 论 22:02, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  It divides the Google Books results into 1911-1949 and 1949-present. The occurrence of "Republican China" is very low in either case. Vacosea (talk) 21:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. "Republic of China" is the formal name of the state more commonly known as Taiwan. The formal name is still used in many contexts, both formally (see the many articles starting with "Republic of China": [4]) and less formally such as by people who prefer it to "Taiwan" for political reasons. If the political situation of Taiwan were more settled then perhaps this use could be consigned to the past, but still today it is widely used for the current state of Taiwan. --2A04:4A43:900F:F4C3:380D:C978:D2E7:7D4E (talk) 06:44, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

If the political situation of Taiwan were more settled then perhaps this use could be consigned to the past, but still today it is widely used for the current state of Taiwan

That's precisely one of the points I made. Did you read any of the above? Remsense ‥ 论 06:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

You are right; I misread your proposal as just losing the parenthetical disambiguator, so to "Republic of China". I see it is actually "Republican China" which is worse, not the formal name nor the common name which was "China", and as can be seen at Republican China can refer to a number of things. It's more a descriptive term, just one of a number that can describe China between the end of imperial rule and the establishment of the PRC. So, still oppose. --2A04:4A43:900F:F4C3:380D:C978:D2E7:7D4E (talk) 08:20, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

It is a shoddy disambiguation page: as stated above, there is not meaningfully ambiguity between any of the items mentioned on it: three are subperiods of the period this article is about but none that have more deliberate license to the term themselves, and the other (Taiwan) is never called "Republican China" to begin with. This article is about the historical period, and "Republican China" is a common name for that period. Due to the other factors stated, I have argued that it is the ideal article name, even if other terms have considerable usage. Remsense ‥ 论 08:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose 1. My reply to the 2018 proposal began "The polity currently calling itself the Republic of China may claim a descent from the polity that ruled the mainland of China before 1949 but it is clearly not the same. On the other hand, as a user, I was surprised to find that Republic of China took me to an article on Taiwan the island." I still stand by this part of my reply but note user:Fyunck(click)'s comment "Longstanding consensus has "Republic of China" correctly redirected to Taiwan." renders the second part of my reply then invalid.

2. I'm primarily a user of Wikipedia rather than an editor (sure, I've done a few thousand edits, but mainly when I stumble across something that obviously warrants fixing). When I come to the Wikipedia search bar looking for information on the regimes that existed on the mainland between 1911 & 1949 I'm going to type in "Republic of China" and expect this page to be towards the top of the list. It's currently 2nd after Taiwan. I believe this helps make it more useful to the general user. Kiore (talk) 23:41, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I do not understand what the real substance of your argument is: if it's really so particular as stated, surely "Republican China" also comes up very prominently in a search for "Republic of China", especially given the content of the page? Remsense ‥ 论 23:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

You can verify it yourself by going to a Wikipedia page on your web browser and typing Republic of China into the search bar. Kiore (talk) 19:57, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

No I cannot, because this page is not currently at the location to test that. Remsense ‥ 论 20:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

That's not the result I get. Please go and try:

1. Open Wikipedia in a web browser.

2. Enter "Republic of China" in the search bar.

3. Look at the list of pages that have dropped down.

You will see that Taiwan is first and this page is second.

Republican China does not appear in the drop down. Kiore (talk) 03:22, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Sure. That's because it's currently a disambiguation page. I'm saying I'm not sure if this page would show up there if it were renamed Republican China. Remsense ‥ 论 03:24, 26 September 2024 (UTC)