The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No Move. Born2cycle (talk) 00:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vice President of the Republic of China → Vice President of Taiwan – To match with the country articles. It's President of the United States not President of the United States of America, and Monarch of the United Kingdom not Monarch of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The community have decided the Republic of China is and has always been commonly known as Taiwan. 1.65.130.181 (talk) 10:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Were Li Yüan-Hung, Feng Kuo-Chang and Li Tsung-Jen vice presidents of Taiwan? It appears they were, according to the latest definitions and titling rules on Wikipedia. Jeffrey (202.189.98.142) (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - There is no evidence that "Vice President of Taiwan" is more common than "Vice President of the Republic of China". mgeo talk 22:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• But I do hear the former more often than the latter. Jeffrey (talk) 11:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• On Google Books, I get 22,000 results for "Vice President of the Republic of China" but only 5,360 results for "Vice President of Taiwan." A Google internet search renders 457,000 results for the former and 215,000 results for the latter. There is no conclusive evidence that the latter name is more common.--Jiang (talk) 12:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Google internet search renders 627,000 results for "Taiwanese president", 441,000 for "president of Taiwan", and 546,000 for "president of the Republic of China". Jeffrey (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Given the magnitude of the numbers, that suggests that usage is nearly evenly split. In this case it is not. You seemed have opposed the recent move decision, so why are you going against the grain here?--Jiang (talk) 00:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly Oppose. Please read the Statement of the closing administrators: "This decision explicitly does not include any other articles. While there was some incidental discussion of what impact this move might have on other article's names, there was no consensus determined for that." There is no consensus established by the move from Republic of China to Taiwan that there should be a wholesale change of all mentions of "Republic of China" to "Taiwan", nor is there a clear line rule that article names of titles, institutions, and organizations must mirror the common names of countries. "Vice President of the Republic of China" is a proper name, as indicated by the capitalization of "p" in "president". The Republic of China move was justified as placing the country template in a location where people would most likely seek it; there is no such rationale here. Your examples are only tangentially related; please cite to an example where the common name does not form part of the official name. For example, "Queen of England" in the present tense is commonly used by Americans, and an example where the common name does not form part of the official name, but is clearly wrong.--Jiang (talk) 21:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• But the nominator was right that we have articles such as President of France instead of President of the French Republic, or Chancellor of Germany instead of Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany. The closing statement was clear that new move requests can be submitted for individual articles. Jeffrey (talk) 11:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The difference here being that you can't call vice presidents before 1949 (or even 1971) "Vice President of Taiwan" with any objectivity and accuracy. And you can't split the article from December 1949 onwards as the position has been continuous. New move requests can be submitted for individual articles, but the recent move decision should not be used to justify the current proposal - arguments need to be made that stand on their own, regardless of how the recent move proposal was decided.--Jiang (talk) 12:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• What I read from the move request was that editors and readers don't care that much about something like this. What they care is that this country is now known commonly as Taiwan as of 2012. Jeffrey (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• A Countries article is a snapshot of the present; this article is not. The article is on a official position, not a country. Taking this line of reasoning to the extreme, should we rename Red Cross Society of the Republic of China to Red Cross Society of Taiwan? Some common sense is needed here.--Jiang (talk) 21:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Red Cross is clearly an official name. But for articles on presidencies, monarchies, flags, etc., their titles tend more to be descriptive, and common names of the countries are used. I haven't even seen an exception so far, apart from Taiwan. Jeffrey (talk) 21:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Have you seen an exception so far, apart from Taiwan, of a country having its common name change to something completely different over time while having its official name stay the same over this same period? This is not merely a description (e.g. Media in Taiwan) but an official title. For example we have "Premier of the Republic of China" or "President of the Executive Yuan" as the title; "Premier of the Executive Yuan" "Leader of the Cabinet" and "President of Spain" etc. would all be incorrect as titles are those reflected in official and reliable sources. Taoiseach is not at Prime Minister of Ireland. You can't simply plug POSITION+COMMON NAME OF COUNTRY into a formula to force some consistency on Wikipedia that doesn't exist in the real world. As for descriptive titles, Capital of the Republic of China (an article that exists on the zh Wikipedia), would similarly not be titled Capital of Taiwan even though it is descriptive as a term because the article would discuss the capital and its location over a period of time, rather than as acting as a snapshot of the present, as the current redirect serves to do.--Jiang (talk) 22:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• And we have President of the Swiss Confederation not President of Switzerland. Should the article be moved? I don't think so. mgeo talk 22:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose on the basis that evidence supports 'Vice President of the Republic of China' as the more common name. However I will note that I don't find the first half of Jiang's rationale necessary. The closing decision at Taiwan indicated that that decision could not be used as sole justification for subsequent moves of other articles, but it didn't prohibit normal discussion at an individual level for articles such as these. There's nothing procedurally wrong with this move being proposed and it's reasonable for us to discuss its merits normally with the Taiwan article move as a supporting argument, rather than a sole argument. Nevertheless, the evidence for this case differs from that at Taiwan and I can't support it based on the cursory inspection of the evidence I've done thus far. – NULL ‹talk›
  ‹edits› 01:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose (with reservation/comment). I suspect that the vast majority of contemporary references would be to "VP of Taiwan", and that the Google stats are weighted by historical references. As noted, the main ROC to Taiwan article move weighs in as evidence, but is not decisive either way, as we have a separate thing here, the vice-presidency, which it can be argued should sit under its own, technical/formal name (although the fact that it is capitalised here is not probative - plenty of people would argue that the generic part of any title should not be capitalised). However, the fact remains that historically the post was very much not "of Taiwan", hence we would have a problem renaming it. That's probably the factor that swings it - however I think this article should make clearer that this post is now generally described as being "of Taiwan" rather than of some over-arching Republic of China, as should articles that refer to this post or the post-holder in recent times. N-HH talk/edits 10:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.