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.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:Counties of China → Template:Counties of the People's Republic of China – Current practise is that if a template includes only information on mainland China or the PRC, then its name must spell out PRC in full and not simply abbreviate to "China". See, for example, {{Metropolitan cities of the People's Republic of China}}. On a side note...Schmucky, don't deride a move as "controversial" if you are simply going to revert without explanation. —Xiaoyu: 聊天 (T) 和 贡献 (C) 05:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Unnecessary. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

• Why? WP:PRECISION and WP:NC-ZH#Political NPOV both require PRC in this title, as nothing on the history of counties, or the counties of the ROC (which many view to be part of China) is included. —Xiaoyu: 聊天 (T) 和 贡献 (C) 02:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Modern context overrides history. Specifying the formal name of the country when the common name is good enough is overprecise. WP:NC-ZH requires full names in a political context where there needs to be disambiguation with Taiwan. This does not need to be dab'd because this template is not going to be used on any Taiwanese county articles. Nobody navigates to navigation templates. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

That is an argument for a move of the PRC page, and not this one. The PRC page is currently titled at PRC. —Xiaoyu: 聊天 (T) 和 贡献 (C) 03:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Good, let's move that too then. Simple matter though, this is a navigation template for China. It's not used on Taiwan counties, so it is entirely unnecessary to move it unless you are highly and fringely partisan about politics, and then it STILL WON'T be used on Taiwanese counties so all you did was make the name longer. Readers aren't partisan. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Then move ALL of the articles "XX in the PRC" series (e.g. Education) to simply "XX in China". This is about enforcement of a standard that has not been changed to your whim, and of nothing else. —Xiaoyu: 聊天 (T) 和 贡献 (C) 04:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no standard. China/People's Republic of China are both used, with redirects in both directions. I do support moving articles to the simplest common name title "of/in China" rather than PRC. But this is a template, not an article. There is no need to move it given the articles it will be used on. Please stop putting bullets before my comments. I am not making a new bullet point, I am commenting. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

• Oppose per User:SchmuckyTheCat ("Nobody navigates to navigation templates.") The PRC is China and has been since 1949. Get over it. —  AjaxSmack  03:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• Get over it? I think it is you who should "get over" your unbridled idiocy and ill temperament. —Xiaoyu: 聊天 (T) 和 贡献 (C) 16:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

You are way out of line, be civil and stick to the topic. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 17:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - This is unnecessarily precise, and introduces more confusion than it resolves and "China" is the common name in this context so it should be used. Let's not get overexcited about a perceived standard naming convention, which does not apply as broadly as you are claiming it does and is disputed. - Metal.lunchbox (talk) 17:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• Halt! There's an unresolved process of dispute resolution going on at Talk:China about naming at least "China" and "People's Republic of China". So far, we've determined that the current configuration of the China/PRC divide (embodied in the guideline that Xiaoyu of Yuxi links to) is consensually unacceptable. Each of the relevant policies is being examined piece by piece in relation to the controversy; at the current RfC, we are asking whether the PRC is the primary topic for China (consensus is currently leaning towards yes). Attempts to move templates and articles one way or another during this sensitive fundamental restructuring process are unnecessarily provocative. Quigley (talk) 17:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

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.