The list of categories associated with China. There is currently an ongoing discussion on how to properly name articles and categories due to the current political climate. This page lists categories listed for deletion or renaming but were marked unresolved. Once the naming issue has been firmly resolved, these discussions and nominations should be re-considered.

Was anyone here aware Instantnood is running another poll to move "XXX of Taiwan" to "XXX of the Republic of China" at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/NPOV/Taiwan vs. ROC? The poll "started" a week ago, but since no pages link to the polling page, I thought maybe it was a little onesided and needed some publicity... SchmuckyTheCat 21:32, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Please kindly check Special:Whatlinkshere/Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/NPOV/Taiwan vs. ROC (except those added by you just now). Thank you. — Instantnood 21:35, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Note: Please note that the polls there are enforcement of the naming conventions. — Instantnood 21:42, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Disclaimer
  I first suggested to proceed to have a poll as a solution on March 10 at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/archive4#Solution, and there was no objection. More than two weeks later on March 26 I suggested to have polls on a case-by-case basis (at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/NPOV#Solution). A link was added at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/NPOV#Solution to direct readers to the polling page on March 31, at the time when the polling page was created.
  SchmuckyTheCat is wrong for accusing me for starting the polls with no page linked to it, that it might resulted in onesided and lack of publicity. Please note this is an accusation, though I am pretty sure opinion wouldn't be affected easily. — Instantnood 08:16, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Rename as Category:Religion in China, in accordance to the above.--Huaiwei 19:16, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• DELETE!!! STrong delete, also in accordance with the above and supporting the same alternative rename. SchmuckyTheCat 19:52, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Articles in this category are specific to mainland China, that is, the development and activities of difference religions in mainland China since the Communist government was established. — Instantnood 05:55, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. There is, however, no country called "Mainland China". Regional differences in the treatment of religion is to be expected even within a single country, and this is not reason enough for seperate categories. With the Communist government being secular, the only major difference is probably in the way the Christian churches are organised at the state level. What about the religions which are most peculiar to the Chinese...Buddhism? Taoism? Or other Asian religions like Islam? Do they deserve seperate pages and categories?--Huaiwei 10:53, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • There will be, probably, say, for Islam. However catholic is notable because the PRC has no diplomatic relations with Vatican City, and they do not allow the Pope to appoint bishops in mainland China. — Instantnood 11:23, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
      • I am aware of that. But do you only have the relationship between the PRC and the Vatincan City to justifiy the "uniqueness" of religion in the PRC? Even when it comes to Catholicism, do worshippers in the PRC have different doctrines? Different bibles? Pray to a different God even? You are bothering on insult towards religious followers there by drawing a divisive line to exclude them as thou they are different.--Huaiwei 12:17, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • In addition to my comment at 11:23 Apr 4, Catholic in mainland China is notable and therefore it already has articles about it. — Instantnood 12:45, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • Those articles are about religion specific to mainland China, and I don't think there's any problem to categorise it to a mainland China-specific category. There's nothing else I would like to imply. — Instantnood 12:45, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
      • We presently have articles on religions in China such as Religion in China, Buddhism in China, Taoism, Islam in China, Jews in China, Christianity in China, etc, all of which deals with religion or Chinese thought in Greater China, and not to Mainland China alone. In addition, there is no Catholicism in China yet despite your claim that there is one. Do you have intentions to force a split in all the above articles in order to justify this category?--Huaiwei 13:00, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • It is hopeless to discuss anything with you. Isn't the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association article Catholic- and mainland China-specific? For the other two articles at category:Religion in mainland China, one is about Protestant, and the other is about both. — Instantnood 13:58, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -Kbdank71 13:45, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This category's articles do just fine in Category:Chinese culture. What kind of "culture" can be specific to mainland China alone, and has no relevance or applicability to Greater China?--Huaiwei 19:16, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• DELETE!! This superfluous category was created on March 9th during a mass-renaming inside articles containing "People's Republic of China" to the non-existent country "mainland China" [1] And before this person comes here defending their actions by the "naming conventions" it should be noted that those naming conventions are disputed AND, they say this term CAN be used, not MUST be used. This specific usage is disruptive and POV pushing. If nationalism, such as an excuse that these articles only refer to culture within one nation or region of China, becomes an issue in this renaming dispute, I support renaming to "... of the People's Republic of China" SchmuckyTheCat 19:50, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Culture is not necessarily sorted along boundaries of sovereign States. There is an article dedicated to culture of mainland China, which is specific to mainland China along, since the Communist government was established. — Instantnood 05:51, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. And culture of mainland China is redirected to culture of Communist China, if we have not noticed. The culture of Communist China IS part and parcel of Chinese culture.--Huaiwei 10:48, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Culture of communist China is deviated from the mainstream of Chinese culture, despite its size and population. — Instantnood 11:23, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
      • And is this the only article suitable for that category?--Huaiwei 12:19, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Obviously not. — Instantnood 12:33, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Have we decided what the naming convention is going to be? -Kbdank71 13:32, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. It was agreed in the conventions that each situation will be assessed on its own merit.--Huaiwei 13:37, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Fantastic. Delete, then. -Kbdank71 13:42, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Please stop playing with words Huaiwei. It was agreed how the naming conventions will be applied to each situation on a case-by-case basis, in similar manner like template talk:Europe. — Instantnood 13:50, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: (to Kbdank71's comment at 13:32) No. And I suppose these categories shouldn't be remove at the time being, until things are settled. — Instantnood 13:50, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Update: SchmuckyTheCat has set up category:Culture of the People's Republic of China, and moved an article from category:Culture of mainland China to it. The article being moved:
  • Chinese house church (diff)
• See also the discussion at category talk:Culture of the People's Republic of China. — Instantnood 09:13, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

No articles in it. Never will be, as they either belong in Cities of China or Cities of the People's Republic of China.
Delete! SchmuckyTheCat 00:39, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Redundant to Category:Cities in China.Zzyzx11 07:47, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: A city in Mainland China is considered a city in the People's Republic of China. Zzyzx11 21:58, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Update: Since Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Political NPOV is currently under dispute, I withdraw my vote and abstain until that matter is resolved. Zzyzx11 17:45, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: There's a standard set of definitions of city (i.e. prefecture-level city and county-level city) in the mainland China, but not elsewhere within the PRC. Hong Kong and Macao, nor the places within the them, do not fit into same set of definitions. — Instantnood 07:48, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose. — Instantnood 07:48, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete. As argued before...a city in Mainland China is also a city in the People's Republic of China. We should be creating the later and not the former, as it has little usage, and neither should it be in the Category:Cities by country category.--Huaiwei 08:07, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Important information: Quoted from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese): "Hong Kong and Macau are generally not considered part of Mainland China, but are under the jurisdiction of the PRC. Thus, it is appropriate to write "many tourists from Hong Kong and Taiwan are visiting Mainland China." ". Obviously "mainland China" is the appropriate term to describe the situation which Hong Kong and Macao (and the territories under the ROC) are excluded. — Instantnood 09:19, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Here we go again... I'm sticking clear of this one. Have fun... Grutness|^hello?
    • Thanks. Many are not following, or might be ignoring it. — Instantnood 22:15, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Important information: That "convention" is constantly under review, and even as we speak, the idea of using "Mainland China" over that of the "PRC" is still under despute. Each category can be discussed based on their own merit, as is the case here.--Huaiwei 11:54, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Important information: in any case, that "convention" is irrelevant because it doesn't say that there is a requirement to distinguish mainland China, only that it can be distinguished. Gene Nygaard 14:11, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Not-so-important information: Hawaii and Alaska are not considered to be a part of the Continental United States, and yet we tend not to make such a distinction when creating US categories. -Kbdank71 17:55, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Hong Kong and Macao are special administrative regions of the PRC, while Hawaii and Alaska are states of the US. — Instantnood 21:59, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
          • Po-TAY-to, Po-TAH-to. Federal government, state government. -Kbdank71 22:08, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Is there any state in the US which the departments of agriculture, labor, the treasury, etc. of the federal government have no jurisdiction to? — Instantnood 22:40, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's disruptive of current cats. --A D Monroe III 12:33, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -Kbdank71 14:39, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -- Gene Nygaard 15:16, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The dispute surrounding China vs mainland China is unresolved. See discussions at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese). -- Felix Wan 22:32, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
  • Comment. As mentioned, it is clear that concensus has not been reached. And even if that were to occur in its present state, the conventions did not explicitely indicate that the term "Mainland China" should replace the "People's Republic of China" in all circumstance to the extent that they cannot be put up for deletion or renaming here.--Huaiwei 22:55, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Nobody in the discussions ever said "in all circumstances". — Instantnood 23:24, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
      • So it it dosent mention that, why should we not debate over these on a case by case basis?--Huaiwei 12:50, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. -- ran (talk) 23:20, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's especially annoying that so many people presume that the special situation in this case can be written off as negligible and we can just use PRC vs China categories instead, since most of these people have no understanding or only a partial understanding of the situation... --Node 05:28, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I dont think you can assume that all those who voted "delete" are inherently ignorant. In actual fact, this is not a debate over PRC vs China, but the use of term Mainland China over the PRC. In fact, a XXX of the PRC categoey can go under XXX of China...there is nothing factually wrong with that.--Huaiwei 12:50, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP due to the fact that this is a non-political instance and, if any, the cat should be about "mainland China", not "China". Penwhale 05:57, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and populate. Use non-political terms for non-political topics. This can be a subcategory of cities of china. --Jiang 08:27, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have heard of this "non-political" argument before, but I must point out it is highly contestable. There is a difference between the subject matter being political or not, and that of the way the subject matter is being presented. When, in this case, cities are being categorised by countries, which is obviously a political construct, can we claim that no politicis is involved? As an anlogy I have talked about before. If we consider "Music" as non political, do we condone the creation of, say, "Music in Tibet", and list it in a master category called "Music by country" seperately from "Music in China" or "Music in the PRC"? Yes...music is supposedly non political. But categorising it in a political framework IS making a political statement!--Huaiwei 12:50, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and populate them. --Shinjiman 06:34, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep A consensus is still pending. People have opinion on this voting should participate the process forming consensus in the Naming convention.--Mababa 08:41, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep until consensus is reached in Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese). --Umofomia 06:34, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This category was created by User:Instantnood, and it simply does not make sense, considering there is also Category:Companies of the People's Republic of China. Is it neccesary to split up the category into those who have a global presence and those without?--Huaiwei 03:19, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose. Mainland China, Hong Kong and Macao are different economies and trade entities. — Instantnood 08:34, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. That is of little relevance in this case. How does classifying a PRC company as a Mainland company make things any clearer, if all you need to do is classify HK and Macau companies in their respective sub-categories (which has already been done)?--Huaiwei 08:58, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • A company "incorporated in the People's Republic of China" is considered a non-local company as other companies incorporated elsewhere. If the category:Companies of mainland China is scrapped the situation will be like category:Companies of the United States as oppose to category:Companies based in [a US state] . — Instantnood 09:50, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
      • And what is wrong with that? Do we have that many companies in that category to be of concern that they have to be classified by sub-national entities next? Meanwhile, could you explain why category:Companies of the United States exists as well, and looks perfectly fine for what it is?--Huaiwei 10:00, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Category:Companies of the People's Republic of China should be further subcategorised into three according to economies/legal jurisdictions. — Instantnood 12:10, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
      • CEPA is erasing those distinctions quickly. A Beijing company puts sales in HK, an HK company puts manufacturing in Shenzen. Meh, put explanatory text in the ARTICLES. SchmuckyTheCat 14:38, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks for telling CEPA is used to erase the distinctions. If that were the case I am longing to see category:Companies of Canada, category:Companies of Mexico and category:Companies of the United States being merged into category:Companies of the NAFTA. — Instantnood 14:44, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
      • "ONE Country, Two Systems" vs "Three countries and a free trade area"??? what? SchmuckyTheCat 14:55, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Neither One country two systems nor CEPA changed the fact that mainland China, Hong Kong and Macao are three economies, trade entities and legal jurisdictions. — Instantnood 16:14, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If there is already a Category:Companies of the People's Republic of China, then this isn't needed. -Kbdank71 14:23, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Please kindly note mainland China ≠ People's Republic of China. — Instantnood 14:44, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • Noted. Thank you. My vote stands. -Kbdank71 15:07, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• DELETE! SchmuckyTheCat 14:55, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Superfluous! MadreBurro 17:54, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Just realise I didnt even make a vote myself. :D To reiterate: Classifying companies of the PRC under that name does not contravene the one country two systems fomular, nor does it discount the existing of differences in corporate governance between the PRC and her two SARs. The above concerns should be easily (and already) settled by setting up sub-classifications of Category:Companies of Hong Kong etc. What other forms of differentiation is needed? In addition, the creation of XXX of Mainland China often entails the co-existance of XXX of the PRC simply because the former is not a country, and using it together with other classifications by country is making the suggestion that Mainland China is a country. Do we need to have every subject matter having a category of XXX of PRC, and the three subcategories of XXX of Mainland China, XXX of HK, XXX of Macau, when we can just group the PRC entries in the XXX of PRC category itself?--Huaiwei 18:05, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's disruptive of current cats. --A D Monroe III 02:22, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: IMPORTANT INFORMATION: There was a precedant on moving category:Insurance companies of the People's Republic of China → category:Insurance companies of mainland China here. The archive can be viewed at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:Insurance companies of the People's Republic of China. I believe precedant should be respected and followed.
  Furthermore, I would like to urge everybody who's cast a vote, or will cast a vote, to read the mainland China article, and the articles related to the statuses of Hong Kong and Macao, and the arrangements of the special administrative regions and One country, two systems. If you are not well-informed with the situation, although your comment will still be respected, I don't think it's responsible to vote. Please be also noted that there is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)#..of China or of the PRC → ..of mainland China. — Instantnood 07:39, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Articles or sections let you more familiar with the issue: One Country, Two Systems, History of Hong Kong, History of Macau, Sino-British Joint Declaration, Basic Law of Hong Kong, Politics of Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region, Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement, Hong Kong dollar, Pataca, Hong Kong International Airport#Customs and Immigration, Economy of Hong Kong, Court of Final Appeal, Mainland China, Talk:Mainland China, Category talk:Cities in China, Category talk:Airports of the People's Republic of China, Category talk:Cities in China, Legal system of Hong Kong, Legal system of Macau — Instantnood 07:39, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: With regards to category:Insurance companies of mainland China, it seems apparant in the discussion and voting, that arguments are split down the middle. I am actually quite curious as to why the motion was passed when the results was not clearly in favour of either position? Any explainations from User:Kbdank71?--Huaiwei 08:52, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • It was moved to #To be emptied or moved, and the result was 4 to 2. — Instantnood 09:11, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
      • The vote was not 4 to 2. Do your maths.--Huaiwei 11:50, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Mind your language. At the time when it was moved to #To be emptied or moved, Kbdank71 hasn't cast his vote. Click here to see more. — Instantnood 16:36, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • Response: All I did was archive the discussion from Cfd when I found out the redirect had been put in by User:Instantnood on March 6. At the time it was a 4-2 vote, although mine and User:SchmuckyTheCat's would have made it 4-4. Schmucky's vote was removed from the archive by Instantnood. But regardless of what happened, there is nothing that says we have to follow that precedent, especially when most people here seem to want this change. Perhaps we can put the Insurance Company category up for another vote? -Kbdank71 17:00, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • He deleted my comment?!? SchmuckyTheCat 22:06, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Kbdank71's vote was cast when it has already been moved to #To be emptied or moved, and SchmuckyTheCat's vote was cast after the section was archived.
      • Mind my language? I told you to count again. I counted it as 3-4. And so you deleted someone's vote as well. Beautiful. Try adding mine, and you get 5-4 against your favour. Indeed I see something fishy going on in that vote, and I demand a revote!--Huaiwei 22:27, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Read this. — Instantnood 22:43, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
          • What for? Isnt it simply an even more outdated vote compared to the other one? How long did you guys wait before carrying out the renaming exercise? And who did the actual renaming?--Huaiwei 23:04, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Read the section #To be empited or moved of the link above. — Instantnood 23:24, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Important information: Quoted from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese): "Hong Kong and Macau are generally not considered part of Mainland China, but are under the jurisdiction of the PRC. Thus, it is appropriate to write "many tourists from Hong Kong and Taiwan are visiting Mainland China." ". Obviously "mainland China" is the appropriate term to describe the situation which Hong Kong and Macao (and the territories under the ROC) are excluded. — Instantnood 09:19, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • It may be an appiopriate term when refering to the geographical entity of the PRC, and we need to exclude mention on the two SARS. The issue, thou, is that when seen from the PRC's perspective, you are denying them the right to use the name of their own country when refering to the fact that their cities, companies, or any other entity are located in their country. As I asked above, how does a classification of PRC companies in the PRC category, and that of HK companies in HK categories be anything inferior to having to classify them under "Mainland China", and then have the "Mainland China" category classified under that of the "PRC"? Is it factually inaccurate? No. Is it making a political statement? No. Redundancy? Yes. Its getting plain obvious. Perhaps you are freaking over the idea of having Hong Kong classified under the PRC thats why?--Huaiwei 11:50, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • It is factually inaccurate. A company of mainland China is only considered a domestic company within mainland China, but not in the rest of the PRC. A city in mainland China is based on a definition which is only applicable and applied within mainland China, but not elsewhere in the PRC. Their use of the name is not denied, as the mainland category is a subcategory under the PRC category. By voting them to deletion you're in fact denying the use of "mainland China", or putting forward an agenda. — Instantnood 16:36, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
      • You are putting every single province of the PRC into one category, and putting HK and Macau into their own seperate categories. That is extremely POV. You did this after lots of edits removed HK and Macau from categories EQUAL to the entire country. You are a POV pushing HK patriot attempting to denigrate the entire nation in order for HK to stand out. HK is special and should standout, but you cannot pigeonhole the ENTIRE nation into a subcategory because of that specialness. Put explanatory text into the article if you think a national law/article/category/whatever doesn't apply to HK. The country is called "The People's Republic of China" and HK is part of that country, whether you like it or not.
      • As to companies, which this vote is about, the lines between what is a mainland company and which is an HK or Macau company are blurring fast! The distinction of where they started or where they are based is quickly becoming irrelevant except to the taxman. SchmuckyTheCat 21:34, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • I deny the existance of a country called "Mainland China", and hence, I object your insistance on using the term to refer to the country of the People's Republic of China. Is my agenda not obvious enough?--Huaiwei 22:45, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • I have never said "mainland China" is a country, and I am not using "mainland China" in the place of the "People's Republic of China". — Instantnood 23:24, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • I have to say you're not familiar with the situation, and what you've said is not true. Hong Kong and Macao are separate economies and trade entities, but not the other provinces and autonomous regions. The rest of the PRC is one economy and trade entity. Almost all laws (except a handful which deal with national flag, emblem, anthem) of the PRC are not applicable, valid and applied in Hong Kong and Macao. The line between mainland companies and Hong Kong/Macao companies isn't blurring. CEPA is just like any other free trade aggreements between two economies/trade entities. — Instantnood 22:05, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
      • It seems like the same argument put forth by User:Instantnood in every discussion regarding Mainland China, and again, I ask. How does the use of the PRC category over the Mainland Chinese one undermine the whole issue of differing economic/social, and to some extent, political systems of the central government in Beijing, and that of the local SAR government in HK? You keen insisting they are different, but notice this argument only works to enforce the creation of XXX of HK categories? How do they apply to the XXX of PRC vs XXX of Mainland China categories?--Huaiwei 22:38, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • The PRC is three economies, three trade entities, and three seperate customs territories. — Instantnood 22:43, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
      • Nice way of putting it. You are seemingly assuming these three entities are of equal level?--Huaiwei 23:00, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Hong Kong and the PRC are separate members at the WTO, and the PRC delegation only represents the mainland's interests. — Instantnood 23:24, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The dispute surrounding China vs mainland China is unresolved. See discussions at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese). -- Felix Wan 22:36, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
  • Comment. Resolved? Far from it. In addition, I wonder how many people noticed the convention did not imply that the term "Mainland China" should be used to replace "People's Republic of China" in every circumstance?--Huaiwei 22:38, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Nobody in the discussions ever said "in every circumstance". — Instantnood 23:24, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Mainland China, Hong Kong, and Macau are three separate economies. -- ran (talk) 23:18, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. This one is not as iffy as one of the others, while not as clear cut. I'd say that if you have a Cat for Co. in HK or Macau (I'm not really sure if such cats. exist) then Mainland China would be more appropriate due to the exclusion of overlapping.
• Keep Mainland China, Hong Kong, and Macau are separate economies. Keep the categories separate. --Jiang 08:28, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Classifying PRC companies under the PRC category does NOT contravene the fact that different economic systems exists in HK and Macau. Calling a company a Mainland Chinese company or a PRC company does little to have any impact on that. Insisting that they should remain seperate simply based on the above argument is looking at things from the SARs' POV. When seen from the other side, it would be highly ridiculous why PRC companies cannot be called so just because of different economic systems within their own country.--Huaiwei 12:56, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. since the Naming Convertions are still disputing, These categories should be retained until the Naming Convertions are resolved. --Shinjiman 06:42, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep RefShinjiman's comment. People have opinion on this voting should participate the process forming consensus in the Naming convention.--Mababa 08:39, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep until consensus is reached in Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese). --Umofomia 06:38, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. From the "discussions" which has taken place in Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese), it seems like there is finally one point all have agreed on. That set of conventions will not dictate how all categories should be named when it comes to the Mainland China-PRC question. Which means that we are now judging each instance on a case-by-case basis, as what is happening now. Some of you might wish to relook at this issue for its own merit then.--Huaiwei 06:48, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Right. The set of conventions will not dictate all categories. How it should be applied will be determined on a case-by-case basis. — Instantnood 06:55, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
      • Jesus. Dosent it feel so much better when there is an agreement. Any agreement? :D --Huaiwei 07:03, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I didn't not completely get the sense that that point was agreed by all, but even it it is, my vote would be to still keep this category since it is useful to have it refer to companies which are in the PRC but not in Hong Kong or Macau. Perhaps having "Companies of mainland China", "Companies of Hong Kong", and "Companies of Macau" under "Companies of the People's Republic of China" might be a good compromise (though I forsee a POV dispute with regard to whether ROC/Taiwan would be included)? --Umofomia 07:04, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Based on that logic, perhaps Microsoft will need to be classified under "Companies of the World"? Common understanding with regards to companies classified by countries is that they are grouped according to the country in which the company is incorporated in. Not in their areas of operation. Companies incorporated in the PRC ARE companies of the PRC. There is no country called Mainland China, and this is the point we have been arguing about.--Huaiwei 07:19, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• taiwan can stay away, i am all for not even referencing taiwan with anything to do with China except to point articles away to seperate articles entirely. As to category presentation, I am for creating XXX of the PRC as the top level (which exists universally already), and any PRC companies can be in that cat. HK and Macau should be sub-cats of the PRC. the distinction XXX of mainland China doesn't need to exist. SchmuckyTheCat 07:14, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Update: SchmuckyTheCat has removed Ping An of China and PICC from category:Insurance companies of mainland China, despite an earlier decision at WP:CFD.

This category was created as a subterfuge by User:Instantnood. His request to move a category Laws of the People's Republic of China to Laws of mainland China was rejected by nearly everyone at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese). Instead of renaming the category, he just made the new one and started moving articles into it (and marking the edits of the articles as minor edits). This was done in a fit after "Category:Laws of the People's Republic of China" was moved into the category "People's Republic of China" away from "mainland China" - which he also opposed. At this moment "Category:Laws of mainland China" is depopulated. (And to preempt his whining, PRC laws that don't apply to HK should have explanatory text in the article, or an HK specific article, or both.) SchmuckyTheCat 23:03, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - political names are used in political contexts. And some of these laws do apply for Hong Kong. for example, along with the handover, I (technically) lost right of abode (as acquired through jus sanguinus) in HK since according to Chinese Nationality Law, those who acquired foreign citizenship at birth are not Chinese nationals...now I (technically) only have right to land. No need to restrict things only to mainland China. If the law only applies there, then it's up for the text to clarify. Laws of HK can be subcategory --Jiang 02:23, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose. Most laws of the People's Republic of China are only valid, applied and applicable within mainland China, except from those stated in the basic laws of the special administrative regions. The nationality law is applied to Hong Kong as it is stated in the Annex III of Hong Kong's basic law. If there is such an article on nationality law it should be categorised under category:Laws of the PRC. The Road Safety Law, for instance, should be categorised under category:Laws of mainland China.
  By the way, please note that prior to a consensus here, the category shouldn't be deleted and depopulated. — Instantnood 08:41, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Strongly support. There is simply no need to classify laws according to which region they apply. This should be stated in the article itself, which is much clearer to people unfamiliar with the whole situation. If there is a need to be picky, may I point out then, that the Hong Kong Basic Law, One country, two systems, Special Administrative Region, Right of abode issue, Hong Kong, etc etc, all needs to be moved to the Category:Laws of the People's Republic of China since they apply to the PRC government as well?--Huaiwei 09:05, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Exactly. All except Right of abode issue, Hong Kong should also be categorised under category:Laws of the PRC. — Instantnood 09:52, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: And delete from category:Hong Kong law?--Huaiwei 11:10, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Can be both (category:Hong Kong law and category:Laws of the PRC). — Instantnood 12:10, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
        • What for? You are quite determined to "pigeon-hole" any item afterall, arent you? You argue that any entity which only applies to a certain geographical area should be filed in that specific category. So why dont we just file this only in the PRC, since HK is a part of the PRC? Isnt that more "technically accurate"? Some consistency in your arguments, please? ;) --Huaiwei 22:23, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -Kbdank71 14:30, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Please note mainland China ≠ People's Republic of China. — Instantnood 14:44, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete it! Superfluous! MadreBurro 17:54, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: IMPORTANT INFORMATION: There was a precedant on moving category:Insurance companies of the People's Republic of China → category:Insurance companies of mainland China here. The archive can be viewed at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:Insurance companies of the People's Republic of China. I believe precedant should be respected and followed.
  Furthermore, I would like to urge everybody who's cast a vote, or will cast a vote, to read the mainland China article, and the articles related to the statuses of Hong Kong and Macao, and the arrangements of the special administrative regions and One country, two systems. If you are not well-informed with the situation, although your comment will still be respected, I don't think it's responsible to vote. Please be also noted that there is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)#..of China or of the PRC → ..of mainland China. — Instantnood 07:39, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Articles or sections let you more familiar with the issue: One Country, Two Systems, History of Hong Kong, History of Macau, Sino-British Joint Declaration, Basic Law of Hong Kong, Politics of Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region, Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement, Hong Kong dollar, Pataca, Hong Kong International Airport#Customs and Immigration, Economy of Hong Kong, Court of Final Appeal, Mainland China, Talk:Mainland China, Category talk:Cities in China, Category talk:Airports of the People's Republic of China, Category talk:Cities in China, Legal system of Hong Kong, Legal system of Macau — Instantnood 07:39, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Important information: Quoted from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese): "Hong Kong and Macau are generally not considered part of Mainland China, but are under the jurisdiction of the PRC. Thus, it is appropriate to write "many tourists from Hong Kong and Taiwan are visiting Mainland China." ". Obviously "mainland China" is the appropriate term to describe the situation which Hong Kong and Macao (and the territories under the ROC) are excluded. — Instantnood 09:19, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's disruptive of current cats. --A D Monroe III 12:31, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. People: please read the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Discussion on "China"/"PRC" vs. "mainland China" before voting. -- ran (talk) 23:13, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. This is where I would say PRC... The fact is, HK and Macau has their own laws, and therefore it'd be OK to say laws of PRC... But I can see where Instantnood is going. I'm gonna steer clear on this one. Penwhale 05:59, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Since the Naming Convertions are still disputing, These categories should be retained until the Naming Convertions are resolved. --Shinjiman 06:44, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep RefShinjiman's comment.--Mababa 08:37, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep until consensus is reached in Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese). --Umofomia 06:38, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Update: SchmuckyTheCat kept depopulating this category, despite the words " Please do not remove this notice or empty the category while the question is being considered. " on the CFD template. The articles and categories being taken off from this category include:
  • Intellectual property in the People's Republic of China (diff)
  • Anti-Secession Law of the People's Republic of China (diff #1, #2, #3, #4, #5)
  • Hukou (diff #1, #2, #3, #4)
  • Category:Chinese numbered policies (diff #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7)
  • Road Traffic Safety Law of the People's Republic of China (diff #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7)
  • People's Republic of China's trademark law (diff #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6) — Instantnood 09:05, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

• This user has also removed Ping An of China and PICC from category:Insurance companies of mainland China, despite an earlier decision at WP:CFD. — Instantnood 09:05, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

• See discussion.

• See discussion.