Talk:Matsu
The Quemoy island group & associated islands, that is, Kinmen County, Taiwan (ROC), is in the Taiwan Strait. But is the Matsu island group, that is, Lienchiang County, Taiwan (ROC), in the Taiwan Strait? In this diff, I quote an article from a journal from Taiwan (for citing the 'island' sense of Nankan) where islands in Lienchiang County, Taiwan (ROC) are said to be in the Taiwan Strait. The first sentence of the abstract of the article, entitled "Spatiotemporal Variation and Chemical Fingerprints of Marine Fine Particles (PM2.5) at the Matsu Islands in Northern Taiwan Strait" reads as follows:
"This study characterized the PM2.5 in terms of its spatial distribution, chemical composition, and seasonal/diurnal variation on the Matsu Islands in the northern Taiwan Strait."
In my experience, it is overwhelmingly common to see references to Lienchiang County, Taiwan (ROC) as being within the Taiwan Strait. Conversely, it is very rare to see references to that county as being within the East China Sea.
Similar Examples: Matsu included in a list at the beginning of a chapter called 'Islands of the Taiwan Straits' page 295 col. 2
Taiwan_Strait#Geography includes a description of the Taiwan Strait that unquestionably excludes any of the land territory of Lienchiang County, Taiwan (ROC) from the Taiwan Strait, but goes on to mention 'Matsu' in a list of the "largest and most important islands off the Fujianese coast", the other four of which fit within the there-provided definition for the Taiwan Strait.
Under the Taiwan_Strait#Geography definition and my understanding, the southernmost islands in Lienchiang County, Taiwan (ROC) are about 20 miles/35 kilometers north of the Taiwan Strait.
Questions:
(1) Is any part of Lienchiang County, Taiwan (ROC) within the Taiwan Strait, by some definition of 'Taiwan Strait'?
(2) What do references to the Taiwan Strait before 1949 indicate about the extent of the Taiwan Strait?
(3) Obviously "Cross-Strait Relations" applies to PRC and Lienchiang County, Taiwan (ROC) interaction regardless (as with Green Island, Pengjia, Pratas, etc.), but if Lienchiang County, Taiwan (ROC) is not in the Taiwan Strait, it is notable that the Taiwan Strait is not bona fide "crossed", which would be relatively special within Taiwan (ROC) territory. Does this have any implications?
(4) To what extent would common usage and similar considerations affect the mention of the 'Taiwan Strait' or 'East China Sea' in this entry's definitions?
Here: diff, I add Encyclopedia Britannica which says that Matsu Island is in the East China Sea.
--Geographyinitiative (talk) 06:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC) (Modified)
Both Etymologies[edit]
@AutoDooz Hey, I want to say that I feel that the NGrams chart applies to both etymologies. Is there a way to do this so that this applies to both etymologies at once? Thanks. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Geographyinitiative: You've found an interesting corner-case. Since Etymology 1 already has a "Further reading" section, the bot (and probably human readers, too) assumes that the second "Further reading" section applies just to Etymology 2. There are two ways to disambiguate it: if the contents of Etymology 1's Further reading apply to both etymologies, then they could be combined into a single L3 "Further reading" section below both etymologies. Or, since it's just one link, it could be included in the L4 "Further reading" sections of both Ety1 and 2 to make it explicit that it applies to both. I think I've seen a number of Latin entries that disambiguate that way. JeffDoozan (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- @JeffDoozan Provide statistical proof that this situation is a corner-case situation or indicate whether there is any factual basis beside first-person experience for that comment. I suspect that it is very possible that this viewpoint is derived from confirmation bias, and that this situation is more common than one might be inclined to believe, that is, "the whole thing is a corner". --Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, @Geographyinitiative. When I say it's a corner case, I'm just referring to pages containing multiple "Further reading" sections where one applies to a specific POS while the other applies to all of them. The ngram usage you added comparing the lemma with an alt spelling is clearly something that could apply to any other lemma with an alt spelling so thinking along those lines, everything would be a corner. If you're genuinely interested in running stats, let me know what data you'd like to see. I takes a few hours of programming, but I'm game to do it if it seems useful. If you just think the bot should never move a final L3 "Further reading" into a preceding "Further reading"less POS, that's easy to do, too. JeffDoozan (talk) 23:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- @JeffDoozan Provide statistical proof that this situation is a corner-case situation or indicate whether there is any factual basis beside first-person experience for that comment. I suspect that it is very possible that this viewpoint is derived from confirmation bias, and that this situation is more common than one might be inclined to believe, that is, "the whole thing is a corner". --Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Geographyinitiative: You've found an interesting corner-case. Since Etymology 1 already has a "Further reading" section, the bot (and probably human readers, too) assumes that the second "Further reading" section applies just to Etymology 2. There are two ways to disambiguate it: if the contents of Etymology 1's Further reading apply to both etymologies, then they could be combined into a single L3 "Further reading" section below both etymologies. Or, since it's just one link, it could be included in the L4 "Further reading" sections of both Ety1 and 2 to make it explicit that it applies to both. I think I've seen a number of Latin entries that disambiguate that way. JeffDoozan (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)