Talk:Taiwan's legislature first in Asia to legalize same-sex marriage

Title

There is no reason a title as simple as this should include punctuation. "First nation in Asia to legalize same-sex marriage is Taiwan"; "Taiwan is first to legalize gay marriage in Asia" ... and many more options. And maybe it's just me, but "a first for Asia" as a trailing tag seems slightly condescending. (Also, my other edits were without reading sources.) Cheers, --SVTCobra 01:32, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Also it mirrors CNN's title by just replacing 'in' with a comma and dropping 'historic'. This should really be avoided and it is easy to do so. Cheers, --SVTCobra 01:39, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• The similarity to CNN is a twist I hadn't noticed yet.
• Better for the headline to have an action verb rather than a copula — legalizes is a better verb than is.
• I've been thinking of simply dropping the final clause entirely. The "first for Asia" thing is breaking things down by continent, which is politically arbitrary. It doesn't seem to me the headline needs that embellishment.

--Pi zero (talk) 01:47, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I know how you hate prefixes so I will just tease you by suggesting "Asia: Taiwan: Gays: Marriage is legal!"

But seriously, I do think it is important to highlight Asia as well as Taiwan. But your desire for this action word has given me some pause. ... OK, here are some suggestions: "Taiwan legalizes same-sex marriages and becomes torch-bearer in Asia for LGBTQ rights" ... too much? No, I think it is pretty simple "Taiwan legalizes same-sex marriage and makes history". Or maybe, "Taiwan legalizes same-sex marriage and defies China". The last one seems fairly on-point as China's view is examined in some detail. I hope my "dropping in" is not making life worse for you. Cheers, --SVTCobra 02:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm finding this a pleasant brisk exchange. Food for thought. I wouldn't be attempting any further review tonight, in any case.

Not to quail at the final step, how about "Asia: Taiwan: Gays: Marriage: Legal!" --Pi zero (talk) 04:16, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if we quite have the sourcing to say Taiwan is defying China...

"Taiwan becomes first country in Asia to legalize same-sex marriage" or "Taiwan legalizes same-sex marriage, otherwise unknown in Asia" hm, but that might imply that we think Asians are ignorant of same-sex marriage... "Tawain legalizes same-sex marriage, first in Asia to do so."

I deliberately wrote the article with a section on other Asian countries, so I think it would be good if the title mentioned Asia. Our sources all compare Taiwan to other places in Asia. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:18, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm about to move to "Taiwan's legislature first in Asia to legalize same-sex marriage", and see how that wears whilst attending other aspects of the review. Specifying the legislature in the headline fits well with our earlier article "Taiwan's Constitutional Court legalizes [...]" (which, btw, I notice never uses the word "Yuan"), and it gets in the first-in-Asia without a comma-separated clause. A similar suggestion had a verb "becomes", but I thought perhaps it'd be worth an implicit copula (per headlinese) to leave "legalizes" as the only explicit verb. --Pi zero (talk) 19:05, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I like the new title. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Explain the yuan

I think we should say flat out that the Legislative Yuan is a parliament/congress and that the Judicial Yuan is a court. It's not obvious otherwise. The adjectives Legislative and Judicial make it make sense after the fact but have too many possibilities if you're trying to figure it out from the name. If it weren't under review right now I'd just duck in and do this. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Verily, I've had my eye on that (though behind the scenes I've been very distracted for most of the time I've had this "under review"). Someone else also pointed it out, and I've looked at how other articles have treated such things. We have, for example, articles that mention Israel's Knesset, and in the headline it's not explained (words being at a premium there), but then it's explained immediately in the lede. --Pi zero (talk) 18:54, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Review of revision 4481178 [Passed]

Revision 4481178 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Avoid saying things are "expected". Not only does it beg the question of who does the expecting, but it can't be verified without telepathy. Beware quotes from miscellaneous people whose only apparent relevance is that they said something for which it's convenient to have somebody to quote. I cut two such, and had been quite worried about the unsightly hole it was about to make in the article (to the point where I nearly not-ready'd over it). Anything one wants to find somebody saying, one can find someone saying; see also Rule 34. This was an unwontedly difficult review; the two aforementioned problems in themselves held things up massively. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4481178 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Avoid saying things are "expected". Not only does it beg the question of who does the expecting, but it can't be verified without telepathy. Beware quotes from miscellaneous people whose only apparent relevance is that they said something for which it's convenient to have somebody to quote. I cut two such, and had been quite worried about the unsightly hole it was about to make in the article (to the point where I nearly not-ready'd over it). Anything one wants to find somebody saying, one can find someone saying; see also Rule 34. This was an unwontedly difficult review; the two aforementioned problems in themselves held things up massively. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Name

I found "Xiaogang Wei", a Chinese name, appeared in the story. But I think in Chinese order it may be "Wei Xiaogang". I don't what name order the Wikinews uses, Chinese name order or western name order? (Don't mind my poor English)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mariogoods (talk • contribs)

That's an interesting question, certainly well worth a moment to consider; thanks for raising it. In this case we followed the name order provided by the CNN source. What their policy is, I don't know off hand. It may be a matter of personal choice by the person referred to, which if so overrides generic conventions in China, the US, the UK, or on en.wn. --Pi zero (talk) 13:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)