Talk:Administrative divisions of China/Archive 2

Title
Should the title be "Political divisions of the People's Republic of China"? All other articles, such as Demographics and Economy about the PRC, are not using the title "Xxx of China" but "Xxx of the People's Republic of China". -- 09:11, December 10, 2004, UTC


 * That would be a good idea. However, the article also mentions some aspects of the ROC administration system. If we rename this page, those will have to be removed or rephrased (which is not a big loss, since the ROC system also has its own article). -- ran [[User talk:Ran|(talk)]] 16:16, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't see the point of separating the content or moving the page. most other pages are still under the "of China" title. This page would either redirect or be made into a disambiguation. The first accomplishes nothing, the second is very bad given the number of pages that link here and will link here. --Jiang 20:11, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Or we can simply put a disambiguation on top of this page, the same thing that's done at Economy of China, Demographics of China, etc. "This article is on the political divisions of Mainland China. See also Administrative divisions of the Republic of China, Districts of Hong Kong, Subdivisions of Macau."

On second thought, the intro already does something like that. So perhaps even that is not necessary. -- ran [[User talk:Ran|(talk)]] 20:59, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

I'm reverting the move. No one here seems to fully support it. There is no consensus. --Jiang 00:05, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Oh, sorry - didn't look here first. The discussion on WP:RM was pretty unanimous. -- ALoan (Talk) 00:23, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Having "Something of China" as a disambig page is far better than putting up a note. Politically the communist regime is the widely recognised government, but it has never extend its power to all of China. The way it seized power by military forces make the ROC government sounds a bit more legitimate relatively. And as a matter of NPOV, PRC (nor ROC) should not monopolise the use of the word "China". -- 07:47, December 18, 2004, UTC


 * Please sign your posts with ~ and get an account! This article covers both the ROC and PRC. It mentions both. It should have an overview of the history like it used to. This is why a disambiguation is inappropriate...and add how many pages link here...--Jiang 08:17, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * In what way does this article cover the ROC? Don't tell me it covers the ROC because it has a province named Taiwan. -- 14:39, December 18, 2004, UTC

It covers the ROC because it mentions the ROC. For example, under #Municipalities, there's another table for Taibei and Gaoxiong, the central municipalities under the ROC government. Once again, please sign your posts with ~ or you shall be ignored. --Jiang 20:13, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Let me know if there is any convention regarding signatures after messages. I don't want to login, and it's meaningless for me to sign without a real username. -- 08:53, December 19, 2004, UTC

It is meaningful to sign even if you choose to be anonymous. There is a convention and it is specified here. We need you to sign it even if you are an IP address because this is how we can track your contributions (by visiting Special:Contributions/202.61.119.189 for example) and to determine who is saying what and whether comments are being made by the same person (i.e. the same IP range). Otherwise, it is a hassle to check page histories. So please do it. --Jiang 09:34, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I guess the muncipalities of Taipei and Kaohsiung included was just a piece of additional information. This piece of article is basically all about the PRC, but not the ROC. -- 202.61.115.255 15:59, December 22, 2004, UTC


 * No, that was purposely inserted to encompass all of China. If it were just on the PRC, it would not be mentioned at all since whether Taipei/Kaohsiung are municipalities or part of Taiwan province would be irrelevant. --Jiang 16:58, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * If everything about the political divisions of the entire China is mentioned, we've gotta add the difference system of cities, counties, districts and so on and so forth of the ROC. -- 202.61.115.255 17:10, December 22, 2004, UTC

We did. For example, under prefecutes, we said "Prefecture-level (&#22320;&#32423; dìjí) divisions are a level of administration that exists only on mainland China, not Taiwan." and "As of December 15, 2004, there are 2862 county-level (&#21439;&#32423; xiànjí) divisions, including 851 districts, 374 cities, 1465 counties, 117 autonomous counties, 49 banners, 3 autonomous banners, 2 special regions and 1 forestry area in mainland China. The Republic of China governs 23 county-level divisions, including 18 counties and 5 provincial municipalities." Mentions of the Republic of China and Taiwan are all over the place. Another example: "County-level cities (&#21439;&#32423;&#24066; xiànjíshì) are, like prefecture-level cities, not "cities" in the traditional sense of the word, since they are actually large administrative regions that cover both urban and rural areas. It was popular for counties to become county-level cities in the 1990s, though this has since been halted. In Taiwan, county-level cities are known as provincial cities (&#30465;&#36676;&#24066; sh&#283;ngxiáshì)."--Jiang 00:37, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Thank you. But this manner of presenting is not clear enough, and what I perceive is the information on the ROC was just additional to those on PRC, and readers won't have a clear idea of having two systems, and won't be able to understand and compare the two different tho similar systems. -- 202.61.114.2 06:32, December 23, 2004, UTC.

The information on the ROC is of secondary importance because almost all political references to "China" refer to the People's Republic of China and these references often exclude Taiwan. It's fine to perceive it as this way. --Jiang 05:43, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Discussion from WP:RM
Political divisions of China &#8594; Political divisions of the People's Republic of China
 * on par with the articles on Economy, Demographics, Foreign Relations, etc.
 * Political divisions of China should be a disambig page leading people to the article on political divisions of the Republic of China, Hong Kong, Macao, and Mongolia respectively.
 * Object for now. The other pages, such as economy of China, demographics of China etc. are not named with "People's Republic of China" in their titles. -- ran [[User talk:Ran|(talk)]] 19:46, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * What about History of the People's Republic of China? -- 19:49, December 15, 2004, UTC
 * That one treats the "PRC" as a phase in history. We also have a History of China article. -- ran [[User talk:Ran|(talk)]] 16:08, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Should all these articles be move to Xyz of the People's Republic of China, with Xyz of China being the disambig page? -- 19:50, December 15, 2004
 * In the interests of NPOV, I would have to say yes. [[User:Livajo|&#1051;&#1080;&#1074;&#1072;&#1081; | &#9786;]] 22:59, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * As a disambig page, or something about China in general, such as Culture of China or Cuisines of China . -- 07:55, December 16, 2004, UTC
 * Support. We should be self-consistent. -- Naive cynic 20:31, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * On a trial basis, I have moved the old Political divisions of China &#8594; Political divisions of the People's Republic of China, and created a new disambiguation page at Political divisions of China. Comments? Are there any others that should be done? -- ALoan (Talk) 00:03, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I've reverted the move. There is no consensus at Talk:Political divisions of China. Please join the discussion there if you think otherwise.--Jiang 00:10, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Too big a can of worms. --JuntungWu 05:38, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Conditional support: I think it's good to be consistent, but only if we also move economy of China, demographics of China, and so on and so forth. -- ran [[User talk:Ran|(talk)]] 16:08, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * This, unlike the others, is not an article only on mainland China (see above). Then would we be moving Geography of China too? --Jiang 16:58, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The economy and demographics articles are only about the mainland. The political divisions article is mostly about the mainland. (which is not the case for geography.) -- 202.61.115.255 17:07, December 22, 2004, UTC
 * This article is mostly about the mainland. Taiwan is mentioned as an afterthought (or not mentioned at all) in each section. -- ran [[User talk:Ran|(talk)]] 23:06, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Of course the article is mostly about the mainland. The mainland is so much larger than Taiwan so there's naturally more to discuss. As shown above, we give much coverage to the Republic of China and Taiwan. I don't see any NPOV issues so I really don't see the problem here. Even if we gave less coverage and only some coverage, we would be doing nothing wrong. Afterthought or not, we've given Taiwan enough coverage to prevent us from implying China=PRC and Taiwan is not part of China. China means People's Republic of China almost everywhere but this encyclopedia. Let's not overdo it. Creating a disambiguation page will just create a mess for highly linked articles like this one and force us to delete useful content in order to focus solely on the PRC. --Jiang 00:37, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Then what's the point for keeping another article for Republic of China, but not combine them? -- 202.61.114.2 06:30, December 23, 2004, UTC.
 * Someone interested in only the political divisions of Taiwan would have to wade though too much material and get very confused. It will also anger some independence types since we're making the implication that Taiwan is part of China much more obvious. --Jiang 05:40, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Town of China
redirects to List of cities in China. That OK? J heisenberg 18:37, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

... not really. Towns (&#38215;) are a fourth-level political unit, but cities or municipalities (&#24066;) are found in the first to third levels. -- ran (talk) 20:22, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Town therefore seems to be one of several township units. Learn something ;) Is there any difference between a town, a township and a subdistrict or are they just different names? J heisenberg 13:00, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A subdistrict is decidedly urban in nature &mdash; the Chinese term literally means "street office" or "neighbourhood office", and I'm not sure how that got translated into "subdistrict". Towns and townships are rural, with townships more rural than towns. In practice the difference seems to be slight, though I don't really know what the actual difference is...

A typical distribution, for example, would be a county-level city (third-level) divided into subdistricts in its urban built-up area (say 5-10% of its total area), and the remaining 90% divided into towns and townships. -- ran (talk) 15:24, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

Unhelpful note removed
I removed this from the top of the article:

''This article is on the administrative divisions of Mainland China, with additional information on the Special Administrative Regions and the territories currently under control by the Republic of China. See also: Administrative divisions of the Republic of China, Districts of Hong Kong, and Parishes of Macau.''

Now what is the point of this? We dont need to summarize what's in the article. People can find that out by reading the article. This is an all inclusive article so there is nothing misleading about the title that would call for such a note. --Jiang 08:20, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The internal administrative divisions of Hong Kong and Macao are unlike those of other provinces, municipalities or autonomous regions in mainland China. They are within the PRC system because "special administrative regions" are supposed to be at the same level as provinces as first-order, tho than power varies greatly. The system of administrative divisions of the ROC is not identical or very similar with the one used in mainland China.  It is therefore necessary to let readers to know the system in this article deals mainly with the system of mainland China, but not the ROC, Hong Kong and Macao. -- 202.61.117.73 17:14, January 4, 2005, UTC.


 * So? Special administrative regions are province level divisions. It's all part of the article as they are part of China. As this article should deal mainly with mainland China (by the virtue of size), and also mentions the ROC, HK, and Macau, there is nothing confusing about the setup. Can you tell what is so confusing that would necessitate having a clarification on top? Please dont restore the note until there is consensus to do so because you are the one making the change. --Jiang 03:01, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * "Special administrative regions are (nominally) province-level divisions" is the only justification to have Hong Kong and Macao included. The internal divisions of the two SARs do not follow the PRC system.  The ROC system is simply not the same system.  It is included only for the sake of comparison with the PRC designation for the province of Taiwan, which it has never controlled and exercised sovereignty it claims.


 * You are the only one reverting the changes, and by the same logic, please do not remove it until there is a consensus. -- 202.61.115.161 16:22, January 5, 2005, UTC.

The justification of having Macau and Hong Kong included is that they are part of China. If the internal divisions of the SARs are different, we give topical overview before linking to more specific articles. The ROC system is mentioned because Taiwan can be considered part of China, or the information would be irrelevant. You still havent explained the justification of having the text there as a disambiguator. What needs disambiguating? What is so confusing and misleading here? No, it's not the same logic. I've justified the removal. Please justify the change. The status quo prevails when there is no consensus. --Jiang 23:59, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * This article is about the whole set of all levels of administrative divisions of mainland China. Hong Kong and Macao are included because they're nominally first-order divisions, yet they are not within the same structure of administrative divisions.


 * The ROC system is mentioned because PRC claims it is part of it, but it is not under PRC's control, and it has another system. But then it is already POV for the article on PRC system to use this title.


 * This is not a disambiguation notice, and I haven't inserted the template.  Your justification of the reversion simply doesn't stand.  (tho I agree the status quo should prevails.)  "Please justify the change." (as I have mentioned before,) the notice is necessary because readers might not reckonise the whole set of system only applies to the mainland.


 * This theme of this article is about the set of administrative divisions used in mainland China, but not about China, or what is part of China. -- 202.61.117.189 18:35, January 6, 2005, UTC.

No, this article not not "about the whole set of all levels of administrative divisions of mainland China" because the article exists at "Political divisions of China" and not "Political divisions of mainland China". I thought we already explained this to you. Hong Kong and Macau are included because they are part of China. Period. The Republic of China can be included because it is arguably part of China. Again, period. There's nothing more needed to justify their inclusion.

The template isn't inserted for disambiguation notices--it's inserted for disambiguation page. If this isn't a disambiguation notice then what is it? We only allow intalicized text sitting on top if it is a disambguation notice. I havent seen any exceptions. Readers shouldnt "reckonise the whole set of system only applies to the mainland" because that just isnt true. Do I need to say again? This is on the "Political divisions of China" not the "Political divisions of mainland China" or we would have already moved the page. --Jiang 00:13, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The main theme of this article is about the system (i.e. the five levels) of administrative divisions implemented in mainland China (the system itself, but not about China). I think I have presented my view clearly enough and it is only a matter of whether you agree with or oppose to it.


 * I've never attempted to create any disambig page with the disambig template, nor have I inserted a disambig notice. If having it italicise is not a convention, then we should think about other formats of having such a note, but not challenging whether this note should be on the top of the article.

Sign your posts. We use the "levels" to section the organize the article. To the best of my knowledge there is nothing in this article that would otherwise not belong. If you're not trying to make a disambiguation notice, then I'm not sure what you are doing. I don't see the purpose of the note. We only add notes like this if the title is misleading and needs clarifying. --Jiang 00:29, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Indent your posts. The title of the article is indeed needing a clarification. The system mentioned in the article is not applied to entire China.

Sign your posts or I'll start ignoring you. According, to Talk_pages I (as the initiator of this discussion) should not be indenting. Otherwise, we keep indenting and soon we run out of space.

All systems of China are purposely mentioned. It is not true that "The system mentioned in the article is not applied to entire China" because the mainland system is not the only one being discussed. --Jiang 10:27, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Then please add descriptions of Hong Kong's and Macao's systems in this article, and add a new article for mainland China's then. -- 202.61.115.72 12:40, January 14, 2005, UTC


 * I've added more details on Hong Kong and Macau. I don't see the point of a new article on mainland China's system though: wouldn't it basically duplicate 99% of the content of this page? -- ran (talk) 15:28, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we can collaborate to rewrite this article, making the content on mainland China's system like the manner of that of Hong Kong, Macao and the ROC, and move most the main content to a new article on mainland China's system. -- 202.61.116.67 04:50, January 15, 2005, UTC

Why the hell do you want to do that for? The current setup seems fine--Jiang 05:03, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * In your point of view it's perhaps already fine, but to me having such a change would look finer. -- 202.61.115.124 12:43, January 17, 2005, UTC

I know your POV but I dont see a reason for it. You need to explain--Jiang 21:32, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I have explained. I don't see any valid reason for your point of view either. -- 202.61.117.44 07:32, January 18, 2005, UTC


 * I agree with this proposal suggested above by an annonymous contributor: " Perhaps we can collaborate to rewrite this article, making the content on mainland China's system like the manner of that of Hong Kong, Macao and the ROC, and move most the main content to a new article on mainland China's system. -- 202.61.116.67 04:50, January 15, 2005, UTC " &mdash; Instantnood 21:10 Feb 14 2005 (UTC)

NPOV issues of new map
The new map, Image:China administrative.png, needs to the fact that this article is not solely based on the PRC and should also reflect the divisions of the ROC, as the previous map, Image:China provinces.png did. Maybe we can use a different coloring scheme for the ROC, if the key will fit. We should clarify that the Diaoyu islands are "claimed by the PRC and ROC as part of Taiwan Province" since "China" might not register both. --Jiang 05:45, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The previous map didn't reflect the ROC's divisions (at the very least, that should include Fu-chien province with capital Quemoy, Taiwan province with capital Jhongsing Village, and the municipalities of Taipei and Kaohsiung). These details are impossible to squeeze in at this scale and should be left for the mapmakers over at the Administrative divisions of the Republic of China; the most I can do on this map is to give the ROC regions a separate colour (which I've done). As for the Diaoyu Islands issue, thanks for the note; I'll revise the map tomorrow. -- ran (talk) 05:50, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

The previous map marked Jhongsing Village as the capital of Taiwan. Red dots can be given for Taipei and Kaohsiung and Taiwan could be colored pink (maybe a different shade). Anything beyond the provincial level can be left out. The title of the map is inapproriate; I dont think it's even necessary -- we can use the image caption instead. --Jiang 06:30, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The previous map marked Jhongsing Village as the capital of a Taiwan province that clearly included Taipei and Kaohsiung as well. This is not entirely more accurate than PRC maps showing Taipei as the capital of Taiwan province. Also, what about Quemoy, the capital of Fuchien? If Jhongsing Village is in, why is Quemoy not?
 * Either none of them are added, or all of them are. The things that need to be squeezed in would then include:


 * Taipei
 * Jhongsing Village
 * Kaohsiung
 * Taiwan province
 * Fuchien province
 * Quemoy
 * I'd rather prefer NOT squeezing all of those into the Taiwan Straits at the same time. You can put the ROC map right next to this map in the article if you really want to. -- ran (talk) 06:44, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Having two maps if fine with me. However, I dont think the second map is necessary since the claims are all but ignored. It also overemphasizes physical features--Jiang 04:04, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I didn't put the second map in (only the third one), so it's fine with me if you want to remove it. -- ran (talk) 13:36, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Sino-Indian border
The map is a POV map, it does not depict the region Aksai Chin as a disputed territory and assumes the region solely to be a part of PRC. We surely need a politicaly correct map here. Nichalp 19:17, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * I made this map in imitation of the Indian map, which marks out Aksai Chin (claimed but not controlled), but leaves Arunachal Pradesh unmarked (controlled but claimed by others). I've done this map in exactly the same way; after all we need to maintain some level of consistency. -- ran (talk) 02:28, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Aksai Chin was controlled till 1962 by India. (Back to history - Nehru stated that the area was a desert where "not a blade of grass grows" and did not contest the claim to the region. Many here in India question his myopic policies till today) However the state of Jammu and Kashmir had maps showing the actual boundaries long before it was merged with India (&Pak) and Tibet was appropriated by PRC. So in keeping with the ground situation, it would be wise to show Aksai Chin as a claimed region just as you have shown Arunachal Pradesh. Nichalp 20:27, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * This is not what I meant. On the Indian map Arunachal Pradesh is not marked but Aksai Chin is. In other words, the Indian map marks out territories claimed by India, but controlled by others, but it doesn't mark out territories claimed by others and controlled by India. I've done precisely the same thing on the Chinese map by marking out Arunachal Pradesh, controlled by others but claimed by China, but leaving Aksai Chin unmarked, since it is controlled by China and claimed by others.


 * In fact, the prime source of inspiration for my map is the Indian map. I've followed the exact same standard set out in the Indian map and I don't see why I'm getting complaints nonetheless.


 * If Aksai Chin is to be marked out on the Chinese map, then the same logic applies to the Indian map: it must mark out Arunachal Pradesh separately as well. -- ran (talk) 21:04, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * The BBC and most other channels depicts the map showing the status of Kashmir as it currently is   . The maps are NPOV, and I see no harm in mentioning the same to maintain an accurate map. As for Arunachal Pradesh, I have yet to see any news channel showing a distinction in the claimed/administed territories of the region. Although the ground situation is different, the issue remains that we do not have a map (If you can find it on the internet it would be great, and I could request the map to be modified) that accurately potrays the present ground position in Arunachal Pradesh, Uttranchal and Himachal Pradesh. I have no problems if you potray AP as disputed, but for posterity and NPOV's sake lets have an accurate map of the Aksai Chin. Nichalp 19:04, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

Here you go: I used these to make my maps too, BTW. My point remains that the Chinese map and the Indian map should keep to the same standards. Either they both show just the territories claimed but not controlled by each respective country (which is what we have right now), or they both show all of the disputed territories along the border. -- ran (talk) 19:19, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * China-India Border, eastern sector
 * China-India Border, western sector


 * As far as my knowledge goes, the areas in Uttranchal and Himachal Pradesh (middle sectors) are resolved. In addition, according to, The PRC withdrew from virtually all of Arunachal Pradesh to the Line of Actual Control (LAC),.... This, as I would glean, would mean that the actual disputed region is minimal. Also your map of AP is dated, it does not depict the actual ground position of Indian and Chinese occupation. Hence this would also mean that the entire state is not claimed by China as you potray. Unfortunately there are very few / or no maps that depict the ground situation, so your claim would be a little ambitious to depict the entire state as disputed. Nichalp 20:32, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I've also heard about the middle sectors (Uttaranchal + Himachal Pradesh) being resolved, though I don't know the exact borders that have now been agreed upon. As for Arunachal Pradesh: no, it's not under Chinese control, which is why I noted that it's claimed by China, not administered by China.

It's not all of Arunachal Pradesh that's claimed by China, which is why my map says: Most of AP is claimed by China. This claim continues to stand and has not been withdrawn. Take a look at the PRC article on the Chinese wikipedia: ; you can scroll down and see an official map, which clearly includes the same area that I've marked out as disputed (i.e. most of AP except the southeastern part).

You can also take a look at the AP article on the Chinese wikipedia:. The map mistakenly depicts all of the disputed area as AP, but it does mark out the lines clear enough: red for actual control, blue for the Chinese claim. -- ran (talk) 21:53, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

Here's a (slightly old) article from BBC:. It seems that maps were exchanged for the Middle Sector but no agreement was actually reached. -- ran (talk) 22:28, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * Do you have any recent official map of China which I can see; one produced by the PRC government? I would like to see that first before I comment on AP. As for Aksai Chin, you shouldn't be comparing other maps as a show of one-upmanship, if you show the ground situation as it is, rather than omitting details, your map will be an NPOV. (Catch up with you on Friday.) Nichalp 18:21, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Here you go. The title of the page translates as: "Map of China - Diagram of the Standard Method of Drawing" (clunky translation, sorry).

The Chinese government continues to maintain a claim to AP in the same way the Indian government claims Aksai Chin.

Also, I'm not exactly trying to show any one-upmanship; I'm proposing something that's fair, and consistent. If you show territories claimed by other countries, and I show territories claimed by other countries, and we agree to do this together at the same time and set a good example for the rest of Wikipedia's maps: well, what's wrong with that, really? Sounds like a win-win situation to me. On the other hand if I were being unreasonable and demanding that you show AP while I leave out Aksai Chin, then that would be one-upmanship. -- ran (talk) 03:59, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * I must say that you have employed a fallacious reasoning above if this then so this.... The aim of the an encyclopedia is not to provide a bias to the reader, but to be as NPOV as possible; and certainally not to have a "win-win" situation here. You were in the process of making the maps and I pointed out to you that the maps were a POV. On the other hand, the maps of India might be a POV, but it was there long before this map was made. In addition to this, the issue on the POV status of AP was never raised with the cartographers or in a general debate, so that it could be rectified all this time. I have not problems in depicting a region as disputed to maintain the veracity of an article. I have also mentioned above I am open to having the India maps changed, in fact I have requested for it to be modified, after adducing that China officially disputes the map boundary. As I reiterate, show the situation as it is rather than basing your points on other maps. Nichalp 19:07, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I didn't raise any objections to the India map, because I thought for all this time that the convention was to show actual controlled regions only, i.e. Chinese map includes Aksai Chin but not AP, Indian map includes AP but not Aksai Chin. (Other examples: the Japan map doesn't include the southern Kuriles; the Philippines map doesn't include Sabah, etc.) But after seeing the new Indian map being put up with an NPOV depiction of Jammu and Kashmir, I was inspired by it to make a more NPOV version, using the precise same standards that it uses. They say that imitation is the best form of flattery... so you can imagine my surprise (not to mention indignation) when my very first complaint is from someone who's participated extensively in India-related topics.

I'm glad to see that you're now raising this issue with both Ankur and me. In fact, I think the conclusions that we arrived at {mark out territories claimed by others as well) should be introduced as a general standard for mapmakers on Wikipedia. What does Ankur think? -- ran (talk) 02:25, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, we need to have NPOV maps and I hope that you make the NPOV map. Ankur is currently busy, I'll try my best to get AP NPOV'd as soon as he's done. PS Have you been keeping tabs on me so far? Nichalp 19:53, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

Well, you mentioned that you requested for the map to be changed, so I went to User talk:Ankur to take a look. I asked for his opinion, and I also saw the note that you left for him. Thanks for your help on this issue, btw.

The new map is now up. -- ran (talk) 23:45, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

Capitals of subnational entities of China
Why does this article exist? It seems redundant to me.

How about expanding / rewriting it in the likeness of List of current and former capital cities within the United States? -- ran (talk) 02:32, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Cantonese IPA
Go take a look at Standard Cantonese first. There is no voicing contrast in Cantonese, only an aspiration contrast. In other words:

/p/: &#21253; /p&#688;/: &#25243;

/t/: &#20992; /t&#688;/: &#28372;

/ts/: &#28966; /ts&#688;/: &#36229;

/k/: &#28317; /k&#688;/: &#25187;

Also, I don't putting IPA is even needed here. Take a look at Manual of Style (China-related articles): we're supposed to keep the insertion of Chinese stuff in brackets at a minimum, since this is, after all, Wikipedia in English. Putting pinyin in is already kinda stretching it.

-- ran (talk) 19:00, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * According to scholars such as M W Ho of the CUHK, who is an expert in Cantonese pronunication, /p&#688; /-/p/, /t&#688; /-/t/ and /k&#688; /-/k/ are used interchangeably with /p/-/b/, /t/-/d/ and /k/-/g/. In fact he and his colleagues always use the latter in teaching.  And, it's much more common to mark the tone numbers instead of the tone contours.


 * Cantonese is spoken in Hong Kong and Macao, and many referece in English (or Portuguese) to them are based on Cantonese rather than Mandarin. It is necessary to include the Cantonese pronunciations.  Furthermore Cantonese (and, of course, some other southern Chinese languages) retains many elements of Middle Chinese, which can be found by comparing with the Chinese names of ancient peoples and kingdoms, or with the pronunciation of Korean and Japanese words of Chinese origin.  Cantonese pronunciation is somehow necessary in order to make an article encyclopædic. -- 16:04, January 24, 2005, UTC

The latter (/p/-/b/ etc.) may be used in teaching (it's certainly easier to read), but that doesn't change the fact that the former (/p&#688;/-/p/ etc.) is more correct. Cantonese distinguishes aspiration instead of voice and putting down the latter is simply misleading if you're trying to give an accurate IPA transcription.

Also, tone numbers (1 2 3 4 5 6) may be more commonly used in teaching and for people who already know the tones; but remember that we're giving the raw IPA broad phonetic transcription here; a person who knows nothing about Cantonese should be able to read the IPA notation as well. As a result tone contours are the better choice.

Cantonese pronunciation is welcome on the articles that concern these things specifically (Special Administrative Region, for example), but we shouldn't be cluttering up this page with lots and lots of things in brackets in the text (it really breaks up the text). In fact I'm leaning more towards removing all of the pinyin as well. As for the fact that Cantonese is closer to Middle Chinese... well, that's not really relevant to this discussion. Minnan is close too, so should we put every term in Minnan as well?-- ran (talk) 16:32, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * It is not only used in teaching but in dictionary as well. I agree /p&#688; /-/p/, /t&#688; /-/t/ and /k&#688; /-/k/ are perhaps more accurate than /p/-/b/, /t/-/d/ and /k/-/g/, but the latter is much more useful and easily understood for stating the pronunciation of the characters in Cantonese. Afterall the same set of IPAs in one language may not be pronounced in the same way in another language.


 * Similarly, tone countours is less easily understood and clear for the sake of marking the IPA of a character in Cantonese. Wikipedia users can easily check the corresponding contours of tone numbers on Wikipedia.  And in fact the contour of the same tone may not be the same always.


 * I only inserted the IPA of Cantonese under the section on the special administrative regions, and not elsewhere. I think that's already appropriate and is not "cluterring the page with lots of brackets".


 * I guess it would be nice to include the pronunciation in Cantonese and Min Nan (Hokkien) in articles related to history, or involved a comparison with the name of the same thing Korean and Japanese. Perhaps we can use the infobox system as in articles related to Korea. -- 08:00, January 25, 2005, UTC

I still don't understand why you prefer /k/-/g/ so much over /k&#688;/-/k/: the second one is accurate, and it isn't so hard to learn about or understand, nor is it very hard on the eyes or anything. Why would you want to ditch it for something that's just plain incorrect?

As for tone contours, may I point out that the only two ways of marking tones in IPA are using diacritics and using Chao letters. Both of them mark tone contours, not tone numbers.

If you continue to object to /k&#688;/-/k/ and tone contours, then perhaps we should switch to Jyutping. IPA was developed by linguists; it wasn't meant for use by the general public when they want to learn a language. This is why IPA tries to represent as many arcane distinctions as accurately as possible. This often makes IPA very hard to read (for laypeople). I think the ultimate problem is that it is IPA that you don't like &mdash; the "arcaneness" of IPA. If you want a more friendly system accessible to more people, then we should be switching to jyutping.

And as for the boxes with Cantonese / Minnan pronunciation &mdash; ok, this is the English encyclopedia, history-related articles are on history, not linguistics, and we shouldn't be cluttering up pages with unneeded information. Such comparisons belong in specifically linguistics-related articles. -- ran (talk) 17:03, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * As I have mentioned, the same IPAs could be pronounced differently in different languages. A good example would be International Phonetic Alphabet for English which involve a comparison between BrE and AmE. One read a word of a language from IPAs based on the IPAs for that language. Afterall sounds, like pitches, are continuums instead of being discrete. It's hard to tell what is truly correct or incorrect.

Yes, the IPA conventions for languages may differ slightly, but there are certain limits to this. If a language has the sound /p/, we aren't going to represent it as /k/ for no reason whatsoever. Cantonese plosives are differentiated by aspiration, for which there's already a convenient symbol (/h/), so why should we use something else instead, something else that is wrong?


 * Write to Prof M W Ho and tell him then. -- 19:50, January 26, 2005, UTC

Since it is apparent that you know him personally, perhaps you can do the honours?

Or how about this. Go to a university library, and pick up some books on the phonology of Chinese languages. Let's see how many of them represent the aspirated/unaspirated pairs with symbols for voiced/unvoiced pairs. -- ran (talk) 20:10, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * It was you who's complaining about the way he and his colleagues are using. It might be possible their are more books marking with the h. So if that really happens what are you going to do to Prof M W Ho of the CUHK? -- 20:16, January 26, 2005, UTC


 * Look, we're trying to find a commonly acceptable standard here. Most people use /p t k/ and /ph th kh/. Some people use /b d g/ and /p t k/. Some people use /b d g/ and /ph th kh/. And some people use /p t k/ and /p' t' k'/. We can't reconcile all of these systems. All we can do is find one that is the least controversial, most standardized, and most accurate. If Prof M W Ho wants to use /b d g/, he clearly has good academic and practical reasons for doing so, but these reasons are wayyy beyond the scope of trying to give a simple pronunciation guide to "Tsim Sha Tsui". -- ran (talk) 20:40, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * Obviously what you were trying to assert is not a "commonly acceptable standard here (on Wikipedia)", and "least controversial", "most standardised". -- 21:11, January 26, 2005, UTC


 * I'm asserting the system that's described in Standard Cantonese. -- ran (talk) 21:25, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC) -- 21:46, January 26, 2005, UTC


 * That means it is not a "commonly acceptable standard here (on Wikipedia)", and "least controversial", "most standardised" either. :-)


 * Why don't you change Standard Cantonese then, to something that's more commonly acceptable? -- ran (talk) 21:52, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * Standardised IPAs may only use diacritics and Chao symbols. But they are not universal for all languages, and the same diacritics for one language may not act in the same way as in another language. Tone numbers are only one of the method, or perhaps an alternative, to make the tones. One more problem Cantonese speakers may encounter is that the same tone number, for instance tone number 1, the so-called high level tone, has two contours, namely 55 and 53, and the low level tone 21 and 11. Some systems even identified them as two tones. (See this xls-format document and the article Standard_Cantonese) Marking with tone numbers in fact solve the problem.


 * Which is why I said using Jyutping is better. Mandarin pronunciations aren't marked with IPA, because there's no need to do that either.


 * But still it is not popular and known by many people. To me it is alright to mark with two systems for pronunciations of Cantonese, as WG and Pinyin for Mandarin. -- 19:52, January 26, 2005, UTC


 * Jyutping and Yale then. -- ran (talk) 20:10, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * .. -- 20:19, January 26, 2005, UTC


 * You have to make a choice here. Do you want accuracy? If so, use standard IPA, no matter how weird it looks. Do you want convenience and ease of reading? If so, then use Jyutping, which uses and and tone numbers. -- ran (talk) 20:40, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * !!! -- 21:12, January 26, 2005, UTC


 * One may be interested to compare, for instance, the pronunciation of a certain thing in Chinese, Korean and Japanese respectively. The Mandarin pronunciation may be very different from Korean and Japanese, whereas the Cantonese and Hokkien counterparts could be very alike to Korean and Japanese. This is not purely a linguistics issue. And, an encyclopædia has to be encyclopædic. -- 17:08, January 26, 2005, UTC


 * But not in Special Administrative Region! Something like this should go into an article related to historical linguistics. -- ran (talk) 18:13, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * Cantonese is spoken in the two special administrative regions, and is prevailing. Without the Cantonese pronunciation one may find it weirdo to see how the name, for instance, Ngau Tau Kok, is transcibed into English. -- 19:55, January 26, 2005, UTC


 * You're shifting the argument now. You were talking about including Chinese, Korean and Japanese pronunciations. I said this should only be done in articles about historical linguistics. You said, again, that we should compare Chinese, Korean, and Japanese. I said, again, that this should only be done in articles about historical linguistics, not in articles like Special Administrative Region. And now you accuse me of trying to exclude Cantonese pronunciation from Special Administrative Region. Do you see the problem with your line of argument?


 * That's not what I am saying. Please don't put hats on me. And in reality you did remove Cantonese IPAs from articles relating to the SARs. -- 20:20, January 26, 2005, UTC


 * That's because I found those to be inaccurate, and directly contradictory to the phonology of Cantonese as described in Standard Cantonese. You can also see that I in fact corrected the Jyutping spellings of Shenzhen and Tsim Sha Tsui. -- ran (talk) 20:40, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you. -- 21:13, January 26, 2005, UTC


 * The only time when we actually include all of Chinese, Japanese, and Korean pronunciation is when we absolutely have to, like in chopsticks. We have to do it in an article like that. We don't need to put Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Minnan, Teochiu, Mindong, Wu, Xiang, Gan, Hakka, Middle Chinese, Old Chinese, and Proto-Sino-Tibetan pronunciations into Special Administrative Region or other China-related articles. Mandarin and Cantonese is enough for HK-related articles. -- ran (talk) 20:10, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * Agree, tho Mandarin isn't that necessary for Hong Kong- and Macao-related articles. -- 20:23, January 26, 2005, UTC


 * Mandarin is generally used in all China- and Chinese-related articles... -- ran (talk) 20:40, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * This is what I don't agree. -- 21:13, January 26, 2005, UTC

This discussion has gone off the topic of the Political divisions of China. I suggest moving it to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (China-related articles). Also: we need to settle on a consensus on how Cantonese pronunciation should be indicated, to prevent disputes like this in the future.


 * I did proposed another set of conventions on Hong Kong and Macao (and on Republic of China as well), but they were deleted. -- 21:15, January 26, 2005, UTC


 * Put those up again. I'll take a look for you. -- ran (talk) 21:25, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * The discussion on the remove was archived. -- 20:47, January 26, 2005, UTC


 * Where? -- ran (talk) 21:52, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * You know what, I'll put something up onto Manual of Style (China-related articles) anyways. Please put all future discussion onto the talk page of that page. -- ran (talk) 22:03, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

My proposal is: with Jyutping and Yale in articles related to Hong Kong, Macau, and central Guangdong. -- ran (talk) 20:46, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * Disagree -- 21:14, January 26, 2005, UTC


 * Okay then. My second proposal is: to use IPA, using the exact same symbols that are used in the article Standard Cantonese. -- ran (talk) 21:25, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * If there's a vote I would vote for this second proposal, but tone numbers not tone contours. -- 21:47, January 26, 2005, UTC


 * Fine. But you'll need to use /p t k/ instead of /b d g/, and follow everything else laid out in Standard Cantonese. Also, please put tone numbers in the superscript... I believe that's the convention used. (Tone contours are put in the subscript IIRC.) -- ran (talk) 21:52, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * There's an example up at Hong Kong. I'll put one in at SAR as well. -- ran (talk) 22:36, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)