Talk:List of Chinese administrative divisions by population/Archive 1

Guangdong's figure
According to some sources Guangdong tops the list, probably by taking non-permanent population into account, given that the province attracts many migrant workers from elsewhere. Do we need some sort of elaboration on how the figures included in the list were compiled? &mdash; Instantnood 14:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced
The Chinese city population entries are completely unsourced. The footnotes 1-5 do not point to sources, but to explanations of the type of the administrative reagion. The comparison entries are all unsourced except for India. Assertions in articles must be based on reliable sources. Establishing comparison may be viewed as Original Research. The article can be deleted if it is not brought in compliance. -- BsBsBs (talk) 20:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Have a look at your timestamp. It reads 20:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC). Making a request, and not giving time for it, is kind of strange to me. You have barely given it a day. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 04:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Where does it say that I have to give it even a second? Deletion policy says: "An editor who believes a page obviously and uncontroversially doesn't belong in an encyclopedia can propose its deletion. Such a page can be deleted by any administrator if, after seven days, no one objects to the proposed deletion." That's what the deletion discussion is for. An unsourced article does not belong into WP. This article needs sources, or it's got to go. You need to find a source that says that China's population compares with the total of Western Europe, North America, and South America, or it's got to go. When you have that, find a source that says Hebei's population is the same as Iran's. Or it's got to go. Sorry, rules are rules. -- BsBsBs (talk) 06:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I have made three good faith edits for Chongqing, Beijing, and Shanghai. Sorry, the numbers for Chongqing and Beijing are different than what was in the list, but now they are properly referenced. The other numbers should be properly referenced likewise. I happen to follow Chongqing, Beijing and Shanghai, so I have those numbers. As two out of three numbers were wrong, I expect further changes as this list is properly referenced. If it's not, all unreferenced data can be deleted. -- BsBsBs (talk) 14:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Hong Kong and Macao
This list was started with the figures of Hong Kong and Macao provided and presented as relevant information. They were not ranked together with those listed. Edits by user:Alanmak effectively disregarded the fact that they're not within the administrative division system as prescribed by the Article 30 of the 1982 Constitution. The statistics are also compiled differently. &mdash; Instantnood 18:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The SAR's are provided for in Article 31 of the 1982 Constitution. As far as statistics compilation goes, as long as Hong Kong and Macau are able to provide figures, they *should* be ranked, just like how we rank them among another subdivisions in area, highest point, life expectancy, literacy, and natural growth rate. The only reason they are excluded in the GDP rankings is because the currency is different and not easily convertible. -- ran (talk) 21:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I've yet to find out any constitutional and/or legal evidence that special administrative regions are administrative divisions. Yes the constitutional and legal basis of their establishment is provided for in the Article 31, but nowhere in the 1982 Constitution, nor in either of the two basic laws, mentions they're administrative divisions, in the way Article 30 does. This list started with such differences acknowledged. Any change to how they're presented is related to how the fact they're different is presented, and is related to the need to ensure neutrality towards different points of view. &mdash; Instantnood 00:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * What different points of view? What's the "other" point of view? That Hong Kong and Macau are not administrative divisions of the People's Republic of China? What are they then? How would this "other" point of view interpret Article 12 of the Basic Law? -- ran (talk) 03:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If they're administrative divisions, where is it mentioned, in a manner comparable to Article 30 of the 1982 Constitution? Article 12 of both the Hong Kong and the Macao basic laws say " local administrative region ", not administrative divisions. Even if they were administrative divisions, there's obviously no provision that they're comparable to, and are placed at the same level as autonomous regions, municipalities and provinces. &mdash; Instantnood 09:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * What's the difference between "local administrative region" and "local administrative division"?
 * Why don't we get straight to the point? What is your interpretation of Articles 30 and 31 of the Constitution, and Article 12 of the Basic Law? What are Hong Kong and Macau? Are they sovereign states? Vassal states? Puppet states? What are they? -- ran (talk) 13:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * What we have to figure is, according to constitutional and legal documents,  whether or not special administrative regions are administrative divisions. Even if they were, we have to figure out if there is any provision that they're comparable to, and are placed at the same level with autonomous region, municipalities and provinces. If they're not prescribed as such, then they do not belong. What they are is irrelevant to the discussion here, I'm afraid. &mdash; Instantnood 12:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it is not irrelevant. Why do you think the SARs are not included? What are their statuses, in your POV, that makes it unsuitable to include them? -- ran (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * There's no evidence to say special administrative regions, as according to Article 30 of the 1982 Constitution, or the existing special administrative regions, as according to Article 30 of the 1982 Constitution and Article 12 in both basic laws, are administrative divisions. &mdash; Instantnood 17:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * wtf are they then? You've avoided answering that question three times.  An administrative division is a generic term for a sub-division of a larger organization.  This semantic game you're playing on the talk page is silly, and the revert war you've got going on for the article itself is just plain rude.  SchmuckyTheCat 19:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Article 30 of the Constitution explicitly states that province (shěng), autonomous regions (zìzhìqū), municipalities directly under the Central People's Government (zhíxiáshì), cities (shì), counties (xiàn), autonomous prefectures (zìzhìzhōu), etc., are administrative divisions. This is not the case for the special administrative regions (cf. Article 31). Why don't they explicitly state what they are in the Constitution? If there's no legal and/or constitutional evidence to tell what they are, then am I in a position to tell what they actually are? And in what way is what they are relevant to the discussion here? The only thing we have to tell is that whether they are administrative divisions. As there's no such evidence, we cannot assume they are, and present them as such. &mdash; Instantnood 19:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Administrative division is a generic term for an administrative region within a country — on an arbitrary level below that of the sovereign state. SchmuckyTheCat 20:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a generic term on one hand, but also official designation on the other. From the official designation perspective, they're not explicitly stated to be, as provinces, autonomous regions, counties, etc. do. From the generic term perspective, whether they are or are not is subject to different points of view. &mdash; Instantnood 22:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, under our article for the generic term it lists SARs as examples. We should have some consistency. (Watch your next edit is to remove that). SchmuckyTheCat 22:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * How did you jump to the conclusion that it's being used as a generic term? &mdash; Instantnood 22:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Revelatory hallucinations. SchmuckyTheCat 23:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Instantnood, since you cannot tell us what Hong Kong and Macau are exactly, could you give some possibilities as to what they might be? I.e., in accordance with the PRC Constitution as well as the Basic Laws, what other possibilities could HK and Macau be, if they are not administrative divisions?
 * (Note that I use the word, "possibility". In other words, there is nothing in the PRC constitution, nor the Basic Laws, nor international treaties etc., that contradict the idea that HK and Macau are administrative divisions. I'm asking: what are the other possible statuses that HK and Macau might also have, that are also not contradicted by the constitution, Basic Laws, and international treaties?)-- ran (talk) 21:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * There are always many different possibilities, dependent territories, self-governing territories, autonomous territories, special entities…, you name it. What we can be sure is that they're not sovereign states, and, according to Article 12 in both basic laws, " inalienable part[s] of the People's Republic of China. ". &mdash; Instantnood 22:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You're looking at the wrong article.
 * Article 12:


 * The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be a local administrative region of the People's Republic of China, which shall enjoy a high degree of autonomy and come directly under the Central People's Government.


 * -- ran (talk) 23:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Article 1. Wrong buttons, perhaps. :-) &mdash; Instantnood 23:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Stop reverting!! Respond to Article 12 first. -- ran (talk) 15:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Why didn't they define in article 12 in each of the basic laws, respectively, that it is an administrative division? Why did they call them  local government region local administrative region? A  local government region local administrative region may be an adminisrative division, may be not. It can be anything. Why didn't they specify it's an administrative division, in the same manner Article 30 of the Constitution does? Why didn't they do so in Article 31 of the Constitution, if they are administrative division? &mdash; Instantnood 16:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC) (modified 18:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC))


 * Article 12 of the Basic Law says local administrative region in English. English is one of the two official languages of HKSAR, so don't make up your own translations.


 * Article 30 of the Constitution is clearly not an exhaustive list of administrative divisions. Prefectures, leagues, development zones, banners, autonomous banners, forestry areas, special districts, sumu, ethnic sumu, district public offices, and subdistricts are mentioned nowhere in the Constitution, yet they function de facto as administrative divisions of the PRC.


 * -- ran (talk) 19:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I translated nothing. It's one's own personal interpretation to declare local administrative region are administrative division. Prefectures, leagues, development zones, banners, etc., are not mentioned, but they're subordinate to provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities (or through subordinates of provinces, etc.), and (perhaps except prefectures, which may arguably corresond to jiàodàdeshì) are equivalence, in terms of level in the hierachy, of those mentioned in Article 30. That's not the case for special adminsitrative regions and Article 31. &mdash; Instantnood 21:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, what is so special about an "administrative division" that not all "local administrative regions" satisfy? If Hong Kong SAR is a local government governing a territory that is one part of the People's Republic of China, with borders defined by the central gov't of the People's Republic of China, why is it not a division? Is there some specific usage for the word "administrative division" that HK and Macau do not satisfy? -- ran (talk) 21:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * A dependent territory, for instance (I'm not saying Hong Kong and Macao are or are not dependent territories), may or may not be legally part of its corresponding sovereign state (some sovereign states define their dependent territories to be part of themselves, some don't), with its borders defined by the sovereign state. Is dependent territory an administrative division? &mdash; Instantnood 22:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Good job not answering the question! SchmuckyTheCat 01:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I speak only from evidence, instead of being emotional, passionate and/or nationalistic - something must be avoided when contributing to an encyclopædia. &mdash; Instantnood 14:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Schmucky is right, you did not answer the question. Let me ask it again, but even more clearly: if Hong Kong SAR is a government with powers explicitly vested in it by the NPC of the PRC, governing a territory over which PRC has undisputed sovereignty per international agreement, with borders defined by the central gov't of the PRC, and all of its special rights and autonomies defined in the Basic Law which is a piece of legislation adopted by the NPC and promulgated by the PRC president, then in which way is HKSAR not an administrative division of the PRC? -- ran (talk) 17:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Power of the Puerto Rican government, for instance, are vested upon by the US Congress. Its constitution is approved by the US Congress. Is it an administrative division of the US? Is administrative division defined in this way? I look at the article 12 of both basic laws, and the articles 30 and 31 of the 1982 Constitution, and I've found no provision that the special administrative regions are (or are not) administrative divisions. &mdash; Instantnood 20:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Then they are, by common definition of the term. SchmuckyTheCat 21:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * What are what? Are British overseas territories, e.g. Bermuda, Gibraltar, administrative divisions of the UK? What is the term commonly defined as? &mdash; Instantnood 21:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Administrative divisions of France: France is the best analogy for the PRC as it, too, is a unitary state. In fact the French constitution is even more careful than the PRC constitution in that it describes overseas territories as a type of territorial unit (Article 72). The PRC has also legislated this, as I've mentioned before, but it's part of the Basic Laws rather than the Constitution.


 * Political divisions of the United States: the US adds complications, as it is a federal state, rather than a unitary state. The US consists of both its constituent states and additional territories set up by the federal state. The states vest power in the federal government, and the territories get their power from the federal government. Hence it's difficult to draw an analogy between the US and the PRC/France: if anything, French and PRC administrative divisions (even French régions and PRC provinces) are legally speaking more akin to US territories than states.


 * The United Kingdom is a different case yet again, because "United Kingdom" is used to refer to only the four constituent countries, not the entire region over which the crown of the UK is sovereign; otherwise, wording in legislation like the British Nationality Act 1981 regarding UK overseas territories wouldn't make sense. This is not true for the term "PRC", which is definitely coterminous with the entire area over which the PRC has sovereignty, including HK and Macau (in accordance with their Basic Laws). So while Gibraltar is not a UK division (as by definition it is not even a part of the UK), HK is certainly a PRC division.


 * In short, if you really want to bring up analogies to old colonial powers, then France, the archetypal unitary state so to speak, is the best analogy for the PRC. France considers all of its territories as administrative divisions, just as the PRC does. Does that answer your question? -- ran (talk) 23:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * From what is provided in the 1982 Constitution and the two basic laws, there's no evidence that the PRC considers special administrative regions to be part of the shěng, zìzhìqū and zhíxiáshì hierachy, comparable with them or considered to be at an equivalent level with them. &mdash; Instantnood 12:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but what does that have to do with this article? -- ran (talk) 16:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

First, please cite the constitutional and/or legal evidence that special administrative regions are administrative divisions. Second (iff it's shown they are administrative regions), show that the figures for the special administrative regions are compiled using the same definitions. Different authorities may not be the same definitions to compile these statistics (even the same authority may be using different definitions in different censuses). &mdash; Instantnood 11:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * On that topic, the preface to the 2009 China Statistical Yearbook, published by the state-owned China Statistics Press, says:

III. The national data in this book do not include those of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, the Macao Special Administrative Region and the Taiwan Province, except for the divisions of administrative areas, the area of the national territory and forest resources.

IV. In accordance with the principles set down in the Basic Law of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, and the Basic Law of Macao Special Administrative Region, statistically Hong Kong, Macao and the mainland of China are three mutually independent regions, each following its own and different statistical systems and legal provisions in conducting statistical operations independently. Statistics on the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and the Macao Special Administrative Region as included in this yearbook are provided by the Census and Statistics Department of the Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and the Statistics and Census Services of the Government of Macao Special Administrative Region respectively; and are edited by the National Bureau of Statistics.


 * Clear enough, wouldn't you agree? -- BsBsBs (talk) 16:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

House cleaning
Alright, folks, I got my China Statistical Yearbook 2009, and referenced all data except for the ones already referenced and the ones not in the yearbook. This means no Hong Kong, no Macao. Please no discussion about the SARs and Taiwan, see above. The yearbook does not count them. The total population reflects the total in the yearbook. Once all entries are referenced, the total population can be adjusted as a sum of all administrative divisions, but only after there is consensus that this is no WP:OR. Once this is done, any edits have to be reflected in the total, unless someone finds a way to do this automatically.

Please add sources where there are none. You are invited to add more recent data like for BJ, SH, and CQ, but please reference them. Unreferenced edits or data from unreliable sources will be removed.

There were some errors in the table vis-a-vis the yearbook, but no major ones. Errors were corrected.

I also added a column for the source, because the source reference ruined the sort.

The 2010 statistical yearbook will come out by end of 2010. I expect major changes, especially in the Tier 1 cities, once the 2010 census has been completed. The 2000 census was unreliable, and a lot of data are projections from that census. -- BsBsBs (talk) 18:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Added sourced figures for HK and Macau from their relative Statistics Departments. Also just to mention a quick note: Macau is the WP:COMMONNAME in English, whilst Macao is the city's official name in Portuguese. I have changed all instances of Macao to Macau. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 04:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you! As for Macao / Macau, I used the Statistical Yearbook spelling. I'm glad the list is now properly referenced. -- BsBsBs (talk) 05:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Not up-to-date?
I removed the tag. This list is based on the Statistical Yearbook 2009. It covers 2008. The 2010 (covering 2009) Yearbook will appear in October 2010. These data are as recent as they get. -- BsBsBs (talk) 15:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The 2010 Statistical Yearbook is published. Where is the proper place to update the numbers? Do all the population numbers in each article change automatically if I update them in a central location? Where is that central update page? -- Shenhemu (talk) 02:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You can apply the newer figures directly into the table; there are no "algorithms" involved, so the total figure you will have to add yourself. Also, the table is not transcluded elsewhere, so changes here won't appear anywhere else. Feel free to be bold and add them yourself if you wish. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 07:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Rank
Please do not attach a rank to these numbers. This is an autosorting list. Attaching a rank that it not covered by a source would be wP:OR. And let's keep politics out as much as possible. Thank you. -- BsBsBs (talk) 09:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Sort of, yes. But I don't think there needs to be a source citing 100 is more than 10, because that is what it would mean. If a region is the most populous, then it may have #1 ranking. Most of the lists in wikipedia don't have rankings on the source, but they are added while doing the list. 85.217.46.172 (talk) 03:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on List of Chinese administrative divisions by population. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130727021210/http://www.stats.gov.cn:80/english/newsandcomingevents/t20110429_402722516.htm to http://www.stats.gov.cn/english/newsandcomingevents/t20110429_402722516.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:32, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of Chinese administrative divisions by population. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120829052024/http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjgb/rkpcgb/qgrkpcgb/t20020331_15435.htm to http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjgb/rkpcgb/qgrkpcgb/t20020331_15435.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120619002216/http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjgb/rkpcgb/qgrkpcgb/t20020404_16772.htm to http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjgb/rkpcgb/qgrkpcgb/t20020404_16772.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120510075429/http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjgb/rkpcgb/qgrkpcgb/t20020404_16769.htm to http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjgb/rkpcgb/qgrkpcgb/t20020404_16769.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120914173158/http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjgb/rkpcgb/qgrkpcgb/t20020404_16768.htm to http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjgb/rkpcgb/qgrkpcgb/t20020404_16768.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090805174810/http://www.stats.gov.cn/TJGB/RKPCGB/qgrkpcgb/t20020404_16767.htm to http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjgb/rkpcgb/qgrkpcgb/t20020404_16767.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Inconsistency issue
Hi everyone! I have just realized the inconsistency issue for the coexistence of the population of "Wuhan", "Hubei", and "Mainland China" in 1947. This is very confusing to the reader. If we use the current subdivision, why is Wuhan separated from Hubei? If we use the the subdivision in that time, why does Mainland China include Tibet but exclude Taiwan? It is well known that Tibet was not controlled by Republic of China in 1947 but Taiwan was.

There are two ways to resolve this issue: the first way is to use the current subdivision. If we choose this way, then we need to find reliable sources of Chongqing in 1912, 1928, 1936-1937 and subtract it from Sichuan. Similar works need to be done for Rehe, Xikang, Qahar, ..., Harbin.

The second way is easier: we just use the historical subdivision. Then we only need to do the following modifications:

1. We use the name of the states PRC/ROC and emphasize that it only means the population controlled by them.

2. Subtract the data of Tibet from Republic of China from 1912 to 1951.

3. Subtract Mongolia from Republic of China from 1911 to present.

4. Include the data of Taiwan into Republic of China from 1945 to present.

5. Include the data of Hong Kong into People's Republic of China from 1997 to present.

6. Include the data of Macau into People's Republic of China form 1999 to present.

PE fans (talk) 18:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi PE Fans! We can't use Taiwanese Government data to back up points on this page. Even if the data was appropriate including Taiwan appears to be pushing an inappropriate POV. Also just FYI Taiwan was not explicitly controlled by the ROC in 1947 it was just occupied by ROC on behalf of the victorious WWII allies but Japanese sovereignty was still recognized on paper, depending on whose numbers you use they got official ROC control of Taiwan in 1949, 1952, or never. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Including Taiwan as "Chinese" is not pushing an inappropriate POV when there is a disclaimer as to both the Japanese period and the PRC having not controlled the island. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 18:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Including Taiwan as part of China is not the same as including Taiwan as Chinese. Did you mean to link the disambiguation page? For wikipedia purposes China is China and Taiwan is Taiwan, your personal opinion may be different but please respect consensus. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No, the link to the DAB page was intentional, and we can do without the condescending quip on personal opinions. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 19:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Why? This page is about China not some vague notion of Chinese nations or global administrative divisions that are majority Chinese. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ^^. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 19:17, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You’re the one who made that argument, shouldnt you be the one giving a citation? My argument is about the countries of China and Taiwan, not an ambiguous sense of "Chinese.” Also just a kind reminder that this is a talk page, citation is not used like that here. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:22, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If you meant that last section needs citation look no further than the text of the page "This is a list of the first-level administrative divisions of China in order of their total resident populations. It includes all provinces, autonomous regions, direct-controlled municipalities and special administrative regions.” Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The title of the page is Chinese administrative divisions, not "Administrative divisions of China", thus your concerns over NPOV are an irrelevant tangent. And it is difficult to ascertain what your argument is, given you had posted less than 25 minutes ago an acknowledgement that Including Taiwan as part of China is not the same as including Taiwan as Chinese.
 * Anyhow, I would be open to simply turning this page into a redirect to Provinces of China as List of states and territories of the United States by population only includes the latest estimate and the last two censuses (2010 and 2000), and is separate from List of U.S. states and territories by historical population. The intricacies of the northern and northeastern provinces under the ROC can be handled elsewhere, and not jammed into a single list. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 19:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You might want to change the text of the page from "This is a list of the first-level administrative divisions of China in order of their total resident populations. It includes all provinces, autonomous regions, direct-controlled municipalities and special administrative regions.” in order to make that Hail Mary argument. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I would like to remind you that half of the data is about Republic of China in 1947, 1936-1937, 1928 and 1912. It's non-sense to restrict the meaning of "China" here to "People's Republic of China" because it didn't exist before 1949. It's also ridiculous to talk about "Mainland China in 1947" unless you choose the first way (Use current subdivision to solve the inconsistency issue).PE fans (talk) 20:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Where is that last quote from? I don’t recognize it. We can use Republic of China data, but not post-1949. Thats how wikipedia defines China, if you want to argue that you can but its way above my pay grade. None of this addresses the point that the data used before was about Taiwan the country not Taiwan province or Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've removed the Republic of China after 1949 according to your request. PE fans (talk) 20:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I think it works well after that. I changed the Republic of China redirect to Republic of China (1912–1949) so that it gets the guys we’re talking about. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added the sentence "For the Republic of China since 1949, see List of administrative divisions of Taiwan." This is the standard way in Wikipedia. PE fans (talk) 20:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC)