Template talk:Administrative levels and divisions of China sidebar

Province-level
There's no legal or constitutional basis to say that special administrative regions are province-level. 14.0.208.107 (talk) 07:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you please explain 1) why sources should be disregarded simply because they are not of legal or constitutional basis and 2) why is burden of proof is on our side. If you believe both sides should have such burden, then can you please present any reliable source supporting the claim that the SARs are "sometimes included" under the First Level Administrative Divisions (一級行政區)? --Wylve (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 22:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

– WP:COMMONNAME and the main articles China, Administrative divisions of China. 206.117.88.6 (talk) 16:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Template:Administrative levels and divisions of the People& → Template:Administrative levels and divisions of China sidebar
 * Template:Province-level divisions of the People's Republic of China → Template:Province-level divisions of China
 * Provinces of the People's Republic of China → Provinces of China
 * Direct-controlled municipality of the People's Republic of China → Direct-controlled municipality of China
 * Autonomous regions of the People's Republic of China → Autonomous regions of China


 * Rename all per common name and China. It's high time that's the automatic default naming rather than having to go through everything one by one. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Rename all per nom and per Timrollpickering. When China is the common name of the country, there is no need for further specificity in any other article, template, category, or whatever, that is referring to that country. WP:TITLE favors this conciseness. bd2412  T 14:24, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all the opposes at Talk:China/Archive_9. Although PRC was eventually moved to China anyway, it was at least acknowledged that there would not be a blanket move of everything PRC-related to China.  In this context of official administration there is more call to use the official terminology.  I don't see how Provinces of the People's Republic of China can be moved to Provinces of China in a neutral way when the PRC officially claims Taiwan as a province (the ROC may agree Taiwan is a province of China but would definitely not agree it is part of the People's Republic).  It is one thing to argue for the moving of Republic of China to Taiwan and another to effectively deny its existence by subsuming it as a "Province of China" which is in turn defined as fully interchangeable with the PRC.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not a dispute about whether Taiwan is part of China. This is solely a title dispute about whether articles and templates relating to China as a primary topic should have names corresponding to that primary topic. The analogous case would be having templates about things in Germany named something like States of the Federal Republic of Germany. bd2412  T 15:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Rename all per common and concise name. The current page has addressed Taiwan as a disputed area, so there should be no problem on the move.Fizikanauk (talk) 17:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.