Jump to content

Talk:Autonomous administrative divisions of China

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pluralize title

[edit]

Jiang, you reverted my move and I fail to see why. This is a list of five regions of China. It should be pluralized. You pointed me at the nming conventions for plurals, and it agrees with this. It is incorrect english to make a singular title that disagrees with a plural list. SchmuckyTheCat 15:45, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Category

[edit]

This list is a political category inside the PRC, why did Instantnood revert the category to Mainland China? SchmuckyTheCat 15:45, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Requested move

[edit]

Autonomous region of China --> Autonomous regions of China. Fix case and pluralize list of five regions. SchmuckyTheCat 16:34, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

add: * Support or * Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and a signature:"~~~~"
  • Oppose. When we talk about "autonomous regions" in general we put it in the lower case, the same thing we do with "provinces" or "municipalities". Only when we talk about a specific one ("Guangdong Province", "Shanghai Municipality", "Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region") do we need to capitalize. -- ran (talk) 17:44, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia uses a style guide that doesn't capitalize important words in the title, my bad. I can remove that reference. Do you oppose the pluralization? SchmuckyTheCat 18:39, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Agree with Ran. By the way do the ROC have any autonomous region? If not we should consider renaming (as ..of the PRC), or adding reference to the two "regions" or "areas" (地方) of the ROC, namely Tibet and Mongolia, during its time on the continent. — Instantnood 21:35, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • why do you oppose using correct english pluralization? I changed the proposal from what Ran disagreed with. SchmuckyTheCat 22:09, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • oppose, because this is a larger issue Tobias Conradi 02:19, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. WP policy on article names favors singular, unless in "List of Xs" form. --A D Monroe III 02:22, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • this is a list! It just happens to be a nicely formatted list. the table is a list, clicking each regions name brings you to the regions page. I'm not aware that lists have to be titles "List of X" SchmuckyTheCat 02:34, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
If it's a list, it should be named "List of Autonomous regions of China"; that's the convention for lists. --A D Monroe III 00:11, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support His argument makes sense. --Spinboy 18:05, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Voting over

---Add any additional comments on the "Requested move" below this line ---

No plural could cause problems, because one can end up with "Province of Something" this could refer to:

On the other hand, pluralisatiom can not be done for all entity-variants, because there might be a variant with only one member. consider using "Autonomous region (China)" Tobias Conradi 23:42, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Pluralization would require moving a large number of articles (for consistency's sake), including

If you want to move one of them then move all of them, either to Provinces of China (etc.) or to [[Province (China}]] (etc.). I prefer to former. (Wikipedia's naming conventions prefer singular nouns, but subnational entities seem to be an exception to this rule.) -- ran (talk) 01:58, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

Support Ran, if move, move all. But it is unclear why to use plural here as opposed to WP conventions. Tobias Conradi 02:19, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • I'd be willing to move them all. Assuming cut and paste and no server timeouts it's a small project. Tobias, can you explain why you think pluralization is contrary to WP conventions? You would never, for instance, see "Southern state of United States". The first "state" would be pluralized. The WP convention says singular titles are preferred because an article should be about a single thing. "Articles that actually distinguish between multiple distinct instances of related items can be sensibly given a plural title when the alternative would be to create an inappropriately large number of short articles" A list of regions is a singular item (the list) but the title should reflect that the subject is pluralized (regions). SchmuckyTheCat 02:30, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I'll help you move the articles if this vote goes through. But what do you think should be done with articles like these? :

Should these stay in the singular? -- ran (talk) 02:40, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

This would be my opinion, though I have no concern about them. Leave the redirects alone. Extra redirects that were pluralized might help lost users but there is no context to rename the existing ones. League and Banner should probably be pluralized, they contain lists. And replace the parentheses with "of Inner Mongolia" as well. SAR is a defining term without a list - singular. Oh, and maybe your opinion here, ran, Talk:Sar SchmuckyTheCat 04:02, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Schmucky I can really understand you, some facts to support you are at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Subnational_entities , what you want is general policy. But please read the concerns mentioned there. Tobias Conradi 05:37, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Why should the presence or absence of a list make a difference? County of China doesn't contain a list. -- ran (talk) 04:18, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
Ran can you imagine that we have some type of entity that only has one entry (member)? I have no example but maybe this exists. You can maybe add it at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Subnational_entities Tobias Conradi 05:37, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yes, there is the Shennongjia Forestry Area which is the only county-level forestry area of China. Hong Kong was the only special administrative region of China from 1997 to 1999. But that is beside the point.
My point is that it should not be the presence or absence of a list that makes a difference in the naming conventions of articles. Rather, it should be a set of naming conventions that we can agree upon and work with. For example, if we agree that Provinces of China, Prefectures of Japan etc. sound better than Province of China, Prefecture of Japan etc., then perhaps we can move pages to fit those conventions. Whether lists are present in those articles is not important. And we should certainly be aware that this is against the naming conventions of Wikipedia in general, since we have articles like dog, cat etc. even though there is obviously more than one dog or cat in the world. -- ran (talk) 06:10, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
Dear ran - this is 100% clear :-) presence of a list has to say nothing. But it seems pluralization has a lot of opposition now. maybe from people that have never seen all the 150 other pages, each having maybe 20 links to it on average. Tobias Conradi 06:20, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the present conventions on pluralisation. Articles should be title as one of the item, unless for lists or categories of that items. See also the case of President of the United States, President of the People's Republic of China, etc. — Instantnood 10:44, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but what about Prefectures of Japan, Counties of England, Régions of France, States of Germany, Provinces of Spain, etc.? -- ran (talk) 17:07, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

One problem though: Schmucky, these articles aren't simply lists. Some articles, like County of China, don't contain any lists at all. These are encyclopedia articles that talk about specific administrative divisions and how they work (e.g. how autonomous regions work, why they were set up, when they were set up, etc.). Do you think it's appropriate to pluralize in this case? -- ran (talk) 17:11, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Yes, ran, I see the problem is larger and more comprehensive than this single article, which I assumed when I created the request to move. I still support pluralization, at least of this article. The basis for whether an article should be pluralized or not depends on whether the contents are plural. If the article is defining the idea, ie, answering the question "Q: What is a province of China? A: A political subdivision" then singular would be correct. If the article is defining things that match the idea, ie "Q: What are the provinces of China? A: The following regions..." then plural is correct. I don't think a single convention is possible - we have thousands of editors so the style of the contents themselves is in disarray. SchmuckyTheCat 18:31, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but I think this article is supposed to be on what an autonomous region is specifically, not just a list of autonomous regions. A list can already be found in People's Republic of China, so a separate list would be pointless in any case. -- ran (talk) 19:33, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
I've added some more info, making this article into a general article about autonomous entities in China. As you can see, this is certainly not a mere list (at least, not any more ;) ) -- ran (talk) 23:51, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

no Schmucky. There can be articles that contain both, idea+list. This is the ideal. What is a province of China and then show them. pure lists are called "List of ..." regards Tobias Conradi 00:08, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. violet/riga (t) 23:36, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Regions/Areas of the ROC

[edit]

Does the ROC have any autonomous region? If not we should consider renaming (as ..of the PRC), or adding reference to the two "regions" or "areas" (地方) of the ROC, namely Tibet and Mongolia, during its time on the continent. — Instantnood 10:44, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

No, the ROC doesn't have autonomous regions. But why would that mean renaming to "... of the PRC"? The ROC doesn't have prefectures either, does that mean renaming prefecture of China to prefecture of the PRC? -- ran (talk) 13:51, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

Prefecture means something else in history.

So? Since the ROC doesn't have prefectures, according to your logic we should rename prefecture of China to prefecture of the PRC, right? -- ran (talk) 07:08, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
No. It's because the "Prefecture of China" article talks about something (e.g. Zhou, Xian) in history too. — Instantnood 08:37, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
No, those are essentially redirects to other articles. The article itself is predominantly about the prefectures of the PRC.
Since there is no confusion regarding the "China" that we're talking about in autonomous region of China, why do we even need to rename it? -- ran (talk) 16:41, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
Well, not just redirects, but brief details too.
Yes there's no confusion with it, but Wikipedia has to be NPOV. Using China here is already endorsing PRC=China. — Instantnood 18:48, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

There's no article on the regions or areas of the ROC. — Instantnood 07:02, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Then start one. -- ran (talk) 07:08, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Actually I don't exactly know about their differences with the provinces of the ROC, and I'm not sure if they could be included in this article, with [[Regions/Areas of the ROC]] redirected to this article. — Instantnood 08:30, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

The "areas" of the ROC were essentially independent in all but name. The autonomous regions of the PRC are essentially the same as provinces in all but name. -- ran (talk) 16:41, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

I see. Then I don't think it's appropriate to talk about the "areas" of the ROC in this article. — Instantnood 18:48, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Move request

[edit]

From Autonomous region of China to Autonomous region of the People's Republic of China.

This article is clearly about the autnomous regions of the PRC. There's no counterpart in the ROC's administrative division system, nor in any of the dynasties. It has to be stick with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Political NPOV. — Instantnood 11:12, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

  • Oppose. That "convention" is currently disputed. We can't start applying it yet. --A D Monroe III 13:25, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • It was tagged by jguk in the latest edit (11:52, Mar 19 2005), who has been battling against the conventions for a long time. The comment at the discussion page is rather unanimous. — Instantnood 15:44, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Same reason as ADMonroeIII. Convention only exists because Instantnood wrote it up before imposing his will on the rest of us. —ExplorerCDT 16:26, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • The convention was there before I joined Wikipedia. — Instantnood 17:12, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes it has, and you started adding to it and made it into the disputed mess it has become. Stop forcing your personal political agenda down other Wikipedians' throats.—ExplorerCDT 23:39, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. Unless there is an autonomous region of the Republic of China article that we need to contrast with, there is no reason whatsoever to make this move. -- ran (talk) 16:52, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • "China" cannot be used meaning the PRC. Quote: " Wikipedia reflects the neutral reality and considers the term "China" not to coincide with any particular sovereign state or government. In particular, the word "China" should not be used to be synonymously with areas under the current administration of the People's Republic of China or with Mainland China. ". — Instantnood 17:12, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
      • The "China" here means "China", not necessarily the "PRC". The article talks about the autonomous regions of China. Since there are no autonomous regions in China other than those set up by the PRC, no confusion would arise if we simply talked about the autonomous regions of China, as all of them were set up by the PRC. -- ran (talk) 17:46, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
        • "Autonomous region" is an administrative division of the PRC. Only political entities can have administrative divisions. There's no equivalent in history, nor in ROC's administrative division system, to "autonomous region". — Instantnood 21:32, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
        • I don't agree. The conventions is not "designed to handle cases of ambiguity", but to avoid implying "China" coincides with either side. The current title is already implying "China" equals the PRC, or at least, the PRC as the sole government of China, and legal successor to its immediate predecessor. There no such problem with the examples of Japan or France that you suggested. — Instantnood 22:13, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
          • No, the current title does not imply that China = PRC. The current title implies that the autonomous regions of China are all autonomous regions of the PRC.
            And please read my Japan and France examples more carefully. Those talked about ambiguity, not the problem of the succession of states. -- ran (talk) 22:19, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
        • How can "the current title implies that the autonomous regions of China are all autonomous regions of the PRC"? Autonomous region is an administrative division only of the PRC. It only exists in this part of history, and by a government which is not the exhaustive or sole representative of China.
          The examples of Japan and France are not applicable because they are not divided countries. — Instantnood 08:56, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
          • Autonomous region is an administrative division only of the PRC. -- exactly, and therefore the current title brings no ambiguity. -- ran (talk) 15:48, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
        • By comparing the title and this sentence, one can already tell "China" and "PRC" are equated. Yes it brings no ambiguity to many, but it already infringes the conventions that China coincides with the PRC, or with mainland China. — Instantnood 17:50, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
          • No, it doesm't make that equation. Now, if both the PRC and ROC had aut. regions, and if this article were called autonomous region of China but talked about only the PRC's aut. regions, then you'd have a point. But that's not the case. The ROC has no aut. regions. "Aut. regions of China" and "aut. regions of the PRC" are one and the same concept, so this article can be at either. Obviously the shorter and more succinct (and equally correct) option is the better one. -- ran (talk) 20:04, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
        • My position is clear. If both the PRC and the ROC are mentioned, it's alright to be titled "..of China". It is not the case here. Only the PRC is mentioned, and there's nothing to do with the ROC. — Instantnood 21:19, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
          • Then add a sentence to the intro mentioning the ROC. Add: "These entities were created by the PRC, and therefore do not exist in the Republic of China on Taiwan." -- ran (talk) 22:37, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
        • Replied below. — Instantnood 23:53, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
      • Come on, Instantnood. Continue quoting disputed conventions. —ExplorerCDT 22:00, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. reason see user:ran Tobias Conradi 22:17, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Please refer to my response above. — Instantnood 21:32, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
      • can someone create a table "Overview about chinese entities" with columns
 entity-name | # in PRC | #claimed by PRC | # ROC | # claimed by ROC
      • then it is easier to say what we talk about. Maybe it can also be include in the series-menu if one entity-type only exists in PRC or ROC. mabay with html-sup, a number and than a footnote. Might make the menu ugly? Tobias Conradi 01:32, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry..., but what do you mean? -- ran (talk) 02:28, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
level entity-name # in PRC # claimed by PRC # ROC # claimed by ROC
1 Province 22 1 2 21
Autonomous region 4 0 0 0
Municipality 2 0 ? ?
Special Administrative Region
    • Oh... but the ROC claims a lot more than 22 provinces... ROC maps are drawn differently from what the PRC currently has. And the same is true in reverse... the PRC does not recognize Taipei and Kaohsiung as municipalities.
    • And what about Fujian? Each side has a piece, the ROC's piece being infinitessimally small compared to the PRC's piece. Same goes for Lianjiang County.
thats why I wrote ROC has 2 but PRC only claims 1
    • There are already separate tables at Political divisions of China and Administrative divisions of the Republic of China. I think it'd be a bit hard to make up a table that takes into account both sides' claims.. we might have to dig up all the counties that the ROC had in 1949 in mainland China before retreating to Taiwan... not the mention that the PRC doesn't officially recognize any of the subdivisions of Taiwan, just "Taiwan Province". -- ran (talk) 04:01, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
whole wikipedia is hard work ;-) Tobias Conradi 04:33, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • this article should have nothing to do with Taiwan/ROC SchmuckyTheCat 19:12, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
? nobody said so. Tobias Conradi 20:22, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)


China, PRC, ROC

[edit]

Add: "These entities were created by the PRC, and therefore do not exist in the Republic of China on Taiwan." -- ran (talk) 22:37, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

done - please check, because I made it different. Nevertheless there is still inconsistency. Series is named divisions of China but template is "PRC divisions levels". Tobias Conradi 23:04, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I still believe renaming would be better. — Instantnood 23:53, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC) The template refers only to the PRC system. There's another template on its ROC counterpart. — Instantnood 23:53, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
and the ROC-template says it talks about ROC, but PRC-template says it talks about China. Maybe we can avoid title renaming by improving the template. Tobias Conradi 00:06, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Insta: There is no ROC counterpart of autonomous regions. I've already talked about how different ROC regions are (or were).
In fact, I don't see what you're complaining about now that the article explicitly mentions the ROC. -- ran (talk) 00:56, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
The title and the content has to be matched, which is not the case for this article at the time being. — Instantnood 03:09, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
In what way are they not matched? I've already addressed all of your concerns. What is your complaint? -- ran (talk) 04:42, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
The title says it's about autonomous entities of China, but the content says it's about autonomous entities of the PRC. — Instantnood 05:13, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
The content is also about the autonomous entities of China. Which autonomous region of the ROC did we omit? Did we not explicitly mention the ROC in the intro? -- ran (talk) 05:20, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
The content is only about the PRC. — Instantnood 05:50, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
The content is not about the PRC! That article is the People's Republic of China. The content is about the autonomous entities that currently exist in China. -- ran (talk) 14:52, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
My bad, the content is only about the (ethnic) autonomous entities of the PRC. — Instantnood 15:52, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
The article talks about all of the ethnic autonomous entities that have ever managed to appear in China. -- ran (talk) 17:05, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
In fact the article is about autonomous entities of Asia with exclusion of those in the RUF (Russian Federation). Am I wrong? Tobias Conradi 16:43, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Not really. The article doesn't mention Aceh. It doesn't mention Kachin State. It doesn't even mention Karakalpakstan. I'd therefore say that it's narrower in scope than all of Asia. ;) -- ran (talk) 17:05, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
thx for teachng me new things :-) this inspired me to start Autonomous_entity. Reading Aceh history was interesting, did not knew so much about the dutch in indonesia, especially not how unsuccesful they were ( at least in Aceh) Tobias Conradi 18:28, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You can consider merging autonomous region into your new article. ;) -- ran (talk) 18:43, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
(response to Ran's comment at 17:05, Mar 22) This article talks about all of the ethnic autonomous entities appear in the PRC, instead of "China". Perhaps we can either rename the title, or add some contents on autonomous entities of China which are not of the PRC. — Instantnood 20:04, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, please add more information about the autonomous regions of the ROC. -- ran (talk) 20:14, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Is there any autonomous entities of similar sort throughout the dynasties? Are the leagues and special banners of the ROC autonomous entities? :-) — Instantnood 20:21, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Hey guys I found something :-) The Republic of China arranged Mongolia and Tibet as "regions", which were in effect autonomous, before retreating to Taiwan following Chinese civil war. This was in the article Autonomous region that Ran supposed I should merge with "my" new Autonomous entity. ....if I would have known this before I would just have moved A.region to A.entity Tobias Conradi 23:08, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This is precisely why I had misgivings about moving "autonomous region of China" to "autonomous entities of China". It muddles up the definitions. Should we take "autonomous" to mean the sort of "autonomous" that the PRC means, or "autonomous" in its dictionary sense: i.e. self governed?
When the PRC says "autonomous", that's a pretty well-defined concept. These are all entities with a Han Chinese secretary and an ethnic governor; they're all covered under the same section of the constitution, etc. If we go by this definition of "autonomous", then there are clearly no equivalents in the ROC or any other part of Chinese history. The ROC certainly didn't go around following Soviet practice in this matter.
But if we go by the dictionary sense, the "autonomous entity" can be basically anything in Chinese history that is or claims to be "autonomous". It could include Tibet or Mongolia of the ROC, since they were hugely autonomous if not de facto independent, especially compared to the autonomous regions of the PRC. In fact, this category would even include Hong Kong and Macau, since those are clearly autonomous within the PRC, much more autonomous than the autonomous regions. In fact, I can even go on to argue that since Tibet, Xinjiang, etc. aren't really "autonomous", they shouldn't even be covered under this article, because they don't "truly" fulfill the definition of "autonomous".
So, it's really a choice on our part. Should "autonomous entities of China" describe the PRC-definition entities, or the dictionary-definition entities? If the former, then the ROC regions should not be included. If the latter, then Hong Kong and Macau should be included, and the autonomous regions (Tibet, Xinjiang) etc. might need to be moved out to their own separate article. -- ran (talk) 01:10, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
merge your nice statement into the article ;-) . Autonomous_entity#China also mentions the SARs. It is not dictionary- or PRC-definition, but better both. Readers this way can learn more, like I learned from your statement. Tobias Conradi 02:41, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Then perhaps we can rearranged the pages. "Autonmous entities of China" will cover all autonomous entities ever existed in Chinese history. "Autonomous entities of the PRC" will then cover only those autonomous of the PRC modeled after the Soviet model.
This wouldn't solve the definition problem, though. "Autonomous entities of the PRC" can still refer to the dictionary definition, in which case HK / Macau will still have to be included, whereas the unqualified inclusion of Xinjiang / Tibet would be POV. I originally wrote this article intending "autonomous" to be the PRC definition.
I hope to keep this article in its present state and scope, if possible. The autonomous regions / prefectures / counties / banners of the PRC are a class of their own and deserve their own article. Does anyone have any more ideas for the title of this artlcle? -- ran (talk) 02:41, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
Ethnic autonomous entities? And if you are going to stick with PRC's definition and designation it should not be titled "China". — Instantnood 09:24, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
Not a bad idea. Personally I prefer the word "ethnic" too, but the constitution of the PRC on Wikisource gives "National Autonomous Areas". What do you think about this term? -- ran (talk) 16:48, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
Then stick with the constitution. The nationality article does tell this meaning. However English is not an official language of the PRC, perhaps we will have to look up different sources for translations of the constitution. — Instantnood 17:52, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
[1] also gives "ethnic autonomous areas".
Why would "of the People's Republic of China" be necessary though? Are there any ethnic autonomous areas in Taiwan? -- ran (talk) 19:25, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
Which one is used more often on Wikipedia for the 56 groups? Ethnics or nationalities?
"Of the PRC" is necessary because, unlike others, these entities only exist during and within the PRC, i.e. in both the senses of time and of geography. — Instantnood 21:00, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but don't you think you're overdoing it? It's not like we're going to be confusing anyone or offending anyone or stating anything falsehoods with "Ethnic autonomous areas of China". Why make the title long than it has to be?
As for the other thing: I use ethnic(ity) when I write, because it's less confusing. But the official term is probably "national(ity)". -- ran (talk) 23:23, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
But then unlike provinces or counties there's no counterpart in history, nor in the ROC which coexist at the time being. It's purely PRC-related, while provinces or counties are not. In those cases China refers to everything (from dynasties to the ROC and PRC), but in this case China is used synonomously with the PRC.
Then let's use ethnic(al/ity). I agree it's far less confusing. What we need is to create nation(al/ality) as redirects. — Instantnood 02:06, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
See Republics of the Soviet Union#Autonomous republics of the Soviet Union, Republics of the Soviet Union#Autonomous oblasts of the Soviet Union. Many of the ASSR are part of RSFSR, and are now republics (federal subjects) of Russia. — Instantnood 13:42, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
By the way, no where in the PRC's 1982 Constitution mentions special administrative regions are province-level. Article 31 does not state it explicitly, and by the literally meaning special administrative regions can be set up at any level. In practise the two SARs currently exist, namely Hong Kong and Macao, have been provided by the Article 12 of each of their basic laws that they are direct subordinate to the Central People's Government (note: ≠ the State Council), i.e. bypassing all levels of the hierachy. Their levels might be higher than province, like sub-provincial prefecture-level cities to ordinary prefecture-level cities. — Instantnood 08:06, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
... this is relevant, how? -- ran (talk) 02:43, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
Special administrative regions may not be province-level, as in Tobias Conradi's autonomous entity. — Instantnood 09:24, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
It's hard to find legislation related to this... for example, can you find any legislation that says that Autonomous Regions and Municipalities are province-level? Or that provinces come under the State Council? -- ran (talk) 19:36, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
Article 30 seems to have implied it, or at least, the same level. — Instantnood 21:00, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, but it's a bit sketchy.
Besides, how do you define "level" in the first place? By the level of the cadres who're sent there to rule the place? But are cadres sent to rule Hong Kong and Macau at all?
I think the SARs are called "province-level" more out of convention than anything else. I mean, what else do you call them? They aren't separate countries, they're part of the PRC. So what's the first level division of the PRC? Provinces, of course! -- ran (talk) 23:56, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
What a difficult question it is. They (SAR and provinces/autonomous regions/municipalities) are supposingly both first-order divisions, but they doesn't seem to be the same level. Articles 30 and 31 do not imply it. :-D — Instantnood 02:06, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Move to Autonomous entity of China?

[edit]

the article is not only about autonomous regions, but also prefectures,counties, banners. better proposals? Tobias Conradi 01:32, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yah, but I'm not sure if there's a common name for all of them... -- ran (talk) 02:28, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
Btw, I've removed the link to "autonomous region", because this article already talks about them.... the general autonomous region page is more of a big disambiguation page than anything... -- ran (talk) 02:29, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
Why not split them into several articles? Not only their levels are different, but also the power rests on the local governments. — Instantnood 08:48, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
Because there are many similarities. I wrote this article to talk about them as a whole. -- ran (talk) 15:49, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
Tentatively agree. However when more information is included in future, each deserves an article. — Instantnood 17:46, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
I moved to "Autonomous entities of China". I only did this to avoid confusion. I agree with Instantnood and Ran, if one day people start autonomous region article this is fine. I used plural, because this is the way it is done for more than 120 pages on wikipedia. see:
I do not claim this to be right. :-) Tobias Conradi 20:29, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Townships/sumu

[edit]

Why is there no specific discussion of ethnic sumu and ethnic townships? Thanks ~ Dpr 19:04, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is there only one ethnic sumu in China? In the List of administrative divisions of Inner Mongolia article it is said that there are two ethnic sumu in Inner Mongolia. One or two...

As far as I know, Inner Mongolia is in China...

Lebouc

Complete official list

[edit]

There is a complete list on a Chinese government website of all current autonomous areas.[2] Is the list in this article complete? Babelfisch 29 June 2005 01:40 (UTC)

capitals <>counties

[edit]

Autonomous prefectures: can counties be capitals? there are some XY County in the capital columne Tobias Conradi (Talk) 30 June 2005 18:21 (UTC)

National map of China with autonomous areas in green

[edit]

I love this map; it is very helpful as I am conducting research on the ethnic minorities in NW China. I believe there may be a slight mistake however and would appreciate someone verifying that and, if confirmed, correcting the map accordingly. Unfortunately, I do not know how to edit such a map. Possible error: Qinghai province, Xining prefectural city includes the Datong Hui and Tu Autonomous County (northern part of the prefectural city) but it does not appear to be colored on the national map. 118.183.36.105 (talk) 12:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How many percent of area of China consists Autonomous areas of China?--Kaiyr (talk) 14:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic villages

[edit]

How many Ethnic villages in China?--Kaiyr (talk) 17:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Autonomous administrative divisions of China. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Autonomous_administrative_divisions_of_China&oldid=1199211333"