Template talk:Province-level divisions of PR China

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is there any reason why the "Manchurian" box for Liaoning, Jilin & Heilongjiang still needs to exist? As of now it's basically an eyesore on those pages. ran 02:37, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It's redundant. Please remove it if it hasn't been already. --Jiang 00:11, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 Using "PRC" in the title 2 Province-level divisions 3 ed Template 4 "Old template is better"

[edit] Using "PRC" in the title

The only result of using "PRC" is a revert war; just take a look at the East Asia box. There is NO WAY whatsoever that an agreement can EVER, EVER be reached over whether to include Taiwan in a box entitled People's Republic of China. Eventually the box will be frozen just like the East Asia one, on one side's favour, and out goes NPOV and cooperation.

As such, I think the only possible way is to use a term like "Mainland", "Nei-di", or some other term that clearly, unambiguously, and undisputably does not refer to HK, Macao, or Taiwan. That's the only way IMO to avoid this box from devolving into chaos.

-- ran 12:02, May 22, 2004 (UTC)

Dear Ran,

I have no intention of getting on with a 'revert war', but I have to point out that Hong Kong & Macau have been part of Mainland China for years with "Province-level division" status, and thus it's a glaring omission to leave out the two special administrative regions from the navigation box. Would you consider an internal link to Special Administrative Regions, without mentioning HK or Macau ?

I wasn't here when the East Asia box got frozen, so I really don't know how bad things can get here. I'll take your word for it. But I am not aware of any "Taiwan" debate between edits from 06:06, 16 May 2004 to 15:38, 21 May 2004. (Five days !) So, I think you are worrying too much. Take it easy, pal !

199.71.174.100 02:39, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

HK, Macau (and POV, Taiwan) are all parts of the PRC, but they're NOT part of the Mainland! "Mainland" is a politically-neutral term, it is NOT equal to "PRC", and that's why I like using it -- it avoids a repeat of what happened in the East Asia box. And I think this box is fine as it is -- as long as we set the box title to "Mainland" and not even talk about non-Mainland areas at all, then there can't be any political disputes.

Oh -- and take a look at the history of the East Asia box. I wasn't there either when it happened, but I certainly don't want it to happen again! Five days is a rather long time -- but that's exactly how long it took me to notice this box and edit it. If it were someone else more extremist, then you'd be in a revert war right now as we speak! ;) So no, I don't think I'm worring too much.

-- ran 13:44, May 23, 2004 (UTC)

The East Asia box revert war had nothing to do with Taiwan. It was over the inclusion of Vietnam and Mongolia. Usage on wikipedia of the terms "People's Republic of China" and "Republic of China" has been limited to the territory each administers. Then we define China to be Greater China and not just the PRC. So far, there have been no vocally pro-PRC or pro-independence users around to dispute this usage. A revert war over whether to include the SAR is more likely (just happened) than one over Taiwan since the latter is so obviously POV and no one would dare insert it. See also: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese). --Jiang 22:23, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The word "administrative" should add subtle implication. No PRC administration exists for Taiwan. --Jiang 22:35, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

With the box in this present form, a vicious, ugly debate and revert war is basically inevitable. There are a lot of people who are not going to appreciate the "subtle implication" of the word "administrative", and who are certainly going to "dare" to add Taiwan to this box the moment they notice this. -- ran 23:47, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)

Let's wait for the crisis to happen before we try to resolve the crisis. Let's not create another crisis while trying to resolve this one. There are many other places on wikipedia where revert wars should have happened by now if we had people loyal to the PRC trying to enforce the party line. --Jiang 00:10, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Province-level divisions

Jiang, why do you insist on calling it Province-level divisions when it really links to Political divisions of China. And I don't just see provinces here. I see Autonomous Regions, Municipalities, and Special Administrative Regions. If I don't get a sound argument against, I will change it to Political divisions. Sorry if this sounds like a threat... I learned that from you. --Cantus 02:20, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Notice that it states Province-level, not simply provinces (so yes, theyre not all provinces, but province level). We don't simply call it "political divisions" because we've left out the Prefecture-level cities, Prefectures, Autonomous prefectures, leagues, counties, Districts, County-level cities, Autonomous counties, banners, etc. We would then have to specify that the municipalities listed are centrally administered and on provincial. What's wrong with stating they're province level? It all fits in the designated space. --Jiang 02:25, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What about Main political divisions? By the way, who is we? --Cantus 02:32, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"We" is ambiguous. Interpret as you like. We use it in our writing in order to make the reader think they're one of us in order to connect with the reader (for obvious reasons). I think "Main" sounds funny and can be interpreted differently. "Province-level" is more specific. --Jiang 05:03, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Can you tell me which province does Hong Kong belong to? None. It is very confusing to call this box "Province-level divisions". If I don't get a sound argument against I will change it. --Cantus 06:21, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If Hong Kong belonged to another province, it wouldn't be province-level anymore, now would it?

Every division you see in the box is at the same level as a province. "Province-level" (省级 shěngjí) is the normal and accepted way of describing this arrangement. -- ran 08:13, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

Yet Hong Kong isn't a province and it's not thought of as a province. This box is very confusing. --Cantus 20:57, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's not a pronvince. It province level. Do you get it? We never called it a province. --Jiang 22:08, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] ed Template

Jiang: is there any particular reason you removed Template:ed from the box? -- [[User:Ran|ran (talk)]] 17:25, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

It's ugly. We already know where to go to edit this page. The "go" button on the left is not hard to use. I also want to avoid linking to a section in the middle of an article, as is done for the link "province-level". --Jiang 21:15, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Go" button? I think I'm missing something here... what are you talking about? -- [[User:Ran|ran (talk)]] 22:41, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

Where the search button is. --Jiang 23:43, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is just an opinion, but to figure out the exact name of the template, you HAVE to look at the wikisource. This is loading a whole new page. Then you have to find and copy the name of the template, and then edit your browser's address field to go to the template's page and THEN you have to click in the template's edit button to FINALLY edit the template. These are too many unnecessary steps. Using the "Go" button in this case is probably the least recommended option. --Cantus 00:31, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

Is there a way to make the link colorless? Otherwise, we could do something like is done at Template:vfd, but the arrow given for external links fmt stands out too much. --Jiang 01:51, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] "Old template is better"

What about it is better? --Cat out 17:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)