![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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
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. -- [[User:Ran|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. -- Jia ng 00:05, 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
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. -- Jia ng 20:13, 18 Dec 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. -- Jia ng 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
We did. For example, under prefecutes, we said "Prefecture-level (地级 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 (县级 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 (县级市 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 (省轄市 shěngxiáshì)."-- Jia ng 00:37, 23 Dec 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. -- Jia ng 05:43, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Political divisions of China → Political divisions of the People's Republic of China
redirects to List of cities in China. That OK? J heisenberg 18:37, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
... not really. Towns (镇) are a fourth-level political unit, but cities or municipalities (市) 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 — 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)
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 Region]]s 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 [[List of cities and parishes in Macao|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. -- Ji ang 08:20, 3 Jan 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. -- Ji ang 23:59, 5 Jan 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 {{disambig}} 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. -- Ji ang 00:13, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
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. -- Ji ang 00:29, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Sign your posts or I'll start ignoring you. According, to Wikipedia:Talk_pages#Standards_and_conventions_of_writing_and_layout 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. -- Ji ang 10:27, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Why the hell do you want to do that for? The current setup seems fine-- Ji ang 05:03, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I know your POV but I dont see a reason for it. You need to explain-- Ji ang 21:32, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
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. -- Ji ang 05:45, 19 Jan 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. -- Ji ang 06:30, 19 Jan 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-- Ji ang 04:04, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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: [5]; 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: [6]. 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: [7]. It seems that maps were exchanged for the Middle Sector but no agreement was actually reached. -- ran ( talk) 22:28, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
Here you go. [8] 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)
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, 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)
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)
Go take a look at Standard Cantonese first. There is no voicing contrast in Cantonese, only an aspiration contrast. In other words:
/p/: 包
/pʰ/: 抛
/t/: 刀
/tʰ/: 滔
/ts/: 焦
/tsʰ/: 超
/k/: 溝
/kʰ/: 扣
Also, I don't putting IPA is even needed here. Take a look at Wikipedia: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)
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 (/pʰ/-/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)
I still don't understand why you prefer /k/-/g/ so much over /kʰ/-/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 /kʰ/-/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 — 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 — 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)
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?
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)
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.
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)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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
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. -- [[User:Ran|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. -- Jia ng 00:05, 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
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. -- Jia ng 20:13, 18 Dec 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. -- Jia ng 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
We did. For example, under prefecutes, we said "Prefecture-level (地级 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 (县级 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 (县级市 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 (省轄市 shěngxiáshì)."-- Jia ng 00:37, 23 Dec 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. -- Jia ng 05:43, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Political divisions of China → Political divisions of the People's Republic of China
redirects to List of cities in China. That OK? J heisenberg 18:37, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
... not really. Towns (镇) are a fourth-level political unit, but cities or municipalities (市) 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 — 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)
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 Region]]s 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 [[List of cities and parishes in Macao|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. -- Ji ang 08:20, 3 Jan 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. -- Ji ang 23:59, 5 Jan 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 {{disambig}} 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. -- Ji ang 00:13, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
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. -- Ji ang 00:29, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Sign your posts or I'll start ignoring you. According, to Wikipedia:Talk_pages#Standards_and_conventions_of_writing_and_layout 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. -- Ji ang 10:27, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Why the hell do you want to do that for? The current setup seems fine-- Ji ang 05:03, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I know your POV but I dont see a reason for it. You need to explain-- Ji ang 21:32, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
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. -- Ji ang 05:45, 19 Jan 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. -- Ji ang 06:30, 19 Jan 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-- Ji ang 04:04, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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: [5]; 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: [6]. 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: [7]. It seems that maps were exchanged for the Middle Sector but no agreement was actually reached. -- ran ( talk) 22:28, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
Here you go. [8] 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)
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, 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)
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)
Go take a look at Standard Cantonese first. There is no voicing contrast in Cantonese, only an aspiration contrast. In other words:
/p/: 包
/pʰ/: 抛
/t/: 刀
/tʰ/: 滔
/ts/: 焦
/tsʰ/: 超
/k/: 溝
/kʰ/: 扣
Also, I don't putting IPA is even needed here. Take a look at Wikipedia: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)
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 (/pʰ/-/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)
I still don't understand why you prefer /k/-/g/ so much over /kʰ/-/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 /kʰ/-/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 — 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 — 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)
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?
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)
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.
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)