Talk:Administrative divisions of Taiwan

message: Having separate columns for "Pinyin" and  "Pinyin with tones" is unnecessary. Just put tones on the pinyin and keep it to 1 column. --Jiang
: Done.  --spencer195
: Visually, yes. I just tried Google, and people who typed Taizhong will receive a hit if Wikipedia only has Táizhōng. --Menchi 23:18, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table headers 

message: hey, there is a map of ROC in Chinese Wikipedia(including Mongolia). I don't think the current map here is accurate, I think that's more a Political divisions of Taiwan, rather than Political divisions of the ROC. What's about using the map in Chinese WP? --Yacht 08:58, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)
The map here is the ROC as it is now. The one on the chinese wikipedia is the ROC in the 1930s. It's important that we differentiate what is defunct and what is not.
The Chinese one would defintely belong at history of the Republic of China. It could belong here if we add a bit more historical content (how many provinces there were when they controlled the mainland, etc.) But why is Taiwan also colored in? Taiwan/Penghu was ceded to Japan in 1895 and only returned in 1945, I believe. Aside from the map and referring to the table on the Chinese version, Taibei and Gaoxiong are also centrally administered municipalities, not municipalities of Taiwan Province, which consist of 5 other cities. --Jiang 19:34, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, really? I never knew that! that means, Taiwan didn't belong to ROC during 1895 to 1945, even when the foundation of ROC in 1912, Taiwan was only a colony of Japan then, so why did the ROC government declear Taiwan to be on of its provinces? that's weird... --Yacht 09:04, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)
The Treaty of Shimonoseki: Article 2:   China cedes to Japan in perpetuity and full sovereignty the following territories, together with all fortifications, arsenals, and public property thereon:—   (a)...  (b) The island of Formosa, together with all islands appertaining or belonging to the said island of Formosa.  (c) The Pescadores Group, that is to say, all islands lying between the 119th and 120th degrees of longitude east of Greenwich and the 23rd and 24th degrees of north latitude.
Did they really declare it as such? Mongolia declared independence in 1921. The Treaty between Tibet and Mongolia (1913) asserted the independence of both Tibet and Mongolia. But in both these cases, also with Eastern Turkestan, the ROC never gave up its claim. However, this was legally done for Taiwan, so it's unlikely they would declare otherwise. The map could be inaccurate. Are there any other old maps in existence?--Jiang 09:18, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I don't know that clearly actually. I have to check out that in my history book. I think what i have taught is that Taiwan was a part of the ROC all the time. What u said just reminds me that there is a the logical mistake. I need more sources to read... --Yacht 09:32, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)
Maps that included both Taiwan and now-defunct Mainlander provinces of Xikang and Mongolia were in fact used in elementary->senior high geography textbooks until around 1995. Those textbooks may attach, as an appendix, the actual PRC divisions, maybe even calling it "illegitimate map" (偽). I believe the government stopped doing that now to the textbooks. Doublethink isn't that easy to keep up with Internet and all. The official info book doesn't even bother to include Mainland in its geography section: "The two sides of the Taiwan Strait have since been governed as separate territories." The charade got a bit tiring.
Many commercial maps of China are actually usually just rip-off of Mainlander cartographic publishing companies' (with the script traditionalized, of course. And the Kinmen-Matsu bit tweaked a bit...recoloured and erased enclusive boundary to Mainland Fujian). But if you look at those detailed "illegitimate" atlas books, which they gradually stopped making after Gimmo's death, they are basically the frozen subdivision structure of 1948, i.e., no prefectures at all. They do have county divisions too, but those are pre-1949 too. An aside is that those maps usually have labels so puny and colour scheme so bad that you can hardly read them. Thank god for GIS maps. I would love to see an "illegitimate" map of the Mainland made by ROC in 2004, down to the village level. It'd fun to see how they can subdivide a land they don't control. But of course...they gave those up along with the claim semi-officially....  ---Menchi 09:57, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: The map is in simplified chinese though, so likely produced in the mainland. Old versions of the ROC sites from the mid 90's at http://www.archive.org do mention the area of china ("including outer mongolia") but i havent seen a map. --Jiang
But I believe the constitution of the Republic of China has not been changed yet it it states that Outer Mongolia, mainland China, some parts of Central Asia and Taiwan all belong to the Republic of China.--Tbearzhang 15:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mongolia 

message: This might be a late addition to the discussion, but it is interesting.....
Maps of historical China published recently in the PRC almost invariably have both Taiwan and Hong Kong
colored in as part of the ROC between 1895 and 1945 with the notation English-occupied and Japanese-occupied.  The interesting thing about this is that maps of the ROC published by the ROC in
the 1930's don't include Taiwan as part of the ROC at all.
I'd like to create a wiki page which lists all of the mapping anonmalies in the world.  
One of the more amusing things that I've seen was in a map store in the United States in a town with
fairly large numbers of students from both the PRC and ROC.  They sold two world maps (in English)
one had Taiwan colored the same as the Mainland.  The other didn't.
Roadrunner 05:38, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Map anonmalies definitely worth an article. How to Lie with Map is one such book dedicated to those sort of deceptive propagandas using maps. People've been doing it around the world for ages.  --Menchi 17:32, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map anonmalies 

message: Is/are there any reason/s why these divisions are "political" rather than "administrative"...?  Thanks, David Kernow (talk) 07:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Political" 

message: :Image:Hsinchu County flag.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 06:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Hsinchu County flag.png

message: :Image:Nantou flag.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 16:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Nantou flag.png

message: :Image:MiaoliCounty seal.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:MiaoliCounty seal.png

message: What are the requirements for the following subdivisions in population, area etc.? jlog3000 (talk) 15:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Requirements for each subdivision

message: The article says
:There are altogether 369 secondary entities (rural and urban townships, districts (of both types of municipalities), and county-administered cities).
But my calculation is 23+26+32+226+61=368. I don't edit this article frequently so I don't know if the sum is in error, or any of the individual number is in error. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 05:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct.  Article changed and tag removed.  Thank you. Kjnelan (talk) 06:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  369 or 368 secondary entities? 

message: The image :Image:Chiayi County flag.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --22:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Chiayi County flag.png

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Administrative divisions of the Republic of China's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "ReferenceA":
From Direct-controlled municipality: References and details on data provided in the table can be found within the individual municipality articles.
From China: Homer H. Dubs, "Theism and Naturalism in Ancient Chinese Philosophy," Philosophy of East and West, Vol. 9, No. 3/4, 1959
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 06:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Administrative divisions of the Republic of China]] 

message: Can someone explain, since both are administered directly by the government, why both special municipalities and counties aren't on the same administrative level?  Is it a historical issue?  I realize special municipalities are differently administered, but from a administrative standpoint, they appear to have the same powers, with the only difference seeming to be that these special municipalities are specially-administered provinces.  Each seem to contain districts at their second level.  Were special municipalities on a higher administrative level, then their second level would be counties, not districts, and that doesn't appear to be the case. --Criticalthinker (talk) 16:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm no expert on the subject but the special municipalities enjoy privileges not afforded to provincial cities or counties, and are placed on a higher level to reflect this. See  or  for allusions to this. On the other hand, their districts don't enjoy enhanced privileges compared to districts of provincial cities, so both are considered third-level subdivisions. Cobblet (talk) 04:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point, but the designations do seem kind of silly, as if they simply created another level above instead of reducing the powers of the other divisions simply to justify adding the word "special" to the name.  It seems to kind of mirror the divisions on the mainland where you have the four Municipalities, accept that the municipalities are not thought of as being on a higher level than the provinces, they are simple province equivalents.  I guess it's because historically Taiwan was thought of as a province that we get this weird designation of "special municipality" that almost seems to greater than the level of the national government if you really think about it.  If it was consistent, there'd be no level above "provincial city."  It seems to be a strange quirk of them not viewing themselves as a "province" that gets this weird administrative level above provincial city. --Criticalthinker (talk) 13:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It's only designated as 'special municipality' in English.  In Chinese, it's designated as 直轄市, or Direct Controlled City (direct from the perspective of the Central Government), whilst the 'provincial municipalities' is 省轄市, which means Province Controlled City.  Something was lost in the translation.  There is a third tier, 縣轄市, which means County Controlled City, which is properly translated in the English Wiki.  It makes A LOT more sense when you look at the Chinese names.  173.66.64.179 (talk) 13:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

text: You misunderstand completely: remember, we're talking about the Republic of China here, not a province within it. The special municipalities are on the same level as the former Taiwan Province and Fujian Province, Republic of China, but the administrative apparatus for the provinces was "streamlined" (disbanded) since they were clearly not practical. Cobblet (talk) 16:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean, that's exactly what I was getting at, that this originally confused me because it's a relic of being viewed as provinces.  Were provinces still a division, it'd be easy for outsiders like myself to understand the placing of special municipalities in the administrative hierarchy upon first glance.  So, my original point about this being confusing because of historical reasons is correct.  Special municipalities stand alone as the highest level of administrative division because the provinces no longer exists.  This is an unsual set-up to say the least. --Criticalthinker (talk) 15:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Unusual, perhaps, but not "silly". It doesn't seem any more unusual to me than England not having its own parliament, or :Template:Administrative divisions of the United States listing Indian reservations among the "first level" of administrative divisions. Cobblet (talk) 16:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The provincial governments still exists, by no means were they abolished.  It's just streamlined to the point that the number of functions they perform are so minute that are essentially relegated to an Agency within the Central Government because the Central government no longer manages the counties through the provincial governments.  173.66.64.179 (talk) 13:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, is that what "streamlined" means?  I see it all over Taiwan articles with no hint of a definition! —Tamfang (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Levels 

message: Many Wikipedia pages make statements about territories claimed by the ROC without citing sources or based only on original research in the form of Wikipedia contributors' interpretations of the ROC constitution. Obviously this is a contentious issue. I've tagged statements in this article that don't cite sources but should. I have no opinion on whether the statements are true or false, but given the nature of this topic, I don't think they should be on Wikipedia without citing appropriate secondary sources. Benjamin Hurst (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean, we could go digging within RoC Legislation to find you the actual laws (or the lack of thereof).  The RoC Claims stems from the lack of legislation to officially cede these territories, rather than the presence of legislation.  The Chinese wiki does a much better job of explaining and citing the sources in detail.  That being said, the fact that the RoC Constitution makes the distinction of a 'Free Area', defined as territories of the RoC under government control is enough to imply that they have territorial claims other than just Taiwan.  The way the Passport Act is written reflects the same thing.  It makes 4 distinct categories of nationals, starting with the residents of the Free Area, Mainland Residents, Hong Kong/Macau residents, and Overseas residents.  The Immigration procedures are the same as well.  Mainland, Hong Kong, and Macau residents do not obtain visas, they obtain entry permits, which they get from the Ministry of Interior, not Ministry of Foreign of Affairs.  There is a literally an entire article in the Chinese wiki explaining RoC Territorial claims, essentially it is just a list of laws pertaining to the territorial extent of the RoC, good luck getting anyone to port that page or try to cite it.  
https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-tw/%E4%B8%AD%E8%8F%AF%E6%B0%91%E5%9C%8B%E7%96%86%E5%9F%9F
173.66.64.179 (talk) 14:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statements about ROC territorial claims 

message: The South Sea Islands were originally organised under the Hainan SAR.  They were not reorganised under Kaohsiung Municipality until 1979.  Proposing to add the change within the table.  173.66.64.179 (talk) 13:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to ROC Territory since 1949 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Administrative divisions of the Republic 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://web.ner.gov.tw/culturenews/culture/culture-detail.asp?id=84927
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.libertytimes.com.tw/2008/new/dec/27/today-p3.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.libertytimes.com.tw/2009/new/jun/24/today-t1.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 IITalk to my owner:Online 10:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Administrative divisions of the Republic 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721164642/http://law.dgbas.gov.tw/LawContent.aspx?id=GL000555 to http://law.dgbas.gov.tw/LawContent.aspx?id=GL000555
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111109154600/http://www.gio.gov.tw/info/95roc/ to http://www.gio.gov.tw/info/95roc/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://web.ner.gov.tw/culturenews/culture/culture-detail.asp?id=84927
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.libertytimes.com.tw/2008/new/dec/27/today-p3.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.libertytimes.com.tw/2009/new/jun/24/today-t1.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041120034137/http://www.fkpg.gov.tw:80/ to http://www.fkpg.gov.tw/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
*Oppose – Article is not just about Taiwan, but also about other territorial claims of the RoC. RGloucester  — ☎ 18:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: I propose that the following historical divisions articles be merged to those of modern divisions:
* Kaohsiung County
* Taichung County
* Tainan County
* Taipei County
* Taoyuan County, Taiwan
They are mostly stubs, and can be covered in the modern divisions articles. Szqecs (talk) 14:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that each of these proposals needs to be discussed individually on the respective talk pages. For example, see the discussion at Taipei County that was just closed with the result "not merge." Phlar (talk) 20:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually I think it needs to be in one place because of that. There isn't enough participation for individual discussions. The New Taipei one started in 2015 and was just left there for a long time. Szqecs (talk) 02:37, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't agree with you more. In my opinion Kaohsiung County, Taichung County and Tainan County should not be merged with Kaohsiung City, Taichung City and Tainan City, respectively, while Taipei County and Taoyuan County should be merged with New Taipei City and Taoyuan City, respectively, since New Taipei City and Taoyuan City are the new names of Taipei County and Taoyuan County, while Kaohsiung County, Taichung County and Tainan County are parts of what is now Kaohsiung City, Taichung City and Tainan City, respectively.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Taipei and Taoyuan counties didn't just change names, they became special municipalities. We didn't keep the articles of pre-2010 Kaohsiung City, Taichung City and Tainan City, why keep the counties? Szqecs (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be worth taking a look at Chinese language Wikipedia, which maintains separate/historical pages for Kaohsiung County (zh:高雄縣), Taichung County (zh:臺中縣), Tainan County (zh:臺南縣), but not for Taipei County or Taoyuan County. So basically what RekishiEJ said. In the case of Kaohsiung City, Taichung City, and Tainan City, the administrations remained intact, just with expanded jurisdictions and a political upgrade. Likewise with Taipei County and Taoyuan County, which were upgraded to municipalities. The other counties, however, are no longer administrative entities and were absorbed into their respective cities, hence their historical status and separate articles. Multivariable (talk) 00:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.--RekishiEJ (talk) 02:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Administrative divisions of Taiwan. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://web.ner.gov.tw/culturenews/culture/culture-detail.asp?id=84927
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.libertytimes.com.tw/2008/new/dec/27/today-p3.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.libertytimes.com.tw/2009/new/jun/24/today-t1.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120514012002/http://info.gio.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=19878&ctNode=2840&mp=21 to http://info.gio.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=19878&ctNode=2840&mp=21
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) 00:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: To add to article: a single map that shows the main island as well as all the other smaller islands, without the corner-shaped insets that do not show the reader where those smaller islands are actually located. 76.189.141.37 (talk) 02:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Map