Talk:Direct-controlled municipality

message: Wikipedia seems to treat "Municipality" in the context of China as the standard translation for Zhixiashi (lit. "Direct-control city"). Where does this usage originate? Normally, the word "municipality" just means a city or a city government. So, "Municipality of China" could be any city in China. Using it to specifically mean Zhixiashi seems confusing. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 20:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is mainly because there is no standard translation for prefecture-level cities and county-level cities. -- ran (talk) 22:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I follow you. Regardless of what you are calling prefecture-level cities and county-level cities, "municipality" is stil a confusing translation for zhixiashi. - 02:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: In official English materials from the PRC, zhíxiáshì is translated as "municipalities directly under the central government"   . The ROC counterpart, yùanxiáshì or zhíxiáshì, is translated as "municipalities under the auspice of the Executive Yuan"  or "special municipalities directly under the jurisdiction of the Executive Yuan"  . — Instantnood 19:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Municipality?"

message: Please, somebody, add an explanation of these (to an outsider) strange and unmotivated changes of status.  There must have been political reasons.  What were they?  That would make the article more interesting. Zaslav 00:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation 

message: I think the statement "China's Taiwan municipalities are smaller than their urban areas" can be interpreted as implying that Taiwan is part of the People's Republic of China. Technically speaking China merely refers to the geographical area, not the political, but it's a distinction not made in popular usage: China typically means the People's Republic of China. I think that this sentence should be changed to simply say, "Taiwanese municipalities...". Comments? kabl00ey 15:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  China's Taiwan municipalities 

message: What is the reason for lumping cities under the direct control of PRC in the same article with cities under the direct control of ROC?  Are ROC and PRC the only states that have such cities?  Why not include other countries that do the same thing?  Or split into separate articles? Readin (talk) 21:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two articles in stead of one 

message: Don't Washington, D.C., Districto Federal in Mexico, Canberra, and other such federal cities qualify as dir. controlled mun.? --Mistakefinder (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really they are Federal district not direct-controlled municipality. Direct-controlled municipalities and provinces have equal status but federal district does't have equal status to states e.g. Washington, D.C. has no Senate representation. — [[User: ASDFGH|ASDFGH =] ]] talk? 00:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

text: It's a bit different though.  Those cities are Federal Cities, not exactly the same as municiapalities.  Municipalties are governed like provinces, Federal Cities are not exactly governed as a province.  The PRC, ROC, ROK, DPRK, and SRV described in said article are all centralised republics, not federations like the United States or Russia.  Their relations to the central government is not the same as a Federal City's relation to the federal government.  Liu Tao (talk) 16:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The two cities exactly governed as a province. Due to the Russian Constitution Law, all 83 federal subject (including federal cities, provinces, autonomous regions, Republics, border zones) have equal political status. Well, Russia is a federation country, but surely the two cities direct-controlled by the central government of RF. Although the forms of governments are different from the countries above, I think "Direct-controlled municipality" didn't means it should only exist in the centralized republics. If we made a more deeply analysis, all "Direct-controlled municipality" in the five countries above have different power and duties to their central government. Energiya (talk) 05:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there's a difference between provinces and federal subjects.  Federal subjects are entitled to a degree of autonomy, provinces aren't.  Provinces only have as much power and autonomy as granted by the central government, which can be pulled by the Central government as they wish.  But anyways, aye, I can't argue anymore, that's my limit, you're right, I'm just resistant to change.  Go ahead and make the changes, but make sure that you re-edit the introduction paragraph.  And whilst you're at it, could you add a link to the municipality page as well?  That will be very much appreciated.  Liu Tao (talk) 13:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

text: NVM about Tokyo, we can't do Tokyo because it no longer has city status.  Tokyo City was abolished when it was merged with the prefecture.  Each of its 'wards' have are the equivalent of a 'city'.  Liu Tao (talk) 15:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cities in other countries, e.g. Washington, D.C.?