text:
Mort Drucker

Morris "Mort" Drucker (March 22, 1929 – April 9, 2020) was an American caricaturist and comics artist best known as a contributor for over five decades in Mad, where he specialized in satires on the leading feature films and television series.

Personal life
Drucker was born in Brooklyn, New York City, with some sources listing his birth date as March 22, 1929, and others as March 29. He was the son of Sarah (Spielvogel), a homemaker, and Edward Drucker, a businessman. His family was Jewish. He attended Brooklyn's Erasmus Hall High School. There he met his future wife Barbara, whom he married shortly after her graduation. The couple moved to Long Island, living in Syosset, where they brought up two daughters, Laurie and Melanie; their family eventually expanded with three grandchildren.

Career
Drucker entered the comics field by assisting Bert Whitman on the Publishers-Hall newspaper comic strip Debbie Dean in 1947 when he was 18, based on a recommendation from Will Eisner. He then joined the staff of National Periodical Publications (DC Comics), where he worked as a retoucher. While at DC, Drucker also ghosted "The Mountain Boys", Paul Webb's regular gag panel for Esquire magazine. Early in the 1950s, Drucker left his DC staff gig and began doing full-time freelance work for a number of comic book publishers such as Dell, Atlas and St. John's, as well as several humor and war titles for his former employer.

Mad
In the fall of 1956, shortly after the departure of Mad's founding editor Harvey Kurtzman, Drucker found his way to Mad. His first visit to the magazine's offices coincided with a World Series broadcast, and publisher Bill Gaines told Drucker that if the Brooklyn Dodgers won the game, he would be given a drawing assignment. The Dodgers won. Capricious though Drucker's alleged audition process may have been, it was a good anecdote. Years later, Gaines unsurprisingly confessed, "We would have hired him anyway."

Drucker had arrived at the Mad offices with pages from his Hopalong Cassidy comic book work for DC Comics and some of his "Mountain Boys" strips, as well as a humorous "little situation" featuring The Lone Ranger and Tonto that he had specifically drawn for the interview. Though this work was unlike the likenesses and continuities he would become best known for, the Mad staff reacted favorably. The first to review Drucker's portfolio was Mad associate editor Nick Meglin, who admitted, "I didn't spot how great he was at caricatures. Not at first. But then, he wasn't that great then." Drucker said that he "just wanted to be an artist ... to get paid for drawing anything," and only started focusing on caricature work, because he started getting more of those assignments. "That's when I realized I'd found my calling," said Drucker. At the time of Drucker's arrival, Mad did not regularly feature television and movie satires. Editor Al Feldstein credited Drucker's style and ability for the decision to start featuring them in every issue.

For well over a decade, Mad had difficulty obtaining promotional photos that Drucker could use as source material for his drawings. When he was illustrating Mad parodies, Drucker's colleague Angelo Torres brought a camera into movie theaters and snapped pictures of the screen. Eventually, a generation of Mad fans grew up and some became Hollywood publicists, making Drucker's research easier.

By the time he wound down his Mad career 55 years later, Drucker held the longest uninterrupted tenure of any Mad artist. Drucker has the most bylined articles by any Mad artist who does not also write his own material, with more than 400.

Other work
Drucker also remained active for DC, illustrating War Stories, among other titles. Beginning in 1959, he spent four years drawing DC's The Adventures of Bob Hope comic book. Drucker credits this stint as a key moment in his career because it focused his work on caricature.

In 1962, Drucker teamed with the prolific humor writer Paul Laikin on the highly successful JFK Coloring Book (Kanrom Publishers), which sold 2,500,000 copies. Two decades later, Drucker illustrated similar coloring books on Ollie North and Ronald Reagan. His film posters include Universal's American Graffiti (1973), directed by George Lucas with Drucker also drawing the high school yearbook pictures in the film trailer.

Drucker also pursued assignments in television animation, movie poster art and magazine illustration, including covers for Time, some of which are in the National Portrait Gallery of the Smithsonian Institution. His album covers include art for the pop band The Bears and the Anthrax album State of Euphoria, as well as humor albums in the vein of his own "JFK Coloring Book" including "The LBJ Menagerie" and "The New First Family, 1968". In addition to books collecting his own work, he has provided illustrations for numerous books by others, including children's books, humor books and satire. He drew the prop cartoons used in the 1957 Broadway musical comedy, Rumple.

Between 1984 and 1987, Drucker collaborated with Jerry Dumas (and John Reiner) on the daily comic strip Benchley. Set in the White House, the plot revolved around the fictive character Benchley who acted as the assistant and admirer of contemporary president Ronald Reagan. Dumas commented, "Nobody ever did a strip about the government. It's a wonderful place to set a strip. There's so much room for humor in the White House." Benchley was syndicated by the Register and Tribune Syndicate.

In 1990, Drucker designed the Supercup for Target. The following year, for the United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association, Drucker and executive Mitchell Erick created the Frugies (pronounced fru-jees) to promote June as National Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Month. The campaign included such characters as Lord Mushroom, Pepe L'Pepper, Penelope Pear and Adam Apple.

Style
In 2012, Drucker discussed his art style, and how he applied it to his Mad assignments: I've always considered a caricature to be the complete person, not just a likeness. Hands, in particular, have always been a prime focus for me as they can be as expressive of character as the exaggerations and distortions a caricaturist searches for. I try to capture the essence of the person, not just facial features ... I've discovered through years of working at capturing a humorous likeness that it's not about the features themselves as much as the space between the features. We all have two eyes, a nose, a mouth, hair, and jaw lines, but yet we all look different. What makes that so is the space between them.

The artist is actually creating his own storyboard for the film. I become the "camera" and look for angles, lighting, close-ups, wide angles, long shots—just as a director does to tell the story in the most visually interesting way he can. My first sketches are as much composition and design ideas as they are character and action images ... I don't want to get too involved in the juicy parts since some of what I'm doing will be modified or discarded as I get further involved in the storytelling. I then stand back and look at the page as a complete unit to make sure it's designed well: "Hmmm, three close-up panels in a row of characters talking. Better change that middle panel to a far shot. Maybe make that panel an open vignette." ... Then I place the facing pages together and look at how the spread holds together, and sometimes make changes based on that.

Praise
When the magazine's parody of The Empire Strikes Back was published in 1980, drawn by Drucker, the magazine received a cease and desist letter from George Lucas' lawyers demanding that the issue be pulled from sale, and that Mad destroy the printing plates, surrender the original art, and turn over all profits from the issue. Unbeknownst to them, George Lucas had just sent Mad an effusive letter praising the parody, and declaring, "Special Oscars should be awarded to Drucker and DeBartolo, the George Bernard Shaw and Leonardo da Vinci of comic satire." Publisher Gaines mailed a copy of the letter to Lucas' lawyers with a handwritten message across the top: "That's funny, George liked it!" There was no further communication on the matter. Drucker had also worked on the advertising campaign for Lucas' earlier film American Graffiti. In his introduction to the Mad About Star Wars book, Lucas wrote, "I have always defended Mad from my lawyers."

In a 1985 Tonight Show appearance, when Johnny Carson asked Michael J. Fox, "When did you really know you'd made it in show business?" Fox replied, "When Mort Drucker drew my head."

Nick Meglin called Drucker "number one in a field of one." Charles Schulz wrote, "Frankly, I don't know how he does it, and I stand in a long list of admirers ... I think he draws everything the way we would all like to draw." In 2012, referring to Drucker's splash page for Mad's parody of The Godfather, the Comics Reporter's Tom Spurgeon wrote, "The way he draws James Caan's eyebrow is worth some folks' entire careers."

Awards
Mort Drucker's Time covers are in the collection of the National Portrait Gallery. He was recognized for his work with the National Cartoonists Society Special Features Award (1985, 1986, 1987, 1988), its Reuben Award (1987), Eisner Award Hall of Fame (2010) and induction into the Society's Hall of Fame (2017). Drucker was awarded an Honorary Doctor of Fine Arts degree from the Art Institute of Boston. He was awarded the Inkpot Award in 1996.

Death
Drucker died on April 9, 2020, in his Woodbury, New York home. His daughter Laurie reported to Associated Press that the previous week he had experienced respiratory problems and had trouble walking, but she did not state the actual cause of his death. Laurie added that her father had not been tested for the coronavirus.

Illustrations for books by others

 * A Book of Jean's Own, Maria Schneider writing as Jean Teasdale. St. Martin's Griffin, 2010. ISBN 978-0-312-64268-6
 * Christopher Lee's Treasury of Terror, edited by Russ Jones. Pyramid, 1966. ASIN: B000B8GC3A

title: Mort Drucker


text:
Talk:George Armstrong Custer

Custer's ranks
Custer's last brevet rank is missing from the article. In 1868, he was appointed again as brevet major general, making his official rank until his death Brevet Major General, Lieutenant Colonel. I have added this to the Dates of rank table, as well as a citation for the table pointing to a National Parks Service webpage that lists each of his army commissions, including photographs of their certificates. I know his last brevet is referenced in some Custer biographies, and I will dig into the history of it more later with the books on-hand so that I can add further information to the article. Additionally, some of the dates of rank listed on the NPS webpage do not match what is mentioned in the article. These dates should be cross-checked with more sources. Twcus (talk) 16:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You can restore the content but don't remove the links to Google Books and don't add URLs on the section header. Instead you should put links to sources in section body. Accesscrawl (talk) 08:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You're misreading the certificate. The appointment was from 13 March 1865, so that would be the effective date of the brevet. His actual service rank until his death was Lt Col. Intothatdarkness 23:11, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

The Ranks Table has the same date, March 13, 1865, listed for Brevet Brigadier General as for Brevet Major General. Is this a typographical error or did Custer receive two promotions on the same day? I suppose the latter is possible, but I'd hazard the former is more likely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.91.36.8 (talk) 07:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

 * Heitman (Historical Register and Dictionary Vol. 1) lists both promotions as taking place on 13 March 1865 (the BG one for Five Forks and MG for the Appomattox campaign). This date also appears in the 1868 Army Register, although it only shows the date of his highest rank promotion. There are other brevet promotions, but they're all noted as volunteers. Intothatdarkness 14:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Thomas Marquis
There should be an explanation of who Thomas Marquis was. He appears to be a historian or biographer of some sort, but there are no details or description of him in the article. He is mentioned randomly as conducting interviews without context. 66.91.36.8 (talk) 10:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Good catch! Have linked the subject Thomas Bailey Marquis. His first mention is inside a quote so we can't adjust wordings. The link was a simple solution which moves the reader forward if they are curious. BusterD (talk) 10:24, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * no 2600:1700:6641:A240:E045:CEED:B59:C972 (talk) 21:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Johnny Cash song
This is one view of Custer:
 * I can tell you buster
 * I ain't got much time for Custer

It should likely be mentioned here.

In general, I'd say the whole article is far too sympathetic to Custer. Pashley (talk) 19:30, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That song was written by Peter La Farge. Cullen328 (talk) 00:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "Far too sympathetic?" If you have a problem with the quality or tone of the article, you are welcome to suggest or make changes, but, to me, it simply sounds like you're upset that the facts of the article challenge some preconceived image you have of Custer in your head. 199.231.199.22 (talk) 19:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

White Supremacist?

 * I saw you added Custer to the category of White Supremacists. Your edit was reverted by . I am inclined to believe Custer was is  a White Supremacist, but we need WP:RS for that and to put it in the article.  Do you have WP:RS? --David Tornheim (talk) 19:16, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [revised 02:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC) per next comment.]

 * I think you mean was, since he's deceased. And you'd need some serious RS to support a category claim like that. Intothatdarkness 01:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

 * From T. J. Stiles says: "Yet [Custer] was also clearly a white supremacist."  The subtitle:  "In his new book, Pulitzer-winning author and historian T.J. Stiles looks deeply into the complex life of one of the country’s most controversial figures."  The book is Custer's Trials: A Life on the Frontier of a New America.  I believe one or both should be sufficient for the claim--at least somewhere in the article.  --David Tornheim (talk) 02:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * While I understand the urge to categorize an infamous American expansionist as a white supremacist, like Intothat says, you will need serious RS to support a category claim like that.
 * The book you cited by T. J. Stiles doesn't seem to actually make a clear argument that Custer was a white supremacist. The closest Stiles gets to it is primarily in Chapter 16, where he discusses Custer's political opinions on Reconstruction, which do not outright endorse white supremacy. Additionally Stephen Ambrose, who is cited repeatedly in the article, describes Custer's relationship to Reconstruction politics as complicated in his book Custer and Crazy Horse, and something Custer eventually didn't want anything to do with. Ambrose, like Stiles, doesn't make a connection between Custer and white supremacy in the way that other figures clearly had during that time period.
 * I am not trying to defend Custer and I wholly sympathize with the indigenous Plains tribes. Please don't put me in this position. I'm merely trying to ensure that these categories are supported with the standard RS, otherwise virtually every political figure from Custer's century will be assigned this. Rolesafter1 (talk) 06:53, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. otherwise every political figure from Custer's century will be assigned this.  Indeed.  I was thinking just that as I wrote the above. Those supporting settler colonialism by exterminating or expropriating land of the "inferior" native population, holding slaves, etc. are IMHO deserving of the label.  However, the definition has to follow the WP:RS's description as you say, even if common sense says otherwise. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It's a modern label, so isn't really appropriate here. We can use RS to outline a person's views and let readers draw their own conclusions without doing it for them. And if we add such categories to people like Custer, we'd have to add them to virtually every Spaniard involved in exploration/conquest in Central and South America. They were often far more explicit in their views. It also loses sight of the nuanced views many Frontier Army officers held of both Reconstruction and the Indian Wars writ large. Intothatdarkness 13:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Anheuser-Busch chromolithograph
The version I've seen is published by the "Anheuser Busch Brewing Association" (no hyphen) and is titled "Custer's Last Fight" (not "Stand")... AnonMoos (talk) 13:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Death
"So, in 2005, after a vow of 100 summers of silence, Northern Cheyenne tribal historians revealed that it was a female warrior, Buffalo Calf Road Woman, who killed Lt. Colonel George Armstrong Custer (by clubbing him in the head) at the Battle of Little Bighorn. June 25, 1876. pic.twitter.com/phC0DMAqG7" tweet. [later] "The period of silence was to protect her and her family".

The clubbing is mentioned in the article but it doesn't say anything about the 100 summers of silence. Seems worth chasing down. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:0:0:0:9BB0 (talk) 00:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:George Armstrong Custer


text:
Talk:Administrative divisions of Taiwan

Move
Should this be moved from Political divisions of Taiwan to Administrative divisions of the Republic of China? Because it contains the two non-Taiwanese island-counties. --Menchi 19:47 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * I support the move. --Jiang 20:11 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * You could experiment your new adminship first on this (after the developer adminize you soon). You don't have record anything in the Talk about your delete-and-move's, but it avoids confusion for non-participants. --Menchi 20:24 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * ??? Anyone, including non-sysops, can move pages. --Eloquence 23:25 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Not here. There's a redir existing by the same name already, hence requiring deletion by admin/sysop. --Menchi 14:50 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Paged move. No, a deletion of the existing redirect was not necessary to move the page, since the redirect had no other edit history. --Jiang 00:32 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Table headers
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)

Mongolia
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)

 * 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)

 * 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)

 * 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)

Map anonmalies
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)

 * 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)

Provinces on the mainland
Should there be any description of the provinces on the mainland that the ROC had lost control but has not officially renounce its claim? -- 15:05, December 18, 2004, UTC

Quemoy and Matsu locator maps
I'm almost certain that this has been brought up before, but the locator maps on the Quemoy and Matsu pages make it seem as if those islands are someone in the middle of the ocean, which is clearly not the case.

What does everything think about having maps that actually show their relative locations to the Mainland and Taiwan? Something like the Alaska and Hawaii maps in other words. -- ran (talk) 19:21, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

 * Good. The current Matsu/Quemoy maps look like somebody just cropped the insets from a larger Chinese map....dubious copyright status. The labels shouldn't be in Chinese anyway. --Menchi 20:17, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * What about using either one of the following maps as supplement?  — Instantnood 16:54, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Cant tell anything from those maps--Jiang 04:08, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * It would probably be a lot easier if there were an outline map with no topographical features that we can work with. -- ran (talk) 23:00, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and done the maps.

All comments and suggestions are of course welcome. :) -- ran (talk) 19:55, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * They're great. :-) — Instantnood 10:04, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

well there is probably only five romanizations, to discourage spies
It might just be worth Taiwan joining the PRC if there's no other way to clean up the romanization mess. (I want 100% Hanyu Pinyin.) --Jidanni 2006-04-16

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

Fair use rationale for Image:Hsinchu County flag.png
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 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)

Fair use rationale for Image:Nantou flag.png
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 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)

Fair use rationale for Image:MiaoliCounty seal.png
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 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)

Requirements for each subdivision
What are the requirements for the following subdivisions in population, area etc.? jlog3000 (talk) 15:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Province (省 Shěng)
 * Direct-Controlled Municipality (直辖市 Zhíxiáshì)
 * Provincial City (省轄市 Shěngxiáshì or Shěngguǎnshì)
 * County (县 Xiàn)
 * District (區 Qū)
 * Rural Township (鄉 Xiāng)
 * Urban Township (鎮 Zhèn)
 * County-Controlled City (縣轄市 Xiànxiáshì or Xiànguǎnshì)
 * Village (urban) (里 Lǐ)
 * Village (rural) (村 Cūn)
 * Neighborhood (社区 Lín)

369 or 368 secondary entities?
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)

 * You are correct. Article changed and tag removed.  Thank you. Kjnelan (talk) 06:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Chiayi County flag.png
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 Media copyright questions. --22:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Administrative divisions of the Republic of China
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)

The use of romanization systems
Tongyong pinyin NEVER applies to the romanization names of municipalities and counties in Taiwan (or ROC). Since 1945 the counties and cities in Taiwan use Wade-Giles TILL NOW. Although Tongyong Pinyin became official standard between 2002 and 2008, the ROC government still keep the Wade-Giles name for counties and cities as exceptions, see 地名譯寫原則. Tongyong Pinyin only applies to the names of county-controlled cities, townships, or districts.

Maybe 新北市 will be the first major administrative division using Hanyu Pinyin in its name. (Still discussing in Executive Yuan.) but 新北 is a new name in Taiwan, Hsinpei or Sinbei NEVER EXIST, TOO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Energiya (talk • contribs) 18:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

 * That's still no reason to remove both Tonyong and Wade-Giles romanisations. Some people read only Tongyong and Wade-Giles MOST CERTAINLY still applies to many of the current names of the administrations.  And BTW, it's not that Tonyong romanisations don't apply, it's that they were not applied.  The RoC does not 'discriminate' between the administrations to pick which is romanised using which system.  They romanise according to whatever's the 'official' romanisation at the time of romanisation.  Towns and cities created when Wade-Giles was official were romanised using Wade-Giles.  Actually, Wade-Giles was never 'official', it just remained in wide use until the formal adoption of Gwoyeu Romatzyh in 1928, those which were already romanised in Wade-Giles stayed Wade-Giles, only new administrations or those choosing to change were romanised in the new system.
 * Anyways, it's not about the names, it's about the display of the various romanisations in use. We're not 'changing' the name of a city just by adding 2 columns of alternate romanisations.  Romanisation systems are used for romanising the language, not 'Englishfying' the name.  As far as I know, Wade-Giles and Tongyong has just as much right to be on the table as Pinyin and POJ does.  Tongyong being in widespread use throughout TW for 6 years ending only 2 years prior, and Wade-Giles for its large historical usage.  There's still a lot of people who can't read Pinyin.  Liu Tao (talk) 19:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

 * Are you living in Taiwan?? Even in official period, the status of Tongyong Pinyin in Taiwan is quiet different from Hanyu Pinyin in China. The ROC government only uses it as an romanization system of place names. The propose is to help foreign people who don't know chinese in Taiwan can find places easier. The government never taught Taiwanese people Tongyong Pinyin. In the time between 2002 and 2008, the institutes of Chinese Language in Taiwan still use Hanyu Pinyin to teach foreign student Chinese (I know it's quiet weird but it's true). Only a few people concerned on this problem can use Tongyong Pinyin as well (but they usually compare Tongyong with Hanyu, so they also know Hanyu Pinyin as well). So actually, Tongyong Pinyin "don't apply" and "were not apply" to the names of municipalities and counties. I don't see any need to add a column for Tongyong Pinyin.
 * For Wade-Giles, I think it already exists in this table at the first column, it's not necessary to write it again in different column.Energiya Energiya (talk) 06:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

 * Wade-Giles does NOT exist for the first column. Wade-Giles is a ROMANISATION system, the first column is the NAME of the administrations, there is a very distinct difference between the two.  One very obvious difference is the lack of tones.  It's not Wade-Giles if it doesn't have tones.  If you're still gonna complain about having no 'spelling differences', then I'll provide you with one: Yilan.  Romanised Wade-Giles and removing the tones and punctuations, Yilan is 'Ilan'.  And if you complain that one difference 'isn't enough to justify difference', I've got 2 things for you.  One is that if there's a difference, then it's different.  Two is Chiayi, romanised Wade-Giles and removing the tones and punctuations, Chiayi is Chiai.  If you're gonna complain that they're still 'similar' or that they're 'bastardised' version of WG, then I'll fork out number 3, Keelung which is NOT WG at all.  If you add in the punctuations like what you're supposed to, then they're ALL different.
 * As for Tongyong, you forget about the overseas. From 2002 and 2008, textbooks exported from the RoC for oversease chinese ALL contain the use of Tongyong.  Not only that, Tongyong is also used as an input method for typing Chinese.  Added in with the fact that it is still has quite a presence compared to Pinyin in the RoC.  And as I've said, it's not whether or not it 'applies' to the names of the municipalities and counties, if that's so, none of the romanisations should be on there.  Pinyin and POJ are not present in the names at all, therefore they 'don't apply' based on your logic.  Actually, funny thing is, based on your logic the 'only' systems that 'applies' to the municipality and county names would be Wade-Giles and possibly MPSII as only those systems replect the spelling of the names.  Liu Tao (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC).

 * OK, so the problem now is whether these two columns are "alternative romanization systems", or "different symbols of pronunciation". If they are "alternative romanization systems", it's should not include because they never used, same as the reason I present above. If one think they are "different symbols of pronunciation", I think it's not necessary to put it in the table, too. Three columns of pronunciation method to Mandarin contains too more repeat information. I think it's better contain the most widely used pronunciation symbol, if all the symbols are included, there will be more than 15 systems to Chinese, Taiwanese, and Hakka. We can see, in the page Administrative divisions of China also only have Hanyu Pinyin at all. If we follow the argument you showed, we should add Tongyong Pinyin or Wade-Giles in the China page, because someone still use them to learn. So one system for each language is better.140.109.113.28 (talk) 06:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

 * Most widely does not mean definite. To say that one system for each language is 'better' is an opinion, not a fact.  I've only placed in 2 of the next popular systems used within the RoC, but if you say that I'm 'discriminating' against the other systems,  then I'll add in MPSII and GR, the 'missing' 2 systems officially used by the RoC if it'll solve the debate.  It's no big deal, only take an hour or so to locate and use the tables.  As for the China page, first of all WG is already on there, second of all I don't actually have to do it, wikipedia does not require for me to do this on every page where applicable.  I'm just policing these pages to make prevent any removal of 'useful' information and data.  As far as I know, there really is no reason to remove 2 columns of romanisation, it doesn't help to make the article any better by removing 2 columns of perfectly done and useful info.  It might not be useful to you, but it'd certainly be useful to others.  So unless you can somehow argue that removing 2 columns of romanisation makes the article 'better', you don't have a applicable base in this debate.  Liu Tao (talk) 17:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

 * That was dirty to take up that stance of 'better articles'. Anyways, if you want my logic, then fine.  Reason why WG, MPSII, GR, and Tongyong wouldn't apply to PRC articles (that's assuming you're referring to them when talking of 'China') is simply because they no longer applies to the PRC.  Unlike the ROC, the PRC exclusively uses Pinyin for romanisations.  It has replaced all of its 'old' romanisations with Pinyin.  On the otherhand, the RoC does not 'exclusively' uses Pinyin, it still 'uses' the older systems.  The RoC is different in the way that it uses romanisation systems 'passively', the places and localities are romanised in whatever system is 'official' at the time having no obligation to 'update' its romanisations.  'Updating' is up to the respective governments, some choose to change their romanisation, some doesn't, so as far as I know, these non-WG romanisations still applies to romanising of administrative regions as a whole.  The 'rule' within the RoC is use whatever system you choose, the 'rule' in the PRC is to use Pinyin.  That's the difference between the two.  Liu Tao (talk) 18:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

 * That's why I would like to ask you about your definition to these two columns, it's "alternative romanization systems", or "different symbols of pronunciation to Mandarin"???
 * If it is "alternative romanization systems", then the Tongyong Pinyin should be deleted, for they never used to the transcript to county and large city names. The Wade-Giles can exist after some refinement. Like the Chinese Postal Map Romanization column in Administrative divisions of China, a column about historical romanization. We can add some names in the early year which different from present romanization (e.g, Chia-i and I-lan...), or even in Japanese era (e.g. Taihoku, Takao...). Like your argument, the PRC exclusively uses Hanyu Pinyin, we also exclusively use "one" name only (it's a list of names of cities, counties, and townships). No other names are acceptable.

 * I live in Taiwan, I can tell you what is happening here. Yes, your argument about the slowly-updated romanization system exist in Taiwan. But in the history we only changed the romanization systems of townships, county-controlled cities, districts and other minor placenames. The romanization names of 25 major cities and counties never changed, Tongyong or Hanyu Pinyin never used on these 25 names. Although we adopted GR and MPS2 in sometimes, these 25 names didn't change after 1945.(You won't see Sinjhu or Xinzhu in Taiwan at anytime.) Chiayi, Chia-i and Yilan, I-lan maybe the exceptions, in the past no one concerned on the romanization so in a long time both the names are used, in 2002 the government just regularized them to Chiayi and Yilan.(but note that the Wade-Giles using by the ROC government, i or yi are also accepted, actually Chiayi and Yilan is also classified in Wade-Giles, too.)

 * BTW, Hanyu Pinyin is not exclusively the only system in the PRC, in the autonomous regions also have different romanization systems (e.g Lhasa, Qamdo, Hohhot, Urumqi....). Even in the traditional Han regions, we still have Shanxi and Shaanxi, which is not exactly Hanyu Pinyin at all.

 * If it is "different symbols of pronunciation to Mandarin", then we need to add Tongyong Pinyin, and the others to the PRC page, based on your argument, "someone" just learn Chinese from Tongyong or Wade-giles, these reason can also apply on the Administrative divisions of China page. We may add Tongyong Pinyin, Wade-Giles and others to help theese people. And for this page, the Taiwanese language also have its own complexity, TL, POJ, TLPA, MLT......see Pe̍h-ōe-jī, too many things to add.(our official standard is Tâi-lô, but POJ is mostly used).

 * I would like to treat the Hanyu Pinyin, and the two POJs as "pronunciation to one language", I would like to treat every "language" fairly, so I keep one for Mandarin, one for Hoklo (Taiwanese), one for Hakka. If you just want to treat every "romanization system" fairly, that's OK but please keep your standard to Hoklo and Hakka, and further the Administrative divisions of China page. Energiya (talk) 02:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

 * Chinese Postal Romanisation is different from WG. You can't say they're the same if they're 'similar', if they're 'similar' then it means they're not the same which means that they're different.  Oh sure, I have a father, he's looks similar to me, all that's different is that he just looks older.  What, does that mean he and me are the same person?
 * You're taking what I've said out of context with the 'old' names and such. I've already said very specifically, the RoC does NOT exclusively use Pinyin like the PRC does.  The RoC technically still uses all of the other systems as before, all that's different is that they're no longer doing new romanisations with the old systems.  They keep the old names unless the said local government wants to change, but other than that the 'old' systems are still in use.  The RoC uses ALL of the systems, not just Pinyin unlike what the PRC has done.  Ma Ying-jeou's name isn't romanised in Pinyin, yet the official RoC romanisation system is Pinyin, does that mean his name has now changed from 'Ma Ying-jeou' to 'Ma Yingjiu'?  No it does not, his name is still in Tongyong, the Tongyong system is continues to be in use along side Pinyin.
 * These are not the 'names' of the counties, if you say that only the 'names' are acceptable, nothing else, then that means all of the romanisations are gonna have to go, as none of em are the 'names' of the counties. We're to be left with only the names of the counties and nothing else.  Actually, that's probably what's gonna happen if this debate isn't resolved, but meh.  Anyways, back on topic.  You are confusing 'romanisation' and 'names'.  Names and romanisation are completely 2 different thing.  One is is the name, the other is a system to display the pronounciation of non-Latin alphabet characters into Latin alphabet characters.  The Hanyu Pinyin Romansation is NOT the name of the Counties.  Pinyin is the romanisation of the Counties' Chinese names into the Pinyin system.  There is a big difference between the two.  In the PRC, same is with the names, the names are not necessarily in Pinyin, but that doesn't mean jack.  You can still romanise the names in pinyin and still be right.  Take a look at multiple maps of the PRC, how often do you see Xinjiang in place of Uyghuristan?  If you look at enough maps you'll notice some of them use 'Xizang Autonomous Area' instead of 'Tibet Autonomous Area'.  There is a big difference between the 'official' name of a place and the Romanisation of a place name.  All Pinyin, Tongyong, MPSII, GR, and WG are is that they're Romanisation systems for Mandarin Chinese, nothing else.  They don't 'name' places, they just represent Mandarin Chinese with Latin alphabet Characters.  My point is what systems are used by the RoC and the PRC, not whether if they 'name' a place or not.
 * And my original point still stands. The PRC uses the Pinyin system, nothing else.  All romanisations in the PRC are done in Pinyin, simple as that.  The RoC is not, the RoC is all FUTURE romanisations are done in Pinyin, old names stay unless their respective local governments chooses to change.  Townships and cities are changed only if they choose to be changed.  They don't have to change if they don't want to.  NONE of the changes of the names are done by the Central Government, ALL are done by their respective local governments.  It was Taipei whom chose to change all of their internal romanisations into Pinyin, NOT the RoC.  It was Taipei whom chose NOT to change their city name into Tabei, NOT the RoC.
 * Treating each language 'fairly', ha! Then what about the romanisation systems then?  Who says that Pinyin is better than Tongyong and WG?  Lemme ask you, who are you to discriminate and say which system is better than the other?  I have no standards with Hoklo and Hakka, as personally I don't care if they're on or not, makes little difference.  Actually I've got multiple reasons, one is that no harm comes to including them, the other is because if they are taken off the only thing that will happen is that I'll loose at the reason of 'better article'.  I'm applying the same reason here, no harm comes to including Tongyong and WG, and removing them from does not make the article a 'better' article.  Wikipedia is not about 'fairness', wikipedia is about making a better article with reliable sources.  Liu Tao (talk) 22:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

 * All right, one thing you don't know about Taiwan is our "exclusively" standard is a table listing all the names, not a romanization system. If this article is about the list of names of townships or minor place, I will agree with you to add these two columns, because their transcript changed sometime, and now in Taiwan still can see many "old" romanization in signs and documents following that names. BUT in the name of counties and major cities are different, the list regularize their names never changed. The names had been used after 1945 and remain unchanged, their history are even longer than Hanyu Pinyin in the PRC (adopted in 1958, complete in 1978). Your reason about why only put Hanyu pinyin for Chinese Provinces and cities can also apply on Taiwanese cities and counties, and even more stronger. The changes of names happens in 1945 and keep it till today, which is earlier than the changes to Pinyin in the PRC.

 * Another thing is, if you want the systems are used by the RoC and the PRC in the article. You forget that WG still used in the PRC until 1978 (see 汉语拼音), and there are also many romanizations for local languages in China, they still used parallel with Hanyu Pinyin today (like Tibetan Pinyin). So I think if you agree only left Hanyu Pinyin in the China page, the situation is the same here. And I have to say, my choice is not one system is "better" than the other, i think these columns are related to "languages" the romanization only symbols the pronunciation, i choose the mostly used system for the language. If you insist on what had been used should be put into the table, you will meet an exploded table, in the past there's no unified rules for romanizations, every local government in Taiwan has it's own rules. No one cares about it until 2002, after Ma Yin-Jeou conflict with the central government which lead by DPP. Before it, Taiwanese romanization is totally in a mess. I don't think it's a good idea to list all the romanizations used by the government in the table.Energiya (talk) 13:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

 * I'm not using systems used by both the RoC and PRC in the article, I want the systems that the RoC uses, and currently the old WG, GR, MPSII, and Tongyong systems are still in use. It's got nothing to do with the names, as I have said multiple times.  The situation here has got nothing to do with the PRC, stop pulling the PRC in, I don't deal with the PRC and I don't bloody care about the PRC, I've got nothing to do with their articles and never have I tried to edit their articles, and I'm not gonna start now.  I've given you my view of what the deal with the PRC is multiple times, stop screwing with my statements.  I'm going to say this one last time in bold font and in capital letters, either you read it and understand it or you don't.  This is as clear as it's gonna get, so don't go analysing part of the statement and ignore the rest, if you want to analyse it, analyse it as a whole:

 * '''THE PRC USES ONLY THE PINYIN SYSTEM FOR ROMANISATION, ALL OTHER SYSTEMS ARE NO LONGER IN USE, ALL PREVIOUS ROMANISATIONS HAVE BEEN REDONE WITH PINYIN. THE ROC'S CURRENT OFFICIAL SYSTEM IS PINYIN, BUT THE ROC DOES NOT ONLY USE PINYIN, ALL OF THE PREVIOUS SYSTEMS ARE TECHNICALLY STILL IN USE AS THEY HAVE NOT BEEN ALL RENAMED USING PINYIN.  UNTIL THE ROC ITSELF RENAMES ALL OF ITS ADMINISTRATIVE REGIONS ACCORDING TO THE PINYIN ROMANISATION, THE ROC TECHNICALLY STILL USES ALL OF THE FOLLOWING SYSTEMS FOR ROMANISATION: WADE-GILES, GWOYEU ROMATZYH, MANDARIN PHONETIC SYMBOLS II, TONGYONG PINYIN, AND HANYU PINYIN.

 * My statement is as clear as it gets. It explains why WG shouldn't be added to PRC administrations and why it along with other systems should still remain with the RoC administrations.  By adding 2-4 more columns into the table won't make it 'explode', as far as I can see on my computer screen the table looks fine with an extra 2 columns, I don't see any 'explosions'.  Actually it would because of the map on the side, but that can solved easily by just moving it to above or below the table
 * Your argument about only using the most used system is invalid, wikipedia is not a democracy or a consensus, you cannot only use a system just because its the 'most used system'. As long as the info and data provided can be verified or sourced, the info and data can be used if used correctly.  Look, I see what your view is, your view is to use the most common system of the language.  My view is to use the systems still in use by the government.  Actually not really, that's just my argument.  My actual reason behind keeping the 2 columns is because there's no reason why they should go.  Deleting them doesn't make the article any 'better', you're just removing information for not really any reason but 'It's unfair for Mandarin to have so many columns'.  I'm gonna say this again, Wikipedia is not about 'fairness', wikipedia is about providing reliable and verifiable information, what you have done is the opposite of that, removing reliable and verified information.  Liu Tao (talk) 22:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

 * The different situation in Taiwan compares to what you said about the PRC is, our policy just limited the usage of the system in some places. As I showed the rules about romanizatons in Taiwan before. And theese names are common sense in Taiwan and the rest of the world, just like the PRC didn't change Hong Kong to Xianggang, and Macao to Aomen. In the territory of PRC, pinyin is also not unique at all. If you insist on putting a system of romanization which being used only in some part of names to the other places in ROC or PRC, this will only makes contradictions and chaos. The names in Hong Kong and Macao are from Cantonese, I think you will not agree to add Cantonese names for all the place names exist in the PRC. Maybe you will say that the names under Hong Kong and Macao are very special, then I will say the county names are very special in Taiwan, too. They also got their historical reasons to keep their systems in limited places. Energiya (talk) 20:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

 * The only thing different about the RoC is that it continues to retain the old system. It's no longer used for new romanisations, but old romanisations are kept.  The RoC doesn't change the old government names, only the local governments themselves chooses to change to Hanyu Pinyin.  As for the case with Hong Kong and Aomen, there actually are maps which lists 'Xianggang' and 'Aomen' (courtesy of National Geographic).  Anyways, partly why HK and MC are able to retain their names is because of their autonomy status and the treaty agreed on of 'No change for 50 years'.  And actually yes, I do agree that Cantonese names for all places in the PRC AND the RoC exists in Cantonese.  Their Cantonese names are simple, just read the characters in Cantonese.  And now, for the RoC regional names, they keep their names because they don't want to rename using Pinyin, regardless of the reason why.  The PRC on the other hand chose to rename all of their regional names using Pinyin.  And hey, how do you know that they didn't rename any of the counties using Tongyong or Pinyin?  Some of the old names are exactly the same as they would be with Tongyong and Pinyin spelling (eg. Tainan Taoyuan Penghu).  They probably did change it and you didn't notice.  Haha, now I'm just being childish.
 * If I buy and play the gameboy classic and play gameboy classic games on it, then buy a gameboy colour yet only play the new gameboy colour games on it but continue to play the original gameboy classic games on gameboy classic despite the fact that I can play the games on gameboy colour as well, I am still technically still 'playing' the gameboy classic, despite the fact that I don't play anymore new games with it. The PRC on the other hand are those who had a gameboy classic, but when they got the gameboy colour, they threw out the gameboy classic and plays all games regardless of new or old on gameboy colour.  Huh, seems like I was being serious when saying that I was being childish, talk about playing with gameboys, lol.
 * Alright, I'll stop being childish, though I know you won't like to get at what I'm gonna tell you. So you remember about how you say that none of the 'top' divisions of the RoC changed their names?  Well, the Fukien province renamed itself to FuJian Province.  You can take a peek on their government website here.  Now, I can guess what kind of BS you're gonna start bringing up about provinces, but hohoho, no matter how you're gonna argue, Provinces will always be a tier above Counties.  Liu Tao (talk) 14:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

 * Fine, finally you notice that Hanyu Pinyin is not uniquely existed in the territory of the PRC. I absolutely know what happens in HKSAR and MCSAR after 1997 and 1999. There is no doubt that HKSAR and MCSAR are territory of the PRC, and the PRC government didn't change the romanizations there, just like the ROC didn't change the romanizations for major cities and counties. But the romanizations using Cantonese pronunciations in HKSAR and MCSAR are only the most obvious example, not the only exceptions in China. There are two photos can show other types romanizations still exist in some places Zatang and Lhasa, and Linkor, Dogdi and Ngachen. These photos are taken in Tibet(Xizang) Autonomous Region. So based on your argument, the Tibetan romanizations need to add into the table of Chinese even those places never use Tibetan Pinyin?? And this is not the end yet, in PRC there are also Uyghur romanization, Mongolian romanization(like Huhhot), most of the language of the "Minor ethics" in China has it's own romanization.........you may started to feel "explode" now.

 * The website you offered is quiet interesting,FKPG. It doesn't suggest any "change" of Pinyin, it only shows totally a chaos. The web site domain name is "FKPG" from the initial of "Fukien" Provincial Government (postal maps), the title of the page is "Fujian" (Hanyu Pinyin), and the first line says "Fuchien" (WG). So......do you still think it's really a change? Actually, I found this very interesting page in a few months ago, I also send an email to ask them to unified the romanizations, but I haven't got any response. Did the romanization of 福建 change? The only answer I can find from the governmental document is the passports. The ROC Passport holder who born in Kinmen and Lienchiang county, their place of birth listed in FUKIEN. It doesn't changed. So that's why I want to say, the right system used in the wrong place (the place never use it), this is also a "wrong information", too. In Taiwan we suffer from the complexity of Pinyins. There is no need to increase the chaos.Energiya (talk) 10:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

 * What about the official names? What you see is just a name on a billboard, doesn't say jack about the official names.  Oh, sure, I write 'Taibei' instead of 'Taipei', does that mean that the name changed?  No it does not.
 * Do you know how difficult it is to change a URL? You have to move entire sites, it's much easier to change the name of an administrative region than to remake an entire internet domain and server.  Sure the site content uses 'Fuchien', but there are times when it uses 'FuJian' as well.  There's nothing wrong with using old names, I do that all the time, sometimes I type 'Fukien' or 'Nanking' instead of their official names.  As far as I know, the big title banner at the very top of the government website uses 'FuJian', and that's what I'm taking into account.  The passport you have is probably an old one issued before renaming, have you taken that into account?  Even if there's no source saying that the name was 'officially changed', the fact that the FuJian government uses 'FuJian' by default would be the most concrete source there is toward to what the current English 'name' of FuJian is.  Taiwan doesn't suffer from any complexity of Romanisation systems, by adding in 2 columns doesn't increase any chaos.  If to solve any complexity at all, we might as well just remove all of the romanisations instead to be here bickering about which should stay and which shouldn't, no romanisations, no complexity, easy as that.  I'm adding, actually, rephrase that--I'm retaining 2 columns of romanisations of which is of appropriate use to the column.  Technically there isn't any rule within Wikipedia that says that we can only use the 'official romanisations' or the 'official' of anything.  As long as the information provided is legit, it can stay, which you are on the contrary violating.  The information you removed is legit and can be reliably sourced, the information you removed is appropriate to the subject at hand (all romanisations are of popular use one time or another in the RoC/Taiwan).  As far as I am concerned, you are the violator of wikipedia code.  Liu Tao (talk) 14:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

 * Official names of 福建 is still not unified. There's no official order from government about this case. The others are written here. I think this is because the provinces are streamlined, and no one cares about this. Actually, beside Passport, I still cannot find any laws or orders about this. For the passport, I'm very sure that recently is still listed as FUKIEN, I have ask an officer in our MoFA about one month ago. I can offer you another case in 2008, the site use Fujian is made in 2006, this case is more near. And to change an URL is quiet easy in Taiwan. Unlike China, we have no internet censorship, just issue an order to TWNIC, and tell them to map your server IP to the new Domain Name, and it's complete, no need to move anything in the site. In Taiwan we can even order commercial and individual domain names online, like from Hinet, .gov names need an order from governmental office but the procedure is just easy likely the same.

 * As you did ask, I'm very sure that our romanization of counties and major cities didn't change since 1945, even there's some places' romanization is the same in various system, but no doubt the other is not change, too. We never use county names like Sinjhu, Xinzhu, Gaosyong, Gaoxiong....etc. Of course you can find some data from the internet using such romanizations, this is back to your problem "If I write a name on a billboard, doesn't say jack about the official names. Oh, sure, I write 'Taibei' instead of 'Taipei', does that mean that the name changed?  No it does not."

 * So we can back to the main problem now, what should be put on wiki, the validity of data is very important. I have said the names now is a common sense in Taiwan and the rest of the world. The government, the people groups, political parties, and almost every people who can introduce Taiwan in English uses these names as the only names of counties and major cities. It's not appropriate to put a romanization to a place which no one ever used, like putting Tibetan, Uyghur, Mongol romanizations to Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou. Yes, the Tibetan Pinyin and others are also reliability, but from the historical or the governmental view, these cities have nothing to do with these romanizations. Every place should be treat independently, we cannot say we have a Tibetan Lhasa, so we have to add an Tibetan romanization to Beijing. Reliability for a romanization to A PLACE should been either used by the government in a period of time, or used by some groups of people in a period of time. The Tongyong column and purely WG column did not meet these two requirement. Energiya (talk) 07:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

 * (c) 2006 FUJIAN Provincial Government. All Rights Reserved. Obviously the 'official' name of the province has become 'Fujian'.  And as for the change in internet domain, even if you do change the bloody URL, there's still the 'old url' problem.  All links linking to the 'old' url's would no longer work unless you continue to maintain the old domain make a series of redirect pages.  It's much less work to keep the old domain than to move to a new one, actually, it's no work at all to keep the old domain.  When Windows 7 came out, many people with Vista chose to stay with Vista instead of upgrading their systems to 7, despite the 'horribleness' of Vista.  It's much less work to keep the old systems than having to install an entire OS, then reinstall your programs and copy in and sort your files.
 * And I've said many times, the romanisations are NOT the names of the counties, the county names are their names, the romanisation systems are just romanisations of their Chinese names, it's got nothing to do with their actual 'names'. Stop bloody pulling in the PRC articles, we are talking about this article, not the other articles.  I don't care about those articles, those articles have got nothing to do with me or with this article.  Wikipedia does not state that articles must be consistent, or that a romanisation to a place be used by the government in whatever a period of time.  If that is so, then Hanyu Pinyin and POJ should ALL be removed, as none of them were used for the romanisation of the County and Municipality names.  In fact, the only system ever used would be Wade-Giles.  Wikipolicy states that only the information needs to be reliable and appropriate where placed.  As far as I know, the information is reliable, and the place where used is appropriate as it's romanising the County names in their respective languages.  The information you have removed conforms entirely within Wikipolicy.  Liu Tao (talk) 16:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

 * You think too much about the ability of our government, in this case the old domain name can still exist. Like wikipedia.org and wikipedia.com both lead to the same page. There's many simple ways to solve this problem. The only reason is no one cares about the romanizations!! They only hired a company to do that, and do not care what the romanizations about. I did say, we don't have an internet censorship in Taiwan, the page can be put online without any supervision. If the office which hire the company didn't care, the webpage may include many errors and contradictions. This site is the obvious example. You cannot just pick information which support you, and ignore the others.

 * A "Romanizarion" is a Roman (or Latin) transcript to the "Chinese name" of a term. It also related to the place's "actual Chinese name". I use the example of the wikipage about the PRC only for explaining my consideration, "Whether a romanization should be used on a place's Chinese name? It must from historical view or the administrative view". If the romanizations just never used for that Chinese name, it should not be listed. (or it's just like to put the romanization of the minor ethic's language in to major cities in China.) There's many pages in wiki use this standard, beside the PRC page, we can see the example of South Korea and Japan. South Korea changed its romanization system in 2002, and in the Administrative divisions of South Korea page only list the Revised Romanization, and the Japanese page just ignores the official Kunrei-shiki romanization and use only the Hepburn romanization. Are they "violate" more to the wikipolicy?? So I would say that if the system never used by some people(without who only makes a mistake) to romianize a place's Chinese name, then it's not an appropriate information. I didn't see the usage of those romanization in some articles at all. Wikipedia does not state that articles must be consistent, but does not state that articles need not to be consistent, too. This not a reason. Energiya (talk) 08:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

 * You still fail to address the most important aspect of Wikipolicy, which is verifiable information. As far as I can understand, as long as the information provided can be reliably verified, the information has cause to stay.  However you have chose to remove verified information, that in itself is a violation of wikipedia's policy.  I dunno what's up with Japan and the RoK's articles as I don't monitor them, and I don't care.  All I care is that there was information on this page that is reliable and placed appropriately which you have removed.  204.126.132.34 (talk) 16:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

 * I have said the present romanization for counties and major cities are common sense in Taiwan and the rest of the world. The government, the people groups, political parties, and almost every people who can introduce Taiwan in English uses do not use these system to romanize the Chinese names of counties and major cities. It's not appropriate to put a romanization to a place which never used by almost every people, every place should be treat independently. Like putting Tibetan or other romanizations to Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou. The Pinyin systems of minor ethics are also can be reliably verified, but from the historical or the governmental view, these cities have nothing to do with these romanizations. It's not appropriate to add information like this kind. Energiya (talk) 14:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

 * Okay, who the hell when introducing Taipei City to foreigners spell the name out as 'Taibei'? What about Gaoxiong, Taizhong, Jiayi, Jilong, and Xinzhu?  Based on your argument Hanyu Pinyin and POJ as well shouldn't be present at all since it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the English names of the said localities.  My argument on keeping verified and appropriate information stays.  Wade-Giles and Tongyong has been historically used on an en masse scale within the RoC, maybe not with the actual romanisations of the names themselves (but then Hanyu Pinyin doesn't have anything to do with the names either), but they were used by the RoC on a National scale, therefore to include the information is indeed appropriate.  The information is reliable and can be verified, therefore it has cause to stay.  Liu Tao (talk) 15:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

 * Areyou living in Taiwan? It seems you do not know so much about the recent status of our usage of romanizations. What about Hanyu Pinyin?? I can offer an example, the Taiwan Railway Administration, it very clearly that they used Hanyu Pinyin as the supplemental romanizations to the railway stations. And if you can get a paper book of timetable of TRA all the supplemental romanizations just like that on the website. (I don't know what the point to add Hanyu Pinyin on it, too, but it really exist....) And the POJ system is using by the people who study Taiwanese and hakka in Taiwan. They usually use this to write the romanization Taiwanese. And POJ are also used to teach Taiwanese and Hakka to the people who does not use it as their mother tongue. But in the official or non-official document i cannot see any use to the names you try to add, they stay inappropriate. And i have provide that the wikipage of divisions of China, Japan, Korea, and Hong Kong. all of them only use the mostly used or/and official or/and ever used romanizations to a place in their page, I think a page like that did not violate anything. Energiya (talk) 05:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

 * Last thing I'd do is tell somebody where I live so they can come hunt me down. Taiwan is only 36000 sq km in size, it's not very large or a lot of ground to cover to search for someone.  I know fully well what the usage of romanisations are, and I can tell you that Tongyong is still used to a limited basis within the RoC.  It's still in use for personal names.  If you've ever gotten your passport done before, you'll know that you have a choice between the multiple amount of possible romanisations you can choose from.  I'm very sure that there are still some signs around which were made between 2002 and 2008 which still uses the Tongyong romanisation.  The use of romanisation is not controlled by the Central government.  The local governments chooses whatever romanisation system they want to use.  The south tends to continue the use of Tongyong.
 * And no, I'm not falling out of point again. Stop bringing this BS up about it 'being used' or not.  You've removed verifiable and reliable information and data, what is your justification on that?  I did not say the other pages violated anything, I'm saying YOU violated wikipolicy by removing reliable and verifiable information.  Wikipedia is not about uniformity, it's about verification and reliability of the information.  You removed information that was verifiable and reliable, now explain.  Liu Tao (talk) 18:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

 * I did have a passport, one can choose the romanization systems if he/she likes, even POJ is also acceptable. But to interpret a romanized name of a place or a person is different from choosing romanization to oneself. A romanization to a place local name is meaningful since it used by someone in some period of time. Then this romanization can be related to such a place. If it never used at any while, it may classified to an incorrect information, and it's improbable to exist in this page. Being used or not is a basic requirement. Like it's wrong related Ma Ying-jiou to the current president of ROC, because he never used it, although this romanization is a "standard" of ROC. Romanizations is not only "standards", it must be used then it's meaningful and can related to such a thing. Energiya (talk) 05:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

 * A romanisation is a romanisation of a language using Latin characters, simple as that. Pinyin is one, Tongyong is one, and WG is one.  They are NOT Chinese, they are romanisation systems.  Chinese is the bloody non-latin chinese characters that we call, well, Chinese characters.  Information is not correct if it's not used.  I got hit by a car, but I haven't told anyone about it for a while, does it mean that it's incorrect?  No, I still got hit by a car.  Xinbei is still spelt 'Sinbei' in Tonyong, and Chiayi is still spelt 'Chia-i' in WG.  I didn't say that the information is being used, I'm saying that it is information with verifiable and reliable sources.  Based on wikipolicy, it has cause to stay.  Liu Tao (talk) 20:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

 * So, if they are related to "languages", we should also add Tongyong, WG, and whatever "systems" as we know to the page. I ever say it, there are at least 5 systems on Mandarin, more than 10 systems to Taiwanese.....the page will become a mess, and contains many repeat information. Based on your reason they also got to stay here. And don't forget on the "languages" argument, Tongyong and other systems also can be also applied to the place names of the PRC (like Guangjhou?!Chongcing?!). Language is nothing to do with the borders of country. These names pronounced in Mandarin, and Tongyong is a system to romanize Mandarin, WG is also a system to romanize Mandarin, and etc. What the hell is it? Energiya (talk) 09:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

 * If you want to, go ahead, as long as it's reliable and can be verified. And as I've said before, I dunno what the heck is with the PRC, and I don't care about what's with the PRC.  We're talking about this article, stay with this article.  WG, TY, and GR are 3 of the main systems used within the ROC.  They're still lingering around.  Don't gimme that bullcrap about languages not having borders.  Point is, there was verifiable and reliable info on the page and you removed it.  Liu Tao (talk) 22:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

 * I did say if a romanization never been used to a specific places, it doesn't fit the requirement of verifiable and reliable. Every place should be talk independently, the three system didn't used on the place names in counties and municipalities. And if we have a dispute, look outside to the similar wiki article is a choice. If the title is similar, i don't think it's wrong to take the similar standard with the similar articles, coz many people edit most of other pages using this standard to select romanizations into the pages about administrative area.Energiya (talk) 03:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Levels
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Statements about ROC territorial claims
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)
 * 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)

Changes to ROC Territory since 1949
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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links 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 II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 one external links 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)

Requested move 1 January 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: rename to Administrative divisions of Taiwan. (non-admin closure) --  Dane talk  04:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrative divisions of the Republic of China → Administrative divisions of Taiwan – After the 1970s, the PRC became solely known as "China" and the ROC became simply as "Taiwan". Should this article be renamed to "Administrative divisions of Taiwan" per WP:COMMONNAME? Wrestlingring (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , 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)
 * Rename to match the article Taiwan which is about the whole state, including the claimed but not controlled areas, and not just the island. Timrollpickering 19:27, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support renaming per nomination. --T*U (talk) 07:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support to match main article title. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. The administration that exists today is conducted differently to the historical administration, which exists as an abstract concept rather than actual administrative divisions, which is what this article is about. CMD (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support – Keep it simple per WP:CONCISE. — JFG talk 11:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merger proposal
I propose that the following historical divisions articles be merged to those of modern divisions: They are mostly stubs, and can be covered in the modern divisions articles. Szqecs (talk) 14:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Kaohsiung County
 * Taichung County
 * Tainan County
 * Taipei County
 * Taoyuan County, Taiwan
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * It might be worth taking a look at Chinese language Wikipedia, which maintains separate/historical pages for Kaohsiung County (高雄縣), Taichung County (臺中縣), Tainan County (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)
 * Agreed.--RekishiEJ (talk) 02:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. They are different municipalities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calvinwlin (talk • contribs) 07:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
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)

Map
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)

title: Talk:Administrative divisions of Taiwan