File talk:China administrative.svg

Grey areas

The purpose of this map is to show how China is administratively divided. Obviously it can only administer areas it control. It is in full control of all its parts of Kashmir, and so they should be shown as such, without a giant grey spot hiding the border between Xinjiang and Tibet. The territories it does not control, but claims, are grey and connected to the provinces they would otherwise be part of. This is clear and simple, and doesn't place too much information in an image which wasn't meant for that. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

If your purpose is to depict how China is administered, please remove the grayed parts as they are not administered by the PRC. Otherwise, for reference, see how the map of India is shown on a featured article.--kondi ^{talk/contribs}17:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The purpose is to show how it is divided. The grey areas are included in China's legal divisions, just as Pakistani Kashmir is included in India's legal divisions, although neither controls that territory. The principle here is the same as the map used in the infobox of the India page. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• This image is also used in the en:Provinces of the People's Republic of China, it shows provincial level division in the law, not showing it is under control or not. It is very funny that Taiwan is a province in the article but the map has no Taiwan in it.user:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington keep reverting the image to the version of no Taiwan and no China-India arguing territory, it is not neutral, especially he seems from India and as a administrator on the English Wikipedia. Check en:India, why dont remove the part of territory claimed by China map out? Werran (talk) 07:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

And he was threatening block my account btw(tho im not a "single purpose account"), check my talk page. Werran (talk) 07:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• All articles using this image mention it as de jure, not de facto. I don't think the change is being justified; I suggest changing back to previous status quo, until proper justification provided. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 08:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Taiwan in the map is in grey, plus the explanation "claimed". How could it violate the policy w:WP:NPOV? --Makecat (talk) 11:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with you, I don't see how the grey areas violate NPOV at all. I find it strange that there has not been any proper justification or explanation from the side wishing to remove Taiwan and South Tibet from the image, other than "It's not NPOV", which is a pretty vague claim in itself. I'd like those on the other side to actually address issues being brought up. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 01:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• It violates NPOV by giving undue weight to modifications not frequently seen in reliable sources. You cannot find at least a minority of reliable sources to add international border dispute remarks to maps of interprovincial boundaries designed by PRC. Quote policy: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not."

• I suggest to keep the images as it currently is and copy the version with claims to File:China administrative with claims.svg or to a similar descriptive filename. --Denniss (talk) 12:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Why? Any discussion of the PRC's administrative divisions should mention the official positions of the PRC with regards to what those divisions are (as it its the authority that creates them). Having a map that doesn't include those areas is completely unhelpful to any reader. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with Chipmunkdavis's argument; that this map shows China's constitutional divisions, which include Taiwan as well as South Tibet. The comparison to the India maps is spot-on. Actually, an appallingly high number of maps on Commons show all of (India's definition of) Kashmir as Indian territory, with no indication of who actually controls what. We are already being fair by graying out—a starking contrast, in this case—the parts without effective PRC control, instead of keeping them in the same shade. Quigley (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I would strongly urge you all to take this discussion to en:Talk:China rather than here, where more users can participate in the content-related discussion. Thanks. Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (talk) 19:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

After a scan across the en:talk:China, user:kondi expressed the concern over the grey shade might not be enough to indicate the de-facto state of Kashmir and Taiwan. I personally agree with that the version includes Kashmir and Taiwan can be further improved to disambiguate like adding diagonal pattern in those area or some clarifying text next to "Kashmir" and "Taiwan". -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 15:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Disputed territory should be included on the map and labeled appropriately. This includes territory claimed by other countries and administered by the PRC. IIRC, the PRC also has territorial disputes with Vietnam, and these and any other territorial disputes should also be included, if they are large enough to be seen on the map. (I expect there are maps that qualify as RS that include this information.) If individually labeling each disputed territory clutters the map too much, a legend may be a better way of including the information. All territorial disputes should be mentioned in the political geography section of the China article. Just my opinion.--Wikimedes (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

People, people, let's have all of the talk at en:Talk:China. There's no point in having the discussion decentralised, with bits of it here, and bits of it there. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 03:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Font size

Hong Kong and Macau should have the same font size as the provinces. Rendered on EN, they have the same font size as the capitol cities of provinces. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 17:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)