Talk:Taichung/Archive 1

Archive 1

220.132.217.171 - Show yourself

Who are you? You have made no comments in here, and no justification for removing accurate information I have recently added. If you don't come in here to justify your inaccurate statements, I will be forced to bring this to the next level. You are not a registered user. Please come out of hiding. ==Ludahai (10/3/06 14:36 UTC)

I live in Taichung and I just looked at some of the edits. Ludahai's edits are generally pretty accurate about our city. Let him complete the site, or make comments in here. Do not ruin the work he is doing on this page. (民國95-10-4 AM10:23)

Please stop your vandalism. Ludahai 06:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Ongoing Editing

As noted before, I am working on bringing this page up to Wikipedia Cities Project Standards. Here is a summary of edits made on September 29, 2006.

1. Delete the two sentences about geography in the introduction, and move to the new section on geography. 2. Put in sources for the symbols. 3. Reduce “Districts” to a subsection within the new “Geography” section. 4. Edit tree, add link 5. Edit flower, add link 6. Add link to bird: 7. Add Geography section 8. Edited population to reflect figure given on the Taichung city website 9. Edit Sister Cities section 10. Edit capital to eliminate abbreviation 11. Mention adoption of HanYu Pinyin in the intruduction with reference

Please do not sabotage my efforts.

Someone came on again and sabotaged the entry with unsourced information. How can I ask for this entry to be restricted to editing by registered users? == Ludahai (10/3/06 14:17 UTC)

References section has been added and will grow as more book references are referred to in the development of this page. Ludahai 23:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Over the next couple of days, I will be highlighting the cultural spots in the city. I will also go around and take some pictures. Hopefully, I can also get close enough to the new baseball stadium to get a picture there as well.

I expect the major research anddata entry to take another week to ten days. Then, I will need to clean it up. Check for typos, make it smoother - especially due to damage created by others. I will then seek advice from others on WikiProject Cities. Hopefully, within three weeks to a month, this will be a presentable page. Ludahai 13:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's keep this objective

I came to this page after months of absence and saw numerous unsupportable opinions by some person who obviously has something against the City of Taichung. I am once again in the process of fixing up this article with facts, and devoid of opinion. If someone comes in here and begins inserting unsubstantiated opinion again, they WILL be reported!

Michael Turton: There's a rumor running around that I am responsible for the negative tone of this page. I had nothing to do with the creation or maintenance of this page. In the future I hope to edit it up to a more reasonable standard, and include plenty of pictures. -- Michael

Ludahai: Michael, I don't know who did what, and I frankly don't care. I would love to have help in making this a world class page. I have several friends of mine who are Taiwanese, local Taichung residents, who are helping me gather information for this page. Any positives contributions are appreciated. - Tuesday, October 3 7:00 (Taiwan time)

This article is pretty cranky in tone still. I can see that it's getting better. I've visited Taizhong a few times and it is a pretty neat place, not nearly as drab/bland/awful as this article might make you think. The transportation system section was pretty funny a while back - quite true, but someone with a major chip on their shoulder about Taiwan in general wrote it (buxiban teacher?)... Keep up the good work in cleaning this up... Aep 16:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Michael Turton: Ludahai, this page is now AWESOME. Great work. Orz Orz Orz

WikiProject Cities discussion

I am creating this topic for comments on how to finish bringing this article up to WikiProject Cities standards. Ludahai 03:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Great work with this; my initial impression is that this page is really coming together. I haven't had a chance to fully read it all, as I'm at work, but one thing that jumps out at me right away is the international airport section. In my opinion this should really be on its own page. Mention the airport but link to an airport article. A good airport article is Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport. I'll give the page a full read later and let you know what else needs done, but this looks fantastic so far. Nach0king 08:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I read your message on my Talkpage. If you go to "edit this page" and the top line reads, "This article is xx kilobytes long" (the xx stands for the number), I would recommend making it short and concise. Also add this page to your Watchlist in case the vandalism gets rowdy. --D.F. "Jun Kazama Master" Williams 12:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC).

It is a very good article. I think it should be featured. --FreshFruitsRule 20:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello Ludahai

What made you think of me when asking me to evaluate your page? I think your article deserves featured article status. Your work is outstanding. Auroranorth

Article length

Hi Ludahai, just added some templates to decrease article length. For examples of city articles see featured articles of places, though even these have differences in quality/structure. Best regards, Brz7 11:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Infobox, units, and citations

Hi Ludahai,
I am responding to the message for review you left on my talk page. I only quickly scanned the article, I'll read it more completely later, but here are a few simple sugguests.

• If you could use the standard infobox (Template:Infobox city) that would be great.
• A couple of the metric units need their imperial counterparts.
• Do you have any type of citation concerning the part about the speed limits being optional and stop signs being suggestions? I know that you live there and you probably see it everyday, but a citation like a newspaper article would be nice (or required).

From what I seen it looks good so far. —MJCdetroit 12:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

1. I don't think this article is ready for feature status yet. There is still too much work to do.

2. I need to look at more Chinese language sources, but Chinese is not my native language, so that will take me some time.

3. I will work on the suggested articles that others have posted, as well as an in depth article on temples. There are a large number of them in the city.

4. I will get to work on many of these items next week.

Thanks. Ludahai 00:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Taichung-related articles/imagery

Sorry I'm late, Ludahai. From what I can see, you and your colleagues primarily contributing to this article have done a pretty decent job. My only real concerns lie in regards to this formatting of images and the lack of linked articles to Taichung related information.

First off, the linking, I see a lot of links heading sections for education, history, etc., but they all seem to be non-existent articles as of now. The formatting for the manual fits with the links, but without articles to link to it seems to defeat it's purpose.

Second, the image formatting is cluttered and lacks good form, spacing, etc. For example, the crowding in "Japanese Colonial Era", where there are other very good spots to put the images you've got... And to me, it looks like you've got all your pics on the right side of the page generally. There's a couple problems you could work out, like the lack of external links, and the images/linking issue I just noted.

Besides that, this article looks pretty decent, as I earlier remarked. I agree with MJCdetroit on the citation issue, but like I said, there are just a few little issues that could be fixed in an edit or two that would improve the article a lot. Thanks for requesting my help! It's not to often a guy from Denver gets to talk about Taichung. Have a good one. Editor19841 (talk) 23:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

thanks for all of the comments. I am currently working on the affiliated articles, which will then allow me to cut some off of the main Taichung article. I will also clean it up and introduce more sources once I have done that. I am currently working on the temples and education articles. Transportation and History will be next - and less problematic. Ludahai 10:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Inner City Intersections

I live in downtown Taichung. Nearly ALL major and many minor intersections have English signage on them. This anonomous person who keeps posting otherwise had better come up with a source for this. == (Ludahai 10/3/06 14:28 UTC)

I'm not that user, but in my personal experience that Romanization in Taizhong is pretty hit-and-miss, especially compared to Tainan, Gaoxiong, Jilong, etc. Even Gangshan does a better job than TZ. Maybe it's just that I notice all of the omissions? I dunno Aep 17:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Taichu vs Taichung

Dear Ludahai, Taichung was called Taichu (Taichū in proper romaji) during the Japanese Colonial Era. I don't see any conflict. A similar issue might be that modern-day Kaohsiung was renamed from Takau (打狗) to Takao (高雄) during the same era. Oniows 13:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Semi Democratic Era

Taiwan is not at true democracy. The constitution being used by the ROC has not been ratified or accepted by the people of Taiwan. The Republic of China does not hold Taiwan's sovereignty thus it can not decree or renounce anyone as Taiwanese. The fact that non ROC citizens residing on Taiwan, numbering nearly 1,000,000 people are legally prohibited from participating in Taiwan politics under threat of crimial prosecution is indicative of a non democratic state.

That the ROC does not hold Taiwan's sovereignty is a POV claim that only the independence side accepts. Also, if not allowing non citizens to participate in politics is indicative of a non democratic state, then which country in the world is democratic, according to you? -- ran (talk) 22:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

 ----------------------------

Taiwan is an occupied territory of the ROC, the ROC does not hold Taiwan's sovereignty. This not a POV claim, but fully substantiated in international law. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_occupation http://www.taiwanbasic.com/taiwan/tda5.htm No one is saying that non ROC citizens should have the right to participate in ROC elections. The fact that non ROC citizens are legally prohibited from participating in any election on Taiwan by the ROC is indicative of an occupational government.

Furthermore, the ROC openly nullifies the basic human rights of non ROC citizens on Taiwan. This is another clear indicator of the occupation of Taiwan. Taiwan is not a democracy but a democratic farce.

Please show any internationally recognized document justifying the ROC claims that Taiwan is the soveriegn territory of the ROC. There are none and there will never be any. The succession of Taiwan to the ROC was illegal and illigitimate under international law and the Laws of War.

Unfortunately, this is YOUR point of view, which is not accepted by the Kuomintang. The Kuomintang regards the Cairo and Potsdam Declarations as valid international documents. Wikipedia does not belong to your POV, it belongs to all POV's.

Also, you just contradicted yourself there by saying: No one is saying that non ROC citizens should have the right to participate in ROC elections. The fact that non ROC citizens are legally prohibited from participating in any election on Taiwan by the ROC is indicative of an occupational government.

Finally, if you feel so strongly about the ROC, why aren't you editing Republic of China?

Why are you editing the article Taichung, which should be about the city, not the country? -- ran (talk) 05:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

---

There are no claims on the ROC page stating that Taiwan is a democratic nation or in a "democratic era". I might suggest that these statements be removed from the Taichung page because they are false. The ROC is a foreign occupational power controlling Taiwan and Taichung.

Restricting freedom of speech based entirely on ethnicity or citizenship is just one of the the many blatant human right violations being perpetrated against the people on Taiwan by the ROC. see "election and recall laws of the Republic of China" The ROC has the right to restrict political participation in the ROC government, it does not however have the right to restrict political activity on Taiwan. The fact that it does is indicative of an occupational government. Again, a Point of View becomes a fact when it is substantiated by international law. For Wikipedia's point of view on the matter see Laws of War and Military occupation. The KMT is not recognised as anything, by anyone, outside of itself. Again please refer to any recognized international document supporting your claim the the ROC is the legitimate government of Taiwan or that Taiwan is a democratic state and I will relent.

Please follow Wikipedia guidelines by signing with four tildes.

As for your POV, I happen to agree with it. However, it IS POV and futhermore, this is NOT the forum for it. ludahai 魯大海 11:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Stop the vandalism

I can't believe the childishness of some people on here. This used to have Good Article status and I was trying to elevate it even higher. Childish antics have resulted in its being downgraded. ludahai 魯大海 13:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

GA failed

Too listy. Many redlinks. Poor writing ("Taichung is rarely severely affected by typhoons, except once it was terribly inflicted by Wayne Typhoon in 1986 which landed Taiwan from the west coast near Taichung."). Too many pictures, including three that cover both the right and left sides of the text. Most content seems to be taken from tourist brochures. --Ideogram 06:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

None of the reasons above have been addressed. Minimal changes. Please do not renominate without addressing these problems. --Ideogram 22:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Ta-Chia-hsi revolt...?

Is the aboriginal revolt mentioned in the "Early History of Taichung" section the same as the Ta-Chia-hsi revolt? --Ling.Nut 17:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is. ludahai 魯大海 23:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hanyu Pinyin

Taichung City formally adopted Hanyu pinyin two years ago. Someone deleted my reference to that fact. Ludahai 08:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC) There are currently numerous forms of Pin Yin being used sporadically in Taichung and the Ministry of Education has not begun teaching any form of Pin Yin in public schools. Please provide a link to a verifiable article or document to justify this claim. If no link can be provided it will be deleted.

It is in print publications locally. I have not seen it online. Print verification is enough. Furthermore, the municipal website and all new signs put up by the local government use Hanyu pinyin. Personally, I prefer Tongyong pinyin, but as this is what Taichung currently uses, this is what should be reflected on Wikipedia. ludahai 魯大海 00:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

(Untitled)

Attempts to draw a realistic picture of Taichung and it's environment do not suit the ROC officials controlling Taiwan, thus this article will continue to be filled with one sided bullshit. Let's try to make some honest observations that are balanced and accurate. We can start by putting back information about pollution, traffic related causualties and crime. We might also add a section about discrimination by the ROC on Taiwan against anyone who is not an ROC citizen under the the ROC racist definitions. Taichung seems to be the epicenter of this discrimination.

If you can't source any of this claptrap, you can't put it in. No Original Research. Also, it is all BS. What racist definitions are you talking about? Taichung's environment is MUCH better today than it was five years ago. ALso, other stats you are talking about are NATION-WIDE and do not belong in an article about the city. Remember, if you make such statements, you need to back them up. ludahai 魯大海 14:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Map

It'd be nice to have a sub-division map, like the one in Tainan, under the section Districts.--Jerrch 19:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Bogus Inner/Outer districts

As we see in Talk:Tainan, there is no legal basis for the inner/outer distinction. Please remove it forthwith. See also [1]. Jidanni (talk) 04:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Convention Centre, Taichung, Taiwan ?

cf. http://www.dezeen.com/2009/09/25/taichung-convention-center-by-mad that's an existing building, isn't' it? It's brilliant. Brilliantly missing in wikipedia? Who can add some lines. I couldn't find the website to the Convention Centre.--SvenAERTS (talk) 15:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Kaohsiung which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Economy Section Bias Concern

I've read over the Economy section of this page, and found it to be overly biased. Please make improvements to the section. Thank you! Kaob1 (talk) 14:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Schools ...

Taichung has a well deserved reputation as a centre of higher education, let the education section just lists the number of institutions, not their names. Was this done intentionally ? I'd be happy to edit away but if it's been done before and just got edited back for some reason I won't bother

Panamajack (talk) 03:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Now they are not even named. The university names are needed. 64.53.191.77 (talk) 19:45, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Out of date

This site needs updating in places, e.g., " is scheduled to begin in October 2009" ! 64.53.191.77 (talk) 19:46, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

History Section

This is a work in progress, but many major events in Taichung's history are presented. I am currently sifting through a couple of Chinese language sources I just came upon to present more information. What I will likely do is create a main entry for Taichung's History, and leave the highlights on this cite. Some of the information from from before was left, but it needs citation. The reference to "Little Las Vegas" is false information. I have talked to dozens of people in the past week, and not one of them has ever heard of Taichung referred to as Little Las Vegas.

There is also some formatting problems with the sources. I will try to fix those up later, through if someone can do that for me, I would appreciate it. == Ludahai (10/4/06 00:40 UTC)

Another unregistered user has come on to completely misrepresent the history on this page. I am going to ask editing to be blocked to non-registered users. Ludahai 01:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC) Ludahai (10/5/06 01:05 UTC)

• I'm removing this sentence from Early history because it doesn't seem to be related to the rest of the paragraph: Several local names in central Taiwan, such Lukang in Changhua County contain "鹿," the word for “deer.” Phlar (talk) 05:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Expansion of lead section

Per WP:LEAD, the lead section should serve "as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." Currently, this section consists of 2 sentences: one clarifying its administrative division and approximate geographic location, and the other mentioning the 2010 merger with Taichung County.

Fortunately, the article covers a whole lot about Taichung (history, geography, demographics, politics, culture, transportation, etc.). Unfortunately, it's not summarized at all in the lead section. I'm putting this on my to-do list, but if anyone is interested in expanding this section, I'm sure future readers of this article would greatly appreciate it. Multivariable (talk) 08:35, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

No mention of population in lead

Lead paragraphs are supposed to present the most vital info. The population difference between Taichung and Kaohsiung is less than 0.1%, hence it is not necessary to mention it being the second largest city. Szqecs (talk) 08:32, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

The edit [2] doesn't even mention Kaohsiung. I think what Cbliu added was fine, since it just stated the population (2.78 million) and its relative rank in Taiwan (2nd). I'm not quite sure I understand your argument; if the population difference between Taichung (2nd) and Kaohsiung (3rd) was larger, it would be fine to include that info then? Multivariable (talk) 06:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

It is fine to include it in Demographics and it is already in the infobox. It is not notable enough to be in the lead per MOS:INTRO. There isn't even a reliable source that says it is actually the second largest. Szqecs (talk) 13:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

MOS:INTRO doesn't say population isn't notable, and I would actually argue that population is a notable defining factor for a city. A quick check of the Wiki pages for Taipei, Tokyo, Seoul, Shanghai, etc. all reference the city's population and rank in some form. And Cbliu was probably referencing all the recent [3] news [4] articles [5] that were touting Taichung's recent population growth. Multivariable (talk) 20:43, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Per MOS:INTRO:

According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources.

Out of all sources on the populations of cities in Taiwan, very few state that Taichung is second. This is in no small part because the figures quoted are estimates rather than census figures. See WP:FRINGE. Szqecs (talk) 05:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Wait, are you calling the population of a city a fringe theory? And I already linked 3 recent, English language news articles above, all of which adhere to Wikipedia's reliable sources guidelines (see WP:RS). And I'm sure [6] there [7] are [8] more [9] sources [10] in [11] Chinese [12]. This is recent news about Taichung that's been covered extensively in local and global media (all of which cite Taiwan's Ministry of the Interior for their numbers). Given that, MOS:INTRO's guidelines would suggest that Taichung's population & rank should be given "due weight" due to its "relative importance to the subject". If you would like to provide alternative sources, please do. Multivariable (talk) 06:27, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

The rank being second is a fringe theory because, as I said, is based on estimate figures. The last census was in 2010. All other figures are estimates. If the estimates only differ by 300 out of 2.7 million, Taichung being second is for sure a fringe theory, as the sources I cited suggests otherwise. Szqecs (talk) 07:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

So now you're saying figures that Taiwan's Ministry of the Interior put out aren't reliable enough? You don't get to pick and choose which sources you want to acknowledge: up-to-date government figures & announcements [13] vs. unrelated news articles citing conventional (and perhaps outdated) wisdom (see WP:CHERRYPICK). And you certainly don't get to decide whether something is a fringe theory (WP:OR). The MOI announcement dated 4 August 2017 states:

臺中市人口數達2,778,182人，首度超越高雄市之2,777,873人，人口僅次於新北市，為6都中（及各縣市）第2高。
Taichung city's population reached 2,778,182 people, its first time passing Kaohsiung city's 2,777,873 people. Of the 6 special municipalities (and all counties/cities), its population is second only to New Taipei's.

— 中華民國內政部, Republic of China Ministry of the Interior

Also, you've been changing your own argument. Initially, you posted that you didn't want any mention of Taichung's population in the lede (due to MOS:INTRO). Then you said the ranking couldn't be mentioned because there wasn't a reliable source. But now, it's alright to mention as long as Taichung is ranked 3rd instead of 2nd? ;Multivariable (talk) 08:16, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes I am saying that. If, say, in the past month 300 people in Taichung went hiking and died, and they have no relatives so their deaths are unknown, they would still be included in these estimate figures. The only way to know for sure which has a higher population is to do a census. I haven't changed my argument, but maybe named this section inaccurately. The population number is fine but not the rank, because the difference is 0.01%. They are effectively the same. Szqecs (talk) 11:21, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Let me remind you that I am not arguing about which city is actually bigger. I am arguing what should be written and in what manner. If "outdated" wisdom is still prevalent, articles still need to reflect it. Szqecs (talk) 11:34, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

You do realize that there's a level of inaccuracy for censuses as well, right? It doesn't matter which city is actually larger; Wikipedia is based on verifiability (WP:VERIFY). If there's a reliable source that says Taichung's population has exceeded that of Kaohsiung, great, that's what the article should state. If there's one (like you suggested) about 300 family-less Taichung residents dying from hiking in the past month, then we cite that and include that as well. This is not the place for speculation (WP:CRYSTAL) because you think the numbers are too close.

I think we might need a third opinion here (WP:3O). If you don't mind, I'm going to go ahead and request one. Multivariable (talk) 17:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

At the very least, I think the population should be mentioned in the lead. And I think the statement that it's the second largest city in Taiwan is fine, based on the MOI reference cited by Multivariable. Phlar (talk) 19:37, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

And I already cited 3 sources saying Kaohsiung is second. Who are you to say those are invalid? Szqecs (talk) 03:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

The most recent, up-to-date government statistics say Taichung's population has exceeded that of Kaohsiung. The articles you cited make no mention of Taichung at all. I already explained above why government figures/announcements are more verifiable than unrelated news articles about typhoons. And why do you consider Taiwanese government figures invalid? The burden is on you to show that the articles you cited are referencing a more appropriate or up-to-date source (WP:PROVEIT). Also, why keep removing any mention of population in the lead? You already agreed that the issue was stating Taichung's rank, not about mentioning population in general. Multivariable (talk) 07:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:VERIFY doesn't even mention government announcements. I don't know where you got that idea. Also you clearly ignored my previous reply. Per WP:UNDUE, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources". If you absolutely must mention rank, you must write it in a way that reflects the fact that it is not a widespread view. Szqecs (talk) 07:41, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Exactly! All I've asked is: If you have a better source than a MOI government announcement, please provide it. You keep bringing up articles about typhoons that don't mention Taichung (or its population or rank) at all. How you consider these articles to be "significant viewpoints" is unclear. Multivariable (talk) 08:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean by "better"? Per Neutrality below WP:YTCOPYRIGHT "All articles must adhere to NPOV, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view." I don't know how else to explain this to you. Kaohsiung being second is a significant-minority view, if not majority, and it contradicts with the proposed statement that Taichung is second. If you must write about it, you must reflect that. Szqecs (talk) 08:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Continue reading: "If there is disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution: 'John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that Y,' followed by an inline citation." Ok, who maintains that Kaohsiung still has the 2nd largest population in Taiwan and why is it significant? Where are they getting this view from, and (in light of the recent announcement) why are they maintaining that it's not Taichung? Multivariable (talk) 08:59, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Or just not mention it and avoid all the trouble. As I said, it is already in the infobox. Szqecs (talk) 09:41, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh, it's OK to state that Taichung is ranked 2nd in the infobox, but if it's mentioned elsewhere, all of the sudden it's WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE, etc.? I'm fine with all the "trouble"; I've already provided the sources to state it. Like I said, the burden is on you to state otherwise. Multivariable (talk) 14:10, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Putting it in the infobox is giving it little weight so as to not be undue. Simply stating it is second would be giving it undue weight, unless it is written with balanced views per WP:BALANCE. Szqecs (talk) 16:18, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad you mentioned WP:BALANCE, because it asks you evaluate this with respect to the "body of reliable, published material on the subject." You're trying to argue against a government source that says Taichung's population is now ranked 2nd in Taiwan. To counter, you need a source that says, "Yes, the MOI released new figures that show that Taichung's population is now larger than Kaohsiung's, but (I disagree/the figures are wrong) because X." Otherwise, this is just you being unhappy about what a source states, saying that it needs to be "balanced", while still refusing to provide a relevant source to support your opinion. Unless you do so, there's really no point in continuing to argue about NPOV, undue weight, fringe theories, etc. when you continually refuse to provide a reliable source to begin with. Multivariable (talk) 01:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Or, you could just quote your super reliable government announcement and write: "As of July 2017, Taichung city's population reached 2,778,182 people, its first time passing Kaohsiung city's 2,777,873 people. Of the 6 special municipalities (and all counties/cities), its population is second only to New Taipei's." If you are so attached to this source why not just quote it directly? Szqecs (talk) 03:13, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good, I'll just cite it! Multivariable (talk) 03:33, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

This [14] is extraneous wording. There's no need to mention Kaohsiung, its population, how many municipalities there are in Taiwan, or New Taipei. Like you mentioned previously, this info isn't notable enough to be in the lead section per MOS:INTRO. However, I am glad we were able to come to a consensus that Taichung's population rank is OK to be included in the lead section. Multivariable (talk) 06:47, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes there is. The rank isn't notable at all but since you insist on writing about it you must write it accurately. Szqecs (talk) 07:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I think you're mistaken. This isn't about me or what I want; this is about ensuring that information in the article is properly cited with verifiable source(s). In fact, your edit [15] indicates that you find the MOI's announcement to be an appropriate source for Taichung's population and rank. The source affirms that "人口僅次於新北市，為6都中（及各縣市）第2高。" (Rough translation: "Of the 6 special municipalities (and all counties/cities), its population is second only to New Taipei's."), which states Taichung's rank (2nd) plainly and clearly.

Yeah so I write that. What else do you want? Szqecs (talk) 07:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

You asked to write the information accurately, and I believe this [16] was accurate. But for some reason you insist on using a direct translation of a government announcement (with a lot of extraneous or irrelevant info), instead of just stating the fact that Taichung's population rank is #2. Multivariable (talk) 08:30, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Also, you've changed your position again. Earlier, you were very concerned about NPOV and undue weight, but now you're saying that this (Taichung's population rank) is no longer notable enough to mention? Even if you weren't able to find appropriate sources to support your specific viewpoint, it doesn't mean that the topic is no longer notable. And lastly, you were so adamant about following MOS:INTRO earlier, but now you appear to be actively disregarding it (with the addition of tangentially relevant statistics, terms, and cities in the lead section). As editors, we should try to be consistent when following Wikipedia's guidelines. Multivariable (talk) 07:33, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I still think that the rank should not be mentioned, but I'm willing to compromise since you are never going to let this go. You must compromise too. We quote the announcement in detail. Szqecs (talk) 07:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

It's fine that you think that the rank isn't notable enough to be included in the lead. It's great to discuss why we disagree. However, you continue to make arguments based on personal opinion, and not based on sources or data. You find edits like this [17] objectionable, even though I've made every attempt to show notability (11 sources) and asked you for sources to support your viewpoints. And I haven't mentioned this directly before, but I find it very interesting that if Taichung's population rank is 3rd, you think it's fine and notable. But as soon as it's updated to 2nd, it's no longer notable and you want it removed. You can't have it both ways...

@Multivariable:I never said that Taichung being 3rd is fine. In fact I was the one who changed the infobox from 3rd to 2nd.[18] Szqecs (talk) 16:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

The lead section of this article has stated that Taichung was the 3rd largest city since 2003 [19]. Since then, you've edited this article 13 times without any issue with its rank. It was only after its rank was updated to 2nd that you decided to have it removed immediately, and justified that decision with concerns about notability, MOS:INTRO, NPOV, etc. Thus, it appears the issue of notability isn't about whether mentioning population rank is notable, it's about whether you like what it says about Taichung (and Kaohsiung).

Am I obligated to change everything I don't agree with every time I make an edit? Don't be silly. And by the way in 2003 the difference was much bigger and I'm sure there were plenty of sources saying it was 3rd. Szqecs (talk) 12:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

You misunderstand. My point here is that the onus is on you to show that population rank isn't notable and thus must be removed from the lead section. So far, you have failed to show that. I was refuting your claim by showing that it was a part of this article when it was only 3 sentences long and has remained in the lead section for 14 years. You've only starting caring about its notability when Taichung's population surpassed Kaohsiung's (your hometown, perhaps?). Multivariable (talk) 23:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

No you misunderstand. What isn't notable isn't any mention of rank. London being largest in the UK is obviously notable. What isn't notable is Taichung being 2nd. Taichung being 3rd used to be mentioned by sources when Taichung is mentioned, so I never bothered to change it. When the difference gradually shrank, do you expect me to have constantly search to see if mentions in sources have changed? Szqecs (talk) 03:09, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Unless I did misunderstand, that's been your argument all along, right? Of course you wouldn't look for sources; your argument is that it's not notable enough to mention in the first place! Which is why you've dismissed all 11(?) news articles I've provided and official government announcements, because they all show notability. It's fairly common for 2nd largest cities to be mentioned in the lead section, and for good reason -- because it's notable! Also, I'm really sorry that Kaohsiung isn't 2nd anymore. Multivariable (talk) 05:53, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Well I don't see what problem you have with the current revision. It states that Taichung is 2nd just as you please. Or maybe because Taichung is your hometown, you don't want people to know that it is recent thing and that the difference is insignificant. Szqecs (talk) 09:53, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

My problem with the current text is that it's much too specific, providing too much extraneous detail for the lead: we don't need to mention New Taipei or Kaohsiung, much less state the population of the latter, and we don't need to devote more than one sentence to the population. See the alternatives proposed below. Phlar (talk) 19:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. The current version seems intent on obfuscating the real info, but perhaps that was Szqecs' intent in insisting on this version? [20] [21] Multivariable (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

The editor (Szqecs) also appears to dislike that Kaohsiung is now ranked 3rd, first claiming that Kaohsiung is somehow still tied with Taichung for 2nd [22] and then removing any mention of population altogether [23] in the Kaohsiung article. Multivariable (talk) 22:54, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I love how you take it personal now. If I disliked it so much would I have changed the infobox? I think you dislike the fact the the difference is so insignificant. Szqecs (talk) 04:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

And my apologies, I was looking at a previous exchange where I asked you "it's alright to mention as long as Taichung is ranked 3rd instead of 2nd?", to which you responded "Yes I am saying that." but I believe you were responding to the question regarding the un-reliability of MOI figures. Multivariable (talk) 19:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I think we've reached a point where outside input would be helpful. I've gone ahead and requested assistance through the dispute resolution noticeboard, and hopefully we can get some clarification and move towards a consensus. Multivariable (talk) 08:30, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

The fact that Taichung is either the second- or third-most populous city in Taiwan is significant and I believe merits mentioning in the lead. Considering that Taichung's population only surpassed Kaohsiung's just recently, and it's possible that Kaohsiung might overtake Taichung in the next MOI reckoning, could we word it vaguely for now, until it becomes clear that Taichung will retain this rank? Maybe something like this: Taichung has a population of approximately 2.78 million people, and ranks among the three largest metropolitan areas in Taiwan. Phlar (talk) 19:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping in again! I would actually suggest wording it more precisely, maybe "... and is either the second or third-largest city in Taiwan" (or similar), since the way you phrased it could mean 1st, 2nd, or 3rd. I would only point out that Taichung's population growth has been fairly steady and consistent (~17% growth since 2000, vs. ~2% growth for Kaohsiung). Most news reports I've read have suggested that this change has been a long time coming, especially with Kaohsiung's population stagnating/shrinking in recent years. If its rank does indeed change again, we could just update the article, right? Multivariable (talk) 23:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

"Either second or third" seems too wishy-washy. How about, ...and officially ranked as Taiwan's second-most populous city as of July 2017? Phlar (talk) 19:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

How about "since" July 2017? Szqecs (talk) 04:00, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I would be fine with that. Multivariable (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Done with minor grammatical tweaks. Phlar (talk) 05:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for making those edits. @Szqecs: Is this version acceptable to you? [24] Multivariable (talk) 12:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Infobox Chinese discussion

Place any comments here.  White Whirlwind  咨  08:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Recent additions to the lede

I am reverting this edit because:

1. According to the Empire of Japan section of this article, the city was not created under Japanese rule; it predates Japanese rule and the Japanese "sought to develop it."
2. The "Kyoto of Formosa" claim is unsourced. If a WP:reliable source can be found, this information belongs in the Empire of Japan section instead of the lede.

Phlar (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

My most recent edit

Hi fellow Wikipedians,

Regarding my most recent edit: yeah, that was a lot of deleting, but I feel like it's justified. Here's why:

• Pictures: we really don't need 4 skyline photos from different viewpoints. One is enough. Same goes for the temples, though for that I put it in a gallery just in case. That being said, the right hand side of the page still looks really clogged up with pictures, and more should probably be removed.
• Roads: I condensed this bit a lot. See WP:IINFO. We really don't need to know which roads go where. Also, I felt like the part about Taichung's reckless driving is not from a neutral point of view and has been unsourced for a while, so I removed that.
• Small descriptions of districts under the map: not really notable for Wikipedia either.

I also tried fixing up the grammar a bit, but the flow of the article is still not the best. If someone can go over and improve that, it would be awesome.

If you have any concerns please just ask me. Thanks! Ganbaruby (talk) 15:03, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Can we create article on Lishan?

Can we please create an article about Lishan, perhaps translated from this article at the Chinese-language Wikipedia? https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%A2%A8%E5%B1%B1

173.88.246.138 (talk) 16:32, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Definitely. I'm busy right now, but I can work on it in a few days. ◢   Ganbaruby!   (talk to me) 23:20, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Seal of Taichung.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:41, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Climate

Winter has some cool days and nights.

so I wouldn’t say it borders Tropical monsoon דולב חולב (talk) 00:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)