Talk:National without household registration

English term

The term I have seen most commonly used in the translation of the Household Registration Law and the NIA website is "unregistered national." "National without household registration" only shows up fewer than 20 times on the internet.--Jiang (talk) 10:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you thinking of another law? I don't see any mention of this in the latest household registration law (Chinese nor English). Anyway I picked the title based on the following search results:

Restricted to gov.tw:

• "Unregistered nationals": 6 non-duplicate hits [1]
• "Nationals without household registration": 22 non-duplicate hits [2]
• "Nationals without citizenship": 5 non-duplicate hits [3]

Restricted to .tw:

• "Unregistered nationals": 6 non-duplicate hits [4]
• "Nationals without household registration": 25 non-duplicate hits [5]
• "Nationals without citizenship": 31 non-duplicate hits [6]

Most internet-wide results "unregistered national" are unrelated (e.g. "unregistered national land", or they have nothing to do with Taiwan at all). I tried filtering out the flotsam and ended up with 20 hits: [7]. The NIA uses both terms (e.g. this guide). I'd say "nationals without citizenship" is a misleading translation, but between "unregistered nationals" or "nationals without household registration" I'm pretty neutral. One is more explicit about what "registration" we're talking about, the other rolls off the tongue much more easily. With such tiny numbers of GHits it's really hard to argue that one is overwhelmingly more common than the other. Eric Baer (talk) 18:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Given the information you provided, I don't really have a preference either.

Some mention of Mongolian citizens prior to 2002 should be made, but I'm not sure where to fit it in.--Jiang (talk) 07:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Added a bit about Mongolians in the "Overview" section. But I'm starting to think the stuff about mainland/HK/Macau people should go into a separate article, because the laws and regulations are mostly disjoint from those regarding unregistered nationals. Not sure what to call the new article, though. Eric Baer (talk) 09:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps an article on the Mainland area of the Republic of China to complement free area of the Republic of China could have "Mainland area person" as a major heading?

Something else to add to this article: Overseas Chinese certificates being issued to anyone residing overseas of Chinese descent and these certificates being used to apply for ROC passports until 2002. The requirement now seems to be restricted to either birth within the ROC's official borders or descent from someone with a ROC passport.--Jiang (talk) 12:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination

Glad you liked it. Thanks for your editing & corrections. Cheers, Eric Baer (talk) 05:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on National without household registration. 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/20120212003158/http://sydney.china-consulate.org/chn/lszj/huzhao/t713956.htm to http://sydney.china-consulate.org/chn/lszj/huzhao/t713956.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120426071851/http://perth.china-consulate.org/chn/lszj/zghz/t513804.htm to http://perth.china-consulate.org/chn/lszj/zghz/t513804.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120426071851/http://edinburgh.china-consulate.org/chn/hzlxzj/t211460.htm to http://edinburgh.china-consulate.org/chn/hzlxzj/t211460.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120426071855/http://vancouver.china-consulate.org/chn/visa/instruction/passport/t827571.htm to http://vancouver.china-consulate.org/chn/visa/instruction/passport/t827571.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304053639/http://www.taiwanembassy.org/ct.asp?xItem=227961&ctNode=6280&mp=181 to http://www.taiwanembassy.org/ct.asp?xItem=227961&ctNode=6280&mp=181
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120426070542/http://politics.dwnews.com/big5/news/2009-01-12/4665150.html to http://politics.dwnews.com/big5/news/2009-01-12/4665150.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:National without household registration/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 20:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

In progress. Sammi Brie (t • c) 20:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Many citations to relevant laws in this section.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The pruning of this article has resulted in a honed article with a very tightly defined scope and which imparts detail while being accessible to readers—like this one—not familiar with the topic.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Very well done in terms of maintaining NPOV and neutral terminology in an article that in several places mentions the ROC and PRC together.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Horserice has been the predominant contributor in the last year and few other changes have been made in recent months.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Two public domain photos. The mention of labeling in the caption for the ID card no longer relates to the image because a 2019 revision removed the annotations.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   The caption on the first photo needs to be altered before this nomination is passed.

• @Horserice: This article has been reviewed and it looks great. It's clearly benefited from being trimmed back and having a tightly defined scope. The main stumbling block is one you might not have noticed. In 2019, the identification card image was changed to a new revision that removed the annotations, which are referenced in the caption. I'm putting this on hold for 7 days to allow this to be fixed or replaced with an appropriate new image. Sammi Brie (t • c) 20:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Sammi Brie: Thanks for reviewing! I changed the image caption to no longer reference old image annotations. Horserice (talk) 21:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• The new caption resolves the pending concern. This is a great example of how less can sometimes be more in an article and slimming it down can result in a better product. I will be passing this article. Sammi Brie (t • c) 22:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)