Talk:Linzi, Zibo
Appearance
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Linzi, Zibo article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
Merge proposal
[edit]- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
- Merge. I asked to merge Linzi to Linzi District. Linzi is just the name of Linzi District. It should be merged to the History section of Linzi District. --Neo-Jay (talk) 08:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. Ancient Linzi appears to be sufficiently significant to rate its own article. On the other hand, Linzi District needs to be substantially expanded otherwise it would seem to have little significance apart from the presence of the ancient city within its administrative boundaries; perhaps it should be merged into the article on Zibo. Also, it's not unusual for articles on modern settlements to have separate articles on significant aspects, eg, history, transportation, etc. Folks at 137 (talk) 20:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose. Ancient Linzi is of great historical significance - with taking Linzi, King Zheng of Qin completed his conquest of the other Chinese states and subsequently declared himself the first emperor of China rm (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. As the ancient capital of the State of Qi there should be an article for Linzi in the same way that the ancient capitals of Haojing, Ying and some other have one.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Move discussion in progress
[edit]There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Linzi which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 04:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)