Talk:New areas

China High‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Urban studies and planning Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Urban studies and planning, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Urban studies and planning on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Urban studies and planningWikipedia:WikiProject Urban studies and planningTemplate:WikiProject Urban studies and planningUrban studies and planning articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disputed

Only Pudong, Binhai and Liangjiang are state-level new areas plus national new areas, the others are only national new areas. See the Chinese edition of this article. --HNAKXR (talk) 03:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no sense. Pudong, Binhai, and Liangjiang are neither at the level of (US) states (i.e., separate provinces) nor (UK) states (i.e., separate nations). Are you trying to say that they're at the level of separate districts of their cities, rather than areas within districts? —

Llywelyn II

02:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Name

If there are other "new areas" of equivalent importance, there's no problem dabbing the term to New Area(s), New areas of the People's Republic of China; or (perhaps best) New Areas of the People's Republic of China (as this is a technical term); but we shouldn't start out dabbing as the needlessly un-TERSE State-level new areas of the People's Republic of China. Moreover, in the variety of English spoken by the vast majority of Wikipedia's users, "state-level" means something entirely different from 国家-level. Even if "state-level" turns out to be the (infelicitous) translation preferred by Beijing, we would need to somehow dab or explain that usage rather than keeping the page there. — $Llywelyn II$ 02:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]