| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Taicang 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: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
This article is just a copied text from ChinaCulture.org June 22, 2005. You'll find the same text here as well: http://www.china.org.cn/english/features/zhenhe/132777.htm
Map requested
edit
Location of Taicang
Location of Taicang in Shanghai
I'm using the talk page to request that a location map like the ones adjacent be added to the article so that readers know where Taicang is. Angr (talk) 09:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- As I have explained, the first one is unacceptable to the project under any circumstances. National-level location maps are more appropriate for prefecture-level cities and the municipalities, but not for almost uniformly small county-level divisions. You would cause an immediate ruckus if you tried to use a national-level map highlighting an American county within the entire U.S. The same standards should apply here. GotR Talk 15:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- It would certainly not "cause a ruckus" if there were no other options. State-level maps exist for the US, so they're used; if they didn't, national-level maps would be used. When I added the location map for China I was unaware that there's a location map of Shanghai. I would actually recommend using both maps, the national map for the sake of readers to whom the close-up map is meaningless, and the Shanghai map for the sake of those to whom it isn't. Angr (talk) 07:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- "...to whom the close-up map is meaningless"—I assume that applies to most of the 50 U.S. states and much of the non-US/Canadian population, and yet we know what is the situation with maps over there. If American locations can compel the usage of 1st-level maps, why can't Chinese? The vast majority of the country is either under direct coverage of a provincial-level map, or can be mapped with respect to another province.
- And I say no again to a national map anywhere on this article; Taicang (and much of the rest of eastern Jiangsu) is far too close to Shanghai in order for the nat'l map to convey anything meaningful. Thus, something that provides no function should be culled. GotR Talk 07:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- Removed the map request, as you have a couple of perfectly good maps. There is nothing wrong with using two maps, most major U.S. cities do in fact have both a national and a state map (Boston, Seattle, Denver as examples). Kmusser (talk) 02:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- Because they are major. Taicang, although comparatively wealthy, is by no means major. It isn't even on the 2nd level of subdivisions in administrative terms. GotR Talk 02:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think that matters, U.S. counties have two maps, there are other countries (example Russia) where all cities have two maps regardless of size, WP: Cities has been supportive of have multiple maps regardless of city size - only reason small cities in the U.S. don't have them is that no one has gotten around to doing them. Kmusser (talk) 11:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- Removed the map request, as you have a couple of perfectly good maps. There is nothing wrong with using two maps, most major U.S. cities do in fact have both a national and a state map (Boston, Seattle, Denver as examples). Kmusser (talk) 02:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- It would certainly not "cause a ruckus" if there were no other options. State-level maps exist for the US, so they're used; if they didn't, national-level maps would be used. When I added the location map for China I was unaware that there's a location map of Shanghai. I would actually recommend using both maps, the national map for the sake of readers to whom the close-up map is meaningless, and the Shanghai map for the sake of those to whom it isn't. Angr (talk) 07:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)