Jump to content

Talk:Chongqing

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


About namegiving

[edit]

I think it would be better to use the title "Chongqing" for "Chongqing city" and add a link to "Chongqing Municipality" on the page. Since most of the other articles refer to "Chongqing city" as "Chongqing". (Please pardon my poor expressions.) --Lorenzarius 15:34, 20 January 2003 (UTC)[reply]

New articles mentioning the Municipality will probably simply call it "Chongqing" too. If we follow your suggestion, these links will lead to the City, and that might be confusing. Before changing the name of the "Chongqing city", I would suggest that we create the "Chongqing Municipality" article, and see how many articles link to each of them. If there is a big majority linking to the city, then it might be a good idea to make the change you are suggesting. olivier 15:41, 20 January 2003 (UTC)[reply]
You mean these? =) --Lorenzarius 15:46, 20 January 2003 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. 12 for "Chongqing city" and 13 for "Chongqing Municipality". Maybe we should leave the article names like this for the moment and keep disambiguating at "Chongqing". olivier 15:49, 20 January 2003 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm then I guess the same thing should be done to the other three Municipalities right? ("municipality" is a hard word to spell =P) Lorenzarius 15:53, 20 January 2003 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of the other municipalities, is the territory covered different from the one covered by the city? olivier 17:02, 20 January 2003 (UTC)[reply]

Another possibility... What about merging the Municipality article and the City article into one? I think most people won't be able to distinguish between the two, but I may be wrong... Lorenzarius 16:06, 20 January 2003 (UTC)[reply]

That is an option. We could actually write 2 articles into one, in this case. But what would we do with the "Provinces" template? olivier 17:02, 20 January 2003 (UTC)[reply]

Move

[edit]

See also: Talk:Shanghai Municipality

Chongqing City was moved here, per discussion at Shanghai Municipality. --Jiang 01:26, 16 November 2003 (UTC)[reply]

Chongqing City is gone. It is no more. The only Chongqing now is the municipality. It is more logical to move the municipality here and leave Chongqing City alone. --Menchi 05:38, 16 November 2003 (UTC)[reply]
If Chongqing City is no more, than no article should exist there. Why leave it alone? So Chongqing Municipality should be merged here? --Jiang — Preceding undated comment added 06:12, 16 November 2003 (UTC)[reply]
Why, not alone per se.. Chongqing City is right now just confusing, I'll revamp it later (add the specific districts and counties that it once governed -- most of which still exist, under the municipality, and the area and population stats of what it once was before the municipal merging). It could be something of a historical value I guess (200 years from now). But in accorance in current official PRC-speak, Chongqing is definitely = Chongqing Municipality. --Menchi 06:19, 16 November 2003 (UTC)[reply]

Although there's a problem with the history, for example, the fact that Chongqing was once the Kuomintang capital.. Should that be on Chongqing Municipality as well because Chongqing City, after all, lives on inside the municipality. Or should we just limit history in Chongqing Municipality to what has happened since the municipal merging of 1997? --Menchi 06:19, 16 November 2003 (UTC)[reply]

So is there no objection? (So quiet...) I'll move it then. Alrighty? --Menchi 08:15, 17 November 2003 (UTC)[reply]

Isnt "Chongqing City" the same as "Chongqing Municipality" in Chinese? Therefore, if we moved the small Chongqing to "Chongqing City" and the muni to here, then it would become confusing. People would see "city" and automatically assume that it means the municipality when it really means just part of it... --Jiang 08:23, 17 November 2003 (UTC)[reply]

When there's no need to distinguish them, they are both simply shi. But when necessary, one can call the muni Chongqing Zhixiashi. And the city was a subprovincial city. A clear introductory paragraph should eliminate the confusion. --Menchi 08:29, 17 November 2003 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that we could have Chongqing for the municipality and Chongqing City for the historical city, if there is enough material to make a separate article. Intro paragraphs should make the distinction very clear. olivier 08:38, 17 November 2003 (UTC)[reply]

How about having both in the same article? --Jiang 09:16, 17 November 2003 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have any strong opinion for or against it. We can probably have both in the same article, and create a separate one later if needed (too large quantity of information about the historical Changqing City). olivier 09:40, 17 November 2003 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom line is, as far as most people in PRC see it, now Chongqing Municipality = Chongqing, hence the munici. article should be here. Westerners may not see it that way, but it is mostly due to the recent occurence of the event (97). I think Encarta already describes Chongqing as a municipality in its article.

And as for Chongqing City, I'm not that strong either way, but leaning toward separatism, just for the sake of historical value, like Commonwealth of the Philippines exists not because the preceeding culture and history differ from those of the Philippines, but the very name and administration differ. And in the case of CQ, the administrative level and territory differ greatly.

An example of conflict: should somebody add a mayors of Chongqing City, it seems inappropriate to add it right above a list of Chongqing (Municipality) mayors. It doesn't seem that apple-and-orange since the municipality and the city have the same name (and one assumes obvious continuity)-- but how about the other two (or three.. Wanxiang City, Qianjiang City, and..) cities and one prefectures that used to exist but now are part of Chongqing Municipality, like CQ City is now. If we were to list those two/three cities's mayors and the prefecture's chief/prefect... it just seems very wrong to stuck it before/beside the Chongqing Municipality mayors. Is Chongqing CIty's continuity into CQ Municiaplity the most authorative/powerful/legitimate successor in CQ Municipality? Logic dictates yes, but political correctness no, but political power maybe yes, maybe no. --Menchi — Preceding undated comment added 22:43, 17 November 2003 (UTC)[reply]

Separate articles could exist for Wanxiang City, Qianjiang City, etc. and that's where their lists of mayors would logically belong. --Jiang — Preceding undated comment added 22:48, 17 November 2003 (UTC)[reply]
That seem to be the only choice. But Wanxian (not Wanxiang, sorry) and Fuling (not Qianjiang, it is the prefecture, my mistake!) Cities and CQ City were on the same tier. The articles for Wanxian City, Fuling City, and CQ City would all have parallel format (finite list of mayors, former subdivisions, area, pre-incorporation population... and probably nothing much more). Shouldn't, by parallelism, the mayors of CQ City and things be at Chongqing City? --Menchi 23:13, 17 November 2003 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't work, since CQ City=CQ Muni in Chinese. Many lists, such List of British monarchs and President of France have separate listings for different political entities. And explanation in the main article should be fine. --Jiang 01:52, 18 November 2003 (UTC)[reply]

I revamped here so Chongqing Municipality can be appropriately redirected here. I tried to emphasize/clarify as greatly as I can of the merging, dropping of prefecture level, and maintenaince of counties in the last paragraph of History and the table in Subdivisions. There, that's all four municipalities done. --Menchi (Talk)â 15:42, 17 December 2003 (UTC)[reply]

Table

[edit]

I don't know if this is something to do with my browser (Netscape 7) but the section labelled 'subdivisions' looks like just a stream of text, withno formatting. DJ Clayworth 14:35, 12 February 2004 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mjklin converted Magnus-style table into the ugly traditional style for reasons beyond me, with the edit summary "redid some of the table of provinces" (btw, they are counties and districts, not provinces at all). He has destroyed the table in the process. I have asked him why. --Menchi 15:51, 12 February 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted the changes, but the newbie named Mjklin should still explain himself. -- user:zanimum — Preceding undated comment added 16:17, 12 February 2004 (UTC)[reply]

He said something at User_talk:Menchi#Talk:Chongqing#Table. --Menchi 03:13, 13 February 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, so I messed up! Sorry! I just wanted a page that would print right on my browser, so thanks to zanimum for that. We newbies have got to learn somehow, you know. User:Mjklin — Preceding undated comment added 07:05, 13 February 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Most bombed city in history

[edit]

The History section asserts that Chongqing "holds the distinction of being the most bombed city in history". In addition to being ambiguous at best (most frequently bombed? most heavily bombed?) and grammatically incorrect at worst, this assertion is not supported by a cited source. Would someone please volunteer to add the source in? --Pkchan 06:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

City tree

[edit]

The infobox (Ficus) and text (Magnolia delavayi) give different trees. Can someone correct whichever is wrong, please! - MPF 16:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

someone added "Actually the city tree is 黄葛树，FICUS VLRENS VAR．SUBLANCEOLATA, widely planted in southwest China. It could survive under extreme living conditions (hot weather, dry land, even sprout from cracks of stone cliff), which is one of the reasons that got peole's hearts in Chongqing." which i removed because it is badly written. someone needs to provide a source for the official tree and correct the conflict though... Jessi1989 (talk) 23:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ok, i'm gonna change it to the ficus lacor based on this chinese goverment website http://english.cq.gov.cn/ChongqingGuide/MountainCity/1914.htm Jessi1989 (talk) 23:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Landmarks and Tourism

[edit]

Isn't it a good idea to put the paragraphe "landmarks" under the paragraphe "tourism"? I added a paragraphe "sports" into the article. (Rob) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob van Doorn (talk • contribs) 02:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did some Chinese tourism official write this section in the first place? It certainly reads that way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.198.247 (talk) 11:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see that this section has been clarified, though I kind of miss the bewildering original (versions of it are out there in cyberspace, should you a. be curious, b. have time on your hands) Almost-instinct (talk) 19:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Population

[edit]

On the People's Republic of China's article the population of Chongqing "city urban area" is reported of 3.934 million people (8th place in PRC's ranking), though this article reports 12 million people living in "urban area of chongqing proper" (3rd place in ranking). Where is the truth? MFG, Jul 27 2006 00:47 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.60.160.173 (talk) 22:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The PRC page is using stats from 2001 estimations. This page claims 2005 data. Anyone know where to get this data to fix other pages? Or is there a way to have the data linked in the two pages to show the same number?
Mike2525 01:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe 2006... we need a source. :-/ --169.244.139.8 (talk) 15:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The links are of questionable quality. The one just links to a whole bunch of other sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zygnoda (talk • contribs) 21:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be a bit more specific? Which links are questionable and which one links to a whole bunch of other sites? I'm not the China expert by any stretch, but I'm pretty good at working on Wikipedia articles. Just point me in the right direction. Greenw47 (talk) 14:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good Reference

[edit]

I don't have the expertise to really help out, but The Economist has an in-depth article on this citie's growth that could probably be of great help to you guys: [1].--YbborTalk 17:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Population

[edit]

This city's population is definitely not 31 million. I'm changing it to 6,363,000 like on the "World's Largest Urban Agglomerations" page. --66.82.9.59 14:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really 31 million? They´ve counted that year 2010 there would live 30 millions.Now is already 2009! They have to hurry up if they are gonna make it. Sorry for my bad english, i´m not from english speaking country83.148.238.194 (talk) 15:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The city Chongqing is more than just a city, hence the confusing numbers. The municipality of chongqing covers 80.000 sq kilometers, and is in China considered a selfgovernerned area, hence term city. Though, large part of this 80.000 sqkm cannot be considered a city as most people would consider it. And latest numbers I read is around 32 millions, and 9 millions living in the urban areas, though, I spend 1 hour trying to find the number on Chongqing goverments own website witout luck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stiginshanghai (talk • contribs) 12:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This issue has not yet been resolved. The article shows a collosal area covering a modest percent of most heavily populated part of China. The opening paragraph says both that it is a city, but also that "has jurisdiction over 19 districts, 17 counties, and four autonomous counties". The word "municipality" is (correctly, it seems) Wiki linked to Direct-controlled municipality; that Wiki article makes it clear that "municipality" in China means "province" in other countries.
As a whole, the article is quite well-written, with no obvious spin on presentation. But the discrepancy between someone's translation of a Chinese term and the English word "city" makes the article very confusing and should be clarified in a simple way. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have brought the population number in the article and in the infobox in sync with ref [1] given. The date was also wrong. After careful analysis, I deleted the sentence "The population of the urban area of Chongqing proper was close to 10 million (2009).[1]" Reasons: 1.) The source does not specify "urban area of Chongqing proper." 2.)The total of "Principal Urban Areas" in the source is 8,553,335, not "close to 10 million." 3.)The date of that count is 2000-11-1 (apparently, the date of the last census), not 2009. I have looked for better data for the city proper, have not found any. The Chinese version is not helpful either. That matter is of great interest, especially for CQ. We should update the "City proper" count when reliable recent data are available.--BsBsBs (talk) 16:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article's #s for the metro area of Chongqing, which are replicated on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_cities , are in direct contradiction with this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo , where it says Tokyo has the biggest metro area in the world at only 37.8 million vs the # given here for Chongqing at 52.1 million. The reference for Tokyo being the largest is the UN, and the Chongqing reference is from a Chinese newspaper. But the UN reference is from 2014 and the Chinese newspaper is from 2016, so it is possible there was a dramatic shift in that 2 year period. It would be helpful to have more sources to look at and compare. I don't know if the UN defines metro areas differently than a Chinese newspaper would, either. Seems like some "official" source would be better, but "official" doesn't mean correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:401:0:EBD9:ECD0:E931:93B1:888F (talk) 07:51, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have tidied up the introduction re population, as it was extremely misleading, and not internally consistent within the article. I have provided a reference for these changes (See: https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-16761784). The city size is now listed as around 8 million, the metro area is 17 million, and the population of the entire municipality is 30 million. These numbers are consistent with the populations in the side box, and in the section about demographics. Moreover, these numbers are consistent with the numbers in the BBC article I linked to. Previously, the article reported that Chongqing was the "largest city on planet earth". This came across more like Chinese propaganda than objective reporting. I'd suggest that we steer clear of that nonsense, and that where a State-sponsored Chinese newspaper article comes into conflict with reporting from elsewhere, that we default to the reporting from elsewhere. AustralianElm (talk) 14:52, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.citypopulation.de/China-Chongqing.html

Map

[edit]

Article needs two maps: 1) a map showing the municipality close-up, with administrative divisions; and 2) a map showing the municipality in relation to the surrounding provinces, putting it in context. Badagnani 22:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The map showing the location of Chongqing is confusing. There are 4 areas highlighted. I showed it to a co-worker who knows nothing about China, and he was not able to tell which of the 4 highlighted areas is supposed to be Chongqing. I think the map should be idiot proof. Greenw47 (talk) 14:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would agre with this: Also, the map at List of administrative divisions of Chongqing doesn't match the boundaries in the map at Yuzhong District; does anyone know why? Moonraker12 (talk) 13:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concentration Camp - ??

[edit]

While working in China as a visiting lecturer in 1983 I visited Chongqing. The site that left the deepest impression was a small concentration camp with watch towers and high walls with lots of barbed wire where, so I was told, during the war with Japan Chiang Kai-shek had interned and tortured high-ranking followers of Mao. On two later visits I did not get a chance to see this place and met only with blank faces, nor has anybody I know ever heard of it. It appears to have definitely lost its tourist-attraction status. Would anyone have any info about it? Marschner --Marschner (talk) 11:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I been to this place, if its the same. I went there in 2008, and yes it was a big tourist attraction. As I remember, I think it was run somehow together with the Americans. My wife says the place we went is named 歌乐山. Stiginshanghai (talk) 13:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Chongqing Geleshan martyrs cemetery (重庆歌乐山烈士陵园) in a "China-US cooperation concentration camp site," located northwest of Geleshan Chongqing.Colin McLarty (talk) 17:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Magnolia Street image and tourism section

[edit]

I removed the Magnolia Street image because it seems like a random image of Chongqing and therefore does not represent any landmark from the city at all.

Furthermore, I am questioning some of the tourism places suggested in the article including a) Ladies' Town where the ladies are..., b) Biggest toilet in the world with uniquely shaped toilet bowls..., and c) skyscraper view - unless the contributor suggests a specific spot in the city where one can enjoy CQ's impressive skyline. Heilme (talk) 01:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funiculars

[edit]

I understand Chongqing has (or had) a number of funicular railways as part of its transport system. Does anyone know anything about them? Moonraker12 (talk) 13:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May be you want this:

File:Jialingjiangsuodao.jpg
嘉陵江索道

The picture is in chinese version of chongqing http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%87%8D%E5%BA%86%E5%B8%82. Cnheying (talk) 20:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC) .[reply]

.

.

.

.

Thanks for replying.
I didn’t know they had cable cars as well, but it was these I was enquiring about.
The pictures are in Commons, but not much else. i don't even know if they are still running; the picture dates from 2004, but the Funiculars website [2] doesn't mention them.
Also the zh.WP: Chongqing page (in the google translation, I can’t read Chinese) mentions elevators (城市電梯); do you know anything about them? Moonraker12 (talk) 18:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been to Chongqing, but the funiculars pictured look quite similar to those I saw in 2009 in the passenger ports of smaller cities elsewhere on the Yangtze's Three Gorges Reservoir; see photos in commons:Category:Maoping Port, commons:Category:Badong Port. They take passengers and luggage from the actual dockside (usually, a floating dock) at the water level some 20-30 meters up to where the stationary river terminal building is (i.e., city street level). The ticket to ride the funicular was 1-2 yuan in those towns, and practically all departing or arriving boat passengers chose to use the funicular rather than to walk up/down the stairs. I surmise that the system is quite ubiquitous in the ports of the Three Gorges Reservoir, because the water level in the reservoir (which varies quite a lot based on the flood control / power production needs) is usually quite a ways below the cities' street level, and walking up and down to the dock would be quite a chore without them. Chongqing being a major river port, they probably lots more of these things than smaller river ports do! -- Vmenkov (talk) 03:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chungking

[edit]

Is this city the WWII "Chungking" or central capital (Chung) King (capital) after the fall of Nanking or Southern (Nan) capital (King? Chunking has been the most heavely bombed city by the Japanese. The proof is in the Tim-Life book on CBI (China-Burma-India). Han Suyin has written a novel on Chungking (Destination Chungking) and her experiences of war.

http://www.guidelecture.com/critiquet.asp?titre=Destination%20Tchoungking in French

Takima (talk) 15:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the history section. "Chong" means double/repeat and "Qing" means celebration. "Central Capital" would be spelled "Zhongjing" in pinyin. Any reading into "Central Capital" is simply mistaken. HkCaGu (talk) 04:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, if it meant "central capital" the Pinyin would be zhong1 jing1. In Jyutping Cantonese, this becomes zung1 ging1, whereas "Chongqing" would be written cung4 hing3. WikiPro1981X (talk) 22:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Future

[edit]

Originally, back at the establishment of the PRC, there was no separate Chongqing or even Tianjin Municipality, nor was there a separate Hainan Province. But the latter two were created first, and it was not until 1997 that Chongqing was carved out of Sichuan.

Over time, Central People's Government has had its reasons for such forging. It was Chairman Mao who envisioned a project to move vital national [insert word] to the west, notably Chongqing, which, along with the rest of Sichuan, was bombed in the War of Resistance, safely held the ROC government. During the Jiang Administration, Shanghai was beginning to be rapidly opened up and re-developed, and it is my (and a native of Leshan, Sichuan and Shanghai) belief that Chongqing was created in 1997 to avoid over-concentration of national finances. Indeed, Sichuan now has a major sub-provincial city, Chengdu, as its capital. No administrative trouble there.

Recently, while on Ren-Ren Wang (the Chinese FB), one of my friends posted an article "Chongqing —— Chicago on the Yangtze". The 1997 decision and the dense skyline make that moniker more realistic.

Any thoughts on to this moniker? --何献龙4993 (talk) 04:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This moniker is one person's opinion, not universally accepted, and definitely US-centric. For an encyclopedia article, it is best taken out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.102.9.108 (talk) 02:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

https://foreignpolicy.com/2010/08/06/chicago-on-the-yangtze/
http://www.maximizingprogress.org/2010/08/chicago-on-yangtze-chinas-chongqing.html
https://chinadigitaltimes.net/2010/08/chicago-on-the-yangtze/
https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=184198
https://www.reddit.com/r/Foodforthought/comments/d1p4c/chicago_on_the_yangtze/Kdammers (talk) 19:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

[edit]

I fixed the redirects so that "Chungking", "Chongking", "Chung King", all point here, with the disambig at the top of the article listing all the possible variants i could find. I think ive made it as clear as it can be.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Population again by the BBC

[edit]

This morning I heard a BBC news item about Chongqing which again brought up the question of its population. John Humphrys who is in the city reports: "Chongqing is hideous. It's the biggest city in the world you've probably never heard of. How big? Hard to say because it's growing so fast. It'll reach 30 million pretty soon - if it hasn't already. And they're throwing up high rise buildings (VERY high) faster than you can count them. See here.

If it is true that the population is close to 30 million (whether higher or lower), then serious revisions should be made not only to the data on the People's Republic of China where it is stated that Shanghai is the largest city with almost 20 million but also to lists of largest cities, etc., etc. Is anyone in a position to look into this? - Ipigott (talk) 14:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Humphrys is either not that knowledgeable or is deliberately being vague. The true urban area pop. of the metropolis is nowhere near that of Shanghai. The area of the entire municipality, however, has long exceeded 25 million. And for the other parts of his talk, yes the city is foggy. Yes the CBD skyline is growing rapidly (and I have friends who have claimed that its skyline is already denser than Pudong's). Yes, the GDP per capita is comparatively low. --HXL 何献龙 14:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, HXL49, for your elucidation. I have been going through the Chongqing authorities' pages looking for more precise data on population but did not find too much on the city proper. The demographics page is rather cryptic. I did however see that a population census is currently underway. See here. As you read Chinese, perhaps you will be able to analyze the data better than most of us when it becomes available. - Ipigott (talk) 16:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See the Shanghai talk page for further discussion on the population of Chongqing. - Ipigott (talk) 09:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ba Manzi Tomb in Chongqing

[edit]

Separate article for the city

[edit]

Shouldn't the city and the municipality have separate articles? Is the city even it's own political entity in any way (has it a major?) or is it all one big blob? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.53.210.130 (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. The Chinese Wikipedia has separate articles on article on Chongqing Municipality (officially 重庆市) and the Chongqing Metropolitan Area (重庆主城区). This is because the administrative boundaries of Chongqing extend far beyond the immediate urban area. The only other municipality in the PRC or ROC that even comes close in this regard is Beijing. Yes, the city is a major political entity, because it is a direct-controlled municipality, which grants it provincial-like status. We have already discussed something like this, albeit 8 years ago... See this discussion. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 04:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that this would be a very good idea. Zazaban (talk) 23:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong picture?

[edit]

The picture with subtitle "Japanese bombing of Chongqing, 1941", is it really correct? I've seen it accompanying descriptions of the Nanjing massacre as is pretty sure that it shows a scene from that event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.28.3.140 (talk) 06:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The source National Archives and Records Administration states that it is here and now that I look at it... Some random IP changed the description in commons.... --Cold Season (talk) 06:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

URGENT: Needs some cleaning up!

[edit]

My fellow Wikipedians, it is nothing but a shame to see this article so poorly written and prematurely summed up. Chongqing deserves so much better. I demand some cleaning up! The article is missing important information and lacks composition. There are too many red links and too few sources. On top of this, most photos are a disgrace to watch (I have recently changed the main photo though, as you can see it now looks so much better). Many parts of this article are too short, for example the part on Chongqing cuisine which now is just a few sentences long..... Is anyone up for the challenge? /(Jonipoon-talk) 20:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Avoiding self-references

[edit]

I was reviewing a WP:RFP request to protect this article due to IPs removing "references" [4] and refusing to talk. Having investigated the actual dispute, I've decided to endorse a modified version the IP's edition, which is the one with the "reference" removed and the comparison with the island of Taiwan stripped.[5] The sentence and its "reference" was wrong in three ways:

  1. Wikipedia is not a reliable source and avoid self-references. Citing another page on Wikipedia as a reference is inherently wrong.
  2. The comparison to Taiwan was a misrepresentation of the cited "reference". The linked article, List of People's Republic of China administrative divisions by area, rightly does not include Taiwan because Taiwan is not within PRC jurisdiction.
  3. That leads on to the third point: the wording of the comparison to Taiwan was misleading, in a way that may give some readers the wrong impression that the island of Taiwan is within PRC jurisdiction, by putting it in a parallel sentence structure with Hainan and Ningxia.

Given these concerns I've decided to remove the entire footnote, the comparison with Taiwan, and cleaned up the syntax. Deryck C. 17:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Point #1 can be easily addressed by an external reference, so once I find one tomorrow afternoon, this will not be an issue. If the external reference is PRC-published, then I will be killing two birds (Point #2 as well) with one stone. Regarding point #3, the only IP that gave a summary objected that the structure "implies Taiwan is part of China", which I think is overly political. Also, your concern might have overlooked the main point I raised on that IP's talk: Taiwan is referred to as "Taiwan", not a province as Hainan is. Because the PRC claims Taiwan as part of its Taiwan Province, the previous construction was essentially silent on that claim.
Another reason for including Taiwan is that most readers won't be familiar with the relative size of Chinese provinces, especially considering world maps (not atlases!) almost never show subnational divisions other than the US states and Canadian provinces. But they will likely be more familiar with Taiwan. Also, using Taiwan is better than using a country because the context is Greater China. GotR Talk 18:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. I think comparisons of area are more appropriate for the Geography section than the lead. It also fits with the convention that the lead is usually unreferenced because it merely repeats things that are already said in the remaining sections. I would actually recommend removing the rest of the sentence with "it is the largest direct-controlled municipality" from the lead and moving all the details to the Geography section. Deryck C. 12:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, and this idea is even better considering the Geography section, apart from its Climate subsection, is rather lacking. In fact, it was I who placed the "expand section" tag there. GotR Talk 02:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Chongqing

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Chongqing's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "nyt2":

  • From Wang Lijun incident: Goodman, David, J. "Searching for Political Clues in China's Social Media Censorship". The New York Times. Retrieved 15 February 2012.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • From Bo Xilai: Lafraniere, Sharon; Ansfield, Jonathan (11 April 2012). "Detained Party Official Facing Ouster From Politburo". The New York Times.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 08:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any of the two that's relevant to the statement in question would be good enough. I deleted "nyt2" citation before seeing your comment, feel free to revert it and add it whatever that's relevant.--LLTimes (talk) 15:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which montage for lead picture?

[edit]
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Category:Montages of Chongqing.

There are now four montages available for use in the infobox.

Coincidentally, both User:MathiasFoxxx and myself had the idea of replacing the lead image at exactly the same time. It would be helpful to get some additional opinions about which should be used. Personally I would support #3, because in making it I tried to ensure that it showed different types of buildings, is relatively high resolution, and has a wide aspect ratio so that it doesn't take up the whole infobox. #1 is good too, though. Not so keen on #2 & #4 -- low resolution and don't show a variety of buildings. Celuici (talk) 08:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both number 1 and 3 now contains an image which was recently deleted from Commons, so they can no longer be used. I've instead updated montage number 1 with a new image inserted. This is the one we will be using as a lead image from now on. /Jonipoon 13:35 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Tsar ?

[edit]

"The decision was reportedly made at a meeting of the Politburo Standing Committee on 7 March, during which security tsar Zhou Yongkang cast a lone dissenting vote"

Americans have this comical B/S affectation of a "drug czar" or "drug tsar", I am pretty sure that Chinese don't ! And despite being invented in the USA 25 years ago, it hasn't really caught on as a job description, even there ! Eregli bob (talk) 08:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Population change

[edit]

The demographics table calculates population % increase / decrease (automatically?) but as the years have different gaps between them the % changes are not very useful. E.g. change from 1 to 6 million is shown as a 500% increase, but this was over a 30 year period. A better measure would be to show an annualised increase which I calculate to be:

Year     Pop.     ±% Annualised
1949    1,003,000
1979    6,301,000     6.3%
1983    13,890,000    21.8%
1996    15,297,000    0.7%
1997    30,220,000    97.6%
2000    30,512,763    0.3%
2004    30,550,000    0.0%
2010    28,846,170    -1.0%

As a newbie I do not want to edit the page directly, could someone have a look please?

155.136.80.172 (talk) 14:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Global City Index ranking

[edit]

According to the Wikipedia article on Global City Index, Chongqing is 84th, with a drop of 18 places, based on 3.8 points.Kdammers (talk) 16:23, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of the Huangjuewan flyover

[edit]

Provocative image in [6] - A proper aerial shot would be helpful, and some indication of how it relates to the various expressways the article does mention. - Rod57 (talk) 08:36, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removed claim of Chongqing being "anti-fascist command center"

[edit]

I have removed this text from the page:

During this period, Chongqing was one of the world's anti-fascist command center just like Moscow, London and Washington, D.C.

This was added in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chongqing&diff=948463053&oldid=947694620 and later referenced in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chongqing&diff=948464031&oldid=948463053.

I am not satisfied with this citation as it currently stands. I will be happy to see my change reverted if a relevant, verifiable passage from the cited text is provided.

A3f148b10d57987f (talk) 13:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

many papers can prove ：https://m.zh.meet99.com/jingdian-zhongguosanxiabowuguan-32510.html BladeRunner2077 (talk) 02:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sports and recreation: Association Football

[edit]

The last paragraph, starting with "Chongqing is also the birthplace of soccer games in southwestern China" is completely unsourced and claims such as "Guangyi High School" beat the " Sheffield Wednesday team in friendlies" are incredibly dubious at worst or need quite a lot of clarification at best. Without sources I think that this is either WP:ADVOCACY or WP:ORIGINAL and will delete it to just leave purely sourced and factual information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kip1234 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:08, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:22, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA22 - Sect 201 - Thu

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 September 2022 and 8 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SheilaSh11 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by SheilaSh11 (talk) 16:22, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate names

[edit]

@Uriel1022, from where does "Ch'ong-ch'in" come from or derive? I don't see it attested anywhere in the article. And I fear three romanizations of the same name becomes too many for such a prominent place in the article. Remsense诉 14:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Remsense, they are romanizations from Western Mandarin, or the Spoken Language of Western China (see 重 ch'ong & 慶 ch'in). It's a Sichuanese dictionary, quite old (published in 1900). But if you know one thing or two about Sichuan, then you understand there is no regulation of the local language, which basically makes Western Mandarin the only standard resource to draw on. On a second thought I feel it's not appropriate to display "Ch'ong-ch'in" on the infobox, but I suggest leaving it under "Notes" to serve as an indication of a more proper pronunciation of the name according to the local language. Uriel1022 (talk) 16:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course! I am not sure the best way to handle this generally, as you said there is an enormous amount of fluidity both phonetically and orthographically: we don't want to exclude known forms, but I would worry about myself accidentally holding up one as an academic exercise despite it not being in use on the ground (of course I know not at all whether that would be the case here, you would far better than I) Remsense诉 16:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chongqing&oldid=1259335531"