This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

China High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Urban studies and planning Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

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. — LlywelynII 02:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"New areas are divided into two varieties: administrative or management"

The article is written to show us the levels of each new area, but there is nothing beyond this part of a sentence to tell us what the difference is between administrative new areas and management news areas. Looking around, I found a paper titled "Diversification and Local Embeddedness: The Rescaling of National New Area Governance in Post‐Reform China" that kind of explains it, but someone who knows the area better would be better fit to make edits to incorporate the explanation of these concepts into the article. It'd appear the first type are New Areas created simultaneously to the creation of a new city district (new district government), or where the planning idea of an existing city district lines up exactly wht the idea for the New Area and is managed by a committee of the city government. The "management" type of New Areas confuses me much more.

Also, it is made explicit that state or national-level is designated by the national government, but it's not made explicit if the provincial governments designated all the new areas down to the township level, or if it's the governments above that each level that do this (prefecture designates county ones, counties designate township ones). Finally, in the national-level table, we see "parts" listed of administrative units, but most of the maps on these articles show the units designated in their entirety (e.g. Xiong'an).

We need a lot more detail about all of this, and it'd help to include the official laws that allow for these designations.--Criticalthinker (talk) 08:48, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]