Talk:AAAAA Tourist Attractions of China

This article
This article really could do with an English-speaking native-Chinese-reader to translate the 138 other attractions from the Chinese source; at the moment the list doesn't get to Shaanxi so it doesn't even mention the Terracotta Warriors. Google Translate is inadequate to do the translation except for someone with an inordinate knowledge of what the attractions in each province actually are. 109.151.50.66 (talk) 14:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not completely fluent in chinese but I do my research for each place, that's also the reason why it takes me times. I'm a bit busy at the moment and I know that I should probably thought about that earlier, but I'm going to finish the translation and then, I'd gladly accept and recommend that a native speaker check my translation. Geraud a (talk) 13:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Sources for future article creation
— Llywelyn II   13:55, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * An official altname for the Huangcheng chancellor's place

Tables for each province?
I've editing this table and notice it will become huge when complete and that makes it more difficult to edit. Should we break it out in multiple tables, one for each province? When I get input from others I'll make the edit (or not). Muzzleflash (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I think it's better to have one table, having 22 lists in one page is ridiculous. Sure it will be a big table once complete, but it's better than 22 smaller tables... Mattximus (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I see the logic in this (there will be 31 lists as each province has some sights). Another issue, why not list the provinces alphabetically starting with Anhui and ending with Zhejiang? Separately, I've nominated this page for collaboration to get help since it definitely looks like we need more manpower to fill in the table. nomination link Muzzleflash (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure that alphabetization sounds reasonable. Good idea. Mattximus (talk) 22:23, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * We don't alphabetize because (a)the source doesn't: the sites are listed sequentially by province, beginning with Beijing, and (b)because it's trivially easy for the users to alphabetize it themselves using the sort function on the table. — Llywelyn II   11:44, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's very easy to sort the table but I think at most 5% of readers know how to do it. I think alphabetizing makes for easier navigation. Muzzleflash (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I know this well is probably poisoned from the photo fracas, but we're all here to improve the article: There is an official list with an official order, of which this article is an English translation and treatment; we should respect that. Beyond that, the order broadly corresponds with population and importance: Anhui is much less important than Beijing and there's no pressing need for it to head the list. Beyond that, having the list load with the official order allows users to see both rankings (official and alphabetized). Alphabetizing from the start eliminates useful information (the official ranking) for no real purpose (it can be alphabetized with a click and searched with CTRL+F) and under no policy obligation more pressing than, , &c. — Llywelyn II   13:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC)


 * It's definitely better to have one table. — Llywelyn II   11:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)


 * So we have no opposition to having one table, and it looks like 2 want to alphabetize and 1 does not. Should we wait for more input to decide on alphabetization? Mattximus (talk) 14:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Olympic park




Seriously, knock it off. If you really want to only focus on one or two of the stadiums, (a)that's a mistake since the entire park as a whole is the AAAAA site and (b)find a better picture that isn't of some trees and a parking lot, with buildings in the distance completely obscured by still more trees and bad framing. — Llywelyn II   11:52, 27 January 2018 (UTC)


 * That picture on the right is an aerial photograph, in black and white, taken from a very high distance, that shows nothing of the green. It gives you no sense what it is actually like in person, and I've been there. I'm not saying the first image is the best, but the second is absolutely terrible and really has no place on wikipedia. It's called an Olympic green and the photograph is in black and white... the one on the left is also the one preferred by the Chinese wikipedia. Once again, there is no "encyclopedic value" to the image on the right. Finally, the image on the right is incredibly small resolution so even if you like the image, the resolution is so poor it shouldn't be included in wikipedia. Mattximus (talk) 13:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Please do not initiate a edit war. It's clear that the image you want is not appropriate since the subject is literally called "green" and you want a low resolution, black and white aerial photograph? That's not appropriate, and lacks encyclopedic value. I was there a few months ago, and the image you chose tells you nothing of what it's like and as such is not encyclopedic. Mattximus (talk) 01:43, 28 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I have nominated the aerial photo for deletion on Commons since I believe it's not actually in the public domain. Obviously a high-quality colour photo that showed the site in its entirety would be ideal. Unfortunately we don't have one like that. Even if the aerial shot were PD the fact it's low-res black and white makes both the Bird's Nest and the Water Cube look like ordinary buildings – I wouldn't have noticed the latter at all if I didn't know what the picture was about.


 * Without a suitable shot of the site in its entirety, and noting the poor cropping of Mattximus's alternative, I've suggested a third picture that at least has the Bird's Nest and the Water Cube clearly in frame, although it was taken at night during the Olympics. If you guys don't like that either then I would suggest using a high-quality pic of the Bird's Nest alone rather than a poorly cropped pic of the two buildings. Cobblet (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)


 * LlywelynII, I think your aerial photo is a poor choice. There is little to see and it's not consistent with the style of all other images on the page. I support removing your choice in favor of the choices suggested by either Mattximus and Cobblet. You should also engage in a more respectful tone. Muzzleflash (talk) 18:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I support Cobblet's alternative. I'm not actually a fan of my alternative, just that the aerial one has such little EV (and is black and white, and is low resolution), almost anything would be better. I'm happy to compromise and use alt 3, if everyone is ok with that choice? Mattximus (talk) 22:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Yep. Pace M&M, the aerial photo was fine and a vast improvement on what we had before, but if it wasn't really in the public domain that is dispositive right there. Cobblet's alternative is lovely, if dark, and is a fine illustration of the site. — Llywelyn II   09:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

"Prefecture"
"Habahe County, Altay Prefecture", is not one. Put the proper information into the field. The AAAAA-rated sites in the prefecture are important enough they should be linked from the lead section of the prefecture article anyway. If they aren't, add them. — Llywelyn II   11:52, 27 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't see a good reason to exclude more specific location information. I suggest changing "prefecture" to "location". I also think you should allow for a discussion before deleting any location information. Muzzleflash (talk) 19:23, 28 January 2018 (UTC)


 * It's fine as part of the WP:BRD process. I also don't see why location information should be restricted to a prefecture, which direct-controlled municipalities like Beijing don't have anyway: Dongcheng, Haidian, etc. are districts, the next level down. Cobblet (talk) 20:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Nope. Unless this page is wrong, districts of directly-controlled municipalities hold prefectural level in the PRC. [Do kindly fix it if it is mistaken, ideally with a cite.]


 * The detail should be restricted right now because that's the #Prefectural column.


 * As far as why not emend that to "address" or something: (a)the prefecture needs to be there, in its own sortable category, as a major division of the provinces; (b)further detail (county level) would involve another separate column; (c)such detail isn't helpful for a national level list like this; (d)such detail isn't necessary, since it's instantly available via clickthrough; (e)such detail instantly begs expansion to the township or street address level (why not?); and (f)we don't even have room for the county level in the first place, let alone longer addresses, unless (g)the consensus was that you guys preferred to delete my glosses in their entirety. Wikipedia isn't a print encyclopedia, but tables have a set amount of space and you have to leave details to the pages about details. For what it's worth, (h) the CNTA responsible for this list notes the prefectures but not smaller divisions on their own list.


 * I've obviously worked quite a bit on the glosses, was planning to continue doing so, and think they are helpful to people wanting an overview of the major cultural sites in China but, if we're destroying that to just have a simple list with more address details, it would be good to know that sooner than later. — Llywelyn II   09:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I did not have the state definition of a "prefectural-level division" in mind when I saw "Prefecture", nor is the CNTA list always consistent in noting prefectures (the third entry gives the XPCC Tenth Division), but fair enough. I don't mean to interrupt your work. How is the expansion of this list being divided up anyway? You're working from the top, Muzzleflash is incorporating the remaining lists into the table, and Mattximus is doing pictures? Just asking in case I decide to pitch in. Cobblet (talk) 04:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Separate table for former listings?
I see a footnote for Shanhaiguan showing it was struck from the 5A listing. I believe there are several other former 5A sites. Should we have a separate table for these entries? Muzzleflash (talk) 16:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes there should be a separate table if there are several former sites. If there is only 1 case, then maybe a line in the lead is all that is needed. Mattximus (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Yup. Exactly what Mr Ximus just said. — Llywelyn II   09:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Official list has been moved to?
Since the CNTA was merged into the Ministry of Culture and Tourism in March 2018, the official list on cnta.gov.cn appears to have been taken down. Is the official list to be found anywhere now? Muzzleflash (talk) 10:50, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

In the official listing there are 248 sites rather than 249. So it looks like there was one delisting. Muzzleflash (talk) 13:33, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

New AAAAA attraction
The article puts it under former, but On December 18, 2017, the qualification of the 5A scenic spot in the Orange Island Tourism Area of Changsha City, Hunan Province was restored. Mattximus (talk) 19:32, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I will move it. Were there any other delistings? It seems that Henan has one extra row than the current list suggesting some kind of delisting. Muzzleflash (talk) 03:41, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Table column width problems
I see you've been evolving your tables to achieve the desired content, but now some rows are grossly distorted because of these huge descriptions placed in there. There is only so much a table can do. I didn't develop the table so I'm not going to take you on. But here are my suggestions. Description column: you don't need these huge descriptions. Turn them into a table note system with a minimum intro in the proper box. I'd suggest separate auto note runs: "Table x notes", "Table y notes" etc. The main texts can go in the notes. After that I suggest a fine-tuning of the columns to eliminate as much white-space as possible. First, the pictures. You can get some width there by reducing them to 100 or 125 px. Can't have your cake and eat it too. Is this a table or a graphics display? Second, quit putting entries under "nowrap." No reason why "inner mongolia" has to be all on one line. Third, put specific em widths in the header columns and fine tune those until you get the one-word names into the smallest width. Fourth, why is it necessary to link every single instance of a name, thus increasing the complexity and inflexibility tremendously? And finally, it is possible to abbreviate those column headers to make them less wide. Ciao. You won't be seeing me again here unless you give me a mandate to make the tables more aesthetic and then invite me in.Botteville (talk) 06:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)