Talk:List of cities in China

Untitled
Hweiwei, did you see the words under the heading "List of Cities"?
 * Those words dosent explain anything about why those entries are not classified under "China". And stop mispelling my name.--Huaiwei 12:24, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Then why Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles are not lised under the Netherlands?

About this page
The simple reason why I kept reverting the page to include Taiwan and the SARs, is because this page title refers to "China," a terminology equally claimed by the PRC and ROC. I do not see why anyone has the jurisdiction to suddenly refer to "China" as "mainland China," and remove all those subentries from this list. Unless, of coz, he is trying damn hard to have Hong Kong listed as a seperate country from China in the main page!--Huaiwei 12:56, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This exercise is begining to get really predictable. In this singular aim of portraying Hong Kong as independent from the PRC, I notice there is this unweldy desire to give the impression that both Hong Kong and Macau have more then one cities in their territories. Both arguments are simply not tenable. Anon, who has been trying to force this across wikipedia, still has not shown any evidence of how both entities are administered as such today.--Huaiwei 12:56, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't think what I am doing is portraying Hong Kong and Macau as independent entities entirely from the PRC. It is not the culture of Wikipedia, and not acceptable, for one guy from a tiny little country to force all other people to conform with his own impressions and definitions of all these concepts, the concept of the term city, the concept with China, the concept with non-country entities, and many others. This guy simply refuse to read and understand these differences, and refuse to learn the relationships between Beijing and the SARs, as oppose to Aruba to the Netherlands, or Bermuda to the United Kingdom. I can't find any other words but irresponsible to comment this Wikipedia user, and it's a real pity for Wikipedia to have someone who keeps doing things destructive.
 * You do not seem to realise, that you are practically alone in this, while your edits is being disputed not by me alone. You systemetically created equally disputable pages in order to pretend that you have entities to back up your claims, but it is not difficult to check who created those pages, or who made those edits. Trying to be anonymous seems to make you even more traceable. That you are showing distaste over my supposed lone attempts in redefining things for you is simply not justified.


 * I have consistently asked you what is the relevance of comparing Hong Kong Sar with Bermuda, for example, and yet all you can tell me, is how the UK deals with their external issues like defence, but they are self-governing in internal affairs. However, you fail to tell us if Bermuda's territory is considered part of the UK, nor if Bermuda will have their status quo subsceptable for removal within a fixed time frame. You keep trying to compare specific aspects of HK autonomy with that of depencencies, and insist they are the same. Is this chain of tought verified and justified?


 * Think about it. Why should anyone reconfigure a page on cities in China into one on cities in Mainland China, and justifying that by artificially creating seperate pages with "cities in HK" and "cities in Macau" too? If I were to do a total revert of all these, I should be asking for those two listings to be deleted.--Huaiwei 13:41, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Seems you are never satisified with comparing Hong Kong and Macau with other non-country entities. I am not the only way comparing them. But you are simply rejecting all these by saying "is this chain of tought [thought] verified and justified?" without telling why do you think they are not comparable. Whether they are to be integral part of the sovereign power, or to be independent, are not for you and me to tell. The United Kingdom did consider an integration with Malta, and the same was rejected by Gibraltar. The comparisons of SARs with other non-country entities were based on the ground that only the current state can be compare, and is meaningful to compare. Who can tell anything about ten or fifty years ahead?


 * You are the only person to discuss on all these matters, and keep reverting the edits, without understanding the arguments, and keep putting hats on others, and rejecting their arguments for rejecting. Why don't you simply put on the templates and  to all these articles?
 * That Hk and Macau are listed in some economic tables in the same league as countries is not something I am making noises over, and you know it. You have been going ALL OVER wikipedia and diffrentiating HK from all aspects of China in any topic which you happen to stumble across, and that is where the issues come in. What is the problem of listing HK as part of the PRC, something which is true in every sence of the word? Having local autonomy over domestic issues is NOT the same as arguing that it is seperate from the mainland, something which you seem to be basing your ideas on. That HK is an inseperable part of the PRC is something you can never argue against, so why are you sounding as thou I and I alone am the one who is defining it as such?


 * Your comparisons with any of those entities are simply superficial to say the least. And yes, I am refering to even contemporary comparisons of the status quo. Was Malta and Gibraltar part of the UK before another power wrested power away from the British? No. In fact, should Gibraltar suddenly revert back to Spanish control, with a timespan guaranteeing status quo, then yes, finally we have an entity which is comparable to HK. Other territories which are off-shore, and not even adjacent to the controlling country, and were controlled as a legacy of colonialism, are more comparable to pre-1997 Hong Kong then after. Accepting the fact that we are in the post-1997 era, and I suppose you will have less tendencies of trying to portray greater independence for Hong Kong then anything in reality can show.


 * I am reverting entire chains of your edits across several pages, because your attempt in changing one page, when coming under fire, results in you changing multiple pages in order to lend voice to your argument. This is simply irresponsible and sneaky, to put it mildly. Therefore, dont come tell me to "discuss before moving pages." In the first place, you created the page without discussing!--Huaiwei 14:34, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * It is because Hong Kong and Macau are differentiated from mainland China in all aspects except national defense and diplomatic relations. I have never attempted to list Hong Kong away from the PRC, as that's the status quo. But the status quo is that Beijing treat the mainland and the SARs differently, and foreign affairs and defense are the only two ministries that have power over Hong Kong and Macau. Hong Kong and Macau are inseparable parts of the PRC (well, who can tell), but not parts of mainland China, which is a jurisdiction or an entity on its own.


 * You are still trying to differentiate Hong Kong and Macao with other non-country entities by history but not by the situations at the time being. Who owns the place, and the transferring among sovereign power do not affect their current situations as entities on their own. Off-shore (well, the first time you mention, what a new concept) is also irrelevent. France has offshore DOMs. The US has two outlying states (and Hawai'i was in fact a colony, tho the Americans used the term "territory"). The United Kingdom once considered an integration with Malta, and later Gibraltar. Being off-share can be integrated, and being adjacent to can be independent. (Missoulini did claim over Malta.)


 * It was you who suggested reverting to the original state as an solution, but you do not stick with the rule sometimes. It has been an headache to talk about rules with such a guy, and to try to stick with the rules this guy suggested.


 * Who can tell whether something is controversial or not before adding or modifying. But reversion already implies that there's a disagreement, and gotta be resolved.


 * What do you mean by Hong Kong and Macau are differentiated from Mainland China in aspects unrelated to defence in diplomatic relations? Diffrentiated in terms of what? How does China giving Hong Kong the right to maintain its status quo for 50 years make it any less a part of the PRC? This is a priviledge which the PRC is not bounded to accord to the SARs, but was done for goodwill and part of a diplomatic meaneurvor in light of the Taiwan problem, and partly to appease the UK in their withdrawal. As what another member has said, the PRC has every right to withdraw this priviledge if it wants to. Your assertion sounds as thou the PRC has their hands tied over HK affairs. Hardly. If HK does have complete control over its affairs besides defence and diplomatic relations, then why is there so much debate over democracy in HK? Why is Mr Tang not elected? Why is there a concern, that the PRC may meddle either directly or indirectly in the political arena of HK, when afterall, they dont even have to offer HK a democratic environment to operate in. Afterall, if they fully adopts the status quo, shouldnt HK remain non-democratic today, since the British has never given Hongkongers any form of democracy?


 * Whatever the intentions of Deng Xiaoping was, Hong Kong and Macau are like what they are at the time being. The creation of SARs, as stated in the article 31 of PRC's constitution, is subjected to the decision of the PRC. The PRC can terminate Hong Kong and Macau as SARs, as the UK can re-evaluate the status of its crown dependencies and overseas territories. The UK did so by changing the name into "overseas territory" from "crown colony". The UK can think about integration too.


 * The pace of democratisation in Hong Kong is a politics matter, which political influence from Beijing is not within the legal framework. Taiwan is not widely-recognised country, yet its existence remain stable because of politics. The elections and the support got by various political parties are also a matter of politics. And the Basic Law did state clearly that in the first decade the legislature and the chief executive would not be popularly-elected. Afterall, being not fully democratic does not hinder an entity's status as a dependency or territory.  (Who's the Mr Tang u're talking about by the way?)


 * Cool. By comparing the fact that the UK can grap her dependencies and intergrate them into the UK and that with China, you now declare British dependencies as similar to the SARs of the PRC? It is a weak comparison as always. And goodness why you think you can compare Hong Kong's political situation with that of Taiwan even. Ask yourself...who wrote the "Basic Law"? If it was indeed inshrined and uncontestable, why is there a call for acceleration of democracy? You seem to fail to get the gist of my argument. I am not mentioning democracy as a guage of whether HK is a dependency, territory, or otherwise. I am asking you WHY is there room for influence and direct intervention by the Beijing government over HK's political development. Afterall, you did insist HK is completely independent from the PRC except in defence and diplomacy? And I was refering to Mr Tung, btw.--Huaiwei 19:59, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I got your argument, but it doesn't stand. Influence and intervention is a matter of power, but not the system itself.


 * Yes, when we refer to the idea of "Mainland China", it does not include the SARs. But you are clearly expoitative of this. Mainland China is NOT a country. How would you like us promoting the term "Greater China", which includes the both the PRC and ROC, and using the term as thou it is a country? Both terms simply are not acceptable in country listings, and their usage is increasingly questionable as time goes by. Of coz Mainland China is governed quite differently from the SARs, just as the provinces are not governed in the same way as the autonomous regions either, and neither are the municipal-level cities treated the same way as provincial ones. Does this alone accord them the right to be listed seperately?


 * Mainland China is not a country, nor do Hong Kong. But they're all these jargons everywhere, like Metropolitan France, 50-states, etc. Talk a look of List of countries by population and List of countries by area. I preferred using mainland China because it avoids all sort of confusion that whether the SARs and Taiwan are included or excluded in the information following.


 * Why should there be a "confusion" when the listing is supposed to INCLUDE Hong Kong? This is a very weak argument. Why is there a preference for using Mainland China over the PRC in country listings is what you have to try to convince, and which you have never been successful in.--Huaiwei 19:59, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Hong Kong and Macau should not be included in such listings. If PRC is usually used to refer to mainland China as "Metropolitan France" and "France", it would be alright.


 * I was refering to history? What an irony, for someone who keeps trying to bring up history and present them as contemporary. My arguments diffrentiating HK from other forms of dependencies are pretty simple. Hawaii was a colony, as you say, but it is recognised as a state today, and that is how we lists it. It may not be adjacent to continental USA, but because it is considered a part of the USA in every sence of the word, it is treated as such. When we talk about the UK, on the other hand, it does not directly refer to Gibralta, or any of its dependencies. If we are in the pre-1997 era, I would personally list Hong Kong as seperate from the PRC, as well as from the UK. It stands on its own, even thou it is just a colony. In fact, that is what everyone is doing. In post 1997, various economic publications in particular continue to list HK as a seperate entity, treating it as thou it is still a colony, partly thanks to respect of the status quo, and more because the systems are so different. But this does NOT in any way suggest that HK is seperate from the PRC, and hence, must be listed seperately in every listing. A listing out of convenience does not cumulate into fact. That Hawaii, being recognised as an inseperable part of the USA gets treated as such, is no different from why HK is treated as such too, simply because the term "PRC" as we know today includes HK and Macau.


 * So would you consider editing List of dependent territories? Hawaii is not listed, but Hong Kong and Macau.
 * Sure, if Hong Kong and Macau are provinces of the PRC? lol! Very dissapointing your conclusion is after all these talk.--Huaiwei 19:59, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Go ahead then. And go challenge the CIA World Factbook and all those people.


 * Yes I have suggested reverting to the "original state." So any examples whereby I have not done so, with reasonable examples please? If you are refering to the KCR issue, please note that there are two subissues there...whether KCR is a metro line, and you insistance in replacing "PRC" with "Hong Kong, China". The former requires detailed study. The later deserves not much mention.


 * So are you convinced in the "detailed study"? You simply stopped replying without indicating what you think.
 * I agreed in letting KCr return to the list until I ponder over it further when I have time to do so. And why are you practically holding us at ransom and demanding that we respond to all your queries, as thou our lack of time in this wikipedia as to mean consent, and therefore your liberty in implementing your ideas?--Huaiwei 19:59, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * So it's a convention that no reply means consent? (for your replies)


 * As I said before, sure, no one can predict a controversial edit. But is this your first day in wikipedia? Is this the first time you are facing opposition? Or are you suffering from convenient amnesia? We have specifically told you to STOP making conterversial edits with regards to the HK debacle with the PRC and so forth, but you have ignored it. You continued to create issues by demanding weak comparisons with other examples, and even editing or creating pages to back up your points, which when I revert, you have the nerve to demand that I discuss before editing. You taking us as 2 year olds who cant see through your antics here?


 * So my question remaind. Are you going to actually abide by your earlier agreement to stop those edits until a resolution is found, or are you going to engage in a revert war with me every single day from now on?--Huaiwei 18:50, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * It was peaceful enough before some one starts chasing behind others, and keep reverting others' edits. Who are the "we", or you are the only guy?
 * It wasent peaceful since you came around. Need me to list names? Just because others like Jiang, Ran, and hlaw has given up having to clean up your acts, and you imagined its only me?--Huaiwei 19:59, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * You are the only guy that I've so far encountered.
 * We shall see. Apparantly this "discussion" has reached another impasse, and before we know it, our dearest instantnood is going to go back to this revert wars again.--Huaiwei 16:56, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mainland China or China
The disputes have continued. &mdash; Instantnood 12:24 Feb 28 2005 (UTC)
 * no, it's just you. SchmuckyTheCat 17:20, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

DUDE, on the two versions there is a link to the "differences" between two versions. There are no differences between whatever you've setup and whatever you think the dispute is. Click that link and see. Quit mindlessly reverting. SchmuckyTheCat 23:33, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The tag compares the differences of a different version with the "current" version. If you reverted to that different version, of course there will be nothing to compare.  &mdash; Instantnood 09:38 Mar 1 2005 (UTC)

If you have contributed to discussion on this page you may want to comment here: Requests_for_comment/Instantnood

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_cities_in_China&oldid=10554682

This is the version I preferred (see also its differences with the current version). &mdash; Instantnood 02:37 Mar 2 2005 (UTC)


 * yes, not much difference, which I said the FIRST two times when I removed the twoversions tag, which you reverted without discussion. The only problem I have with the article is the semantic contortion of "mainland china", that can be changed later. SchmuckyTheCat 06:54, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Avoid disambiguation pages if you can. I object to the move from "List of cities in China". Articles on China should obviously be PRC-centric given the PRC's sheer size and importance relative to Taiwan. I also dont see a reason for exluding the SARs from the list.--Jiang 20:44, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * With the POV accusations around terminology for "China" dab pages seem to be least offensive, they result in the name of the actual political entry in the title. articles that get split up also benefit as there isn't all this back and forth about what country/province/whatever that is being referred to. As to the exclusion of HK and Macau, I didn't change the content here. SchmuckyTheCat 21:07, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jiang in this case. List of cities in China can actually stay as a full list which includes both the PRC and the ROC. Afterall, the top ten listings below (which was formally in that page before the contents were moved here) includes cities from both political entities. Perhaps we can have List of cities in China listing the biggest and most important cities (more or less like what we have now), and adding a "see also" notice to this page, which can have a much more detailed listing of all official cities of the PRC. And this listing, of coz, has to include the two SARS.--Huaiwei 05:44, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I barely touched the content of this page, it seemed to be PRC centric - so. If someone wants to make it inclusive in a way where nobody gets offended by who is what "China", sounds great. SchmuckyTheCat 06:44, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Relax. I am not pointing the finger at anyone...just feeling this page should be removed of all references to the ROC, which is a serious POV issue with many people. Having the ROC listed in List of cities in China is technically more accurate in comparison. Shall I make then changes, and see how it goes from there?--Huaiwei 06:54, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm a little confused. Maybe the dab page should just have a big list after the dab/disclaimer notice. Tht way the list avoids any politics at all. When I moved this, I didn't leave List of cities in China as a redirect so that it could be edited in such a way. After, any reference to the ROC or SARs on this page page can be simple see also links. SchmuckyTheCat 16:02, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Jiang. Is it possible to roll back to the original title and way of presentation. &mdash; Instantnood 07:46, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * The original is full of conflict and naming convention issues by trying to lump all "China" together. This way all articles are named according to the real name of the country/territory the cities are in. This presentation avoids the politics. SchmuckyTheCat 16:02, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * For the ROC and mainland "city" is an official designation and is part of the administrative division hierachy. Politics is unavoidable. &mdash; Instantnood 16:32, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * THANK YOU for making my argument for me that since politics is unavoidable and definitions differ between the countries, it is best that they be split rather than one article trying to be all things to all parties. SchmuckyTheCat 18:59, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Fine. As the definition applies only to mainland China, would you consider changing the title to ".. in mainland China" then? &mdash; Instantnood 08:45, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

more instandnood whining
This article is clearly a list of cities in mainland China, which definition is based upon the official designations, namely county-level city and prefecture-level city. This definition of city only applies in mainland China. The special administrative regions of Hong Kong and Macao have separate lists. User:Huaiwei has attempted changed the scope of this list. &mdash; Instantnood June 30, 2005 11:33 (UTC)
 * Quite on the contrary, this article includes cities in the entirety of the PRC, including that of HK and Macau.--Huaiwei 30 June 2005 11:58 (UTC)
 * It is plain incorrect to do so. The definition of city, which this list is based upon, is only applicable to the mainland. &mdash; Instantnood June 30, 2005 15:04 (UTC)
 * No other country in the world is referred to by a exonym assigned them by their component parts. Neither will the PRC. SchmuckyTheCat 30 June 2005 18:40 (UTC)
 * Would you mind explaining why in an official press release "mainland China" was used instead of "People's Republic of China"? Are you sure this is an exonym, and no other country has a major part that is referred to by a certain name in order to differentiate from other component parts? &mdash; Instantnood June 30, 2005 19:14 (UTC)
 * you've been pointing out one or two press releases like Hu Jintao suddenly told the UN to rename the country as "mainland". It's no longer worth responding to, as the answer is obvious.  SchmuckyTheCat 30 June 2005 23:51 (UTC)
 * Alright. I'll take this as a sign that you are not willing to resolve the problem through discussion. Thank you very much. &mdash; Instantnood July 1, 2005 05:56 (UTC)
 * I take from the above that your obstinate and stubborn nature has caused others to volunteerily end "discussions" with you, if you actually call that a "discussion".--Huaiwei 14:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * If I were obstinate and stubborn, Schmucky and you are as stubborn as I were. &mdash; Instantnood 14:56, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Title and scope disputed
The title and the scope of this list is disputed and has not been settled. The dispute over the scope of this article was between mainland China alone (Hong Kong and Macao excluded) or the People's Republic of China (Hong Kong and Macao included). The title is disputed, accordingly, between list of cities in mainland China and list of cities in the People's Republic of China.

The current content and title do not endorse, and should not be seen as an endorsement of, any of the two. You may also read the other version and the difference between the two. See also the edit history and move history. &mdash; Instantnood 17:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC) (modified 21:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC))

Coincidence
The house shown in the picture of Tianjin is my girlfriend's, I find this quite amazing; there must be around one million houses in Tianjin only. Someone took a pic of her house and uploaded it here, then I come to this particular article in wikipedia (amid around a million as well) and see her house. I know this is rather irrelevant but try to be in my place, you'd need to tell someone! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Emils9 (talk • contribs).

Shanghai's population
This article list the population of Shanghai as 9,031,200. There is a reference source, but it cannot be accessed unless an edit is carried out. The value listed conflicts with the value in List of cities in the People's Republic of China by population and in Shanghai. Someone needs to confirm which one is accurate. --Novelty 14:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Full names vs. partial full names
Re     - I would like to know why partial full names should be used in place of their full names or short names? Is there any official policy or guideline to back such edits? Thanks. &mdash; Instantnood 19:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "Special Administrative Region" is in the section header. People's Republic of China is in the title of the article.  What's the point?  Same point for the Autonomous Regions. SchmuckyTheCat 04:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It's good to use the short name. The issue here is that some folks insisted to use partial full names in place of full names or short names. &mdash; Instantnood 08:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * OH! That makes total sense for a revert war. Just stop it. SchmuckyTheCat 08:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Taiwan city
why doe this article list Taiwan as a city of 32 million.

Information outdated
Due to the immense urbanization of China the top cities list is quite outdated. Many cities' population have doubled such as Xian or Zhengzhou and Chongqing's population is definitely more than double the number listed. And the numbers, I'm mentioning does not include migrant workers or peasant workers.

Shenzhen
Where is Shenzhen? I think it has about 14 million residents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.246.31.7 (talk) 21:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

At least 14 million ! The problem with this list of cities here is that it uses data from 2000 and so is hopelessly out of date and practically worthless. Even the Shenzhen entry uses data from 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.61.0.162 (talk) 04:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Google books
The cities and towns of China, a geographical dictionary by E.C. Biot, revised and tr. by G.M.H. Playfair By Édouard Constant Biot

Rajmaan (talk) 22:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Number of Cities
The article states, "As of February 2012 the PRC has a total of 658 cities: 4 municipalities, 2 SARs, 284 prefecture-level cities (including the 15 Sub-provincial cities) and 367 county-level cities (including the 15 Sub-prefectural cities) not including any cities in Taiwan Province." but the numbers don't add up right. 4+2+284+367 = 657. Either the total is wrong or one of the sub-totals is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.253.194.1 (talk) 16:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Ha ha, not only that, but count the cities in the "List of Cities" table, there are 662... This article is not sourced at all, where did this info come from? Totally worthless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.198.188.110 (talk) 06:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of cities in China. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20110707045448/http://www.ccdi.org.cn/index.asp to http://www.ccdi.org.cn/index.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Cities_in_China.png
Prefecture-level cities should only have their districts colored in Red not counties (including counties in Chongqing). The current version is misleading as fuck.

Tier system is wrong
Chinese cities are generally grouped into four categories: Tier I cities include Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, and Shenzhen; Tier II cities include Beihai, Changchun, Changsha, Chengdu, Chongqing, Dalian, Fuzhou, Guiyang, Haikou, Hangzhou, Harbin, Hefei, Huhhot, Jinan, Kunming, Lanzhou, Nanchang, Nanjing, Nanning, Ningbo, Qingdao, Sanya, Shenyang, Shijiazhuang, Suzhou, Taiyuan, Tianjin, Urumqi, Wenzhou, Wuhan, Wuxi, Xiamen, Xi'an, Yinchuan, and Zhengzhou; other small and medium cities are grouped into Tier III or IV cities.

not

Tier I cities include Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Chengdu, Hangzhou, Wuhan, Tianjin, Nanjing, Chongqing, Xi'an, Changsha, Qingdao, Shenyang, Dalian, Xiamen, Suzhou, Ningbo, and Wuxi [7]; Tier II cities include Beihai, Changchun, Fuzhou, Guiyang, Haikou, Harbin, Hefei, Huhhot, Jinan, Kunming, Lanzhou, Nanchang, Nanning, Sanya, Shijiazhuang, Taiyuan, Urumqi, Wenzhou, Yinchuan, and Zhengzhou; other small and medium cities are grouped into Tier III or IV cities — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:62A:4:31:131:130:109:199 (talk) 21:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)