Talk:The Cambridge History of China

Editions
http://books.google.com/books?id=tVhvh6ibLJcC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=iN9Tdfdap5MC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=hi2THl2FUZ4C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=9skBUtc0YTwC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=SuzWL1_qek4C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=A2HKxK5N2sAC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=WpS3nInK6aAC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=vr81YoYK0c4C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 05:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

TOCs?
Shouldn't the article include the TOCs? I agree with (and maybe ?) that adding them in the present format would obscure the outline of the article, and that the TOCs are available at the publisher's webpages (which are not linked individually).

But we could keep the outline clear if, instead of using the # to create the numbers, we put the volume titles in bold face, including the Volume and part number, then indented the TOC for the voume.ch (talk) 17:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe we can put each volume's TOC in a collapsible template so that if the reader is interested, he or she can click on the [show] button for that volume and see its TOC. _dk (talk) 22:46, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Or we could have a link to the publisher's page for each book, which wouldn't be much different from a user perspective. If we copy in all the ToCs, 95% of this article will be a verbatim copy of the publisher's info, which doesn't seem right.  Kanguole 23:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry for joining the discussion so late. I do feel the TOCs would be useful, if only to provide the full author information. The article currently only lists the editors, but as each chapter is typically written by a different author (who is usually not an editor), if would be helpful to list each chapter along with its author. _dk's suggestion would minimize clutter. -Zanhe (talk) 00:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * How is that better than just linking to the publisher's page for each book? All that copying would shift this from an encyclopedia article to something like the sorts of thing described at WP:NOTDIR.  Kanguole 00:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Having the TOC is useful because each chapter is the equivalent of a short book or monograph (a number of chapters have been published independently, which could be indicated). If list articles are useful, and they are, then TOCs can be useful (not that they need to be included for every book article!).
 * Other Cambridge Histories handle this in different ways. The Cambridge History of Africa lists only the titles and editors of each volume, but, to my mind a much more useful example is The Cambridge Modern History, which has the TOCs in handsome table form, at least for the original set. Chinese History: A New Manual includes extensive listing of the contents, though in quite a messy form. Having the TOC's clearly would be following a precedent, not setting one.
 * As the article stands now, there are not even links to the publisher's page.ch (talk) 06:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Collapsible TOC might be a useful compromise, retaining the information without the article becoming overlong. I would rather the articles were analytical and historiographical like The Cambridge Medieval History, which I wrote, rather than long lists of contents that make them hard to navigate and don't actually tell us very much. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

The following all provide the same information: The difference is that the last one points at the publishers site (where the list of chapters is in the Contents tab) instead of copying from it. Note also that collapsible content in articles is discouraged for accessibility reasons (MOS:DONTHIDE). Kanguole 16:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 9. The Ch'ing Empire to 1800, Part 1 (edited by Willard J. Peterson), December 2002. ISBN 978-0-521-24334-6. This covers the political history of the first Manchu rulers, from Nurhaci to the Qianlong Emperor. 1. State building before 1644 Gertraude Roth Li 2. The Ch'ing conquest under the Shun-chih reign Jerry Dennerline 3. The K'ang-hsi reign Jonathan Spence 4. The Yung-cheng reign Madeleine Zelin 5. The Ch'ien-lung reign Alexander Woodside 6. The conquest elites of the Ch'ing empire Pamela Crossley 7. The social roles of literati Benjamin Elman 8. Women, families, and gender relations Susan Mann 9. Social stability and social change William Rowe 10. Economic developments Ramon Myers and Yeh-chien Wang.
 * 9. The Ch'ing Empire to 1800, Part 1 (edited by Willard J. Peterson), December 2002. ISBN 978-0-521-24334-6. This covers the political history of the first Manchu rulers, from Nurhaci to the Qianlong Emperor.
 * 9. The Ch'ing Empire to 1800, Part 1 (edited by Willard J. Peterson), December 2002. ISBN 978-0-521-24334-6. This covers the political history of the first Manchu rulers, from Nurhaci to the Qianlong Emperor.


 * Hmm, good points all, but now that I have seen the Cambridge Modern History tables, I think that this is much the best way to go. Kanguole's points are that the article should not look messy, which the table takes care of; that the last of his examples just above (thanks for showing them rather than describing), points at the publisher's site, which in the present form using the ISBN it does not, and the publisher's site is navigable only by going through a number of links and screens. So as of now, I don't see any reference to policy that rules out the original format that was reverted in September, much less the cleaner table form. However, Kanguole's experienced view counts for a good deal.ch (talk) 23:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * From an encyclopedic point of view, it is the historiographical content that is the relevant material here, not the chapter lists. Clearly volume lists are fine. I hope we are not going to have endless lists. The Modern History article is almost unusable in its current form and the new edition should be split off to cut the article down and because it deserves an article in its own right. Philafrenzy (talk) 02:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Full author information (not just editors) is essential and encyclopedic, and I think the most natural way of listing them is along with the chapter(s) they authored. External links (suggested by Kanguole above) are less than ideal as we cannot link to author articles that way. -Zanhe (talk) 06:00, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose that The Cambridge History of Ancient China be merged into The Cambridge History of China. Other than titular differences I don't see why this book cannot be considered an integrative part of the volume about the history of China. Notice the first volume of The Cambridge History of Inner Asia was actually published as The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia. Timmyshin (talk) 16:28, 19 November 2017 (UTC)