Template talk:History of China/Archive 2

Hiding 'Related Articles'
This template is large enough that it causes problems in displaying pages with other navigation templates and/or photographs and other illustrations. It really helps to keep the related articles hidden. LK (talk) 14:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Image has no copyright
The image used in this template, File:History of China.gif, has no official copyright. Someone is now opposing the Featured Article Candidate Han Dynasty because of this stupid image. Can the creater please identify an appropiate license? Thank you.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 23:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah! Nevermind. That image has been superseded anyway. Look at File:History of China.png.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 23:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi all, the issue is not that it has no copyright, but that the information provided did not clearly state who was the owner (since he or she must be identified for the copyright to be released). ChongDae is not the author; he or she only uploaded the image to Commons.  Hell's coffeepot (地狱牌咖啡壶) might be the author, but he or she might also be the last user to have edited the image.  In this case, an admin (one on the Zh Wikipedia) or ChongDae should verify the author as well as the copyright status of the image before it was uploaded to Commons.  Jappalang (talk) 02:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Collapsible template
Since there have been complaints about the unwieldiness of the current template, I have made a collapsible one based on Template:Egyptian Dynasty list. I recommend it for short or stub articles.--Countakeshi (talk) 13:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Eighteen Kingdoms
is there any possible way to add Eighteen Kingdoms on it? --Lennlin (talk) 16:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The article Eighteen Kingdoms is inaccurate. (I will be correcting it soon.) The eighteen principalities refer to the feudal divisions created by Xiang Yu (see Xiang Yu). It does not refer to the entire interregnum between Qin and Han, and should therefore not be included in the template.-- Palaeovia talk 23:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Lead image


Instead of the current image which depicts a small group of people snacking and listening to a musician, how about a detail from the famous scroll Along the River During the Qingming Festival:

I can re-cut a another detail so that the image is wider and not as tall. LK (talk) 18:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)



Here's a new re-cut detail. I've used it to replace the image in the small History of China navbox template. LK (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I've made another, it a detail from Departure Herald a scroll showing the large traveling procession of the Xuande emperor. I think this one is best. I'm going to use it to replace the lead image on the template. LK (talk) 12:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't have any substantial objections to the Ming painting being used, but there really was nothing wrong with the Song painting of Night Revels of Han Xizai. Yes, they were snacking and eating while listening to musicians, but this would have been much more common than a grandiose royal chariot being pulled by 15 horses (as in the painting for the Xuande Emperor). I liked the Song painting because it reflected more the average, daily activities of life, whereas this particular Ming painting shows in total pomp and grandiosity the exclusive entourage and lifestyle of the emperor. Not particularly representative of Chinese history as a whole.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 22:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)




 * Good point. But is the daily (night) life of the literati, 'history'? I would prefer something more dramatic, say, the burning of the Cao Cao's ships at the Battle of Red Cliffs, but Chinese sensibilities don't run that way, or at least we don't have such a painting in commons. Would you prefer a scene from the Qing version of Along the River during the Chingming festival (the Qing version because the colors are better preserved)? LK (talk) 05:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, like I said, I see no reason to remove the current painting, just thought I would throw that thought out there for others to consider. Along the River would certainly fit into the category of revealing more the history of daily life. If you were to replace it, which scene of the 18th century Qing version would you use? The bridge? The palace? The city gate? The marketplace? Many to choose from.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 07:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've looked through the whole image and don't see any detail that is particularly striking. Do you have any preference? LK (talk) 08:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Shrank template using line-height parameter
I just found out that the line height of the template can be adjusted using the 'line-height' parameter. I've set it to 150%, I think it defaults to 200%. If anyone feels really strongly about it, feel free to change it back. LK (talk) 06:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

From trial and error, it appears that the default is around 160% or so. I've set it back to that. I'm going to shrink the space between the lines for the same entry. Eg. the line height between 'Song Dynasty' and '960–1279', since they are the same entry, there should be some visual clue of that. LK (talk) 08:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

3 Sovereigns and 5 Emperors & Xia Dynasty
The 3 Sovereigns and 5 Emperors are fully mythical, and they are not even mentioned in texts until the Warring States period. The Xia dynasty is said to have existed at a time when there really were developed cities in North China, but there is no archaeological indication that there is any connection between these cities and the Xia mentioned in the texts, which were written over 1000 years later. The Chinese government has attempted to promote the idea of the Xia as a historical dynasty in order to emphasize the antiquity of the Chinese nations, but Western Scholars are unanimous that the Xia should not be considered a historical dynasty. Therefore these two periods should either be classified under a "mythical" heading, rather than ancient, or they should be taken off the history template altogether. The Xia is discussed in Robert Bagley's article "Shang Archaeology" in the Cambridge History of Ancient China, as well as the references already listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.199.92.29 (talk) 05:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Division between Republic of China and Republic of China (Taiwan)
There is an ongoing debate on the corresponding page in the Chinese-language Wikipedia on whether the Republic of China (ROC) should be divided into "Republic of China, 1912-1949" and "Republic of China (Taiwan), 1949-present", or if we should present it as "Republic of China, 1912-present" and "Republic of China (Taiwan), 1949-present".

Since supporters of the former style frequently cited this page, I'd like to raise the issue here as well, so that the English-language community may possibly also weigh in on the debate. Zzarch (talk) 03:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Could we widen the template a tiny bit
Template:History of Mongolia is just a tiny bit wider than this template, and the two appear one on top of another in a number of pages. I think it would look better in those articles if we made this template a bit wider (the difference is about a centimeter and a half) so that it matched the Mongolia template.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  04:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Sidebar with infoboxes version
Hello. Here's a version of the template that uses the Sidebar, Infobox and Collapsible list templates. There are some div sections within it which I imagine could be made redundant, but I haven't found or figured out how yet. 213.246.114.240 (talk) 16:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Since this template is quite tall, it could use "Sidebar with collapsible lists" instead. 213.246.114.240 (talk) 16:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 February 2013
You guys should put up a brief summary... Thank you for you're time — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.134.142 (talk) 16:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

One year gap between Shang and Zhou???
According to this sidebar, the Shang ended in 1046BCE and then the Zhou began in 1045BCE. However on the Zhou Dynasty it says it began in 1046BCE and so do a few other things. What's with the one year gap here? Typo? Sir Langan (talk) 01:03, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 September 2013
the order of dynasty is wrong. Liu Bang built the Han Dynasty,whose capital was Changan. Liu Xiu rebuilt the Han Dynasty, whose capital was Luoyang. Changan lies to the east of Luo yang, so we call the dynasty which was built by Liu Bang the Eastern Han and call the dynasty which was built by Liu Xiu the Eastern Han.

171.212.96.7 (talk) 07:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  13:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Propose to remove Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors
Historians unanimously agree that Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors are legendary, not historical. I propose that we should remove them from the template. -Zanhe (talk) 03:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and removed the entry since there's no objection after more than a week. -Zanhe (talk) 08:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't we then remove the Xia aswell, as they are mythical aswell? (EnTerbury (talk) 02:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC))


 * Not really. Although there's no conclusive archaeological evidence proving its existence, textual evidence is fairly strong and few historians dismiss it as completely mythical, unlike the Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors. -Zanhe (talk) 03:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Reverting to version using wiki standard size w/ collapsible sections
I just reverted to a version using a standardized template size. I think this version is preferable as it uses a standard template, and has collapsible sections. It's also been like this for some time. LK (talk) 08:14, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * User:Khanate General told me that s/he returned the template to the previous format as it presented concurrent dynasties beside each other and was more factually accurate. On the other hand, I agree that the collapsible version is more manageable and suggest it is also more legible. I could try to combine the two, if that's thought worthwhile..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't mind a collapsible template, but the former template was better at accurately representing concurrent dynasties. The Song and Liao dynasties were contemporaneous dynasties that shared a border. The Jin dynasty was not part of the Southern Song dynasty and the Western Xia dynasty was not part of the Northern Song dynasty.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 12:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The template is perfectly fine as is. The collapsible version presents less information, less accurately, for the sake of saving space. Saving space is almost never a good rationale for making content decisions on Wikipedia. Additionally, such a major change should have been discussed beforehand, or at least proposed with a period of time built in for people to object to it.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  15:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:BRD. Also, WP:TIND. Saving space wasn't the principal rationale, nor was a decision made as regards content; any inaccuracies introduced were unintentional. Unfortunately, however, (1) the smaller font-size underlying the current version of the template makes it less legible; (2) the light gray hue used for the year spans and smallcaps headings make these even less legible; (3) there doesn't appear to be a distinction between a linewrap and a new line (i.e. the next item in the chronology); (4) too many redundant "history"s in the Related articles links. I'll try to remedy these anon. Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:52, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Why are some of the really short regimes listed
Namely Xin dynasty (I refuse to consider it a dynasty because it's not, IMO ought to be merged) and Second Zhou (doesn't even have a page and rightfully so), while none of the states in 16 Kingdoms, Southern and Northern Dynasties and Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms are listed? While the Three Kingdoms are all listed? Is this a fair and unbiased presentation of Chinese history? Timmyshin (talk) 11:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

People's Republic
There is currently no separate article on the People's Republic of China, so the PRC entry links to the China article. Of course only a small part of the China article is about the history of the PRC. History of the People's Republic of China strikes me as a far more logical target. Gulangyu (talk) 02:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I see it's been changed again. The reason the People's Republic has to be linked differently than other eras is because Wikipedia does not have a "People's Republic of China" article. This problem has nothing to do with Taiwan! How Taiwan gets linked is a separate issue altogether. Gulangyu (talk) 11:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Taiwan
I propose that the name Republic of China (Taiwan) to be changed to Taiwan (Republic of China) to reflect popular usage. Republic of China is currently only used in official correspondence and was kept by Chiang Kai Shek when he fled to Taiwan in 1949 with the KMT (Kuomintang). This name was chosen to represent China, of which Chiang thought he was the actual leader, not the small island of Taiwan. Taiwan was seen as a temporary refuge at the time. The only thing stopping the Taiwanese from changing the name is a constant barrage of threats from China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.217.167.169 (talk) 12:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion of Sorting the "IMPERIAL" period to three sub-periods
The IMPERIAL period is so long and contains a lot of dynasties. So I suggest sort it into 3 sub-periods.

1. Zhou-Jun time(州郡时期）：Qin, Han(West, Xin, East, Three Kingdom), Jin(West, East) and Sixteen Kingdoms, South and North Dynasties

2. Dao-Zhou or Lu-Zhou time(道州或路州时期）：Sui，Tang, Five Dynasties and Ten States, Song and Liao, Jin, Xia.

3. Sheng-Lu or Sheng-Fu time(省路或省府时期): Yuan, Ming, Qing

Each sub-period is about 700 years and there was a new province name invented. At the beginning of each sub-period, China was unified again.Vicipahkou (talk) 11:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)