User talk:Aza24/List of Chinese monarchs

People to reach out to for feedback eventually: LlywelynII, Cold Season, White whirlwind, Kanguole, Underbar dk, Nlu

Complete lists
, aside from the minimal MET list, the only other complete list I had was this one. I found a new list here, which perhaps gives some idea on who to include and who not to. Aza24 (talk) 04:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Oh great, that will be very useful. You said some sections should go, right? What do you think about the Northern and Southern Dynasties? We already have two (quite poor) Lists of emperors of the Northern and Southern Dynasties. The Sixteen Kingdoms period is also quite turbulent. They were all emperors of China, but they weren't really emperors of China, heh, don't you think?. Tintero21 (talk) 05:01, 16 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The Northern and Southern feel like a must have, since they're usually treated as the successor of the Jin (and the Sixteen Kingdoms I suppose). I'm unsure about the Sixteen Kingdoms, which is indeed chaotic enough to make its exclusion tempting. Admittedly, this is the period I am (probably like most people) least familiar with. It would be weird though, I think, to include the Three Kingdoms but not the Sixteen, and I don't think excluding the Three Kingdoms is really an option. Aza24 (talk) 05:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright, more work to do then.Tintero21 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:30, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Tables
As you said before, it’s hard to fit everything in the table as it is. Maybe we could use just the common and birth name? The first one is usually some minor alteration of the Posthumous or Temple name (the Han names are basically the P.N. minus the “Xiao”, with a couple exceptions like Gaozu or the Marquises), this could be explained in a footnote, maybe, I don't know. You'll definitely need more space if you want to do something like the List of Roman emperors. Tintero21 (talk) 16:11, 16 December 2021 (UTC)


 * For the Han emperors dropping the Posthumous names is a great idea; and most Han emperors don't have temple names anyways. We may run into an issue with Ming and Qing, where their dynastic, posthumous and temple names are all unique. Aza24 (talk) 21:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I still think we could omit most of that information since it's already in their own list articles. I'm thinking of editing some of those lists because some have information not present in the general list while others actually lack it. Tintero21 (talk) 22:00, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That seems like a fair rationale, and the Tang, Yuan and Ming lists in particular are in pretty eh shape iirc. The lang templates are for posthumous translations (e.g. Han Wudi), yeah, which I just filled in. Imo, too many English language sources use them to warrant exclusion, and they fit rather nicely after the Chinese which they are translating anyways. Aza24 (talk) 22:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * For a moment I thought you were going to actually translate the names (e.g. "Martial" for Wu). Anyway, I'll soon start editing those lists, starting for the Tang one. Tintero21 (talk) 22:44, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah I see! That would be too trivial I think, I'll take a glance at the Tang one later today. Aza24 (talk) 22:59, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Finished the Tang article. What do you think? By the way, do you plan on putting the full date reigns for every emperor, or just some of them? Tintero21 (talk) 23:33, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It looks great! For the Tang article I personally prefer having reigns in one column, as it feels a bit awkward to read otherwise, but I'll leave that up to you. For this list, I was thinking full reigns, yeah, as most other lists I've seen (Roman, English monarchs, French monarchs) follow that convention. Aza24 (talk) 05:42, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Empress Lü
Basically every list I have seen includes Empress Lü, (the Met list, Cotterell 2008, Vervoorn 1990, Barbieri-Low & Yates 2015, Loewe 2000), and many without the infant emperors at all. I'm thinking she should be put in the table more prominently, I was considering something like this:

We will probably need the explanatory note regardless, but even this still feels messy; any ideas? Aza24 (talk) 07:36, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Maybe she could have her own entry right before the Shaos, with that color that marks her somewhat "illegitimate" status. Tintero21 (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Portraits of Sui and Tang emperors?
Well, that. The Sui ones are almost contemporary, and I assume some of the Tang pictures must be of around that time too. However, most of those files (I'm talking about those in the List of Tang emperors) do not have a verifiable source to determine their time period. What do you think? Tintero21 (talk) 02:01, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think for the Sui since the Thirteen Emperors scroll is so well regarded, its (as you said) near-contemporary and seems to be used by modern scholarship for identification (on the cover of the main Sui survey by Arthur Wright), using the Thirteen Emperors portraits might make sense. For Tang... hmmmmm, the only Tang emperor I know has contemporary depictions of (multiple, in fact) is Taizong, though now that I'm looking around it seems that Gaozu does too. The list of Tang emperors has a crazy hodgepodge, some of the sources I know; Gaozong is from some Qing dynasty booklet and Wuzong is from the Sancai Tuhui (still way post-Tang). The others look very suspicious and dubious... it would be weird to include Sui but not Tang, but then it may be weird to exclude the well known depictions of Wendi, Yangdi, Gaozu and Taizong. Aza24 (talk) 08:54, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hah! I am now reading my comment back and realizing it's not really any answer. Perhaps we ask Ichthyovenator or Nlu on their thoughts with this conundrum? Aza24 (talk) 09:35, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah sure. I really think some images could improve the list, since its really long and is just pure text, but then we have the problem with the non-contemporary portraits that circulate in the web. A couple images like this one or this (which look quite old) seem to originate from the same source, some chinese site. Others... look, this one's source is literally called "china page" and it's a dead link. I personally would like to at least incluse some of the Tang portraits, altough I know it's not that simple. Tintero21 (talk) 09:43, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I found this which at first glance is a hodgepodge, but I see Taizong in there, so I asked Nlu to translate them so we can hopefully see if any of the other Tang emperors are in that set (the images are such high quality!). Afaik, the Tang is when painting began to take off, but most of it was done on silk scrolls (the Gaozu and Taizong images for example) which are notoriously weak and hard to preserve. Chances are then, the only contemporary ones are the silk ones, though I would like to include others as well. I am almost certain that the Sancai Tuhui will have a complete set of images of the Tang emperors, but the commons page is a mess and I can't find any online. Let's see what Nlu comes up with and work from there. Ichthyovenator said that they didn't see a huge deal in using non-contemporary portraits. Aza24 (talk) 22:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There are missing ones from the MET set here as well. Aza24 (talk) 22:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Columns
This "Common name" is starting to feel somewhat amateurish and perhaps less than ideal. This isn't helped by the fact that Wilkinson says verbatim that Liu Bang is the most common way to refer to Emperor Gaozu of Han, which would create the impossible situation of listing "Liu Bang" twice and not being able to list Gaozu at all. What if we put the reign as the 3rd column, but then put the posthumous names and personal names as the first and second; we could order them differently in sections where the personal names are generally more common (the Three Kingdoms) or posthumous names are more common (the Han). It would also be nice, I think, to keep the names next to each other; originally I wanted to make the reign dates to come as soon as possible, but the realities of Chinese history are suggesting to me that this scheme may be better. Aza24 (talk) 10:07, 30 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I like your idea. Let's not forget that some emperors are known by other names, like, well, Emperor Gaozu of Han, who's posthumous name was actually just "Gao", or the several "Shao" emperors (well, at least "officially", as far as I know... altough all those names are also technically posthumous, now that I think about it). Maybe we could adress those issues with footnotes in order to mantain only two columns... Maybe something like this? Tintero21 (talk) 10:31, 30 December 2021 (UTC)


 * For everything through Sui, that seems like the way to go. Then for Tang and song it would be temple and personal, but I'm starting to think that posthumous names may need to be included as well for Tang and Song, perhaps in a footnote? Wilkinson 2018 p. 295 actually says "A table of Chinese rulers that does not give personal names and full titles, including era name, honorific, temple title, and posthumous title is not doing its job... We may not refer to them with most of these names and titles today, but the sources do". Admittedly though, I'm not sure exactly what he's referring to by "honorific". Aza24 (talk) 22:33, 30 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Hmmm do you have some idea of how would that look like? You mean like a footnote in each name? I already talked about how I feel about all of this, maybe we should ask someone else's opinion on the matter? Tintero21 (talk) 22:50, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I am still on the edge, but what about another hidden list next to the age? Like below:

Maybe? Will have to think about this. Aza24 (talk) 00:47, 31 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Maybe... uhmm I think it looks a bit weird, actually. But I don't have any better ideas either, at least not now... Tintero21 (talk) 00:58, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed... we're fairly close to finishing the Early imperial and Six dynasties sections; maybe we just focus on finishing those and see where we're at before thinking too much about the next periods? Aza24 (talk) 01:10, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright, altough we probably may have to still edit the whole list if we want to make more significant changes to our format. Anyway, let's just finish what we already have for now. Tintero21 (talk) 01:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Tables III
, at the end you figured out what to do with the table problems? I tought you opposed the idea of a "Common name" column, or maybe you're planning to changing it later. Anyway, I had another few ideas for the late tables, what do you think? Also, what do you think about adding reign lengths? at least for the "main" dynasties.


 * I definitely oppose the 'common name' thing. The reason I did it was because I was looking ahead at Yingzong, but your solution seems better, and frankly I don't know how I didn't think of it! I was initially hesitant to not put the temple names in their own column, but looking around further, they just don't seem important enough. This is a long way of saying that I'll go with your formatting for the Ming :)
 * By the way, given the immensity of Chinese history (and the confusion with all the splits) I do think it might be helpful to eventually add little context snippets at the end of tables, like I did on the Qin dynasty. Any thoughts on this? Aza24 (talk) 08:33, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, another thing. Since we're going just by era names then shouldn't we ommit the "Emperor" part? I believe the title wasn't present there. Tintero21 (talk) 23:08, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm I don't see any problem with that. Tintero21 (talk)

Happy new year!
Can't believe 2021 it's over (well, depending on the timezone), I wish you good health and success for the new year! Tintero21 (talk) 00:15, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Happy new year!–wishing the best for you as well!!! Aza24 (talk) 08:05, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Shang and Zhou
Hey!—I talked about this list with a friend of mine who is a Chinese historian. I was discussing the framework of where to start the list with him; he was telling me that it might be a hard sell to exclude the Shang and Zhou. Since both periods (unlike the Xia) are thoroughly documented and have oracle bones that line up with the dates in the Shiji, their exclusion might be taking it too far. Though him and I agreed that no one would ever consider Tang of Shang the first monarch of China, this not might pose as big of an issue as those period's complete removal would. What are your thoughts Tintero? I am happy to insert lists for them here if you think this is sound. BTW–I am also planning to write a Legitimacy section in the coming week. Aza24 (talk) 02:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Long time no see! I think I told you before that I felt weird with the exclusion of everything pre-Qin. Personally I would start with the Xia, yeah I know they were probably ficticious but I think that if we can't really draw a line that separates "legendary" from "real" history then we should just include both Xia and Shang, also since they are both part of the same narrative (as far as I know). The Xia were significant enough to be considered in the Xia–Shang–Zhou Chronology Project. Still, it's not like I would really be bothered with their exclusion. Tintero21 (talk) 03:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)


 * You know... starting with Yu would make me feel a lot better than starting with Tang of Shang... Let's do all three then for now. Worst comes to worst we can just remove the Xia list if there is pushback or something. As long as we clearly mark that the reign-length and historicity is tentative, I don't expect that would happen though. Aza24 (talk) 03:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Oh, and what are your plans for this "Legitimacy" section? Tintero21 (talk) 03:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Probably a general discussion of how there was no strict requirements for legitimacy. And this section would also address how there were multiple dynasties at the same, which dynasties are considered legitimate, a brief discussion of succession and perhaps something about how dynasties were established after periods of disorder. Aza24 (talk) 05:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That doesn't sound that hard. As far as I know historians just follow the historical convention, mostly relying on the most relevant books and so on, like how we have "sixteen kingdoms" solely because one ancient writer forgot about the other 10 ones. The Roman emperors' list really needed that section because apparently no one had ever tried to come up with an actual logical criteria before, which it's just crazy. Tintero21 (talk) 06:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey, another thing. Those regnal dates you added are backed up by those two sources? I was making my own research and books usually dated the traditional founding of Shang to 1766 BC, following the writings of Shao Yong. They also give the start of the Xia as 2205, not 2150 as the current live list does. Tintero21 (talk) 05:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The dates I added are from the XSZ Project, which are near-universally accepted in China, but not as much in the West. Though I think Western scholars' issues lie more with the Xia—while Chinese scholars essentially all recognize it as completely historical, their Western colleagues are more hesitant. I believe 1766 BCE is the date from traditional historiography, probably stemming back to early imperial China, so I'm not surprised that Shao Yong used it. Considering that no date before 841 is set in stone, it wouldn't be out of the question to include both, especially if other sources use the traditional dating. If we had to choose one, I'd stick with the XSZ ones, as at the end of the day that is a product of the most cutting edge research on the topic to date. Aza24 (talk) 07:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. I asssume that is a yes then? I find weird that I haven't find any book (online at least) that uses those early dates. Tintero21 (talk) 13:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes... at least the traditional ones and XSZCP. Not sure if the bamboo annals are worth including for a general list like this. BTW, it looks like Shao got his dates from Liu Xin, per Aza24 (talk) 08:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I pretty much added that table just for fun and to test how much inconsistency existed between sources. Do you think we should add both XSZ and Shao (Liu Xin) dates, or just stick with the XSZ and avoid including earlier dates? Tintero21 (talk) 16:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm honestly not sure, as its hard to gauge how much Western scholarship has adopted the XSZ dates. I might ask Kangoule and get back to you. Aza24 (talk) 00:54, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Wang, King or Prince?
I went throu various sources and there seems to be some confusion about the title wang. It's always translated as "king" went used for the pre-Imperial era, but many books use the term "prince" when talking about later periods, which I find just weird. The Cambridge History of China (vol. 2) states that some rulers of the Sixteen Kingdoms bore the title of "King", but also translates 八王之乱 as "Disturbances of the Eight Princes" (in the same page!). Xiong's Dictionary of Medieval China uses "Prince" for these rulers but also notes that some of them bore the title "Heavenly King"... Does Wilkinson have an opinion on the matter? What do you think we should do? P.D. Personally I would like to use "king" just to mantain consistency. Tintero21 (talk) 04:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I have some guesses but am not sure... I will check Wilkinson tomorrow. Aza24 (talk) 07:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry! Getting busy irl recently, but should be able to look for this and other things related to the list later this weekend. Best – Aza24 (talk) 09:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Well Wilkinson doesn't say much, except that it meant king during the Zhou. I suspect that in this case we should just stick to king for zhou and prince for the sixteen kingdoms; if the sources have inconsistency, it might be best to follow that. I'm getting the sense that once wang stopped being strictly for rulers it grew into a general term of nobility. Wilkinson suggests that this more general meaning is probably what it meant before the Zhou. I can't access this article, but it might have more information, though it is probably more about the word's etymological basis. Aza24 (talk) 08:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Moule 1957
I think I found a way for me to get a copy of tonight! I will let you know how useful it is, considering that it was written in the 50s. Aza24 (talk) 00:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


 * What time zone are you in? just curious Tintero21 (talk) 02:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * CST. I got the book... it is interesting. Very to hard to read due to being completely handwritten! (and in Wade-Giles, nonetheless). It is comprehensive though, so it may be useful to clear up discrepancies between sources in the list. Aza24 (talk) 07:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I also got one for mylsef! I just started reading and woah, it's just so filled with details... maybe too much. The writting doesn't help that much either. I think it's the first time I see someone actually use and explain the Era names with proper dates and all; the emperors articles usually left that aspect completly unsourced. Also, for once, there is a reliable source that gives Qin Shi Huang's birth and death date. I found pretty suspicious that literally no source source before 2004 used the date "10 September". Anyway, Moule gives his death as 18 July, just as Vervoorn does... but also gives Gaozu's accession as 24 February, just as Vervoorn. He dates his birth to 260 BC, which was also weird. Actually, after reading more carefully I noticed that almost no date of this period matches the modern ones, which I guess has to do with the conversion method? There are a few discrepancies until the reign of Wang Mang... Well, none of this is that important really. What matters is that we finally have a source for all those Era names. There was a list in Xiong's dictionary that I added to the bibliography (using another edition of the book only to get an excuse to include it as a separate source), but it was quite hard to follow and it was actually incomplete. Tintero21 (talk) 09:54, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Checking in
Hey, it's me again, just checking in. Do you have any plans on continuing this in the near future? I think we were close to complete the first 1000 years of Imperial history... of 2100, huh. It seems like you're quite busy with other projects, and I'll soon be quite busy with other things (I won't be as active as before). Tintero21 (talk) 00:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Tintero! How are you? I am indeed getting sidetracked with other WP commitments. I do want to return to this relatively soon. You'll see that I did get around to adding a Legitimacy section, which I think it mostly done (I should probably avoid making it too complicated anyways). I'm thinking about getting back to this is early April, but perhaps later in that month. Perhaps we make a game plan for splitting up future work? I would be happy to do the Yuan (since I love the period) and Ming (since Wilkinson has an extremely thorough list). Maybe you could do the Tang (since you seem to know the sources well from your work on the Tang list) and Song? We can perhaps split up Northern regimes and Ancient periods later. Aza24 (talk) 03:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Well I'm doing pretty good (for now!). Yeah, I'm quite familiar with the Tang (I love that period) and I could look into Song stuff too. The rest we can split later then. Tintero21 (talk) 04:11, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , Tang are finished, at last. What do you think? Any feedback is welcomed. You should konw English is not my first language, so I'm pretty sure I messed up some grammar somewhere. I may edit other things later. Tintero21 (talk) 23:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks great! I would think the note on temple names should be in the column header rather than Gaozu's column. I find the statue for Wu Zetian a bit odd, since modern scholarship seems to favor the Qing portrait (though presumably neither are an actual likeness). There are some pinyin tones on a few emperor names, but I doubt they are needed. Other than this, it looks good! I'm working on the Ming stuff right now. Aza24 (talk) 22:12, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I added those pinyin tones only to distinguish Xuanzong and Xuanzong (Xiong does the same). Yeah, I was unsure of whether or not to use Wu's famous portrait. I couldn't find that much information on that statue, but according to its Wikimedia description it's "the only surviving stone statue of Wu Zetian". Tintero21 (talk) 23:21, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I found this by the way. Probably not source-able, but maybe an external link? Aza24 (talk) 23:26, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, why not. Interestingly enough, there's actually a biography for David K. Jordan here, so he has some authority. Tintero21 (talk) 01:37, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

A stupid question
So... do you think we should put dots at the end of each entry? I noticed that some of them have dots while others don't. I just noticed the same thing with the List of Roman emperors and now I can't stop thinking about whether to erase all dots or add them to every entry. Tintero21 (talk) 18:11, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Not a stupid question, it actually comes up at FLC all the time. I'm assuming you mean periods in the Life details section? The standard is to have periods for complete sentences and not for incomplete ones. I'd say in general most of the sentences are incomplete, though some like 'Abdicated after the fall on the Shu capital of Chengdu in 263' seem to be complete ones. Its a bit arbitrary, because of the nature of these lists, all sentences will be realivitly short, so its hard to tell (and sometimes debatable) which are complete and which are not. Aza24 (talk) 21:46, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I meant those periods. The tought came to me after seeing the Ming entries, where each phrase (in life details) ended with periods, in contrast with almost all previous entries. Thanks for the advise. Tintero21 (talk) 22:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Hong Taiji
Just noticed that you erased him from the Qing list; any particular reason? Will he be included somewhere else? Tintero21 (talk) 19:56, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I just don't think it makes sense to call him a "Chinese monarch"—he was a ruler of the Qing dynasty so can go on that list, but really it goes from the Chongzhen emperor to the Shunzhi emperor, and it seems like the infoboxes on those articles support this with the "emperor of china" field. I checked Wilkinson too, and he gives Shunzhi as #1 (though still lists the two predecessors). Aza24 (talk) 03:18, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see where you are going. Maybe this subject (I mean, who counts as "Chinese monarch") should be explained somewhere in the introduction, maybe in the "Legitimacy" section? Tintero21 (talk) 03:31, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah explaining it would be a good idea—speaking of legitimacy, I'm not sure about including the Great Yan, and in doing so we open ourseleves up for debate on including things like Western Yan and Taiping Heavenly Kingdom. If you agree, you might consider moving that part of the table to the Yan (An–Shi) article, so your work there gets used regardless. Aza24 (talk) 05:29, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * What are your thoughs on the inclusion criteria? It seems that I was under a different idea... Tintero21 (talk) 17:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I guess I thought we were just sticking with the main dynasties except for Three Kingdoms, Northern and Southern, Five dynasties, ten kingdoms and northern regimes. For now, let's stick with the mold we have and we can always see about taking out smaller dynasties later. Your work on Song so far looks great! I hope to finish Qing and Yuan soon.  Aza24  (talk)   03:23, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Ref 253 and Shang
Is ref 253 Twitchett 2009 intentional?—Perhaps you meant to put a different author?

Also, what do you think of the Shang section so far? I'm not sure if four dating systems is too many, might remove Liu et al. 2021  Aza24  (talk)   04:33, 30 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, the Twitchett ref was intentional, I'll work on that later.
 * Honestly, I think having four columns just for the dates is a bit too much. If it were up to me I would just include the XSZ and traditional dates, since they are the most commonly used. I haven't read Liu's work, but I'm assuming his dates are also tentatives, right? Tintero21 (talk) 16:26, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No worries on Twitchett—I just didn't know if you had the harv ref errors tool on and were aware of it
 * Well, all the dates are heavily tentative—I think I'll remove the Liu though if you think its too many. I'm hesitant to remove the CHAC dates, so they're often cited, and in fact the Shang dynasty article just switch the dates they use from the XSZ to the CHAC ones.  Aza24  (talk)   18:53, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Interesting, I'm just reading that discussion. Hmm what do you think on removing the traditional dates? Do you think they are still relevant? Tintero21 (talk) 19:26, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Traditional dates are somewhat relevant, but not very. Obviously they were the only dates ever used until the mid 20th-century, and I know they are sometimes still cited, but less so by specialists. My main rationale for including them was so some of the early Shang rulers would have any dates in the table—which is loose reasoning to begin with. Truthfully though, anything before Wu Ding is pure speculation, so maybe the traditional should go too.  Aza24  (talk)   19:51, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * They still should be mentioned in some capacity, maybe in a footnote explaining that the traditional chronology of Liu Xin (1766-1122), is no longer accepted by modern scholars. Tintero21 (talk) 18:38, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Good point, and your solution seems fitting.  Aza24  (talk)   21:33, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Zhou
Your work on Song looks great! My work on the Northern regimes and Yuan will still probably take a little bit; would it trouble you to work on Zhou? I'm happy to do so, but I figured it be better if you could work on that section concurrently with my finishing of the Late imperial dynasties.  Aza24  (talk)   18:14, 2 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Honestly I was thinking on having a break... And I'm not really familiar with Zhou history anyway. These weeks I'll be a bit busy with other stuff, I hope you understand. Tintero21 (talk) 04:13, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand completely! You've already done more than your fair share, please don't worry about Zhou then. We can touch base in a few weeks to see where you schedule is and talk about prepping for FLC.  Aza24  (talk)   04:59, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Amazing source
I was shocked to open my copy of Imperial China: The Definitive Visual History to find a hugely comprehensive list of rulers at the books end. Though it does not include things like names and eras, it is unique in having a blurb for every ruler, this will save so much time for Shang and Zhou! It has every dynasty we have and their rulers, save for the Sixteen Kingdoms... afaics it appears reliable (the fact that Edward Shaughnessy was their main consultant is a good sign) but am still curious on the accuracy of information.  Aza24  (talk)   04:26, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That's great news! I'll look around to see if there's a way for me to get this boo (Update: I couldn't find hehe). Tintero21 (talk) 21:13, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Looking to the future
Rough list of what remains:


 * Finish and source Xia dynasty table
 * Revise alternate names for Shang dynasty
 * Finish and source Zhou dynasty table
 * Write out full era dates for Han and Xin dynasties
 * Standardize formatting of eras throughout (mostly the middle-period stuff)
 * Standardize formatting of names throughout with the Chinese below not in parentheses (mostly the middle-period stuff)
 * Format sources properly
 * Consider Yan dynasty's inclusion
 * Clean up notes throughout article (and fill some empty ones in)
 * Copyedit lead
 * Finish Liao dynasty (very close to done)
 * Add Imperial China: The Definitive Visual History refs to Xia, Shang , Zhou, and Northern Regimes tables

Going to be less active in the coming weeks, but will gradually get through these things.  Aza24  (talk)   03:01, 23 October 2022 (UTC)


 * If you want it I can help you with some of that in the meantime. Tintero21 (talk) 03:18, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You would be most welcome to, of course. I know very little about the Zhou dynasty, if you want to look there. Or really, whatever peaks your interest in the (not exhaustive) list.
 * Side note, what do you think of the lead? It needs a bit of copy editing, some more refs and perhaps a slight revision of the alternate names paragraph. I was thinking more on it and figured that the List structure section was going to be so similar that I might as well just keep it in the lead.  Aza24  (talk)   04:36, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the lead looks pretty good. And yeah, the whole deal with alternate names could be summarized there. I'm gonna make a few edits there and then you tell me what you think. By the way, are you sure you don't want the Legitimacy section? I still think the list should have something alike the "Inclusion criteria" in the Roman list. Tintero21 (talk) 03:52, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Your edits there look great. To be honest, I'm not sure the inclusion for this list is as complicated as the Roman emperors. In this case, it's pretty much a list of the typical dynasties (as given by Wilkinson) and their leaders. Though, this might be better added in the lead with a sentence or two  Aza24  (talk)   03:56, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't believe almost a month has passed... I'm so sorry, at the end I ended up doing almost nothing of the things I wanted. I'm pretty tied up at the moment, and I'll continue to be for the next couple of weeks. Tintero21 (talk) 03:17, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey, no worries, don't be so hard on yourself :) At this point I'm just cleaning up formatting things (besides Zhou and Xia, which need a bit more of a lift).  Aza24  (talk)   18:28, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Is there any rule that states that all table/column sizes must be the same? I don't mean to sound picky, but I think the "personal name" column could be shrink a little for the Tang and Song. Tintero21 (talk) 03:18, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure, it just seemed appropriate to me. To your point though, I am mainly trying to make everything consistent throughout first, then we can adjust where needed.  Aza24  (talk)   18:54, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Check in
Hey Tintero21, I think at this point Mid-imperial China and Late imperial China are very close to done. Any thoughts? The only things I can see are tidying up the notes, adding reign lengths to Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms and possibly ordering the bundled citations by publication year (but that's super tedious, so it's probably fine without).  Aza24  (talk)   06:15, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Well, it looks good to me! I'm not sure about adding reign lengths to that section (well, it may just be laziness). In terms of content, it seems that only the first monarchs are left, right?... Wow! Tintero21 (talk) 01:59, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I added them :) Pure content wise—yes, just Zhou, but Shang and Han need some tweaking as well. Still a few formatting things throughout early imperial and the Six Dynasties entries that need adjustment, but this is definitely the home stretch.  Aza24  (talk)   09:59, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

This is totally besides the point, but, what do you think of the new Wikipedia look? Honestly I'm quite irritated on how the tables appearances have changed with this new design. Tintero21 (talk) 06:56, 11 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I am very torn to be honest, especially since I was initially against it. I think the extra whitespace on the side is hugely detrimental. Which table changes are you referring to? I can't really tell a huge difference besides less width.  Aza24  (talk)   23:56, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah it's mostly the width. I wrote the entries thinking on how it would look in the old design. Tintero21 (talk) 02:17, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh boy, can't believe it's finished already. Do you intend to promote it to FL? Tintero21 (talk) 14:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, definitely exciting. My apologies for not notifying you before publishing it, I just wanted to get it out into the mainspace asap because it's been hanging over us for so long. I'll definitely go for FL, which—of course—you're welcome to co-nominate. I think I'm going to open a PR first though. –  Aza24  (talk)   20:02, 23 March 2023 (UTC)