Template talk:History of China/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Pixels

Why 150 pixels? --Joy [shallot] 01:05, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. It seems that the template used abbreviations to avoid widening, but then Zy26 removed those (with no explanation and in a minor edit, no less!) and Cantus fixed the width to compensate. This is not exactly the best way to go about these things, Zy... --Joy [shallot] 01:07, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Leave out the small stuff

This box is too long. Let's leave out the small breaks (e.g. Wang Mang, Empress Wu) or convert this to a footer. --Jiang 15:19, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mongol Great Khans?

Read Ran's edit notes and kindly note that not all Mongol Great Khans were Yuan Emperors. Its obviously inaccurate using two terms interchangeably. Needless to say the Manchu/Ching/Ta-tsing/Da-qing....etc.

easyTimeline!

Lovely template. Can now be done via easytimeline... might be a bit easier to read and update. +sj + 18:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Colored background meaning?

I was wondering if there was a rationale behind the selection of colours for the backgrounds? Do they allude to periods of peace, or are they just a semi-random Four color theorem solution? Thanks :) --Quiddity 01:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's random. Every dynasty fell because of wars so I don't think they alude to periods of peace or whatnots. Though I think there's interesting that the PRC is pink while the ROC is green. BlueShirts 06:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

shang after Xia

Hello, when we see the page for Xia 夏, on the right there is the chronology and the Shang is put above ( later stage in history ) where it should be below —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.79.24.250 (talk • contribs).

The articles all say the opposite: eg History of China#Prehistory, or this quote, "The Shāng dynasty followed the quasi-legendary Xià Dynasty..." from the Shang Dynasty article. Based on that, I think perhaps you might be mistaken or confusing something? I'm not an expert here, just a vandal-guard, so if you can prove otherwise with references, I'd be happy to listen and help :) —Quiddity 07:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Goguryeo‎,Balhae, Tibet, Xiyu, Nanzhao, Dali, etc.

These local kingdom, although they never announce emperor, should be included in the template, since they are part of Chinese history. We might have too many of them, but we should choose some important one and use etc. for the rest.--Yeahsoo 07:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I would advise against that, because they were only peripheral kingdoms in Chinese history. Plus, additions like that would be reverted pretty quickly anyway. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

suggest add year

I just saw the French version of this template, i think the year display on the side is really nice, suggest adding.--Voidvector 22:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

New template

• Got rid of the original random color coding (can't imagine how confusing it must've been to people unfamiliar with Chinese history).
• Added dates to the major dynasties and periods.
• Separated Chinese history into 3 groups: Ancient, Imperial and Modern.

Hope you guys like it. --Naus 23:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I like the old one more. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I like the new one. Good work. It seems too wide, the spacing could use some work. May be abbreviate more? --Voidvector 01:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Narrower now.. HongQigong: could you give your reasons so that it may be further improved? --Naus 02:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I like the bigger text of the old one, as well as the picture at the top, and I question whether the dates are necessary. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I think dates are helpful because a lot of the articles relating to Chinese history just mention the dynasty name without putting the dates of the dynasty in brackets, so a navigation template with dates helps the novice orient himself. Also, the previous template without the dates tended to mislead the unengaged since some very short dynasties had very large blocks (which graphically implies long periods unless otherwise stated). But most importantly, the color blocks were randomly colored, creating an arbitrary complexity. I spent about 10 minutes trying to figure out a pattern to the colors used for the dynasties. I'm sure many others have also. It's just a simple case of poor visual representation and it was difficult to actually find something on the old template as there were so many blocks and they were all in pastel colors. For example, the "Han Dynasty" block on the old template was obscured by Eastern and Western Han, which I found pretty ridiculous. I appreciate your comments though and will try to see if I could get it clearer. --Naus 04:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Xi-Xia wasn't a breakaway of Liao. Jin was a breakaway of Liao and later defeated Liao. They co-existed for some time. Michael G. Davis 20:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Issue with the new template: It does not stack vertically with other "float right" templates. Look at History of the Republic of China for example. --Voidvector 03:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: The new template is not good, aesthetically or any other way. It looks amateurish, whereas the former one looked very professional and impressive. Please replace the old version. Badagnani 07:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• Professional? The former template was beyond amateur in its use of large random color blocks. It was so amateur that the former template was repeatedly removed by other users when placed on the China page. The former template was essentially useless to the user, as it had no concept of dynastic succession. --Naus 04:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that aesthetically the old template is superior. However, it needs to be re-designed to better communicate the dynastic succession in Chinese history. For instance, it is natural to interpret the old template as saying that following Shang, China is ruled jointly by Western Chou, and Chou. Next came Spring and Autumn, and Eastern Chou (both successor of Western Chou). This is followed by Warring States (successor of Spring and Autumn). Thus, prior to the rise of Qin, China was apparently ruled by Warring States, Eastern Chou, and Chou.

Naus's template does a better job of communicating the dynastic succession, and serves an important function. Let's combine the semantic clarity of the new template with the aesthetic elegance of the old.--Palaeovia^talk 08:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: No good--consensus should have been sought and gained, then what you propose should have been done, BEFORE this change was made! Badagnani 06:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

One thing I would like to say - I do appreciate Naus's efforts in the redesign. However, it would have been immensely better if he had discussed such big changes before actually editing. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 08:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: The editor who has "revamped" the template seems not to be responding to comments from other editors interested in this template (particularly in ensuring that it retains the artistic, appealing qualities of the former version). If there is no response in a reasonable amount of time, I am going to revert the template to the previous version pending a reasonable amount of discussion and consensus for the change. Badagnani 00:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it may be time to revert now. Nobody has responded to your comment above for a few days. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Don't be ridiculous the both of you. Clarity of information trumps aesthetics on Wikipedia. The previous template used ARBITRARY and RANDOM coloring schemes that were extremely confusing, and other users have brought this up ("What do the color patterns represent?"). Secondly, the former template had a poor concept of dynastic succession, and was an absolute disaster trying to locate dynasties with (which is the OPPOSITE of what a navigational template should be). Aesthetics is a matter of personal opinion (for instance, I find the original template quite unpleasant in aesthetics), so one should avoid using that argument here. The issue again was that the former template was misleading and inaccessible. --Naus 04:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• I find the new template well-designed for the purposes of:

1. conveying the dynastic successions in Chinese history
2. providing links to the major articles on Chinese history

The only drawback, in my judgment, is the font size that might prove too small for some.--Palaeovia^talk 12:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• The old template is adapted from the Chinese Wikipedia [1] where more wikilinks are accommodated than in our template. For instance, there are six columns for the "Southern & Northern Dynasties". The color scheme there helps to group the six columns into three groups. It also conveys some meaning (unexplained, though) by coloring "Han", "Western Han", "Eastern Han", and "Shu" (of the "Three Kingdoms") with the same color. However, the fact that "Warring States", "Han" and the "Southern Dynasties" are of the same color is probably insignificant.

In view of the fact that our template has fewer links than the Chinese one, we might dispense with the elaborate color scheme.--Palaeovia^talk 00:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Goguryeo/Balhae disputes

It looks like the Goguryeo/Balhae disputes may be spilling over here on this template. In case anybody is not aware, the dispute revolves around whether Goguryeo and Balhae were "Chinese" or "Korean" kingdoms. Please see Talk:Goguryeo and Talk:Balhae for more information on the disputes. I think it may have spilt over onto other articles as well.

User:JakeLM has insisted on including Balhae on this template without discussion[2]. This inclusion is controversial and contentious, and really should be discussed. Personally, I do not think we should include it in the template, firstly because there is disagreement on whether or not Balhae was "Chinese", and secondly because even if it was, it was a pretty small kingdom and doesn't really need mention. If we are to include every little kingdom that had a part in building the Chinese civilisation, this template would be about 3 or 4 times bigger. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 08:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Check out this mediation request. It has 18 involved parties! No, we definitely don't want that dispute to spill over any more than it already has. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Minor centers of power (Bohai)

We should leave minor centers of power in the periphery of China (or outside China), such as Bohai, out of the template. Do we want to convey the impression that Tang and Bohai were co-rulers of China? There should be another venue for an exhaustive list of all minor, local powers not pledging allegiance to the central authority in China.--Palaeovia^talk 08:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

That is a daunting and near-impossible task, outside of sticking with categories such as Category:Former countries in Chinese history. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 09:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Blueshirts 09:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggest of removal of Naval history of China in the template

If we had to include the naval history,somedays we had to include the airforce history,or even more some cosmos force history.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 08:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a subgroup of military history, just as is in the Japanese and Korean history templates as well. --Aldis90

We donn't need the follow what the Korean and Japanese do,I mean by following what other had done isnot always a good idea.If we add naval history,we had to add the music history under the chinese art one,we had to add the higher educational history under the educational one.Dont you find its too clumsy?--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 06:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I do think the template is rather large, perhaps making smaller templates for subgroups on those pages (such as an art history template with music history subgroup) may be a good idea. ---Aldis90

yeah,agreed,I will remove the naval history one,it is already placed under the military history.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 13:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Date dispute

I've initiated a discussion at WikiProject China on which date system we should use. Please discuss there.[3] Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Tweak to template

I've tweaked the template so that it can be used in all articles without ruining the style. The default is that BCE/CE notation is used. When going into an article that uses BC/AD notation, it can be entered as {{History of China|BC=1}}. Foula 18:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted your change as there is no consensus for doing that. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You don't explain what objection you have to the change, but please allow me to explain what it is doing. At present this template is used on a number of articles that use BC/AD notation and a number that use BCE/CE notation and a number that use no notation. However, as this template itself uses BCE/CE notation, it looks odd when placed on an articles that otherwise uses BC/AD notation. My intention is to correct this, without in any way changing how other articles looked.

I first suggested having a totally separate template that was identical to this, except for using BC and AD rather than BCE and CE. From what I could tell, people were sympathetic to the idea that articles should look consistent, but did not want a new template that they termed a "fork".

My proposed tweak removes that objection by adding additional functionality to the template. If people add {{History of China}} to an article, this template would appear exactly as it would now. If, however, you add {{History of China|BC=1}} to an article, you will get the same template, but with BC/AD notation. Thereby ensuring consistency and improving the aesthetic look of those articles. How to modify the single template is clearly and concisely explained in the text. Foula 12:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

There's been discussion on WikiProject China, and as I've pointed out, there's no point in making the template adaptable - it's basically just another way to push BC/AD, and most interested editors want to see Chinese history articles use BCE/CE anyway. Please do not change this template without concensus. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

As I think you are aware, I am in favour neither of changing articles that currently use BCE so that they use BC nor vice versa. Also as you are aware, there are a number of articles on the history of China that use BCE and a number that use BC. You wish to change this, but as of date, have failed to gain consensus for your proposed changes, with the effect that for the foreseeable future, it will remain the case that some articles on the history of China use BCE notation, others using BC notation (and others needing no notation at all).

What my tweak to the template would do would allow those that currently use BC notation to look fully consistent, without changing any other articles in any other way. At present they are fully consistent except for this template. It seems silly not to have them fully consistent including this template.

Incidentally, if this approach were to become adopted throughout Wikipedia, it would surely mean many more instances of BC appearing in templates on articles that currently use BCE will be changed to BCE than the other way round.

On all the above-mentioned grounds, I don't think your claim that this tweak would promote any particular style holds good. Foula 15:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

And as you are aware, I am against Chinese history articles using BC/AD. Coincidently this would include templates that those articles use. So I am against the tweak as it would make BC/AD appear in the template. In my view, it is better to change the articles in the Chinese history series so that they all use BCE/CE. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

My proposed tweak does not affect your right to argue that the articles themselves should change notation. Nor would it change the fact that if that change took place that they would be support by a template using BCE notation.

What I am saying is that, given that, for now at least, those articles will use BC notation, should they not be supported by a template that uses BC notation? You do not like the given fact, I know, but that's no reason why articles should look inconsistent until one side or another "wins" the BC/BCE debate (especially as I suspect such resolution is decades off!). Foula 16:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, reading your note again, I'm not sure whether you've fully followed what the tweak is doing. BC does not appear in the template in any way whatsoever except where that functionality is turned on. I would only support that functionality being turned on for articles that currently use BC notation. So an article that either uses BCE notation or no notation would still have exactly the same template as you see now. Foula 16:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, instead of tweaking the Template to fit the articles, maybe we could just as well tweak the articles to fit the Template? I do no see why one should have primacy over the other, except for POV purposes. If a Template, as any article, was made BCE/CE, it has the right to stay so as per the Manual of Style. PHG 16:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The advantage with a template is that it can concurrently support both styles. Unfortunately an article can't. Another advantage is that it would cause far less hassle, controversy and disruption to change a template so that it concurrently supports both styles than it would to change lots of articles.

My suggested approach would be the quickest and easiest way to make the template consistent with all the articles that support it.

The second quickest, in this instance, would be to change the style of all the history of China articles and this template to BC notation (since most of the relevant articles already use BC notation). (If we give an article or a template equal weighting and go with the majority, we'd have BC coming out the clear favourite!)

The one that would take the most time, and therefore cause most hassle, would be to convert all the articles to BCE notation.

I wonder whether, if I had suggested this proposal on a template that currently used BC notation, PHG and Hong Qi Gong might have come to the different conclusion that this is a simple and quick way of getting a fair number of articles looking better. Foula 16:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The "quickest and easiest" way is not necessarily the right way to do things. I am against the "tweaking" because I don't think the template should use BC/AD at all, whether by tweaking or not. If we can come to a consensus to change all Chinese-history articles to use BCE/CE, I would gladly do the work myself. So it is no hassle to you or anybody else, and I also personally do not see it as a hassle to myself. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

You are just politicking now. It is a great hassle to me if articles currently using BC notation move over to BCE notation. Why? Because I have been brought up with and am only used to BC notation. Having an alien style, and one which, unfortunately, by its very nature is highlighted in capital letters and by being preceded by numbers rather than words, and which can appear often, and early, in articles, is a natural distraction to me. I know I'm not alone in this: everyone likes to read articles written in a style they are familiar with. By using alternative notation you are excluding people like from being likely readers of the articles, and you are also excluding people from becoming editors of the articles.

Of course, you would rather exclude people than accept that many people have a different, but equally valid, worldview than yourself. That is arrogant and intolerant. I'm afraid that it is also not helpful to this section of Wikipedia. To you, success is imposing your viewpoint on others. Whether articles attract readers or insightful new editors, whether they are open to whatever audience they should be attracting, none of these are issues that appear relevant to you.

After all, if you are not politicking, what possible reason can you have against articles that already use BC notation being supported by templates that use BC notation (given that, in so doing, it does not prevent articles using BCE notation from being supported by templates that use BCE notation)? Does having an inelegant mish-mash make them a better read? Do they look better aesthetically? Are we, despite the inelegance, attracting a wider audience or wider editor base by producing articles that employ both, rather than a single style (and one that isn't better developed by having allowing different articles to adopt different styles, but consistently so)? Foula 08:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Haven't I said before that I am against Chinese history articles using BC/AC because they are not Christian-related? And please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks and do not call me "arrogant" and "intolerant". No, having an inelegant mish-mash does not make them better to read, so we should change all the articles in the series to use BCE/CE. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I have created a mirror template called "Template:History of the Chinese" that is intended to be used for pages that are using the BC/AD convention Simplonicity (talk) 22:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The majority of pages that utilize this template use the BC/AD convention. Attempts at compromise have been blocked, so I have changed this template. Simplonicity (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

There's no concensus for this change, so I have reverted. However, I am willing to do the work to convert the articles linked to this template to use BCE/CE if we can agree on that change. But so far, there's no concensus on changing the articles' formats either. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be easier just to change it in the template. And there is no consensus for what you propose. Readin (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I recognise there's no concensus to change the articles either, and I think I wrote that in my last comment as well. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

There are, however, Wikipedia policies. I remember clearly that one policy is that either time convention is acceptable, but that an article should be consistent. Another policy I remember clearly is that we don't change the convention used by the original author. I believe there is also a policy against unnecessary forks. Right now we're apparantly in violation of the policy against inconsistent usage of convention within an article. The way to address all of these policies is that Foula attempted to do in the first place, make this template (is the template an article, or part of an article) adaptable to the conventions of the articles that include it. You may not like the Wikipedia policies, but if that is the case try to get them changed rather than trying to impose your personal preferences on everyone else. The policies don't need consensus in order to be put into effect. If Foula is still around around I hope he'll make his changes again. Otherwise I'll try to find some time to look up what he did and put it in place. Readin (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be great if the articles are consistent, and I (and I believe other editors as well) would prefer we change the articles instead of changing the template. There's basically no concensus to change either the template or the articles. So right now the relevant policy to follow seems to be WP:Concensus. Ease of editing is no concern. Like I said, I'm willing to do the work all by myself to change all the linked articles if we can reach concensus on that. But I am against changing the template because I am against using BC/AD for articles related to Chinese history. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to add, Hong Qi Gong, that whether BCE or BC are used, they still reference the Christian calendar. Would you rather we use another calendar era other than the Gregorian?. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`} 13:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

As per Readin's suggestion I have recreated the method that Foula used. This change will have no effect on pages that use the BCE/CE convention. Hong Qi Gong, please stop, you are being an obstructionist. Simplonicity (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Long...

This template is too long. Sure, China's had a long history, but this is longer than most pages, even without counting stubs. I considered adding it to the Han Dynasty article (certainly part of the History of China), but when I previewed it, all the images along the right side were pushed far down. Wikipedia often runs into these problems with long sidebar-style templates and multiple footers on articles which fall under a number of subjects. However, I'm not aware of any Chinese History footers. Why don't we convert it to a footer, as suggested in section 2 (leave out the little stuff)? GANGSTERLS ^{talk contribs editcount}

I would support a conversion to a footer. Pojanji 22:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

What qualifies a government for inclusion

What qualifies a government for inclusion in this template?Readin (talk) 05:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Should the section showing the ROC from 1949 to present be removed as it has nothing to do with China? Readin (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

No, because that would be pushing a POV as well. Rightly or wrongly, today's regime calls itself the ROC, and considers itself the rightful heirs of the original ROC.Ngchen (talk) 00:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

So we're supposed to consider that government's POV to be the NPOV? Readin (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe NPOV is reached on any controversial issue when all majority and significant minority points-of-view have been fairly represented. As for a template of the history of China, well we have the can-of-worms of which regimes are "Chinese" and which are not. For something this messy, IIRC the consensus is to describe things as they exist on a de facto basis. The reader can learn all about the varying de jure theories in other articles. Reason I am pushing for describing things on a de facto level is that only then are things consistent. Otherwse, people can make a case for renaming the PRC article "The communist rebellion rogue regime" or renaming the ROC article "The defunct so-called Republic of China." Similar issues arise when dealing with the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" and such. As such loading obviously violates NPOV, again IIRC the consensus was to describe things de facto. The Chinese naming conventions page notes that the ROC and PRC are to be treated on an equal basis for this reason.Ngchen (talk) 04:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

De facto Taiwan is no longer part of China. However, there is significant disagreement. Perhaps a note of the dispute would be usefule.Readin (talk) 23:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

While I'm not sure you're really trying to maintain a NPOV, or subtly pushing your POV that Taiwan has nothing to do with China, I don't agree with putting such a note. I'm not trying to suppress your content at all; in fact I think it'll be great if you can expand on the subject in the relevant articles. Such debates should be pointed out in the articles pertaining to those relevant political forces (say, in Republic of China articles), not in space-constrained places such as this template. Otherwise, where do we draw the line on what to include on the footnotes? Should we include debates about the Goguryeo/Balhae? What about uncertainties about the dates? Or sovereignty disputes between warring states 2000 years ago? By putting this note of dispute on a timeline template that serves to put in context the different major political factions that have ever ruled China over the past 4+ millenniums, you're putting implicit bias and undue weight on a very recent dispute considering the context, and jeopardizing the consistency and style of this template. I'm of the opinion that this should only be a 'yellow page' directory to articles for readers interested in learning a little about the history of China and nothing more.

One more note, removing ROC post 1949 from the timeline would be POV, since the official stance of ROC is that it continues to claim jurisdiction over mainland China, Mongolia, and some other territories (in other words, the 'whole of China'), while it currently only has jurisdiction over only a small portion of them. I think such claim to the 'whole of China' is the same vice versa for PRC, to a smaller extent compared to the ROC claim. By removing ROC post 1949, you would be suggesting that ROC ceased to exist after 1949 even though it continues to function within a subset of the whole of China. Just because PRC is controlling the lion's share subset of the whole does not make ROC irrelevant. Think Three Kingdoms, only this time it's mainland and island. Well, that's how I think of the drama between them anyway. Best regards. --Zess T (talk) 07:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm well-aware of the ROC official POV. The fact that it is an "official" POV does not make it any less of a POV. You are right to point out that the ROC's official view also claims jurisdiction over Mongolia. If there is a Mongolia template, should it then note the ROC as one of the current governments, simply because that is an "official" POV? The official POV is a POV, but it is only a POV. In fact given that the ROC is pressured by both the U.S. and China, we cannot even be sure that the "official" POV is really a POV and not just a meaningless mouthing of words.

I'm not aware of what other footnotes may be necessary. I'm concerned about the Taiwan dispute. I share your concerns that the template not be too bulky, so I put the footnote at the bottom where it wouldn't be in the way rather than right alongside the word "Taiwan". I was hoping someone would reformat it so it wouldn't take up so much space (I haven't entirely figured out wiki formatting yet). But the note definitely belongs. I'm not so much trying to push a POV as trying to prevent the opposite POV from being pushed. I can only think of three alternatives:

1. Leave Taiwan in their uncommented: Pushes POV that Taiwan is part of China.

2. Take reference to Taiwan out: Pushes POV that Taiwan is not part of China, or pushes POV that ROC is defunct, depending how you interpret it. Or, for people unaware of the dispute, doesn't push anything.

3. Put the comment in. Gives deference to view that Taiwan is part of China while noting that it is disputed. That would be NPOV.

NPOV in this case competes with conciseness, but "NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable." according to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

I totally agree on you about the fact that an official POV does not make it any less of a POV. If you were to put a note on this template, then it would be 'fair game' to put such attribution of sovereignty debates on all Taiwan templates mentioning that PRC holds a different view to avoid information suppression according to the NPOV tutorial. The official POV is a POV, and it is the duty of editors to fairly represent all POVs, especially in a very contentious issue such as this. All I'm arguing for is the avenue where such debates are presented. It is much more suitable and proper that such views be presented fairly and properly in the articles themselves and not in navigational templates such as this. I should also point out that ROC is pressured by PRC, the US and even the KMT party within ROC to maintain the current position because the revisionist view is pushed out by the DPP and the current president of ROC affiliated with it. So really, it is the view of that particular political entity in ROC trying to push their POV as the official POV. By declaring that the Taiwan government is independent and has absolutely nothing to do with China would be pushing the POV of the DPP as the official POV, and that would definitely violate NPOV. Your questioning on the validity of the official POV by the suggestion that "we cannot even be sure that the 'official' POV is really a POV and not just a meaningless mouthing of words" would be pushing your POV on the matter, and that is definitely not a NPOV, as well.

I also don't think the word 'Taiwan' on this template is pushing the POV that it is part of China. There is a mention of it because the KMT/ROC which ruled China prior to 1949 has fled to the island after they lost the civil war, and the purpose of this mention here is only to inform readers about what happened to them after 1949 and where they are at the moment. Just because there is a mention of Taiwan in a template of Chinese topics doesn't automatically mean that it is advocating the POV that Taiwan is a part of China. If the opposite were the case, would any and all mention of Mongolia in Chinese topics mean that it is advocating Mongolia as a part of China, for example? Zealously removing the reference to Taiwan here or injecting a comment on the debate on this navigational/timeline template in the name of 'NPOV' is pushing your POV by insinuation.

Long story short, I think the template as of now is fine. If you want to expand your views about the sovereignty and status about the island, feel free to do it in articles about Taiwan, but definitely not here. Cheers! --Zess T (talk) 22:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be implying that I'm pushing a POV. All I'm doing is noting the dispute. I'm not advocating that we put all the various POVs of the US, PRC, DPP, KMT, etc. into the template. As you say, if people want to know they can go to the article. But they can only know it if they know such a thing exists. As it stands now, all the readers sees is that the government of Taiwan is listed as a co-government of China, thus making the clear implication that Taiwan is part of China. But that is not NPOV. We should just note that the information implied is disputed.

You say that if we note the dispute here, we'll have to note it in all the Taiwan related templates. What templates specifically are you talking about? I do pay attention to Taiwan related articles and they all have the dispute built right in. Look in the List of Sovereign states and you'll see Taiwan gets a special place outside the main list because of the dispute. Go look up Taiwan and you'll find that unlike other countries (France, Germany) the common name for the country does not link to an article that includes government information. Instead, the government of Taiwan is treated as a separate article so that Taiwan can be just about the island. The Taiwan related articles bend over backwards to avoid implying anything that conflicts with the PRC view. It's not too much to ask that a China-related article show similar respect to other POVs. Readin (talk) 01:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I hate to be blunt, but it's pretty clear that you come with an agenda by asking whether "the section showing the ROC from 1949 to present be removed as it has nothing to do with China" in prior discussions in this subtopic. From the outset, you already have a heavily prejudiced POV of the situation and you certainly did not come here to maintain neutrality, even with the knowledge that the current situation is more complex and deadlocked than you would acknowledge, or perhaps understand.

What the timeline indicate is accurate considering the events that took place. KMT/ROC lost the civil war to the Communists and retreated mainly to Taiwan. They were also able to keep control over some territory off the Fujian coast and some islands in the South China Sea. In Taiwan, ROC continued to claim, and still officially does, that it is the sole and legitimate ruler of the whole of China, even though it lost almost all of it to the Communists. So KMT/ROC is technically a remnant and a continuation of the old regime operating within a small subset of the whole of China. The Communists, after it won the civil war, established the People's Republic, and it in turn claimed much of the territories that the ROC claimed, and in addition, those that it didn't already have, particularly those that the ROC had and still has. The timeline is neutral for the fact that it represents both competing interests in the conflict for sole legitimacy and control over the whole of China and the timeline takes no side on which is more 'legitimate', as it represents both equally. So, as of now, PRC is the government of the bigger piece of the whole of China, where ROC is the government of the smaller piece. Like I said earlier, just because PRC is controlling the lion's share subset of the whole does not make ROC irrelevant. The island of Taiwan doesn’t really even come into play in any significant part on this timeline except for the fact that the ROC is currently operating from there. I think you’re misunderstanding that Taiwan == Republic of China. In truth, Taiwan is only a part (and currently the most significant part) of the ROC. It is already a part of China (under which China is ambiguous given the contentious debates, refer to one China) under the control of the Republic of China. The interpretation of ROC being the ‘co-government’ of China would be correct here for the fact that it is ruling over a small part of the whole of China, and that Taiwan is under part of its jurisdiction. Suppose I share a pizza with you, with me taking half of it and you the other half. Your claim that the view of ROC being the ‘co-government’ of part of the whole of China is ‘not neutral’ would make as much sense as saying that the portion of the pizza I shared with you does not belong to the original pizza, and any claim that your piece does belong to the original pizza is not neutral. It’s nonsense.

Given the context of this template, the focus of editors should really be about the History of China and only about the History of China. Before adding your note to the template, ask yourself, how would my contribution help readers know more about the History of China? Is the question of Taiwan sovereignty so overwhelmingly important that it deserves mention on a timeline that spans over 4000+ years? As far as I can see, you’re forcing the debate of the sovereignty of Taiwan into another subject which has little if any relevance with the debate, in this case the History of China. To me, you adding that note would make as much sense as me fetching articles and templates from thin air and adding notes to them in places such as here saying “there is debate about the legitimacy of this government vis-à-vis the PRC,” I can do the same to this page, saying “there is much debate about whether Taiwan is part of the current ROC government,” or here, or any articles and templates that have the word Taiwan. I can even do the same to all Chinese articles questioning the legitimacy of the PRC vis-à-vis the ROC, all for the sake of representing all POVs to achieve a NPOV. The possibilities are endless, all for the sake of noting the dispute. Because, as you say, “they can only know it if they know such a thing exists,” right? It’s egregious.

Just because you're of the opinion that "Taiwan related articles bend over backwards to avoid implying anything that conflicts with the PRC view" does not give you the right to come here and make irrelevant edits to note the dispute in a template that has absolutely nothing to do with the dispute and takes no position on the dispute. This template is about the History of China, not the History of China and its Controversies and its Disputes and its Territorial Sovereignty Questions and the Legitimacy of its Governing Political Entities. I do believe in fairly representing all POVs in contentious issues, but is this template really an appropriate place for presenting the issue of Taiwan sovereignty? This is a navigational template for readers to discover information about China’s history over the millennia, in a way such that readers can easily identify the major periods of its history and access information about their major players through links to those articles, and nothing more. This isn't a place to advertise about ongoing disputes. I emphasize again, I don't care about your POV at all on the subject of Taiwan, but if you want to advocate your particular positions on Taiwanese sovereignty, do it in relevant articles pertaining to those debates. I'm aware you're very passionate in advocating the independence of Taiwan, politically and/or territorially. I can only hope that you can show a little restraint in your crusade. --Zess T (talk) 12:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Please calm down.

You are clearly of the POV that Taiwan is part of China. You say so many times in your argument as though it is something everyone believes and accepts. But it is not. When you say "the timeline is neutral for the fact that it represents both competing interests in the conflict for sole legitimacy and control over the whole of China and the timeline takes no side on which is more 'legitimate', as it represents both equally", you display the bias of assuming there are only two sides. This was an understandable bias when Taiwan was not a democracy and the only voices from Taiwan were parroting the Chinese ruler's lines about Taiwan being part of China. Now that Taiwanese have freedom of speech and free elections, another POV is seen and heard. When I said ROC (Taiwan) "has nothing to do with China" you are right that I was pointing out a POV that I believed was being overlooked. I did not put that POV on the template, I put it on the discussion page. When I got no response, I didn't simply remove the reference to ROC (Taiwan). I could have changed ROC(Taiwan) to ROC(in exile) which in my POV would be completely correct as ROC is no longer in China. I didn't do that either. Instead, I put an asterisk and a footnote that doesn't take a POV or even describe the dispute; it simply notes that there is a dispute.

You are right that I have a strong POV; you are wrong in accusing me of trying to push it past NPOV in the template.

Perhaps what bothers you is that the note appears at the bottom of the template out of context. I put it there so that it wouldn't clutter up the box containing the info about the ROC. Now that someone has added additional information to the parallel box about the PRC, it might be possible to fit footnote into the same box with the ROC. Readin (talk) 15:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

If you feel that I'm going all crazy about this, you couldn't be more wrong. To be honest, this isn't fun; I'd rather spend 5 hours on Digg and Reddit making funny jokes than 5 minutes writing here. I've been very calm throughout the talk, trying to be as clear, thorough and exhaustive as I possibly can in the hope that there is absolutely no ambiguity and that you understand why your changes are not appropriate here. If there's something I presented that is wrong or questionable, factually or otherwise, please note them all, I will not hesitate clarifying and correcting.

With that said, I always get the feeling you would start accusing me as an advocate of Taiwan being part of China. It seems the challenge of discussing this is the feeling of, quoting Bush, "you are either with us or against us." Any arguments I make against you would be 'evidence' that I'm mounting an attack on your beliefs. But truthfully, I'm not Chinese, and I take absolutely no position on the debate. It's none of my business! But I do hope however that a peaceful and permanent solution can be achieved. I came across this topic as I was perusing Wiki, since I am interested about history, particularly that of East Asia, and having visited them a few times. If you go to the very beginning and reread everything I have ever said, I favor nobody on the subject of Taiwan sovereignty. My position from the outset has been based on the current Legal status of Taiwan, particularly, the standpoint that the Republic of China is currently exercising de facto sovereignty over Taiwan, and all my arguments have been from the official government’s point of view. I discussed why the inclusion of the Republic of China in the timeline is appropriate and relevant here and on its intricate links to the bigger Republic before 1949 to the extent of my knowledge on the subject. Just because I have been discussing the matter from the historical and official point of view mean that I’m advocating and pushing a POV that Taiwan is a part of China? (I’m amused) How so? Also, I have a few questions for you that I don’t think you’ve clearly addressed.

• You claim that I'm biased because I'm only assuming there are only two sides. Can you enlighten me, is there any other significant sides that is/are actively claiming jurisdiction over the whole of China, and that they have verifiable historical basis, that I have overlooked?
• Taiwan turned into a vibrant democracy and has free speech and free election and free press and all that, wonderful! But what does that have anything to do with the subject of the history of China as a whole over the millennia? How does it fit in? What is the relevance of the Taiwan sovereignty debate to this template? How does putting such note on the debate help foster understanding of Chinese history? How does your content fit into the grand scheme (presentation in particular) of the template?
• The word 'Taiwan' here is used in so far as mentioning the location that the Republic of China is currently operating in. How does the mention of it appear biased or appear not neutral?

If you actually use the template, and click on the Taiwan link, it would take you to here. And if you actually read it, under the current state section, there's information about its transition to democracy, and there's even a link right under the subtopic heading that takes readers to the legal status page discussing the sovereignty issue as a related subject. All POVs are clearly addressed; they’re already there. Two to three mouse clicks at most. That has been my position and remains unchanged; you’re forcing the Taiwan sovereignty debate into the subject of Chinese History, which has little if any relevance with the debate considering the scope of Chinese History. The template as of now already has a link to the subject of Taiwan that readers can use to find out about its history and its current political status. It is absolutely neutral. I remain unconvinced that I’m biased over the course of the discussions, or that the template as of now is biased. Please enlighten me. --Zess T (talk) 03:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You say My position from the outset has been based on the current Legal status of Taiwan, particularly, the standpoint that the Republic of China is currently exercising de facto sovereignty over Taiwan, and all my arguments have been from the official government’s point of view. The ROC's standpoint is not NPOV, it is a POV. The "official government's point of view" is a POV, not necessarily an NPOV.

You say I discussed why the inclusion of the Republic of China in the timeline is appropriate and relevant here and on its intricate links to the bigger Republic before 1949 to the extent of my knowledge on the subject. I guess I missed that discussion. While it is true that ROC governed large parts of China before 1949, it is the method of inclusion in the template of the ROC post 1949 that is in question. I'm not saying we should remove it. My POV says we should remove it, or that we should note that the government is in exile, but I'm not arguing for my POV in the template, I'm arguing for Wikipedia's idea of Neutral Point of View that requires respecting all major points of view without endorsing any particular POV.

You say Just because I have been discussing the matter from the historical and official point of view mean that I’m advocating and pushing a POV that Taiwan is a part of China? Historians recognize that history is open to many interpretations. Otherwise historians wouldn't have so much to write about. :) Consider this interpretation. And again, the "official" POV is only one POV.

You say You claim that I'm biased because I'm only assuming there are only two sides. Can you enlighten me, is there any other significant sides that is/are actively claiming jurisdiction over the whole of China, and that they have verifiable historical basis, that I have overlooked? Do people have to be actively claiming jurisdiction over the whole of China in order to have a valid POV? You have overlooked many of the Taiwanese people, including their political party currently occupying the Presidency, who only claim jurisdiction of the Taiwanese people over Taiwan and want nothing to do with China. As for their POV being verifiable, look at Political Status of Taiwan, Taiwan Independence, and Legal Status of Taiwan to see many of their reasons, as well as many rebuttals in observance of NPOV. Again, you might also look at [4] to see an interpretation of history that is different than the one presented by the Chinese of the KMT and CCP; I'm not claiming that view of history is neutral, but then the KMT and CCP's views aren't neutral either.

You are correct that with a couple clicks, a person can learn about the dispute and perhaps on reviewing that information reach a conclusion that Taiwan is not part of China or that Taiwan is part of China. But if they don't make those clicks they won't get that information. What they will see is that Taiwan is included in the template on China History for the years 1949-present, thus Taiwan must currently be part of China. So I'm saying to be neutral we need to note that this conclusion is disputed, thus letting anyone who is interested in Taiwan's status know that there is more to learn if they follow the links. Is there dispute as to whether the Jin Dynasty from 265 to 420 governed territory that is part of China? I assume from its inclusion in the template that the Jin Dynasty ruled part of China in the years mentioned. That is reasonable for me to do. It would not be reasonable for me to click on the links of every single dynasty mentioned to see if there is any dispute about whether they were really governing part of China in the years given. For someone unaware of the status of Taiwan, it would not be reasonable to click even one link, much less "Two to three" to go find out about a dispute they don't even know exists. Readin (talk) 05:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I've addressed everything I wanted to point out, and I think what I said before answers the points you just made. I hate to be repetitive and wordy, so I won't. But I'll re-address one thing again. This is what you just said:

You are correct that with a couple clicks, a person can learn about the dispute and perhaps on reviewing that information reach a conclusion that Taiwan is not part of China or that Taiwan is part of China. But if they don't make those clicks they won't get that information.

Here's my reply to that, from what I said much earlier if you didn't read it, or chose not to.

To me, you adding that note would make as much sense as me fetching articles and templates from thin air and adding notes to them in places such as here saying 'there is debate about the legitimacy of this government vis-à-vis the PRC,' I can do the same to this page, saying "there is much debate about whether Taiwan is part of the current ROC government," or here, or any articles and templates that have the word Taiwan. I can even do the same to all Chinese articles questioning the legitimacy of the PRC vis-à-vis the ROC, all for the sake of representing all POVs to achieve a NPOV. The possibilities are endless, all for the sake of noting the dispute. Because, as you say, "they can only know it if they know such a thing exists," right? It's egregious.

You admitted earlier that you have a POV for Taiwan independence, and I can see why many Taiwanese would like to see that happening from reading about the history of Taiwan, and I fully respect your views. What I find most objectionable, and the reason this brings someone like me who only fix mistakes in articles once every few weeks at most here, is the blatant conflict of interest, in particular, coming here to insert that as a way to promote/campaign for the Taiwan sovereignty dispute (and as a minor edit at that, which it clearly wasn't and I felt it was blatantly dishonest when I first saw it) in a subject where the connection to that dispute is barely tenuous. And over the course of the discussion, I get a feeling of a little stonewalling, too. No matter how valid the arguments for independence are, I do get turned off by zealots that cannot reason critically. In contentious issues, this is to be expected, I suppose. I believe opinions should belong to articles where they can be expanded upon appropriately, completely, diligently, fairly, and truthfully. A small template that is already ‘pretty big but not too big’ and that it contains nothing but links to articles isn't really a place for covert remarks to lead to discussions. Wikipedia is not a theater for political activism.

I hope you can understand this, otherwise I'll try to get a third opinion. Or if anyone who has been following our talk, do speak up. --Zess T (talk) 10:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please, a third opinion would be nice.

Yes, I have admitted that I have a POV supporting Taiwan's independence. You clearly have a POV as well. Wikipedia's NPOV policy assumes that editors have POVs. Rather than talking about who has what POV, we should be talking about how to reach NPOV.

Your points about putting unrelated information into every article are missing the fact that in this case the information is not unrelated. When someone says "Football in Taiwan", no mention is made of whether Taiwan is part of China, part of Russia, independent, or mythical. You can believe any of those things and Football in Taiwan will mostly make sense to you. There may be a reference to how the team plays internationally as "Chinese Taipei" along with a brief mention of why. As for Airports in Taiwan, again we can list airports in Taiwan without saying anything about what state or country they are part of. By saying "Taiwan" people can assume the nation Taiwan, the "province of China" Taiwan, or the island Taiwan. In fact "Taiwan" is often used in articles about the country when the subject does not involve politics in order to avoid having to mention politics. But in this case, the inclusion of Taiwan in a template about China is already a non-neutral decision, and there is no way to avoid the conflict because you either include post-1949 ROC or you don't. By including Taiwan in this template, we are making a positive statement that Taiwan is part of China. That violates NPOV. To restore NPOV, we need a note. Were I being as stubborn as you suggest, I would simply pull out the reference to post-1949 ROC because after 1949 ROC was no longer a dynasty of China. But I respect the Wiki policy of respecting all POVs, so instead I'm suggesting we leave the reference in because by leaving it in we have a location to provide a note of the dispute.

You said, No matter how valid the arguments for independence are, I do get turned off by zealots that cannot reason critically. Please see Wikipedia:Civility. Readin (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

When someone says "Football in Taiwan", no mention is made of whether Taiwan is part of China, part of Russia, independent, or mythical. You can believe any of those things and Football in Taiwan will mostly make sense to you. There may be a reference to how the team plays internationally as "Chinese Taipei" along with a brief mention of why.

If you look at that template again, you can clearly see on the title heading that the flag of the ROC is beside Taiwan, so it's very unlikely someone would interpret Taiwan being part of anyone else except ROC. So someone can, like you would to this template, put a star beside the ROC flag and put a note in the bottom saying "there is much debate about whether Taiwan is part of the current ROC government."

As for Airports in Taiwan, again we can list airports in Taiwan without saying anything about what state or country they are part of. By saying "Taiwan" people can assume the nation Taiwan, the "province of China" Taiwan, or the island Taiwan. In fact "Taiwan" is often used in articles about the country when the subject does not involve politics in order to avoid having to mention politics.

If you look at the history of that airport template, someone made a modification to that page just today. Before it was changed, the title heading of it clearly stated "Republic of China (Taiwan)". So from that perspective, someone can go into that and note "there is debate about the legitimacy of this government vis-à-vis the PRC." Even if the content is about airport, someone can go into it and inject the sovereignty issue in a totally unrelated page.

You said, No matter how valid the arguments for independence are, I do get turned off by zealots that cannot reason critically. Please see Wikipedia:Civility.

Haha, well, if we go by the definition here[5], I'm as much a zealot in the belief that articles stay in focus on and never stray off-topic as you are about Taiwan independence. Before I got my Wiki account, I broke a couple of articles into separate ones anonymously for the sake of focus. But if you are offended by my comments then I apologize.

But in this case, the inclusion of Taiwan in a template about China is already a non-neutral decision, and there is no way to avoid the conflict because you either include post-1949 ROC or you don't. By including Taiwan in this template, we are making a positive statement that Taiwan is part of China. That violates NPOV. To restore NPOV, we need a note.

What would be a good way to mention Taiwan without giving a feeling that it TRULY belong to anyone at the moment? Mentioning Republic of China and Taiwan separately? If other templates can achieve neutrality by mentioning only Taiwan and mention no other parties, can we achieve neutrality here by only mentioning Republic of China and remove reference to Taiwan, then? It would give credence to ROC's claim of China, and Taiwan would not even be involved here. It would give nobody the impression Taiwan is involved in this, and readers can still find out about ROC after 1949 and their views.

I really don't have much time discussing this as I'm quite busy and about to fly out of town for work. I don't know how to use the third opinion thing so please help me out. But let's just try to solve this and move on. I absolutely oppose adding in a note about Taiwan into this, since it has absolutely nothing to do with Chinese history. And I think you're uncomfortable with this because Taiwan is attributed to Republic of China, which gives the impression that it belongs to them, or part of China. So why don't we just remove (on Taiwan) from Republic of China then? Then Taiwan would not be visually involved in this, and ROC would still be here because of its view of China. --Zess T (talk) 07:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I said there was no need for politics regarding "football in Taiwan", I didn't say I had looked at the template. I looked and you are right there is an ROC flag there. You may want to enquire on that template't talk page as to why that flag is being used. Your suggested notethere is much debate about whether Taiwan is part of the current ROC government. would be incorrect. There is debate about the ROC's right to govern and its "legitimacy", there is no debate about whether it actually governs Taiwan.

It sounds like they're facing a similar issue with airports in Taiwan. Rather than trying to prevent NPOV here, why not help them reach NPOV there?

What would be a good way to mention Taiwan without giving a feeling that it TRULY belong to anyone at the moment? Mentioning Republic of China and Taiwan separately? If other templates can achieve neutrality by mentioning only Taiwan and mention no other parties, can we achieve neutrality here by only mentioning Republic of China and remove reference to Taiwan, then? It would give credence to ROC's claim of China, and Taiwan would not even be involved here. It would give nobody the impression Taiwan is involved in this, and readers can still find out about ROC after 1949 and their views.

I really don't have much time discussing this as I'm quite busy and about to fly out of town for work. I don't know how to use the third opinion thing so please help me out. But let's just try to solve this and move on. I absolutely oppose adding in a note about Taiwan into this, since it has absolutely nothing to do with Chinese history. And I think you're uncomfortable with this because Taiwan is attributed to Republic of China, which gives the impression that it belongs to them, or part of China. So why don't we just remove (on Taiwan) from Republic of China then? Then Taiwan would not be visually involved in this, and ROC would still be here because of its view of China.

Sadly I don't think there are any easy succinct answers. If we remove the mention of Taiwan, we leave an implication that ROC is still governing part of China. From the POV that Taiwan is not part of China, leaving ROC in there is doubly problematic because 1. ROC is not governing any part of China or 2. We all know ROC governs Taiwan, so leaving ROC in implies Taiwan is part of China. When I first added the note I didn't like having to do it because I agree with you that a template should be clean and concise without much prose. I'm also not very good at formatting tables, fonts, colors, etc. so it was a real pain for me to add the footnote. So believe me when I say I tried to think of alternatives that would satisfy all significant POVs.

The trick that other articles use of mentioning Taiwan without mentioning politics doesn't work in reverse, at least not here. The ROC would no longer exist were it not for being the government of Taiwan. Taiwan would exist with or without the ROC. So one can talk about Taiwan without implying the ROC. One cannot talk about the modern ROC without statements about the ROC being applied to Taiwan.

The template is about "China". Many Chinese (probably the vast majority) have a POV about China in which they seek to extend its borders well beyond the PRC boundaries to incorporate a lot of other people and places, including a lot of people who don't want anything to do with China. The continued existence of the ROC as the "Republic of China" is one of the biggest focal points of that effort, so anytime the ROC is mentioned as part of "China", care must be taken to be sure we're not taking sides in that dispute.

This isn't the only place where this dispute causes problems. Go look at the CIA world factbook (faster loading copy from 2004 here. Notice that everything is in alphabetical order except Taiwan, which for some mysterious reason is listed last. It's always easy getting NPOV, and with the POVs about Taiwan and China, it is very very difficult. Readin (talk) 16:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The trick that other articles use of mentioning Taiwan without mentioning politics doesn't work in reverse, at least not here. The ROC would no longer exist were it not for being the government of Taiwan. Taiwan would exist with or without the ROC. So one can talk about Taiwan without implying the ROC. One cannot talk about the modern ROC without statements about the ROC being applied to Taiwan.

I think that's sort of right but not completely right. It's hard to talk about modern ROC without some mention of Taiwan, true, but same goes for the reverse -- you can't really talk seriously about modern Taiwan without avoiding ROC, either. ROC made the decision to focus on Taiwan after they lost the civil war, so although it is true that Taiwan can exist on its own, the decision of ROC to flee there unfortunately tied it to the aftermath of the split. It's also hard to imagine discussions of modern ROC without looking at it from the standpoint of a part of China and without considering the political situation on mainland China to some extent before it turned democratic in the late 1980-90s. During their rule from '49 to late '80s, what they did can be thought of as actions of the 'other China', legitimately or not. I think ROC can still theoretically exist without the island of Taiwan on the other islands and territories outside mainland Taiwan, just like how small nations exist on tiny islands in the Pacific, or even as a government in exile in the US or some other nation, like Tibet in India. Taiwan can go independent, sure; but even if it did go independent, I doubt ROC would cease to exist even then. Sure, Taiwan is the most significant part, but it's not the only part. I think we can think of ROC as the 'other China', but what it includes is undecided on a de jure basis. In a situation as complex as this, it's inappropriate to just simplify it to the question of whether Taiwan is a part of China, or that any mention of ROC would automatically mean Taiwan. It should be better communicated to readers in the article about the history of ROC after 1949.

If we remove the mention of Taiwan, we leave an implication that ROC is still governing part of China. From the POV that Taiwan is not part of China, leaving ROC in there is doubly problematic because 1. ROC is not governing any part of China

We mention ROC here because we respect its official position that it is governing a part of China within the whole of China, and its view that it is the sole legitimate ruler of the entire China. When someone talks about Republic of China, the question of whether Taiwan is part of it is open to debate and interpretation, even if it is true on a de facto basis. If we remove the (on Taiwan) reference, then it's really open to interpretation. You can either take their official position and say they are the legitimate ruler of the whole of China including Taiwan, or the position of Taiwan independence advocates, where PRC and ROC have nothing to do with Taiwan, or even the position of the PRC that Taiwan is part of it since Taiwan is not explicitly stated. So I really disagree with your suggestion that simply mentioning the modern ROC automatically imply that Taiwan is part of it, even if Taiwan has deep links to modern ROC. And since independence advocates believe PRC and ROC have nothing to do with Taiwan, then why bother with them here if Taiwan isn't mentioned? Shouldn't they be glad that it isn't mentioned? It's about China isn't it? Why should they bother with their affairs?

or 2. We all know ROC governs Taiwan, so leaving ROC in implies Taiwan is part of China.

If we go by that logic, then we can say that we all know PRC governs Tibet. When someone mentions PRC, from the view that Tibet is not part of China, leaving PRC in here implies Tibet is part of China. So do we put a star beside PRC and put a note in saying "there's significant debate as to whether Tibet is part of China"? I wouldn't, because...

The template is about "China".

Yes! Exactly! And more precisely, the history of China. There are so much debates as to what constitutes the 'real' China, that it's really unfair to only note Taiwan and leave out the rest. Not to mention this is a directory template and not a place to discuss or note things. Leave discussions and remarks about sovereignty, or ANY other issues, out of this template and delegate them to articles. Let's remove the (on Taiwan) reference and leave readers to find out and interpret the current situations from what they get out of the articles themselves, if they're interested in knowing about modern Chinese history. --Zess T (talk) 03:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

you can't really talk seriously about modern Taiwan without avoiding ROC, either.

Of course you can. I can describe the beautiful cliffs of eastern Taiwan without mentioning ROC. I can talk about the night market in Shihlin without mentioning ROC. I can talk about the betel nut girls without mentioning ROC. On a lot of other topics, I can talk about Taiwan and mention the ROC only in the sense of that the ROC did that affected the topic, without an implication of sovereignty. For example, I can talk about pollution in Taiwan and describe steps the government has taken to control it. I can talk about language and describe how the ROC government forced people to learn Mandarin and forbade many usages of Taiwanese. Those usages show only the de facto control everyone agrees the ROC has over Taiwan without any implication as to whether that control is legitimate. And those mentions also take no stance on whether Taiwan is part of China.

It's also hard to imagine discussions of modern ROC without looking at it from the standpoint of a part of China and without considering the political situation on mainland China.

Why is it hard for you to imagine discussions of the modern ROC without looking at it from the standpoint of a part of China? Sure it used to be part of China, but it moved to Taiwan. I frequently have discussions about the modern ROC without looking at it as part of China. Those discussions only consider the political situation in China when the discussion is about Taiwan's foreign relations.

During their rule from '49 to late '80s, what they did can be thought of as actions of the 'other China', legitimately or not.

You are correct that until the 90s, Taiwan was under the control of a Chinese government. But the template is the history of "China", not history of "Chinese governments".

You make some interesting points, though they are POV, and then say It should be better communicated to readers in the article about the history of ROC after 1949.

I agree that the details are best put into another article. But we need to indicate there are details. The implication of the current box is that the editors believe that Taiwan is simply part of China. That violates NPOV. We both agree that we don't like the clutter of adding the note, but our first obligation is to NPOV, not to having a pretty box.

We mention ROC here because we respect its official position that it is governing a part of China within the whole of China, and its view that it is the sole legitimate ruler of the entire China.

That is correct. We respect it as an equal view with other POVs, such as the POV that Taiwan is not part of China. That's why we need to keep the mention of the ROC, but we need to make sure other POVs are respected as well.

When someone talks about Republic of China, the question of whether Taiwan is part of it is open to debate and interpretation, even if it is true on a de facto basis.

Earlier you made said that we can't talk about Taiwan without talking about ROC, now you're saying people don't necessarily associate Taiwan with ROC? Very confusing.

If we remove the (on Taiwan) reference, then it's really open to interpretation. You can either...or the position of Taiwan independence advocates, where PRC and ROC have nothing to do with Taiwan,

I don't know many Taiwan independence advocates who claim ROC has nothing to do with Taiwan. Clearly the ROC currently governs Taiwan and is elected by the Taiwanese people. But te ROC is now independent of China. Could we say list UK history and include "The United States of America" without implying that the area north of Rio Grande and south of Canada are part of UK, simply because people are free to take the view that "the United States of America" has nothing to do with that territory? No one takes that view, and almost no one takes the view that ROC has nothing to do with Taiwan. When people see modern ROC, they almost always think of Taiwan.

If we go by that logic, then we can say that we all know PRC governs Tibet.

Does anyone dispute that?

When someone mentions PRC, from the view that Tibet is not part of China, leaving PRC in here implies Tibet is part of China. So do we put a star beside PRC and put a note in saying "there's significant debate as to whether Tibet is part of China"?

Some people believe Tibet is not part of China. However, they don't believe that Beijing, Nanjing, Shanghai, etc. are not part of China. Tibet does not make up the overwhelming majority of the PRC. It isn't even the majority of PRC. No matter what your view, PRC is mostly Chinese, and China is mostly PRC. I think you're overreaching. Perhaps if someone were trying to include the Dalai Lama of the 1700s as a government of China you would have a point. As it is I think you're overreaching.

There are so much debates as to what constitutes the 'real' China, that it's really unfair to only note Taiwan and leave out the rest.

What other debates are you talking about in relation to this template? If you look at the beginning of this section, my first question was, "What qualifies a government for inclusion in this template?" I was hoping for clear concise guidance reasoning behind inclusion of ROC after 1949. If other governments are having similar issues (though I don't seen any other debates on the discussion page), perhaps Jiang is right that we should replace this template with a timeline. But so far I haven't seen any other debates.

Let's remove the (on Taiwan) reference and leave readers to find out and interpret the current situations from what they get out of the articles themselves, if they're interested in knowing about modern Chinese history.

The clear implication that Taiwan is part of China remains even if you take out the "on Taiwan". And if people are interested in knowing more they'll be looking at those articles, not at the template. It's really a question of presenting accurate neutral information. If we can do it in a template, fine. If we can't, then we shouldn't use a template. I like the template and would like to keep it, but to do so requires a note that inclusion of ROC is not intended to mean that Taiwan is part of China. Otherwise we'll have to give it up, and I don't think anyone wants that. I sure don't. Readin (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) As I mentioned previously, I believe the template should present things on a de facto basis. Now, the various Taiwan Independence theories are certainly interesting; however, since there has not yet been a declaration of Taiwan independence by the regime on Taiwan, I would like to point out that de facto the ROC there today is still a continuation of the old ROC, and hence a part of China. Generally, supporters of Taiwan independence yearn for a declaration of independence, and want to get rid of what they consider the "alien" ROC regime. Rightly or wrongly, it has not happened yet.

Question: is the POV that the current ROC is somehow not Chinese, and yet is somehow still legitimate, a view held by any prominent people? If not, we can dispose of this POV by appealing to the rule on fringe theories.Ngchen (talk) 03:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact that Taiwan has not formally declared independence shows that Taiwan is de jure part of "China". It doesn't tell us about he de facto situation. Is The POV that the ROC is not Chinese and still legitimate held by any prominent people? I'm out of time to research on it right now. Here's a paragraph from a story about President Lee:

Mr. Lee is best known for being the first Taiwanese-born KMT leader of Taiwan and the first democratically elected president. But another aspect of his legacy is coming to the fore today—his efforts to forge a new Taiwanese identity. By starting the process of revamping Taiwanese education to do away the mainlander mythology of a unified China, he set the stage for a cultural change that is irreversible. Even though economic, cultural and personal ties with China continue to grow, the citizens of the Republic of China increasingly identify themselves as Taiwanese, not Chinese.

There were two aspects to Mr. Lee’s effort: emphasizing Taiwan’s differences from mainland China, and healing the rift between native Taiwanese and the "mainlanders" who came to the island with Generalissimo Chiang in 1949. While in office, Mr. Lee pushed the idea of "new Taiwanese," which included both groups.

It shows where President Lee (who obviously considered the government he headed legitimate) wants to go and it indicates that an increasing number of Taiwanese see themselves as "Taiwanese, not Chinese" which makes sense if they don't consider their government part of China. You might argue that "he wants to go there", so he doesn't believe they're there yet. I'll have to do some additional research to show that he believes they are there, they just need to educate people on that fact. I'll have to do some research but I'm pretty sure I can put both President Lee and Vice President Lu in the group you describe, believing the ROC is now legit but is no longer part of China. Readin (talk) 15:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Zess T's primary objection to a footnote seems to be that he doesn't like footnotes in a summary style box. I would point him to the Republic of China page to see an even more extensive footnoot inside an infobox. It has been there quite a long time and no one is complaining. Readin (talk) 05:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

But I am thinking that gives the present-day controversy undue weight. How about a more generalized footnote stating that the listed governments from top to bottom are ones considered "Chinese" by most historians; however, there is not always a broad consensus present.Ngchen (talk) 12:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

How is the existence or non-existence of an entire country given "undo weight" by a small foot note? How is a controversy that threatens to cause a war, possibly even a world war, given "undo weight" by a small foot note? How is a controversy that is considered to be one of the most important issues in the relationship between the world's super power and the world's most populous country given undo weight by a small foot note?

The more generalized footnote you suggest would not be even-handed as it would give more credence ("most historians") to the idea that the ROC is still part of China with no similarly mentioned source of support for the idea it is not. Rather than trying to take sides, or even mention the sides, I would make the footnote smaller simply by noting the existence of the controversy.

Also, your suggestion does nothing to show that it is only the ROC that has this problem. What other dynasties listed are disputed? Readin (talk) 16:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The Gorgoreo controversy is another example. Most historians do not consider that kingdom "Chinese." If you look up almost any reasonably neutral textbook or handbook on Chinese history, you will find the ROC listed as persisting to the present. PRC materials have it ending in 1949 for political reasons, although IIRC some use other tricks to keep the question vague. Undue weight exists when a small fact/dispute/whatever is magnified to make it seem more important than it really is. For the template of Chinese history, the modern-day dispute over Taiwan's political status is probably peanuts when compared to the multiple wars in the past. Also I seem to remember how certain aspects of the Kingdom of Chu did not consider themselves Chinese. Should that be footnoted separately?Ngchen (talk) 01:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit that I know very little about Chu or Gorgoreo so I'll have to give that some thought and some research. I don't know much about them since my interest is Taiwan and not China. I do find interesting your comment about "any reasonably neutral textbook or handbook on Chinese history...". I'm not sure I've ever seen one that does as you say. Living in America as I do, most materials I run acrossed are biased either in favor of U.S. foreign policy or in favor of U.N. pronouncements. For example, like many Americans of my age, I grew up thinking Taiwan was a democracy. I was even surprised when our democratic ally South Korea converted to becoming democratic. Our neutral sources never bothered to mention that these bastions of anti-communism weren't democratic. I still meet Americans who think Taiwan has been a democracy since the 1940s. A neutral World Book Encyclopedia from the 1970s lists the ROC on equal footing with PRC in ruling China even though the ROC hadn't ruled any significant portion of China for more than 20 years. In the past, with Taiwanese opinions suppressed by ROC authoritarianism supported by US policy, and in the present with PRC becoming an economic powerhouse, unbiased sources are hard to come by, and to give an unbiased account of the situation requires more than just a simple list.

The situation I run into with Wikipedia has given me a new appreciation of the story "The Emperor's New Clothes". I understand that the ministers, noblemen and businessmen are officially saying that the emperor's clothes are beautiful and majestic, and I'm not saying we shouldn't include that official POV, but can't we also point out that everyone now knows what the emperor's private parts look like? Readin (talk) 02:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

PRC and ROC bordering

I see that you have reverted my edit. Can you please explain why the edit was incorrect? The Republic of China existed de facto as a continuation of the old regime that was founded in 1912 on Taiwan, so the horizontal bar should go above the PRC as it is the new regime. Also, recall that good faith edits are not vandalism. Thank you.Ngchen (talk) 13:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The current ROC is not a continuation of the old regime de facto. Remember that the former ROC regime was based on mainland china is now PRC after the revolution. The current ROC is another province formed by the refugees, bearing the same name and is unoffically 'branched' from the mainland.
Also keep in mind that mainland china did not declare the island, together with the refugees and their children, independent from Mainland China's rule. ROC is also not recongized by United Nations as a sovereign country state, and it is still represented in the International body as PRC.
And if you know enough about Wikipedia's system, it's not nessecary that I considered your modification as vandalism even if it is stated in the User:Templates. ADouBTor (talk) 17:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, refer to the historical dynasties which too, represented in smaller boxes. By using the same style in PRC, one will be actually conveying the message that, PRC is a SUB REGIME of ROC, which is erroeous and far from the actual fact and historical records. ADouBTor (talk) 17:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I am fully aware of the de facto situation. How is the current ROC regime not a continuation of the old one based on the mainland? Sure, the PRC considers that de jure the ROC ceased to exist in 1949, but we're talking about the de facto situation here. De jure, things are complicated by the overlapping and contradictory claims. I will examine the way the other dynasties are represented and make changes as appropriate.Ngchen (talk) 19:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, if you look at the Song and Liao dynasties, they are presented side-by-side, as their de facto territories did not overlap. De facto the current situation between the ROC and PRC is analogous. Each refuses to recognize the other, and de facto each controls a piece of territory. I don't see how separating the PRC from the ROC with lines somehow makes the PRC seem subordinate. They are rival, competing regimes which the template is trying to show.Ngchen (talk) 22:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

My points are still left unrebutted. You are only posting one-sided opinion from ROC and the island's occupants. ROC is not an independent nation on the island of Taiwan. ROC is a province of Mainland china. No documents are signed or whatsoever agreement by both sides, nor international bodies (e.g: United Nations, EU), major power countries (e.g: United States) sees the ROC as independent, and at most, self governence. So it's fair and square that PRC gets the right to be represented as a direct 'successor' to the former ROC.
If you are insistence on talking about the all but true de facto situation based on offical documents and historical events , then, ROC will be considered as a offical and undisputed province of Mainland China and should not even be placed on the template officially, unless the official existence-regconized Hong Kong SAR is too represented in the template but with higher respected placement then ROC. ADouBTor (talk) 10:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Do the lines represent changes in boundaries, or changes in the people/structures of government? If the lines or lack of lines represent territory, then you have two logical choices for the ROC on Taiwan section. If Taiwan is a critical part of China, then the all previous governments should be mentioned, so the Empire of Japan should be share space with the ROC(1912-1949). If Taiwan is not a critical part of China, then remove the ROC on Taiawn section entirely.

However, my interpretation of the lines is that they show disruption or continuation of the people/structures of government. If that is the case, and if we wish to consider Taiwan part of China, then User:Ngchen is correct to make the ROC in Taiwan the continuation of the ROC in China. Readin 15:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

"You are only posting one-sided opinion from ROC and the island's occupants." Actually, the opinion of many of the island's residents, that Taiwan is not a part of China at all, seems to be left out of the discussion entirely. Readin 15:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The lines do not represent disruption of governence. Take for example the 5 dynasty and 10 kingdom. the lines represents different ruling states in the same period and on the same land. However, it should be noted too that in the case we're discussing now, the line represents a sub(and unoffcial)-regime of the major regime.
It must be noted that Wikipedia information/material should be encyclopedic accurate towards the official documents, international regconized historical course of events.
If opinions affects the template, then WE MUST ALSO takes into account INTERNATIONAL(except the province of Taiwan as Taiwan province is represented by China) opinion.
If opinion in a single province affects the sovereign(so-called true democracy), then there will be splitting of countries as and when the people like, chaos will be all around the world.
Also, note that opinionised material delibrately added will be considered as vandalism. ADouBTor 15:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Can you please see WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF? Also, aren't you inserting your own opinions? Back to the Song vs Liao case. You seem to be implying that one of those two was a sub-regime of the other. Which is which? Aren't they both de facto competing Chinese regimes back then? I agree with Readin that the lines represent breaks in the people/structure of government. See the horizontal line splitting the Yuan dynasty from the Ming, for instance. I strongly believe that the template should illustrate the de facto situation at all times. Wikipedia's job is to describe, not prescribe.Ngchen 17:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Internationl opinion is indeed one of the opinions to take into account, but it is only one. It is also not a clear cut as you suppose, ADouBTor. It is said that "Actions speak louder than words", and while most countries do not recognize Taiwan's independence in words, they do accept Taiwan's passports, make agreements with Taiwan, etc.. Also, you the major countries at least do not accept China's authority over Taiwan. They generally use less precise words. The U.S., for example, "acknowledges" China's position, but does not say it agrees with it. Anyway, Ngchen is right that we are supposed to be descriptive, and regardless of what anyone says about it, it is clear that the government controlling Taiwan is not the same government controling mainland China. Readin 01:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

All of you are talking bullshit. taiwan is a part of china dammit. it's fact. ADouBTor's right about everything. he is also right and fair towards all of you idiots when he included hongkong into the template. he is kind enough to take into account the on going debate and included taiwan into the template for the time being. you guys are just so darn selfish. hopeless butch of fools —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.127.190.2 (talk) 06:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you 203.127.190.2 for support and understanding. Only readin had understood my points and said something about them. With regards to the lines, NgChen please also note the line layout style during the 5 dynasty and 10 kingdom period. The lines used during that period is to show that there are multiple governing organisations at the same period of time, which I took reference from. If you are still persistence over your view of the lines, consult the original starter of the template.
But even when you used the lines to show disruption, then you are implying that the PRC is an unoffical governent(too tired to spell it) and that PRC belongs to ROC(which is obviously an idiot's point of view of the current situation). My recommandation would be the one I modified (the one with Hong Kong SAR). If you guys still doesn't understand them, I added Hong Kong SAR to show that there are two prevailing governing organisation/region within the regconised PRC sovereign(including Taiwan island).
With regards to Readin's post, Actions do speak louder than words. But, we cannot ignore the official documentations and annoucements (contract or whatever). You said that US accepts Taiwan passports, but if you see Hong Kong's case, US regconise them too. but that doesn't mean HK SAR is a different sovereign.
Note to NgChen: Please read and understand what other posted before posting your points. You will be only repeating whatever you have said. If not for Readin's involvement, the whole discussion will be won by the side who posted accurate event and not opinion.
Btw, I did not post my own opinion. I am posting the facts and the current situation.ADouBTor 10:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Please explain what the lines represent, if not discontinuities in people or structures of government? Why, for example, is there a line between the Ming dynasty and the Qing dynasty? Why is there a line between the Sui and Tang dynasties? Why are the 16 Kingdoms off to the side in a small box? Why do you put the ROC in a small box? It looks to me like you're saying that after the PRC had been reigning for a significant period of time, a section of "China" revolted and formed the ROC, a government that had not held power anywhere in China for a significant period of time. We know that that is not true. Ngchen and I have both said we see the lines as representing breaks in the people/structures of government. If that is not how you see them you need to explain so the rest of us can understand. Readin 12:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

ADouBTor wrote Thank you 203.127.190.2 for support and understanding. Please do not feed the troll. Readin 12:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I just filed a Wikiquette alert concerning ADouBTor's behavior. Let's see what the community thinks.Ngchen 14:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

ADouBTor hasn't responded yet so I've reverted his change to the way we agree to. If he can provide an explanation for his changes we may want to change it back. Readin (talk) 23:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Southern Ming

Can "Southern Ming" be added? Apparently it reigned over southern China until the execution of the Yongli Emperor in 1662. Badagnani (talk) 23:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Convert this to a timeline

This template is inherently biased since it presupposes that one dynasty directly succeeds another, giving credence to dynastic orthodoxy. As the debate over ROC vs. PRC shows, succession is by no means clear cut, and competing regimes have coexisted and intermingled throughout Chinese history. An ordered list like this one barely reflects this. This template should be converted into a timeline using the easyTimeline syntax and placed at the bottom of articles. Doing so will also free up the right side of articles for images.--Jiang (talk) 06:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I would support restoring the original version of this template, as in the version of 25 May 2007 (before this edit, as it allowed for the listing of concurrent/overlapping dynasties, as well as being considerably more visually attractive. See here for the original version to which I am referring. Badagnani (talk) 07:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. --JWB (talk) 07:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The dates of each period could be added as well. Badagnani (talk) 07:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it'll work for a few reasons. The first is the width, or the lack of it. Not everyone has 24 inch widescreen LCD screens or in super high resolutions. Turning it into a horizontal timeline will probably introduce navigation problems. If it's too short, we wouldn't be able to fit everything in. Too long and the article will be pretty darn fat, which probably will screw up the formatting. Second is, how will this solve the issue of competing regimes? They'll most likely be shown much the same way as it is now, only horizontally. And don't forget the couple of extra links to other more general topics of Chinese history, too. I think it's more realistic to think of improvement to this vertical one, if possible. --Zess T (talk) 10:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm also confused as to what benefit Badagnani's suggested change provides. The colors provide more visual distinction between dynasties but the information that can be represented seems pretty much the same. For an ancient country like China, the current design looks more classic while the older design looks designed for children. But I'm not all that picky about style so I can live with the change if others think it is important. Readin (talk) 15:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

A timeline would certainly provide the flexibility to address various disputes, but how many disputes are there aside from questions about Taiwan? I think the current template looks nice and provides easily accessible information about the dynasties. However as one whose chief interest in China is how China's actions impact Taiwan, I'll admit that I don't know that much about the historical dynasties of China. Perhaps I'm being mislead by the template without realizing it. The Taiwan dispute can be handled with a simple footnote, so unless there are other significant issues I don't see a need to get rid of the template in favor of a timeline. Rather, creating a timeline while keeping the template seems like a good idea. As far as I know there is no reason we can't have both. Readin (talk) 15:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Manchukuo

Manchukuo should be add, because it's a country part of China. 96.229.126.4 (talk) 05:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Pupet state who lived 10 years. Umh... Impossible to add it (otherwise we have hundreds of States to add too). 220.135.4.212 (talk) 15:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Southern and Northern dynasties

I encourage to add :

Southern & Northern Dynasties (420-589) North : N. Wei; W. Wei & E. Wei; N. Zhou & N. Qi South : Liu Song; S. Qi; Liang; Chen

Like we already do for the Zhou Dynasty and Three Kingdoms. This is already write with chronologic and geographic logic (north before south ; and West beofre East). 220.135.4.212 (talk) 15:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Chinese characters for dynasties

I propose also showing the Chinese characters for each dynasty in this table. These could be placed in brackets behind the romanised names. Some reasons for doing this:

• The Romanised names are ambiguous, e.g. the Jin Dynasty (晋朝) of 265-420 has a completely different character and meaning compared to the Jin Dynasty (金朝) of 1115–1234. A romanised name is highly ambiguous as each romanised syllable can correspond to over 50 different characters. A further complicating factor is there competing systems for romanising Chinese, pinyin and Wade-Giles being the main two. So for example, Zhou and Chou both refer to the same dynasty: 周朝. The characters are unambiguous.
• People who have an interest in Chinese history may also have some knowledge of Chinese characters.
• As this table gives and overview/outline of Chinese history, and shows all the dynasties in the same spot, adding the Chinese characters would be informative.
• It also introduces the character names of the dynasties to the wider audience.--Cowrider (talk) 10:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good idea. The template is already overlarge. lk (talk) 10:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You make a good point. I've added characters to a test page, and I was able to do it without enlarging the template, I don't think it looks cluttered either. Here's the test page: Template:History of China w chars. Let me know what you think? --Cowrider (talk) 14:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks much better than I thought it would. A bit cluttered, but still readable. However, I think it's better to get rid of the links to the individual decades in the People's Republic of China section. Readers can already click on People's Republic of China to go to the history of PRC page. Otherwise I think it looks fine. lk (talk) 11:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Too bold

The Chinese characters are too bold-looking. Badagnani (talk) 05:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Please remove Chinese characters, it look too ugly and hard to see. 207.233.67.8 (talk) 16:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Color

In the part Modern, please change back to the original color, the green color didn't fit at all. 207.233.67.8 (talk) 16:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)