China Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

History Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

The Republic of China(Taiwan) disappeared? --Chinyen Lu (talk) 03:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It did not disappear. I had reverted the misleading edits made by someone. --Matt Smith (talk) 04:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is the History of China template. After the Qing dynasty there was the Republic of China, as described in the article Republic of China (1912–49). So that should appear next in the template. After that was/is the PRC. For the modern Republic of China, i.e. Taiwan, there is another template: ((History of Taiwan)).--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 04:35, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other articles are not necessarily accurate so I would suggest avoiding citing other articles directly. The ROC continues to exist till today, and that is a fact. The subject of template ((History of Taiwan)) is geographical entity Taiwan (island), not political entity the ROC. --Matt Smith (talk) 04:45, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, and as has been repeatedly pointed out. Taiwan is not the same thing as the country described in Republic of China (1912–49). It can’t be as Taiwan is not a sovereign state, or at least is not recognised as such. The only way the ROC, as founded in 1912, continues to exist is as China today. The Communists won the Civil war, established the PRC in place of the ROC, and have taken the place of the ROC on the world stage.

I doubt even the government of Taiwan believes this, that they still are the rightful claimants to the whole of China. It’s a fiction they maintain, as they do not want to admit to the alternative, that they are only a province of China and so should come to an agreement like that of Hong Kong. Or even worse they don’t want to say they are an independent country, which might prompt China to invade.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 05:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The Republic of China today is not the same thing as the Republic of China (1912–49). Is the template implying they are the same?

Accurately speaking, the government of the ROC has never refused to admit that Taiwan is a province of China because they still keep the streamlined Taiwan Provincial Government operating. They just claim that the sole legal representative of China is the "Republic of China". --Matt Smith (talk) 05:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If we were to talk about recognition the ROC was recognised as the sole legitimate government of China until 1971 by the UN, by the logic of "recognition" we could claim that the historical ROC existed until 1971, and claiming "retreated to Taiwan" ceased its existence is wholly incorrect as that same government fled from Nanking to Chungking during WWII, by this logic we should add the Japanese puppet states instead of the "old" ROC. And the problem with the current infobox is simply that the link goes to an article that stops at 1949 but the line continues to present, it's either one or the other. --Codename Alex (talk) 07:47, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding 'If "Taiwan" is necessary for the Republic of China, then "China" would be necessary for the People's Republic of China', it is ridiculous to insist on symmetry between the PRC and the ROC on Taiwan – the realities are completely different, and of course "China" is at the top of the template. It is also unhelpful to readers for this navbox to have two links labelled "Republic of China". As we all know, the ROC since 1949 is commonly known as "Taiwan", so that name should be mentioned. A label of "ROC (Taiwan)" seems an appropriate compromise. Kanguole 10:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree with you. In my opinion, if "Taiwan" should be used for the ROC, then "China" should be used for the PRC. --Matt Smith (talk) 13:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have ignored my response to merely repeat your previous statement. I would add that "People's Republic of China" obviously includes the word "China". Kanguole 13:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For consistency reason, I think common name should be used universally if we have to use it. Two labels mentioning Republic of China is fine to me because the years are already different (1912-1949 and 1949-present). Alternatively, we can make it even more clearer by changing the years to "on mainland 1912–1949" and "on Taiwan 1949-present", respectively, like the Chinese version of this template. --Matt Smith (talk) 14:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This template is used on dozens of articles, including the flagship Chinese history articles, so it needs to avoid taking up too much screen space (which is more difficult with English words than Chinese characters). A phrase like "Republic of China on mainland" would do that (and isn't quite correct English). "Taiwan", as the common name, should appear, but just using "China" for the PRC would be confusing, as the whole box is about China, so the term needs disambiguating and "People's Republic of China" does that. Would the arrangement at right be suitable? Kanguole 16:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant is something like the arrangement at right. I think using just "Taiwan" is also confusing because this template is for China. --Matt Smith (talk) 16:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That form has two problems: it uses two extra lines, and has a different format from all the other extries in the box, with extra words where the others have only dates. I was proposing "(on Taiwan)", rather that just "Taiwan". Alternatively, "ROC (Taiwan)" would fit, and ought to be clearer. The lack of a line between the two ROC entries suggests the connection between them. Kanguole 17:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I only see one extra line. It could be removed if you think it is redundant.

As for extra words, that looks fine to me because it makes things clearer.

"ROC (Taiwan)" has a problem that it uses a different format, with common name where other entries do not have. --Matt Smith (talk) 00:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I mean two extra lines of text, taking up extra space on all the articles that use this box. That is the cost of extra words. The purpose of the sidebar is to give quick navigation, not explain things – that is what article text is for.

"Warring States", "Tang dynasty" and every other entry in this box use the common name. Even "Peoples's Republic of China" contains the common name, though the longer form is obviously needed to avoid ambiguity. Only "Republic of China" fails to mention the common name. There is a solid consensus for the article name "Taiwan", so it should be mentioned. I have proposed "ROC (Taiwan)" as a compromise that compactly includes both names (with "ROC" clear because "Republic of China" occurs on the previous line). Kanguole 09:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see. How about the arrangment at right that has no extra line?

Other entries are not using common name in my opinion. They use their formal names plus the word "dynasty". And I think "ROC (Taiwan)" is inappropriate because it introduces a different format (abbreviation of formal name + common name). --Matt Smith (talk) 14:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is still as wastefully tall.

What would you say is the common name of the Tang dynasty? Kanguole 14:45, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not taller or shorter. Its height remains the same.

Tang does not actually have a common name. It was simply Tang. The word "dynasty" is used to indicate a sequence of rulers from the same family. --Matt Smith (talk) 14:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The common name is what people usually call something in English, like "Warring States period", "Tang dynasty" or "Taiwan". Kanguole 15:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I see. --Matt Smith (talk) 15:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not a country is recognised is wholly irrelevant to its REAL, ACTUAL existence and the Republic of China still exists. Today, I suggest adding the "modern" Republic of China to the box like "the test edit" made above. I don't think that it would confuse anyone to add "the Republic of China (on Taiwan)", however Wikipedia:READERS may be confused by a link that only directs to the "historical" ROC but not the modern one. --Codename Alex (talk) 07:35, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This version looks the best (in my opinion), it does not seem taller nor takes away any information, in fact it clearly tells that the Republic of China today is a continuation of the old one, this would probably be the best version for the readers. --Codename Alex (talk) 07:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon, I completely forgot the argument to make I first commented hete for, well the Chinese didn't recognise the Khitan Liao dynasty as a part of Chinese history, and many Conquest dynasties are still regarded as either "foreign rule" or "colonisation", to this end the "recognition" argument is completely void. The same goes for Hong Kong, and Macau as neither claim to be "the Chinese government", the Republic of China does. --Codename Alex (talk) 07:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is substantially taller than the first version above (or the existing version). Compactness is desirable in a sidebar that is used on so many key articles. Explaining things to readers is best done in article text, not navboxes. Kanguole 10:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you mean "wider"? If width is your concern, how about the arrangement at right that has the same width as the current template?

As for "explaining things to readers", in my opinion, adding only "on mainland" and "on Taiwan" hasn't gone too far and can also make things clearer. Your proposal only has "(on Taiwan)" and doesn't have "(on mainland)" so is inconsistent within itself in my opinion. --Matt Smith (talk) 11:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant taller, but perhaps your browser renders differently. (Wider would be much worse, given how tall the whole box is.) Anyway, this version is much better in that respect. Remaining issues are the use of the date styling from the rest of the box for non-date text, and the prominence given to the less-common name "Repuplic of China" for the Taiwan period. So here's another attempt. Kanguole 23:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which browser and operation system are you using? My proposal looks fine on Firefox/Google Chrome/IE11 on Windows 7. And your proposal is wider.

And isn't your proposal explaining things to readers, too? Although I still prefer my last proposal, I will let the consensus determine the result. --Matt Smith (talk) 01:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is a little wider, because I expanded its width to match the existing navbox, into which it must fit.

Are you saying you will agree to this latest version, or that wider input is needed? Kanguole 10:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you are using a WebKit browser such as Google Chrome or Safari. On my Firefox, the current template is just 225 pixels wide (while on your browser it is 254 pixels wide).

I'm saying that I personally still prefer my latest proposal, but will respect the consensus. --Matt Smith (talk) 12:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at some of the most recent proposals. "on mainland" is wrong on multiple scores. it’s ungrammatical (it should be "on the mainland"), it’s a term for China little used or understood outside of greater China, and is unnecessary disambiguation: the article is Republic of China (1912–49) with the years enough to disambiguate it, being also implied by its position, below the Qing dynasty, above the PRC, in the template. Further it is factually incorrect: the ROC included Taiwan; Taiwan and other parts of China were occupied by Japan, but that ended in 1945.

The only confusion comes from trying to include Taiwan. It’s confusing as it’s unclear why it belongs in this template – whatever their history and relationship when the world talks about "China" and "Taiwan" they are two distinct states, and it has its own template. Or, if you consider it a province of China then why not include other parts of China with their own histories distinct from the PRC, such as Hong Kong and Macau? Adding just Taiwan gives it undue importance and weight. Using "Republic of China" is even worse is just confusing, both as that is not the common name of Taiwan and as it’s easily confused with Republic of China (1912–49). Using both "Republic of China" and "Taiwan" is excessively verbose and even more confusing.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 11:18, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting my grammar. I had changed "on mainland" to "on the mainland" in my proposal. As for it being unnecessary disambiguation as you mentioned, I respect your opinion, but I think it is still the best counterpart of "on Taiwan". Last but not least, it's controversial to assert that the ROC included Taiwan or Japan occupied Taiwan, because there are reliable sources which says the opposite.

Yes. It really is confusing. In my opinion, these confusions are resulted from the English Wikipedia using "Taiwan" to refer to the ROC. Would you like to offer some suggestions? --Matt Smith (talk) 12:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no confusion with using Taiwan for the country as that is it’s name, in English, and the name of the article. The confusion arises when the name "Republic of China" is used, as that name is little used nowadays. It’s either Taiwan or in some contexts "Chinese Taipei" or similar. But my suggestion is as above, that it should not be included. Either it’s another country or if you consider it part of China then so are Hong Kong and Macau, distinct from the PRC, but they are not included. Either way it makes no sense to just include Taiwan, it just causes confusion.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 12:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then let's remove the Liao dynasty and Western Xia too as they are not really China either. --2405:4800:148C:91A0:E0EC:49C9:6ED6:9097 (talk) 23:44, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have just removed this : "Republic of China" as confusing and misleading. Confusing as the section above is also "Republic of China". The only difference is the dates but they are hard to spot and not part of the link. It makes it look like the links go to the same article, but they don’t. Misleading as it’s linking to the post-war history of Taiwan, which is the common name of the country.

I still think that a link to the history of Taiwan is not needed, no more than we have one to the history of Hong Kong or Macau. Just having a link labelled "Taiwan" looks out of place because it is out of place – it does not belong. Adding "Republic of China" is even worse as no-one calls the country that, and it is easily confused with the name of China from 1912 to 1949. There is no way to make it work and it simply does not belong.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 06:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC):[reply]

It seems to be consistent with the orthodox view teach in Mainland China (PRC), interesting. --Wkbreaker (talk) 08:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The ROC still rules more than Taiwan. Fujian Province of ROC still remains with controlling Kinmen, Wuqiu and Matsu, and these islands cannot be regarded as part of Taiwan geographically. The government also controls Pratas Islands and Itu Aba Island in South China Sea nowadays, which cannot belongs to Taiwan geographically. The above places have to be ruled in the name of China, even though the current government is pro-independence. Therefore no matter if Chinese History includes Taiwan, the ROC in the template should be shown as 1912-present.Notirt (talk) 01:48, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Republic of China (1949-present) is inaccurate, that implies ROC is no longer existed in present time. ROC still claims Mainland China as part of her territories while PRC claims Taiwan. It should be relevant to Chinese History. I mean, the template even included Liao dynasty which is not claiming Zhongyuan area. Hankofficer (talk) 07:45, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Constitution of the Republic of China used in Repblic of China (Taiwan) nowadays, it shows the Repblic of China is the official name of Taiwan/Kinmen/Matsu/Penghu, and other islands in South China sea, also it claims the Mainland China(controled by PRC). So, the Republic of China or Republic of China(Taiwan) should'nt be removed.--Chinyen Lu (talk) 08:14, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This infobox disrupts formatting of images on numerous pages, especially since they usually include other more specific boxes. It prevents images from being placed in the beginning sections of articles and/or creates train wreck logjams of displaced images (especially on laptop screens). Even moving it to the bottom in See also sections creates ungainly formatting problems because it is so long. Is there any way to make the box collapsible or to take up less room? Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 17:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Following up, I also support making the sections "ANCIENT", "IMPERIAL", and "MODERN", collapsed by default. Any objections from anyone to doing so? LK (talk) 05:07, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I support making each section collapsible. Mapmaker345 (talk) 15:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they should be made collapsible. I think that template be made collapsible should really be extended to other templates. Some articles can have so many of these templates that they completely distort the article and make the article an awful mess. There has to be some way of keep these templates under control, and people should really stop adding these templates (there should be a limit on the number of such "History of ...." templates) on articles. Hzh (talk) 13:01, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

About the "History of China" table, the English webpage write down the modern part as "Republic of China (1912-1949)",but actually at the chinese language webpage it is "Republic of China(Mainland 1912-1949)" and "Republic of China(in Taiwan 1949-present)".

Obviously the English page and chinese page are different, the truth should not be different even if the language is different.

The later is right.

Therefore, the "Republic of China (1912-1949)" should be changed to "Republic of China(Mainland 1912-1949)" and "Republic of China(in Taiwan 1949-present)", and also put it near the "People's Republic of China(1949-present)"

Thank you. Eugene1129 (talk) 06:03, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. You need to establish consensus for any such change. Note this has been discussed before, with many objections raised to the inclusion of Taiwan and the clutter disambiguating it involves.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 08:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to propose an edit. Hankofficer (talk) 08:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The Republic of China (ROC) still governs the island of Taiwan. Thereby, the year of the Republic of China should be changed from "1912-1949" to "1912––present" 很好1412 (talk) 05:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the ((edit semi-protected)) template. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The kings were really responsible for their country but the last king was just hunting and playing that is when he threw himself into fire when Zhou rebels stormed the capital. S23142 (talk) 11:57, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. It is unclear what if anything you want done to this template. S23142, your request seems more like its to do with an article than this template. Perhaps ask at the article talk page or even make the change yourself, as almost all articles can be edited by anyone.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 12:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted recent additions of details such as years for subdivisions, because they make this sidebar too large. This template is used on dozens of articles, including the most important Chinese history articles, and it needs to avoid crowding out the text on all those articles. It should provide an overview of Chinese history, not a detailed account.

There were also some formatting changes, such as bolding some dates, rendering some links in grey (formerly consistently blue), and using a lighter shade of grey. Kanguole 13:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Including the Chu–Han Contention (206–202 BC) would also be too detailed for this navbox. Kanguole 18:48, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Han Dynasty was founded in 202 BC, instead of the demise of the Qin Dynasty in 206 BC, Liu Bang and Xiang Yu competed for China's rule in the past four years, and in the official history of the Han Dynasty, "Historical Records," Xiang Yu is equivalent to one. The emperor, so WesternChu should be included in the same week as the second week. The Jin Dynasty ruled almost today's North China and Northeast China (including Beijing). Song Gaozong and Xixia also tribute to the Jin Dynasty. Goryeo admitted that the Jin Dynasty was China's orthodox dynasty. As the main dynasty of China, it should be added to its vintage. This dynasty are different from Western xia and Sixteen Kingdoms. As a Chinese people, I am very clear about this history. China’s "Twenty-four History" has an important position on it.

I think the factors that affect the display should be resolved by adjusting the spacing instead of deleting the valid information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 复旦大学张超 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This template appears as a sidebar on dozens of articles, including those on the key periods of Chinese history. Expanding it will squeeze the text in those important articles, which should be avoided. This sidebar should give an overview, placing the major periods in context, not a comprehensive account of Chinese history. We have articles like History of China and Timeline of Chinese history for that. In particular:

• The four-year interregnum between the death of the last Qin ruler and the proclamation of the Han is not significant enough to take up space in such a broad overview.
• Compactness is more important than having year ranges for every entry. Jin is present in the template; there is no point in expanding the space it occupies to emphasize its importance.

No information is deleted – it is all given in detail in the articles, where it belongs. Kanguole 18:04, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After adjusting the margins of Jin dynasty and Xixia, it will not squeeze the inbox, and the format will be more neat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 复旦大学张超 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the Northern Song dynasty occupy more width in the template considering they ruled over almost all China proper (except the 16 prefectures)? the Liao dynasty occupies almost half the width of the template which is disproportionate to their influence or to the amount of people under their rule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:7CC2:8000:C3D:BAB1:9FB6:DBAD (talk) 20:40, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As it currently stands, the template implies that the PRC controls the entirety of territory claimed as "China" - the position of the RoC is (obviously) that the RoC continues to control Taiwan province and Kinmen/Matsu etc. I understand some Taiwanese separatists disagree, and claim Taiwan is a non-"chinense" territory but the official position of the extant RoC hasn't changed in that respect. I know that this is beating a dead horse, but I haven't seen any convincing argument against it in the 2017 discussion above. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with ((SUBST:re|BrxBrx)))} 15:58, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The official position of the ROC is that Taiwan is a Chinese territory" does not equal to "Taiwan really is a Chinese territory".

There are different opinions on why the ROC is controlling Taiwan. For example, some claims that Taiwan was handed over to the Allies of WWII in 1945 and the ROC was just asked to administer Taiwan, as a post-war military occupation, for the Allies pending a final disposition of Taiwan. In other words, under this view, Taiwan does not belong to the ROC and the ROC is merely a custodian.

So the reason you are using does not seem to be neutral because it asserts that Taiwan is part of China. --Matt Smith (talk) 01:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but it's a very fringe view, that's only held by some of the more hardcore pangreen supporters. The official position of the RoC is also the position of the countries that continue to recognize the RoC in the UN, and would likely take precedence, holding much more consensus than your view. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with ((SUBST:re|BrxBrx)))} 01:13, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some jurists and the government of the United States hold the view I mentioned, too. --Matt Smith (talk) 02:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The view of the Government of the US and jurists in the US is immaterial to the matter at hand (being that they aren't even of the island), and incidently, the position of the US government, is such that the status of the territory is unresolved, not that it is a territory under the custodianship of the RoC. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with ((SUBST:re|BrxBrx)))} 23:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whether they are of the island or not does not affect the importance of their view, otherwise the UN's view would be immaterial as well. In the past, the US government did express that its position is that the ROC was merely asked to administer Taiwan and Penghu for the Allies pending a final decision as to these territories' ownership. In recent years, the US government has been simplifying the expression of this position by simply saying that the status of these territories is unsettled. But the US government hasn't changed its position anyway. --Matt Smith (talk) 03:46, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a template about history, not politics, and historians typically treat ROC on Taiwan as part of the history of China. For example, Chapter 12 of Volume 15 of The Cambridge History of China, which is widely regarded the most authoritative work for the subject, is about the history of Taiwan. See here. -Zanhe (talk) 03:58, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that the template should not imply that Taiwan is a Chinese territory. As explained above, just because Taiwan is being administered by a Chinese regime does not mean Taiwan belongs to that Chinese regime and is a Chinese territory. --Matt Smith (talk) 04:12, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is saying ROC on Taiwan is politically part of China, but scholars do treat it as part of Chinese history as it's a creation of the Chinese Civil War (on top of historical migrations from China). -Zanhe (talk) 04:19, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. But I think "Republic of China (Taiwan)" is not a good phrasing in the template. "Republic of China (on Taiwan)" is better. The 1912-1949 period can be changed to "Republic of China (on mainland)". --Matt Smith (talk) 04:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object in principle. (User:JohnBlackburne, who objected last time, doesn't seem to be around recently.) My main concern is that any change should not make the sidebar much larger, and in particular any wider, than it is now, because it appears on dozens of Chinese history articles, including the key dynasty articles. Kanguole 17:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would not consider JohnBlackburne's arguments unless he can properly refute counter-arguments to his views, and what I have seen on the other talk pages is the contrary.

For the post-1949 ROC entry, I think "Republic of China" as the header, beneath it "1949 - Present", and annotating "(On Taiwan)" underneath that should be optimal. This should only make the template a bit longer, instead of wider. Either way a change has to be made as 1912-1949 is misleading. Hannhwa (talk) 07:36, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Republic of China should be 1911-present Or add the following to the table Republic of China (Taiwan) 1949-present 2404:E800:E62B:289:C47B:BB65:B6E2:4598 (talk) 12:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the ((edit semi-protected)) template. Izno (talk) 23:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The preview of the "Shang" under the "History of China" tab says "the shang dynasty is stupid why are you even researching this". 194.132.44.126 (talk) 10:45, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The vandalism on the Shang page has been reverted, it takes some time for the preview's cache to update. – Thjarkur (talk) 10:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The template includes years for the major divisions, but if we include them for everything, it just becomes too large. Since this template appear on lots of articles, some of them the most important in Chinese history, compactness is very important. Kanguole 18:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't the Jin dynasty pretty major?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The template aims to give a skeletal outline of Chinese history, rather than a complete timeline. In this case, the major division is Song, and the template has dates for that. Besides, there's no way to fit in dates for Jin without making the box significantly bigger, taking up space on all those articles that use it. Kanguole 19:22, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the Shun dynasty can be inserted under the Ming dynasty in a similar way that Wu Zhou is? Aza24 (talk) 00:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is too minor (ruled China for a few months) and is omitted by most broad overviews (as this template aims to be). I'm not sure that Wu Zhou should be here either. Kanguole 08:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kanguole: I would agree with the removal of Wu Zhou. Perhaps Wu Zhou and Shun dynasty can be moved in the "related articles" section under a heading of "minor dynasties"? Aza24 (talk) 08:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

on taiwan should be from 1945 while not 1949 Alibamabama (talk) 01:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. I've also changed the link to History of Taiwan (1945–present). The original link went to History_of_the_Republic_of_China#Republic_of_China_based_in_Taiwan_(after_1949) and lists the History of Taiwan page as the main article. The new article provides a better overview of the ROC's involvement with the island as well. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 08:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A gentle revert as I'm fairly certain such a change makes little sense. Taiwan was under the control of the ROC from 1945–1949, only then (in 1949) did Taiwan gain its "independence" (a loose term in such a context). See Retreat of the Republic of China to Taiwan. The reason that History of Taiwan (1945–present) is not "1949–present" is simply because before 1945 Taiwan was under Japanese rule. In 1945 it came under Chinese rule and technically it is still claimed by China but it became a de facto sovereign nation in 1949 when China removed their military forces. Aza24 (talk) 09:23, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aza24: I see your point, and I don't feel strongly enough about either date, so either works for me. However, I still think History of Taiwan (1945–present) would be a better link destination, as the ROC hardly had any involvement with the mainland post 1949, save the Burma incident that is discussed in both. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 14:23, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ganbaruby: Hmmm I see your point as well but I am unsure. Perhaps @PericlesofAthens: can wade in here whenever he sees this. Aza24 (talk) 09:08, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it looks like earlier in this talk page a solution was discussed (rather extensively) to include both... nothing seems to have come out of it though. Aza24 (talk) 09:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-removed the colors but we can talk about them here. Right now the purple color is not accessible with link colors on the foreground, and the grey that was being used for the date was not accessible against any of the background colors.

I've also re-added collapsing. This template is reasonably lengthy that collapsing can be a nice add (and I see there was some use of it in the past). --Izno (talk) 23:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm impartial about colors but concerned about the list format. The previous version was better in that respect. Now it looks like the Song dynasty was followed by the Western Xia or the Jin by the Three Kingdoms; Xin in particular makes little sense since it occurred in the middle of the Han dynasty. I'm concerned that readers will ignore the dates and focus more on the literal order, which is misleading. I suggest keeping the collapse but using the original non-list format. Aza24 (talk) 23:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The original 'format' was not accessible for unsighted readers and also doesn't really fit into the sidebar paradigm, which is fundamentally 'find an article of interest', not 'replicate the history of China in sidebar form'... which would be a valid graph/timeline on history of China if it's not there already, I think.

Secondly, we do have the dates, which I think is sufficient to indicate these were not necessarily sequential groups. --Izno (talk) 03:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've long thought this template should drop Xin and Wu Zhou (probably Eastern Zhou too). Kanguole 09:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the prior template should've been discussed a bit more prior to it's redesign as i thought the quasi-majestic style of the old one was nice to say the least. However with colorblind and other colors clashing it definitely is time for a rework of the color scheme. - || RuleTheWiki || (talk) 07:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with RuleTheWiki, and I've just reverted the WP:STATUS QUO pending further discussion. I'm not thrilled that an editor who has displayed no experience in Chinese history is reverting a long standing carefully made template (without further discussion), and resorting to strawman arguments. I still completely disagree with "there's no reason to try to replicate its entire history in a sidebar" which is a fundamentally flawed view on Chinese history. The history is not chronological and is extremely layered and overlapping... this is far different than English (post William I at least) history, where there are clear chronological divisions. Additionally, the terms "Ancient" and "Imperial" are too loose to be stringently sorted into collapsable lists; Ancient can often refer to the Qin and Han, and I almost never see the Qing or Ming referred to as imperial, they are merely loose and convenient divisions, that should be presented in such a manner. Aza24 (talk) 22:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Someone's experience in a certain area is not relevant. Period and end of story. There are no strawman arguments here. The sidebar is trying to represent all of Chinese history, and that's not the point of sidebars. Navigation is. The strawman here is pretending that it's relevant that X dynasty is relevant in Y timeline when it's just a matter of naming. A full revert is accordingly unwarranted.

Besides, as stated, there are clear issues with accessibility.

But, you win. Have fun with this trash. Cheers and bye. Izno (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I seem to have struck a nerve. Someone's experience is certainly relevant, if they're going to personally redesign an entire 10-year-old template without discussion... especially when I've given examples—based on the realities of Chinese history—that outlined issues related to why doing so in the format your proposed is undesirable. Experience wouldn't be relevant, if you'd started a discussion rather than taking matters into your own hands. Navigation is certainly important, but compromising the entire structure of Chinese history is not a helpful trade off. Look at WP:BULLETLIST, Bullets are used to discern, at a glance, the individual items in a list, usually when each item in the list is a simple word, phrase or single line of text, for which numeric ordering is not appropriate, or lists that are extremely brief, where discerning the items at a glance is not an issue.—if readers were to glance at the proposed template, they'd see the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms, Liao, Song and think they're in order, when in reality they all overlap and interweave, so "discerning the items at a glance" is an issue. But please, after being reverted by one editor, and disagreed with by two others, call the template trash and leave, what do I care. Aza24 (talk) 22:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I like the current image, but someone uploaded a beautiful stylised version of the phrase "History of China" to Wikimedia Commons. The current image, which as far as I can tell is based on some Chinese cultural relic, is a good image but this new image showcases both Traditional Chinese characters and seal script, while the current image only shows Traditional Chinese characters, so I would say that the image uploaded by Ms. Lệ Xuân is "more representative of Chinese history" as seal script is more associated with Ancient China while Traditional Chinese characters with Imperial China and Republican China (including Taiwan). Preferably I don't want to change the image without prior discussion. --Donald Trung (talk) 14:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks acceptable, definitely higher quality than the current one. - || RuleTheWiki || (talk) 07:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Higher quality for sure, and more friendly with the template by using an svg, I would think. Aza24 (talk) 22:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per Talk:China: Because of the overwhelming usage of "China" to refer to the People's Republic of China rather than the Republic of China in both Chinese and English languages. --HypVol (talk) 13:13, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean that any instance of the word "China" refers to the People's Republic of China? Most English-speakers also use the term "Korea" exclusively to refer to South Korea, this doesn't mean that we should remove any references to North Korea in a history template related to Korea. The Republic of China is a country that is called "China" but is usually referred to as "Taiwan", there isn't a country called "Taiwan" but this country is usually referred to as such, this is more like how the United Kingdom is usually called "England", the Netherlands as "Holland", and the Soviet Union as "Russia". There are currently two (2) China's and this template refers to "China" as a concept and not "China" as in the People's Republic of China, otherwise anything before 1949 would also have to be excluded if we use the logic that only the PRC is "China". --Donald Trung (talk) 14:18, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Donald Trung: False analogy. Korea and China are totally different cases. Both North and South Korea are member states of UN. The fact that the article Korea is about the peninsula indicates that the claim that Most English-speakers also use the term "Korea" exclusively to refer to South Korea is wrong. The established consensus on English Wikipedia supports the usage of "China" to refer to the People's Republic of China rather than the Republic of China in both Chinese and English languages. --HypVol (talk) 14:39, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus is to use the "WP:COMMONNAME" policy for "China" and "Taiwan". This doesn't mean that we should rename articles like the "President of Republic of China" to "President of Taiwan", in fact most articles about the Republic of China government still use the term "Republic of China". Korea isn't a false analogy because both countries claim to be the sole government of "Korea", in this case both North and South Korea claim to be the sole legal government of Korea and the UN recognises both (but recognition is irrelevant here because "sovereign countries" didn't even exist during most periods on this template). There are two countries that call themselves "China" and only one is commonly referred to as such. Your logic only works if we exclusively use the term "China" to refer to the PRC rather than the nuanced term it actually is, if one thing Wikipedia shouldn't be is a place where all nuance gets defenestrated. --Donald Trung (talk) 14:54, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1) The majority of articles about ROC is now called "Taiwan". To give you a few examples, Taiwan passport, Foreign relations of Taiwan, Administrative divisions of Taiwan, Economy of Taiwan, Law enforcement in Taiwan, Elections in Taiwan, and so on. Further evidence can be found at ((Taiwan_topics)). The few articles you had listed are exceptions and don't represent the whole picture.

2) Please stop making the false analogy of Korea.

3) The last part of the template is titled MODERN, which means contemporary usage of the word China should be encouraged. That is the consensus I had emphasized: the overwhelming usage of "China" to refer to the People's Republic of China rather than the Republic of China in both Chinese and English languages. And I don't how Wikipedia shouldn't be is a place where all nuance gets defenestrated matters here. --HypVol (talk) 15:18, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) 1) Whenever referred to the country of the ROC it is called "Taiwan", but its government is called the "Republic of China" and articles referring to it still use it.

2) Do you want me to stop using a "false analogy" because it's 100% applicable here? Two countries claiming sovereignty over each other (Two Chinas).

3) Nuance is a pillar of Wikipedia, furthermore, the main article of this template is "History of China" which includes the Republic of China as "since 1912" and its header reads "This article is about the general history of China from prehistoric times to the present. For the history of the Republic of China since 1912, see History of the Republic of China. For the history of the People's Republic of China since 1949, see History of the People's Republic of China", until Taiwan actually declares that it is no longer the Republic of China it remains a part of "China" and Chinese history, it's just not a part of the PRC (and most likely never will be) and most certainly not its history. "WP:COMMONNAME" doesn't trump the neutral point of view. --Donald Trung (talk) 15:32, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that, in this phrase "until Taiwan actually declares that it is no longer the Republic of China it remains a part of "China" and Chinese history", you confused the Taiwan island (Formosa) with the ROC. The article title "Taiwan" is just a colloquial name of the Republic of China. So there is no such thing as "until the Republic of China actually declares that is is no longer the Republic of China..." If you think it is still confusing, do not use "Taiwan" in this discussion unless you want to talk about the Taiwan island. Furthermore, the ownership of the Taiwan island is in dispute, so please avoid asserting that the Taiwan island is a part of China. --Matt Smith (talk) 17:02, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't confuse anything, the Republic of China is a country and Taiwan is an island. Likewise, the Republic of Ireland is a country and Ireland is an island. The Republic of China administers the island of Taiwan and the Republic of China calls itself "China", likewise the Republic of Ireland calls itself "Ireland" (in fact it doesn't even call itself the "Republic of Ireland" nor is that name even "WP:COMMONNAME" but that's a whole different discussion). The island of Taiwan is not a part of the People's Republic of China. But if the Republic of China decides today that it's no longer "China" (not referring to the PRC here) it could be removed from this template, until that time it should be included. We shouldn't try to give "China" a more narrow definition because usually, but not always it refers to the PRC. --Donald Trung (talk) 17:41, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Anyway, we don't need to discuss whether the Taiwan island is part of China or not, because that has nothing to do with this template. --Matt Smith (talk) 01:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the purpose of inclusion in this navbox, the issue is not what Taiwan/ROC and PRC are called. After all, no-one refers to the Western Xia as China. The issue is whether Taiwan/ROC should be considered part of the history of China. That is also a controversial question, but the above argument about names is irrelevant. Kanguole 15:28, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then why not include Hong Kong, Macau, Tibet, i.e. History of Hong Kong, History of Macau, History of Tibet? All are, legally and practically, parts of China, much more clearly than Taiwan. Including Taiwan in the infobox, and not these others implies that it is part of China, even more than HK, Macau, Tibet are, taking the PRC side of the argument over whether Taiwan is part of China.2A00:23C8:4583:9F01:FDA5:13C4:F88D:5D4D (talk) 16:45, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are certainly arguments that could be made for those places, but I don't agree that Taiwan's inclusion is dependent on them. Including Macau and Hong Kong makes little sense, considering, as you said they are a part of China, so why not include the History of Beijing then? Tibet's situation is wildly different, and hardly comparable to any of the other places.

I agree with Kanguole in general; upon seeing the "Per Talk:China: Because of the overwhelming usage of "China" to refer to the People's Republic of China rather than the Republic of China in both Chinese and English languages" in my watchlist, I was startled by the absolutely inapplicability of such a comment. The idea of a fractured China is among the most consistent things in Chinese history; all of the three kingdoms presumably considered themselves the legitimate ones, for example... Regardless, the issue is not as clear cut as HypVol would put it and I don't see anything but serious POV issues in removing Taiwan. Aza24 (talk) 23:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on a desktop, and I see the table very wide and the right side is completely empty. Is the formatting wrong, or is it just me? Thanks Awesomecat713 (talk) 20:11, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what width you're seeing. On my desktop, the line "Republic of China on the mainland 1912–1949" fills the full width of the box. Kanguole 20:18, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This Navbox, although well done, is quite intrusive. Is there a possibility to collapse it by default? पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any issue with collapsing, but I would personally prefer that ancient, imperial and modern are collapsed separately. Most of the navboxes in ((History of Asia templates)) are like this. Aza24 (talk) 18:21, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aza24:  Done पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 18:30, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@पाटलिपुत्र and Kanguole: and anyone else, I noticed that for the BC/AD variant (see Six Dynasties article, for instance), the formatting is not produced with full width like it is with BCE/CE. Does anyone know where/how to fix this? I'm not sure how to edit the BC/AD variant settings. Aza24 (talk) 22:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems independent of |BC=, happening if the article has no infobox. Kanguole 23:04, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, interesting, and it may be the lack of not only infobox but any image at all, as the History of China article China article is BC with an image (but no infobox) and works fine. I've been unable to find a fitting image for the Six Dynasties article to amend this. Aza24 (talk) 23:18, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a variation of the current header image, which the characters are written from right to left in a traditional way. Chinese Wikipedia uses this picture, and I personally prefer this as well. I would like to gather some opinions here before hitting the template edit button. WWbread (Open Your Mouth?) 07:52, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese writings, when written horizontally, is mostly left-to-right. In fact, I can't recall one that is right-to-left. So the current header image is more natural. Matt Smith (talk) 09:16, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese horizontal writings were from right-to-left mostly in its history, until 1950 in mainland China and 1990 in Hong Kong/Taiwan. (refer to Horizontal and vertical writing in East Asian scripts or zh:縱書與橫書) As this article is about Chinese history so I suggest using the traditional order to have more connection to the content. WWbread (Open Your Mouth?) 20:01, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How about neither? It's not clear this phrase was ever written horizontally (or in a seal for that matter) until modern times. This template used to have the attractive image at right, until it was replaced by the Chinese phrase without explanation. How about bringing it back? Kanguole 23:07, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Left justify list item "Jin (266–420)" 2603:7000:9901:4146:8992:6A6D:6DD1:12E6 (talk) 21:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done PianoDan (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A few of the pages link directly to the "History" portion of a specific dynasty, while other link directly to the "History of _ Dynasty." I feel like they should all be standardized in one way or the other, rather than have some link to the Dynasty page itself and the some others link to a specific page dedicated to the history of the dynasty. I'm not sure which would be more beneficial though, but to me it's a but clunky. Pacamah (talk) 03:03, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Links in the template to "X dynasty#History" seem to be in cases where there is no separate "History of the X dynasty" article. But I don't think they should do either – they should just link to the dynasty article. After all, everything about the dynasty is historic. Kanguole 08:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think about that before, and I completely agree. I don't get why it redirects to the history section when the template is just for the history of China itself. Maybe if there's a greater consensus then it can be changed for each one without conflict. Pacamah (talk) 10:45, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really agree with the rationale that "everything about the dynasty is historic". Later historiography or archaeology isn't, and while details like government and geography are "historic" in the sense of describing the past "history" isn't really the primary focus. If "everything is historic", why even have separate "History of" articles and "History" sections at all? I doubt you'd agree with getting rid of them, so why avoid linking to them as if they don't exist?

The purpose of sidebars is to aid navigation to relevant material. The "History of" articles are the most relevant as they are the main articles for history proper. The title of this template is "History of", so linking to "History of" articles where possible is consistent and sensible. In some cases there is no main article, so the "History" section is the most relevant. In either case, if a reader would prefer the broader dynasty article they would still easily find it either through it being linked at the "History of" article or by scrolling up or past the history section.

While not linking to the "History" section doesn't making a big difference, if the reader were linked directly to the dynasty article in every case they may not be aware or may not notice that "History of" articles even exist, particularly as they only exist in some cases and not others. It would contradict the purpose of helping readers find content they might otherwise not be aware of.

I also don't agree that the links need to be rigidly standardised. There's already a pattern, namely linking to an article if it exists and to sections if it doesn't; that's standardised enough. Any effort to standardise things further should begin by making the content consistent first, then updating navigation templates.

The links should reflect the situation with regards to content, and the current situation happens to be inconsistent. If there's a problem, it's with the content not the links. Some dynasties have "History of" while others don't. In some cases, linking to sections is necessary anyway because no separate article of any kind exists. (Eastern/Western Han and Jin link their respective sections because there is no separate article for each.) – Scyrme (talk) 20:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Take for example Song dynasty. The History of the Song dynasty article, containing a chronological account of the dynasty, is easily found as the ((main)) link of the "History" section. But everything else in that article is also historical material. And similarly with all the others – even if there is a little material on modern scholarship, that might be found in "History of" articles too. The article on the period is the most useful target for each entry, and the "History" section or article is easily reached from there. That also seems to the practice with other "History of" sidebars. Kanguole 20:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"History of" sidebars appear to be organised differently. Some like ((History of Japan)) link to eras/periods and key events, some like ((History of Canada sidebar)) are organised by topic and/or by geographical region, while others like ((History of France sidebar)) link to regimes, royal dynasties, or states. The only thing in common is that they follow whatever the articles in the topic area do.

I think part of our disagreement is whether the dynasties are periods or regimes (the royal dynasties and the states they governed). As I understand it, generally speaking in Chinese history references to the dynasties can signify either or both. However, Wikipedia's articles themselves appear to introduce and discuss each dynasty principally as a regime/state/country not a period of history. If they were unambiguously about periods of history, like the articles linked to by ((History of Japan)), then I wouldn't have any objection to linking to them directly. However, since they seem to me to be about regimes I think the priority should be the "History of" articles. – Scyrme (talk) 21:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No offence meant, but Canada doesn't have enough history to be remotely comparable. The other thing those sidebars have in common is that they don't link to "History" sections or "History of" subarticles.

Tang dynasty, Song dynasty, etc are the units that are used in accounts of Chinese history, e.g. the Cambridge History of China, or the Harvard History of China, and you'll find that the volume(s) on a dynasty include a chronological account of the dynasty (our History section), plus extensive coverage of other aspects of the dynasty, like the rest of each of our dynasty articles. That is what readers should find at the end of each of these links. Kanguole 18:59, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't intend to suggest that the histories of these countries is comparable; I was only comparing what they templates do. As for not linking "History of" articles, that could just as likely be because they can't; articles by such titles don't exist in the respective topic areas because the article content is organised differently.

I am aware that the dynasties are used as periods of history in other sources; that's what I meant when I said "generally speaking". That does not mean that the articles here on Wikipedia use them in the same way (regardless of whether they should do so). Tang dynasty, for example, explicitly states that its topic is synonymous with the "Tang Empire"; a state, not a period.

As I said, if the articles were unambiguously about periods of history I would not object to linking to them. If everyone is agreed that the dynasty articles should treat their topics as periods of history first and foremost, then perhaps the articles can be amended to make that clearer.– Scyrme (talk) 23:46, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those other sidebars don't link to "History" sections even when they're available.

The Tang dynasty is both a period and a historical empire, but that's beside the point. The point is that the Tang dynasty article covers the same breadth of aspects of the chunk of the history of China known as "Tang" as do the relevant volumes in those multi-volume histories. It is what the reader should get if they follow the "Tang" link in this sidebar. Kanguole 19:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We should definitely be linking to genera dynasty articles, not history sections. If we're linking to history sections then for Dynasties like the Song, we should be linking to History of the Song dynasty. This creates the awkward predicament of having some links to subsections general dynasty page and some to history ones. Lets just keep it simple on linking to general dynasties. And also, political history is not the only history there is... Aza24 (talk) 19:53, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kanguole: I understand removing the history section and "history of" links for the dynasties, but perhaps doing so for the PRC and ROC should be reconsidered. Those are contemporary, present-day states. The "everything about them is historic" argument definitely doesn't apply. – Scyrme (talk) 21:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IMO it's still a bit awkward to link to history sections in those cases. Though I could see the argument for the ROC, since the earlier history is from indigenous people, usually (afaik) considered as its own history apart from "Chinese history" Aza24 (talk) 05:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't link to sections. They linked to History of the People's Republic of China and History of Taiwan (1945–present) respectively. – Scyrme (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, it just seems like overthinking imo. Maybe the years (i.e. "1949–present") could have those links? Aza24 (talk) 23:01, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aza24: Apologies for the late reply. I'm not sure why it would be overthinking. It's not like it requires a long chain of thought to observe that the PRC and ROC are present-day countries so aren't wholly historical. We could try linking the years if linking both is preferable to replacing the link.

@Kanguole and Pacamah: What do you think? – Scyrme (talk) 07:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the even later late reply. I feel that having them linked to the history of the PRC and Taiwan work for the post-1949 countries. Having it written as "1949-present" for both but then linking to the full history of both is a bit confusing in my opinion. I personally believe that having it link to the articles about the modern states would make the most sense, or possibly doing what @Aza24 suggested in having "1949-present" having those links. Maybe having the full history of both on the top section with Timeline, Dynasties, and Historiography and having the 1949-present ones having the corresponding articles? Pacamah (talk) 03:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, I feel like we're overthinking this. Its hard for me to see a major problem with the current presentation. Aza24 (talk) 06:42, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]