Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Three Kingdoms/Archive 2

message: This is a template I really want to get rid of. The state it is in now, it is nothing more than an arbitrary list of people of varying degrees of significance. The inclusion criteria is ill-defined and the whole thing is a bulky eyesore serving no purpose. Before I send it to WP:TFD for deletion though, I want to know what you guys feel about this. _dk 06:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: delete with extreme prejudice. Ling.Nut 11:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Delete?!?!? I wish i would have known you guys wanted this deleted earlier. i just spent a few hours fixing up the template and adding it to various pages. That being said, i think the template is a good idea for quick links to various figure pages if placed on the right pages, ie. ROTK page, character list pages, and characters in the template pages. --EveryDayJoe45 15:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Since the deletion failed, and there was no consensus to split, I'm thinking of trimming the historically insignificant figures from the list. Come on, King Duosi? But I'm expecting heavy opposition to this plan with how things are going now....Any thoughts? (HongQiGong, you should so join this project, considering the amount of participation you had here :) )_dk 00:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One option we can go with is to first get rid of the sectioning by rulers, advisors, and generals, and then limit the number of people mentioned for Shu, Wei, Wu, and "Others" by X number of who is arguably the most important figures.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The Chinese Wikipedia has clearly defined templates for these people. For example, a template for the Five Tiger Generals of Shu instead of any non-specific "Generals of Shu" template. If we can opt for a split, or just to limit the number of people in a camp, we might as well set up a criteria so that we don't get wars on this issue. _dk 02:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about King Duosi? He was Meng Huo's strategist. Duosi is to the nanman as Zhuge Liang was to Shu.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by EveryDayJoe45 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He didn't exist. Even in the novel he only showed up once or twice before he was killed, what sound strategy did he give? _dk (talk) 00:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you being real? He was in the forefront of the poison swamp strategy. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 01:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Strategy? "Hey there's a swamp near my place let's lure them there." And then he died. Are you being real? This has nothing to do with him being fictional or not, he was just plain unimportant. Jesus you're pissing me off. _dk (talk) 02:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: As we're both very close to violating WP:3RR, we should stop reverting each other and discuss the recent changes here. I don't want to have nasty revert wars between you and me again. Also, anyone reading this, please comment on the validity of my recent trimming and rearrangement of the template; and don't hesitate to say I'm at fault. Thank you. _dk (talk) 02:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not only Duosi, but I also removed people like King Wutugu, Yuan Shang, Yuan Tan, etc. while adding Huangfu Song, Guo Tu, Feng Ji, etc, who were more notable and prominent. EveryDayJoe also disagreed with grouping He Jin as a ruler and the collapsing of the template. _dk (talk) 02:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the template is now under full protection.  Let's see if we can iron out an agreement with EveryDayJoe.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with collapsing the template. If i reverted that, I did so on accident. I actually think collapsing it is a good idea. And He Jin in my opinion can not be considered a ruler, that would be similar to saying Colin Powell was a world leader. And Han Sui, was historically a ruler, but he eventually hid behind the likes of Ma Teng, until he revolted, thus making him more a general; and in the novel he was even more related to an officer figure. Now down to the meat of the argument. First off there is no proof that King Duosi wasn't real. The only known ficticious Nanman was Lady Zhurong. Though many believe the souther tribe to be made up, it can not be verified. The Nanman are not like Zhou Cang or Xiahou En. But King Duosi (Duosi Dawang), was the head strategist of the possibly ficticious tribe, and on that subject, King Wutugu, is the only person with a full physical description, may it be true or ficticious. And How can Yuan Tan and Shang be unimportant, when their rivalry wars helped Cao Cao become the most powerful warlord in the country at the time. Anyway, I'm not saying your editions are any more or less important than the ones i am defending; I am simply saying that the whole argument started with the idea to delete some people to shorten it, and this really creates edit wars. So I say the ones we are arguiang about should either all be deleted or all be added. And note that the template should be added to the page of any additions. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 20:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably a little late, but usually you put in people that are confirmed to have exist. You don't put in people not confirmed to have not exist. Suredeath (talk) 15:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, I think unless we have more modern historical studies pertaining to the importance of Duosi, we really need to resort to using Sanguo Zhi as the authoritative source on the importance of Duosi.  If Sanguo Zhi doesn't really make much mention of Duosi, I would have to agree that he's not a very important figure and should be left out.  But I think the larger issue with the template here is:  exactly how important does a figure need to be to qualify for a spot on the template?  We should really lay down some agreement on that and come up with some measuring stick for it.  This time we're disagreeing on Duosi, maybe next time it'll be somebody else.  We should figure out a way to mitigate these problems.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Its a good idea. But don't do it by years. it would be better to do it by the state they belong too, i.e. Rulers/founders, advisors, generals, others. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 18:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or we can split them by years AND by state, that will dice up the template even more. More suggestions? _dk (talk) 00:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would make way too many templates. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 00:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, because there is the need to differentiate between the people who served Cao Wei and the people who served Cao Cao but not after 220. How we split into 4 templates: People relating to the End of Han Dynasty, People of Shu Han, People of Cao Wei, and People of Eastern Wu? _dk (talk) 01:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We could make that distinction on the actual template. Like advisors this year to this years. generals this year to this year. etc. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 15:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would make the template a little too big, if you ask me.... Approximately how many templates do you want to split to? _dk (talk) 01:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea. We can always change it if we don't like it though. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Template:People of the Three Kingdoms]]

message: Please vote Here. I don't care if you vote against the article. Obviously i would prefer if you help my created page, but thats not why I'm posting this. I'm posting this to let my fellow wikiproject members know of an AFD going on within the Three Kingdoms genre. So PLEASE vote, no matter if its for Keep or Delete. --EveryDayJoe45 00:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Result = Delete. I see no1 voted in the AFD afetr i posted this except for Deadkid_dk. But thats okay, probably none of you saw it. --EveryDayJoe45 23:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: AFD

message: Today i started uploading pictures of characters in the game Romance of the Three Kingdoms XI. I am almost done with all the warlords, except its getting very tedious, i htink i am goin to stop for now. If you visit the warlords on the Three Kingdoms character template, you will see the new photos. I got them from this site, http://kongming.net/11/portraits/. The only problem is i don't know how to tag photos, so can someone please site the pictures, since i never did it before. If you don't like the new photos, just delete them and say why here, before i continue tomorrow. I, howeverm think they make the page look more official in a way. alright guys, i'm out. --EveryDayJoe45 23:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hopefully these pictures will only be used to refer specifically to the games.  I know they look very nice, but I much prefer traditional renditions of how the people looked like.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted the replacements you made, due to the reason Hong Qi Gong stated above. _dk 05:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I share your views, Hong, though I am not speaking for this WikiProject. For me, I'll let the fair use patrol take care of his uploads. _dk 08:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As i wrote in the original message, the photos are going to get deleted anyway, because i don't know how to tag them properly. I guess thats a good thing though, since you guys seem to like the historical drawing more, whic i gues sis more official, but does look kind of crappier. But, i'll stop uploading the photos that i was planning on doing today.  --EveryDayJoe45 17:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: About the tagging of the photos, I think they should probably be tagged with fair use.  Unfortunately, I'm not sure they even qualify as fair use, especially when they're not used in the context of the video games.  At any rate, maybe we should really have a discussion on what extent images from the Koei games ought to be used to represent people and events from the 3K period.  I have no doubt that the creative team at Koei has done their research, and maybe the images from the Romance of the Three Kingdoms series aren't that bad, but please please let us not use images from the Dynasty Warriors series unless we're referring to the game itself.  I love those Koei games but most of the character portrayals in Dynasty Warriors are basically made up by Koei.  Just look at Wei Yan.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New photos

message: Hi, I'm newly appointed coordinator of the Wikipedia: WikiProject History. I was coordinator of the Wikipedia: WikiProject Military History before.
My scope is to improve the cooperation among the different history projects andf use the synergy of a common infrastructure to improve article quality. One idea would be to merge small project into a larger wikiproject history with a common infrastructure and the small projects continuing independently as task forces of this project. What are your suggestions? Greetings Wandalstouring 15:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objections. _dk 23:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  collaboration of the history projects 

message: erm, are you deleting categories now? I mean, you know, what's going on? --Ling.Nut 00:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is that happening? _dk 00:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, my memory is horrible. It's possible I forgot to make these cats, then forgot that i forgot. But there are redlinks at the bottom of Template:WikiProject Three Kingdoms‎ that I noticed via this edit --Ling.Nut 00:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Omg...have you checked the prior revision??? It's made by me too!!! I was only testing if that worked, but it didn't because all the pages with the WP3K template (articles, templates and everything) automatically have the Category:WP3K articles (even though they may not be articles, like templates), and I just wanted to leave it at that because a page can't have the Category:WP3K articles and Category:WP3K template. We'd need a more complex syntax in the template to fix that, but I don't know how to do that and that's why I reverted MY! edit! ... erm, are you deleting categories now? I'm not an Administrator so I CAN'T delete categories. Armando.Otalk • Ev 03:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it didn't work because you had a space between "Category:" and "WikiProject".  (ref:  )  But I would recommend naming the category something like "Three Kingdoms templates" or "Template-Class Three Kingdoms articles" instead of "WikiProject Three Kingdoms templates".  Normally categories that specifically names a WikiProject are categories for the subpages of a WikiProject themselves, and not pages that were tagged for a WikiProject.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see, you're right. But how can an template be clasified as an article too??? Armando.Otalk • Ev 00:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  deleting cats? 

message: Tired of being afraid ;-) Gonna pull the trigger. fasten your seatbelts, kiddies! by the way, for all watching, I will NOT change the harvard-style notation to footnote style. Repeat after me the magic words: No No No No. Some will gripe, but screw 'em. It's in the rules. --Ling.Nut 06:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm gonna [[WP:FAC]] the [[Battle of Red Cliffs]] article! 

message: List, disambig and template have been added as classes for the assessment.
Class	Category
     	:Category:List-Class Three Kingdoms articles
     	:Category:Disambiguation-Class Three Kingdoms articles
     	:Category:Template-Class Three Kingdoms pages
     	:Category:Three Kingdoms redirections
Armando.Otalk • Ev 18:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List-disambig-template-redirect classes 

message: Well, I've made this new userbox for the project. Now, I don't know if it should replace the actual userbox or if it should be used as an alternative one. It also contains the founder parameter, even though I think it is..useless.
Actual userbox	New userbox	New UB with the founder parameter
              	           	
Armando.Otalk • Ev 02:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's wrong with calligraphy that people want to change it so? It would be perfect if the original one is vectored, though. _dk 05:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But what does it means?? Armando.Otalk • Ev 05:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The same thing, 三國. _dk 05:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really??? Whoa...but, it looks rare and not everybody will be able to know what it is.Armando.Otalk • Ev 05:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If people don't understand Chinese, then it doesn't matter which box we use because they won't understand both. Everyone who can read Chinese can read this! Do yourself a favour and read Chinese calligraphy. Plus, it's just a userbox..... _dk 05:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Hey! I don't wanna replace the actual userbox! I'm just asking if this userbox I've created is fine and may be used as an alternative one. Armando.Otalk • Ev 06:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks! Armando.Otalk • Ev 06:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just a userbox anyways, nothing special about it. As long as it brings the message across people can use any design they want... _dk 07:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New userbox 

message: Anybody wanna revisit the topic: What should we collaborate on next, after Battle of Red Cliffs?--Ling.Nut 03:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are sooo much articles that can become featured articles, but one thing that almost every article doesn't have are REFERENCES. Some examples are: Romance of the Three Kingdoms, Zhuge Liang, Cao Cao, Cao Pi, Sun Quan, Liu Bei, etc, etc, etc. I'm sure that if we add enough references/citations to those article, all of them can become FAs or at least GAs. Armando.Otalk • Ev 03:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should focus on the articles regarding battles and kingdoms before heading into articles regarding single historical figures. Battle of Changban is my choice.  It's already good, but needs more references to be sure. Gamer Junkie 03:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Armando, we have sufficient references for those articles, just not citations. Sadly, citations are the things FA reviewers look at. Battle of Changban might make it, but it's not that important of a battle so references might be scarce. Personally, I think Guan Yu, if given citations, is our best chance of reaching another FA. _dk 04:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One or two citations are not enough for articles with that size. And yes, Guan Yu would definitely  become a FA if more references are added because it's very complete. Armando.Otalk • Ev 04:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: On the other hand... the thought just occurred to me that if we do "Battle.." then we can get help from WP:MILHIST folks. I've never seen WP:CHINA folks being very enthusiastic about collaboration (or about anything at all, in fact, except for the occasional mudslinging contest about Taiwan political issues...) --Ling.Nut 05:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Throwing more people into a task isn't always for the better.  In fact, sometimes it makes things worse.  The same goes for editing on WP.  Just having 2 to 4 people that are dedicated (meaning number 1 priority) to collaborating on an article is ideal in my own opinion.  But certainly WP:MILHIST would be very useful when you put an article up for peer review.  Now having said that, I would love to assist on improving Guan Yu if other editors are interested in pushing it to FA state.  He is not just an important figure in the Three Kingdoms era/story, he is an important figure in Chinese culture in general.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll go with that. Gamer Junkie 07:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, I agree. Armando.Otalk • Ev 23:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Guan Yu is the winner then! Now that we've made a decision, let's all take a break and have another beer to celebrate the FA of Battle of Red Cliffs... Man, that Viking beer really does look yummy.  I may need to go buy some Taiwan Beer today... Ling.Nut (talk) 00:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's next after Red Cliffs? 

message: Yes, the wikiproject has its first FA! Battle of Red Cliffs. See the discussion. Armando.Otalk • Ev 21:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kudos to all, particularly Ling for his outstanding references (despite the negative feedback from Harvard-style haters) and dk for his stalwart defence of all things Three Kingdoms-related. I am proud to be a part of this project. Gamer Junkie (talk) 06:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First FA! 

message: Apparently Three Kingdoms was a theme for Magic: The Gathering.  I don't know if you guys want to tag it, but check this out - Portal Three Kingdoms.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's mentioned in Guan Yu's article.  I think we should stick to historically significant Three Kingdoms-related articles.  Those card games always have die hard legions of fans, so let's leave it to those who know better.  They can always consult us if they wish to know something relating specifically to their Three Kingdoms spin-off sets. Gamer Junkie 20:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Card game?