Talk:Timeline of Chinese history

message: It is inappropriate to equate presidents of the republics/nominal heads of the Communist Party as "rulers". Theoretically, they are not supposed to rule. They're supposed to serve the people/party/etc. --Jiang 04:19, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Would "head" work, even with emperors? --Menchi 04:31, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it okay to add a row below 'Mainland'? Should we use "President" or "Chairman" then? --FallingInLoveWithPitoc 04:35, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

text: We can simply drop the table template (so avoiding any "head" definition"). An example off the top of my head is Timeline of Polish history. kt2 04:52, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

text: I agree with you, Olivier, but what about the "ruler" of PRC? President or Chairman? --FallingInLoveWithPitoc 13:37, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

text: For the PRC, should we replace the communist party heads with the heads of state? --Jiang 19:33, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds appropriate so far, as in PRC, heads of communist party = heads of state. since it took me half an hour to save the page last time, i am not gonna to edit this page again, too long more me. :p --FallingInLoveWithPitoc 08:59, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heading "Ruler" 

message: Yangshao culture 5000-3000 bce
Longshan culture 3000-2000 bce
The Art of War 6th century bce
Erya first dictionary 3rd century bce
Book burning under Qin Shi Huang 213 bce
The Nine Chapters on the Mathematical Art 1st century ce
Compass invented 271 ce
Grand Canal of China
Zheng He 1405-1433, first open ocean exploration
Journey to the West 1590
Gunpowder 9th century ce <--- Article wasn't sure about exact date
Woodblock printing
Steel#Developments_in_China 500bce  <--- Article wasn't sure about exact date
Chinese porcelain Eastern Han 100-200 ce  <--- Article wasn't sure about exact date
standard exams to qualify for public office: Sui dynasty <--- Article wasn't sure about exact date
"Ten Classics", standard textbooks used for exam for public office 619ce <--- No article
::I have fixed the information on steel; as for Chinese porcelain, that is still to be inserted into the timeline.--Pericles of AthensTalk 16:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing

message: This page has some problems when viewed with Firefox. Perhaps with the cascading stylesheet for printing, that causes it to not print any of Imperial China's history.  It skips to modern China.
If you try a print preview in Firefox you will see the problem.
:Prints ok with latest firefox 2.0 as of february 2007.  Benjwong 19:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page prints incompletely 

message: Is there any particular reason why modern Chinese history is (more or less) duplicated? 惑乱 分からん 22:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is correct.  One part is the "Republic of China" and the other is "People's Republic of China".  Though I am in favor of calling it Republic of China/Pre-Taiwan to avoid confusion.  Benjwong 19:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Modern China duplicated 

message: This Project is very helpful in research, if you need any help, contact me. 
AJ 23:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compliments 

message: This page should not use B.C.E.
No body uses this any more.
AJ 23:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BCE 

message: Why in this entire timeline of "Chinese" history is Mao Zedong not mentioned once? And why is everything in this timeline after 1949 only related to Chen Shuibian and no one in the Main Land? I think this article could use some revision... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.119.170.83 (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mao is listed.  About the coverage of people after Chen Shuibian I think you are not reading this correctly.  The red and blue do split starting with the 1940s. Benjwong 03:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: How do you do side by side tables?? Benjwong 15:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline of Chinese History.. or Taiwan's? 

message: It appears that Mao has been listed, but it appears as though the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China have been listed seperately..  which In my opinion, Taiwan shouldn't have it's own timeline. It seems to be biased in favor of taiwan being it's own country which it is not, and shouldn't be treated as such. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.119.170.83 (talk) 22:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was proposing that the Republic of China timeline stop at 1949.  Because everything afterwards is going over to Taiwan's timeline and that overlaps.  Are you saying the opposite?  That Taiwan should be covered here because it is part of Chinese history?  Benjwong 03:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cutting the ROC timeline off at 1949 is POV.  --Nlu (talk) 05:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I splitted the table in 2 sections.  If we don't cut off at 1949 and go over the Taiwan timeline, then dual table help with the presentation. Benjwong 23:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My Mistake 

message: "The Grand Canal of China" usually refers to the canal  in Sui Dynasty that connects Luoyang and Hangzhou. Here it appears in the time slot of 486BC, which suggests those built under Qin state.  They should be described with a different title, I think. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.104.29.223 (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are welcome to change it. Benjwong 16:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have fixed that information.--Pericles of AthensTalk 04:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grand canal in 486 BC? 

message: Battle of Ch'ongch'on River forced UN to treat Communist China as equals with other nations while the fate of Korea is sealed in the aftermath, Battle of Chosin Reservoir did neither, so I replace the battles to show its importance in Chinese history. Jim101 (talk) 05:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replace the [[Battle of Chosin Reservoir]] with the [[Battle of Ch'ongch'on River]] 

message: Um... Is this information correct? There is two of the same king in the Xia Dynasty. Just asking! Well... it was useful! Thanks soooooo much!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.140.74.178 (talk) 00:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hello! 

message: I noticed that the events of June 4, 1989 are not mentioned. I know that the Chinese government does not recognize this horrible atrocity as a real event, but everyone else in the world does, and it's on the same level as the denials of the genocides of the Jews and Gypsies in WW2 and the Armenians and Assyrians in WWI. Sure the number of dead are not in the millions, but they're not in the mere teens either. I put the incident back in the timeline where it belongs. Arglebargle79 (talk) 16:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: The Tienaman square Massacre and Holocaust denial