Template talk:History of China

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  I support making each section collapsible. Mapmaker345 (talk) 15:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Collapsible template 

message: 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)
replies: text: . 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.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 08:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2017 

message: 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)
replies: text: Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2018 

message: 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)
replies: text: . It is unclear what if anything you want done to this template. , 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.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 12:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2018 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Northern Song template width 

message: 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)
replies: text: Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. Izno (talk) 23:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2019 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2020 

message: 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)
replies: text: Wasn't the Jin dynasty pretty major?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Years for minor dynasties 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Shun dynasty 

message: on taiwan should be from 1945 while not 1949 Alibamabama (talk) 01:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: . 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  Hmmm I see your point as well but I am unsure. Perhaps  can wade in here whenever he sees this. Aza24 (talk) 09:08, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2020 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Image 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Formatting 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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  are like this. Aza24 (talk) 18:21, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:   पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 18:30, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Collapsibility

message: 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)
replies: text: It seems independent of , happening if the article has no infobox. Kanguole 23:04, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  BC version messed up 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Header Image - Right-to-left  

message: Left justify list item "Jin (266–420)" 2603:7000:9901:4146:8992:6A6D:6DD1:12E6 (talk) 21:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2023