Talk:Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period

message: let's get a map here showing the boundaries of the various kingdoms.  I have no idea where these places were!  brain 19:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright! I'll see what i can do. Pojanji 00:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map please! 

message: What on earth is "too tedious" supposed to mean—"It's too much trouble for me to do"? How about "Too numerous to be listed" or something? "Too tedious" just sounds ridiculous.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.112.66.23 (talk) 00:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Too Tedious" 

message: I don't know anything about the subject, but this *looks* like an error:
"...However, Liu Chong, a member of the Later Han imperial family, established a rival Northern Han regime in Taiyuan, and requested Khitan aid to defeat Later Han."
This comes right after a description of the fall of Later Han, and the establishment of Later Zhou.  Does it make sense that a Later Han family member would request the assistance of a foreign power to contend against his already deposed family dynasty?zadignose (talk) 15:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Later Han," or "Later Zhou?" 

message: An image used in this article, , has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons by Jcb for the following reason: Per commons:Commons:Deletion requests/maps in History and Commercial Atlas of China
;What should I do?
You can remove the code for this image from the article text (which can look messy), however a different bot may already have done so. You could also try to search for new images to replace the one deleted. If you think the deletion was in error please raise the issue at Commons.
This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotification (talk) 21:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms 907-979.jpg Deleted

message: NickDupree brought to my attention how... err... needy this page is. 
Okay, so these are the things that I see as issues.
* Right now this is a switchboard paragraph. It's got a paragraph on each of the titular dynasties/kingdoms, with links out. The focus of this page really should be the era itself. In the conversation that led to this, Nick mentioned "Chinese kingdoms competing against each other, forcing technological leaps in order to get an edge". I'd also like to see some sections on the economic and social realities of the period.
* "List of Sovereigns" section needs to go. That stuff needs to into the articles on the kingdoms and dynasties, as it adds nothing to this article. I'm torn, leading delete, on the "Other regimes" subsection.
* I see lots of art, but no context.
Thoughts? Sven Manguard Wha? 22:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page rework 

message: (headers changed to ";" lines)
;List of Sovereigns
;Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms
Sovereigns in the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms Period (907–960)
Temple Names(廟號 miào hào)
Posthumous Names(諡號 shì hào)
Personal Names
Period of Reign
Era Names (年號 nián hào) and their according range of years
Five Dynasties
* note the naming convention: name of dynasty (e.g. 後漢) + temple name or posthumous name (e.g. 高祖), which makes 後漢高祖
Later Liang Dynasty 後梁  Hòu Liáng 907–923
Tài Zǔ 太祖
Too tedious thus not used when referring to this sovereign
Zhū Wēn 朱溫
907–912
Kāipíng 開平 (907–911)
Qiánhuà 乾化 (911–912)
Did not exist
Mò Dì 末帝
Zhū Zhèn 朱瑱
913-923
Qiánhuà 乾化 (913–915)
Zhēnmíng 貞明 (915–921)
Lóngdé 龍德 (921–923) 
Later Tang Dynasty 後唐 Hòu Táng 923–936
Zhuāng Zōng 莊宗
Too tedious thus not used when referring to this sovereign
Lǐ Cúnxù 李存勗 
923-926
Tóngguāng 同光 (923-926)
Míng Zōng 明宗
Too tedious thus not used when referring to this sovereign
Lǐ Sìyuán 李嗣源 or Lǐ Dǎn 李亶
926-933
Tiānchéng 天成 (926-930)
Chángxīng 長興 (930-933)
Did not exist
Mǐn Dì 節閔帝
Lǐ Cónghòu 李從厚
933-934
Yìngshùn 應順 (913-915)
Did not exist
Mò Dì 末帝 
Lǐ Cóngkē 李從珂
934-936
Qīngtài 清泰 (934-936)
Later Jin Dynasty 後晉 Hòu Jìn 936-947
Gāo Zǔ 高祖
Too tedious thus not used when referring to this sovereign
Shí Jìngtáng 石敬瑭 
936-942
Tiānfú 天福 (936-942)
Did not exist
Chū Dì 出帝 
Shí Chóngguì 石重貴
942-947
Tiānfú 天福 (942-944)
Kāiyùn 開運 (944-947)
Later Han Dynasty 後漢 Hòu Hàn 947-950
Gāo Zǔ 高祖
Hòu​hàn​ Gāozǔ 後漢高祖,Chinaknowlegde.de, ChinaKnowledge online encyclopedia, ed. Ulrich Theobald (Tian Yuli 田宇利, styled Shudouting 數豆亭), Department of Chinese and Korean Studies, University of Tübingen, heading Later Han. "Later Han High Ancestor," 高祖 Gāozǔ "High Ancestor" being a conventional designation for dynastic founders, as in the case of 高祖 Gāozǔ Emperor Gaozu of Han, founder of the original Han Dynasty, though in that case 高祖 Gāozǔ is his temple name, identical with the temple name of this Later Han Dynasty (Five Dynasties) ruler, and the original Han Dynasty founder's posthumous name is 高皇帝 Gāo Huáng​dì​ "High Emperor" as the founder of the second of the historically recorded Dynasties in Chinese history, which is what distinguishes the two in their honorific titular names.
Liú Zhīyuǎn 劉知遠
947-948
Tiānfú 天福 (947)
Qiányòu 乾祐 (948)
Did not exist
Yǐn Dì 隱帝 
Liú Chéngyòu 劉承祐
948-950
Qiányòu 乾祐 (948-950)
Later Zhou Dynasty 後周 Hòu Zhōu 951-960
Tài Zǔ 太祖
Too tedious thus not used when referring to this sovereign
Guō Wēi 郭威
951-954
Guǎngshùn 廣順 (951-954)
Xiǎndé 顯德 (954)
Shì Zōng 世宗 
Too tedious thus not used when referring to this sovereign
Chái Róng 柴榮 
954-959
Xiǎndé 顯德 (954-959)
Did not exist
Gōng Dì 恭帝 
Chái Zōngxùn 柴宗訓
959-960
Xiǎndé 顯德 (959-960)
Ten Kingdoms
note the naming convention: use the personal names unless otherwise stated
Wuyue Kingdom 吳越 904-978
Tài Zǔ 太祖
Wǔsù Wáng 武肅王
Qián Liú 錢鏐
904-932
Tiānbǎo (天寶) 908-923
Bǎodà (寶大) 923-925
Bǎozhèng (寶正) 925-932
Shìzōng (世宗)
Wénmù Wáng 文穆王
Qián Yuánquàn 錢元瓘
932-941
Did not exist
Chéngzōng 成宗
Zhōngxiàn Wáng 忠獻王
Qián Zuǒ 錢佐
941-947
Did not exist
Did not exist
Zhōngxùn Wáng 忠遜王
Qián Zōng 錢倧
947
Did not exist
Did not exist
Zhōngyì Wáng 忠懿王
Qián Chù 錢俶
947-978
Did not exist
Min Kingdom 閩 909-945 including Yin Kingdom 殷 943-945
Tàizǔ 太祖
Zhōngyì Wáng 忠懿王
Wáng Shěnzhī 王審知
909-925
Did not exist   
Did not exist 
Did not exist 
Wáng Yánhàn 王延翰
925-926
Did not exist   
Tàizōng 太宗
Huìdì 惠帝
Wáng Yánjūn 王延鈞
926-935
Lóngqǐ (龍啟) 933-935
Yǒnghé (永和) 935   
Kāngzōng (康宗)
Too tedious thus not used when referring to this sovereign
Wáng Jìpéng 王繼鵬
935-939
Tōngwén (通文) 936-939   
Jǐngzōng (景宗)
Too tedious thus not used when referring to this sovereign
Wáng Yánxī 王延羲
939-944
Yǒnglóng (永隆) 939-944   
Did not exist
Tiāndé Dì (天德帝) (as Emperor of Yin)
Wáng Yánzhèng 王延政
943-945
Tiāndé (天德) 943-945   
Jingnan 荊南 or Nanping 南平 Kingdom 906-963
Did not exist
Wǔxìn Wáng 武信王
Gāo Jìxīng 高季興
909-928
Did not exist   
Did not exist
Wénxiàn Wáng 文獻王
Gāo Cónghuì 高從誨
928-948
Did not exist   
Did not exist
Zhēnyì Wáng 貞懿王
Gāo Bǎoróng 高寶融
948-960
Did not exist   
Did not exist
Shìzhōng 侍中
Gāo Bǎoxù 高寶勗
960-962
Did not exist   
Did not exist
Did not exist
Gāo Jìchōng 高繼沖
962-963
Did not exist   
Chu Kingdom 楚 897-951
Did not exist
Wǔmù Wáng 武穆王 
Mǎ Yīn 馬殷 
897-930
Did not exist
Did not exist
Héngyáng Wáng 衡陽王
Mǎ Xīshēng 馬希聲
930-932
Did not exist
Did not exist
Wénzhāo Wáng 文昭王
Mǎ Xīfàn 馬希範
932-947
Did not exist
Did not exist
Fèi Wáng 廢王 
Mǎ Xīguǎng 馬希廣
947-950
Did not exist
Did not exist
Gōngxiào Wáng 恭孝王 
Mǎ Xī'è 馬希萼
950
Did not exist
Did not exist
Did not exist
Mǎ Xīchong 馬希崇
950-951
Did not exist
Wu Kingdom 吳 904-937
Tài Zǔ 太祖
Xiàowǔ Dì 孝武帝
Yáng Xíngmì 楊行密 
904-905
Tiānyòu (天祐) 904-905
Liè Zōng 烈宗
Jǐng Dì 景帝
Yáng Wò 楊渥
905-908
Tiānyòu (天祐) 905-908
Gāo Zǔ 高祖
Xuān Dì 宣帝
Yáng Lóngyǎn 楊隆演
908-921
Tiānyòu (天祐) 908-919
Wǔyì (武義) 919-921   
Did not exist
Ruì Dì 睿帝
Yáng Pǔ 楊溥
921-937
Shùnyì (順義) 921-927
Qiánzhēn (乾貞) 927-929
Dàhé (大和) 929-935
Tiānzuò (天祚) 935-937  
Southern Tang Kingdom 南唐 937-975
Convention for this kingdom only : Nan (Southern) Tang + posthumous names. Hòu Zhǔ was referred to as Lǐ Hòuzhǔ 李後主.
Xiān Zhǔ 先主 or Liè Zǔ 烈祖
Too tedious thus not used when referring to this sovereign
Lǐ Biàn 李昪 
937-943
Shēngyuán (昇元) 937-943
Zhōng Zhǔ 中主 or Yuán Zōng 元宗
Too tedious thus not used when referring to this sovereign
Lǐ Jǐng 李璟
943-961
Bǎodà (保大) 943-958
Jiāotài (交泰) 958
Zhōngxīng (中興) 958
Hòu Zhǔ 後主
Wǔ Wáng 武王
Lǐ Yù 李煜
961-975
Did not exist
Southern Han Kingdom 南漢 917-971
Gāo Zǔ 高祖
Tiān Huáng Dà Dì 天皇大帝
Liú Yán 劉龑
917-925
Qiánhēng (乾亨) 917-925
Báilóng (白龍) 925-928
Dàyǒu (大有) 928-941
Did not exist
Shāng Dì 殤帝
Liú Fēn 劉玢
941-943
Guāngtiān (光天) 941-943
Zhōng Zōng 中宗
Too tedious thus not used when referring to this sovereign
Liú Chéng 劉晟
943-958
Yìngqián (應乾) 943
Qiánhé (乾和) 943-958
Hòu Zhǔ 後主
Did not exist
Liú Cháng 劉鋹
958-971
Dàbǎo (大寶) 958-971
Bei (Northern) Han Kingdom 951-979
Shi Zu|世祖 shi4 zu3
Shen Wu Di|神武帝 shen2 wu3 di4
Liu Min 劉旻 liu3 min2
951-954
Qianyou (乾祐 qian2 you4) 951-954
Rui Zong|睿宗 rui4 zong1
Xiao He Di|孝和帝 xiao4 he2 di4
Liu Cheng Jun 劉承鈞 liu3 cheng2 jun1
954-970
Qianyou (乾祐 qian2 you4) 954-957
Tianhui (天會 tian1 hui4) 957-970
Shao Zhu|少主 shao4 zhu3
Did not exist
Liu Ji En 劉繼恩 liu3 ji4 en1
970
Did not exist
Did not exist
Ying Wu Di|英武帝 ying1 wu3 di4
Liu Ji Yuan 劉繼元 liu3 ji4 yuan2
970-982
Guangyun (廣運 guang3 yun4) 970-982
Qian (Former) Shu Kingdom 907 - 925
Gao Zu|高祖 gao1 zu3
Too tedious thus not used when referring to this sovereign
Wang Jian 王建 wang2 jian4
907-918
Tianfu   (天復 tian1 fu4)   907
Wucheng  (武成 wu3 cheng22) 908-910
Yongping (永平 yong3 ping2) 911-915
Tongzheng (通正 tong1 zheng4) 916
Tianhan (天漢 tian1 han4) 917
Guangtian (光天 guang1 tian1) 918
Hou Zhu|後主 hou4 zhu3
Did not exist
Wang Yan|王衍 wang2 yan3
918-925
Qiande (乾德 qian2 de2) 918-925
Xiankang (咸康 xian2 kang1) 925
Hou (Later) Shu Kingdom 934 - 965
Gao Zu|高祖 gao1 zu3
Too tedious thus not used when referring to this sovereign
Meng Zhixiang 孟知祥 meng4 zhi1 xiang2
934
Mingde (明德 ming2 de2) 934
Hou Zhu|後主 hou4 zhu3
Did not exist
Meng Chang 孟昶 meng4 chang3
938-965
Mingde (明德 ming2 de2) 934-938
Guangzheng (廣政 guang3 zheng4) 938-965
;Other regimes
Local independent regimes during Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms Period but traditionally not counted in the Ten Kingdoms
Name of Posts
Personal Names
Period on post
Wuping jiedu|武平節度 (similar to thema of the Byzantine Empire) 950-963
Wǔpíng jíedùshǐ|武平節度使
Liú Yán|劉言
950-953
Wáng Kuí|王逵 or Wáng Jìnkuí|王進逵
953-956
Zhōu Xíngféng|周行逢
956-962
Zhōu Bǎoquán|周保權
962-963
Qingyuan jiedu|清源節度 (similar to thema of the Byzantine Empire) 945-978
Qīngyuán jíedùshǐ|清源節度使
Liú Cóngxiào|留從效
945-962
Liú Shàozī|留紹鎡
962
Zhāng Hànsī|張漢思
962-963
Chén Hóngjìn|陳洪進
963-978
Please don't add this back to the central article, break the list down by dynasty/kingdom and place each piece in the article for that dynasty/kingdom. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Copy of removed material: List of sovereigns

message: There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:Warring States Period - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RM bot 23:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: I think this article is finally living up to its B rating.  To get it to GA, can we find more citations? Bearian (talk) 16:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Getting better 

message: I have created new articles for the Five Dynasties and for the Ten Kingdoms, per the discussion above. IMO, this article is now a WP:FORK and the lemma should redirect to Five Dynasties. H. Humbert (talk) 02:38, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: With all due respect, it's ridiculous to split the article in my opinion. Northern Han should undoubtedly be included in the Five Dynasties (northern China) history. Are you going to have an article about "9 kingdoms"? Timmyshin (talk) 17:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

text: I agree with Timmyshin; the period cannot really be divided up in that manner - but I also recognize that there had been a discussion (which I was unaware of, otherwise I would have spoken up on).  I am, to be honest, in respect for the discussion above, not sure what to say at this point; I think the split is ill-advised, but again, we had a (recent) discussion.  (Of course, it's nobody else's fault that because of real life issues, I haven't been able to follow things as closely as I perhaps should.)  I would say, though, the split has a real risk of causing states that don't fit into the traditional Five Dynasties/Ten Kingdoms distinction (Yen, Qi, Jin, Yin) to be missed.  --Nlu (talk) 18:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I also did not look at the discussion for some time, and I'm currently shocked that somehow "split" became the consensus. Despite the fact that Britannica has split the articles, this absolutely must not be done here. The dichotomy "Five Dynasties" and "Ten Kingdoms" are Song dynasty inventions to legitimize their claim of mandate of Heaven, and very different from historical reality. (If you want to understand this, read the introduction chapter (fully available online) for this book which spent like 10 pages explaining why the dichotomy is problematic). See also F.W. Mote's Imperial China 900-1800, pp. 8-9  We don't live in the Song dynasty, why should we follow their version of history? Also as mentioned above, Northern Han, one of the "Ten Kingdoms", is in north China so this also doesn't make any geographical sense. Northern Han is in reality a continuation of Later Han (Five Dynasties), and its entire territory was part of formerly Later Han's territory, so how can they be in 2 different articles? Timmyshin (talk) 18:48, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

text: pinging User:Jenks24, User:H. Humbert, User:Ogress, User:Zanhe, User:Khestwol. Timmyshin (talk) 18:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The name "Five Dynasties" implies that these five regimes had the mandate of heaven while the others did not. Which regimes earned the mandate is of course a subjective issue. But this problem exists whether the article is split or not. Your proposal to leave the phrase "Ten Kingdoms" out the titles altogether would shortchange the South to an even greater degree. 01:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

text: First, the requested move took a month to happen, so this information suddenly appearing is a little frustrating. Also, you pinged yourself, Timmyshin. I'll wait to hear from others before commenting further Ogress smash! 19:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there is any new information. I've already made the argument that "kingdom" and "dynasty" are not as distinct as appears in my original proposal. Maybe I didn't explain myself well, partly because English isn't my first language and partly because the period is confusing and difficult to explain. But to give you a comparison, splitting countries into these categories is akin to having List of real countries and List of fake countries articles on Wikipedia — it's entirely arbitrary based on your perspective (in this case, decided by Song dynasty historians like Xue Juzheng, Wang Pu (Later Zhou and Song chancellor) and later Ouyang Xiu, all of whom write the Five Dynasties period history with a need to legitimize their own country.). Timmyshin (talk) 19:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I understood you, I am merely waiting for other editors to comment. Ogress smash! 19:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with what  and  said -- the article cannot be split into two topics. The states that this article cover can't be split into two clear categories, neither chronologically nor geographically. As per Timmyshin's suggestion, the article should have been simply moved to "Five Dynasties period" in one piece. I think the RM above was closed badly. Perhaps we can ask the admin  to change their decision and not split the article? Khestwol (talk) 21:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

text: * I understand where you are coming from but why is there even a need to distinguish them in this case? One of my original arguments (perhaps I didn't explain clearly) was that "Five Dynasties" has a clear temporal and spatial relationship: If I were to give them a definition, they are "the 5 states located in Central Plains (China) that succeeded one another between 907 and 960". Very straight-forward. But how would you define "Ten Kingdoms" without naming them? You can't. If I were to give my best definition, they are "the 10 states other than the the 'Five Dynasties', that existed between 907 and 960, that had at least 2 monarchs, and that contained territory that became part of Song dynasty after 979". As you can see the term not only makes little historical sense, but is also completely dependent on the definition of "Five Dynasties". Therefore Five Dynasties period is definitely preferable IMO, which as Nlu mentioned could also include states like Jin (Later Tang precursor) that was every bit as militarily powerful as the so-called "Ten Kingdoms". Timmyshin (talk) 03:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: *I think I have created a reasonably good definition for the article's opening: "The Ten Kingdoms was a period in the history of Southern China that followed the fall of the Tang dynasty in 907. It lasted until the rise of the Song dynasty, which was founded in 960." Britannica's definition is, "Ten Kingdoms (907–960), period in Chinese history when southern China was ruled by nine small independent kingdoms, with one more small kingdom in the far north." H. Humbert (talk) 09:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: H. Humbert, I think you should not solely rely on one WP:Tertiary source (Britannica). Khestwol (talk) 10:28, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you read the guideline you cite? "Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by H. Humbert (talk • contribs) 00:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

text: I think that the current title is fine as it is (as unwieldy as it might be to some) because it avoids many of the other pitfalls.  Failing that, Five Dynasties period would be better and I think should cover the entire "China" (whatever that may be reasonably construed to be).  (As H. Humbert pointed out, this does have the uneven north-centric problem, but that is why I think the current title is fine as it is to avoid that.)  I think that there is no need to have a separate Ten Kingdoms article because it has several problems: 1) whether it is "ten" kingdoms is problematic; 2) the Ten Kingdoms (however enumerated) were not all in the south; and 3) the issue can be better handled by better developing the individual "kingdom"'s article; in many ways, they have more differences than commonalities.  --Nlu (talk) 17:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: As I wrote before, Britannica has separate "Five Dynasty" and "Ten Kingdoms" article, which IMO is what we should do. Regardless of whether the main article is called "Five Dynasties" or "Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period," there can still be a separate Ten Kingdoms article on the South. We have fifty times as many articles as Britannica, so we can certainly have two on this period. Dorothy Perkins' Encyclopedia of China is a better model than Chinese Wiki(?!). She has separate articles on the "Five Dynasties period" and the "Ten Kingdoms period" -- and no "Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period" article. H. Humbert (talk) 08:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Closing, given consensus not to merge, allowing for WP:SILENCE (over more than 2 years). Klbrain (talk) 23:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Articles created for 5D and 10K

message: There are a number of images in this article, all of which are from the period, but are just randomly scattered through the article. There is no reference to them in the main text and they  actually have no connection to the text that they are illustrating. So for instance, "Butterfly and Wisteria Flowers, by Xu Xi (886–974)" which was painted in Southern Tang in South China is placed next to Later Han in north China. Images from the Mokau caves in the far northwest are placed in the south China section...
Until and unless the article has a section on 'Art and culture' or some such, these are just misleading window dressing.
Furius (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I know it's been more than 2 years, but I've moved the pictures to a gallery section under the "Culture" header. ◢    Ganbaruby!   (remember to ping!) 13:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: Why does this article say 937–975 for Southern Tang, but the Southern Tang article says 937–976? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 23:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Discrepancy in dates for [[Southern Tang]]

message: Instead of sections for each of the states, I think it would be better to have a single "History" section, like the article on Chinese Wikipedia does. There are many important events that have affected multiple states, and the article has "period" in the title, so it should be about the period as a whole, not the individual states. Mucube (talk • contribs) 19:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article structure