Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Three Kingdoms/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Template:People of the Three Kingdoms

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)

delete with extreme prejudice. Ling.Nut 11:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

(undent) Sorry :-( ... It's just that:

It's really, really really big.
I suspect it would be pretty easy to look it over and find names that are wholly unrelated to one another, except for the historical accident of living in China in the same general period.
Did I mention it's big?
Ling.Nut 17:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, the need that this template meets can be more efficiently met by careful use of the existing categories. I have no problem at all adding "Category:Minister of Wei" or whatever to the bottom of an article. In fact, I strongly encourage it. Then if someone wants to see all the 3K people, they can just crawl back up the category hierarchy to the root cat. Ling.Nut 19:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

So I have nominated it for deletion, cast your thoughts here everyone. _dk 03:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if any of you check it, but it's getting pretty darn big right now. Humongous actually.Suredeath 16:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I've defaulted the state of the template to "collapsed". Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Are you being real? He was in the forefront of the poison swamp strategy. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 01:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Obviously this is a disagreement on how important Duosi was. How about we make a rule to strip down each of those name lists into a maximum of X number of the more important names? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Nothing in any historical text identifies who is in the Nanman tribes besides Meng Huo, who isn't actually a Nanman. Thus the leaders of the tribes (Duosi, Wutugu, Mulu, etc) and Meng Huo's relatives (Lady Zhurong, Meng You, etc) are all made up by the novel. ...I've got an idea, how about we make the template more manageable by splitting them? Although we've had no consensus on the TfD, we can make one here. The people in the current template mostly don't relate to one another anyways....we can either split the template timewise (eg. one for 190 - 220, one for 220 - 280), or by the state/warlord they belong to. How about it? It would surely make our jobs easier than to decide who is notable or not into a general template like this one. _dk (talk) 00:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

That would make way too many templates. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 00:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

I have no idea. We can always change it if we don't like it though. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

AFD

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)

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)

New photos

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)

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)

I reverted the replacements you made, due to the reason Hong Qi Gong stated above. _dk 05:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I think he just added photos from the games to a whole bunch of articles as portraits of 3K persons/characters... Don't know how this WikiProject feels about that. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

collaboration of the history projects

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)

I have no objections. _dk 23:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I am technically not a member of this WikiProject, but I think it's a better idea to remain a seperate WikiProject so that there is more freedom for it to decide its own standards. This way this WikiProject (and by extension other history-related WikiProjects) can decide on their own whether a certain standard is practical or even applicable for their specific subject matter. And no offense, but if anything, I think WikiProject History should either be dissolved or play a very passive role - it's simply too broad of a subject. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

repeated changes with no discussion

OK the user box Template:User WP3K was changed, destroying its functionality.. I reverted with comments (see the template'stalk); the same user reverted again.

It may be WP:BOLD to change things once, but doing so again in the face of opposition without going to talk is not the same as BOLD.

I reverted the userbox again. I also restored the original image to the sidebar atop this page. If others in this wikiproject like the new images, fine.. but those who edit the userbox should be able to read template syntx well enough to preserve the original functionality... and should do so... --Ling.Nut 08:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This is the discussion on the template talk...

Changes

this is the page for discussion --Ling.Nut 01:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm reverting the changes of Ling.Nut, because the Image:Sgz2.png is really bad. Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 01:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Armando,

are you a member of the project?
You've broken the functionality of the template!!! Look at my user page. Do you know how to read template syntax? You've destroyed an option.
The image is ugly? Your opinion. I disagree. Where was the discussion? Take discussion to the talk page of the wikiproject, since almost no one is watching this page. --Ling.Nut

Yes.
Sorry, I didn't realize that thing of the founder. Now, is it really necessary to show that you someone is a founder of the WP?? And If i didn't know anything about template syntax I wouldn't even have touched the template.
I haven't said the image is ugly. I said BAD. Now, the only thing I see is a ? mark and a fish(¿?). I know you know what the picture I created means - Three Kingdoms. and -where was the discussion?- Here. Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 22:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't think I want to destroy everything, I just want the WP3K to look and be better. Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 21:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Just don't change it anymore unless you've discussed it first and there're no objections. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Well, I think this image Image:Threekingdoms.png looks better on the WP tag, the sidebar because it's more simple than the Chang Ban image. The first time I saw that image in the templates I thought it was a Soul Calibur artwork because it's a little bit difficult to recognize. In the userbox, I changed it too because the actual image because, for me, looks rare. I can't even see what are the figures in it.Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 21:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

deleting cats?

erm, are you deleting categories now? I mean, you know, what's going on? --Ling.Nut 00:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Where is that happening? _dk 00:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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.O^{talk • Ev} 03:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it didn't work because you had a space between "Category:" and "WikiProject". (ref: [1]) 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)

I see, you're right. But how can an template be clasified as an article too??? Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 00:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm gonna WP:FAC the Battle of Red Cliffs article!

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)

List-disambig-template-redirect classes

List, disambig and template have been added as classes for the assessment.

Class	Category
List	Category:List-Class Three Kingdoms articles
Disambig	Category:Disambiguation-Class Three Kingdoms articles
Template	Category:Template-Class Three Kingdoms pages
Redirect	Category:Three Kingdoms redirections

Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 18:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

New userbox

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

This user is a member of the
Three Kingdoms WikiProject.

This user is a member of the Wikiproject Three Kingdoms.

This user is a founding member of the Wikiproject Three Kingdoms.

Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 02:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Though I don't use it, I do like the calligraphy one more (far left, the original one). Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

But what does it means?? Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 05:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The same thing, 三國. _dk 05:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Really??? Whoa...but, it looks rare and not everybody will be able to know what it is.Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 05:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

Well, if it was all about calligraphy, check this!

Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 06:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

.......Sorry, no. _dk 06:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

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.O^{talk • Ev} 06:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

That looks pretty good. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 06:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

Categories getting too big

Folks, as someone who's not officially a member of the project (and, I must admit, feel that the Three Kingdoms period is overemphasized as it is), I think I must give a friendly reminder that a number of Three Kingdoms-related categories are simply getting too big and unorganized. They should be subcategorized further. --Nlu (talk) 08:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It is quite unfortunate that the Three Kingdoms saga became so famous that its Wikipedia coverage blew out of proportion as opposed to other periods of Chinese history...but then again, I guess it is quite fortunate that at least this period became an entry point into Chinese history for many of us who wouldn't have cared otherwise. Anyways, which categories are too big? The people categories, I suppose? _dk 10:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is that a problem!? Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 15:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that when a category gets too big, it loses its usefulness -- particularly when it gets over 200, then it has to be divided into multiple screens. One category that's not there yet but is getting there is Category:Cao Cao and associates, and another is its parent category Category:Han Dynasty people related to the Three Kingdoms (both of which I created to try to slim down Category:People of the Three Kingdoms. Obviously, there is a balance between overcategorization and keeping categories slim, but I think it's time for further splitting in a logical manner. --Nlu (talk) 15:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I think both are OK, but I see your point. Then how should those cats be divided?? Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 22:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

That's what I'd like discussion on. If I could figure out by myself, I'd have done it already. :-) Although I do have a few ideas:

Split two categories off from Category:Han Dynasty people related to the Three Kingdoms -- Category:Han Dynasty people related to Eastern Wu and Category:Han Dynasty people related to Shu Han. (A Category:Han Dynasty people related to Cao Wei would not be helpful, as it would heavily overlap with Category:Cao Cao and associates and would not be particularly helpful for that reason.)
Split three categories off from Category:Cao Cao and associates -- Category:Generals under Cao Cao, Category:Officials under Cao Cao, and Category:Cao Cao and immediate family. --Nlu (talk) 00:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a little bit confusing, so let's check the categories.

Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 01:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think that's not a good idea, because so far the categories are very well-organized. Look, Category:Han Dynasty people related to Cao Wei would be the same as Category:Cao Cao and associates since it's a subcategory of Category:Han Dynasty people related to the Three Kingdoms. The same for Category:Han Dynasty people related to Eastern Wu - Category:Sun Ce and associates. About splitting Category:Cao Cao and associates into Category:Generals under Cao Cao, Category:Officials under Cao Cao and Category:Cao Cao and immediate family, there are already Category:Cao Wei generals, Category:Cao Wei imperial princes, etc, etc under the Category:People of Cao Wei. Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 02:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You basically don't know what you're talking about, do you? _dk 02:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Please, let's stay civil. In any case, though, a major issue is that the Three Kingdoms period proper really only refers to the period after Cao Pi established Cao Wei until the destruction of Eastern Wu by Jin. And as I noted above, an issue is that, again, categories are getting too big. It might be messy to split them, but very large categories are generally not useful. --Nlu (talk) 03:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the best thing would be re-organize all the Three Kingdoms subcategories and re-categorize the articles....¿?¿¿?¿...and _Dk...was that for me???Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 03:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I overreacted. Nlu, what kind of articles would fit under Category:Han Dynasty people related to Shu Han as opposed to, say, Category:Liu Bei and associates? I think I need some more clarifications before I can make a decision. (And I can't think of any better ideas...) _dk 03:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

As I see it, Category:Han Dynasty people related to Shu Han would basically be the same as Category:Liu Bei and associates, so we can do the latter if that's better in people's view.

I am also not opposed to a total reorganization, but if that is to be done, the reorganization itself should be thought out well and be easier to maintain, as well as avoid having overly large categories; otherwise, we'd be doing a lot of work for nothing. --Nlu (talk) 04:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

A couple additional thoughts/clarifications:

Category:Han Dynasty people related to Eastern Wu would not be the same as the current Category:Sun Ce and associates, and in fact the categories would not have a large overlap, as a number of Sun Ce's associates died before Eastern Wu was ever founded, and a number of pre-Eastern Wu-establishment people never followed Sun Ce but were exclusively Sun Quan's followers.
I don't think a reorganization of the categories that involve "Three Kingdoms proper" would be required, since (and perhaps it's a case that I've in love with my own organization :-)) I thought that having the current intersecting subset structure would make the categories sufficiently well-organized and easy to maintain. It's really the Category:Han Dynasty people related to the Three Kingdoms that needs to be organized better. Dividing them by allegiances to major warlords might not have been all that well-advised, however, so I'm definitely open to suggestions. --Nlu (talk) 04:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I am going to go ahead and start subcategorizing Category:Cao Cao and associates as I referred to above. I am, for the time being, not going to subcat Category:Han Dynasty people related to the Three Kingdoms. Further thoughts would be appreciated. --Nlu (talk) 16:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

What's next after Red Cliffs?

Anybody wanna revisit the topic: What should we collaborate on next, after Battle of Red Cliffs?--Ling.Nut 03:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

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.O^{talk • Ev} 03:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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.O^{talk • Ev} 04:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

(undent) I'm just a follower; I have no original thoughts or opinions. I'll go with consensus. Looks like Changban and Guanyu are the two major candidates. Y'all duke it out amongst yourselves. --Ling.Nut 05:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

(undent) How does everyone feel about doing Guanyu first, then Changban? [Subject to everyone's availabiliy for wiki-work, of course]. --Ling.Nut 06:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll go with that. Gamer Junkie 07:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I agree. Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 23:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

Ouch! Guan Yu is in severe lack of inline referencing. You guys are much more familiar with 三國志 and 三國演義, so I'll leave the referencing to you. I can help with MoS issues though. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

First FA!

Yes, the wikiproject has its first FA! Battle of Red Cliffs. See the discussion. Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 21:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

Good job, everyone! have a beer on me! --Ling.Nut (talk) 11:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

*Drinks virtual beer*

_dk (talk) 18:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Great jobs, folks. Given the material involved, I'll offer (hopefully purified) water from the Three Gorges Reservoir: --Nlu (talk) 18:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. *drinks* _dk (talk) 02:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Card game?

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)

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)

About Dynasty Warriors references

It looks like we're in a state of not being able to be consistent about how much Dynasty Warrior material to include in the articles. I think that there should be a consistent standard of some kind, and I am pondering whether an RfC would help. I'd like people's thoughts on the specific issue of whether a RfC would be helpful before actually filing one. --Nlu (talk) 18:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Gamer Junkie and I had a little discussion on the issue just a few days ago, and we agreed in principle that the Dynasty Warriors mention should be brief; though our ideas of brief are a bit different. I, in my utopian thinking, think that there should only be at most three sentences about DW on the historical articles, and the details should go on the List of Dynasty Warriors characters. Gamer Junkie points out that because of the fame of the games, the historical articles would inevitably be bombarded with DW-related information - so it would be better to have a paragraph on DW in the articles already so people would stop adding DW stuff in. He also points out that my idea would require dedicated attention on the List of Dynasty Warriors characters to eliminate cruft, which not many of us are willing/qualified to do so. He has a point. _dk (talk) 02:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, I am off-topic again. I think we as a Wikiproject should discuss the issue amongst ourselves first, and only call for an RfC when we cannot reach a consensus here. _dk (talk) 02:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how adding a brief paragraph would really stop people from adding more DW trivia. I think short of adding a fully-fleshed out section, people will keep doing that, and I'm definitely against adding more than a brief mention of DW-related stuff. I think patrolling articles for DW trivia is pretty much unavoidable. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to all that I haven't been able to monitor this problem more strictly. I knew it would happen, I know it becomes especially prevalent each time another variation of the game is released, and I had returned recently with the particular intent to remedy this situation. If I wasn't so bogged down at work right now I'd be here more, but I'm afraid real life has to take priority. The most I've been able to do is locate sources for a few of the articles and help the guy who's been recently uploading all of the new images to add the proper copyright info so they don't keep getting deleted. I most certainly agree that the sections are too large, but the problem is that we've made them small, and they keep getting large again. Frankly, I need more people working Modern References sections if we're to implement a total removal and keep it that way, otherwise it'll come back as poorly spelled and horribly written as ever.

Another problem at the moment appears to be Warriors Orochi additions. They're becoming consistently larger and more detailed as time goes by and the game is basically just a spin-off of DW and SW. I've never played the damned game (no time these days) so I don't know what's credible and what's not. And as much as I don't appreciate too much DW info on the page, I really don't want another massive section of another game which is pretty much all the same in a different format. I'm thinking this info can be trimmed to a couple of sentences and effectively monitored. But for WO's far more famous big brother, I simply can't be here enough to cut every article to only a couple of sentences and then defend against the inevitable bombardment. For instance, we've recently had two or three people adding DW and WO info to about 8 articles a day and I'd be lucky to get on the computer five hours a week to do what I can. Gamer Junkie 09:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

While I'm here, I've been thinking about a major change. I was recently contacted by a user named AlphaEta who suggested that I move all the well-written and decent info from the historical articles into one grand, gigantic DW article to replace the crud one that already exists that nobody wants to touch. My problem with the idea at the time was that I'd be stone cold dead in the water as far as handling another article of such size AND fending off the return of info to the regular articles. But I'm thinking now, maybe we can try this, for example, on Xu Huang's page in the modern references section:

Xu Huang appears in the Dynasty Warriors series, for more information see List of Dynasty Warriors characters.

Maybe, just maybe, this would actually steer DW fans towards the list as well as prevent further info from being constantly added to the historical articles. Problem is, I'm gonna need volunteers to defend the new DW character page along with me. What do you guys think? Gamer Junkie 09:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Oooooooh... ahhhhhhhhh.... Just one sentence of game stuff in the articles... mmmmmmmmm.... better than a footrub :-) Ling.Nut (talk) 09:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not gonna fix the articles like Liu Bei and Guan Yu, where DW info only makes up a small portion of the overall MR context, but for others like Guan Ping and Two Qiaos, it'd mean article becomes stub in a single edit. I suppose we can also merge the entire Xing Cai article as well. Gamer Junkie 10:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

What about two articles per character: Guan Ping and Guan Ping (Dynasty Warriors character)? Ling.Nut (talk) 12:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

No way. The admins would shoot us down in an instant. If there's one thing they seem to hate, it's an over-abundance of information. They'd either remove them with AfD, merge them into a single character list or merge them into a single article of historical and pop culture info like we have now. I've worked on enough video game character articles now to know they never survive. If Resident Evil, Final Fantasy and Metal Gear Solid character articles can't stave off being merged, Dynasty Warriors doesn't stand a chance. Gamer Junkie 12:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Why create one article for each DW character if there is already a list of them :S??? Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 13:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

So DW gamers can have their own space where they can add info about all the charactr-specific game-related stuff. Not every character would need an article; only major ones. But it doesn't matter anyhow; I believe what GJ says. Ling.Nut (talk) 13:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh good. So admins don't like articles for individual video game characters. I can't wait till they decide to get rid of anime characters as well. I think the existence of 99% of the articles in Category:Pokémon species and its sub-categories is one of the biggest tragedies on WP. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to hear some feedback from more of our members, but right now I'm assuming everybody finds the idea appealing, yes? Gamer Junkie 05:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Taking all the DW stuff to a DW-specific article, leaving behind a single sentence (with a relevant link) in all the historical 3K articles, sounds like a fantastic idea. You rock. Ling.Nut (talk) 05:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll take that as a sign of approval :) Now, if dk and Nlu will sound off, I'll start with the overhaul. Gamer Junkie 05:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I agree with the idea of limiting the Dynasty Warrior reference and referring to a separate article for Dynasty Warrior character information. --Nlu (talk) 06:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I am dk and I approve this message. :) _dk (talk) 06:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, consider it my next project. Gamer Junkie 08:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Speaking for the moment as a relatively recent admin, what the admins like has litle to do with it. We have a little discretion in what arguments to take into account when closing an AfD, but our primary role there is to determine the consensus as presented by the arguments of those who enter the discussion. I know this is not quite always actually the case :) but I'd certainly urge anyone who thinks that a discussion was closed wrong to take it to Deletion Review, and participate in the review. The participants in deletion Review do tend to be the people here with the most sticking power, often admins, but everyone is welcome. It's far from perfect, but what would make it better is wider participation. Even as it is, idiosyncratic decisions by individual admins are reversed there every day. But the suggestion above that substantial combination articles are likely to work better, is probably correct in general--that seems to be the current mood among WPedians in general, and it does make sense. DGG (talk) 02:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, but the truth is that I'm also tired of arguing back and forth with people about such things. I'm sure you'd agree that a single article for both historically significant peoples of the Three Kingdoms and another 52 for their Dynasty Warriors counterparts would simply serve as major conflict hubs at frequent intervals. Gamer Junkie 07:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

i don't see how anything that can be decided is likely to stop the arguments. If you have a way to get game articles handled by any sort of agreement, a great many people will be grateful. :) But I thought the idea was to try to lump the DW articles, and have separate ones for major historical figures. DGG (talk) 09:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Gah! Look at Sun Shangxiang. Half of it is about Dynasty Warriors. By the way, Zhao Wei is set to play her in the upcoming Red Cliff movie. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 10:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

DGG, when I said conflict, I meant to imply that deletionists would doubtless see 52 DW character articles as "cruft" that should all be merged into a single article or deleted. That's why I wouldn't bother creating or maintaining them unless I was prepared to put in 52 seperate arguments as to why DW characters should have their own articles. I don't wanna do that. I think people want the DW stuff removed because, in their eyes, it doesn't belong and is slowly destroying traditional depictions of the Three Kingdoms era. At least in mainstream culture. I can understand that, and I can understand that the further along we go, the more these traditional articles are going to be engulfed in the ever-expanding Dynasty Warriors version of events and character portrayals. I'm pretty sure that's why people don't like it. Gamer Junkie 10:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the games are very popular, and they deserved to be mention, but they have their place. Since they're derivative of the traditional depictions of the characters, the DW references really shouldn't crowd out the traditional depictions, at least not in the main articles for the individual personages anyway. But to be honest, if I had it my way, no fictional character from modern popular culture would have their own article unless that character is notable outside the movie, tv series, game, comic book, etc etc, that he or she came from. Perfect example is how all the Pokemon species have their own articles. It's sad, really. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 10:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)