![]() | 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 |
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)
(undent) Sorry :-( ... It's just that:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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...
Hi Armando,
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)
erm, are you deleting categories now? I mean, you know, what's going on? -- Ling.Nut 00:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
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 and template have been added as classes for the assessment.
Armando.O talk • Ev 18:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
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.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)
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)
That looks pretty good. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 06:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
This is a little bit confusing, so let's check the categories.
Armando.O talk • Ev 01:23, 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)
A couple additional thoughts/clarifications:
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)
Anybody wanna revisit the topic: What should we collaborate on next, after Battle of Red Cliffs?-- Ling.Nut 03:30, 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)
(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)
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)
Yes, the wikiproject has its first FA! Battle of Red Cliffs. See the discussion. Armando.O talk • Ev 21:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
_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)
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 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)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
![]() | 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 |
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)
(undent) Sorry :-( ... It's just that:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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...
Hi Armando,
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)
erm, are you deleting categories now? I mean, you know, what's going on? -- Ling.Nut 00:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
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 and template have been added as classes for the assessment.
Armando.O talk • Ev 18:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
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.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)
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)
That looks pretty good. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 06:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
This is a little bit confusing, so let's check the categories.
Armando.O talk • Ev 01:23, 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)
A couple additional thoughts/clarifications:
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)
Anybody wanna revisit the topic: What should we collaborate on next, after Battle of Red Cliffs?-- Ling.Nut 03:30, 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)
(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)
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)
Yes, the wikiproject has its first FA! Battle of Red Cliffs. See the discussion. Armando.O talk • Ev 21:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
_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)
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 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)
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)
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)
(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)
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)