Template talk:History of China

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject China (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Hiding 'Related Articles'[edit]

This template is large enough that it causes problems in displaying pages with other navigation templates and/or photographs and other illustrations, it really helps to keep the related articles hidden. LK (talk) 14:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Image has no copyright[edit]

The image used in this template, File:History of China.gif, has no official copyright. Someone is now opposing the Featured Article Candidate Han Dynasty because of this stupid image. Can the creater please identify an appropiate license? Thank you.--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah! Nevermind. That image has been superseded anyway. Look at File:History of China.png.--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi all, the issue is not that it has no copyright, but that the information provided did not clearly state who was the owner (since he or she must be identified for the copyright to be released). ChongDae is not the author; he or she only uploaded the image to Commons. Hell's coffeepot (地狱牌咖啡壶) might be the author, but he or she might also be the last user to have edited the image; in this case, an admin (one on the Zh Wikipedia) or ChongDae should verify the author as well as the copyright status of the image before it was uploaded to Commons. Jappalang (talk) 02:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Collapsible template[edit]

Since there have been complaints about the unwieldiness of the current template, I have made a collapsible one based on Template:Egyptian Dynasty list. I recommend it for short or stub articles.--Countakeshi (talk) 13:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Eighteen Kingdoms[edit]

is there any possible way to add Eighteen Kingdoms on it? --Lennlin (talk) 16:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The article Eighteen Kingdoms is inaccurate. (I will be correcting it soon.) The eighteen principalities refer to the feudal divisions created by Xiang Yu (see Xiang Yu#Xiang's deposition of Prince Xin of Chu and division of the empire). It does not refer to the entire interregnum between Qin and Han, and should therefore not be included in the template.--Palaeoviatalk 23:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Lead image[edit]

Along the River During the Qingming Festival (detail of original)

Instead of the current image which depicts a small group of people snacking and listening to a musician, how about a detail from the famous scroll Along the River During the Qingming Festival:

I can re-cut a another detail so that the image is wider and not as tall. LK (talk) 18:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Along the River During the Qingming Festival (showing bridge)

Here's a new re-cut detail. I've used it to replace the image in the small History of China navbox template. LK (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I've made another, it a detail from Departure Herald a scroll showing the large traveling procession of the Xuande emperor. I think this one is best. I'm going to use it to replace the lead image on the template. LK (talk) 12:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any substantial objections to the Ming painting being used, but there really was nothing wrong with the Song painting of Night Revels of Han Xizai. Yes, they were snacking and eating while listening to musicians, but this would have been much more common than a grandiose royal chariot being pulled by 15 horses (as in the painting for the Xuande Emperor). I liked the Song painting because it reflected more the average, daily activities of life, whereas this particular Ming painting shows in total pomp and grandiosity the exclusive entourage and lifestyle of the emperor. Not particularly representative of Chinese history as a whole.--Pericles of AthensTalk 22:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Detail from Departure Herald (showing Emperor's carriage)
Good point. But is the daily (night) life of the literati, 'history'? I would prefer something more dramatic, say, the burning of the Cao Cao's ships at the Battle of Red Cliffs, but Chinese sensibilities don't run that way, or at least we don't have such a painting in commons. Would you prefer a scene from the Qing version of Along the River during the Chingming festival (the Qing version because the colors are better preserved)? LK (talk) 05:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


Well, like I said, I see no reason to remove the current painting, just thought I would throw that thought out there for others to consider. Along the River would certainly fit into the category of revealing more the history of daily life. If you were to replace it, which scene of the 18th century Qing version would you use? The bridge? The palace? The city gate? The marketplace? Many to choose from.--Pericles of AthensTalk 07:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I've looked through the whole image and don't see any detail that is particularly striking. Do you have any preference? LK (talk) 08:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Shrank template using line-height parameter[edit]

I just found out that the line height of the template can be adjusted using the 'line-height' parameter. I've set it to 150%, I think it defaults to 200%. If anyone feels really strongly about it, feel free to change it back. LK (talk) 06:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

From trial and error, it appears that the default is around 160% or so. I've set it back to that. I'm going to shrink the space between the lines for the same entry. Eg. the line height between 'Song Dynasty' and '960–1279', since they are the same entry, there should be some visual clue of that. LK (talk) 08:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

3 Sovereigns and 5 Emperors & Xia Dynasty[edit]

The 3 Sovereigns and 5 Emperors are fully mythical, and they are not even mentioned in texts until the Warring States period, the Xia dynasty is said to have existed at a time when there really were developed cities in North China, but there is no archaeological indication that there is any connection between these cities and the Xia mentioned in the texts, which were written over 1000 years later. The Chinese government has attempted to promote the idea of the Xia as a historical dynasty in order to emphasize the antiquity of the Chinese nations, but Western Scholars are unanimous that the Xia should not be considered a historical dynasty, therefore these two periods should either be classified under a "mythical" heading, rather than ancient, or they should be taken off the history template altogether. The Xia is discussed in Robert Bagley's article "Shang Archaeology" in the Cambridge History of Ancient China, as well as the references already listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.199.92.29 (talk) 05:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Division between Republic of China and Republic of China (Taiwan)[edit]

There is an ongoing debate on the corresponding page in the Chinese-language Wikipedia on whether the Republic of China (ROC) should be divided into "Republic of China, 1912-1949" and "Republic of China (Taiwan), 1949-present", or if we should present it as "Republic of China, 1912-present" and "Republic of China (Taiwan), 1949-present".

Since supporters of the former style frequently cited this page, I'd like to raise the issue here as well, so that the English-language community may possibly also weigh in on the debate. Zzarch (talk) 03:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Could we widen the template a tiny bit[edit]

Template:History of Mongolia is just a tiny bit wider than this template, and the two appear one on top of another in a number of pages. I think it would look better in those articles if we made this template a bit wider (the difference is about a centimeter and a half) so that it matched the Mongolia template. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Sidebar with infoboxes version[edit]

Hello. Here's a version of the template that uses the Sidebar, Infobox and Collapsible list templates. There are some div sections within it which I imagine could be made redundant, but I haven't found or figured out how yet. 213.246.114.240 (talk) 16:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Since this template is quite tall, it could use "Sidebar with collapsible lists" instead. 213.246.114.240 (talk) 16:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 February 2013[edit]

You guys should put up a brief summary... Thank you for you're time — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.134.142 (talk) 16:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

One year gap between Shang and Zhou???[edit]

According to this sidebar, the Shang ended in 1046BCE and then the Zhou began in 1045BCE, however on the Zhou Dynasty it says it began in 1046BCE and so do a few other things. What's with the one year gap here? Typo? Sir Langan (talk) 01:03, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 September 2013[edit]

the order of dynasty is wrong . Liu Bang built the Han Dynasty,whose capital was Changan . Liu Xiu rebuilt the Han Dynasty , whose capital was Luoyang . Changan lies to the east of Luo yang, so we call the dynasty which was built by Liu Bang the Eastern Han and call the dynasty which was built by Liu Xiu

the Eastern Han.  

171.212.96.7 (talk) 07:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Propose to remove Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors[edit]

Historians unanimously agree that Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors are legendary, not historical. I propose that we should remove them from the template. -Zanhe (talk) 03:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the entry since there's no objection after more than a week. -Zanhe (talk) 08:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't we then remove the Xia aswell, as they are mythical aswell? (EnTerbury (talk) 02:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC))

Not really. Although there's no conclusive archaeological evidence proving its existence, textual evidence is fairly strong and few historians dismiss it as completely mythical, unlike the Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors. -Zanhe (talk) 03:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

(alternative version)[edit]

Reverting to version using wiki standard size w/ collapsible sections[edit]

I just reverted to a version using a standardized template size.[1] I think this version is preferable as it uses a standard template, and has collapsible sections. It's also been like this for some time. LK (talk) 08:14, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

  • User:Khanate General told me that s/he returned the template to the previous format as it presented concurrent dynasties beside each other and was more factually accurate. On the other hand, I agree that the collapsible version is more manageable and suggest it is also more legible. I could try to combine the two, if that's thought worthwhile..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't mind a collapsible template, but the former template was better at accurately representing concurrent dynasties. The Song and Liao dynasties were contemporaneous dynasties that shared a border, the Jin dynasty was not part of the Southern Song dynasty and the Western Xia dynasty was not part of the Northern Song dynasty.--Khanate General talk project mongol conquests 12:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The template is perfectly fine as is. The collapsible version presents less information, less accurately, for the sake of saving space. Saving space is almost never a good rationale for making content decisions on Wikipedia. Additionally, such a major change should have been discussed beforehand, or at least proposed with a period of time built in for people to object to it. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • WP:BRD. Also, WP:TIND. Saving space wasn't the principal rationale, nor was a decision made as regards content; any inaccuracies introduced were unintentional. Unfortunately, however, (1) the smaller font-size underlying the current version of the template makes it less legible; (2) the light gray hue used for the year spans and smallcaps headings make these even less legible; (3) there doesn't appear to be a distinction between a linewrap and a new line (i.e. the next item in the chronology); (4) too many redundant "history"s in the Related articles links. I'll try to remedy these anon. Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:52, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Why are some of the really short regimes listed[edit]

Namely Xin dynasty (I refuse to consider it a dynasty because it's not, IMO ought to be merged) and Second Zhou (doesn't even have a page and rightfully so), while none of the states in 16 Kingdoms, Southern and Northern Dynasties and Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms are listed? While the Three Kingdoms are all listed? Is this a fair and unbiased presentation of Chinese history? Timmyshin (talk) 11:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

People's Republic[edit]

There is currently no separate article on the People's Republic of China, so the PRC entry links to the China article. Of course only a small part of the China article is about the history of the PRC. History of the People's Republic of China strikes me as a far more logical target. Gulangyu (talk) 02:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I see it's been changed again. The reason the People's Republic has to be linked differently than other eras is because Wikipedia does not have a "People's Republic of China" article, this problem has nothing to do with Taiwan! How Taiwan gets linked is a separate issue altogether. Gulangyu (talk) 11:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Taiwan[edit]

I propose that the name Republic of China (Taiwan) to be changed to Taiwan (Republic of China) to reflect popular usage. Republic of China is currently only used in official correspondence and was kept by Chiang Kai Shek when he fled to Taiwan in 1949 with the KMT (Kuomintang), this name was chosen to represent China, of which Chiang thought he was the actual leader, not the small island of Taiwan. Taiwan was seen as a temporary refuge at the time, the only thing stopping the Taiwanese from changing the name is a constant barrage of threats from China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.217.167.169 (talk) 12:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion of Sorting the "IMPERIAL" period to three sub-periods[edit]

The IMPERIAL period is so long and contains a lot of dynasties. So I suggest sort it into 3 sub-periods.

1. Zhou-Jun time(州郡时期):Qin, Han(West, Xin, East, Three Kingdom), Jin(West, East) and Sixteen Kingdoms, South and North Dynasties

2. Dao-Zhou or Lu-Zhou time(道州或路州时期):Sui,Tang, Five Dynasties and Ten States, Song and Liao, Jin, Xia.

3. Sheng-Lu or Sheng-Fu time(省路或省府时期): Yuan, Ming, Qing

Each sub-period is about 700 years and there was a new province name invented, at the beginning of each sub-period, China was unified again.Vicipahkou (talk) 11:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Where is the Republic of China?[edit]

The Republic of China(Taiwan) disappeared? --Chinyen Lu (talk) 03:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

It did not disappear. I had reverted the misleading edits made by someone. --Matt Smith (talk) 04:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
This is the History of China template. After the Qing dynasty there was the Republic of China, as described in the article Republic of China (1912–49). So that should appear next in the template, after that was/is the PRC. For the modern Republic of China, i.e. Taiwan, there is another template: {{History of Taiwan}}.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 04:35, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Other articles are not necessarily accurate so I would suggest avoiding citing other articles directly. The ROC continues to exist till today, and that is a fact, the subject of template {{History of Taiwan}} is geographical entity Taiwan (island), not political entity the ROC. --Matt Smith (talk) 04:45, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
As you know, and as has been repeatedly pointed out. Taiwan is not the same thing as the country described in Republic of China (1912–49). It can’t be as Taiwan is not a sovereign state, or at least is not recognised as such, the only way the ROC, as founded in 1912, continues to exist is as China today. The Communists won the Civil war, established the PRC in place of the ROC, and have taken the place of the ROC on the world stage.
I doubt even the government of Taiwan believes this, that they still are the rightful claimants to the whole of China. It’s a fiction they maintain, as they do not want to admit to the alternative, that they are only a province of China and so should come to an agreement like that of Hong Kong. Or even worse they don’t want to say they are an independent country, which might prompt China to invade.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 05:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes. The Republic of China today is not the same thing as the Republic of China (1912–49). Is the template implying they are the same?
Accurately speaking, the government of the ROC has never refused to admit that Taiwan is a province of China because they still keep the streamlined Taiwan Provincial Government operating. They just claim that the sole legal representative of China is the "Republic of China". --Matt Smith (talk) 05:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
If we were to talk about recognition the ROC was recognised as the sole legitimate government of China until 1971 by the UN, by the logic of "recognition" we could claim that the historical ROC existed until 1971, and claiming "retreated to Taiwan" ceased its existence is wholly incorrect as that same government fled from Nanking to Chungking during WWII, by this logic we should add the Japanese puppet states instead of the "old" ROC. And the problem with the current infobox is simply that the link goes to an article that stops at 1949 but the line continues to present, it's either one or the other. --Codename Alex (talk) 07:47, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Regarding 'If "Taiwan" is necessary for the Republic of China, then "China" would be necessary for the People's Republic of China', it is ridiculous to insist on symmetry between the PRC and the ROC on Taiwan – the realities are completely different, and of course "China" is at the top of the template. It is also unhelpful to readers for this navbox to have two links labelled "Republic of China", as we all know, the ROC since 1949 is commonly known as "Taiwan", so that name should be mentioned. A label of "ROC (Taiwan)" seems an appropriate compromise. Kanguole 10:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with you. In my opinion, if "Taiwan" should be used for the ROC, then "China" should be used for the PRC. --Matt Smith (talk) 13:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
You have ignored my response to merely repeat your previous statement. I would add that "People's Republic of China" obviously includes the word "China". Kanguole 13:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
For consistency reason, I think common name should be used universally if we have to use it. Two labels mentioning Republic of China is fine to me because the years are already different (1912-1949 and 1949-present). Alternatively, we can make it even more clearer by changing the years to "on mainland 1912–1949" and "on Taiwan 1949-present", respectively, like the Chinese version of this template. --Matt Smith (talk) 14:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
MODERN
Republic of China 1912–1949
People's Republic of
China
1949–present
(on Taiwan)
1945–present
This template is used on dozens of articles, including the flagship Chinese history articles, so it needs to avoid taking up too much screen space (which is more difficult with English words than Chinese characters). A phrase like "Republic of China on mainland" would do that (and isn't quite correct English). "Taiwan", as the common name, should appear, but just using "China" for the PRC would be confusing, as the whole box is about China, so the term needs disambiguating and "People's Republic of China" does that. Would the arrangement at right be suitable? Kanguole 16:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
MODERN
Republic of China
on mainland 1912–1949
People's Republic of China
1949–
Republic of China
on Taiwan 1949–
What I meant is something like the arrangement at right. I think using just "Taiwan" is also confusing because this template is for China. --Matt Smith (talk) 16:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
That form has two problems: it uses two extra lines, and has a different format from all the other extries in the box, with extra words where the others have only dates. I was proposing "(on Taiwan)", rather that just "Taiwan". Alternatively, "ROC (Taiwan)" would fit, and ought to be clearer, the lack of a line between the two ROC entries suggests the connection between them. Kanguole 17:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
I only see one extra line. It could be removed if you think it is redundant.
As for extra words, that looks fine to me because it makes things clearer.
"ROC (Taiwan)" has a problem that it uses a different format, with common name where other entries do not have. --Matt Smith (talk) 00:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
I mean two extra lines of text, taking up extra space on all the articles that use this box. That is the cost of extra words, the purpose of the sidebar is to give quick navigation, not explain things – that is what article text is for.
"Warring States", "Tang dynasty" and every other entry in this box use the common name. Even "Peoples's Republic of China" contains the common name, though the longer form is obviously needed to avoid ambiguity. Only "Republic of China" fails to mention the common name. There is a solid consensus for the article name "Taiwan", so it should be mentioned. I have proposed "ROC (Taiwan)" as a compromise that compactly includes both names (with "ROC" clear because "Republic of China" occurs on the previous line). Kanguole 09:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
MODERN
Republic of China on mainland 1912–1949
Republic of China
on Taiwan 1949–
I see. How about the arrangment at right that has no extra line?
Other entries are not using common name in my opinion. They use their formal names plus the word "dynasty". And I think "ROC (Taiwan)" is inappropriate because it introduces a different format (abbreviation of formal name + common name). --Matt Smith (talk) 14:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
It is still as wastefully tall.
What would you say is the common name of the Tang dynasty? Kanguole 14:45, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
It is not taller or shorter. Its height remains the same.
Tang does not actually have a common name. It was simply Tang, the word "dynasty" is used to indicate a sequence of rulers from the same family. --Matt Smith (talk) 14:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
The common name is what people usually call something in English, like "Warring States period", "Tang dynasty" or "Taiwan". Kanguole 15:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Okay. I see. --Matt Smith (talk) 15:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Whether or not a country is recognised is wholly irrelevant to its REAL, ACTUAL existence and the Republic of China still exists. Today, I suggest adding the "modern" Republic of China to the box like "the test edit" made above. I don't think that it would confuse anyone to add "the Republic of China (on Taiwan)", however Wikipedia:READERS may be confused by a link that only directs to the "historical" ROC but not the modern one. --Codename Alex (talk) 07:35, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
MODERN
Republic of China on mainland 1912–1949
Republic of China
on Taiwan 1949–
This version looks the best (in my opinion), it does not seem taller nor takes away any information, in fact it clearly tells that the Republic of China today is a continuation of the old one, this would probably be the best version for the readers. --Codename Alex (talk) 07:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Pardon, I completely forgot the argument to make I first commented hete for, well the Chinese didn't recognise the Khitan Liao dynasty as a part of Chinese history, and many Conquest dynasties are still regarded as either "foreign rule" or "colonisation", to this end the "recognition" argument is completely void. The same goes for Hong Kong, and Macau as neither claim to be "the Chinese government", the Republic of China does. --Codename Alex (talk) 07:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Of course it is substantially taller than the first version above (or the existing version). Compactness is desirable in a sidebar that is used on so many key articles. Explaining things to readers is best done in article text, not navboxes. Kanguole 10:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
MODERN
Republic on the mainland 1912–1949
Republic
on Taiwan 1949–
I guess you mean "wider"? If width is your concern, how about the arrangement at right that has the same width as the current template?
As for "explaining things to readers", in my opinion, adding only "on mainland" and "on Taiwan" hasn't gone too far and can also make things clearer. Your proposal only has "(on Taiwan)" and doesn't have "(on mainland)" so is inconsistent within itself in my opinion. --Matt Smith (talk) 11:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
MODERN
Republic (on mainland) 1912–1949
People's Republic
1949–present
(on Taiwan)
1945–present
No, I meant taller, but perhaps your browser renders differently. (Wider would be much worse, given how tall the whole box is.) Anyway, this version is much better in that respect. Remaining issues are the use of the date styling from the rest of the box for non-date text, and the prominence given to the less-common name "Repuplic of China" for the Taiwan period. So here's another attempt. Kanguole 23:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Which browser and operation system are you using? My proposal looks fine on Firefox/Google Chrome/IE11 on Windows 7. And your proposal is wider.
And isn't your proposal explaining things to readers, too? Although I still prefer my last proposal, I will let the consensus determine the result. --Matt Smith (talk) 01:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
It is a little wider, because I expanded its width to match the existing navbox, into which it must fit.
Are you saying you will agree to this latest version, or that wider input is needed? Kanguole 10:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
I guess you are using a WebKit browser such as Google Chrome or Safari. On my Firefox, the current template is just 225 pixels wide (while on your browser it is 254 pixels wide).
I'm saying that I personally still prefer my latest proposal, but will respect the consensus. --Matt Smith (talk) 12:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Looking at some of the most recent proposals. "on mainland" is wrong on multiple scores. it’s ungrammatical (it should be "on the mainland"), it’s a term for China little used or understood outside of greater China, and is unnecessary disambiguation: the article is Republic of China (1912–49) with the years enough to disambiguate it, being also implied by its position, below the Qing dynasty, above the PRC, in the template. Further it is factually incorrect: the ROC included Taiwan; Taiwan and other parts of China were occupied by Japan, but that ended in 1945.

The only confusion comes from trying to include Taiwan. It’s confusing as it’s unclear why it belongs in this template – whatever their history and relationship when the world talks about "China" and "Taiwan" they are two distinct states, and it has its own template. Or, if you consider it a province of China then why not include other parts of China with their own histories distinct from the PRC, such as Hong Kong and Macau? Adding just Taiwan gives it undue importance and weight. Using "Republic of China" is even worse is just confusing, both as that is not the common name of Taiwan and as it’s easily confused with Republic of China (1912–49). Using both "Republic of China" and "Taiwan" is excessively verbose and even more confusing.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 11:18, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting my grammar. I had changed "on mainland" to "on the mainland" in my proposal, as for it being unnecessary disambiguation as you mentioned, I respect your opinion, but I think it is still the best counterpart of "on Taiwan". Last but not least, it's controversial to assert that the ROC included Taiwan or Japan occupied Taiwan, because there are reliable sources which says the opposite.
Yes. It really is confusing; in my opinion, these confusions are resulted from the English Wikipedia using "Taiwan" to refer to the ROC. Would you like to offer some suggestions? --Matt Smith (talk) 12:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
There is no confusion with using Taiwan for the country as that is it’s name, in English, and the name of the article. The confusion arises when the name "Republic of China" is used, as that name is little used nowadays. It’s either Taiwan or in some contexts "Chinese Taipei" or similar, but my suggestion is as above, that it should not be included. Either it’s another country or if you consider it part of China then so are Hong Kong and Macau, distinct from the PRC, but they are not included. Either way it makes no sense to just include Taiwan, it just causes confusion.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 12:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Then let's remove the Liao dynasty and Western Xia too as they are not really China either. --2405:4800:148C:91A0:E0EC:49C9:6ED6:9097 (talk) 23:44, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I have just removed this : "Republic of China" as confusing and misleading. Confusing as the section above is also "Republic of China", the only difference is the dates but they are hard to spot and not part of the link. It makes it look like the links go to the same article, but they don’t. Misleading as it’s linking to the post-war history of Taiwan, which is the common name of the country.

I still think that a link to the history of Taiwan is not needed, no more than we have one to the history of Hong Kong or Macau. Just having a link labelled "Taiwan" looks out of place because it is out of place – it does not belong. Adding "Republic of China" is even worse as no-one calls the country that, and it is easily confused with the name of China from 1912 to 1949. There is no way to make it work and it simply does not belong.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 06:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Collapsible template[edit]

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)