Talk:History of Northern Dynasties
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What is the reason for removing the dynasties that are covered by the work? (And no, "apparently cos the dates was already given on the article, or maybe you're blind, which I can't blame on you" is not a good enough reason -- since the readers of the articles can't immediately convert dates to dynasties without first knowing what the dynasties were in the first place.) --Nlu (talk) 22:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
What did you meant by without first knowing what the dynasties were in the first place? What the hell are you blabbing about by the way, the book as its named northern dynasties is clear I think, and with all the sub-cat its even clearer. You've taken the readers too raggedness just as you've done with all your other petty arguments, all the time as well Eiorgiomugini 04:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
You are presuming that the reader knows which dynasties are northern dynasties, which may be the case for people who are as interested in Chinese history as you and myself. That's not true for the Wikipedia user population at large. --Nlu (talk) 04:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Yawn.. Nlu, you seem to know so much for other who can't even speak Chinese. Why don't you just give up this hopeless debate and let people who actually know and interested in Chinese dynasties continue, you can make a quick survey for them if you want it to Eiorgiomugini 04:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
This is English Wikipedia; obviously, most of the readers here won't speak/read Chinese. For articles to be useful to them, information has to be immediately available. You think, for example, given a time period of 27 BC to 68, you can immediately tell which Roman dynasty that period corresponded to? --Nlu (talk) 05:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
We're talking about period in an article don't we, given that's there timeline and subcat which corresponded to the subject, I don't think it would be confused by the readers, poor example anyway. Like I said, you can keep this petty debate for yourself, and just for your information the issue was already solved. Eiorgiomugini 05:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] RfC
RfC has been filed. The current main arguments are as above. These arguments, presumably, pertain to both this article and History of Southern Dynasties. --Nlu (talk) 04:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Responding to the RfC, though I personally was aware of the dynasties covered, I agree that many others wouldn't be. Give that these articles are not exactly so big that they need cutting down I can see no reason not to include the dynasty names. --Daduzi 15:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
