Talk:Wei Yan

Wei Yan

More like Gay Yan, amirite? --Friedchikinz (talk) 02:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The Rebellious Wei Yan of Shu

Through the games series of dynasty warriors, Wei Yan seems to always be seen as a bloodlusting animals who lives only for battle. I, myself, do not consider Wei Yan to be rebellious yet more of a person for battle and long for peace. Just before the Wu Zhang Plains took place, Zhuge Liang rejected the plans Wei Yan had ready against the Wei Army.

The Rebellion of Wei Yan

At the battle between Sima Yi of Wei and Zhuge Liang of Shu, Wei soldiers began fleeing from the ploy that Zhuge Liang (Who is dead at the time) had surprised them with. In the fast retreat of Wei, the Shu general Wei Yan advances after them thus turning his advance into ignore. Due to the respect that the soldiers have for the Shu Strategist, the soldiers kill Wei Yan for his disregard to the plot. The point that I can tell of Wei Yan is that even if his actions may have made him seem like the rebellious general, he only wanted a few things out of battle.

--Jin Mai 04:09, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wow

Why did they make wei yan so so... lacking verbal capability in the game, I heard he was a pretty smart guy. Whopper 12:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

A Rebel of Shu

Wei Yan may have been a funny guy from DW 4, but he was overall a capable general that even Liu Bei could trust. Though Zhuge Liang said he could not trust him, you still have to give this guy a massive amount of credict due to his skills on the battle field. The only thing I wish for is that he lived a bit longer even after the death of Zhuge Liang. For Wei Yan, he was a man who, I believed at many times, wanted to die in battle against his enemies.

In the end, Wei Yan not only performed well on the field, but he was the sixth most top ranking general whose skill coul've rivaled Guan Yu, Zhang Fei, Zhao Yu, Ma Chao, or Huang Zhong.--Zhang Liao 23:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

"Three Kingdoms" article format

I'm hoping to get a standardized format for Three Kingdoms articles... reality/history only in the WP:LEDE with a one-sentence mention of the existence of fiction... early sections are historical.. later sections (clearly marked as "Fictionalized account" for ROTK and something else for games) for fiction.

-- Ling.Nut 22:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

What's this? information regarding the historical Wei Yan? I was beginning to think that this page was a Dynasty Warriors forum :)

Anyway, I agree with your proposal. I've gone through all articles of the historical characters appearing in the games and attempted to move all recent information (video games and television serials) into a "modern references" section at the bottom of each page. This is so that any damage to the articles by the DW hoardes will have relatively little impact to the article proper. I'd agree that each article should be set up in a manner similar to: historical content followed by ROTK content followed by modern references. I know you guys aren't particularly happy about DW information finding its way into genuine historical articles, but it's simply not going to be possible to stop (just look at the discussion material above us). Realistically, minimising the damage to actual historical content is about all we can hope to do. Gamer Junkie 22:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Yes yes and yes. I'd delete it all if I could (dons flameproof underwear). But if it is inevitable, then it should be very diligently separated from fact, clearly labeled and placed in a distinct section.
• Still wondering about the possibility of Wikipedia:WikiProject Three Kingdoms as a place to coordinate our efforts, rather than deadkid's talk page ;-) Ling.Nut 22:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha, yeah, it's a bit of a two-bit operation at the moment, eh? That sounds like a smart move. I think Deadkid would agree since he's the one who has to archive his talk page. Gamer Junkie 22:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Who else would join? [Hoping for historians]... Ling.Nut 22:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd imagine Plastictv would be happy to help. Not sure who else, though. This question would probably garner more support were it somewhere more consistently monitored/frequented by the mainstream Wiki users. Gamer Junkie 23:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind having my talk page filled with discussion, it's better than having the signpost occupy it all :) I think User:Nlu would be interested as well, since he had worked to split up the previously gigantic Category:People of the Three Kingdoms. (and he's an admin to boot) _dk 00:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

(undent) So the question is, which do we need:

1. Wikipedia:WikiProject Three Kingdoms
2. Task force within Wikipedia:WikiProject Chinese history
3. Noticeboard only.

   Ling.Nut 01:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

removed from WP:LEDE, reinsert into Fictional Account section later

I took some fiction out of the lede; it can be reinserted elsewhere. Here it is, so I won't lose it:

• Five Tiger Generals: "This made him the sixth most important military man of the kingdom after the Five Tiger Generals."
• In the novel, Zhuge Liang had foreseen Wei Yan's revolt before his death, and secretly left instructions regarding how to destroy the rebellion when the time came. When Wei Yan rebelled, Ma Dai feigned allegiance to Wei Yan, earning his trust, so that later, following Zhuge's instructions, he was able to eliminate the unsuspecting Wei Yan with ease.
• In legend, Zhuge Liang was said to ask for an extension of his life in Wuzhang Plains, pointing to a candle and saying, if the candle continues to burn, he will continue to live; if it were extinguished, he would perish. However, Wei Yan knocked the candle over, and Zhuge Liang died shortly after.
• Ling.Nut 23:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

"Others believe that Zhuge Liang was unfairly biased against..."

Who are the "others"? ROTK? Video game magazines? Sounds like a weasel word.. All assertions should be given a source. I mean, perhaps not every statement is given a formal citation, but the reader should at least know whether the info is from Sanguo zhi or ROTK or... whatever... Ling.Nut 11:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Ditto for "...Wei Yan's supporters believe...". What supporters, and what is the source of this assertion? Ling.Nut 12:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Who were Wei Yan's supporters? Does this refer to Wei's allies within the Shu Han camp or modern day editors who like him more than they like Zhuge Liang? This is the type of definition that must be made with such additions. Gamer Junkie 15:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Much is unknown for Wei Yan's Supporters but I agree with Gamer Junkie, this definition must be madeMastertkw 05:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC) mastertkw

I agree. --Denise from the Cosby Show 06:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Demand source citations in hell, intellectualfags! --Friedchikinz (talk) 19:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's almost a word, I guess. Gamer Junkie ^{T / C} 21:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Note

I have a lengthy bio on Wei Yan up elsewhere. If I can fix it up, add inline citations, etc. then I can probably get it to GA or FA quality almost instantly. I have to fix it majorly first though.--Wizardman 01:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Uhh the best thing would probably be to put it up in your userspace and then trickle–merge its contents here, rather than replacing the existing article... Ling.Nut 02:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

this article needs help

If anyone anywhere has the guts to fix this thing, please do so ASAP... just by looking at it, it is all simply copy/pasted & therefore is WP:CV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ling.Nut (talk • contribs).

I'm not aware that a translation of public domain material (Sanguo Zhi) can be copyrighted. But yeah, this page needs urgent work. (Oh no, here comes dk, the guy who is all talk but no work!) _dk 11:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

If I had all the facts and knew everything necessary to make the change, I would. But I'm just not that up to scratch on the factual content. And dk, looking at your contributions list, I would say that "all talk" might be going a little harsh on yourself there. Gamer Junkie 11:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Oh, dk, subtract two points from your game score! Wrong answer. A translation can certainly be copyrighted, and certainly is copyrighted... unless that translation is public domain.. possible I guess but very unlikely... So it's out-of-bounds if it's a translation. But wait, what if the contributor translated all that text him/herself? Home free, right? Wrong! That would be WP:OR. :-) Ah, the perils of being a scholar! Ling.Nut 12:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not OR if it's simply translated from the material in the book, is it? Either way, Ling, do you know anybody who would actually be willing to undertake a task like that? Gamer Junkie 12:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, we could re-examine WP:OR but I'm 99.99% sure it is. You are applying your personal knowledge to the data, rather than quoting secondary sources. In theory, totally unacceptable at Wikipedia. :-) Ling.Nut 12:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

They really know how to screw you into a tight corner here, don't they? And I'd rather not waste anymore time reading policies/guidelines/bureaucratic nonsense and such anymore than I really have to, so you can check into that one if you want. Have fun :) Gamer Junkie 12:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Darnit, that's 99% of my work down the drain. _dk 00:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

(undent) We can rebuild it. But this isn't anywhere near the top of my priority list.. but it does need help... Ling.Nut 00:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Soldier of Liu Bei in 208?

I fail to find relevant citations in neither Records of Three Kingdoms nor Zizhi Tongjian. Help.-Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 00:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I always looking for deeper information regarding infos no matter how little andAhendra (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Things to do to improve the article

• The "In Romance of the Three Kingdoms" and "In popular culture" sections require inline citations. Also, per WP:OVERSECTION I think they can be combined together.
• Convention for these articles is to split Romance and Popular Culture information. Romance is in a sort of limbo, it's considered too significant to place in 'Popular Culture' but it's far too dramatised and fictionalised to be a proper source in the main body. So it usually gets its own section. KeeperOfThePeace (talk) 09:09, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
• The "Analysis" section relies too much on quotes. Instead of copying what someone has said, it is better to summarise the information.
• References should have specific page numbers, if possible.
• Every source should be used as inline citations in the article, not just listed at the bottom. Currently there are no inline citations for "de Crespigny, Rafe (1990)", "de Crespigny, Rafe (2003)." "de Crespigny, Rafe (2004)" "de Crespigny, Rafe (2004)." and "Zhu, Ziyan (2010)". It's possible that the citations are used, but because there is missing information for the inline citation they are not pointing to the correct source.

regards and cheers Ahendra (talk) 06:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)