User talk:Lds/Archive9

A barnstar for you!

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		Back when I first started editing I remember you being called "Lonelydarksky", and despite claiming to be semi-retired I still see you pop up all the time on my watchlist, improving WP:3K articles that I touched on once years ago. Thanks for all your hard work in the field of Chinese history! Snuge purveyor (talk) 00:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Snuge purveyor: Thank you very much! You did a very good job too with the articles you worked on in the past! While I have decided to come out of retirement recently, I may disappear again when real life catches up with me. =D LDS _{contact me} 04:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting/forking the Two Qiaos article into Elder Qiao and Younger Qiao

I think they deserve separate articles since they have different husbands. Another option is to keep the Two Qiaos article like how we have the Soong sisters article. Thoughts? Timmyshin (talk) 19:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Timmyshin: As you can see from the article, there isn't much historical information on the Two Qiaos already, so it wouldn't make sense to split it further. I think the latter option is better. If we go by this, how do you think we can make it more like the Soong sisters article? LDS _{contact me} 02:46, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Add-on: Each of the Soong sisters is notable in her own right, so of course it makes sense to have individual articles for each of them. However, this is not the case with the Qiaos. LDS _{contact me} 02:54, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

zh:小喬 and zh:大喬 seem to contain more information, and non-historical fictional works can also be included as long as things are done properly. Also, I don't think Soong Ai-ling is notable in her own right, even the zh.wiki version is shorter than the Da Qiao/Xiao Qiao counterparts. I don't mind forking out the content but I'm afraid I'm not very familiar with all the ROTK-related works. Timmyshin (talk) 08:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Timmyshin: If you look closer at the Chinese Wikipedia articles, you will see that they don't contain a lot more information on the historical Two Qiaos. All we can find in historical records about them are just a few sentences. As for Xiao Qiao's Chinese Wikipedia article, you see that the section about her role in Romance of the Three Kingdom focuses mainly on the instances where she is mentioned by name only (e.g. Zhuge Liang telling Zhou Yu about Cao Zhi's poem and hinting to him that Cao Cao wants Xiao Qiao for himself). More importantly, both articles contain a lot of trivial information (e.g. which actresses portrayed them in which movie/TV series, which games they appear in) which violate WP:TRIVIA. That is certainly not the direction I think we should be heading towards. LDS _{contact me} 08:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, the section about Xiao Qiao's role in the novel on the Chinese Wikipedia page is already covered at List of fictitious stories in Romance of the Three Kingdoms#Zhuge Liang's diplomatic mission to Jiangdong. LDS _{contact me} 08:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point of view, but instead of "See List of fictitious stories in Romance of the Three Kingdoms#Zhuge Liang's diplomatic mission to Jiangdong for...." I think it's easier to our readers if the material is already on the page. I just checked WP:TRIVIA, which says "media references to, and other popular culture coverage or portrayal of, the subject of the Wikipedia article... is not categorically trivial. Media coverage of a topic is generally encyclopedic information, helps establish the topic's notability, and helps readers understand the subject's influence on the public (and often vice versa)." I don' think that information is trivial, and the Two Qiaos article already contains such a section, with the second paragraph only referring to the Younger Qiao. Being portrayed a lot in popular culture is a strong indication of independent notability, one of the reasons being many incoming links are for Elder Qiao and Younger Qiao as individuals and not Two Qiaos as a group. My main concern is that Two Qiaos being the target for their redirects, it's forcing our readers to read about a woman's sibling and their relationship when in actuality, the woman's husband is much more important to understanding that woman's life (and posthumous fame). Timmyshin (talk) 09:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Timmyshin: Looks like there are two issues here.

1. List of fictitious stories in Romance of the Three Kingdoms#Zhuge Liang's diplomatic mission to Jiangdong: This part can, of course, be divided into the different sub-stories, and then the one in which Xiao Qiao is mentioned by name only can be transferred to Two Qiaos#In Romance of the Three Kingdoms. This is a side issue that we can work on.

2. Popular culture references: If these references are non-trivial, then I am fine with including them on the article. We just need to ensure that everything has reliable references to back them up and show that they are notable. If we are going to expand on this, a wholesale translation of the corresponding sections on the Chinese Wikipedia articles will not do. Simply because they come close to an indiscriminate collection of every single instance the Two Qiaos appear in popular culture. For example, I don't think there will be much encyclopedic value in listing out not-so-well-known actresses who portrayed the Qiaos. LDS _{contact me} 15:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Add-on: I am fine with separating the article, as long as the two final products do not significantly overlap. That said, the popular culture sections on each article should not be disproportionately longer than the historical section because, ultimately, it is the historical section which serves as the primary anchor of notability. LDS _{contact me} 15:44, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all your points. For Younger Qiao we can add a section about her many alleged tombs: [1], even though they may all be fake. Timmyshin (talk) 16:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Timmyshin: I think maybe you can work out the two drafts in your sandbox or something first? Then we'll see how to proceed from there. LDS _{contact me} 16:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'll let you know when I have something. Timmyshin (talk) 16:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) If I may jump in, I would say Xiao Qiao is independently notable beyond RoTK and related pop cultural references due to her being mentioned in Su Dongpo's famous rendition of Niannujiao (念奴嬌), not to mention centuries of folklore and opera. (I don't know enough to say the same about Da Qiao though.) _dk (talk) 17:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sun Luban

Thanks for the note - I have removed the protection as requested. Good luck $Brookie :) { - like the mist - there one moment and then gone!} (Whisper...)$ 15:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

28 October 2017

Thank for this edit. I was unaware that 顈 only occured in 三國演義. --Vihelik (talk) 04:37, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. LDS _{contact me} 06:34, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder

Hi, I just wanted to remind you that you moved the article "Pei clan of hedong" without any discussion. ----損齋 (talk) 02:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved them back, I do not see clan as a problematic word. While I do see "Duke XX of XX" as a problem, i do not move them only because i want to. Please do discuss before you move articles. thank you very much.----損齋 (talk) 02:11, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you search for google books, there are numerous sources support the use of "clan". [2][3][4][5][6]----損齋 (talk) 02:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To summarize, your removal of the word "clan" is not discussed. In light of many reliable sources, the word "clan" as the translation of 氏 is supported by scholars. Including those from Cambridge University and Princeton university.----損齋 (talk) 02:26, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, my thanks for reviewing and cleaning up those articles. ----損齋 (talk) 05:30, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@損齋: noted with thanks. LDS _{contact me} 06:08, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Lds. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewing

Hello, Lds.

As one of Wikipedia's most experienced Wikipedia editors,
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 09:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Insertcleverphrasehere: Thanks for the invitation. I'll read the tutorial when I am free, and then I'll get back to you later. Thanks. LDS _{contact me} 15:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

<span style= "font-family: Georgia; font-size: 9pt">[[User:Lds|<font style="color:#000">'''LDS'''</font>]] <sub> [[User_talk:Lds|<font style="color:#333">contact me</font>]]</sub></span>

: LDS _{contact me}

to

<span style= "font-family: Georgia; font-size: 9pt">[[User:Lds|<span style="color:#000">'''LDS'''</span>]] <sub> [[User_talk:Lds|<span style="color:#333">contact me</span>]]</sub></span>

: LDS _{contact me}

Respectfully, Anomalocaris (talk) 08:39, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Anomalocaris: Noted and changed. Thank you. LDS _{contact me} 11:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! —Anomalocaris (talk) 16:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User group for Military Historians

Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Creation Reviewing

Hello, Lds.

AfC submissions
Random submission

~6 weeks

1,108 pending submissions

Purge to update

I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project, AfC, which is also extremely backlogged.
Would you please consider becoming an Articles for Creation reviewer? Articles for Creation reviewers help new users learn the ropes of creating their first articles, and identify whether topics are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Reviewing drafts doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia inclusion policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After requesting to be added to the project, reviewing is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the reviewing instructions before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 02:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Thanks for the invitation. LDS _{contact me} 06:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]