Talk:Two Qiaos

Untitled

Note: On April 2, 2006, I merged Elder Qiao and Younger Qiao to make this article. The edit history for the combined article is that of Elder Qiao; the Younger Qiao article was written mostly by anon #199.247.237.129 and the full edit history is here. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 03:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Fixes

Fixed a large majority of the article, but could use a little touching up. Jgamekeeper 16:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Historicity

The Chinese version of this article contains a quote from the Sanguo Zhi referring to Da Qiao and Xiao Qiao as such. That seems to contradict the statements which used to appear in this article that they do not appear in history and are known only as the Two Qiaos. I took that out, along with some other unsourced text, while doing the merge. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 03:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Dont fix what doesnt need fixing.

there is no reason to get rid of so much of that information... Dont fix or change what isnt broken... You're as bad as facebook — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joetri10 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

But we are not Facebook. This is an encyclopedia, which means that the information should be encyclopedic. This is not the place to replace facts with fiction. --Nlu (talk) 05:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

If you want to add all that Dynasty Warriors and other video game related information, try Koei Wiki or some other website. And that information in the modern references section is important only to people interested in their roles in the games. And I made some distinction between their roles in actual history and Romance of the Three Kingdoms. There's no reason to remove that. It just makes people more confused between fact and fiction again. Lonelydarksky (暗無天日) _{contact me (聯絡)} 14:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I’m not sure what your definition is on facts and fiction, but this is not a history site, the information about this character in modern references are facts.. Important facts, sure they shouldn’t all have there own point and maybe one or 2 of them don’t exactly have a point... But they are still important nonetheless, If you some of them, you might aswell get rid of them all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joetri10 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

But at some point, it shouldn't be a "one frivolous citation is in there, so let's have them all" proposition. Paring down is a good idea. If you disagree about the way that it was pared down, you are welcome to try your own paring down. --Nlu (talk) 17:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I saw what you did thar!..

No but seriously i saw what you did, you went and cried to the admin board..

first, i am not that person who you described. I’m trying to keep focus of the Dynasty Warriors characters, that part is true.. To delete the fictionial events is a big thing... If you feel you must keep only historical events (in which there are hardly any recorded) then i ask you to go to every Three kingdom figure who has ever been featured on Dynasty Warriors and even the tons of Samurai and Warriors orochi characters as you might come across aswell as you will be efectively doing what is needed to all of those pages in your eyes..

The three kingdoms, a novel in which is famous in china, a very credible and amazing piece of literature... It is said that it mixes the facts with fiction... the Qiaos are very important more so in the novel then in reality... If you wish to keep this page to the minimal information about said persons then go right ahead, i would also like for you to ask for a speed deletion as very little will be left on this page whatsoever and in turn will have no purpose... Wikipedia is source for all information, such as games, tv shows, historical events and facts of all interest... Adding the fiction facts of the Qiao's should be surely noted... In which there are many; games, movies, and the famous novel...

I would once again then like to ask you to leave the page alone, i am not here to cause a problem, to cause upset and to cause an edit war, i am simply keeping the important information on the page, be fact or fiction... If you want to edit the page in such a way that it focuses more on facts then go research it, i am sure you will find very little on facts and more on the novel and in turn Dynasty Warriors, as many who have played the game will look at this page... If you insist on keeping this page limited with nothing, then please... do the same with every other page so everything only has real facts... while you’re at it, go delete computer game pages while you're at it... Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joetri10 (talk • contribs) 03:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I personally have no problem with fictional mentions -- have a look at Guan Yu for example. What I have an issue with is the overly detailed and trivial mentions on video games that goes against what the Wikipedia guideline WP:TRIVIA tells, and how the fictional elements subvert a historical subject by being the first paragraph. The current version is one I am okay with. _dk (talk) 13:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

This article is not the sole exclusive property of any editor. By asking people to leave it alone, it's equivalent to claiming ownership. Since you insist on keeping the trivia parts in the modern references section, so be it. I noticed that when you make reverts, you completely ignore some minor improvements that other editors have made. For instance, I introduced italics for some titles in modern references, in accordance with WP:MOSTITLE, but you removed them. I removed certain peacock terms such as "popular", but they were restored again. All these problems may be minor, but they do undermine the quality of an article to some extent. Lonelydarksky (暗無天日) _{contact me (聯絡)} 03:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

That’s not my fault and anyway, i have seen your activity on pages, you edit the same page gradually overtime like you are just looking for something to do... This page was fine to start with, then once Dw7 brought the attention back to it, suddenly everyone wants to delete everything that isn’t historical.. Which is almost everything btw. As for saying leave it alone, i am indeed saying that like it’s my own page, not because it is but because i feel i know not what Wikipedia is about, but i know what people want to see, or should see anyway. Not to mention as i said before, keeping this page like all the rest in the Three Kingdom category. So il tell you what, If someone chooses to get rid of the "trivial" info from this page again, il go to every Three Kingdom figure and delete the same...

Another thing is, with this lack of info, it would actually have the exact same thing as the Dw wiki pages, but with them adding with game info, as it should. So really, this page again should just be deleted if the fictional and Novel based facts are gone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joetri10 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

No one is stopping you from proposing it for deletion. As far as I am concerned, this article doesn't necessarily need to exist, as it is not necessarily even merge-worthy; one-sentence references can be inserted in the articles for Sun Ce, Zhou Yu, and Cao Cao, and that would be all that is worth talking about these two ladies. But if the article is to stay, please don't act as if the fictional should predominate over the factual, particularly since the prior language confuses what is factual and what is fictional. (Lady Sun had the same problem until some dedicated editors fixed it.) --Nlu (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The Qiao's are more important in the Novel then in history.. If you cant understand that then i dont care anymore... Wiki i thought was supposed to give information to the reader, Important information. Not to mention the start of this page is incorrect anyway, starting with mentioning the novel is a very acceptable way to go... Its a very important piece of literature. What is you're problem with that. To be honest i find disregarding the novel as acceptable facts to be disrespectful and ignorant quite frankly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joetri10 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The novel was a novel. It's not factual. Therefore, there can't be be any acceptance of the novel as "acceptable facts." --Nlu (talk) 00:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

To Joetri10:

You're mistaken about my intention. I'm not planning to erase all traces of Three Kingdoms related fiction on Wikipedia. And never did any of the other editors involved in this discussion (including me) say Romance of the Three Kingdoms is not important. My point is, Romance of the Three Kingdoms is a novel, a work of fiction, therefore we cannot fully depend on it as a source for Three Kingdoms related articles. We need to refer to other sources as well, such as Chen Shou's Records of Three Kingdoms. What I'm doing in this article, is to make a clear distinction between fact and fiction. If I were to remove all the fiction parts, then the article would seem unbalanced. The information in the lead section is fact, while that in the "In fiction" section is fiction. The "Modern references" section covers all other information about the Two Qiaos. However, I feel that we should not go into too much detail about the fictional parts and modern references, as per the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Three Kingdoms.

If you're going to write what you think people wish to see or should see, then that's a form of violation of WP:NPOV.

I also wish to invite you to read WP:EQ and WP:CIV. You appear to be new to Wikipedia, as your contributions log and user rights page show. Lonelydarksky (暗無天日) _{contact me (聯絡)} 14:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)