Talk:List of treaties of China (1689-1949)

Article expansion?

I have seen this list of treaties, which is certainly a useful page even as a draft currently (especially since treaties were also an important part of this period of history). Thanks for @CWH's great efforts! Of course it can be further significantly expanded to make the list even more complete. How about trying to achieve this goal together and make it an actual article? I certainly appreciate your work on this. --Wengier (talk) 00:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I would be glad for your generously offered help! When I drafted the article, I had more ambition than time, and this is still the case. I'm sorry to have abandoned it, and even more sorry that at the moment I can't find where the information came from (I must have copied it from someplace). It would be a good start to just clean it up and move it to mainspace, with the note that lists do not have to be referenced if the material is not controversial (these dates are not), ch (talk) 15:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. And I am sorry to hear that you abandoned it earlier because of a lack of time. I was also studying for treaties earlier, but due to for example a lack of time to always keep being active in WP (e.g., I traveled abroad earlier this year), and the fact that I looked into something else (such as textbooks and other resources during the period) afterwards, I also forgot such things for a while, which is certainly a pity (I am sorry about this too). In any event, I have a digital copy of the book "中外舊約章彙編" (which may be found online), which lists some 500 treaties and contracts etc signed by the Qing dynasty (between 1689 and 1911/1912) and some 600 treaties and contracts etc signed by the ROC (between 1912 and 1949), with exact dates for most of them, but the main problem is of course that the names (and the contents) of the treaties are only shown in the Chinese language in the book, without the corresponding English names. Another problem is that the list is still not truly complete. For example, the book never lists the 1739 treaty signed between Qing and the Dzungar Khanate, as well as the 1842 Treaty of Chushul following the Dogra-Tibetan war (even though the treaty did appear to have reference to "Emperor of China"). It would be great if there is a book that does not have the above-mentioned issues. But in any case, I think we can expand the list according to the information we can find, listing both English and Chinese names whenever possible, and move the article to the mainspace. Thanks again for the work you have done! --Wengier (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Excellent! But let's keep in mind that we don't want or need a complete list, which would run into the hundreds, if not thousands, overwhelm readers, and keep them from finding what they are looking for. It might be better to limit the list to treaties that have or deserve Wikipedia articles.ch (talk) 05:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Fully agree with this. --Wengier (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Even more thanks! I can see only a few more things to recommend. I'm not sure that the treaties need to be numbered, and removing the first column would make the other columns wider. Likewise, it seems that the text in the "Status" column could be moved to the "Note" column, which in almost every case is empty. Again, this would widen the other columns.

A minor point is that it is not policy to link major countries like "Russia," Burma, the UK, and so forth.

Let's see if we can find a reference or two for readers who want more.

Onward! ch (talk) 19:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank again for the feedback. I certainly agree that the "Status" and "Note" columns can be merged altogether, and this will significantly widen the other columns. Indeed, with just this change it appears that each treaty now appears in exactly one row, at least on my computer. As for the first column that (auto-)numbers the treaties, it is mainly intended to show to readers that how many treaties are currently included in the list, and the column itself takes only very little space so I doubt that removing it will significantly widen the other columns (unlike merging the "Status" and "Note" columns mentioned earlier). Thus I have left the first column as is for now, although it may be easily removed later on if deemed necessary.

As for the links, if you try to follow them, you will notice that they are actually linked to historical states like Tsardom of Russia (or Russian Empire), Konbaung dynasty, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland etc, instead of modern states like Russia, Burma, United Kingdom etc (and it appears to me that the policy mainly recommends against linking to modern states in such cases, if I understand it correctly). I had hoped to provide additional information for readers with links like these (for the exact regimes or governments that signed treaties with China). And of course we can try to find even more references if readers want more, just as stated in your message. --Wengier (talk) 22:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining -- it makes sense. Is there some way of indicating this in the article? Or maybe use the historical names instead of the modern ones? But that would take lots of space. It's perfectly OK as it is. Up to you!ch (talk) ch (talk) 04:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I have thought about this too, but the main problem is of course that would take lots of space as you just said, especially in cases like United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Also, I believe that most readers are more interested in the country which signed treaties with China, rather than the specific government or dynasty that did so. For example, if I simply show Konbaung dynasty in the table, most English readers may not be familiar with it. But if instead "Burma" is shown, readers will immediately know it. One workaround may be to show something like "Konbaung dynasty of Burma", but apparently this will take quite some space in the table (and it appears that the loss outweighs the gain in such cases). After all, I think only relatively few English readers are indeed interested in knowing the exact government or dynasty that signed treaties with China, and there is also limited space available for the table, so it may not be possible to show every detail in it. --Wengier (talk) 18:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)