Talk:Zhan Guo Ce

China Top‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

History

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

References

I'm trying to clean up incorrect ISBN's. The first item is among those currently tagged. It appears to refer to both an ISSN and an ISBN, calling the ISSN an ISBN. In this case, I don't think we need the ISSN at all, so I am going to remove it. If you feel this is in error, please kindly explain to me.

Reference as I first found it with the tag displayed:

Chan-kuo Ts'e [CKT] (1996). Translated and annotated with an introduction by J. I. Crump. Revised ed. (Michigan Monographs in Chinese Studies, 77, ISBN 1081-9053 {{Please check ISBN|1081-9053 (too short)}} ). Center for Chinese Studies, The University of Michigan. ISBN 0-89264-122-3 (hardcover alkaline paper)

Keesiewonder 02:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another I believe I have just fixed. It was hard to find. Please see [1]

Qian, Guoqi (2000). Zhan Guo Ce Ping Jie (Comments and Introductions of ZGC). In Wei Liangtao (Ed.), Shi Zhu Ying Hua (Zhongguo Dianji Jinghua Congshu) Vol. 1, pp. 157-239. Zhongguo Qingnian Chubanshe (Chinese Youth Press). ISBN 7500637462.

Keesiewonder 01:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is He 2001, I need to read it.FourLights (talk) 13:02, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalization

Perhaps someone with background in this area should assist me in fixing it. Calabashhh 21:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reverted to previous version Calabashhh 21:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography

Miao, Wenyuan : the links www.wordpedia.com/search/Content.asp?ID=53187 "Zhan Guo Ce" ("Strategies of the Warring States") and Encyclopedia of China won't work on 05 FEB 2011. Siubhán McGunn (talk) 13:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You added this or want it added? Seems fair enough. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 20:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

I agree with the editors before me that the lead reads much better starting with "The Strategies of the Warring States..." and think the article should be moved there eventually. However, at the moment, the article is here and, until it is moved, the lead sentence should start with the title we have. Even worse, Google Ngram, Scholar, and Trends all seem to agree that—uncommon as any discussion of this book is in English—right now the most WP:COMMON WP:ENGLISH name is "Zhan Guo Ce". (Well, the scholars have better pinyin and prefer "Zhanguo Ce", but that's a different issue...) That might just be an artifact of where the Wikipedia page is parked, but it's still what we should stick with until the English name gets more traction in English discussion about the work.

Also, we've already got the Chinese in an infobox on the right. We don't need to—and shouldn't—repeat it in the lead sentence as well. — LlywelynII 20:14, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ERA

The page was established with a BC/AD dating format. This should be maintained consistently, pending a new consensus to the contrary. — LlywelynII 20:32, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for future article expansion

As a side point, the initial form of the page was in many respects much better than what we have now, with a name section dealing with alternate forms of the title and a much fuller bibliography that was breezily nixed without explanation by a series of editors a few years back. White Whirlwind is generally a force for good, so there is probably some explanation for the gutting of the article's sources. That said, a great deal of material can and should be restored. — LlywelynII 20:32, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]