Misplaced Pages

Talk:List of Chinese inventions: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:45, 1 June 2011 editBashir Homes (talk | contribs)1 edit Maybe too much details?: new section← Previous edit Revision as of 12:54, 23 July 2011 edit undoAua (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers6,905 edits Maybe too much details?: TrueNext edit →
Line 148: Line 148:


] (]) 03:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)May 31, 2011 ] (]) 03:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)May 31, 2011

:You are definitely right. We need to shorten every entry into a couple of sentences, just like with the rest of invention lists. We also need to do some cleaning since I noticed some claims were actually wrong.
:] <sup><small>(])</small></sup> 12:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:54, 23 July 2011

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of Chinese inventions article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4
Featured listList of Chinese inventions is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Misplaced Pages community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 16, 2007Articles for deletionNo consensus
July 5, 2008Featured list candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured list
Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This page is not a forum for general discussion about List of Chinese inventions. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about List of Chinese inventions at the Reference desk.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconChina: History High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Chinese history (assessed as High-importance).
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconTechnology
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology
Archiving icon
Archives

Martial arts

Can martial arts be categorized as inventions? Even the list of English inventions talked about sport and boxing: http://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_English_inventions_and_discoveries#Sport I believe that a full list of Chinese martial arts thus deserve a spot on this page. Although the Chinese list would be incredibly long, so we could possible just provide a link to here: http://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_Chinese_martial_arts

Recategorization

Shouldn't this be organized better instead of purely via alphabetical listings? Like timeframe, or by type of invention/discovery? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.192.144 (talk) 01:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Endocrinology, isolation of sex and pituitary hormones from urine?

I am a Indonisain, but Sunyi-lin, a professor in Shanghai Jiao Tong University, has posted his contradict research paper since 2006-02-19. Here is the link:

Study the Extraction of "Autumn Mineral" in Ancient China, Sunyi-lin, (School of Humanities,Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200030,China)

Hope anybody take a look. --Zanhsieh (talk) 21:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Error on Section F, Firework

Original text:


In 1110, a large fireworks display in a martial demonstration was held to entertain Emperor Huizong (r. 1100–1125) and his court, accompanied by dancers moving through colored smoke.

Should be:


In 1183, a large fireworks display in a martial demonstration was held to entertain Emperor Xiaozong (1127–1194) and his court, accompanied by dancers moving through colored smoke.

Since:

  1. Lanterns were more popular for Emperors of Northern Song.
  2. Jack Kelly cited the wrong text. Original text could be seen in 武林舊事卷七:「淳熙十年八月十八日,上詣德壽宮恭請兩殿往浙江亭觀潮。……管軍官於江面分佈五陣,乘騎弄旗,標槍舞刀,如履平地,點放五色煙炮滿江,及煙收炮息,則諸盡藏,不見一隻。……」. "淳熙" is the name era of Emperor Xiaozong. --Zanhsieh (talk) 15:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Image format

Surely there's a better way to align the images? Currently, some sections (such as "L" to "R") have a lot of unused valuable free space on the right hand side. If the images in the preceding heading can't fit into the section (due to the vertical text being shorter than the images), it goes into the next heading. As a result, the images in the new heading follow the same alignment (which results in all that unused free space). Spellcast (talk) 13:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Just do whatever you want to it. Honestly, everyone has a different monitor width, so the article will look different to different folks. The only way to please everyone is to have as few images as possible, so there doesn't appear to be any gaps and there is no overlap with the text.--Pericles of Athens 16:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
That would be the simple solution. Alternatively, if the images protrude into the next heading, the protruding images can be aligned horizontally below the accompanying text in the section. So if a group of images can't fit into the section, the interfering images can be moved from the top of the text to below it using the markup seen in WP:PIC#Galleries. But I don't know if having pictures aligned horizontally below the text would be aesthetically pleasing to everyone. Spellcast (talk) 17:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Nobody has spoken up here on the talk page since we began this conversation; feel free to test your own suggestion. I'm not against trying new things if it will improve the look of the article.--Pericles of Athens 01:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Sky Lantern?

Should Sky Lantern be add to this article since the references in the article suggested that Chinese invent it? --LLTimes (talk) 00:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and many more inventions are missing ! --Zhonghuo (talk) 14:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
* Sky lantern: According to the popular lore, the military strategist Zhuge Liang invented the Sky Lantern for different uses in warfare and was named after him, Kongming Lantern (Chinese: ). However It is likely that this technological discovery is misattributed because of the Chinese historical practice of attributing great discoveries to significant historical figures rather than to the actual inventors. According to the sinologist and historian of science Joseph Needham, the Chinese experimented with mini-hot air balloons from as early as the 3rd century BC, during the Warring States period, which suggests that the attribution of its invention to Kongming is anachronistic and apocryphal. --LLTimes (talk) 17:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Futher readings on many Chinese inventions, here --LLTimes (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

"premodern Chinese" really?

The term used in this article "premodern" just sounds terrible. I don't think it's a word. At the very least it needs a hyphen (pre-modern). I don't claim to be an expert and it may even me grammatically correct but it's very unstandard. I think the term ancient is much better. Or break it down by era. "premodern" is also troubling as it drifts in time as the modern time changes. One could say premodern Chinese battled the Japanese in World War 2. This needs fixing.12.106.237.2 (talk) 18:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that what is modern can be subjective and isnt a very scientific or encyclopedic word to be using, but I TOTALLY disagree on using the hyphen. Its not just wrong, it makes 'pre' into a word rather than a prefix. Also, pre-modern and ancient are totally different. In the West there was a thousand years or more between the two. Mdw0 (talk) 22:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
There might be a solution for this. The era divisions of Chinese history do not follow, share, or match up with the distinct periods of history found in the West, such as "Late Antiquity," "High Middle Ages," "Renaissance," "Early Modern," etc. Ancient China usually refers to the Shang Dynasty, Zhou Dynasty, and Warring States Period. Then comes the age of Imperial China, which has its periods of interregnum such as the Southern and Northern dynasties and Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms Period, but the unified dynastic periods can be divided between Early Imperial China (Qin Dynasty and Han Dynasty), Mid-Imperial China (Sui Dynasty to Yuan Dynasty), and Late Imperial China (Ming Dynasty and Qing Dynasty). Modern China could be designated as the era beginning with the Republic of China in 1912 and later the People's Republic of China in 1949. Perhaps the article should be split along these lines?--Pericles of Athens 22:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
that sounds neat! we can make a compilations of them (around three, Ancient, Imperial, and Modern) and make a template. This article is getting too crowded, not to mention walls of images. However we should also make a general main article? describing the four great inventions in it? and other mentions --LLTimes (talk) 22:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm glad you like the idea. Let's see what others have to say. If no one disagrees, perhaps we can reorganize the article along those lines. As for the four great inventions, they already have a separate article (i.e. Four Great Inventions of ancient China).--Pericles of Athens 04:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Although I'm late here, that was a great idea. "Premodern" is Eurocentric. It implies that China looks to Europe as the locus of time and history. It is inappropriate for the job. Does European history organize itself according to Chinese conventions? Of course not. Also, the term "Imperial" is kind of loaded. China never colonized the earth outside of Asia. When Europeans unified their nations, they are never called "imperial". It's just called "German Unification" or "Unification of Italy". Why can't the same be said for China? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.27.182 (talk) 06:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the Chinese continue to invent things

The article is misnamed at least for this reason. List of _antique_ Chinese inventions would be a slightly better name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.151.4.122 (talk) 06:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

'I'm pretty sure' dont cut it. Get yourself a valid reference and you can add as many recent inventions as you like. Mdw0 (]) 02:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

What about the umbrella ?

Im pretty sure that China also invented the umbrella ! Should we add the umbrella to the article ? Mekong mainstream (talk) 21:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

'I'm pretty sure' dont cut it. Get yourself a valid reference and you can add whatever you like. Mdw0 (talk) 02:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Jade burial suit and other "inventions"

How is a "Jade burial suit" an invention, and why is it noteworthy? Ok, so its expensive/lavish, but aside from that? Chinese armour on the other hand is an actual noteworthy invention.

It's not. Some people have extremely broad ideas of what constitutes an invention, such as minor changes in design, constitution or even colour. Mdw0 (talk) 01:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

silk, silk road

I see nothing regarding SILK in this article!Allclintsmail (talk) 15:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

That should be considered as Globalization, since the Silk Road connected Asia, Middle East, and Africa far earlier than the European/American version of globalization (which basically added the profits of the Atlantic Slave Trade to pre-existing Asian trade routes). The Silk Road was not a neighborhood trade route. It's connecting of hemispheric trade deserves to be acknowledged as early globalization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.27.182 (talk) 06:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Penjing?

Is penjing worthy of being added to this? I think it is but being a penjing/bonsai enthusiast I'm a little biased. B5200 (talk) 02:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that penjing would count as an invention, same goes for silk in the previous section. Semantically at least they are "discoveries" rather than inventions - e.g. you cannot say somebody "invented" fire. Philg88 (talk) 07:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, the Chinese obviously did not invent the soft fiber produced naturally by bombyx mori, but they certainly invented sericulture, the process of making silk.--Pericles of Athens 22:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
That is a very valid point and sericulture should certainly be added. As for penjing ...Philg88 (talk) 00:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Be unbold?

If someone finds a good source that shows an invention was not developed in China, what is NOT required is an extended preamble indicating a prevailing invention in a different place. What is required is deletion of the item claimed to be Chinese, until such time as a source is found which places invention of the item in China. This article is long enough without additional items that were obviously invented elsewhere. Mdw0 (talk) 08:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed; if there is a reliable source which claims that fermented beverages existed in the Near East thousands of years before they existed in China, then you were by no means out of line in deleting the material.--Pericles of Athens 21:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind the claims made in the article but there is way too much information. Just name the discovery or invention with a line or two detailing it, not a whole paragragh.If someone could please cut this article down because its become quite a hassle trying to read through it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.10.56 (talk) 19:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Lengthy, sure. But so is China's tradition of invention. This has to be one of the finest examples of a Misplaced Pages article I've ever seen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.27.182 (talk) 06:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Picture of "Lamian"

I'm really confused as to why this is here. Surely, by definition, La mian is handmade. These are clearly just normal instant noodles. Anyone know how this got here? Bienfuxia (talk) 08:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Needham refs

I find it strange that nearly all the references to Needham's Science and Civilisation in China are given as 1986 whereas they actually range from 1959 to 1987. I'm well aware that few individuals can afford to own the original C.U.P. version but I'd like to put in the original dates. I believe the pagination of the Taiwan reprint follows the original so it won't make any difference. Can anyone confirm this please? Chris55 (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Too many images

On my 1920 x 1080, there are big white spaces as images continue on the right. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I am puzzled

My Korean friend had tried to convince me that Koreans invented EVERYTHING (being sarcastic here). Upon reading the long list of Chinese inventions and comparing it to the rather short Misplaced Pages article on Korean inventions, I began to think he was just being bombastic (and drunk too). So I asked him if he'd stand by his original claim, he replied, "we Koreans invented Chinese language! So we can take credit for whatever the Chinese invented!"

Could anyone clarify for me if there is any factual basis to his assertion that Koreans invented Chinese language? This is the first time I've heard it, and it seems rather implausible. Thanks.

"Implausible" is too mild a word for it. "Impossible" would be a better word. Both the Koreans and the Japanese based their writing systems on Chinese, while for a long period Korea was a Chinese vassal state. ► Philg88 ◄ 22:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe too much details?

I looked around the other pages regarding inventions and/or discoveries made by various groups of people. Although this Chinese page is quite informative, I think it might be more than necessary. At the most, maybe 2-3 brief sentences describing the invention with the link should be sufficient.

The other thing I want to address is on the other list of inventions made by other groups, they contained quite a lot that are culture-specific like food, literature and art works. Some of them do include inventions made independently from others along with inventions made through collaboration with different groups of people. I notice there are some here but not that much. Should the list be expanded to include them as well? Or not?

This might be slightly complicated, but do you all also want to include inventions made by Chinese nationals outside of Chinese territory?

Bashir Homes (talk) 03:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)May 31, 2011

You are definitely right. We need to shorten every entry into a couple of sentences, just like with the rest of invention lists. We also need to do some cleaning since I noticed some claims were actually wrong.
Λuα 12:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Categories:
Talk:List of Chinese inventions: Difference between revisions Add topic