Talk:Han dynasty

Nonsense

"at the time. Antoninus Pius died in AD 161. The confusion arises because Marcus Aurelius took as additional names, those of his predecessor as a mark of respect. He is referred to in Chinese history as An Tun (= Antoninus) hence the confusion]--> reached the Chinese capital Luoyang in 166 and was greeted by Emperor Huan."

What has this to do with the Han-Dynasty?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.160.170.159 (talk • contribs) 2:25, 18 February 2005 (UTC)

202 BC or 206 BC?

Why does this article give both 202 BC and 206 BC as the first year of the Han Dynasty, and can this be fixed? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 07:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Gold star

For some reason I've landed on any number of Wikipedia pages lately in desperate editorial straights. High-technology power distribution in Manitoba, Canada in the 1970s not getting much editorial love, somehow. I jumped into this article to fix a minor inconsistency in the lead in date display, and it took me all of 30 s to identify this article as a probably a former featured article from the caliber of internal editorial consistency. (And I was right.) I just had to drop in to say that it's encouraging to land on one these pages every so often. Well done everyone who participated! — MaxEnt 16:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Recent edits made by User talk:Editer3233

I unfortunately don't have time to comb through all of his edits to inspect if he made any other damage to this, a featured article, but I had to leave a vandalism warning note on the talk page for User talk:Editer3233 for falsifying and attributing wrong information to scholarly sources by removing their context entirely in image summaries, as he did in this edit here. He did this for both Ch'ü (1972) and Bulling (1962). I want to assume good faith here, but the effect is all the same, misleading our readers into thinking certain other comments were made by these published works. That is unacceptable for Wikipedia more broadly but it is an egregious move to do that in a Featured article, and without any talk page discussion or consensus beforehand to discuss the removal of scholarly cited content while falsely retaining their citations. Furthermore, I'm very concerned about his unilateral move to change about a third of all the images in the article without any talk page discussion (and I've had to restore a bunch of images removed without any real justification or even a single edit summary explaining why they were removed). I haven't had time to investigate all the new images he has added, especially all the various maps, so I'm not even sure if they are acceptable with correctly cited source material per Featured article standards. The featured article candidacy was a long process that took a lot of effort on my part to meet the standards of featured status. This editor seems wholly unconcerned for that process or for Wiki guidelines more generally. Further massive changes to the article should be discussed on the talk page with an effort to reach community consensus first. Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:06, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020

• This article has considerable image layout issues and MOS:SANDWICHing that should be resolved. Several samples of techniques that can be used for better image layout can be found in this version of Mayfly. Have all of these new images been reviewed per image policy and WP:WIAFA?
• In the lead: "To this day, ... " cited to a 12-year-old source ... indicating that a review for "as of" dates, MOS:CURRENT and most recent information might be helpful.
• A review for MOS:DATERANGE spaced WP:ENDASH issues is also needed: for example, (202 BC – 220 AD), established by the rebel leader ... correct ... not ... the Zhou dynasty (c. 1050–256 BC) ... incorrect.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 4 December 2020 (UTC)