This category 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
This category is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This category is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This category is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature 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.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature articles
How are we defining "Ancient China" for this category?
Across most of the wiki, we seem to use "Ancient" as a synonym for "pre-imperial" (Template: History of China and History of China are probably the most authoritative representations of this periodisation). I saw today that Cao Cao, postdating the period in question by close to four centuries, was placed in this category. I just removed Hun Jian, who lived during the Tang dynasty.
I appreciate that the term "ancient" doesn't necessarily have a specific reading – especially as 古 in Chinese – and it's not entirely unreasonable to consider the Han dynasty as "ancient", especially for the non-specialist. I feel like we should maintain consistency and keep only the pre-Qin writers in this category, but I'm sure there could be reasonable disagreement, so I'm checking in here before making further changes that would leave us with only five articles in the category. Folly Mox (talk) 11:45, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A more precise category name seems like a reasonable idea. The word "ancient" is used with widely varying meanings when talking about Chinese history – I've even heard it used to mean any time before 1911. —Mx. Granger (talk·contribs) 13:42, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would concur that the term "ancient" specifically should apply to pre-Qin. Han through Tang dynasties may be something of a gray area but there's enough periodicity in the records of the early imperial dynasties to make "ancient" an unnecessary inaccuracy. Simonm223 (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]