Talk:Xiangqi
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Xiangqi article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | Xiangqi is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||
 | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 13, 2005. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| Current status: Former featured article | |||||||||||||
 | This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | On 23 July 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Chinese chess. The result of the discussion was Not moved. |
International Xiangqi Federation
- Where's the link for the World Xiangqi Federation? http://wxf.ca/wxf/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Xiangqi_Federation
When should "alternative theories" be included when they go against current historical scholarship?
The article in the history section mentions multiple times that the consensus is the modern version of this game arose from an Indian ancestor. But there is still inclusion of "alternative theories" against this consensus.
I'm a newbie and infrequent wiki editor so I don't quite know what the rules are in regards to when to include and when not to include alternative history theories that go against scholarly consensus. Can someone with more knowledge on this let me know?
Like I know that in a history section on the pyramids, I shouldn't include that some people think aliens built them. I don't think this article is on that level, but I also don't know where the line is drawn Trebuchetyeet (talk) 13:30, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
- The main "alternative theory" is from the book by Cazaux and Knowlton, which is cited in footnote 20. I am not competent to judge the plausibility of this theory, as I haven't even read the book, but perhaps other Wiki editors can comment.
- Generally, in Wiki, WP:FRINGE is the guide to how to handle sections where there are multiple theories about something, not all equally highly regarded. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:44, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks! Trebuchetyeet (talk) 10:17, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2026
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I see in the infobox, it states that xiangqi appeared in the Southern Song dynasty, but there is no source for this while. In fact xiangqi appeared around 700 AD. Here is a reliable source to prove that it appeared in 700: https://www.britannica.com/sports/Chinese-chess
Please correct the information in the infobox. Thanks! ~2026-17478-99 (talk) 15:03, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Not done: Block evasion by User:Phạm Văn Rạng. Day Creature (talk) 16:42, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- Are you sure? The TA isn't blocked and I don't see them in the SPI investigation. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 16:53, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- WP:DUCK. Socks of Phạm Văn Rạng have repeatedly tried making this change in the past. Day Creature (talk) 17:08, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- Are you sure? The TA isn't blocked and I don't see them in the SPI investigation. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 16:53, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
