The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. There is a general agreement that children of monarchs are not automatically presumed to be notable, in line with both the WP:MONARCH essay and Bearian's User:Bearian/Standards#Notability_of_Consorts_of_nobility. However, I see no consensus on whether the sources identified establish notability per WP:ANYBIO, GNG, and other relevant guidelines. Kudos to SunloungerFrog and to SongRuyi for their extensive work on this. Owen×☎ 12:54, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
This article is entirely cited to brief mentions in primary sources: the Ming Veritable Records and History of Ming. In the course of the AfC process, the creator added a large number of citations to unreliable sources, which were removed by me and RovingPersonalityConstruct. The remaining non-primary sources do not mention the subject at all: Early Ming China is available on archive.org , the Cambridge History (Volume 7) via TWL; neither mentions this person. The Sotheby's source is also completely unrelated. The four citations to ctext.org provide no indication of where in the 332-chapter Ming Shi we are supposed to look to verify the claims in the article. This leaves an exceedingly poorly-sourced article, with the only somewhat-verifiable citations being four sentences in primary sources – in my view, not enough to meet the GNG. Toadspike[Talk] 13:50, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
(In case it helps, I believe sources using Wade–Giles would call her "Ch'ang-te".) Toadspike[Talk] 13:51, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Min968 (talk) 17:40, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
Delete per nom. - Amigao (talk) 00:56, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
Comment Hold on, dude—why do you guys give delete votes without doing any research? SongRuyi (talk) 07:56, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
@SongRuyi I have read and considered the comments Toadspike made here, as well as reviewed the current state of the article and its sources. So, it's wrong? Every member has the right to express their opinion from their perspective, right? Min968 (talk) 12:00, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
Keep A senior member of the Ming royal family, Princess Changde was a grand princess of the inner court, a position that automatically made her an important figure within the Ming dynasty. The Ming court codified a precise hierarchy for its imperial women, ensuring their status was clearly defined and recognized. An emperor's daughter was titled 公主 (gōngzhǔ), requiring every minister or official to kneel down to pay respect. They also received generous stipends and an official salary of 2,000 dan. That recorded in 《列传第九 公主》.
Upon her brother's ascension, Princess Changde's status was particularly elevated. She was granted the higher title of Grand Princess (长公主), and when her nephew took the throne, her rank became Grand Princess Royal (大长公主), the highest rank attainable by a female member of the imperial clan. Princess Changde held all three titles over the course of her life; this status was not merely nominal. The princess was invested with a golden patent (金冊, jīncè), and her husband, the Prince Consort, received a patent of appointment (誥命, gàomìng). Her marriage was a top-tier political alliance, masterminded by Empress Dowager Sun. Xue Huan was the son of Xue Lu (薛祿), the Marquis of Yangwu (陽武侯) and one of the most celebrated military commanders of his generation. Her political marriage was discussed in 明实录类纂·宫廷史料卷》"Classified Compilations of the Ming Veritable Records: Volume on Court History"—pages 28, 196
Moreover, her story—particularly the resolution of her domestic conflict with her husband—illustrates the limited yet significant authority that imperial women could exercise within the patriarchal framework of the Ming court. In this case, the emperor's response was swift and uncompromising, indicating that an affront to his sister was treated as an affront to the throne itself. He ordered the arrest of Xue Huan, the fuma (imperial son-in-law), who was publicly disgraced by being interrogated by the state judiciary "in the outer court" (法司考訊於外庭). The sentence was unusually harsh: he was condemned to death by beheading (論當斬). The incident officially recorded in the 明代中央司法審判制度 - Page 159 . This incident highlights the institutional framework surrounding the status and protection of Ming princesses.
I have a general background in Chinese history and mythology, and I recently succeeded in challenging the deletion of a historical figure's article—by initiating a Deletion Review Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 July 21#Liu Sai and having the decision reversed. I kindly ask that before nominating an article for deletion (AfD), editors take time to conduct basic research. In this case, the article appears to have received near-instant "delete" votes without much investigation or meaningful consideration. It's important to remember that the AfD process is intended to foster discussion and deliberation, not just tally votes—see WP:NOTVOTE. SongRuyi (talk) 08:54, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
@SongRuyi I sincerely appreciate your improvements to this article and our coverage of Chinese historical figures in general. I am usually lenient with notability of historical Chinese politicians, especially where it is clear they meet our notability guidelines (e.g. here). However, this article was simply too much for me; it was based on a large number of user-generated, deprecated, or irrelevant sources. Please do not see this as some ignorant purge of Chinese history (which I believe everyone who has commented thus far is very interested in), but as an attempt to uphold basic standards of verifiability. For instance, the article still does not make clear where her purported birth year is sourced from, and I suspect all later mentions of her age are original research. It would be great if you could fix that or, if not, remove those claims.
Often with historical figures we can establish notability via WP:NPOL, though I don't think NPOL applies to princesses, so here we'll need to meet the GNG. I am still not entirely convinced the GNG is met. The best source currently in the article is 明淸笔記史料, which appears to be a secondary source, but I don't have access to it. I am unsure whether the primary sources can contribute to the GNG; I believe there is no clear community position on this (or whether the Veritable Records and Ming Shi are primary at all). Toadspike[Talk] 13:53, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
@Toadspike you need to learn the outcomes of AfD discussions about ancient princesses at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Royalty and nobility/archive, rather than relying on cases involving colonial-era or modern-day PR-stunt princesses. This subject lived over 650 years ago and is discussed in multiple historical books, which is sufficient to meet WP:GNG.
The information of the historical figures was only found in books you labeled as "secondary sources." In my experience, historical books are not considered secondary sources. That is your opinion. This is not a biography of a living person, and different standards apply. I agree that WP:NPOL does not apply to every princess, as there is no specific notability guideline for ancient princes or princesses. Technically, she might meet WP:NPOL, but it's a weak claim.
According to WP:MONARCH, "There are no special notability guidelines about monarchs, nobility, and their descendants. The guidelines for politicians are applied to those who have exercised political authority." She was influential in court as a grand princess and held one of the highest-ranking palace titles, which supports her meeting WP:ANYBIO.
Her notability is also independent, as her high title was conferred by the emperor, so WP:NOTINHERITED not applies. Moreover, her article goes beyond mere genealogy (WP:NOTGENEALOGY); she was involved in a notable scandal, and multiple books cover her receipt of titles. SongRuyi (talk) 14:29, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
You correctly point out NOTINHERITED. She is not notable solely because she was a princess or because she lived 650 years ago. What would convince me that she is notable is if you could list the "multiple historical books" that discuss her. Based on what is currently cited in the article, I am leaning towards keeping, but I will have to think on it. If you have more sources, preferably ones that are unequivocally secondary, then please share them so we can discuss them. If you could clarify what kind of source 明淸笔記史料 is or provide a quote from it, that would also help.
For context, I am unsure about my personal position on whether the Ming Shi and Ming Shilu are primary; this was discussed at length at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 479#Asia with no clear conclusion. I guess this means that whether they count towards the GNG is up to us to decide. Toadspike[Talk] 14:45, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
For source, see the new comment below. Plus, I have selected AfD outcome examples for you to consider when determining notability in future AfDs about princesses. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady Helena Gibbs—this Western noblewoman’s article was kept due to coverage of her simple noble life, despite having no political power. Even a 0-year-old princess (no royal title/0 political power) can be kept if there are historical sources; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sophia Stuart (1606). Plus, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rangsinobhadol Yugala—a minor Thai princess—was kept because of considerable coverage of her death and the royal attendance at her funeral by Princess Soamsawali, which made her important in modern Thailand. See also the interesting discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Gyeongchang. Princess Changde of the Ming dynasty was covered far more extensively than these individuals. SongRuyi (talk) 15:50, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
Comment I found historically significant material showing her involvement in court politics and her official court biography in the 明实录类纂: 宮廷史料卷 (Classified Compilation of the Ming Veritable Records: Volume on Court History Materials). This is sufficient to meet WP:ANYBIO#1, WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV.
Page 28... The Grand Princess Changde pleaded on their behalf, stating: “The salaries have already been dispensed, and the people of this fǔ (official residence or mansion) are facing hardship in affording food and provisions. We implore that the salaries be granted again.” The Emperor approved her plea. (From the Veritable Records of the Xianzong Era, Volume 49)
Page 195... During the Jingtai reign, the Grand Princess of Changde accused Huan of using disrespectful language toward the princess. At the beginning of the Tianshun reign, Emperor Yingzong initially avoided the matter, but the princess entered the palace to file a complaint. Huan was imprisoned, later warned, and then released. She passed away around this time. The court was suspended for one day, and she was granted a state funeral and sacrifices in accordance with imperial custom.
Page 196... The Grand Princess Changde passed away. She was the third daughter of Emperor Xuanzong Zhang, and her mother was Empress Xiaogong Zhang. She was born in the jiachen year of the Yongle era (1424), and in the dingchou year of the Zhengtong era (1437), she was enfeoffed as the Grand Princess Changde and married the Commandant of fuma, Xue Huan. In the dingchou year of the Chenghua era (1477), she was enfeoffed as the Grand Princess Royal Changde. She died at the age of forty-seven. Upon the news of her death, the court was adjourned for one day, and she was granted a royal funeral and burial in accordance with official regulations. (From the Veritable Records of the Xianzong Era, Volumes 81 and 83).
The historical account records her scandal in front of the emperor. Moreover, the account also details her receipt of the highest royal titles. This is more than enough to establish that she is an important historical figure. Beyond notability, she was given a royal or state funeral, and the royal court (the governing body of the kingdom) was suspended for one day to honor her death. Unlike other princesses of ancient China, her life is recorded in historical chronicles, while even the basic facts about many other princes or princesses remain unknown today. Well, if we forget about her, even her husband—the
Imperial Fuma—easily meets WP:NPOL, as he held a court office by virtue of marrying her. That is the ancient Chinese political system, not a Communist system. How much more do you need?. SongRuyi (talk) 15:02, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
Delete - sorry, I don't buy it, SongRuyi. I can't see the three independent sources with significant coverage specifically of the subject - not just passing mentions - to meet WP:GNG. The 明代中央司法審判制度 reference seems to be more about her husband's trial and punishment rather than she herself, which makes sense given the book title. I can't fully access 明淸笔記史料 but a "search inside" on Google books for 常德 turns up two hits, which seems thin for SIGCOV, unless page 54 is a very dense page. I'd happily consider other sources if they were to be brought to light. I also wouldn't consider her nephew dubbing her 大长公主 to meet the spirit of ANYBIO#1. Finally, and this is somewhat tangential to this discussion, I'd also consider the content that's been added to Princess Changde §Monogamy scandal to be original research, the first two paragraphs at least (can't comment on the third), and certainly not written from a neutral point of view. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 23:27, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
Well, that is your opinion, and I don't care whether you buy it or not. I only value comments from much experienced editors on royalty or the Chinese monarchy system, such as @Bearian:, who has shared longstanding standards that help counter baseless AfD votes, and @Pburka:, @Necrothesp: and @Cunard:, who have long experience in AfD discussions on ancient historical figures. I would appreciate any thoughts they might have on this Ming princess. According to past AfD outcomes, a royalty can be considered notable if she engaged in charity work or was involved in a notable scandal—provided it is supported by reliable sources.
You're clearly confusing the requirement for three instances of WP:SIGCOV for living people with the standards for historical figures. For historical subjects, it’s often impossible to get three significant coverage instances from media or newspaper archives. These are different issues entirely. Coverage for historical figures is typically found in books, often in paragraph or even quote style formats. If you're unhappy with book sources, I suggest reviewing dozens of royalty-related AfD outcomes archived on Wikipedia and learning more about sourcing for historical figures. 《明实录类纂》 is a solid source on its own, and you don't need full access to it because I have already provided translated quotations.
I also don’t understand why you’re accusing me of original research for adding Princess Changde#Monogamy scandal. That event can easily be found via Google Books by searching 常德公主 薛桓. As a native, I only want to help those who are unfamiliar with the ancient Chinese political system. If you believe you have more knowledge than a native Chinese, then sure—go ahead. But I’m not buying it. SongRuyi (talk) 04:52, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
You said, I also wouldn't consider her nephew dubbing her 大长公主 to meet the spirit of ANYBIO#1. Well, the powerless constitutional monarchy’s Order of the British Empire (OBE) easily passes WP:ANYBIO—so why wouldn’t the highest title of the absolute monarchy of the Great Ming Empire qualify? (I hope there is no anti-China bias involved—if there is, it would be nearly impossible for me to defend them fairly). The OBE has various ranks and categories and is often awarded to commoners, civilians, or members of the royal family.
In contrast, 大长公主 (Grand Princess Imperial) was awarded only to senior members of the imperial family, accompanied by a gold seal, and historically only about three individuals ever received this title during a reign. It carried real power and influence in medieval China. All people in the Ming dynasty were required to kneel before titleholders of such rank.
One English-language primary note :
Grand Eldest Princess (大长公主): Emperor’s aunt. These titles weren’t merely honorifics—they came with substantial land grants (汤沐邑), administrative staff, and political influence rivaling regional kings.
(Translation): "Among them, the emperor’s paternal aunts are generally titled Grand Princess Imperial (大长公主), the emperor’s sisters are titled Elder Princess (长公主), and the emperor’s daughters are called simply Princess (公主).
Among these ranks, the Grand Princess Imperial, as the daughter of a previous emperor and the aunt of the current emperor, enjoys the highest level of privileges.
The below rank, Elder Princess, also holds a prestigious position. For example, in the popular TV drama Nirvana in Fire (琅琊榜), the character Princess Liyang (莅阳长公主) holds considerable power and enjoys excellent treatment, with her own large princess's residence where she lives with her prince consort."
《明清笔记史料》 is a solid source on its own, and you don't need full access to it because I have already provided translated quotations. Can you point me to the diff where you provide those quotations from 明清笔记史料 please? I can't seem to find them either in the article, or in this discussion. I'll start something on the talk page re original research, as it's probably better to have that discussion there. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 05:12, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, my eyes went beyond! I was referring to 《明实录类纂》, not 《明清笔记史料》—the ref was already included in the article by the original creator, not me. You should ask the creator about that. Let's me correct. I'm currently focused on proving the significance of the 大长公主 title. SongRuyi (talk) 05:20, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
Actually, you added both sources: 《明清笔记史料》 with this edit, and 《明实录类纂》with this one. I'll ask about 《明实录类纂》then - the snippets you have translated seem to be quotations from 宪宗实录, vols 46, 81 and 83 - what additional analysis or commentary does 《明实录类纂》add about Changde over and above the quotations from the primary source? Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 05:56, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
Keep. I can't recall any other time we have deleted an article on the child or sibling of a monarch. These are seen as notable people by virtue of who they are. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:10, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
These are seen as notable people by virtue of who they are According to WP:MONARCH that is not the case. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 09:54, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
Keep I find the case made by SongRuyi compelling, and don't think the article should be deleted per the reasons they set out, but the discussion overall highlights a need for further evaluation and discussion on the talk page about the detail of various sources and their interpretations. Greenleader(2) (talk) 16:21, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
We should not be "interpreting" primary sources. Our policy page on WP:No original research forbids it: Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. That is the job of secondary sources, which we should summarize, and of which we currently have none. Toadspike[Talk] 17:44, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
@Toadspike — You can’t treat every ancient Chinese chronicle as a primary source. The standards for historical figures and biographies of living persons are not the same, and they should not be treated as comparable cases
I already cleaned up some sentences from the NetEase source to address potential issues, and I don’t believe it violates No original research. If you think there are still problems, feel free to improve it further—that’s how collaborative editing works.
Also, I’ve learned from a comment from a previous AfD discussion (I won’t name the participant) that "a nineteenth-century royal figure documented by even one reliable source was considered notable."
You can’t just delete an entire article if it is supported by historical books. If this one gets removed while others with similar sourcing are kept, I will consider opening a case to question the consistency of past AfD outcomes regarding historical figures. I honestly suspect something — I can almost smell the socks. SongRuyi (talk) 06:57, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
@SongRuyi, if you suspect sockpuppetry, that's a serious matter, and you should open an investigation at WP:SPI. I will say that I don't think that's happening here, it's just a selection of editors with different viewpoints weighing in on each side of the argument. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 08:45, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
Keep I added the The Sotheby's source to verify the emperor chenghua existence and other source I added 明实录类纂: 宮廷史料卷 (in Chinese). 武汉出版社. 1992. ISBN978-7-5430-0698-0. verified what I said in para about the princess and the Cambridge citation was to verify Yongle emperor death so yes nothing to do with the princess and i feel that SongRuyi has already made compelling case on the princesses notability.:AJMgirl (talk) 06:38, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
Comment. I'm not very familiar with Chinese royal traditions, but I think she's likely notable per WP:ANYBIO if the title of "Grand Princess" truly is "a well-known and significant ... honor". In practice, close family of powerful rulers are nearly always notable, even if it may be difficult to find significant coverage in digitized records. pburka (talk) 21:21, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
Having done a little more research in this area, I would say that the title does not meet ANYBIO#1, because in fact all paternal aunts of the Ming emperor were given this title. It is therefore not a selective honor, awarded in recognition of something notable that the subject has done - which I think is the spirit of and intent behind ANYBIO#1 - but rather a blanket title, given by accident of birth. My source for this is:
This is the reference from that source (my emphasis):
Every male descendant of Emperor bore at least the title feng-kuo chung-wei, and all were salaried. By the end of the Ming period the number of these imperial clansmen had grown to an estimated 100,000, and they were a serious drain on state revenues.
Women of the imperial clan were similarly ennobled. The paternal aunts of a reigning Emperor were called ta-chang kung-chu 大长公主; the sisters, chang kung-chu 长公主; the daughters, kung-chu 公主. All these Imperial Princesses received annual stipends of 2,000 piculs, and their husbands were given the noble title, Senior Consort (fu-ma tu-wei 駙馬都尉).
The book stated that "A Princess ranked with a marquis, a Senior Princess (長公主 zhang gongzhu) with a king: hhs 10B:457. There is no record, however, of a Senior Princess holding a commandery fief; all were county-grade. On the term yi, see note 19 to Yongping 2 at 1437."
"Women seldom received such honours. Imperial princesses (公主 gongzhu) or senior princesses (長 zhang gongzhu)—daughters of an emperor—were awarded a county fief, referred to as an “estate” (邑 yi) or “bathtown” (湯沐 邑 tangmu yi)"
Yongping 2 at 1437 is refers the Ming dynasty SongRuyi (talk) 16:54, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
Comment: It seems confusing, but this cited book has nothing to do with the Ming dynasty. Min968 (talk) 17:11, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
Yes, I’m aware. A Hundred Years of Han discusses the structure and positions of the imperial court during the Han dynasty, but it also includes comparative examples from the Ming dynasty. The book covers topics from many dynasties, and you can search for relevant sections easily using Ctrl + F with keywords. SongRuyi (talk) 18:03, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
For further 'note—Princess Royal (长公主, zhǎng gōngzhǔ), especially in the Han dynasty, can meet WP:NPOL as the title was equivalent in status to that of a feudal king (诸侯王). See 中国妇女大百科全书 (Encyclopedia of Chinese Women);
In ancient times, the emperor's sister was called a Princess Royal. According to the Han dynasty system, the emperor's daughter was titled Princess (公主), with status equivalent to that of a feudal lord (诸侯); the emperor's sister, titled Princess Royal (长公主), held a status equivalent to that of a feudal king (诸侯王).SongRuyi (talk) 18:25, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
The Grand Princess appears to have been an important figure in ancient China. There were multiple ranks for imperial women: the Grand Princess and Grand Imperial Princess were considered first-rank, while daughters of the Crown Prince held second-rank titles. Below them were county princesses, who ranked lower in the hierarchy.
According to Law, State, and Society in Early Imperial China (2 vols), p. 666, the Senior Princess was ranked equivalent to a Regional Lord. Based on this, in my opinion, first-rank princesses can meet the standards of WP:NPOL and WP:ANYBIO, especially considering the nature of absolute monarchy, where the system and political influence differ greatly from modern democratic structures. In the imperial system, a first-rank princess could hold substantial authority.
"The sisters of the sitting Emperor were referred to by the title Zhang Gongzhu (長公主), translated by Bielenstein (1980, p. 107) as 'Senior Princess' and by Hucker (1985, p. 110, no. 150) as 'Grand Princess.' This title was also sometimes given to the eldest or most favored of the Emperor’s daughters. A Senior Princess was ranked equivalent to a Regional Lord. Senior Princesses and Princesses were enfeoffed with domains that were basically converted counties, and upon their deaths, their sons were made Penetrating Lords."
This kind of enfeoffment and political equivalence indicates a significant level of power and social rank. Therefore, first-rank princesses should not be dismissed as non-notable simply due to their gender or the absence of an official bureaucratic title. SongRuyi (talk) 19:32, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
Sadly the dokumen.pub site is temporarily down, so I can't access the URL. However, the title of the web page being a-hundred-years-of-han-vol-1-being-the-chronicle-of-the-later-han-dynasty-for-the-years-57-to-156-ad-as-recorded-in-chapters-44-to-53-of-the-zizhi-tongjianof-sima-guang-9004720383-9789004720381-q-1884541.html, so seemingly about Eastern Han as recorded in the Zizhi Tongjian, a pre-Ming text, I'm not sure how relevant this is to the discussion of a Ming princess? Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 17:15, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
Comment — The title 大长公主 (Grand Princess Imperial) appears to be a first-rank title in the imperial hierarchy. In the Tang dynasty, it was significant enough that a separate administrative bureau (called 邑司, Yìsī) was established specifically for the Grand Princess. This suggests that the title held considerable importance in ancient China.
However, I am unsure whether this title in the Ming dynasty carried any actual political office or administrative authority. My access is limited to the 1991 edition of the book 中國歷代職官辭典 (Dictionary of Official Titles of Successive Chinese Dynasties). This reference provides detailed discussions of titles across dynasties, but unfortunately, I can only view the section up to the Song dynasty. I cannot access information on the Ming and later periods due to the limited preview.
(Translation: “Grand Princess Imperial — a title for a lady of the imperial court (外命妇). It was the honorary title for the emperor’s paternal aunt during the Han dynasty. Continued in Northern Zhou, classified as first-rank. A government office was established under the Sui. In the Tang, the Yìsī bureau was established. Later, it was also known as 'Princess of the First Rank'. The Liao dynasty followed the Tang system. During the Song, it was for external...”)
If anyone has full access to the 1991 edition of this book (Other editions of that book do not feature this title; only the 1991 edition includes a dedicated entry on it.), I would deeply appreciate if you could share details about how this title was treated during the Ming dynasty and whether it held any official capacity. SongRuyi (talk) 17:56, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
Comment: I believe my patience has reached its limit. User:SunloungerFrog appears to be targeting me after a dispute at an AfD discussion and a prolonged disagreement on my talk page. He is now consistently countering nearly all of my edits, even though he has not contributed to the Chinese project where many of these edits are taking place. I feel that this persistent scrutiny of my work—often over minor issues...seems a personal bias rather than constructive editorial oversight. I’ve tried to remain silent and patient, but this conduct seems to go beyond normal editorial disagreement. If he claims this is part of his editor duties, then I should be allowed to take the same editorial interest in his contributions. Should I consider opening an ANI (Administrators’ Noticeboard/Incidents) discussion? SongRuyi (talk) 06:47, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
@SongRuyi, if you would like to discuss, civilly, some of the edits I've made, please do that on the articles' talk pages, or on my talk page - this AfD is not the place for content disputes about other articles. On the subject of Princess Changde, you could respond to Talk:Princess Changde §Religious endowments - failed verification?. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 07:05, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
I don’t have time to answer every question you ask. I’m highly educated and busy with real-life responsibilities, unlike you. Since you've already removed my edit, there’s no need for further discussion. You’re not my boss on Wikipedia, so I’m under no obligation to respond to your nonsense. I will no longer contribute to Wikipedia, but instead, I will focus on identifying and pointing out mistakes made by editors like SunloungerFrog, as part of my duty to improve the platform. SongRuyi (talk) 07:10, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: A source analysis that includes the sources presented here would be useful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen×☎ 12:16, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
@SunloungerFrog Thanks for the summary. I'm trying to fill in her entry at List of Chinese princesses, which currently cites a Sohu article that has no author and cites only the Ming Shi and Ming Shilu. It seems the best biography we have of her, which I'd like to use as a reference in the list, is ref 12. But: I can't find ref 12 at ctext! First off, it says "明景宗实录", which is obviously a typo – there was no 景宗, only 英宗 (Emperor Yingzong of Ming). Second, searching ctext and Chinese Wikisource for snippets of the quote provided, such as "成化六年七月戊子" and "常德大长公主", I get zero results. Were you able to confirm that this quote...exists? Toadspike[Talk] 16:19, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
I imagine the citation was just copied from the corresponding zhwiki article, but AJMgirl will know best. I'm afraid I was a bit slack and really didn't delve into the Ming Shilu sources the same as I did with the Ming Shi. Jingtai Emperor has the same first character, but that wouldn't really make sense as it's talking about things that happened during Chenghua Emperor, i.e. her death. So I can't confirm that it actually exists. It's a nice synopsis of her life, though. I would have thought it's somewhere in 憲宗實錄 perhaps, if it does exist? Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 16:43, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
Thanks both. The two versions differ greatly in wording, which explains why I couldn't verify the quote, though the meaning is more or less the same. It seems both have errors: Allhistory got the chapter title wrong, while Ctext calls her 孝恭章皇帝 (Xiaogongzhang Emperor) instead of 孝恭章皇后 (Xiaogongzhang Empress). Not sure what to make of these discrepancies. Toadspike[Talk] 10:56, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Additional comments about SunloungerFrog's thorough source analysis, posted on the AfD's Talk page, would be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen×☎ 20:32, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
Weak keep: I have read the very long and complex discussion above. I can agree that some facts such as the three titles she received were likely important in the dynastic order. Another noteworthy fact is that she was given a state funeral, and the royal court stopped for one day to mark the occasion. Of course, not every princess is automatically notable, regardless of whether her father was a king. However, Changde seems different, and sources about her are limited. The best one is 明实录类纂: 宮廷史料卷 mentioned above. Therefore, a weak keep is better for now. KhantWiki (talk) 22:34, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
@KhantWiki, may I ask were you able to actually access the content of 明实录类纂: 宮廷史料卷, and if so what was the non-primary source coverage/analysis of Princess Changde? By that I mean critical analysis of her life, not just quotations from the Ming Shilu. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 16:15, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
Keep As an expert on Burmese royalty, I can agree that senior Chinese princesses are considered high-status in the court, even if they do not hold a political position. I see that this princess held three high Chinese royal titles, which is unusual and definitely significant. Unfortunately, Ming princesses were not granted territory as an appanage by the emperor. In contrast, under the Burmese royal system, queens, minor queens, and even princes and princesses (including minor ones) received appanages of towns or villages as Myosa (town-eater), making them the single rulers of the territories they received. Therefore, Burmese royals held both political and judicial authority in their domains. See Taingda Princess for example...Lol.
Continuing the AfD discussion, I am confused by the above comment, and we cannot determine the princess's notability by assuming Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill. Princess Chang held the highest royal titles across successive Chinese emperors. Although, unlike in Burma, she did not receive a town, no matter however she remained above others in the court. That is why I support Keep. I reviewed this AfD after checking User:KhantWiki's edit history. I also disagree with your analysis of Chinese sources, as it appears you are not familiar with the Chinese system and "baseless and one-sided". Yoooo...Wikipedia not welcomes WP:IDONTLIKE. 103.200.134.89 (talk) 15:20, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
I also disagree with your analysis of Chinese sources 103.200.134.88, maybe you would care to proffer your own analysis then? Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 18:27, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.