This article 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 article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.East AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject East AsiaTemplate:WikiProject East AsiaEast Asia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
This should be merged into the Warring States Period article. There is no real information here and the seven states aren't significant enough as a group outside of the context of the WSP. Furthermore, xióng definitely does not mean "great power" except figuratively. Literally it means "heroic men" or "champions". --Euniana/Talk/Blog 04:14, 20 May 2005 (UTC)Reply
I disagree. The article can stand on its own. —Lowellian (talk) 08:08, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
By your argument, Axis Powers should be merged into World War II. The Seven States were a legitimate historical entity about which more could be written, such as shared cultural forms. And in this context, yes, xióng does mean "power"; like many Chinese characters, meaning changes according to context. —Lowellian (talk) 08:14, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
I happened upon this page at random and have to agree with Euniana: there's no real information here and the article should be merged into Warring States Period. The argument that more could be written is not enough to justify the existence of a stub article that is so bereft of actual information. This is not a good Wikipedia article. The way to proceed is to make the article a redirect, and if someone comes along and wants to write a real Wikipedia article on the subject, they're free to start the article whenever they'd like. Tempshill 00:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
This article already has more information than a lot of stubs on Wikipedia. —Lowellian (reply) 21:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
