Jump to content

Talk:Emperor Zhenzong

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Emperor Duzong of Song which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 April 2019

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:43, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

– Per WP:PRECISE. When Wikipedia in most kinds of language versions (including English Wikipedia) names the articles about the Chinese monarchs from Zhou dynasty and before Yuan dynasty, it mostly combines their posthumous names or temple names with the dynasties or states during their reign (which is also Chinese practice, tradition and custom), because it is convenient to distinguish which monarch in which dynasty or state (there are many dynasties and states existed in the long Chinese history). Song dynasty is well-known, but without the dynasty (Song dynasty here) during their reign in their temple names, the 7 emperors listed in this requested move aren't well-known, so difficult to recognize. In conclusion, it is necessary to add the dynasty (Song dynasty here) to the 7 emperors' temple names listed in this requested move. 167.179.104.51 13:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)--Relisted. – Ammarpad (talk) 16:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 18 May 2019

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus to not move. Consensus is against the move as proposed, no prejudice against speedy renomination along the lines of Paine Ellsworth's proposal as it is to a different target with a different rationale. (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 14:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


– Per WP:PRECISE. As Chinese practice, custom and convention, the Chinese monarchs from Zhou dynasty to Yuan dynasty are mostly named with both their posthumous names or temple names and the dynasties or states during their reign, in order to conveniently identify which monarch of which dynasty or state. The 7 emperors of Song dynasty listed by this requested move also meet the Chinese practice, custom and tradition mentioned above. Thus, "of Song" is a necessary part of the names of the 7 emperors listed by this requested move and should be remained. ~~68.183.187.226 15:59, 18 May 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412 T 16:55, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose WP:PRECISE says titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that. I don't see any evidence that the current titles are ambiguous. Also, looking above, it seems like there is consensus about this from a couple previous RMs (albeit weakly attended ones). A 2015 RM succeeded in moving Emperor Zhenzong of Song to Emperor Zhenzong (and similarly for the other emperors listed here). An RM to reverse that decision earlier this month failed. This request advances the exact same arguments as in that earlier failed RM. Colin M (talk) 00:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per my statement in the RM the previous month, and per Colin M. bd2412 T 16:56, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This RM should be administratively and procedurally closed since it was opened about a week after the previous RM for the same page renames closed as not moved. There was nothing new, no new argument to remotely justify reopening the previous RM. I considered closing it myself; however, I defer to both Martin, the previous closer, and to bd2412, who relisted this RM today. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  19:47, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • My purpose in relisting the discussion was to generate a more definitive apparent consensus. The previous discussion was closed based on my single vote of opposition, which is a sparse case for consensus. bd2412 T 20:17, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thought so; however, judging by the way it's going, it just shows that the rules of process are there for a reason. We don't open new RMs for at least 2 or 3 months, and that's following a "no consensus" decision, and it must involve at least one new argument. As you know, the amount of time is expected to be much longer after a "not moved" decision. So why exactly are we not sticking to the process rules? If we make the analogy that Martin's close wounded the nom, isn't not sticking to process rules just digging the wound deeper? not allowing it to heal? Still say this should be speedily closed. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  17:44, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PS. If anything, the "emperor" should be omitted from all of these titles per MOS:HONORIFIC. In every case, the "emperor-less" titles redirect to the nominated titles. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  18:05, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Emperor_Zhenzong&oldid=1201790481"