Talk:Later Jin (Five Dynasties)

China: History High‑importance

	China portal 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Chinese history (assessed as High-importance).

Former countries

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

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Later Zhou Dynasty which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 19:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved Xoloz (talk) 15:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Later Jin (Five Dynasties) → ~~Later Jin Dynasty~~ Later Jin – There is no need for the disambiguator — the 17th century state is really never discussed separately from its eventual name (Qin Dynasty), and that has been recognized such in that it does not have a separate article of its own, nor separate categories. Nlu (talk) 03:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Think you meant Qing Dynasty not Qin Dynasty. Besides that, the Manchu state of the Later Jin could be confused with this article and so disambiguation is required between the two. It is not enough to say that it is usual called the [Qing Dynasty]], because it is still often called the Later Jin—especially when talking about the period of time prior to the capture of Beijing when the Later Jin is the only practical name. The Five Dynasties name hasn't established itself as the primary topic for the name Later Jin Dynasty thus neither article should use that name and both articles should contain a disambiguation term as they do today. Rincewind42 (talk) 06:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Rincewind. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 06:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think the page was just moved from "Later Jin Dynasty" to "Later Jin" (see Talk:Later Zhou Dynasty#Requested move), and then disambiguated as "Later Jin (Five Dynasties)" to differentiate it from the "Later Jin" that preceded the Qing. Moving if back to "Later Jin Dynasty" would put it back where it was, and would break the (admittedly not overwhelming) consensus to remove "dynasty" from a few titles like Southern Ming, Later Zhou, etc. Maybe we could move it back to "Later Jin" tout court for the reasons Nlu gives? Madalibi (talk) 06:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I made a mental mistake. I meant to propose that it be moved (again) to Later Jin, not Later Jin Dynasty. --Nlu (talk) 15:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've adjusted your proposal accordingly [1]. --Cold Season (talk) 18:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mildly oppose I'm not the one who moved the page to "Later Jin (Five Dynasties)", and I was also initially taken aback by the move. However, after some thinking, I think it's inevitable that someone will create a page Later Jin (Manchu) in the future. After all, there are already 6 language versions of the Manchu state. Once that page is created, the Five Dynasty state can no longer be the primary topic, it's even shorter in duration! So I think it's probably best to leave it the way it is, rather than move it now, and having to move it back in the future. Timmyshin (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2014 (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.