Talk:Prince Rui (created 1636)

China Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Royalty and Nobility

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Royalty and Nobility, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of royalty and nobility 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.Royalty and NobilityWikipedia:WikiProject Royalty and NobilityTemplate:WikiProject Royalty and NobilityRoyalty and Nobility articles

Requested move 24 July 2024

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: Moved to Prince Rui (created 1636) and Prince Rui (created 1819). Taking in to consideration both the comments here and at Talk:Prince Yi (儀), a range of suggestions are made about how to disambiguate here, and whilst there was agreement about the need to improve the disambiguation, and consensus that dates should be used instead of Chinese characters, there was no agreement about what format to use. It therefore falls to the closer to split the difference. My understanding is we don't tend to use date ranges as disambiguation, so this rules out "(YEAR - YEAR)" disambiguation. Simply putting the year is most concise, but I agree with the objections that this is likely to be mistaken for a DOB. "(title created YEAR)" and "(creation YEAR)" both avoid this, but "(created YEAR)" is more concise than these, and therefore the one I've plumped for.

This is by nature something of a WP:SUPERVOTE, so if anyone objects, please come and find me on my talk page and we can discuss.(non-admin closure) FOARP (talk) 08:44, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Rui (睿) → ?
Prince Rui (瑞) → ?

– Having a non-English disambiguation isn't helpful on en.Wikipedia where most of the readers except to read text in English. I have no idea what the correct disambiguation is here, but I'm hopeful someone here would. Gonnym (talk) 19:28, 24 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Waqar💬 16:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The top-listed princely peerage was first awarded in 1612 while the lower was first awarded in 1805, perhaps Prince Rui (1612) and Prince Rui (1805) (or something similar), would be appropriate? Alternatively, I could see a merge being a viable option with the two aforementioned titles being used as headers. estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merging should be the last option. vi.wiki disambiguates by first title-holders e.g. vi:Lý Thân vương (Dận Nhưng) = Prince Li (Yunreng). ko.wiki does the same for categories e.g. ko:분류:예친왕_(도르곤) = Prince Rui (Dorgon) (but not for articles ko:예친왕 (睿) = Prince Rui (睿)).

Notice that there are several dozen articles with Chinese disambiguators at Category:Chinese-language surnames. Yinweiaiqing (talk) 03:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit shocking to be honest. We'll just have to handle this one group at a time. Gonnym (talk) 06:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The surnames have been discussed before. In many cases I don't think there's a sensible way to disambiguate those other than with Chinese characters. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of the surnames, I agree. But Category:Qing dynasty princely peerages has several other Chinese peerages where the character should be replaced by dates. – Fayenatic London 10:18, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguating by year sounds reasonable enough to me, but maybe we should use the full range of years for clarity: Prince Rui (1636–1939) and Prince Rui (1819–1945) (please correct me if I have any of those years wrong). We should not merge them; they are completely different topics that just happen to be transliterated the same way in English. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it'd also help to have DABs that indicate that the article topics are about noble titles and not specific individuals. Maybe something like Prince Rui (title created 1636) and Prince Rui (title created 1819) would work? ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 18:47, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good point. Perhaps we do not need "titles" though, Prince Rui (created 1636) may suffice. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: please consider this discussion together with the one at Talk:Prince Yi (儀) as they're closely related. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:28, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Prince Rui (1636 creation) and Prince Rui (1819 creation) would be consistent with British examples e.g. within Earls in the Peerage of England. But IMHO the date ranges proposed by Mx. Granger would be most useful. – Fayenatic London 10:18, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Rui (1636 creation) is just as good as Prince Rui (created 1636). They sound somewhat better than Prince Rui (1636–1939) which rather is the format we would apply to a biography. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's the translit of the dab charterers?—blindlynx 17:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Blindlynx: The standard (hanyu pinyin) transliteration is Ruì for both. (They're pronounced the same way in standard Mandarin, though not in all varieties of Chinese.) —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.