- 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. No further edits should be made to this section.
Not moved. Consensus is clearly against the proposed moves. bd2412 T 01:28, 11 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
– 1. Sima clan Jin dynasty was established in 266, by succeeding Cao clan Wei in Three Kingdoms period of China, so we should change the article's title from "Jin dynasty (265–420)" to "Jin dynasty (266–420)". 2. Due to the two different Jin dynasties: Sima clan Jin dynasty (266–420) and Jurchen Wanyan clan Jin dynasty (1115–1234), so we should change the title of the two dynasties' emperors by adding disambiguous words like "Western", "Eastern" and "Jurchen". 3. Because the minor difference of the original titles, such as "Emperor Hui of Jin" and "Emperor Huai of Jin" (the latter one only has a letter "a" more than the former one); "Emperor Ai of Jin" and "Emperor An of Jin" (the minor difference by only one letter "i" and "n"); "Emperor Taizong of Jin" and "Emperor Aizong of Jin" (the former one only has a letter "t" more than the latter one), we should change the original title by adding the emperors' native names. 4. Wanyan Chenglin was a military general of Jurchen Wanyan clan Jin dynasty. He reigned as a emperor of Jurchen Jin during too short period (less than one day) in 1234, succeeding Wanyan Shouxu, Emperor Aizong of Jurchen Jin, and ended by Mongol invasion which completely ended Jurchen Jin in 1234. Thus, we can just call his native name "Wanyan Chenglin". 5. The article "Jin (Chinese state)"
mainly talks about Jin, a vassal state of Zhou dynasty. In order to make this article's title more accurate and precise, and distinguish from other Chinese states and dynasties named "Jin", I think it is a good idea to change the article's title from "Jin (Chinese state)" to "Jin (vassal state of Zhou dynasty)". 114.246.239.191 (talk) 16:56, 30 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
- I don't think so. See WP:PRECISION. The page-moved proposal here can clearly show the emperors' dynasties and the state/dynasty's period, and avoid ambiguous well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.246.239.191 (talk) 02:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
- I don't agree with you. What you said is the proper reasons to support the page-moved proposal because English can only show the pinyin of the two dynasties, but the two dynasties' Chinese character names use the same pinyin, but use different Chinese character. Thus, it is necessary to use the word like "Western", "Eastern" and "Jurchen" to distinguish from each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.192.182.39 (talk) 03:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
- I kind of agree with you. There is a limit to what English can show in terms of Chinese languages so it is necessary to use words like "Western" or "Eastern to refer to the two dynasties but instead of using "Juchen" Jin I think it's better to change the Sima's Jin to "Jìn" 118.71.197.252 (talk) 14:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
- Oppose While there is historical work that differentiates between periods such as the Northern and Southern Song dynasties, or the Eastern, Western and Later Jin dynasties, these differentiations were not generally used for imperial titles, which makes WP:COMMONNAME take precedence over WP:PRECISION. In addition, as has been pointed out, Chinese: 晋武帝 transliterates directly to Jin Wu Emperor. It's not Chinese: 西晋武帝 we're seeing here, which means it's hardly more precise to include the western / eastern statement in the title. In fact, it verges on WP:SYNTH. Simonm223 (talk) 11:36, 10 October 2018 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
