Talk:Emperor Xuanzong of Tang (9th century)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Emperor Xuānzong of Tang. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100522200011/http://db1x.sinica.edu.tw/sinocal/ to http://db1x.sinica.edu.tw/sinocal/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:20, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 9 November 2017

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move Emperor Xuānzong of Tang, but not the other(non-admin closure) -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 17:53, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

---

• Emperor Xuānzong of Tang → Li Chen (emperor) Emperor Xuanzong of Tang (9th century)
• Emperor Xuanzong of Tang → Li Longji

– This issue was first raised by User:Hijiri88 at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China/Archive 28#Disambiguation by adding one of the tone marks to a name? Although no conclusion was reached there, I think participants more or less agreed that the current setup is unsuitable, at least for the emperor named Li Chen. Using personal names seems to me the most sensible approach (since years aren't very workable here) and I'd suggest making Xuanzong of Tang a dab page; right now everything just links to Li Longji with the a priori hope that things are always done correctly, but that's not the usual practice for people with the same profession. Pinging User:Hijiri88, User:Colipon, User:Rincewind42, User:Zanhe, User:Hzh, User:Greg Pandatshang. Other suggestions are welcome. Timmyshin (talk) 00:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

• • I am broadly against pinyin article names, but in this case, it may have to suffice as a compromise of WP:COMMONNAME and the fact that Li Longji is generally considered far better known. Li Chen would essentially make the subject unidentifiable (judging on my own admittedly average knowledge of imperial Chinese history). Colipon+(Talk) 00:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@Colipon: When you say you think "pinyin article names" may have to suffice as a compromise, are you talking about (a) keeping the status quo (with a pinyin tone mark on one syllable of one of the names), (b) adding a tone mark to the other syllable of the same (later, less famous) article but keeping the other as is, or (c) adding tone marks to the titles of both articles to fully disambiguate both? Given that the disambig headnotes will probably have to stay regardless, and that the early emperor is definitely the PRIMARYTOPIC, I think option (c) would be overkill, but (b) might actually be better than my solution... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:54, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I am ok with maintaining the status quo. Colipon+(Talk) 04:44, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• In addition to the incorrect use of pinyin tone marks, a main issue now is you probably will never see "Xuānzong" in anything outside Wikipedia. Suppose an editor not so familiar with Tang history is trying to wikilink a "Xuanzong", and taking a look at their source (no tone mark!) they think that the guy described must be Li Longji. But this assumption is not always correct, even if I recognize that Li Longji is more famous than Li Chen owing to his much longer reign and Concubine Yang. Timmyshin (talk) 05:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• It is a tricky issue; I personally was not aware of the latter Xuanzong prior to looking up his Wikipedia article, but was vaguely familiar with Xuanzong (Li Longji). It is true that Li Longji's notability is perhaps not quite at the threshold of PRIMARYTOPIC but also clearly more notable than Li Chen. As a compromise I probably would be ok settling on parentheses of birth-death years around Li Chen, but leaving Li Longji as the primary topic with no dab in the title. Colipon+(Talk) 14:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I would like to suggest keeping Emperor Xuanzong of Tang where it is and placing a disambiguation note there to send people to this article. As for this article, I think it would best to keep the Emperor X of Y format, but add a parenthetical disambiguator. How about Emperor Xuanzong of Tang (Li Chen) or Emperor Xuanzong of Tang (9th century)? On the other hand, we could make Emperor Xuanzong of Tang a redirect page and use comparable parenthetical disambiguators on both pages, but that seems unnecessary if the 8th century ruler is really much better known. – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 01:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• I think Emperor Xuanzong of Tang (9th century) works. Not sure about primary-topicing Li Longji though. Timmyshin (talk) 05:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Timmyshin's modified proposal for Li Yi, which solves the whole affair quite handily. Additionally, while I'm not an expert on the MOS issues here, I think Greg Pandatshang's proposal of turning the basic title into a redirect and disambiguating both titles would be counter-policy, as there is a clear PRIMARYTOPIC.

Disagree with proposal to move the eighth-century emperor to "Li Longji", for reasons outlined below.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:23, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Comment I'm broadly in favour of a change from the status quo of these two titles, but I don't agree with Timmyshin's proposal on its face. I don't remember (and haven't checked) what the problem with parenthetical dates (or maybe parenthetical "Xth Tang emperor"?) would have been, and using given names would make them stand out even more than the one out-of-place diacritic we have now, and (as Colipon says) would make them unrecognizeable (not only unrecognizeable to people who are familiar with these particular emperors just not by their given names, but unrecognizeable as articles on emperors of China). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:54, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Addendum (or, rather, random thought that came to me while copy-pasting my above comment due to the edit-conflict) For what it's worth, this seems to touch on the general favorability of "natural disambiguation" over "parenthetical disambiguation", but I don't think the authors of that guideline inclusion of disambiguating diacritics (which probably only disambiguate for a minority of our readers) in one title but not both. That would mean that we probably can't invoke "natural vs. parenthetical" without also inviting comment on WT:MOS. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:54, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• The problem with dates is do you include their birth dates or the start of their reign dates? If the title is "Emperor..." Timmyshin (talk) 05:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The less-famous one was born and died in the 9th century, while the former (who probably doesn't need to be disambiguated anyway) was born in the seventh century but was primarily active in the eighth century -- our biography of him is over 8,000 words long, of which less than 400 are related to the period before 700. So adding "(9th century)" to the Li Yi article's title, as you suggested further up, works fine for me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:23, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose moving Emperor Xuanzong of Tang - clear primary topic. Weak Support moving Emperor Xuānzong of Tang → Emperor Xuanzong of Tang (9th century), to avoid using tone mark for disambiguation (although at the expense of conciseness). Using personal names is not advisable. Emperors' names are traditionally taboo and rarely mentioned in historical works. Most are not well known to the general public (although Li Longji is a notable exception). -Zanhe (talk) 02:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support for Emperor Xuānzong of Tang to "Emperor Xuanzong of Tang (9th century)" (anything is better than using tone marking as it is meaningless to English reader), but Oppose to renaming Emperor Xuanzong of Tang to Li Longji as Xuanzong is the common name in English according to Ngram (most appear to refer to this Xuanzong, even if we assume an even split, still far more than Li Longji). Hzh (talk) 11:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support the move of Emperor Xuānzong of Tang per WP:DIFFCAPS. Pinyin tonal marks aren't a good way of disambiguating article titles. No opinion on the other rename. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• Why was this relisted? It looks like it had unanimous support from four users at the time User:Steel1943 relisted. The only thing I can find that might have been clouding the issue was User:Colipon's unstricken-but-probably-dated comments from the first few hours of the discussion (before Timmyshin modified the proposal). Colipon, could you clarify whether you oppose moving the article on the later, less famous, emperor to remove the diacritic and add a parenthetical century marker? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • At this stage, after reading the discussion, I am largely indifferent to the 9th Century emperor retaining the pinyin diacritic, or adding the dab marker "9th century". I will submit to consensus. Colipon+(Talk) 14:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

---

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.