Talk:Later Han Dynasty (Five Dynasties)

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: No move. Rough consensus that disambiguation is needed. Cúchullain ^t/c 19:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

---

---

Later Han dynasty (Five Dynasties) → Later Han Dynasty – There is absolutely no confusion, and no need for a disambiguation page. Eastern Han immediately follows Western Han is never called Later Han at any period. Later Han is in the Five Dynasties by default. Timmyshin (talk) 05:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I've seen the Eastern Han referred to as the Later Han, while the "Western Han" is called "Former Han" -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 07:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I stand corrected. Still, #1 "Eastern Han" doesn't even have a page of its own and #2 calling it "Later Han" is archaic if I'm not wrong. I believe a "
    For ..., see Eastern Han.
    " on the top of the "Later Han" page will suffice instead of a disambiguation page. Timmyshin (talk) 17:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
    • It doesn't matter that it doesn't have a separate article. We can redirect "Later Han" to "Eastern Han" and add a hatnote there. There's no reason to rename the Five Dynasties page when the Eastern Han is more likely. -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 03:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Both dynasties are commonly and officially "Later Han." But since the earlier one is already disambiguated as the Eastern Han Dynasty, we are free to use the Later Han Dynasty lemma here. Natural disambiguation beats parenthetical disambiguation, per WP:PRECISION. Kauffner (talk) 12:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually officially they are all "Han", including Southern Han and Northern Han. The adjectives are added to distinguish between them from a historical standpoint. Timmyshin (talk) 17:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support: any confusion with Eastern Han can be handled with a hatnote. Shrigley (talk) 23:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: Later Han is a common term to refer to the Eastern Han in western literature, and people are more likely to be looking for the more prominent Han dynasty than a short-lived interregnum state. I also oppose the subtle change from "dynasty" to "Dynasty" with a capital D. _dk (talk) 03:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support: It does seem pretty clear. Brigade Piron (talk) 07:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: This is certainly not the primary topic for "Later Han"; if there is one, it's the Eastern Han. It's not sufficient that that article already has an unambiguous title; the issue is that someone saying "Later Han dynasty" is much more likely to be talking about the Eastern Han. Kanguole 17:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • This is not really the way most readers get to articles. Those that do get to the wrong article in this way can use the hatnote. So the Eastern Han article would still be one click away. So it would be no harder to get to than it is currently through the DAB. This is all covered in WP:TWODABS. Kauffner (talk) 02:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
    • All that means is that "Later Han" should redirect to "Eastern Han", and that a hatnote should appear on that article. It does not mean that the Five Dynasties version gets the name. -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 03:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Later Han is often used for the more-prominent Eastern Han, which is the primary topic for that name. --Cold Season (talk) 21:53, 1 December 2012 (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.

Requested move (October 2013)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 19:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• Later Han Dynasty (Five Dynasties) → Later Han Dynasty
• Later Han Dynasty → Later Han Dynasty (disambiguation)

– There is no need for this bulky of an article title. Yes, Eastern Han Dynasty is also commonly known as Later Han Dynasty, but we actually do not have a separate article for Eastern Han independent of the Han Dynasty article, nor is there likely to be one any time soon given the intertwined nature of the discussion in that article. As such, the disambiguation with Eastern Han — which is the only disambiguation necessary — can be easily handled with a disambiguation link on the top of the article. The current disambiguation only makes not only this article bulky, but makes all Category:Later Han Dynasty (Five Dynasties)-related categories unnecessarily bulky. --Relisted. Steel1943 (talk) 08:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC) --Nlu (talk) 17:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

(Added implied Later Han Dynasty move to Later Han Dynasty (disambiguation) to this discussion.) Steel1943 (talk) 07:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. When I wikilink Later Han Dynasty I'd much rather it point to the disambiguation page than the Five Dynasties one, because most editors will want the link to go to [Eastern] Han Dynasty instead of this. Heck, I'd even prefer Later Han Dynasty redirect to Han Dynasty, with a hatnote leading to this page. _dk (talk) 18:36, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, since that isn't the prominent usage of "Later Han Dynasty" and it's unlikely that there's more people that wouldn't search for Eastern Han with that. A disambiguation page is best. --Cold Season (talk) 22:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
• Strongly support. Consider: the corresponding Chinese, Cantonese and Classical Chinese pages of this article are all titled "後漢" or "Later Han" without any parentheses. Looking at some other language versions, the French, Croatian, Norwegian, Finnish, Vietnamese, Ukrainian, Thai versions all managed to call this period "Later Han Dynasty" without parentheses, why can't English Wiki do the same? (It's quite conceivable that some of the other language versions that do use parentheses in their titles followed English Wikipedia.) Another thing to consider is that prefixes like "Later", "Eastern", "Western", "Northern" and "Southern" are already specific disambiguation phrases added by later historians to separate the Han's apart. Why is a second level of disambiguation necessary? The Book of the Later Han, likely the very source of referring Eastern Han as "Later Han", was written way before the Five Dynasties. Its conventions should not be follow today. The "Eastern Han" in New History of the Five Dynasties means Northern Han, but we don't have a disambiguation page for "Eastern Han", right? And rightfully so, a hatnote did the entire job. The same logic applies to "Later Han". Timmyshin (talk) 22:00, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support. I say make the title the common name of the subject whenever possible. That's what it's for. The Holy Four (talk) 09:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, as in the previous request. In English, "Later Han" most commonly refers to the Eastern Han, to the extent that it is the primary topic for the name. Most people searching for that term will be interested in the earlier period, and should not be routed through this short-lived and much less significant dynasty. Kanguole 10:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

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 19:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)