Talk:Qi (Henan)

Qi

I propose changing the name of this article to Qi (state). Hanfresco (talk) 00:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The reason why "Qi (state)" was not chosen as the name for this article in the first place is because there already was another article with the name "Qi (state)" (齊 Qí). Ebizur (talk) 18:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

This article is about the ancient State of Qi located in modern day Henan Province. For the ancient state located in Shandong Province, see Qi (Shandong).

Why does "Qi (state)" redirect there? Shouldn't it redirect to the disambiguation page, since there are two Qi states with articles? 65.93.15.125 (talk) 05:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

It is because the article Qi (state) originally referred to the state in Shandong and there are a lot of incoming links. I just changed Qi (state) to Qi (Shandong) at Qi (disambiguation). And I think that it's fine to maintain "Qi (state)" as a redirect page to "Qi (Shandong)" for convenience. --Pengyanan (talk) 07:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, because it's (by far) the WP:PRIMARY TOPIC. — LlywelynII 02:03, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 20:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

---

Qi (State of Qi) → Qi (Henan) – moving back to original name. This article was named Qi (Henan) to distinguish it from Qi (Shandong), as the two states have the same name in English, but are distinguished by location. Someone recently moved Qi (Henan) to Qi (State of Qi), and now there's no way to tell from the name which State of Qi this article is about. Zanhe (talk) 05:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support Can't have the common name repeated in the disambiguator. Kauffner (talk) 08:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support In ictu oculi (talk) 09:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support The disambiguator doesn't even disambiguate. In any case, Qi (Shandong) is the more well-known state of Qi, which is why Qi (state) redirects there. Kanguole 08:48, 18 November 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Chen (state) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 13 August 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: Not moved. Consensus against proposed name after nearly 2 months of discussion. Editors can open a new RM to discuss alternate names. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 16:48, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

---

Qi (Henan) → Qǐ (state) – Currently this is the only article in Category:Ancient Chinese states that isn't disambiguated by the word "state". Several other reasons for the move request: Qi County, Hebi and Qi County, Kaifeng are both in Henan; the 12th-century puppet state Qi was also based in Henan; and several other polities named Qi also covered parts or the whole of Henan (including the Shandong-based Qi (state)). Not saying that the word "state" is in any way precise (it's obviously not), but it's good to be consistent with other articles in the same category. Yinweiaiqing (talk) 19:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Waqar💬 08:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Fathoms Below (talk) 19:43, 29 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 04:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'm not crazy about Jiǎng (state) and Jiāng (state) either. These diacritics are not sufficient disambiguation to the average reader. 162 etc. (talk) 01:24, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Support a rename as Qi (Henan) should be a disambiguation page for this and the two counties. However, Qi (state) and Qǐ (state) is not sufficient enough. Both of these should be renamed to something more descriptive. Gonnym (talk) 09:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Still looking for a dismambiguation – robertsky (talk) 04:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Two possible schemes...

By date of founding:

• Qi (Henan) → Qi (state, circa 16th century BCE)
• Qi (state) → Qi (state, circa 1046 BCE)

By Chinese characters (similar to what we see for Chinese surnames), i.e. Yu (surname 于) and Yú (surname 余):

• Qi (Henan) → Qi (state 杞)
• Qi (state) → Qi (state 齊)

– robertsky (talk) 05:30, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Either of those would be fine with me. The one based on dates is probably easier for readers who don't speak any Chinese. I agree the current situation is no good, as Qi (state) is an incomplete disambiguation. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 21:39, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

@162 etc. thoughts on these? Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 20:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

No objection to these proposed alternatives. 162 etc. (talk) 22:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Strong oppose disambiguating Qi (state), especially using date of formation. It is far and away the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. One of the most powerful and populous states of the Eastern Zhou period, with a whole set of articles on its rulers and other notable people, had its own orthography, home to the Jixia Academy which produced classic works of literature, the usurpation of the original ruling clan by a ministerial house was one of the watershed events dividing the Spring and Autumn period from the Warring States period, and we even have a (not great) article about that.

Qǐ (杞) was a minor polity remembered for almost nothing except that Confucius heard a rumour about it and was disappointed by visiting in person?

When people in the field of early China talk about the state of Qi, they always mean Qi (state), and will disambiguate with a diacritic and/or native name when they refer to Qǐ (杞).

Does it matter that Qǐ (杞) is disambiguated with "Henan"? Qi (state) has over six times as many incoming links: Qí Qǐ

I think the present name is ok, but Qi (state 杞) or Qǐ (state) would be an improvement. Disambiguating with an approximate century of establishment would be a disimprovement. Folly Mox (talk) 00:26, 15 September 2024 (UTC) edited after rereading the OP, which I saw a month ago but forgot about except for the bit about the title not being disambiguated with the term "(state)". 00:47, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh, right, and Qi had its own Great Wall too. A deepcat search in Category:Qi (state) returns 72 articles. Qǐ (杞) of course does not have its own category. Even Sima Qian described its affairs of state as not worth recording! (cited in the article) Folly Mox (talk) 00:42, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Actually, even the ~110 incoming wikilinks to Qi (Henan) are mostly just from pages transcluding Template:Zhou dynasty topics (n = 83). A further few are from list articles like List of political entities in the 16th century BC, and from hatnotes on articles such as Jian of Qi (a Qí 齊 person). As far as I can tell, there are only a handful of articles that link Qi (Henan) because of actual encyclopaedic context. Hopefully this concludes my lengthiest ever WP:PRIMARYTOPIC argument. Folly Mox (talk) 01:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

If people don't like Qi (state 杞) or Qǐ (state), how would they feel about Qi (ancient minor state) or Qi (ancient Kaifeng), with or without the caron diacritic or native name as additional disambiguator? Folly Mox (talk) 01:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose move of Qi (state). Folly Mox makes a convincing case that this polity is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC per long-term significance; looking at that argument in conjunction with the pageview stats (where Qi (state) outperforms Qi (Henan) by more than 10:1) convinces me that a WP:PDAB is justifiable for this case. Support moving Qi (Henan) to Qǐ (state). This title is unambiguous, WP:CONCISE, and WP:CONSISTENT; while the diacritic is certainly a very minor detail, I think readers interested in ancient Chinese topics will generally be aware that such diacritics are common in Romanizations of Chinese, so significant confusion is unlikely. Secondary preference for Qi (ancient minor state), which is unquestionably unambiguous, but at the cost of being somewhat clunkier. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

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.

Well, that didn't work. Let's retry

Qǐ (state) failed to gain consensus, and I got lost in the weeds of a subproposal and added a bunch of bytes unrelated to the RM issue.

But nobody really likes Qi (Henan), which does have the problems Yinweiaiqing notes in their OP.

So how about we try to establish consensus for one of these options:

1. Qi (Henan) → Qǐ (state 杞)— like ambiguously romanised surnames such as Yu (surname 于) with Yú (surname 余), as mentioned by robertsky.
2. Qi (Henan) → Qǐ (ancient minor state)— specific disambiguator for edge case circumstances, à la Liu Qi (Liu Biao's son), Ji (Zhou dynasty ancestral surname) etc.
3. Qi (Henan) → Qi (Xia remnants)— proposed below by Kanguole.
4. Qi (Henan) → Qi (ancient Kaifeng)— I proposed this in the above conversation to no interest, including for completeness.

Both of these first two proposed renames do add the caron diacritic for specificity (which is not easily producible on many input devices), but of course redirects can be created without it, since the disambiguators are unique. No opposition to doing the converse by renaming without diacritic and creating redirects including it.

Pinging participants not already mentioned by name above: @ModernDayTrilobite, 162 etc., Queen of Hearts, Mx. Granger, and Gonnym: oh right this template produces a colon at the end. Folly Mox (talk) 16:12, 12 October 2024 (UTC) edited 17:37, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Notified: WikiProject China. Folly Mox (talk) 16:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Qi (state) is insufficient disambiguation, and should point to the dabpage at Qi (disambiguation). The current article at that title needs to be moved. See WP:PDAB. 162 etc. (talk) 16:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

  No. See my argumentation above, with further points by ModernDayTrilobite. Qi (state) is correct per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Let us not derail this move discussion with that idea again. Folly Mox (talk) 16:24, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

  Absolutely not derailing. WP:PDAB, and by extension WP:D, is a guideline that needs to be followed. Qi (state) is incomplete disambiguation, and thus needs to point to the disambiguation page. Any renaming proposal discussed here needs to include both Qi (state) and Qi (Henan). 162 etc. (talk) 16:58, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

  PDAB doesn't say that any incomplete disambiguation must point to the disambiguation page. "Qi (state)" certainly meets its higher standard for a primary topic for the disambiguated term. Kanguole 17:19, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

  From WP:PDAB:

  The main question about PDABs is whether a PDAB itself can have a primary topic. In the example of Thriller (album), there is one album that is very well known and is considered much more highly notable than the others.

  Replace Thriller (album) with Qi (state), and we find ourselves in the same circumstance. There is no need to move Qi (state), which is much more highly notable than the other. Folly Mox (talk) 17:20, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

  Suggesting that Qi (state) has the same ubiquity and notability as the most successful album of all time is probably the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard here.

  Anyway, this isn't an RM. The RM has already happened, the community has spoken and the result was Not moved. 162 etc. (talk) 22:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not sure that the RM result is really relevant to this discussion; the closing statement makes clear that it was a narrow closure that only found consensus against moving to the originally proposed title, Qǐ (state). Accordingly, that particular title is no longer under discussion. The same closure also explicitly gave its blessing to further discussion of alternate titles, which is exactly what's happening now. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 02:54, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

  That's true, and this thread does appear to be working towards an improvement over the status quo. I take it back. 162 etc. (talk) 17:13, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

  162 etc. This is about relative notability, not absolute notability. WP:PDABLIST has a number of other examples if the Thriller case from the lead section disturbs your sensibilities.

  Thank you for correcting me and pointing out that WP:PDAB applies here rather than WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as I mistakenly thought, but PDAB seems to support my position rather than yours.

  It often happens in discussions on Wikipedia that there seems to be consensus against the status quo, but no consensus to enact any specific proposal discussed. This is almost universally the case for major reform RFCs, and is also the case here.

  Do you like Qi (Henan)? You can always !vote Oppose all: prefer current title. Folly Mox (talk) 07:10, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

  Shame on me I suppose for continuing this subthread while Kanguole is busy actually improving the actual article, but I got curious despite all my previous argumentation as to the relative notability here. I checked the index of the standard reference work Cambridge History of Ancient China, and it has the following four disambiguators for Qi: (energy, vapor), (Hou Ji, Lord of Millet), (son of Yu), and (state). Here, Qi (state) obviously refers to Qí (齊), and has the following fifteen indexed subtopics: administrative units of; army of; attacked by Rong people; and ba system; chronology; dominance of; expansion of; fiefdoms in; gathers scholars; mobilization by; opposes Qin; palace; served by Su Qin; territorial expansion of; Tian lineage.

  Qǐ (杞) does not appear in the index.

  See CHAC p. 1134 to verify. Folly Mox (talk) 13:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

• How about "Qi (Xia remnants)" or similar (no diacritic)? (I agree that Qi (state) should be where it is.) Kanguole 16:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

  I'm a wee bit leery of disambiguating using a piece of traditional trivia, but have included this proposal in the list above. Folly Mox (talk) 17:45, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

  I'll withdraw that (mainly because of your point about historicizing). I can support "Qi (ancient minor state)". I remain opposed to including the tone mark. Kanguole 19:02, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

  For the closer, for clarity I affirm no opposition to excluding the tone mark. Folly Mox (talk) 20:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Hmm... (state 杞) is not ambiguous to someone who is somewhat learned of Chinese history or Chinese language in general. – robertsky (talk) 17:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

• Of the options proposed in this section, I think Qǐ (ancient minor state) is the best choice due to its clarity and precision; Qi (ancient Kaifeng) is my second-favorite. I share Robertsky's concerns about "(state 杞)"; while adding the character is advantageous for some cases like surnames, it has little utility for monolingual English speakers, so I think it should be used only as a last resort. "(Xia remnants)" feels out of step with the way we usually present DABs, but I could be open to a different phrasing of the idea if there's an option that feels both natural and accurate. ("Xia successor state" sounds nice to me, but I'm not familiar enough with the topic to confidently appraise its accuracy.) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 18:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd be opposed to 1 as I have no idea what that means and thus it does not help at all with understanding the title of the topic. Gonnym (talk) 09:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Gonnym, do you like any of the options? I actually don't even really care, but I was hoping the crew from the prior RM might be able to agree on some target since the status quo has been deemed unsatisfactory. Folly Mox (talk) 10:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

(Also: it's a toponym, fyi.) Folly Mox (talk) 10:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with any English language disambiguation that is sufficiently clear (so no incomplete disambiguations like Qi (state)). Gonnym (talk) 11:09, 15 October 2024 (UTC)