Talk:Zhou Dynasty
|
|
In the notes at the head of the table there is a reference to the "Duo dynasty". This seems to be a typo but I can't be sure of what was intended. Could somebody please clarify the reference. Eclecticology 19:52 Nov 2, 2002 (UTC)
Removal of years in title and page redirection
Why are they years necessary in the article title? -- Zoe
- Dunno. When people talk about Zhou dynasty they are usually talking this one. I suppose it is better to redirect the Zhou dynasty here and simply add an extra link to the short Zhou dynasty of Empress Wu. -- Wshun
- shall we remove the years now or wait until a "consensus" is reached? kt2 23:22, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- IMO follow Wshun's recommendation: redirect Zhou dynasty; add the link the short Zhou dynasty of Empress Wu at the bottom of the page. kt2 00:29, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- That was already done some time ago. I merged the other Zhou dynasty article with Empress Wu's. --Jiang 00:36, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- I agree with Wshun's disambiguation method. Wu Zetian's Zhou is much...much..much less famous. --Menchi 00:32, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
The only outdanding issue is whether to include the dates, like Song Dynasty. --Jiang
- IMO the dates shall not be included for this Zhou dynasty as the starting year has not been confirmed yet. kt2 00:43, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- Shall we now proceed to remove the year and redirect the page as Wshun sugguested ? kt2 00:45, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- Yes. And the same thing for Song Dynasty. --Menchi 01:09, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- I agree with the removal for the Zhou Dynasty but not for Song dynasty where the accuracy of the dates has never been disputed. kt2 02:01, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- It's not about knowing the dates. The dates are there for diambiguation purposes. If there is not ambiguation, then get rid of it! --Jiang 05:37, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- I say disambiguation works much better than putting dates. Redirects should go to the main or more well known dynasty. Empress Wu Zetian's dynasty need not an article of its own, or at least that's my opinion. Personally I don't like dates in titles too much. Colipon 04:39, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- If we want to get rid of the dates then we may rename Song Dynasty (420-479) to be Liu-Song Dynasty, as it is sometimes called by Chinese historians. -wshun 04:53, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- That's sounds pretty unrecognizable from what it really is. Colipon 05:05, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- Wu's Zhou doesn't need not an article on its own, so it is now redirected to Empress Wu Zetian. But Song Dynasty (420-479), the first Song Dynasty, seems to deserve its own article. If Liu-Song Dynasty is not good, then it means we have to let the dates in its title! :P -- wshun 06:08, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- Well, it seems that we have good reason to get rid of the dates in Zhou Dynasty (they may not be correct). But the reason to get rid of the dates in Song Dynasty is simply that "It is too cumbersome" and it seems not a really convincing reason--indeed, the article with this title is not going away, it just becomes a redirect! Again, I have no strong opinion on that. -wshun 06:08, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- I vote for the simpliest title possible. Simple title makes wiki-links elsewhere in other articles much easier to do. I'd rather type [[Zhou Dynasty]] everywhere than [[Zhou Dynasty (.... .....)]] or [[Zhou Dynasty (.... ....)|Zhou Dynasty]] to establish the link. Again redirection actually makes all syntax of title equivalent, i.e it does not matter one way of the other. Anyway is fine with me as long as they all converge to the same article. Kowloonese 06:12, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- I Agree that the "first" Zhou Dynasty should be titled as is whereas the Song dynasties shall include the years. Reasons are:
- 1) The years clearly disambiguate the two dynasties, as one in the fifth century and another in the tenth century.
- 2) Using the family names for disambiguation i.e. Liu-Song dynasty and Zhao-Song dynasty is just asking for trouble since these titles are mostly seen in historical journals and texts but way less commonly in mainstream media. An exception is their use in Bai Yang's Zizhi Tongjian, an edition intended for general audience.
- Most audience with substantial western background would prefer Song Dynasty for both dynasties since they usually refer to the Song dynasty in the tenth century.
- Above was my summary of different opionions on the issue as of yet. Hope it help. kt2 06:37, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Archeologists record the first extensive use of iron in China as starting during the Zhou dynasty, yet there seems to be no mention of iron in this article at all. Arkuat 22:09, 2004 Jul 31 (UTC)