Talk:Liao (Zhou dynasty state)

China: History High‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Chinese history (assessed as High-importance).

Former countries

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles

Move discussion in progress[edit]

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 22:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 June 2015[edit]

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: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 12:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Liao (state) → Liao (Zhou dynasty state) – Google Books searches of both "Liao state" and "State of Liao" are unanimously the Liao dynasty (with a handful of the "Western Liao state" results referring to the Kara-Khitan Khanate), therefore current title fails WP:Precise. --Relisted. Natg 19 (talk) 07:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC) Timmyshin (talk) 14:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support WP:PRECISE ambiguous disambiguation is a bad idea. Further, there is a much more prominent state named "Liao", so this is an unacceptable name for this topic in all cases. The current title necessarily needs to point to the disambiguation page -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 06:43, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The naming convention agreed for these polities by consensus over a long period is to use (state) for those of the Spring and Autumn/Warring states periods. Fragmenting that by adding "Zhou dynasty" to selected articles serves no real purpose. Any Google results on such a topic are subjective anyway, since they are all based on translations, which by definition are subjective. I don't think there's any danger of a reader confusing the state with the later dynasties of the same name, but if it's seen as important then it can be taken care of in a hatnote. It's also worth noting Zanhe's comments at the similar discussion over at Talk:Song (state). Philg88 ^♦talk 07:01, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That WP:LOCALCONSENSUS does not make sense, since a "state" is not a term that is defined solely for Chinese history, this is a WP:JARGONous use of a general term not really evident, since the Chinese state during the Liao Dynasty is the Liao Dynasty; and this is a general encyclopedia. All countries called "Liao" would qualify for the diambiguator "(state)" so it is a primary failure of WP:PRECISE to use this to indicate this particular state. -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 09:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Your argument is basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT. When there is clear confusion demonstrated by usage in Google Books, you are still claiming that it serves no real purpose? You quoted WP:NC-ZH for your naming convention but I don't see anything on that page that is relevant to this topic. Besides, as 70.51.203.69 has argued, even if there is a consensus it should be overridden, as Liao dynasty is not just Chinese history but also Central Asian history. Timmyshin (talk) 17:25, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Neither the current name nor the proposed one is ideal, and it's time-wasting to discuss half-baked solutions. The article current covers two different states that both existed in the Zhou dynasty, which should be covered in two separate articles with some sort of disambiguation (either by location or the ruler's clan name). -Zanhe (talk) 09:11, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, who's going to split the article? According to [1] the "first" Liao was attacked and conquered, and some of its former citizens moved from Tanghe County to Gushi County (only 300km apart) to establish the "second" Liao. But as information is scarce, it's not unreasonable to treat the two states together, same geographical area, same tradition, same people. Timmyshin (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should know better than rely on a blog post for information. There were two different Liao states established by unrelated clans. I'll try to split and expand the articles after my summer break. -Zanhe (talk) 23:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support for clarity, the current title is highly ambiguous because of Liao dynasty, a more notable state also known as Liao. Khestwol (talk) 20:13, 3 July 2015 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.