Talk:Zhou (Zhang Shicheng's kingdom)

China: History Low‑importance

	China portal This redirect 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
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This redirect is supported by WikiProject Chinese history (assessed as Low-importance).

Name of this article

Wikipedia:Naming conventions says that "Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the person or thing that is the subject of the article. In determining what this name is, we follow the usage of reliable sources". A Google books search on "Da Zhou" and Shicheng turns up 3 relevant sources "da+zhou"+shicheng&as_brr=3&spell=1&oi=spell, searching on Dazhou and Shicheng turns up none. One of the sources is the respected scholar of Chinese history Joseph Needham, another is a book on coins and money in Chinese history by two Chinese authors and published both in Chinese and English. I think this is sufficient evidence to justify my move to an article name reflecting these sources. Dougweller (talk) 09:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please use Dazhou. It is a standard romanization even if it is not the one used in the academic source. Academics bring their own biases and this name probably has a dozen different "english" renditions. Wikipedia tries to stick with Hanyu Pinyin. The user probably does not speak English well. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

It's nice to get a response. I'll leave it then. Any suggestions as to what to do with Wu Sien except take it to AfD? Or Factory Guards? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Factory Guards is a valid article. I'm unsure of what the proper translation should be in English sources (Factory Guards doesn't seem right, but it isn't wrong) but the Chinese characters lead to valid Chinese reference sources. I will look at the other. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

thanks for surviving this article, any source or information to improve this article ? if there is any, i will be glad :)

Brand new added article

I forget to login first before improve the article, please do not delete it. thanks.Kungkang (talk) 08:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC) 125.162.49.182 (talk) 04:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 July 2015

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) 16:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Dazhou → Zhou (Zhang Shicheng's kingdom) – or something better. Basically a warlord's territory during a political upheaval period that is only notable militarily. Also refer to the discussion above. "Da" literally means "Great". In Chinese history it's a word prefixed to almost all state names, e.g. Ming dynasty (which by the way was founded around this period) is officially "Da Ming" or "Great Ming", but no one calls the state "Daming dynasty". There is another kingdom also named "Dazhou"/"Da Zhou"/"Great Zhou", namely Wu Sangui's state (1678–1681) that could easily get a page if Zhang Shicheng's state got one (both are short-lived), and as such the current title (or any close derivative) would be ambiguous. The fact that "Kingdom of Dazhou" or anything "Dazhou" gets only 1 or 2 results on Google Books search (methinks some consulted en.wiki) should be clear evidence that this is not a WP:COMMONNAME, so the ideal title should be something more historically correct. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 02:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC) Timmyshin (talk) 02:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:PRECISE and WP:COMMONNAME. Khestwol (talk) 01:07, 10 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.