Talk:Dong Chang (warlord)

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: not moved. Number   5  7  16:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Dong Chang (Tang dynasty) → Dong Chang – Per WP:2DABS: "If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed—it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article." Hatnotes would suffice. Timmyshin (talk) 11:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - WP:2DABS that doesn't apply if the primary topic of the two is actually a redirect to a differently named article. In this case Eastern Depot is primary topic of both "Dong Chang" in Google Books and "Eastern Depot" in Google Books, so the Tang rebel general requires (Tang Dynasty) and a dab at Dong Chang is also required, as exists now. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Where is the evidence that "Dong Chang" in Google books is primarily the Ming dynasty agency? I followed your first link and didn't see that topic in the first 3 pages, whereas I saw the warlord on page 2 in Portrait of a Community. I tried to do "Dong Chang" in English Google Books (rather than French Google Books) and again I saw the warlord on page 1 in Historical Records of the Five Dynasties. I hope you are not making things up. Timmyshin (talk) 00:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm looking at every result on your French Google Books search carefully, and this is what I get:

So how did you come up with your statement? (And for those looking at the results and thinking that neither should be primary, most of the results in Google Books were actually "Dong Chang'an" which is a street name in Beijing.) Timmyshin (talk) 00:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The results I get show Eastern Depot. Confirm Oppose. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, results from where? Certainly not on Google Books, as I have pointed out. Timmyshin (talk) 10:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose - WP:2DABS only applies to situations where there is a clear primary topic. In this case, there isn't any. Google books search for "Dong Chang" Ming dynasty returns 87 results, whereas "Dong Chang" Tang dynasty returns 46, of which many (judging by the first page) are false hits. The Dong Chang of Ming is probably the primary topic, but not convincingly so. I believe keeping the dab page is the best solution. -Zanhe (talk) 03:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You are the one who moved the page, that was stable for years, without a discussion in the first place. To counter your argument, most of the "Dong Chang" + Ming dynasty results in Google Books that are relevant are actually "Dong-chang" and not "Dong Chang". At least 1 could even be "Dongchang". To be specific, of your 87 results only 7 are doubtlessly spelled exactly "Dong Chang" and refer to the Ming agency:

Sample size is small but it represents a 28% (if you don't count the Italian, French and German results) to 71% difference in results. I believe the Tang warlord should be primary.Timmyshin (talk) 12:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It was stable for years because only two weeks ago another user created the Ming article under the title Dong Chang (eunuch), making disambiguation necessary. So please lose your accusatory tone, (most moves do not need to be discussed; didn't you just move the Ming article to Eastern Depot without discussion?) and recognize the fact that there is no primary topic for the term. -Zanhe (talk) 22:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There's no accusatory tone, it's just to give the other readers the background of your objection. Besides, what fact is there to be recognized? I already presented Google Books statistics which show that the warlord is primary for "Dong Chang" on Google Books. If you have or find other books or sources to present, present them. I'm unfamiliar with English books about Ming history, but of the 2 most prestigious English books on Chinese history that I know, Cambridge History of China Vol. 7 uses "Eastern Depot (Tung-ch'ang)" and Imperial China: 900-1800 uses "Eastern Depot (Dongchang)". Neither uses "Dong Chang", since as you well know, "Tung-ch'ang"'s equivalent in pinyin is either "Dongchang" or "Dong-chang" and for sure not "Dong Chang". And as you can see above, none of the Google Books results using "Dong Chang" for the Ming topic is a serious historical book or even a journal about history. Whereas the warlord is always, if you disregard differences in romanization, "Dong Chang" with a space and without a hyphen. Timmyshin (talk) 22:43, 10 September 2014 (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.

Restatement following close
Following the close of the RM the proposer has made a series of what are clearly personal attacks "lies" "lying" against those who didn't support the move proposal on the closer's Talk page. For the record, "Dong Chang was" in Google Books does not support the proposal, and this, not any other reason is the reason the proposal was rejected. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)