Talk:Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

comments[edit]

ok heres the thing we really need smart ppl answering hard questions ok thank u(UTC)

Map please![edit]

let's get a map here showing the boundaries of the various kingdoms. I have no idea where these places were! brain 19:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright! I'll see what i can do. Pojanji 00:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

"Too Tedious"[edit]

What on earth is "too tedious" supposed to mean—"It's too much trouble for me to do"? How about "Too numerous to be listed" or something? "Too tedious" just sounds ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.112.66.23 (talk) 00:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

"Later Han," or "Later Zhou?"[edit]

I don't know anything about the subject, but this *looks* like an error:

"...However, Liu Chong, a member of the Later Han imperial family, established a rival Northern Han regime in Taiyuan, and requested Khitan aid to defeat Later Han."

This comes right after a description of the fall of Later Han, and the establishment of Later Zhou. Does it make sense that a Later Han family member would request the assistance of a foreign power to contend against his already deposed family dynasty?zadignose (talk) 15:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms 907-979.jpg Deleted[edit]

Icon Now Commons.svg

An image used in this article, File:Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms 907-979.jpg, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons by Jcb for the following reason: Per commons:Commons:Deletion requests/maps in History and Commercial Atlas of China

What should I do?

You can remove the code for this image from the article text (which can look messy), however a different bot may already have done so. You could also try to search for new images to replace the one deleted. If you think the deletion was in error please raise the issue at Commons.

This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotification (talk) 21:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Page rework[edit]

NickDupree brought to my attention how... err... needy this page is.

Okay, so these are the things that I see as issues.

  • Right now this is a switchboard paragraph. It's got a paragraph on each of the titular dynasties/kingdoms, with links out. The focus of this page really should be the era itself. In the conversation that led to this, Nick mentioned "Chinese kingdoms competing against each other, forcing technological leaps in order to get an edge". I'd also like to see some sections on the economic and social realities of the period.
  • "List of Sovereigns" section needs to go. That stuff needs to into the articles on the kingdoms and dynasties, as it adds nothing to this article. I'm torn, leading delete, on the "Other regimes" subsection.
  • I see lots of art, but no context.

Thoughts? Sven Manguard Wha? 22:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Copy of removed material: List of sovereigns[edit]

(headers changed to ";" lines)

Content in collapse box.
List of Sovereigns
Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms
Sovereigns in the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms Period (907–960)
Temple Names
(廟號 miào hào)
Posthumous Names
(諡號 shì hào)
Personal Names Period of Reign Era Names (年號 nián hào) and their according range of years
Five Dynasties
* note the naming convention: name of dynasty (e.g. 後漢) + temple name or posthumous name (e.g. 高祖), which makes 後漢高祖
Later Liang Dynasty 後梁 Hòu Liáng 907–923
Tài Zǔ 太祖 Too tedious thus not used when referring to this sovereign Zhū Wēn 朱溫 907–912

Kāipíng 開平 (907–911)
Qiánhuà 乾化 (911–912)

Did not exist Mò Dì 末帝 Zhū Zhèn 朱瑱 913-923

Qiánhuà 乾化 (913–915)
Zhēnmíng 貞明 (915–921)
Lóngdé 龍德 (921–923)

Later Tang Dynasty 後唐 Hòu Táng 923–936
Zhuāng Zōng 莊宗 Too tedious thus not used when referring to this sovereign Lǐ Cúnxù 李存勗 923-926 Tóngguāng 同光 (923-926)
Míng Zōng 明宗 Too tedious thus not used when referring to this sovereign Lǐ Sìyuán 李嗣源
or
Lǐ Dǎn 李亶
926-933

Tiānchéng 天成 (926-930)
Chángxīng 長興 (930-933)

Did not exist Mǐn Dì 節閔帝 Lǐ Cónghòu 李從厚 933-934 Yìngshùn 應順 (913-915)
Did not exist Mò Dì 末帝 Lǐ Cóngkē 李從珂 934-936 Qīngtài 清泰 (934-936)
Later Jin Dynasty 後晉 Hòu Jìn 936-947
Gāo Zǔ 高祖 Too tedious thus not used when referring to this sovereign Shí Jìngtáng 石敬瑭 936-942 Tiānfú 天福 (936-942)
Did not exist Chū Dì 出帝 Shí Chóngguì 石重貴 942-947

Tiānfú 天福 (942-944)
Kāiyùn 開運 (944-947)

Later Han Dynasty 後漢 Hòu Hàn 947-950
Gāo Zǔ 高祖 Hòu​hàn​ Gāozǔ 後漢高祖,[1] "Later Han High Ancestor," 高祖 Gāozǔ "High Ancestor" being a conventional designation for dynastic founders, as in the case of 高祖 Gāozǔ Emperor Gaozu of Han, founder of the original Han Dynasty, though in that case 高祖 Gāozǔ is his temple name, identical with the temple name of this Later Han Dynasty (Five Dynasties) ruler, and the original Han Dynasty founder's posthumous name is 高皇帝 Gāo Huáng​dì​ "High Emperor" as the founder of the second of the historically recorded Dynasties in Chinese history, which is what distinguishes the two in their honorific titular names. Liú Zhīyuǎn 劉知遠 947-948

Tiānfú 天福 (947)
Qiányòu 乾祐 (948)

Did not exist Yǐn Dì 隱帝 Liú Chéngyòu 劉承祐 948-950 Qiányòu 乾祐 (948-950)
Later Zhou Dynasty 後周 Hòu Zhōu 951-960
Tài Zǔ 太祖 Too tedious thus not used when referring to this sovereign Guō Wēi 郭威 951-954

Guǎngshùn 廣順 (951-954)
Xiǎndé 顯德 (954)

Shì Zōng 世宗 Too tedious thus not used when referring to this sovereign Chái Róng 柴榮 954-959 Xiǎndé 顯德 (954-959)
Did not exist Gōng Dì 恭帝 Chái Zōngxùn 柴宗訓 959-960 Xiǎndé 顯德 (959-960)
Ten Kingdoms
note the naming convention: use the personal names unless otherwise stated
Wuyue Kingdom 吳越 904-978
Tài Zǔ 太祖 Wǔsù Wáng 武肅王 Qián Liú 錢鏐 904-932

Tiānbǎo (天寶) 908-923
Bǎodà (寶大) 923-925
Bǎozhèng (寶正) 925-932

Shìzōng (世宗) Wénmù Wáng 文穆王 Qián Yuánquàn 錢元瓘 932-941 Did not exist
Chéngzōng 成宗 Zhōngxiàn Wáng 忠獻王 Qián Zuǒ 錢佐 941-947 Did not exist
Did not exist Zhōngxùn Wáng 忠遜王 Qián Zōng 錢倧 947 Did not exist
Did not exist Zhōngyì Wáng 忠懿王 Qián Chù 錢俶 947-978 Did not exist
Min Kingdom 閩 909-945 including Yin Kingdom 殷 943-945
Tàizǔ 太祖 Zhōngyì Wáng 忠懿王 Wáng Shěnzhī 王審知 909-925 Did not exist
Did not exist Did not exist Wáng Yánhàn 王延翰 925-926 Did not exist
Tàizōng 太宗 Huìdì 惠帝 Wáng Yánjūn 王延鈞 926-935

Lóngqǐ (龍啟) 933-935

Yǒnghé (永和) 935
Kāngzōng (康宗) Too tedious thus not used when referring to this sovereign Wáng Jìpéng 王繼鵬 935-939 Tōngwén (通文) 936-939
Jǐngzōng (景宗) Too tedious thus not used when referring to this sovereign Wáng Yánxī 王延羲 939-944 Yǒnglóng (永隆) 939-944
Did not exist Tiāndé Dì (天德帝) (as Emperor of Yin) Wáng Yánzhèng 王延政 943-945 Tiāndé (天德) 943-945
Jingnan 荊南 or Nanping 南平 Kingdom 906-963
Did not exist Wǔxìn Wáng 武信王 Gāo Jìxīng 高季興 909-928 Did not exist
Did not exist Wénxiàn Wáng 文獻王 Gāo Cónghuì 高從誨 928-948 Did not exist
Did not exist Zhēnyì Wáng 貞懿王 Gāo Bǎoróng 高寶融 948-960 Did not exist
Did not exist Shìzhōng 侍中 Gāo Bǎoxù 高寶勗 960-962 Did not exist
Did not exist Did not exist Gāo Jìchōng 高繼沖 962-963 Did not exist
Chu Kingdom 楚 897-951
Did not exist Wǔmù Wáng 武穆王 Mǎ Yīn 馬殷 897-930 Did not exist
Did not exist Héngyáng Wáng 衡陽王 Mǎ Xīshēng 馬希聲 930-932 Did not exist
Did not exist Wénzhāo Wáng 文昭王 Mǎ Xīfàn 馬希範 932-947 Did not exist
Did not exist Fèi Wáng 廢王 Mǎ Xīguǎng 馬希廣 947-950 Did not exist
Did not exist Gōngxiào Wáng 恭孝王 Mǎ Xī'è 馬希萼 950 Did not exist
Did not exist Did not exist Mǎ Xīchong 馬希崇 950-951 Did not exist
Wu Kingdom 吳 904-937
Tài Zǔ 太祖 Xiàowǔ Dì 孝武帝 Yáng Xíngmì 楊行密 904-905 Tiānyòu (天祐) 904-905
Liè Zōng 烈宗 Jǐng Dì 景帝 Yáng Wò 楊渥 905-908 Tiānyòu (天祐) 905-908
Gāo Zǔ 高祖 Xuān Dì 宣帝 Yáng Lóngyǎn 楊隆演 908-921

Tiānyòu (天祐) 908-919

Wǔyì (武義) 919-921
Did not exist Ruì Dì 睿帝 Yáng Pǔ 楊溥 921-937

Shùnyì (順義) 921-927
Qiánzhēn (乾貞) 927-929
Dàhé (大和) 929-935
Tiānzuò (天祚) 935-937

Southern Tang Kingdom 南唐 937-975
Convention for this kingdom only : Nan (Southern) Tang + posthumous names. Hòu Zhǔ was referred to as Lǐ Hòuzhǔ 李後主.
Xiān Zhǔ 先主
or
Liè Zǔ 烈祖
Too tedious thus not used when referring to this sovereign Lǐ Biàn 李昪 937-943 Shēngyuán (昇元) 937-943
Zhōng Zhǔ 中主
or
Yuán Zōng 元宗
Too tedious thus not used when referring to this sovereign Lǐ Jǐng 李璟 943-961

Bǎodà (保大) 943-958
Jiāotài (交泰) 958
Zhōngxīng (中興) 958

Hòu Zhǔ 後主 Wǔ Wáng 武王 Lǐ Yù 李煜 961-975 Did not exist
Southern Han Kingdom 南漢 917-971
Gāo Zǔ 高祖 Tiān Huáng Dà Dì 天皇大帝 Liú Yán 劉龑 917-925

Qiánhēng (乾亨) 917-925
Báilóng (白龍) 925-928
Dàyǒu (大有) 928-941

Did not exist Shāng Dì 殤帝 Liú Fēn 劉玢 941-943 Guāngtiān (光天) 941-943
Zhōng Zōng 中宗 Too tedious thus not used when referring to this sovereign Liú Chéng 劉晟 943-958

Yìngqián (應乾) 943
Qiánhé (乾和) 943-958

Hòu Zhǔ 後主 Did not exist Liú Cháng 劉鋹 958-971 Dàbǎo (大寶) 958-971
Bei (Northern) Han Kingdom 951-979
Shi Zu|世祖 shi4 zu3 Shen Wu Di|神武帝 shen2 wu3 di4 Liu Min 劉旻 liu3 min2 951-954 Qianyou (乾祐 qian2 you4) 951-954
Rui Zong|睿宗 rui4 zong1 Xiao He Di|孝和帝 xiao4 he2 di4 Liu Cheng Jun 劉承鈞 liu3 cheng2 jun1 954-970

Qianyou (乾祐 qian2 you4) 954-957
Tianhui (天會 tian1 hui4) 957-970

Shao Zhu|少主 shao4 zhu3 Did not exist Liu Ji En 劉繼恩 liu3 ji4 en1 970 Did not exist
Did not exist
Ying Wu Di|英武帝 ying1 wu3 di4 Liu Ji Yuan 劉繼元 liu3 ji4 yuan2 970-982 Guangyun (廣運 guang3 yun4) 970-982
Qian (Former) Shu Kingdom 907 - 925
Gao Zu|高祖 gao1 zu3 Too tedious thus not used when referring to this sovereign Wang Jian 王建 wang2 jian4 907-918

Tianfu (天復 tian1 fu4) 907
Wucheng (武成 wu3 cheng22) 908-910
Yongping (永平 yong3 ping2) 911-915
Tongzheng (通正 tong1 zheng4) 916
Tianhan (天漢 tian1 han4) 917
Guangtian (光天 guang1 tian1) 918

Hou Zhu|後主 hou4 zhu3 Did not exist Wang Yan|王衍 wang2 yan3 918-925

Qiande (乾德 qian2 de2) 918-925
Xiankang (咸康 xian2 kang1) 925

Hou (Later) Shu Kingdom 934 - 965
Gao Zu|高祖 gao1 zu3 Too tedious thus not used when referring to this sovereign Meng Zhixiang 孟知祥 meng4 zhi1 xiang2 934 Mingde (明德 ming2 de2) 934
Hou Zhu|後主 hou4 zhu3 Did not exist Meng Chang 孟昶 meng4 chang3 938-965

Mingde (明德 ming2 de2) 934-938
Guangzheng (廣政 guang3 zheng4) 938-965

Other regimes
Local independent regimes during Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms Period but traditionally not counted in the Ten Kingdoms
Name of Posts Personal Names Period on post
Wuping jiedu|武平節度 (similar to thema of the Byzantine Empire) 950-963
Wǔpíng jíedùshǐ|武平節度使 Liú Yán|劉言 950-953
Wáng Kuí|王逵 or Wáng Jìnkuí|王進逵 953-956
Zhōu Xíngféng|周行逢 956-962
Zhōu Bǎoquán|周保權 962-963
Qingyuan jiedu|清源節度 (similar to thema of the Byzantine Empire) 945-978
Qīngyuán jíedùshǐ|清源節度使 Liú Cóngxiào|留從效 945-962
Liú Shàozī|留紹鎡 962
Zhāng Hànsī|張漢思 962-963
Chén Hóngjìn|陳洪進 963-978

Please don't add this back to the central article, break the list down by dynasty/kingdom and place each piece in the article for that dynasty/kingdom. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

References[edit]

  1. ^ Chinaknowlegde.de, ChinaKnowledge online encyclopedia, ed. Ulrich Theobald (Tian Yuli 田宇利, styled Shudouting 數豆亭), Department of Chinese and Korean Studies, University of Tübingen, heading Later Han.

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:Warring States Period - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 23:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Getting better[edit]

I think this article is finally living up to its B rating. To get it to GA, can we find more citations? Bearian (talk) 16:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 13 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: split. Apologies for this is a rather messy close, but the consensus seems to be that we should follow Britannica and split this topic into two separate articles – Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms (I've decided not to tack on "period" because the sources generally don't seem to, but if whoever does the work wants to then that should be OK). The question is then what do we do with Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms/Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period? Just redirect them to one of the two resultant articles and deal with it by hatnotes, or have it as a kind of broad-concept article than summarises both? Personally I don't know and I don't think there's a consensus here, so again I'll leave that to either whoever does the work or if you guys want to discuss it further on this talk page. Please let me know if you need me to clarify anything or if you need me to use the admin tools for anything once the splitting and so on has been done. Jenks24 (talk) 18:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)



Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms periodFive Dynasties period – Per 1) Google Ngram Diagram and 2) WP:Concise. There's another reason for the move. The term "Ten Kingdoms", though frequently encountered, is controversial and misleading because it seriously misrepresents the reality of the period:

  1. The word "kingdom" is controversial. Only 3 of these so-called "Ten Kingdoms" are real "kingdoms", namely Chu (Ten Kingdoms), Wuyue and Jingnan. The others are all in reality empires, on the same political level as the "Five Dynasties" (for the most part). The difference between a "kingdom" and an "empire" is largely rhetorical, as some of these "kings" lived just like "emperors", but the political hierarchy of an imperial Chinese tributary system which dictates that a kingdom is inferior to an empire, cannot be ignored. Many historians nowadays use the alternative term of "Five Dynasties and Ten States", as the English word "state" doesn't distinguish between "empire" and "kingdom". English books on this period are few, but just look at two of these titles: Edward H. Schafer's The Empire of Min (about Min (Ten Kingdoms)) and Johannes Kurz's China's Southern Tang Dynasty, 937-976 (about Southern Tang). Clearly historians who have studied the period know these "Ten Kingdoms" shouldn't be called "Kingdoms", but rather "empires" or "dynasties".
  2. The number "10" is also controversial. Quoting Hongjie Wang in his Power and Politics in Tenth-Century China, the term "Ten Kingdoms" also "fails to acknowledge other polities that were neither politically inferior to nor militarily weaker than most of the other regional regimes", such as Jin (Later Tang precursor), Qi (Five Dynasties), Yan (Five Dynasties) etc. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 15:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC) Timmyshin (talk) 01:41, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Support per nom, per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE, and WP:PRECISE. There were not Ten Kingdoms in this period. It appears the current title "Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period" does not appear in books as per Google Ngram but "Five Dynasties period" appears in books commonly. The period is traditionally taken to have lasted from 907 to 960 CE, which is also the period that Five Dynasties existed in. Khestwol (talk) 02:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose it is the distinctive, historical and a not uncommon formulation. It's more distinctive than just Five Dynasties. The term "Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms" is frequently used in books [1] and it is used to refer to this period. -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 06:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment: "Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period" does not seem to appear in books. Even after removing the word "period", "Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms" is still relatively uncommon as per Google Ngram. Khestwol (talk) 06:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, per Encyclopedia Britannica. "Five Dynasties" is a North China oriented name for this period, while the name "Ten Kingdoms" takes a southern perspective. The current title represents an awkward attempt to split the difference. This ngram is a little clearer about these issues than the one in the nomination. Furthermore Britannica has a separate Ten Kingdoms article on political events in the South, something I recommended we do. "Ten Kingdoms" is just an expression, like "10,000 years." The discussion of who was a king and who was an emperor is beside the point. H. Humbert (talk) 00:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support The title works in Chinese (五代十国, a nice, very traditional 4-character term) but in English it is not used and is awkward to boot. I also suggest we might fork Ten Kingdoms. Ogress smash! 02:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I would caution against relying on Ngram in this case. The Five Dynasties existed in North China and Ten Kingdoms in the south. If a book's focus is north China, then it's natural to drop the "Ten Kingdoms" part. As long as our article is about the entire China, "Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms" (I don't think "period" is necessary) would be a better title to match the scope. As H. Humbert and Ogress pointed out, splitting the article is an option, per Encyclopedia Britannica. Whether there were exactly ten kingdoms is irrelevant. It's just a customary term that's been widely used for ages, just like the Sixteen Kingdoms, which actually involved more than 20 kingdoms. -Zanhe (talk) 08:15, 19 June 2015 (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.

Articles created for 5D and 10K[edit]

I have created new articles for the Five Dynasties and for the Ten Kingdoms, per the discussion above. IMO, this article is now a WP:FORK and the lemma should redirect to Five Dynasties. H. Humbert (talk) 02:38, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

With all due respect, it's ridiculous to split the article in my opinion. Northern Han should undoubtedly be included in the Five Dynasties (northern China) history. Are you going to have an article about "9 kingdoms"? Timmyshin (talk) 17:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Timmyshin; the period cannot really be divided up in that manner - but I also recognize that there had been a discussion (which I was unaware of, otherwise I would have spoken up on). I am, to be honest, in respect for the discussion above, not sure what to say at this point; I think the split is ill-advised, but again, we had a (recent) discussion. (Of course, it's nobody else's fault that because of real life issues, I haven't been able to follow things as closely as I perhaps should.) I would say, though, the split has a real risk of causing states that don't fit into the traditional Five Dynasties/Ten Kingdoms distinction (Yen, Qi, Jin, Yin) to be missed. --Nlu (talk) 18:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I also did not look at the discussion for some time, and I'm currently shocked that somehow "split" became the consensus. Despite the fact that Britannica has split the articles, this absolutely must not be done here. The dichotomy "Five Dynasties" and "Ten Kingdoms" are Song dynasty inventions to legitimize their claim of mandate of Heaven, and very different from historical reality. (If you want to understand this, read the introduction chapter (fully available online) for this book which spent like 10 pages explaining why the dichotomy is problematic). See also F.W. Mote's Imperial China 900-1800, pp. 8-9 [2] We don't live in the Song dynasty, why should we follow their version of history? Also as mentioned above, Northern Han, one of the "Ten Kingdoms", is in north China so this also doesn't make any geographical sense. Northern Han is in reality a continuation of Later Han (Five Dynasties), and its entire territory was part of formerly Later Han's territory, so how can they be in 2 different articles? Timmyshin (talk) 18:48, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
pinging User:Jenks24, User:H. Humbert, User:Ogress, User:Zanhe, User:Khestwol. Timmyshin (talk) 18:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
The name "Five Dynasties" implies that these five regimes had the mandate of heaven while the others did not. Which regimes earned the mandate is of course a subjective issue. But this problem exists whether the article is split or not. Your proposal to leave the phrase "Ten Kingdoms" out the titles altogether would shortchange the South to an even greater degree. 01:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by H. Humbert (talkcontribs)
First, the requested move took a month to happen, so this information suddenly appearing is a little frustrating. Also, you pinged yourself, Timmyshin. I'll wait to hear from others before commenting further Ogress smash! 19:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't think there is any new information. I've already made the argument that "kingdom" and "dynasty" are not as distinct as appears in my original proposal. Maybe I didn't explain myself well, partly because English isn't my first language and partly because the period is confusing and difficult to explain. But to give you a comparison, splitting countries into these categories is akin to having List of real countries and List of fake countries articles on Wikipedia — it's entirely arbitrary based on your perspective (in this case, decided by Song dynasty historians like Xue Juzheng, Wang Pu (Later Zhou and Song chancellor) and later Ouyang Xiu, all of whom write the Five Dynasties period history with a need to legitimize their own country.). Timmyshin (talk) 19:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I understood you, I am merely waiting for other editors to comment. Ogress smash! 19:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with what Timmyshin and Nlu said -- the article cannot be split into two topics. The states that this article cover can't be split into two clear categories, neither chronologically nor geographically. As per Timmyshin's suggestion, the article should have been simply moved to "Five Dynasties period" in one piece. I think the RM above was closed badly. Perhaps we can ask the admin Jenks24 to change their decision and not split the article? Khestwol (talk) 21:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────My vote was primarily for Five Dynasties period; I'd be happy to strike my support for a fork. Ogress smash! 21:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

  • "Five Dynasties" and "Ten Kingdoms" are both terms commonly used when discussing this period. Since they don't mean the same thing, the obvious solution is separate articles. As I understand it, the primary objection is that one of the Ten Kingdoms was in the North. How is this even a problem? It was one of the smaller kingdoms, so it doesn't seriously blur the North vs. South distinction. A lot happened in this period in terms of agriculture, commerce, poetry, and printing. These articles should focus on major trends, not kingdom counting. H. Humbert (talk) 22:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I understand where you are coming from but why is there even a need to distinguish them in this case? One of my original arguments (perhaps I didn't explain clearly) was that "Five Dynasties" has a clear temporal and spatial relationship: If I were to give them a definition, they are "the 5 states located in Central Plains (China) that succeeded one another between 907 and 960". Very straight-forward. But how would you define "Ten Kingdoms" without naming them? You can't. If I were to give my best definition, they are "the 10 states other than the the 'Five Dynasties', that existed between 907 and 960, that had at least 2 monarchs, and that contained territory that became part of Song dynasty after 979". As you can see the term not only makes little historical sense, but is also completely dependent on the definition of "Five Dynasties". Therefore Five Dynasties period is definitely preferable IMO, which as Nlu mentioned could also include states like Jin (Later Tang precursor) that was every bit as militarily powerful as the so-called "Ten Kingdoms". Timmyshin (talk) 03:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I think I have created a reasonably good definition for the article's opening: "The Ten Kingdoms was a period in the history of Southern China that followed the fall of the Tang dynasty in 907. It lasted until the rise of the Song dynasty, which was founded in 960." Britannica's definition is, "Ten Kingdoms (907–960), period in Chinese history when southern China was ruled by nine small independent kingdoms, with one more small kingdom in the far north." H. Humbert (talk) 09:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
H. Humbert, I think you should not solely rely on one WP:Tertiary source (Britannica). Khestwol (talk) 10:28, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Did you read the guideline you cite? "Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other." — Preceding unsigned comment added by H. Humbert (talkcontribs) 00:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

To echo Ogress, it is frustrating to see these concerns come to light only after the discussion has been closed. The first suggestion to split/fork the article came on 16 June. In the more than three weeks between that suggestion and my close, the only other two comments added to the discussion also supported a split/fork. What was I supposed to infer, but that the other commentators in the discussion (and other people with an interest in this topic) were either ambivalent or supportive of this change? Surely if anyone had disagreed they would have spoken up in the three-plus weeks? I will add this was not an easy discussion to close – there's a reason it was sitting in the backlog awaiting closure for weeks.

Looking over the discussion again, I think my assessment of the consensus there was correct. In particular that this is the way Encyclopedia Britannica deals with it was compelling – WP:AT several times recommends following usage in other encyclopedias. I get that some people here think we shouldn't split, but does anyone actually think I read the discussion incorrectly? And if so, what do you want me to actually do?

I should add that I am not absolutely wedded to my decision and am willing to be convinced otherwise despite my initial thoughts here. I've watchlisted this page and will continue to monitor the discussion. Jenks24 (talk) 10:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Perhaps we have been sidetracked by the word "split." I see three issues to resolve:
  1. Should the Five Dynasties article cover all of China, or only the North? It is certainly convenient to have a concise term that applies to the entire the country. But this usage shoehorns the South into a North-oriented formula. It anticipates reunification under the Kaifeng regime, which people at the time might not have expected.
  2. What should happen to the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period lemma? IMO, it should point to Five Dynasties.
  3. Should the Ten Kingdoms have their own article? Whether the 5D article covers the South or not, a separate 10K article allows for in depth coverage of the region. H. Humbert (talk) 09:40, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I think that the current title is fine as it is (as unwieldy as it might be to some) because it avoids many of the other pitfalls. Failing that, Five Dynasties period would be better and I think should cover the entire "China" (whatever that may be reasonably construed to be). (As H. Humbert pointed out, this does have the uneven north-centric problem, but that is why I think the current title is fine as it is to avoid that.) I think that there is no need to have a separate Ten Kingdoms article because it has several problems: 1) whether it is "ten" kingdoms is problematic; 2) the Ten Kingdoms (however enumerated) were not all in the south; and 3) the issue can be better handled by better developing the individual "kingdom"'s article; in many ways, they have more differences than commonalities. --Nlu (talk) 17:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The split carried out was outside the scope of a move discussion and should never have been carried out. As User:Nlu and User:Timmyshin have noted above, dividing the topics is original research and it's ludicrous to have three articles on the same topic when the original one was in pretty rough shape already. (Even the Chinese Wikipedia doesn't have separate articles.) The current state of affairs is even more deplorable with unsourced duplicate articles at Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms. —  AjaxSmack  02:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
As I wrote before, Britannica has separate "Five Dynasty" and "Ten Kingdoms" article, which IMO is what we should do. Regardless of whether the main article is called "Five Dynasties" or "Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period," there can still be a separate Ten Kingdoms article on the South. We have fifty times as many articles as Britannica, so we can certainly have two on this period. Dorothy Perkins' Encyclopedia of China is a better model than Chinese Wiki(?!). She has separate articles on the "Five Dynasties period" and the "Ten Kingdoms period" -- and no "Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period" article. H. Humbert (talk) 08:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)