Talk:Jin dynasty (266–420)

message: I don't think having (265-420) in the title is a very good idea, even though there have been more Jin dynasties. I think First and Second Jin Dynasty are better (though I'm not sure these names are really in use). -- jheijmans
These "first" and "second" names are never in use. Major confusion around the dynasty names are western tranliterations of the chinese characters. 晉 (pinyin jin4) and 金 (pinyin jin1) represent different dynasties but their pinyin transliterations are same. IMO (265-420) shows the duration of the 晉 dynasty, which cannot be confused by the 金 founded in the 12th century. Would you recommand other ideas to settle the isuue? -- User:kt2
Several Jin dynasty related articles have named the dynasty as "first" Jin and the one founded by the Jurchen as the second. Let me stress the point here,
the "first" and "second" convention is never in use. If one is uncomfortable of a possible ambiguity, the Jin dynasty by the Jurchen can also be named as the Jurchen dynasty. kt2 17:28, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: The years are sufficient disambiguation.  The problems with putting the Chinese character and the tone in the title are:
#Some readers will not be able to read them.  (For Windows-based systems, they need Chinese fonts installed, and they might not have installed them.)  This will confuse them and/or their browsers.
#It is against common convention here on Wikipedia not to include non-Roman characters into article titles.
#It is unnecessary -- again, with the years, it's already sufficient disambiguated.
--Nlu (talk) 17:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It is generally against Wikipedia style to try to provide comprehensive information about the subject in the title. The main purpose of title disambiguation is simply to provide distinct URLs for the articles in question, preferably in a format that a reader would be able to guess (not too likely) or at least remember after the first time they see it. Someone who is confused about which Jin Dynasty they are reading about can clear that up by reading the first sentence of the article. Consequently, I think Wikipedia style is clearly against double (or triple) disambiguation; once is sufficient. We should either have the tone mark in the title or show the years in parentheses. I have no strong preference, although Nlu might be right that the tone mark presents technical problems for some users. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 03:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the line I've added at the end of the introductory paragraph in all four Jin-related titles. Feel free to improve it of course. "Note that there are four periods of Chinese history using the name "Jin" (see  clarification here)." There really wasn't anything in the intros to these pages to alert readers to the possibility of confusion, which is part of the reason I was pushing for disambiguation within the titles. I still prefer adding the tones, Chin. char. and dates, but won't push the issue; after further reflection, it seems to me this additional line may be adequate. Cheers! Dragonbones 06:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Can we please add "AD" or "CE" (or whatever the politically correct term is) to the dates? They are not at all clear for non-specialists (me!) and I have to look through the text to find out when the time of this dynasty relative to our European dating system. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nick Michael (talk • contribs) 16:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:DATE, unspecified dates are always AD.  --Nlu (talk) 05:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Nlu, that's good to know. Nick Michael 13:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates not clear 

message: I restored the map that Balthazar deleted. He had a point about it only showing Jin, but it's better than no map whatsoever. I have two maps that show Jin and much more (East-Hem 300ad.jpg and East-Hem 400ad.jpg), but I plan to crop the large maps into smaller maps (Europe, Asia, etc.). That won't be ready for another few weeks, but until then, the existing map is better than none! Thomas Lessman (talk) 23:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jin Map

message: I love the asia map (300ce)!  Great cross-cultural reference.  Oh yea, and the second one (400ce).  Should be links connecting them.
But, it's tiny!  And cramped.  And, you click down on it expecting to see a magnified version, and instead you zip off to one of the links.
The original map image for both is available in thousands of pixels, but the overlay with the links don't come with it for free.
In fact... I can't even find where those links are.  
Here we are... seems like the overlaid links are part of an Annotation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Annotation
which is something I've never done before.  And I don't have time to learn it now.  sorry.
Anyway, each map should have a LARGE version.  Maybe on a page all its own.
In fact, each one should be converted to a simple, small .png, replacing what's there, which links to the large one.
This way the user's not thrown off when they click on it, actually clicking on GUPTA EMPIRE, and they go to 'Gupta Empire' instead of to an enlarged image.
There's maybe a way to enlarge the annotation location coordinates, without having to change each by hand?
Without also magnifying the text? maybe not.
Try some experiments (see by editing this section).  Original sidebar map as in the page, see on right → 
then, on the left, get rid of caption. The Rectangle (plain) is just the box enclosing 'EASTERN JIN', the numbers after Annotation are the coordinates for the box location.
But the numbers do something.  so we can remove the box ←
but the Title (not shown on page!) defines which Annotation:

so you see you get an error cuz 'Continental Asia in 401 CE' is not found.
OsamaBinLogin (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  want a larger map 

message: It's been since late June that User:Stargate756 has moved this article to Jin Dynasty (266-420) without any explanation for his actions. Sima Yan forced Cao Huan of Cao Wei to abdicate and then was enthroned as Emperor Wu of Jin in 265; end of story. Can this user please explain his actions? Your edits seem disruptive and I dare say unwelcome at Wikipedia.--Pericles of AthensTalk 14:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Article move

message: I propose that the two recently-created articles Jin Duchy (240–264) and Jin Kingdom (264–265) be merged to Jin Dynasty (265–420) or History of the Jin Dynasty (265–420).
The duchy and the kingdom were actually vassal states nominally under the control of the state of Cao Wei in the Three Kingdoms period. The last Wei emperor Cao Huan granted the title of "Duke of Jin" (晉公) to Sima Zhao in the 260s, which was how the dukedom or duchy came about. The title "Duke of Jin" was previously held by Sima Zhao's father Sima Yi. In 264, Sima Zhao was promoted from a duke to a vassal king, "King of Jin" (晉王), hence the "Kingdom of Jin". His title was inherited by his son Sima Yan, who was briefly "King of Jin" before he forced Cao Huan to abdicate the throne to him, thus ending Cao Wei and establishing the Jin Dynasty (265–420). Throughout that period of time, the Cao Wei state was still in existence even though Sima Zhao (and later Sima Yan) had become the de facto rulers of Wei. Therefore, since the duchy and the kingdom still paid nominal allegiance to the Wei emperor, they should not be viewed as independent states. Rather, they were the forerunners of the Jin Dynasty (265–420).
I'm sure it would be totally absurd to create individual articles for the domains (or fiefs) of all the persons in Cao Wei who held the titles of dukes, princes, or vassal kings. If not, we'll be seeing articles like Cao Zhang's Principality of Rencheng or even Sun Quan's Kingdom of Wu (222-229).   LDS  contact me 10:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree whole-heartedly. _dk (talk) 16:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

text: User:KO.2, the creator of those two pages, removed my notification from his/her talk page. I'll assume that he/she does not wish to participate in this discussion and has no objections to the merge.   LDS  contact me 15:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mergers of Jin Duchy (240–264) and Jin Kingdom (264–265) 

message: There's a move request to decapitalize "dynasty" in the Chinese dynasty articles, as in Han Dynasty → Han dynasty. For more information and to give your input, see . --Cold Season (talk) 17:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move request to decapitalize all Chinese dynasty articles 

message: Of course it is sometimes known as an "empire". We don't need a page move: "Jin dynasty of the Chinese Empire" is still more common... but Jin Empire has plenty of attestations and, not only should its use not be removed, it needs to be mentioned in the article as an alternate name. See also Google Scholar for scholarly use. — LlywelynII 01:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you looked at the links you provided? They are talking about the Jurchen Jin dynasty that 800 years after this dynasty. I've long identified you as a competent editor, but I must express my disappointment. _dk (talk) 02:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: This was a state headed by an emperor

message: "Distinguished as the Sima Jin and Liang Jin" means what? If these things belong in the lead they need to be explained there. Siuenti (talk) 23:29, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "distinguished as the Sima Jin and Liang Jin" means what? 

message: Jin was established in the year 266, not 265. According to Book of Jin, the dynasty was established in the December of 265 [of the Chinese calendar]. If we use Julian calendar, it should already be in the year 266!--Alvin  Lee 00:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved. NoNews! 10:28, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrect time

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Emperor Wu of Jin which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 17:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress