Talk:Liu Song dynasty

message: Yohannes just moved the article from Song Dynasty (420-479) to Liu-Song Dynasty.  In my opinion, neither the last title nor the current one is entirely satisfactory -- the former because it was unnecessarily cumbersome (this is unlike the situation with Jin Dynasty (265-420) in that the disambiguation solution already existed from how Chinese historians treated the matter), and the latter because the hyphen breaks the naming pattern of the other articles.  (I personally would have preferred Southern Song Dynasty but I understand that that itself introduces ambiguity.)  I am considering moving to Liu Song Dynasty, but I'd like to hear from others before I do so, lest that we end up removing double redirects twice.  --Nlu (talk) 16:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Former Song" is just about the least common way of referring to it, among Chinese historical circles.  Both "Southern Song" (南宋) (or a variant, literally "Southern Dynasty Song" (南朝宋)) and "Liu Song" are often used, but not "Former Song" (which would be 前宋).  A Google search that includes both "前宋" and "劉裕“ (Liu Yu, i.e., Emperor Wu of Liu Song) yields just 69 hits, while "南宋" and "劉裕" yields 1,590 hits,, and "劉宋" and "劉裕" yields 2,370 hits.  As I wrote above, I prefer "Southern Song" if there is a consensus for it, but it would require also a consensus to modify the Song Dynasty article.  --Nlu (talk) 17:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm no expert on Chinese history, so I don't really know what the most common is - but looking at the top searches in Chinese is not the way to go about this.  We should be looking at the term which is most commonly used in English, not in Chinese.  I'm not, however, sure of the best way to determine that, given how many false results a google search brings up.  Looking at major textbooks would be the best way, I think.  I will say that, imo, Southern Song is a bad idea; so far as I can tell that term is more commonly used to refer to the Song Dynasty in Hangzhou between 1127-1279 than to refer to this dynasty. john k (talk) 19:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: I dont really know a lot about Chinese history but this article seemed to me to be very biased against the north, specifically with calling them barbarians.  I dont know if this is historically correct term but to the casual ruler it seems biased if not racist, for instance, "This loss would eventually lead to the destruction of the southern regime, and resulted in North China languishing under a barbarian yoke for another 150 years."  is that correct language or not cause it seems very biased to me.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gochisox (talk • contribs) 06:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  biased  

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) 18:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move request to decapitalize all Chinese dynasty articles 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Liu Song dynasty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061006204552/http://ef.cdpa.nsysu.edu.tw/ccw/02/index.htm to http://ef.cdpa.nsysu.edu.tw/ccw/02/index.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified