- The following is a closed discussion of arequested 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 amove review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was:Not Moved(non-admin closure)>>> Extorc.talk06:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First Toungoo Empire →Second Burmese EmpireSecond Burmese Empire – Its core is today's Burma/Myanmar and the new name will be analogical toFirst/Second Bulgarian Empire, etc. and thus more appropriate. All this in regard to the already existing term "Second Burmese Empire", stated in the article itself.Ентусиастъ/Entusiast (talk)20:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - Toungoo Empire is a proper name of the empire, and I have seen it mentioned in sources. I see no rationale for change, other than perhaps somebody's personal preference for a "Burma" branding. --Kautilya3 (talk)21:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Kautilya3: The country was known back than as Burma so there has to be a "First" and "Second Burmese Empire" respectively. Dynasty almost nowhere = country name. On top of that the country didn't call itself "Toungoo". Only exception here that I can remember is the Qing dynasty/Empire but "they used both "China" and "Qing" to refer to their state in official documents." as said in the respective article. My point is that the name of any dynasty in any monarchy generally isn't and can't be a name for the state itself. The said "Toungoo Empire" isan even more artificial term than "Burmese Empire" because, as I said, neither the state nor the countrymen themselves called it that way.
- From the article itself: "The polity is known by a number of names. The prevailing terms used by most international scholars are the "First Toungoo Dynasty"; the "First Toungoo Empire"; and/or the "Second Burmese Empire"."Ентусиастъ/Entusiast (talk)07:58, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, yourWP:OR arguments are nowhere near enough to change a long-standing page title. --Kautilya3 (talk)13:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Kautilya3:, Don't project, you literally didn't give any real arguments why you oppose the move.Ентусиастъ/Entusiast (talk)15:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- SeeWP:ONUS. --Kautilya3 (talk)22:28, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. There is no reason to be analogical to the Bulgarian states.Srnec (talk)00:14, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. As perWP:COMMONNAME, Toungoo Empire/Taungoo Empire is the natural English language term used in pretty much any publication. Specifically, article titles cannot be pedantic. I would argue that there's more rationale to change it to "Toungoo Empire" as it is moreWP:CONCISE and thatSecond Toungoo Empire, if and when such a page is created, will disambiguated from this page with the clarification that it is the lesser known second Toungoo Empire.Manyarticles from SEA like to use First Toungoo Empire with some likeLieberman using first Toungoo empire (where first is more of a descriptor than part of the name).Toungoo Dynasty as the main page uses is the primary way that most articles on a quick search call the polity, including MichaelAung-Thwin andsometimes as First Toungoo dynasty.EmeraldRange (talk/contribs)13:31, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
