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: Consensus not to move (All the IP votes are by the nominator, per this Sockpuppet report), therefore, not moved. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 12:11, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hongzhi Emperor → Zhu Youcheng (Emperor Xiaozong of Ming) – This article mainly talks about Zhu Youcheng, Emperor Xiaozong of the Ming dynasty, but there is an article which has a similar title "Tongzhi Emperor" and mainly talks about Aisin Gioro Zaichun, Emperor Muzong of the Qing dynasty, in English Wikipedia. In order to distinguish from each other, I think it is a good idea to change this article's title to "Zhu Youcheng (Emperor Xiaozong of Ming)". 111.194.18.194 (talk) 10:42, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as the proposed title does not meet WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE nor WP:CONSISTENCY. It would also be against the an existing naming convention for Chinese emperors of the Ming and Qing dinasties, which sets that era names must be used. The confusion issue here is not very justified: "Hongzhi" and "Tongzhi" do not even begin with the same letter, so it is more difficult they will get confused in user searches. Nonetheless, if it became an actual issue the the "distinguish" template could be used without needing to change the article title. Impru20^talk 14:57, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because the two articles' original titles are so similar (the difference is only the first letter "h" and "t"), I decide to distinguish between the two emperors by using their birth names and temple names. It can also make the distinguish template unnecessary. In conclusion, my proposal can distinguish between the two emperors better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.194.18.194 (talk) 15:25, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Reason mentioned above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.121.173.87 (talk) 06:23, 26 August 2018 (UTC) (Striking !vote, as this is a duplicate of the IP user's creation of this proposal – see the outcome of the SPI discussion). Impru20^talk 17:07, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Both the IP that introduced this request and this IP are located in the same city and began editing the day of these requests, with edits only pertaining to a single interconnected set of move discussions. The IP here also filed a similar move request with identical editing idiosyncrasies (including adding the new request to the top of the talk page instead of the bottom) that may indicate a connection between the user(s) of these IP addresses. Dekimasuよ! 15:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Reason mentioned above. In addition, what do you think about the proposal put forward by 111.194.18.194, Dekimasu? You should focus on the page-moved proposal here, instead of the irrelevant behaviour of 111.194.18.194. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.124.233.241 (talk) 16:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC) (Striking !vote, as this is a duplicate of the IP user's creation of this proposal – see the outcome of the SPI discussion). Impru20^talk 17:07, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, also noting that this third IP account shares the same characteristics as pointed out by Dekimasu above. Impru20^talk 14:44, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To Impru20: I am innocent. I just want to back to the page-moved proposal itself, instead of talking about others so long to disturb this discussion. I know you oppose the proposal, but you shouldn't framed me without any evidence. If you continue to framed me, I can also report you to the administrators.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.124.233.241 (talk) 15:30, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly oppose I thank the proposer for a thoughtful suggestion, but Wikipedia policy and longstanding practice require that we follow the policies mentioned above, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE and WP:CONSISTENCY. Few, if any, of our readers would recognize this name. ch (talk) 15:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Due to the minimal difference between "Hongzhi Emperor" and "Tongzhi Emperor" (only the first letter), and the dynasties which the two emperors lived in (Ming dynasty and Qing dynasty) are too close, I support the page-moved proposal. I agree that it is necessary to distinguish them by their birth names and temple names. If we continue to obey the rules of Wikipedia mentioned above, the two emperors will still be confused.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.124.233.241 (talk) 10:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose not convinced the current name is the best, but the suggested change is clearly worse. The IP edits are concerning. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.