Talk:Dynasty
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] East Asian Dynasties Edit
intranetusa
I've added more Asian dynasties - China and Japan, and includes the complete list of all the Chinese dynasties.
[edit] East Asia
[edit] China
- Xia Dynasty (2205 BCE–1766 BCE)
- Shang Dynasty (1766 BCE–1050 BCE)
- Zhou Dynasty (1122 BCE–256 BCE)
- Qin Dynasty (221 BCE–206 BCE)
- Han Dynasty (206 BCE–220 CE)
- Three Kingdoms (220 CE–280 CE)
- Jin Dynasty (265 CE–420 CE)
- Southern & Northern Dynasty (420CE–589 CE)
- Sui Dynasty (581 CE–618 CE)
- Tang Dynasty (618 CE–907 CE)
- Song Dynasty (960 CE–1279 CE)
- Yuan Dynasty (1271 CE–1368 CE)
- Song Dynasty (1368 CE–1644 CE)
- Qing Dynasty (1644 CE–1912 CE)
[edit] Japan
- Japanese Dynasty (400-500 CE-present)
-intranetusa
[edit] Chinese dynasties?
They have so many dynasties, and none of them are listed? Insert non-formatted text here
[edit] North Korea
I have deleted the following since the same is repeated in "Political families".
"The Heads of State of modern North Korea also works on de facto dynastic succession. The late Kim Il-Sung was succeeded by his eldest son Kim Jong-Il, and Kim Jong-Il will most certainly be succeeded by one of his own sons".
Other reasons for deletion:
1) The entry sounded like anti-North Korean propaganda. And while many of us may not like North Korea, propaganda is still propaganda, even if it sounds pretty to our ears. 2) The entry contained an unprovable supposition. 3) There is no mention about things like this in other countries' sections (like Syria). Ri hwa won 20:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "democracies"?
Why are the Kims and the Assads under a section-header "Dynasties in democracies"? AnonMoos 14:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sports dynasty section
I really don't like this. It's inherently POV. It's something sportwriters argue about all the time. How can it work on Wikipedia? – flamurai (t) 09:51, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
- I totally agree. Plus except for some sports fanatics nobody will be interested in that kind of interpretation. If people want to keep it, let's move it to Dynasty_(sports) and let them fight it out there. Actually, this page needs a lot of work in general -- have a look at for example the German version of this page for an example of what a page on dynasties should look like (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynastie). --CPK 03:53, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
[edit] European dynasties --> ass backwards?
The material on European dynasties seems to me to be organized in a not very useful way. Given that so many European dynasties ruled over many different countries, and given that the list of dynasties in each country separately is already to be found at the individual List of monarchs pages, I wonder if it might not be better to list all the different European dynasties together, and note the various specific places they ruled. Sub-branches could be indicated through use of indenting. john k 19:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
heres an article on the eyres thats really recent, LOTS of info, lol. got to the part about lroy heller w/the teacher and RAOTFLMAO. it shuldnt be funny but it is
[edit] Incomplete Asia
What about Japanese and Chinese Dynasties?
[edit] Angelus dynasty
The link for the Byzantine Angelus / Angelos dynasty went to "Angelus" which takes you to an article on the Catholic prayer of that name. I checked the disambiguation and there is a reference to the Angelus dynasty but it's linked to "Angeloi" which redirects right back to the prayer article. I changed the link in this article to "Angelus (dynasty)", which makes it a orphan link for now. As far as I can tell there's no existing article on the Angelus dynasty. I put the name in the Latin form instead of the Greek in order to keep consistent with the other Byzantine dynasty links in this article. I'll make the same edit at the "Angelus" disambiguation page. --Kenji Yamada 09:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Time for separate article?
Isn't it time for the ever-increasing families enumerated in this article to be forked off into List of dynasties or some such, that matches & can be linked to the various Rulers and Succession lists? Lethiere 02:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Scotland
Why does Scotland's House only go to 1707 but England's goes to the present day? They both have had the same House since 1603. The royal house for England and Scotland should stop at 1707 and then a new country Great Britain 1707-1801 should be listed and then 1801-Present it should be U.K. royal Houses. This must be corrected. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.206.157.242 (talk) 16:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Party dynasties
Do we have an article that covers party dynasties in electoral politics. I'm thinking here of Japan's Liberal Democratcs, Sweden's Social Democrats, and regional dynasties like the Democracts in the American south from the ACW to the 1960s. Would it fit in this article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kevlar67 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Categories
Is there any particular reason why this article is only in two categories? Olessi 18:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Saudi Arabia been added
Assalamu Aleikum, i've added in Asian section:
[edit] Saudi Arabia
[edit] Britain
The article states that, on Elizabeth's death, the new ruling house will be Mountbatten-Windsor. However, that article states Mountbatten-Windsor is only a surname to be used by descendants of Elizabeth and Philip who are not in line for the throne, and specifically states that the House will continue to be Windsor. Which of these statements is true? There doesn't seem to be any evidence given for changing the name of the House, so it appears this article is incorrect. K.d.stauffer (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

