- The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: pages not moved. harej 02:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Emperor Taizu of Later Liang → Zhu Quanzhong — Most (but not all) of these articles are currently named pursuant to the naming policy at WP:NC-ZH. However, this has created inconsistencies in themselves, because Chinese traditional and modern historical sources do not have uniform ways of referring to these persons. What I am proposing is to dispense with the imperial posthumous and temple names (and other semi-posthuomous names) altogether and refer to them by names. Unfortunately, they often also used multiple names throughout their lifetimes, and I am proposing that we use the names that are most often known or used the longest. If there is consensus for this (or any alternative proposal), WP:NC-ZH will need to be amended to reflect this. - Relisting Ronhjones (Talk) 21:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Nlu (talk) 17:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most (but not all) of these articles are currently named pursuant to the naming policy at WP:NC-ZH. However, this has created inconsistencies in themselves, because Chinese traditional and modern historical sources do not have uniform ways of referring to these persons. What I am proposing is to dispense with the imperial posthumous and temple names (and other semi-posthuomous names) altogether and refer to them by names. Unfortunately, they often also used multiple names throughout their lifetimes, and I am proposing that we use the names that are most often known or used the longest. If there is consensus for this (or any alternative proposal), WP:NC-ZH will need to be amended to reflect this. --Nlu (talk) 17:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- While I more or less agree with your proposal, why do you want to move Liu Min to Liu Chong? Min seems to be the personal name most widely used. Fornadan (t) 18:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's close, but Liu Chong is used more just based on the number of times that I think I run across his name (note -- what I mean here for "used" is "used as the primary designation"; all sources acknowledge his original name of Chong and subsequent change to Min):
- History of the Five Dynasties, vol. 135 uses Liu Chong.
- New History of the Five Dynasties, vol. 70 uses Liu Min.
- Zizhi Tongjian uses Chong before the name change (vol. 286, 287, 288, 289, 290); after the name change, which it acknowledged (vol. 290), it referred to him simply as "the Lord of Northern Han" (vol. 290, 291, 292.
- Spring and Autumn Annals of the Ten Kingdoms (十國春秋) — a source that I must say that I only started reading lately but which I am getting to appreciate greatly for its depth of coverage as well as its, for its time, neutral wording in treating the Ten Kingdoms — used his temple name of Shizu as the primary designation in both the table of contents[1] and his biography[2] but referred to him in name as Min (although also acknowledging the name change from Chong).
- I would say, again, it's close, but I think "Liu Chong" is more popularly known than "Liu Min." Google estimates a search of 劉崇 and 北漢 yields 65,300 results, while 劉旻 and 北漢 yields 12,300 results. (I added "北漢" into the search to avoid stray 劉崇 and 劉旻 results.) --Nlu (talk) 22:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment these are not even the names they used, since they did not speak Mandarin. 76.66.197.151 (talk) 05:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your point? Do you propose a time machine for us to figure out how they would have pronounced their names? A standard still has to be used, and currently the naming policy and the style manual both indicate use of Pinyin is proper. (And actually, at least the Later Zhou ones probably did speak an earlier form of Mandarin; by that point the Turkic influences would have been infused already.) --Nlu (talk) 13:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The current standard applies for European monarchs in general as well. For example, Edward II of England instead of Edward of Carnarvon. Even the Chinese tends to refer to them with their posthumous, temple, or era names as referring to their actual names is somewhat disrespective, well, not really disrespective but it's not respective to refer to someone, especially the emperor using his real name. It's also somewhat of a Taboo. List_of_Chinese_monarchs already lists all of the emperors and kings and link using their most commonly used names. If you want to know why some are listed using posthumous, some using temple, and some using Era, it's simple, it's just a habit developed by Historians over time. Historians tends to refer to emperors of one dynasty using their posthumous names, another using temple, and another using Era. History books are written by them, so the habit passes on to the general populace. Those are the most commonly used names, tell you the truth if you list all the emperors using their actual names, it'll actually become a bit harder for people to figure out who is who. We're used to their posthumous/temple/era names. Aye, sure we had to memorise all the names back in school, but we've been using their respective non-given names for so long (with only a few exceptions of Liu Bang, Liu Bei, Zhu Yuanzhang, etc) that we'll have to think and convert, if we still remember their given names at all, of which emperor you're talking about when using given names. These names of Hongwu, Qianlong, Han Gaozu, Qin Shihuang, and many more have have already been established as the most commonly used name. How many people do you know who refers to Qin Shihuang as Ying Zheng? Liu Tao (talk) 15:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I begrudgingly accept that situation that you referred to for the dynasties before and after the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms Period, but the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms Period present an unique problem is that, unlike the situations with older or newer dynasties, there are not usually established common names for any of the emperors. Emperor Zhuangzong instead of Li Cunxu? I can live with that. But what do you refer to the last emperor of the Later Tang Dynasty? There is no good accepted common way of referring to him even among traditional historians. Emperor Fei? Emperor Mo? Li Congke? Wang Congke? The Prince of Lu? All of these names have been used in traditional accounts and there is no consistency. I think for this period, the only way you're going to come close to any kind of consistency and NPOV is to use personal names, and that's why I proposed it. Note that I am not proposing it for any other period. --Nlu (talk) 20:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary section break[edit]
：：：：Well, regardless of how we'd refer to the emperors, to refer to them by their given name would be the last thing we'd do. First and last emperors of a dynasty/empire is a bit of on the exception sides, but emperors in general, especially those not the first or last of dynasties are almost never referred to by their given names. Actually, I don't even think we learn their actual names in history class at all, the period was very chaotic and complicated, it's probably okay to refer to the actual names of the emperors and kings of the period, but besides that, no. If you want to change the emperors' names to their given names, outside the wudaishiguo period you won't have much luck, because the emperors of the 'major' dynasties were almost exclusively referred to by their temple or post-humous names. Liu Tao (talk) 18:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Scratch that, I went back looking, most of the emperors of the time we didn't learn about, we just made acknowledgements. Don't even talk about learning the given names, the fact that they've been mentioned at all is already pretty rare. When they are mentioned, they're mentioned with their temple names or whatever. Liu Tao (talk) 18:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no idea which country/area you are from, nor what the highest level of Chinese history you completed, but I don't think that you should make a Wikipedia policy argument based on your own history classes' naming policies, because Wikipedia is not run by a government. If you are from Taiwan, though, the names are there; check in the back of the books for the genealogies, which included all of the emperors' names.
- Again, the particular problem created by this period is the lack of uniformity in name references even among the traditional (or even the "official" traditional) sources. As much as I do not like to use "Qianlong Emperor," for example, I will acknowledge that that is fairly standard. But the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms Period was a period that was characterized by the lack of standard ways of referring to people, whether emperors or not, but particularly emperors. The only consistent and NPOV way to do it is by using names. (And as I've acknowledged above, even then it creates problems.) I am, repeat, not making a proposal to change the policy on any other period. --Nlu (talk) 03:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oi, I'm telling you of what the people have learned. In history, the given names of the emperors are rarely used, if they're learned at all. For the most part we just memorise the names, take the test, and then forget. Ask any lad the names of Han Wendi, Han Xiandi, Qin Shihuang, and I'd doubt that you'll get many answers. The emperors of the Wudaishiguo are even less commonly known, I doubt many can still remember the dynasties themselves, let alone what emperors there are in the dynasties. There is no standard in referring to the emperors, you can refer to them by their era name, temple name, pot-humous and you'll still be correct, problem is if people will know what you're talking about, and I seriously doubt given names will ring the bell to anyone. There's nothing POV about referring to the Emperors by their respective titles. Generally we refer to them by their Era or Temple names. Wikipedia is not about standardisation or consistency, NC specifically states to name using the most commonly used name or the one that will ring the bell when used, and Given Names are definitly NOT in the equation. Liu Tao (talk) 18:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are not listening. I am not talking about emperors of any other period. I am talking specifically of the emperors of this period. The fact that you are not familiar with them doesn't mean that they are not of importance and should not have a consistent way of being referred to. If you have a better proposal, list how you would like to have them referred to. "I don't know and I don't care" is not a particularly helpful answer. This is an encyclopedia, not a popularity contest of historical personalities. There is already no consistency in the names of the articles on Wikipedia already. I'm trying to create some consistency here.
- In other words, if you have a better proposal, list what you would name each of the articles that I suggested renaming above. The current inconsistency is not a solution. --Nlu (talk) 22:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, we've got a problem then. This period of history is very lightly covered in History classes. It's already pretty difficult to name a particular emperor of the era, let alone their actual given names. What I mean to say is that their given names are even less known than their temple or post-humous names, it would be less logical to use their given names instead of their temple or post-humous names. I support consistency, aye, but it doesn't seem to make sense to do so with their given names. I mean, the current format is good. Emperor Taizu of Later Liang, that tells me that it's the first emperor of the Later Liang Empire. Usually when people think of the emperors, they don't usually think of them in terms of their actual given names, instead it's more about which emperor of a particular empire/dynasty. Liu Tao (talk) 20:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know what else I can say: the fact that you hadn't heard of them doesn't mean that they're not important.
- Again, if you think that you have a better solution, give us a list of names you would propose naming each of the articles that I listed above. --Nlu (talk) 00:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, then how many people have heard of them? How many people know the names? How many people remember the names? How many people will even recognise the name?
- My better solution is to leave it as is. As I've said, the current article titles are much more widely known than their given names. Emperor Taizu of Later Liang vs Zhu Wen. Let's see, the first one tells me that it is the first emperor of the Later Liang. The second one tells me it's a guy called Zhu Wen, it doesn't tell me anything else. Liu Tao (talk) 20:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Unindent) "Leave it as it is" is not an option since, as you can see above, the article titles are not consistent. "Emperor Taizu of Later Liang" may be a fine title under your logic, if accepted (and there are certainly plusses); but then "Mingzong of Later Tang" is not; neither is "Yindi of Later Han." Certainly "Zhu Zhen" is not. You can't "leave it as it is" because there is no "is." If you are going to propose something, propose something that would be consistent and applicable throughout the period. You can't simply leave all of the articles remain unrenamed; if you think that "Emperor Taizu of Later Liang" is fine, propose new titles for the other articles that I referred to above that would be consistent. In any case, it is my argument that you can't achieve consistency for this particular period unless you use names. Your failure to provide a consistent solution is not itself a solution. --Nlu (talk) 20:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, this is what I mean: below are the current article names for those people who claimed imperial titles during the period, as well as what I propose to be the new names (or, in some cases, no name changes); again, if you have a proposal that can even make some sense that would be consistent, please fill in the blanks as I have left them in the table, so that we can compare your proposal to mine: (Some Liao Dynasty and some Song Dynasty emperors were contemporaries of these men, but I do not propose any movements for Liao and Song emperors, since they are, in fact, established)
Again, if you have a better idea -- and I think I've shown how "the way it is" is not an idea since there is no "is" -- let's hear it. --Nlu (talk) 02:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary section break 2[edit]
I meant, 'leave it as is' as in making them in accordance to the NC. Liu Tao (talk) 22:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, so let's talk about that. This is what WP:NC-ZH currently says:
The general principle is to use the name which is most familiar to Chinese readers. This violates the Wikipedia principle that the name most familiar to English readers should be used, because English readers are not usually familiar with any of the emperors.
Summary of principles used:
- Emperors before the Tang Dynasty: use posthumous names, such as Emperor Wu of Han (漢武帝).
- Emperors of the Tang, Song, Liao and Jin (1115-1234) dynasties : use temple names, such as Emperor Taizong of Tang (唐太宗).
- Emperors of the Ming Dynasty and Qing Dynasty: use era names (same as reign names), such as Kangxi Emperor (康熙帝).
The above is a rough guide and there are many exceptions. See Table of Chinese monarchs for a complete list of all Chinese monarchs, and follow the conventions given there.
Because these are reign names and not personal names, the correct phrasing for emperors of the Ming and Qing dynasty is the "Kangxi Emperor" rather than "Emperor Kangxi".
- The paragraph is actually completely silent as to the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period. And note that it states, "The general principle is to use the name which is most familiar to Chinese readers." Well, for rulers of this era, what is clear is that it is not clear what is the "most familiar" name. I believe that the only resultant sane principle is to use personal names. (And there is precedent; article rulers of the Three Kingdoms era use personal names and have always done so as far as I can tell — predating my being a Wikipedia editor, certainly, and I've been editing for several years now.
- I do admit that the naming convention would generally seem to dictate using "Emperor XXX of YYY." But the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period is characterized by its complete lack of consistency in Chinese traditional sources as far as referring to these emperors in the "Emperor XXX of YYY" formula — particularly since most emperors of this period, due to the shortness of the dynasties and the general turmoil of the period, did not receive posthumous names or temple names. For lengthy dynasties, such as the Han, the Tang, and Song, &c., the traditional consensus has always been clear, whether I like it or not. But this particular period does not feature that. Again, the only consistent and logical method is to name them using their names. --Nlu (talk) 02:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Haha, to use their names is neither consistent or logical. If all the other emperors are using a name OTHER than their personal names, to use their real names is even LESS consistent. As for logical, not at all. As I've said, the personal names are even less known than their titles. The emperors are rarely mentioned in history, and when mentioned tends to be mentioned in their temple/reign names. For Chinese readers, to use their temple/reign names would be of the most logical, it tells the most in the title. Emperor Taizu of Later Liang versus Zhu Wen, which makes the most sense to a Chinese reader? For the Chinese reader, 'Zhu Wen' just says it's someone called Zhu Wen, doesn't say anything. 'Emperor Taizu of Later Liang' tells me it's the first emperor of the Later Liang Dynasty. Liu Tao (talk) 19:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're still avoiding my main point: whether your assertion about Zhu Wen is correct or not (and as I think I'll show below, it is not), this doesn't answer the question of "what do we do about all of those other emperors who don't have a commonly-recognized temple name or posthumous name?" That's why I want you to commit to filling out the chart that I made. Make a common sense proposal that is consistent as to the entire period.
- In any case, I believe your assumption was wrong to begin with, even when it comes to Zhu Wen:
- "後梁太祖" ("Taizu of Later Liang") yields 6,880 Google hits.
- "梁太祖" ("Taizu of Liang") yields 21,600 Google hits.
- "朱溫" ("Zhu Wen") yields 115,000 hits.
- "朱全忠" ("Zhu Quanzhong") yields 49.900 hits. (I am actually surprised by this one; I thought that it would be reversed.)
- "朱晃" ("Zhu Huang") yields 50,200 hits.
- I am sorry, but I am not sure that you have a sufficient understanding here to even properly comment on this. Please acquaint yourself with the period. And, more importantly, think about what we're going to do with all those other emperors in the period. If you have a consistent proposal, make it. --Nlu (talk) 20:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What I glean from this is that "the problem" being addressed here is that the current names are not consistent, presumably with each other. I admit to not understanding what is not consistent about them, but that is not relevant to my question, which is: so what if they're not consistent? What's wrong with treating each one individually, and doing your best to determine what is the most common name used to refer to each one in reliable English sources? Just because that leads to inconsistent names is no reason to not do it, as far as I can tell. Your answer to why not leave it the way it is was: "because there is no 'is'". Sure there is, the names they currently have is what "is". Sure, if other naming criteria can be achieved, then it's nice to also make them consistent, but consistency with naming of other similar articles should be given a lower priority than WP:COMMONNAME and "only as precise as necessary", in my view. I'm holding back for now because I realize I might be missing something, but my inclination is to oppose this change. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then I would suggest that you come up with names that you would believe satisfy Wikipedia's requirements for each and every one of the articles (and articles that should be created) that I listed above. I am willing to listen. But I think it is not right to simply oppose on the basis "that's too much change" when you have no better alternative of your own.
- Consistency is also necessary in that readers should not be unduly confused about the inconsistency. As you noted, things should be "only as precise as necessary." As it stands, however, there is no precision at all. Not only that, but based on the principle that you just cited, names should be considered the least amount of information necessary to identify these emperors uniquely. --Nlu (talk) 15:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Changing my vote to oppose based on the realization that this entire proposal seems to be based on choosing titles based on usage in sources that are not English. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Support No opinion on the first move proposal in in the list, but any of the form like this one, Emperor Zhuangzong of Later Tang → Li Cunxu, I support, because the proposed title better reflects the name of the subject. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Unconvinced. I haven't the expertise to make any unequivocal pronouncements, but looking at the first move proposal, I'm finding many more references to emperor Taizu on Google books and scholar than to Zhu Quanzhong. I don't think we should be replacing better known names by more obscure ones simply for the sake of consistency. --Kotniski (talk) 14:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As I've said before, I am willing to be convinced, but we need an alternative proposal rather than a simple "don't move this one." --Nlu (talk) 15:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My strategy would be: (1) look at each of them, and if there's a clear commonest way of referring to them, then use that (disambiguated as necessary); then (2) for the others (where there's no clear answer), follow whichever pattern emerged as most common from step 1.--Kotniski (talk) 15:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you be willing to do so and make a proposal? --Nlu (talk) 15:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really, as I'm not knowledgeable enough about this field. --Kotniski (talk) 16:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand, but I am disappointed by the response, then. Frankly, I feel that (and I think that this is not an over-aggrandizement by myself) that I'm the expert here in this area, and I'm not being listened to. The current naming scheme — or lack of — makes no sense, and what I feel I proposed is the only one that makes sense so far — because there has been no other proposals. Without a realistic alternative proposal, I am inclined to carry out the moves "boldly" (although some may disagree with that characterization) in a few days (if I have time, which I may not). (I'll also note that Chinese Wikipedia uses names as well — I believe, precisely, because of the naming problem that I discussed above.) --Nlu (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand why you think there needs to be a scheme at all. Kotniski's strategy is essentially this: For each article, name it according to WP:TITLE. Period. What else do you require, and why? --Born2cycle (talk) 16:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, then; I believe I see enough evidence that names are the appropriate titles for each and every one of the articles I mentioned above, as I see no rebuttal evidence. Satisfied? --Nlu (talk) 16:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess that comment sounded a little too frustrated. What I mean is this: from what I can see from contemporary Chinese usage, in addition to what I see in Google searches, I see every reason to believe that the names are the proper titles, and I am frustrated by the current mishmash of titles that I don't see any good reasons for or any good reasons to keep. Names are accurate, in accordance with common usage, and consistent. They should be used. --Nlu (talk) 17:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But my basic Google Books and Scholar searches revealed that what you call "the name" is not in accordance with common usage, at least as far as Emperor Taizu is concerned. I haven't looked at any of the others.--Kotniski (talk) 17:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the "Google Books and Scholar" searches are reflective of common usage. I've cited the general Google search figures that I've found above. But in any case, if you haven't looked at the others, I'd suggest that you do so. --Nlu (talk) 18:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The point is that the case has to be made for each article separately, not en masse like this, unless the same argument supports each proposed title using the criteria at WP:TITLE. I have not seen such an argument presented here.
You're saying "the name" is what should be used, but you dismiss usage as made by evident by Google Books and Scholar searches to support that. If those sources are not reflective of common usage, what is? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What about Googling in general? And since WP:NC-ZH indicates that generally, the most common Chinese usage should be used, Googling in Chinese (as I did above) reflects that "Zhu Wen" is used much more. (As I noted, this surprised me as well because I thought "Zhu Quanzhong" would be. I am willing to go along with "Zhu Wen.") --Nlu (talk) 15:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary section break 3[edit]
(outdent) Googling in general tends to be too much influenced by Wikipedia's current article title. I wouldn't normally say that Chinese usage should be taken into account, though if the person is so obscure that he's hardly known in English, while being much better known in Chinese, then I suppose I could agree to following Chinese usage. (Though again, when Googling, we need to remember that the current Chinese Wikipedia title is going to be unfairly overrepresented, that's if Chinese Wikipedia gets the same degree of copies and forks that the English one does). --Kotniski (talk) 18:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's why google scholar and books is better than general google. And this is an English encyclopedia. Titles of articles are supposed to convey how the article's subject is called in English, according to policy. How the subject is most commonly called in Mandarin or Cantonese is irrelevant. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, then there must be a way for somebody to come up with a list that is generally considered accepted in English. And somebody other than myself should be willing to put in the work to do that, because these are all still just general assertions. Specifics, please. --Nlu (talk) 10:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And again, this is what NC-ZH says with regard to emperors:
- The general principle is to use the name which is most familiar to Chinese readers. This violates the Wikipedia principle that the name most familiar to English readers should be used, because English readers are not usually familiar with any of the emperors.
- Whether this is good policy or not is debatable, but this is what it is right now. I am not suggesting that we need to unerringly follow this (given that these particular emperors are the demonstration that this policy is difficult to follow as well). But again, if you're going to suggest something else, suggest a comprehensive list. --Nlu (talk) 11:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't suggest anything else, or even say for sure whether I support or oppose your suggestions, since my knowledge on the subject is zero. I suggest that to resolve this (I came here on noticing that this was the way oldest proposal on the backlog list at WP:RM) you could actively elicit the views of editors with knowledge of the subject (China project pages etc.), if you haven't done that already. Or if this discussion is closed as no consensus, consider making individual proposals to move those pages where your case seems strongest. Anyway, that's all from me.--Kotniski (talk) 16:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have asked for comments on the talk page for WikiProject China from the very start of this discussion. No response. But again, I don't think it's overly arrogant of me to consider myself the resident expert here on this era. --Nlu (talk) 17:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I suspect that guideline has never been scrutinized. I've proposed a change. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Very Strongly oppose. To take the first proposal only: search for Taizu Liang and dynasty (the last to encourage on subject and English hits) gets 882 Google Books hits; substituting Quanzhong gets 62 - and many of those are spurious, or say that the Emperor Taizu was called Quanzhong before his accession or the like. To say what the best titles are would require much more work (and we don't need to do all that work at once; we're a wiki); but a ratio like that shows this is the wrong way to go, beyond any plausible claims for sampling error.
- These are not well-defined names in the Western sense, as the articles themselves make clear; every elite Chinese has several, and the Emperors changed theirs for several reasons; these proposals make less sense (independent of usage) than calling Augustus C. Julius Caesar Octavianus, or the great Duke of Wellington Arthur Wesley.
- Not Policy. This is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of fundamental Wikipedia policies. Articles should be written from (and cited to) English secondary sources. They must be English (except on subjects so obscure that there are no reliable English sources; no Emperor qualifies) so that the anglophone reader can verify them. Writing tenth-century history from primary sources assumes that they are transparent, unbiased, and intelligible; the first question to ask about a primary source is "what POV was it written to serve?", the second is "what cultural assumptions are we missing?" - that's why secondary sources exist. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My main response is still this: don't just oppose. Come up with a comprehensive alternative proposal. It is irritating to read "I oppose this!" while being given no alternatives and being apparently the only one here who can be bothered to look things up.
- This is another misunderstanding. I don't have to make things better (it may be that the present system is about as well as we can do) to oppose making things worse. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But an additional point is this: the "English-only" approach as far as sources are concerns completely, completely ignores the usage in the community of persons who are bilingual -- myself included. As an example, "Wudi" would never fly, usage-wise, among readers of history who are both fluent in English and Chinese; Emperor Wu of Han works better and is the common usage there. But for Five Dynasties/Ten Kingdoms emperors, there is nothing nearly as established. For that community, "Zhu Wen" and "Zhu Quanzhong," while still relatively obscure, would be recognized. "Emperor Taizu of Later Liang" probably draws a "Who are you talking about?" This is contrary to the situation of "Augustus vs. Octavian vs. Octavius vs. Octavianus" situation because Latin is a language that is no longer in common use. That's not the same with Chinese, and I dare say that most people who will be reading these Chinese-history articles in English are Chinese Americans. --Nlu (talk) 01:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is absolutely no reason to suppose that Chinese-Americans are the primary audience for this; Chinese history is of interest to the world. (There is even less reason to suppose that the Chinese-American population, which is going on its fifth generation by now, is fluent in written Chinese - but that's a secondary question.)
- So we are written for all Anglophones, not those reading
- I just realized a fairly substantial flaw in your searches, PMAnderson. Searching simply for "Liang" and "Taizu" and "dynasty" yields hits on the Taizu of the succeeding dynasties (Song, in addition to the other four of the Five Dynasties) as well and therefore artificially inflates the numbers. (One of the top hits based on your hits was about Emperor Taizu of Song.) I'm going to run a new search in a few minutes which should give better counts. --Nlu (talk) 02:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- More false positives than I expected; but putting quotes about "Liang dynasty" leaves the ratio at 120:17; also excluding "Song" leaves 69:7. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Taizu of Liang" yielded 4 results. "Taizu of Later Liang" yielded 11 results. 15 is not anywhere close to 62. Will search the variations of Zhu Wen next. --Nlu (talk) 03:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- [3] (now 5 results rather than 4 when I did last night); [4]
- "Zhu Wen" + "Liang" as the search yields 704 results. --Nlu (talk) 03:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Zhu Quanzhong" + "Liang" yields 67 results. Regardless, I think that if you are expecting Google Scholar searches to back up your assertion that using name is wrong, we are getting the exact opposite result. I am still not convinced that this is the right metric, but even under this metric names should be used. --Nlu (talk) 03:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Taizu" + "Later Liang" yields 92 results, but when you look at the results even cursorily, you will see that most of those "Taizu" references are still to the "Taizu" of Song and Liao Dynasty, not Zhu Wen/Zhu Quanzhong. I think I am fairly confident now that I can declare that there is nothing to support the idea that "Taizu of Later Liang" is the appropriate title. --Nlu (talk) 03:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Liang Taizu" yields 12 results. --Nlu (talk) 15:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- [8] (note that it says "about" 36 results but yields actually only 12]
- "Chu Wen" + "Liang" + "Five Dynasties" yields 370 results. --Nlu (talk) 15:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Chu Chu'an-chung" + "Liang" + "Five Dynasties" yields 30 results. I will say this still: even based on the Google Scholars search (which I still believe is flawed since this is not "common usage"), there is still no evidence and strong counterevidence that the current title is appropriate. --Nlu (talk) 15:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- [10] (now only 5 results versus the results I got earlier)
- And to make the fundamental point, again: We are not written in Chinese; we are not written in pinyin except insofar as it is actually adopted into English. There is a Chinese Wikipedia - for precisely this reason. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And your point is? How do you render "Mao Zedong" "in English"? I think I've shown that your premise is wrong — that, in fact, names are used more commonly even by the flawed metric you are proposing that we use. --Nlu (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Mao Zedong", which is what the current crop of English books on the PRC uses; an earlier version of Wikipedia would have used "Mao Tse-tung", for the same reason. Neither of them is any more Chinese than, say, "Confucius", which we also use. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (unindenting) Additional comment But let me bring back to the reason behind the proposal — consistency — which in turn was due to the importance of WP:NPOV, which is itself more important than any naming principles. Using imperial titles for Zhu Wen implies greater legitimacy than, for example, Yang Pu, which for consistency sake would then have to be "Emperor Rang of Wu," which will be far more obscure than anything we have discussed so far. --Nlu (talk) 17:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is why we do not consider legitimacy in titling articles; we call such figures what most anglophones call them - just as we call Henry, Count of Chambord by that title, not Henry V of France; other hand, we call the Emperor Norton by his title, because the sources do, so that everybody will know who we mean. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And you seem to have the wrong Yang Pu. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But you are still implying legitimacy by using "emperor" for Zhu Wen and not "emperor" for the other contemporaneous emperors. Again, the only consistent (and therefore NPOV) way to do this is to use names. (I did have the wrong Yang Pu, not realizing that the current article wasn't about the emperor. Liu Yan (emperor) would be a better example; to be NPOV, if we are using emperor titles, we would have to use "Emperor Gaozu of Southern Han," which certainly isn't going to be common usage.) There is also precedent in this: all Three Kingdoms period emperor articles use names. While that was by consensus, part of the reason why that consensus was reached was the need for NPOV. --Nlu (talk) 18:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing inconsistent about applying WP:TITLE -- using the most common name in English usage, at least when it is obvious and unambiguous -- to each article independently, even if that results in titles that appear to look inconsistent with respect to each other. There is a difference between applying a consistent NPOV title-determining methodology to all these topics (which is what is required by WP:TITLE) from a methodology designed to result in consistent looking titles (which is not what is required by WP:TITLE). Let's not confuse the two. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:59, 23 November 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.
|
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
