Talk:Emperor of Japan/Archive 3

I think all of arguments are addressed well so far. Now is the time to choose a new naming scheme. Here is a list of possible titles for Emperors of Japan articles. Recall the recent four emperors are an exception.


 * {name}
 * Simply do we need to put the title for non-western monarchy?
 * -Ambiguity among articles about Japanese persons.


 * {name}, Emperor of Japan
 * Notice comma between {title} and Emperor of Japan. This should be a proper title.
 * -No one uses this. ''(It is in fact widely used, in particular by the Royal Household to refer to Hirohito. See above)


 * {name} Emperor
 * Many English books about Japanese history use this convension. It is probably due to the literal translation from Japanese titles.


 * Emperor {name}
 * This is a simply misnomer because most of Emperors of Japan are not refered by their given name but the title which would be given after the emperor died. Although misusage, many English speakers use this convension. (So does the Imperial Household itself, the Japanese government, etc. See above.)


 * Emperor {name} of Japan
 * This is widely used (only for recent emperors) in english language media, both print and journalism. It is also used (only for recent emperos e.g. Hirohito) by the Imperial Household, the Japanese Government and on the diplomatic circuit. It is also a common form used in encyclopædias (only for Hirohito).

If there is no new arguments addressed, we can move on voting.

-- Taku 04:18 Mar 28, 2003 (UTC)

Taku, you can put my vote (Uncle Ed) whereever you want. You obviously know the most about it. You have my "proxy". --Uncle Ed 16:27 Mar 28, 2003 (UTC)

Also, I guess nearly all Japanese emperors and empresses should have an article called "Emperor X of Japan" or "Empress Y of Japan". A few exceptions are Meiji Emperor, and a few others, who are called by their "reign name". Would this mean than Meiji needs a disambiguation page, since there also a Meiji Era?

Just tell me what to do: I have broadband and lots of free time (next week), so put me to work and I'll fix all 100 of the articles. --Uncle Ed 16:39 Mar 28, 2003 (UTC)

Hey - this thread should be on the naming convention page for this. --mav

Note: wikipedia is Encarta, WordNet, Compton's, or Britannica - Well folks, I'm bowing out. Here's a quick summary of what I did:


 * The undated legendary emperors (1 - 15) were moved from "{name} of Japan" to "Emperor {name} of Japan".
 * 16 - 75 were already at "Emperor {name} of Japan".
 * I inspected all redirects for the first 75 and fixed them so they all pointed to the right place.
 * I fixed a few redirects for three or four of the emperors that Ed moved to "{name}", but I couldn't keep track very well so I stopped.

I don't know if my fixed redirects are still pointing to the right pages or not. I assume Ed will go through them all (most emperors have at least two redirects to check; the ones that have been moved to "{name}" probably have three) and fix them again. I am not the slightest bit interested in the Emperors of Japan, so I'm off to follow more rewarding encyclopedic persuits. :) Good luck! -- Stephen Gilbert


 * First of all, good work! I know I am the one who made the mess. I really appreciate. -- Taku 22:24 Mar 30, 2003 (UTC)

Shitsureshimashita, I've been busier than I expected. Are we now all agreed that the formula for the 100 article titles is Emperor X of Japan and Empress Y of Japan? Because when you tell me what to do, I am ready to do it. --Uncle Ed 00:21 Apr 3, 2003 (UTC)

I think that is absolutely the right option to use on english language wiki. It produces a format that will be universally recognised. Any other form could produce a form that many people won't be able to follow. It is also the formula the Japanese state seems to prefer in english. When translating something into english, we should really follow english language rules, not translate literally from another language. Taku was doing what he thought best and I respect that. Turning foreign language versions into english language versions is always a nightmare. Using one standard form that is universally recognisable makes most logical sense. But I seem to have been in a minority in much of this debate, so my blessing alone isn't enough. But I certainly support this form 100%. STÓD/ÉÍRE 00:55 Apr 3, 2003 (UTC)

No, Emperor X of Japan is a misnormer and almost no one but wikipedia uses that convension. You cannot use Hirohito as an example because Hirohito is a given name while all of emperor except recent 4 ones are named by posthumous name. {name}, Emperor of Japan might be right, but this one is certainly not. No one disagrees with sticking to English usage, but Emperor X of Japan is not an even English rules. -- Taku 01:17 Apr 3, 2003 (UTC)

I've edited articles of all but recent four emperors/empresses. I don't know whether it is right way or not, but fixed all broken links and restored uniformity. -- Nanshu 05:48 May 1, 2003 (UTC)

Permit me to ask a question. Why are Hirohito and Akihito known by their personal names, while their predecessor Yoshihito and Mutsuhito are known by their reign names? (I don't know enough about the subject to know in which form the other names are listed). Shouldn't there be some uniformity, especially with the four emperors post Meiji Restoration? john 04:27 May 10, 2003 (UTC)


 * I will put an answer to the main article. Your question is really a good question that everyone wonders naturally. -- Taku 04:31 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

-