Talk:Emperor of Japan/Archive 5

I don't doubt but that Taku is well meaning in his changes, but I think they fail on two points:
 * If you don't already know information on the nomenclature of Japanese emperors, the current 'Taku system' makes it difficult to make head or tail of it, get into the list or know what they mean;
 * Taku is trying to make the titles too accurate. I too am a fanatical supporter of accuracy but if the actual title isn't easily comprehendable to people, then 100% accuracy can produce 100% confusion. For example, we have a page called Sophie, the Countess of Wessex about Britain's Prince Edward's wife. Actually to be 100% accurate it should be either The Countess of Wessex or The Princess Edward, Countess of Wessex but the first doesn't give a personal name and so is to ambiguous while the latter uses her marital name that one no-one ever uses. So we use a form that is a compromise between usability and accuracy. Similarly Charles, Prince of Wales according to his office is wrong. He is simply The Prince of Wales. But that is too ambiguous to be used, so we have to use a compromise name that people can follow.

Using Emperor {name} is utterly confusing even if accurate. Using the word Japan is crucial because it allows someone who doesn't know much about Japan but wants to find out all the Japanese pages we have, including those about emperors, to do a simple wordsearch using it and get the list.

Regarding Nashu's mention of "{name}, Holy Roman Empire" and "{name} of Austria", the reason for that distinction is that many ancient monarchies were not territorial (or had fluctuating territory), they predating the rise of the nation states. Modern monarchies (even where they no longer exist) that reigned over clearly defined nation states are put in as {name} of {state}. As Japan is not merely a clearly defined state but also one in which the monarchy still exists, {name} of {state} would seem the better option. Yes it isn't 100% accurate, but as with Charles, Prince of Wales, Albert II of Belgium (not the literally correct Albert II of the Belgians, Paul of Greece not Paul of the Hellenes (the literally correct title) and many many other pages, it is a workable, usable compromise which people can follow. The accurate version can then be explained in the text of the article.

Tell me, however, is it vital to use the regal title? We don't use 'king', 'tsar', 'queen', 'kaiser' etc in most pages on monarchs on wiki. {name} of {state} is used because it avoids problems over title; should one use emperor, tsar or czar? Should Franz Josef of Austria be called Emperor Franz Josef, Emperor-King Franz Josef, Kaiser Franz-Josef, Kaiser-Konig Franz Josef etc? Was George VI of the United Kingdom King, King-Emperor or Emperor-King? Would {name} of Japan solve the problem of nomenclature changes over the centuries concerning the location of the word 'emperor' before and after some emperors' names?

Yes, as Taku says, it would not be accurate to Japanese users, just as Albert II of Belgium is not accurate to Belgian users. But it would produce a form easily followed and easily tracked down by english language users on english-language wiki. From what I can see, Taku's version produces names that are a mystery to english language users, a problem for the wordsearch and risk ensuring that unless you already know about Japanese emperors you'll never be able to find them on wiki. Much as I applaud Taku's commitment to 100% accuracy (and I do admire it, because there are plenty of users who don't apply such high standards), unfortunately as I have found when sorting out western monarchical titles all too often 100% accuracy is not an option and you have to compromise if the scheme is to be workable, usable and capable of fulfilling wikipedia's number one task - getting information to people. FearÉÍREANN 01:27 26 May 2003 (UTC)


 * First, reply to Nanshu. (my apology for being late). "I feel a slight discomfort at calling Emperors by name alone" (Nanshu). He has a point. This is why we put an emperor in the first place. Sanjyo is after all just a place name in Kyoto, meaning simply the third street. Without the title empror, it sounds strange. Besides, there are a lot of name conflicts. I have to admit my new system yet again doesn't work. If we couldn't come up with a new system quickly enough, I will revert my renaming again.

ok. Second, the question is whether we should put "of Japan" or not. I suppose there are certain misunderstanding about this. In short, we don't have to make each title of article informative. Take, Kobe station. I doubt the majority of English speakers knows where that station is. Then should we name it "Kobe station of Japan" or something else? No, because the title of an artilce is merely a label, unlike titles in ordinary encyclopedia. The context makes clear where is that station and if the article linking kobe station is not clear about the context is Japan, then we can just write like bahahba. Kobe station in Japan is one of bahahah.


 * Using the word Japan is crucial because it allows someone who doesn't know much about Japan but wants to find out all the Japanese pages we have, including those about emperors, to do a simple wordsearch using it and get the list.

This is not true. Any reader can instead use List of Japan related-topics or Emperor of Japan to get a complete list of Emperors of Japan without any difficulty.


 * getting information to people

There is no doubt that we disagree with this ambisious mission. The truth is whether putting "of Japan" doesn't make much difference for the reader to understand. Because again titles are mere labels, there is no chance that the readers simply look at the bunch of list of names that look unfamily to them.

Although this is an important point that I and ÉÍREANN keep disputing, actually we don't need to discuss about this to settle the naming convention. Actually we don't have a choice not to have of Japan because there is need for disambiguation. Now no one seems to support either


 * emperor {Sanjo} or {Sanjo} emperor

So forget about this. The question is either

or
 * 1) Emperor {Sanjo} of Japan
 * 1) Sanjo, Emperor of Japan

I like the second because it is a simple and accepted way to disambigute titles. The first one may seem fine but the trouble is it is awfully similar to titles in western monachies. Unlike emperors in Europe, no emperor is called with their posthumous name. While tennou is translated as emperor, it doesn't mean the title emperor is used in the same way as that in western. If the choice is the first or the second one, why is the first one preferable?

Actually there is the third opion proposed above: {name} of Japan. Actually I haven't thought of it at all. That sounds fine, but if so, why not {name}, Emperor of Japan? -- Taku 00:48 27 May 2003 (UTC)

To be honest, either is workable, Taku. In general on wiki, we have tended to say simply {name} of {country) if there is a clear title or nation state (France, Mexico, Russia, etc. . ). But if there is not a clear territory or nation state but a multi-area territory, we put something else in, like Holy Roman Empire. As there is a clear Japan and given that the list goes right up to the present day, it seems to be to make more sense to use the simple clean format of {name} of {country}. I do understand the concerns over getting things right and how emperor X or x emperor is more correct in a given case. The beauty about {name} of Japan is that it avoids any problems over where the word 'emperor' is by simply avoiding the word entirely. Nobody can come along next week, next month or next year and say - "but in such and such an era, emperor wasn't placed after the name but before it" and demand we change it, because the word emperor is not there. But I am perfectly happy with either solution. I just think the {name} of Japan solution is marginally better, fits better into other naming solutions used and is less likely to cause problems or offence to anyone later on. :-) FearÉÍREANN 02:15 27 May 2003 (UTC)


 * I understand putting of Japan is a common disambiguation technique. If an encyclopedia were only about history of Japan, the article would be named simply history. But because wikipedia is an international encyclopedia, put of Japan to disambiguate, which history it is about. {name} of Japan seems in the same line. Actually I don't have much opposition about ilittle t. My only concern is that it sounds little strange and there is no other conflict outside of Japan. There is no Godaigo outside Japan while each country has its own history. To me, of Japan sounds like there is other Godaigo outside Japan. Besides, the trouble with Emperor {name} of Japan is some people may complain why not simply Emperor {name} in the future. So my point is "{name} of Japan" is marginally troublesome. -- Taku 15:32 27 May 2003 (UTC)

I see your point. My issue about using 'Japan' is simple. You may know what Godaigo is, just as I know who George II is. But many people may not know, many not know the right spelling, or may be doing an essay on Japan, a country about which they no little but want to learn more. If they do a wordsearch with Japan, Godaigo of Japan would come up. You and I have a lot of background information which we can rely on. Many users don't, and providing as much information as possible would help them. Making Japan's pages as available as possible is also in the interest of ensuring that Japan gets the sort of coverage through the sort of accessibility that it deserves. I would hate us to find that after all your work, people might have difficulty finding pages on the emperors. Your hard work deserves to be as available as possible. FearÉIREANN 21:28 27 May 2003 (UTC)