Talk:Empress Michiko

Rename
"Michiko" is a common Japanese woman's name. This article ought to be renamed to something a little more non-generic - e.g. "Empress Michiko", or something. Noel (talk) 17:16, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * another article under Michiko has already been posted. see disambiguation Antares911 23:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

HIM
Under the photo the link "HIM" goes to the disambiguation page of him what makes it somehow complicated. Would be better if that links direkt to Her_Imperial_Majesty or (since Her_Imperial_Majesty itself redirects further) to Imperial_Majesty_(style). I don't know how to make the necessary changes, would appreciate it if someone else is able to do that for me! Thanks 87.162.125.115 (talk) 15:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Empress of Japan
Why this page is not called "Empress Michiko of Japan?? Rainha Branca (talk) 04:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Harvard and Oxford
The BBC says she was at Harvard and Oxford. Can anyone add details? Spicemix (talk) 15:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Catholic?
I'm not sure the info-box should say she was previously Catholic since she was never baptized. Now I'm in no way sure about the doctrine but I think the Roman Catholic Church does not consider you Catholic or allow you to receive any other Catholic sacraments if you have never been baptized. Tomh903 (talk) 20:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Empress Michiko. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130727203307/http://www.jrc.or.jp:80/english/about/glance.html to http://www.jrc.or.jp/english/about/glance.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Empress Michiko. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090302001539/http://www.osaka-u.ac.jp:80/eng/about/history.html to http://www.osaka-u.ac.jp/eng/about/history.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110910003224/http://www.vanityfair.com:80/culture/bestdressed/bestdressed_women?currentPage=3 to http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/bestdressed/bestdressed_women?currentPage=3
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140427174854/http://www.shunkin.net/Auteurs/?book=1198 to http://www.shunkin.net/Auteurs/?book=1198

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 one external links on Empress Michiko. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130727203307/http://www.jrc.or.jp/english/about/glance.html to http://www.jrc.or.jp/english/about/glance.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110910003224/http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/bestdressed/bestdressed_women?currentPage=3 to http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/bestdressed/bestdressed_women?currentPage=3
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161003215241/http://blog-imgs-71-origin.fc2.com/m/a/s/masakosamalove/20150426221023051.jpg to http://blog-imgs-71-origin.fc2.com/m/a/s/masakosamalove/20150426221023051.jpg
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150122190624/http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/1994/10/10/pdfs/A31634-31634.pdf to http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/1994/10/10/pdfs/A31634-31634.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160313023031/http://blog-imgs-65-origin.fc2.com/m/o/o/moonnight467719/Empress20Michiko2020Queen20Sophia.jpg to http://blog-imgs-65-origin.fc2.com/m/o/o/moonnight467719/Empress20Michiko2020Queen20Sophia.jpg
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150610180722/http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/1972/01/20/pdfs/A01047-01047.pdf to http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/1972/01/20/pdfs/A01047-01047.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:01, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

References to Crown Prince/Princess
Should all references to prince/princess (her husband and her) be updated to Emperor/Empress? At least for activities that occurred or continued after the elevation to the thrown? Trilotat (talk) 19:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 1 May 2019

 * 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: There was a weak consensus for removing "Emerita" from the title and no consensus for any of the other proposals. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

– Aside from the fact that the name for this page is too long, it is also awkward to have their husbands who are the actual monarchs listed only by their given names while the wives appear with the title "Empress X" on Wikipedia. I suggest using the given name for these two pages as well. To those who might say that for consorts we use "Queen" or "Empress" before their given names, I think I need to emphasize that what I'm suggesting here is not unprecedented, especially for Asian and African queens. Examples include Sirikit (instead of Queen Sirikit), Rambai Barni (instead of Queen Rambai Barni), Jetsun Pema (instead of Queen Jetsun Pema), Nefertiti (instead of Queen Nefertiti), etc. Keivan.f  Talk 04:42, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Empress Emerita Michiko → Michiko
 * Empress Masako → Masako
 * Strong oppose all 3 all 3 targets are name pages. No evidence provided that any is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the name as a standalone. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:06, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. These are common given names that do not all that often refer to these particular people. I would be surprised if sufficient evidence of the change were to be found in reliable sources, which use the shortened forms only after establishing context. Dekimasu よ! 10:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Then I suggest using Michiko (empress) and Masako (empress) instead. That way, they will be listed by their given names and disambiguated from other people who are named Michiko and Masako. What do you (1, 2) think? Keivan.f  Talk 12:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * [NB: I cannot type macrons at the moment, but there should be some in this comment]. I would prefer moving Akihito and Naruhito and even perhaps Hirohito to names consistent with all the emperors through Emperor Taisho. It's true that their official titles will change after death, and I do not at all believe we should move Hirohito to Emperor Showa. However, with the exception of Hirohito, it is unlikely that the emperors will ever become household names that would require them to be titled in a manner inconsistent with WP:NCROY. Likewise I think it is fine to leave these at titles that are consistent with WP:CONSORTS. But if everyone else agrees that the alternative you suggested here is better, I won't oppose it too strenuously. Dekimasu よ! 13:58, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's wait for the outcome of this discussion. If they agree with moving these two pages, then the issue will be automatically solved. Otherwise, a request for moving Akihito and Naruhito to Emperor Akihito and Emperor Naruhito could be given. Keivan.f  Talk 14:14, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * In terms of length the title of this page seems perfectly reasonable. It is by no means "too long". PC78 (talk) 14:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose by your logic Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother should also be shortened. Thats her new title. All consorts and former consorts wiki page include their royal title in the title. Its to differentiate between the monarch and the consort. In the case of Queen Sirikit, the reason why is the wiki page isnt called Queen Sikirit is because its not a common name. If it was the wiki page would have been "Queen Sikirit of Thailand. CharlesViBritannia (talk) 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's really funny that on Talk:Fumihito, Prince Akishino you state that Japanese royalty should not be compared to British royalty, and then here you mention the British queen mother as an example. By the way, it's been already pointed out that Michiko and Masako are two common names in Japan, so I have suggested moving the pages to Michiko (empress) and Masako (empress) instead. Keivan.f  Talk 19:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Including the title differentiates consorts from monarchs only in the minds of experienced Wikipedians and nobody else's. How on Earth could a random reader, someone who has no idea about Wikipedia's arbitrary naming customs, know from the titles Empress Masako and Naruhito that the former is a consort while the latter is a monarch? Surtsicna (talk) 17:46, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose An utter nonissue. Everyone who so much as glances at the article will notice that she is the previous empress. The emerita part is also unnecessary, we don't call the previous pope Pope Emeritus in the name of the article, nor did we rename the article for the previous Dutch queen Princess Beatrix even though that is her current title. --Killuminator (talk) 22:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * So are you opposing the move to Michiko (empress) and Masako (empress) or are you supporting it? Because it appears that you're against having Emerita in the title, and it's already apparent that both of these individuals are empresses. Keivan.f
 * It should have been left as it is. It will probably be moved to Empress (insert posthumous name) once they die. Why put empress in brackets when you can simply say Empress Michiko ? Imagine being a tour guide in Japan a century from now and telling tourists something like Here is the tomb of Michiko, the empress I mean instead of Here is the tomb of Empress Michiko. There was nothing wrong with the previous article name. --Killuminator (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If you want it to be moved back to its previous title, why won't you give a move request after this discussion has been closed? To be honest, you're right. That "Emerita" in the title, is somehow unnecessary. Keivan.f  Talk 12:04, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Kevlan Give me one article of a former consort that the wiki title is as you mentioned "name (title)" just one. As it stands your proposal fails. Since everyone (minus you) see the reason why it should not be as proposed. CharlesViBritannia (talk) 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I note a lot of the comments above seem to mistakenly believe that it's been proposed to move the page merely to Michiko but I would like to point out that the proposal had change. Some also acknowledge that the title does not need to change based on the counter-policy position that this article's title should include "Empress" before the person's actual given name. These are just guidelines which help with naming articles and not crucial policies that need to be followed word by word. As I already gave examples above, exceptions DO exist. Whether it's ignorance of this topic or ignorance of Wikipedia policy, some arguments made by a number of users here have the potential of being ignored by closers, since they are not even commenting on the actual alternative that has been proposed, even if they are in the vast majority. Keivan.f  Talk 01:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment let it be known when faced with stagnant opposition to his failed proposal; kevlanf' arrogance appears instead of engaging in open dialogue with other editors. Kevlanf. Refuses to see reason due to his own "know it all" mentality when questioned. CharlesViBritannia (talk) 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * We're here to talk about this proposal. And I don't care whether it fails or not. That's what democracy is. I have asked to see what other people think. Yet, it seems that you have targeted me, talking about my arrogance, etc. Instead of putting your energy towards saying nonsense about me, try to make a useful contribution to the discussion, as other users did and stay focused on the subject being discussed here. Keivan.f  Talk 12:04, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That comment is somehow both laughable and despicable. Surtsicna (talk) 17:48, 2 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose all two: I suggest that move Empress Emerita Michiko to Michiko (empress consort). Here is the reason: Michiko, born Michiko Shōda, was the Crown Princess of Japan from 1959, when she married Akihito (then the Crown Prince of Japan), to 7 January 1989, when her husband Akihito ascended the throne as the Emperor of Japan. She was the Empress consort of Japan from 7 January 1989, when her husband Akihito ascended the throne as the Emperor of Japan, to 30 April 2019, when her husband Akihito abdicated. She is the Empress Emerita of Japan from 1 May 2019, when her husband Akihito became the Emperor Emeritus of Japan. The identity of Michiko is changed for several times, but Michiko is famous for the period when she was the Empress consort of Japan. Thus, I have a good suggestion that name this article as Michiko (empress consort), and make Empress Michiko and Empress Emerita Michiko become redirect pages for Michiko (empress consort), in order to make searching more convenient. 167.179.104.51 08:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC) this edit was indeed by . Please all read wp:sign if you have not already done so. TIA Andrewa (talk) 10:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Personally, I would prefer reverting back to Empress Michiko, as it is less wordy and complicated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:8CCF:390E:B02E:E859:4936 (talk • contribs)


 * 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.