Talk:Enthronement of the Japanese emperor

Title Question
Why is this called the "enthronement", and not "Coronation"? Boneyard90 (talk) 09:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Doesn't the second sentence of the article explain it? "The ritual is not a coronation, as no crown or other headgear is bestowed upon the emperor." Surtsicna (talk) 09:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right. I skimmed right over it and went to the text. Boneyard90 (talk) 10:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Title Move Discussion
The title of the article Enthronement of the Japanese Emperor has been moved to a new title, moved back to the old, moved to a third title, and then moved to the original. I open this discussion and invite interested editors to contribute opinions so we can gain consensus before any more moves are made. Are there any editors that believe the title should be moved, and please explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boneyard90 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Move:
 * 1) There have been empresses regnant in Japan.
 * 2) There is no indication that empresses consort do not take part in the ceremony.
 * 3) Therefore, Enthronement in Japan is the most encompassing title, as it includes emperors, empresses regnant and (if necessary) empresses consort. Surtsicna (talk) 14:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Move: I originally created this article, and did not realize at the time that there were empresses regnant in Japanese history, or its title would have been "Enthronement of the Japanese Monarch."  However, the title proposed by Surtsicna is good, too, so I would not oppose a move. - Ecjmartin (talk) 00:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

There have been all of 9 empresses, though, and modern times do not allow for equal primogeniture, so it is unlikely that we will need this.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 01:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Even one would have been enough. The fact that absolute primogeniture does not exist nowadays (I don't think it ever existed actually) in Japan is completely irrelevant; it does not erase these nine women from history. Surtsicna (talk) 06:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we simply need to remove the gendering from the title, considering that the same title is used for men and women in the Japanese language.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 09:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I would follow the format given such as Coronation of the British monarch and name this "Coronation of the Japanese monarch". In that way empresses are included and also early pre-imperial rulers if need be. However it is not in order to subsume empresses-regnant under the name "emperor". The term "tenno" in Japanese is gender neutral (as are all nouns for that matter). Gryffindor (talk) 13:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This ritual is not a coronation in any sense. There is no crown at all, let alone one that is placed on the emperor's or empress's head. This ritual is an enthronement, and it makes no sense to describe it as something else. The title of the article Coronation of the British monarch can be and should be better; the format ignores queens consort, who are also crowned and whose coronation is described. Therefore, I don't agree with citing that article as a good model. Surtsicna (talk) 13:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * In that case call it "Enthronement of the Japanese monarch". Gryffindor (talk) 23:25, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Are we sure that empresses consort do not take part in the ceremony? Surtsicna (talk) 23:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * She participates, however it is about the enthronement of the monarch him- or herself. So using the word "emperor" is not going to work in the article's name. At the coronation of the British king, the queen also is there, nevertheless the article is still called in the format mentioned, which works out fine. Gryffindor (talk) 10:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * But that's my chief concern. If the ceremony is about both the emperor and empress (or about both the king and queen), why exclude the woman? Why narrow the article scope down to the man only? That is why I disagree that the format works out fine. Surtsicna (talk) 10:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If we have Emperor of Japan why shouldn't this use the "Emperor" title? Some form should remain that this is still the only constitutional monarchy that is defined as an empire.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 14:52, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, for one, "emperor" is a common noun here and should not be capitalized. Secondly (and once again), why exclude empresses? Surtsicna (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Because the empress (unless she is regnant) is not being enthroned. And even in the case of empresses regnant, her title is the same as the emperor in Japanese, which is tennō.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 15:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't that indicate that Enthronement of the tennō is the best title? After all, Japanese empresses regnant are called empresses in English, not emperors. The word tennō is translated as emperor when the holder is male, and as empress when the holder is female. For simplicity's sake, the best title in my opinion would be Enthronement in Japan. Surtsicna (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Notable Omission
There are only two sacred treasures listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.188.6 (talk) 05:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Only two of the sacred treasures are presented during the enthronement ceremony. The Yata no Kagami (mirror) is always kept at the Ise Grand Shrine, regardless of any grand ceremonies. This is due to the significance and sacredness of the mirror. It is always kept at the Grand Shrine. 101.127.207.194 (talk) 15:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Confusion
This page is a bit in accurate so I have fixed it but why is there a "kojuki" mentioed as a diary unless it's a misspelling of the "Kojiki" witch isn't a diary. I'm very confused Camillz (talk) 14:06, 8 May 2023 (UTC)