Talk:Prince Nashimoto Morimasa

Discussion on Title of Page
The title of this article, "Prince Nashimoto" is in error, as "Prince Nashimoto" can refer to any male member of the Nashimoto-no-miya household. To be precise, this article should be called “Prince Nashimoto Morimasa". Although I suppose that it could be argued that Prince Nashimoto had no male offspring, and his line therefore became extinct this issue is moot, for the sake of clarity and to maintain standardization with wiki article naming for other members of the Japanese Imperial Household, the name of the article should be changed.

MChew 10:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes I have a question about that: Is it correct also to say "Prince Morimasa of Nashimoto", just like the format "Prince Tomohito of Mikasa"? Gryffindor  10:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I have an issue with "Prince Tomohito of Mikasa" as well. When the term "of Mikasa" is used, it seems to incorrectly imply that Prince Tomohito is prince of some geographic terrority known as the "Principality of Mikasa", in the same manner as European titles of nobility (i.e. "Prince Albert of Monaco"), whereas this is not the case with any the Japanese princes. In terms of popular usage in English language newspapers, books and magazines, "Prince Tomohito Mikasa" is almost always used. Having said this, the Japanese Imperial Household Agency in their official web site (http://www.kunaicho.go.jp/eindex.html) uses the wording “Prince Tomohito of Mikasa” to distinguish him from his father, the senior Prince Mikasa, who is listed as Prince Mikasa (Takahito). This is the only situation where the term “of Mikasa” is officially used, and presumably when Prince Mikasa (Takahito) dies, Prince Tomohito of Mikasa will then become Prince Mikasa (Tomohito). Returning to the case of Prince Nashimoto, we can therefore use "Prince Nashimoto Morimasa", or "Prince Nashimoto (Morimasa)" but technically not "Prince Morimasa of Nashimoto" since he was the head of his household. The name "His Imperial Highness Prince Nashimoto (Morimasa)" in the text I think is fine, but in terms of an article title, I favor Prince Nashimoto Morimasa over Prince Nashimoto (Morimasa) for clarity. As a final argument, had the prince been alive when the cadet branches of the Imperial family were stripped of their titles during the American Occupation after World War II, his name would have become simply "Nashimoto Morimasa". MChew 16:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Very confusing. Well, IMO the Imperial Household Agency must know best. the "of X" obviously refers to a princely house, therefore a 1-1 usage from the English usage does not work. I would not change anything with "Prince Tomohito of Mikasa" or Princess Tsuguko of Takamado for that matter. I think we can move the article to "Prince Nashimoto Morimasa", however one more question. Is the convention for Japanese names at least after the Taisho period to use first names first and then the last name? Or is there an exception to royalty? And what about all the Prince Kunis? Is it Prince Taka of Kuni, since he was not head of the household? Gryffindor  17:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The preposition "of" does not generally imply a geographic entity, eg, "Katie Couric of CBS said..." I don't see anything wrong with using "of" to refer to a princely house. Any change to the current setup should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles).--Jiang 05:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid that this last argument is not logical. Should we therefore rename the Katie Couric article “Katie of Couric”? Obviously not. "Katie Couric of CBS" is not the same as "Prince Morimasa of Nashimoto". While CBS is not a geographic entity, it is a corporate entity. Nashimoto is simply a name. It is not a corporate, geographic, organizational, or physical entity, and therefore should be treated as any other family name in the naming of articles. MChew
 * Nashimoto is not merely a name. It is a branch of the imperial family (eg Arisugawa-no-miya), of which all members have its name appended to their official titles. "Katie of CBS" is a ridiculous name because that is not what she is called, either unofficially of officially. On the other hand, the name we have here is Nashimoto no miya Morimasa ō, not simply Morimasa ō. I really don't see how the preposition "of" has to be limited to physical things. --Jiang 07:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

What is really boils down to is how you wish to translate “Nashimoto no miya”: i.e. either “Prince Nashimoto” or “Prince of Nashimoto”. As stated above, per the official practice of the Imperial Household Agency, as head of the Nashi-no-miya household, the name becomes Prince Nashimoto (Morimasa) and not Prince Nashimoto of Morimasa or Prince Morimasa of Nashimoto, neither of which names were ever in official or common use. Continuity of editing with the conventions wikipedia already use for other members of the branches of the Japanese Imperial family dictates elimination of the parenthesis to Prince Nashimoto Morimasa. Personally, I do not care if it is Prince Nashimoto (Morimasa) or Prince Nashimoto Morimasa, or even Nashimoto-no-miya Morimasa-ō, as long as the article is not simply “Prince Nashimoto”, which I am sure you will agree is not sufficient. MChew
 * I agree that "Prince Nashimoto" will not suffice. If there were multiple princes from the nashimoto-no-miya, well then change it. However the format "Prince(ss) X of Y" does exist for Japanese royals which is completely legitimate, so now what do we do? Gryffindor  09:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Move Request
''It was requested that this article be renamed but the procedure outlined at WP:RM did not appear to be followed, and consensus could not be determined. Please request a move again with proper procedure if there is still a desire for the page to be moved. Thank you for your time!'' --  tariq abjotu  00:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

National name problem
the father-in-law of Crown Prince Euimin of Korea -> the father-in-law of Crown Prince Euimin of Daehan --안성균 (talk) 08:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)