Talk:Emperor of Japan/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why not "Emperor X of Japan," which is one normal way of referring to kings, emperors, etc.? Japanese emperor--X seems rather awkward to me. --LMS

Hi Larry, I started preparing this 3-4 weeks ago, and this format was at the time the suggested replacement for subpages. (you might even have suggested it yourself at some stage :-) )- clasqm

Heh, but subpages are evil :-) Acually, in this instance, I think "Emperor X of Japan" (or even "Emperor X" if there are no name collisions) would be nicer, since all other monarchs seems to get their own pages (as well as all other historical persons). I'll pitch in and help you convert the references if you'd like. --Anders Törlind

I converted them to "Emperor X of Japan" style (it only took a couple of minutes in Emacs). But I think "Emperor X" would be better, since collisions with non-Japanese emperors seem unlikely. We need to decide this before too many articles on individual emperors get written. --Zundark, 2001 Nov 22

Thanks, Zundark - I fixed the half-dozen empresses that you gave a posthumous sex change :-). I think "Emperor X of Japan" might have advantages when it comes to search engines and so on, though - clasqm

Oops, sorry about the empresses - I didn't notice them. --Zundark, 2001 Nov 22

I think this "Emperor X of Japan" business is kind of silly. Why should the Gemmei article not be at Gemmei rather than Empress Gemmei of Japan, if there is no other use of that word. Articles about people should be titled with either their names Mary Stuart or the most common usage Mary, Queen of Scots.

That is unworkable which is why it is not used. eg, we had an article on Charles Windsor. There ain't no such person. His surname is Charles Mountbatten-Windsor and no-one would recognise him as such. Queen Victoria was married to Albert of Saxe-Coburg but his surname was Wettin. Would anyone recognise Victoria Wettin? As many royals do not have surnames and those that do have obscure ones, our naming convention uses their name and title, correct name and title. STÓD/ÉÍRE
Because the average reader of an English-language encyclopedia probably won't know that Gemmei was an empress, or that she was japanese. Even [[Henry I} is currently being redone as Henry I of England to distinguish him from Henry I of France etc etc. What you suggest is great in terms of pure hyperlinking, but people also come to these pages through our own search function and outside search engines, and the first thing they see in the search results is the page title. The more relevant info in there the better. let's say I came here because I did a search for Japan on Google. "Gemmei" is meaningless unless you already know Japanese history. "Empress Gemmei of Japan" is meaningful. - clasqm

The naming conventions for Wikipedia hold that we should a) Use common names of persons, amd b) Use simple titles. Read Naming conventions to see why. Empress Gemmei of Japan vioaltes these conventions. Gemmei does not. In the case of ambiguous article titles such as Henry I, we have established protocols for dealing with this. Article titles are not supposed to be meaningful. They are supposed to be titles. The erbium title should be Erbium, not Erbium the rare earth element. - Tim

I quote from naming conventions:" As to names of persons, there are two schools of thought: use the most commonly used name, or use the person's full name. After a vote among those interested, we've come down in favor of the former". Now we need to ask what is the most common name: Are you royalty yourself, that you are prepared to address the emperor of Japan with "Hey, Akihito, baby?" There are rightwing elements in Japan that would be happy to show you the true meaning of martial arts for that, from the punchbag's pov! :-) A truly formal Japanese address to the current emperor would be Heisei Tenno, or "peace emperor". His full names and titles would take about half an hour to pronounce. Emperor Akihito of Japan is a description that makes a decent title: in an English-language wikipedia, Akihito by itself is a collection of nonsense syllables (though it would not be in the Japanese wikipedia). And if we are going to be at all consistent in this, perhaps you should look at Pope - plenty like Pope Anterus are perfectly unambiguous and could just be Anterus. And then you might as well take those that are ambiguous, like Pope John II and make them John II of the Vatican, why not, after all we want simple titles, regardless of how crazy the result and however little it resembles what people are actually called most commonly! - clasqm

I put following proposal at naming convension.

I would like to propose name convension about Japanese emperor. My new convention is simply:

{era name or given name} emperor

1. There is no ambiguous name basically so putting "of Japan" is redundant. 2. My world history book uses this notation, which seems conventional. Google attests too. 3. For example, because meiji is an era name not ruler name so it is sometimes misleading to say Emperor Meiji of Japan, which sounds Meiji is a name of ruler just like other monarcy in westerns. Any objection? -- Taku 17:10 Mar 8, 2003 (UTC)

I will compile this conversation regarding the title of Japanese emperors. If there is no much objection, I will rename the titles in days. -- Taku 01:51 Mar 9, 2003 (UTC)

I have never heard of any royalty of Japan or anywhere being called (name) Emperor. - Montréalais

I have been complaining for days about taku wanting to do this. So has Deb. But Taku went ahead with this variation that makes no sense for an international sourcebook read by predominantly english speakers who do not have the background knowledge necessary to understand the nature of names used.

Regarding the points above:

  1. It is only unambiguous if you already know the facts. But many people won't have that background information and so need to be told where such and such emperor is from.
  1. Sourcebooks use language based on their readership. Wiki has a readership far more international and far less likely to have factual knowledge that is a given for readers of Taku's book. The more information a reader has, the greater freedom an author has in using formal names and structures, such as referring to Japanese emperors in this way. But an international sourcebook like wiki simply cannot guarantee that its readers have sufficient information to make head or tail of Taku's strictly literal use of names. In something like wiki you have to use broad generic titles like naming a country in a title so that everyone can understand it. You can include the litterally correct term in the article itself, where you have space and an opportunity to explain it. (Or use re-directs).

I think Taku's idea is simply usuable on wiki and should be changed back. STÓD/ÉÍRE 02:12 Mar 12, 2003 (UTC)

  1. Google finds names from many sourcebooks that do not have the international readership we do and therefore do not have to be as careful as we do as to how we name things.

Ok, think of this. You should realize this is not a language issue at all. In computer science, "short-circuit" refers to the way how to evaluate boolean operations. For most of audience, I believe the term short-circuit doesn't make sense at all. If we are going to apply your convention, we should name it in a differnt way so that ordinary readers can understand. While it might be a good idea, most of us, including me tend to prefer academic convention that already exists. I don't say this convention is good or bad but I prefer to stick to academic convention rather than inventing new way, which can be better. The convention used in academic can be wrong but again it is beyond my concern. That is all. -- Taku 02:24 Mar 12, 2003 (UTC)

Sourcebooks HAVE to use different linguistic formats depending on their audience. Wiki has to use one that can be understood in Oslo and Capetown, Canberra and San Francisco, and everywhere else. That is why wiki designed a standard template for how monarchs are designated. Variations within that can be achieved through redirects and information in the article itself. There is no justification whatsoever in a sourcebook as wide as wiki to use a standard of name for the Japanese emperor that will confuse the average user. What you have done breaks the carefully worked out agreed format and goes against what wiki stands for in obscuring facts through using technically accurate but more obscure terms. Technically there are two United Kingdoms; the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (1801-1922) and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1922-present). But they are both for convenience sake called the United Kingdom, with one page existing for each to describe the difference and then internal links in articles not in every title, so as not to confuse people who aren't experts in British and Irish constitutional history. Zundark was right to create a workable naming system for Japanese emperors so that those not familiar with Japanese history could find them. You were wrong to undo that and return to the confusion that existed before and which had led to the change in the first place. STÓD/ÉÍRE 02:41 Mar 12, 2003 (UTC)

"Sourcebooks HAVE to use different linguistic formats depending on their audience." This is your preference and not mime. It seems most of us prefer stick to a general lignuistic format rather than good one. -- Taku 03:13 Mar 12, 2003 (UTC)

I don't say what convention is good or bad because it is preference. But we should stick to the basic convention that says use the most common name for the title. Emperor {name} of Japan is not common. That is all. -- Taku 03:18 Mar 12, 2003 (UTC)


It is so basic it is practically rule number 1 on 'how to write a book.' EVERY book publisher in the world is guided in the terms it uses by the nature, geography, literacy, factual knowledge, etc of its audience. A book on French politics written for French third level students will presume a different level of factual knowledge about factual knowledge than a book written for fourteen year old Californians. A book on PR-STV will know that most Irish people are intimately aware of the electoral system and so will need to go into less detail than a similar book on PR-STV for British people, who use First Past the Post, and so have little practical knowledge of single transferable vote systems. It is elementary cop-on. STÓD/ÉÍRE 03:30 Mar 12, 2003 (UTC)

Outside Japan, in broad sourcebooks, it is very common and it is the agreed format to use in wiki, with the sole exception of Chinese emperors. It isn't an optional extra, it is the agreed format used on wiki for monarchs the world over, except China. It is used because it is generally thought VERY important on a general sourcebook to include the name of the state, so that people who might not immediately recognise where someone was king or emperor was, would be told that in the title. It can work without China because it means if you come across a far east emperor's name without a state, it can (or should) only mean China. But with our change, the word emperor without a state designation could be China or Japan which screws the whole system up. It is OK with one exception, if there is only one exception, but not with two. So either Japanese emperors need to have it stated they are 'of Japan', or someone is going to have to change all the Chinese emperors to call them of China. And as Roadrunner pointed out, that is more unworkable because whereas most people aren't going to be looking up Chinese emperors as there has not been one for 90 years, whereas there is a current Japanese emperor and his father is still widely known. So if people are looking up any far east emperor, it is going to be the Japanese emperors and you can't have them mixed up through lack of state designation with Chinese emperors. (And Westerners don't always recognise immediately differences in nomenclature between Chinese and Japanese.) STÓD/ÉÍRE

What can I say, I just have to repeat "I don't say what convention is good or bad because it is preference", meaning I don't participate the debate inventing a convention. -- Taku 03:49 Mar 12, 2003 (UTC)

Anyway I have to do this. You keep saying why putting of Japan is important for those who know little about Japanese history. It is true. I bet almost no English-speaking can assume when they see Nijo Emperor, he was a emperor in Japan. While no one cares about Chinese history, you want to care about Japanese history. I don't object to about it. The title with "of Japan" is better in the term of clarification. I agree with that.

However, it is not the debate we need to go. The difference between you and me is that I rather prefer to stick to academic convention while you want to use a better scheme. -- Taku 04:11 Mar 12, 2003 (UTC)

Incidentally, a Google search turns up 405 instances of "Hirohito Emperor" (that includes lines like "Hirohito, Emperor of Japan") and 10,500 instances of "Emperor Hirohito". - Montréalais


I made the following changes:

I hope this is satisfactory to everyone. If not, you won't hurt my feelings if you change it back. --Uncle Ed 22:19 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC)

We need an article called Emperor of Japan, which is much more than a mere list. I will revert this change. I hope you don't mind me. -- Taku 01:23 Mar 14, 2003 (UTC)

Not at all. It is a complex subject, and I think we all want the information to be correct and easy to find. Shitsureshimashita. -- &#21460 &#36007 "Edo"

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Emperor_of_Japan/Archive_1&oldid=571585335"