I believe the argument is for consistency with other countries. In Europe, there were loads of rulers with the same or similar names, so there is a lot of need for disambiguation. I'm not sure there is as much need for Japanese rulers (but to be honest, I don't know much about them), but I can see the appeal of consistency. -- Oliver P. 04:49 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)
Zoe hates me, but I love her (him?).
If you know your facts, yes. But if you are a 13 year old kid with a hazy understanding of the world one hundred miles from Montana, or who never stepped out of London, or barely know outside the borders of South Africa, you may not know the states, nations and heads of state of countries around Japan. Last week someone told me as a matter of fact that Japan became an republic in 1945. Someone wrote on wiki that Australia is a republic. That Italy has a King Victor Emmanuel IV. Do not underestimate the degree to which many people do not know basic facts; it is the golden rule used when compiling encyclopædias. One poll found 18% of Americans could not name their president during the Monica Lewinsky scandal!!! If you are a 13 year old, with only a hazy understanding of where Japan is (remember George W. Bush notoriously did not know where Ireland was on the map until he became president!), how do you know that kid knows there is only one empire in the region, one emperor? How do you know they know that if it is an emperor with a Japanese sounding name, he must be the Japanese emperor? All that is being said is that, to ensure we don't confuse those aren't sure of their facts, like that 13 year old, we state the country in the article title. We do it with monarchs of France, Germany, Britain, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Austria, Russia, etc etc etc. What is the problem with doing with Japan what we do with everywhere else? Saying 'well we all know there was only one Hirihito is no good whatsoever if you are some kid with a school project on Japan who knows damn all about Japan, doesn't know if there is one Hirohito or twenty and are relying on wiki to give accurate, easily understood information. And we won't even do him the courtesy of putting the words 'of Japan' after Hirohito or Akihito's name, to enable that kid and others like him to tract down facts they can understand easily, facts as basic as 'who is the Emperor of Japan'. STÓD/ÉÍRE 05:36 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)2003 (UTC)
I see Taku has unilaterally decided to screw up wikipedia without getting full agreement on a major change in naming policy. I took the chance to talk to experts on Japanese history and 18 experts unanimously said in a case like wikipedia, it would be illogical, ridiculous and nonsensical to do what he is doing. It will mean that the information in those articles will be less easily recognised and so less read. According to a Professor of Far Eastern Studies, what taku has done is amateurish (and) no editor of an international publication would allow it. It doesn't say much for Wiki standards that this screw-up was allowed to happen.
I presume now we will have to change all the other pages to conform to Taku's ludicrous idea that you apply local conventions when referring to information on an international title. So the President of Ireland will now be renamed Uachtaráin na hÉireann. The Spanish king's title will be changed to Spanish. The Italian state references will all follow the naming conventions used in Italy, including everything being in Italian. We will exclusively use Russian for all references to the Russian state and its office-holders. After all, that is the principle that Taku had set in stone here. Or is Japan some special case that must exist outside the agreed structures?
BTW, this page had grown to 37k. I spent two days asking people whose browsers could handle it to archive it. Nobody did, which meant that plenty of people who wanted to express their opinions on this farce could do so. So I've had to do it myself, which means that the browser axed a large chunk of the bottom of the page. Maybe next time people will have the politeness to archive pages over 30k. Unless you do so, you in effect silence anyone who wants to contribute and makes a farce on wiki, though not as much of a farce as Taku screwing up of its reputation, contrary to the naming styles applied in english language sourcebook which would not have allowed him to do what he has done, and certainly not without a full discussion and a proper vote on the issue.
Firstly something as basic naming style is supposed to be done by consensus. If it is just up to someone doing it if they feel it should be that way, then I can always go straight back tonight and rename them, then.
Secondly, you obviously don't know about editing standards.
No sourcebook hoping to convey information to a mass audience can work if each local state's linguistic nuances are allowed to take priority over a single, internationally comprehendable communicate style. All you have managed to do is break the first rule of editing, title something in a manner than conveys the most information to the most people in most clearly informative manner. That does not mean abandon accuracy. There is no reason why the correct version cannot be included as a redirect or as a subsidary page title because there on that page, you can contextualise the information. But you cannot in the form you are created. All you have insured is that 95% of the people who use wiki will never now read the pages because they won't know what they mean, and the other 5% already know the information for sources whose quality they can rely on. So you have achieved nothing but to damage wikipedia's readability and in effect orphaned the pages, because except for a small minority, most people will not now know what the pages are about. They won't necessarily even though where they are about. Very clever. Are you deliberately trying to discourage people from reading the pages on Japanese emperors? But at least you have established the principle that anyone can rename them withouth needing consensus, so they can all be changed back. STÓD/ÉÍRE 01:50 Mar 12, 2003 (UTC)
Why is it necessary to state the person's nationality within the title? Susan Mason
FCOL Susan, stop pretending you are dumb. You have shown elsewhere you are anything but. Monarchs don't for the most part have surnames. Where they do, they are often obscure, Queen Victoria's surname was Wettin, when she married Albert of Saxe-Coberg. So (except maybe on Planet Susan) you have to say where they are monarch of. Republican heads of state do have surnames and have careers before and after they were head of state, so in that case you can safely use the personal name. That option does not exist with monarchs. STÓD/ÉÍRE
imperial name.) The name of the Kangxi emperor was Aisin Gioro Xuanye. The name of the Tang emperor Taizu was Shi Hu. This is why I strongly object to using European conventions on Chinese emperors. Roadrunner
Which is why the Naming Convention deliberately says you do not have to apply the naming conventions to Chinese emperors. But it says to do so with Japanese emperors, because there was confusion before which is why Zundark changed them in the first place, which is when people began finding them. BTW stop this garbage about European Conventions. Those rules were followed in 80% of monarchies.
All Chinese names from the emperor down are covered in
Does anyone object to inserting a line in royal titles that links to Wikipedia: Naming conventions (Chinese) and says explicitly that Chinese emperors follow different naming conventions?
Not at all. But if Chinese emperor don't use the western style Emperor {name} of China, then why only Japanese emeperor need to follow the western style? -- Taku 03:41 Mar 12, 2003 (UTC)
It is perfectly possible and logical not to have a state designation attached to the Chinese emperor once he the is only one. Because that means if one comes across a far eastern emperor with no state designation, that must be the Chinese emperor. But if the Japanese emperor also has no state designation, that makes it much more difficult to find either. For while the Chinese and Japanese languages are of course different, to western eyes that difference is not always recognised. Two sets of emperors with no designation risk creating a problem for both. Given that Japan still has an emperor and he is regularly described in the media and common discourse as the Emperor of Japan, it is logical to maintain that publicly used designation, leaving the Chinese emperor recognisable by the very fact of no state designation. The point about the naming conventions is that they are intended to create a flexible template that identifies name and state. An exception is fine once it is an exception. Two exceptions, in the one geographic area, which someone not knowledgeable might have trouble distinguishing, simply produces a mess. So it basically boils down to who is to be the exception, a long dead monarchy where putting a state designation would be difficult, or a state with a current emperor who travels the world as the emperor of Japan, is called so in the media, is recognised as such and who was already on wiki as being 'of Japan' with no difficulty until Taku insisted on changing it. STÓD/ÉÍRE 04:03 Mar 12, 2003 (UTC)
I won't object to the line.
Re Taku's point, I can understand his problem, but
This is Hirohito, Emperor of Japan during World War II, wearing imperial regalia and a Shinto priest headdress.
So the emperor is widely called the 'Emperor of Japan' worldwide, that is what people understand his title to be, and how he signs his own New Year Message.
Quite clearly, there is no logical reason, why if the title 'Emperor of Japan' is good enough to be used by him, it is not good enough to be used by wikipedia. STÓD/ÉÍRE 04:03 Mar 12, 2003 (UTC)