Yes, I know we need to come up with new naming scheme. I was thinking and doing some research but I couldn't find out one concrete convension shared by most of academics. I am not still unsure what scheme should be good. But I think this one is good enough.
I hope we can agree with this. Cheers! -- Taku 05:05 May 10, 2003 (UTC)
Since no one seems to show a objection to this proposal, I will start to rename the title of Emperors of Japan in days. -- Taku 15:38 15 May 2003 (UTC)
I delibrately leave most of links in old format that is emperor (something) of Japan because I am not sure this new scheme actually works and I want to see for a little while. -- Taku 20:25 18 May 2003 (UTC)
Maybe I excessively stick to uniformity, but I hate your ad-hoc scheme. Remember that many past emperor names derive from place names of Kyoto. This means that, as Wikipedia grow, the number of name conflicts increase. I've created some disambiguous pages and currently more than one-fifth of all articles conflict. I don't like this situation. In addition, "{name}" sounds somewhat impolite to me.
You think translating tenno into emperor is inappropriate, but it's mere a matter of translation.
I think that feudalism is totally different from 封建制度 and that this mistranslation causes confusion on Chinese and Japanese history. However, I adopt feudalism as the English term for 封建制度 since it is widely used. Emperor is universally used for the translation of 天皇. So Wikipedia should follow this too. BTW, aren't the 1. and 2. of you proposal inconsistent?--
Nanshu 23:23 21 May 2003 (UTC)
First of all, from my research, I don't think use of emperor for tenno is so accepted. Dictionaries or books about Japanese history use tenno not emperor. While phrases like the Meiji emperor is common, Sanjo emperor or Emperor Sanjo seems not common in formal writting. Google shows such name with a number of pages but I believe it is due to lack of knowledge rather than accpeted usage. Besides, the trouble is ok now we decided to use emperor for tenno but then should we name foo emperor or emperor foo. The former is uncommon in English writing while the later certainly misleads people foo is the given name of emperor like western emperors.
So I reached the last one. Forget the format since any of them works. As is in Chinese emperors article, just put the name without emperor. But as we see, this doesn't work much because there are a lot of conflicts.
I think an old style, Emperor foo of Japan is certainly not what you would like. So my new proposal is put ", Emperor of Japan" to every emperor of Japan. Can we agree with this?
-- Taku 23:50 21 May 2003 (UTC)
"Emperor {name}" isn't confusing. Adding a note on
Emperor of Japan and/or
List of Emperors of Japan is enough. And I'm ready to add on each article Emperor' almost unknown personal name such as Takaharu (尊治; 後醍醐天皇) and Osahito (統仁; 孝明天皇).
Why do you think that "{name}, Emperor of Japan" is better than "Emperor {name} of Japan". I prefer the latter. Maybe it is a matter of preference. --
Nanshu 23:19 22 May 2003 (UTC)
I havent been following this discussion, but right now the naming convention for Japanese emperors is remarkably confusing. Danny