 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
the regalia articles in the crown jewels template are always capitalised, for example Danish Crown Regalia or Imperial Regalia of the Holy Roman Empire. so in order for this article to be consistent, proposing the move. thanks.. Antares911 16:03, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Sounds reasonable to me. If there's a standard naming convention, we should stick to it, though perhaps a better name would be Imperial Regalia of Japan to keep in consistency with the Holy Roman usage.-- Mitsukai 19:54, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Sounds good too. I´m waiting what the rest thinks...? Antares911 21:54, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. I don't see how this is a proper noun. CDThieme 03:30, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- why, what´s the problem? Crown Jewels of the United Kingdom is written in capital letters as well. but since Japan does not have crown jewels but regalia, it should be capitalised. see above discussion Antares911 21:13, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Support "Imperial Regalia of Japan" violet/riga (t) 18:07, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 18:07, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Am I the only person who thinks this rounding up of every reference to every god, object, historical figure or whathaveyou in every anime and game ever made is getting a little old?
-No, you aren't. I don't know that I completely agree with your terminology, but it definitely doesn't help the credibility of this project to have little cites like this on every page. It seems like it would make a lot more sense to get the encyclopedia closer to 'done' before people start adding in little tidbits that are completely useless to 99.9% of any viewers on a particular page.
--It doesn't seem like it should be on this page. Also, these items appear in several games and anime that are already released. This makes it looks like there is just one game that makes a reference to them. Wouldn't it be better if the page about the game/anime/whatever cited the reference instead?
-- the way you said it was a bit over the top, but I agree. It appeared we had a consensus on that one (at least an unformal one), so I moved the whole section (did not erase anything though) to the game. Tensaibuta 13:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Right after we had consensus here, the section "==In Popular Culture==" was added, which I think made it worse. The information about anime, comic, and games are insignificant to the article Imperial Regalia of Japan, and if anyone wants to write it on Wikipedia, it should be on the pages of each anime, comic, game and not here. In addition, there are so many nonsense such as "In various Final Fantasy video games, the Murakumo is a powerful sword."... what does have to do with this article?? Unless there is a source that can be cited (for example an interview article in a magazine with the game/comic creators commenting specifically about the relationship with Imperial Regalia of Japan) it should't be written here. Please refer to Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No Original Research. Therefore, I'm proposing the "In Popular Culture" section to be deleted. Any support/counter arguments? -- Tomyan ( talk) 15:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
-- No opposition heard. Once again, the proposal of deletion had once reached consensus on 28 May 2006 and deleted by Tensaibuta. If anyone believes this portion of the article about games and comics should remain, please discuss it here before reverting. Until then, I will re-delete the ==In Popular Culture== section. -- Tomyan ( talk) 05:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
-- There is one thing... Uxie (wisdom/knowledge), Mesprit (emotions/benevolence), and Azelf (willpower/valor). How about that under "Popular Culture"?
Is it just me, or is this article missing a lot of information? For example, I was tweaking The Tale of the Heike and I came to see which two treasures didn't go to the bottom of the sea at Dannoura, and... there seems to be nothing. I know the mirror was melted in a fire in the Imperial palace, so they survived Dannoura, but that either the sword or beads was lost with Antoku. Anyone know which? -- maru (talk) contribs
- Yes, I think this is a gaping hole in the article. There has been a lot of speculation as to just how each artifact has come to be at its supposed present location (or lost), including professional work that would be encyclopedic. -
BRPXQZME (
talk) 18:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Details of the regalia at Dan-no-ura added (the sword and the jewel were thrown in the sea with the emperor, the jewel was recovered by divers). Alansplodge ( talk) 20:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I read an interpretation of sword as thunderbolt, mirror as sun and jewel as moon. -- Error 01:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
> Since 690, the presentation of these items to the Emperor by the priests at the shrine are a central part of the imperial enthronement ceremony. This ceremony is not public, and these items are by tradition only seen by the emperor and certain priests. Because of this, no known photographs or drawings exist. <
I would bet pretty penny that the US occupational troops in 1945-47 did demand visual verification and took photos of the regalia when they worked towards pacification of Japan and imposition of the new constitution, which seriously curbed the imperial family and powers. Obviously the USA had to make sure they were not cheated and the treasures were still there and not smuggled abroad for a claimant to incite rebellion later on, etc.
Any photos made by a US serviceman in line of duty would be in the public domain. 82.131.210.163 ( talk) 17:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
This page says that the sword was lost in the water, the jewel was found by divers and the mirror was captured. Battle of Dan-no-ura has the mirror and jewel the other way around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.36.148.117 ( talk) 01:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Consesus to not move. ( non-admin closure) comrade waddie96 ★ ( talk) 16:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Imperial Regalia of Japan → Three Sacred Treasures – This is the correct name and also the proper translation from the Japanese term. The treasures are the imperial regalia of Japan, however they have their own name as a group. Gryffindor ( talk) 11:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. OhKayeSierra ( talk) 02:33, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
- @ OhKayeSierra: Or move to Three Sacred Treasures (Japan)? China, and various parts of China, and various other things, each has its own "three treasures" (三寶 / 三宝 , sānbǎo). Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 06:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. Particular to Japan. Keep Japan in the title. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 10:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. No rationale given for why the current name is not correct in terms of our article name policy, which nom would appear not to have read despite many notices asking them to before raising an RM. Andrewa ( talk) 04:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.