Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese): Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 93: Line 93:


'''support''' - use mainland China in titles if the article is dealing with post 1949 topics exclusively related mainland China and not involving Hong Kong, Macau and (disputed) Taiwan. [[Cinema of China]], [[Video games in China]] seems like good starting points, as the thread starter had mentioned.[[User:Newslack|Newslack]] ([[User talk:Newslack|talk]]) 23:31, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
'''support''' - use mainland China in titles if the article is dealing with post 1949 topics exclusively related mainland China and not involving Hong Kong, Macau and (disputed) Taiwan. [[Cinema of China]], [[Video games in China]] seems like good starting points, as the thread starter had mentioned.[[User:Newslack|Newslack]] ([[User talk:Newslack|talk]]) 23:31, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' - use China in titles as the standard. The standard is to use the country name even if there are autonomous and/or geographically detached parts of the state with their own arrangements. e.g. articles on France use "France" not "Metropolitan France". There's no good reason to make an exception for China. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] ([[User talk:Timrollpickering|Talk]]) 23:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:53, 2 April 2020

Shortcut

Personal names for Southern and Northern Dynasties period emperors

If nobody objects, I will move all emperors from the Category:Southern and Northern Dynasties emperors Category:Northern and Southern dynasties emperors to their personal names. (Some emperors already use personal names, like Xiao Yuanming, but his predecessor is titled Emperor Yuan of Liang.) The guideline states "Emperors before the Tang dynasty: use posthumous names, such as Emperor Wu of Han (漢武帝)", but I'm not sure who came up with this and how. The Three Kingdoms/Sixteen Kingdoms emperors already use personal names, and I don't think anyone calls Sun Quan "Emperor Da of Eastern Wu". But how many people outside of WP use Emperor Gong of Western Wei or Emperor Jing of Western Liang (both 0 hits in GBooks)? I didn't do a thorough research but I think personal names are more common for emperors of this period. Timmyshin (talk) 03:53, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - most emperors of "dynasties" (as opposed to "kingdoms" such as Eastern Wu) are not known by their personal names (which were taboo and rarely mentioned in traditional histories), with the major exception of the founding emperors, as they spent much of their adult lives as commoners. We should therefore stick with posthumous names, temple names, and reign names in general. This is especially true for the Southern Dynasties, as Liu Song has three emperors named Liu Yu. Using personal names would introduce unnecessary confusion. -Zanhe (talk) 04:15, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your first query returns too many false positives because there are 9 Emperor Wens, including a Han dynasty emperor with the surname of Liu. To use your example: ["Emperor Wen of Liu Song" -wikipedia] = 62 GBook hits, ["Emperor Wen of Song" -wikipedia] = 119 hits, ["Wendi of Liu Song" -wikipedia] = 2, ["Wendi of Song" - wikipedia] = 9, ["Wen Di of Song" -wikipedia] = 3. Total = 195. I'm willing to say it's similar to Liu Yilong's numbers because Ghits are unreliable, but this shows if anything Emperor Wen of Song is about twice as common as Emperor Wen of Liu Song. Timmyshin (talk) 05:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You forgot "Emperor Wen of the Liu Song", another common usage. Besides, Liu Yilong is one of the more unique names. As mentioned above, there's also the more intractable problem of three emperors called Liu Yu. And there's Emperor Xiaowu, whose name Liu Jun is the same (in English) as Prince Liu Jun of Liu Song, not to mention King/Emperor Liu Jun of Northern Han and dozens of other Liu Jun's. The unambiguous posthumous names are not only more recognizable, but also better per WP:NATURAL. -Zanhe (talk) 05:36, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Sixteen Kingdoms are different from the N-S dynasties. Many rulers (who were in reality no more than warlords) did not call themselves emperors, and even if they did, they were not accepted by historians. Hence the Sixteen "Kingdoms", not dynasties. -Zanhe (talk) 06:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not all historians think like this. e.g. [1]: "Despite the conventional English label 'Sixteen Kingdoms,' moreover, these regimes were also often really empires..." There are also quite a few of books calling them "dynasties", e.g. [2], [3] etc. Timmyshin (talk) 04:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Northern/Southern dynasties are more similar to the Southern Song dynasty/Jurchen Jin dynasty division than to the Three Kingdoms or Sixteen Kingdoms. Traditional Chinese historiography clearly treats them differently, by calling the former "dynasties" (whose rulers are considered legitimate emperors) and the latter "kingdoms". Modern historians have adopted this nomenclature, and there is no good reason for us to abandon the millennia-old convention. And in the case of the Southern Dynasties, there's no real difference between them and the Eastern Jin dynasty in terms of territory, population, legitimacy, etc. They were essentially continuations of the Eastern Jin with a change in the ruling imperial family. Many historians actually consider Eastern Jin the beginning of the Southern Dynasties, and there's no reason for us to treat their emperors differently. -Zanhe (talk) 19:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That being said, there will always be exceptions that defy convention, especially the short-lived rulers and usurpers. In addition to the ones you named, the most extreme case is the Daughter of Emperor Xiaoming of Northern Wei, who does not even have a name. These need to be considered on a case-by-case basis. -Zanhe (talk) 19:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I am concerned, I'd rather than personal names be used for all emperors, but we don't have that consensus yet. But we can start with the ones who potentially can reach consensus on in terms of eliminating problems. --Nlu (talk) 00:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, that's a terrible idea! Many emperors such as Emperor Wu of Han, Yongle, Kangxi, Qianlong are world famous names, but how many people would recognize Liu Che, Zhu Di, Xuanye, and Hongli? Remember WP:RECOGNIZABILITY is the number one criterion for deciding article titles. Besides, many emperors would require disambiguation when their personal names are used (such as Zhao Yun, Emperor Lizong of Song), which is against the WP:NATURAL principle. -Zanhe (talk) 05:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There needs to be some kind of a compromise: instead of dynasty-based conventions, we should examine each case individually. I am of the opinion that it's fine to call an emperor "Emperor XYZ" or "XYZ Emperor" only if his life and career is clearly defined by his years as a supreme ruler, and nothing else. When there's doubt, we should go with personal names. Hence Puyi, not Xuantong Emperor. Timmyshin (talk) 02:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the main factor to consider when comparing these dynasties is "duration and stability", not "territory, population, legitimacy" (who determines legitimacy anyway?). With the exception of Northern Wei the other N-S dynasties were short-lived and unstable, which makes creating a consistent non-personal naming system difficult. For example, with Category:Northern Qi emperors, it's a 50-50 split between personal names and posthumous names (including an "Emperor Fei", shouldn't it be translated as "Deposed Emperor"?). Is this hodgepodge what we want? Also, having read a little about the Five Dynasties in research, the traditional dynasty-kingdom distinction has been rejected by several modern historians as misleading and counterproductive. (The Five Dynasties emperors are all using personal names now.) Timmyshin (talk) 01:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned above, when considered as a whole, the southern dynasties were remarkably stable and durable. From the Eastern Jin to Chen, the country was stable for nearly 300 years, the main change being that of the ruling family. The northern dynasties less so, but still the Northern Wei lasted as long as the Northern Song. And I don't think the hodgepodge of names is a problem, as it simply reflects the chaotic nature of some successions. It's fine to use personal names for deposed emperors or usurpers who were not given proper posthumous names, but normal emperors with no legitimacy issues should be addressed by their traditional titles. What we shouldn't do is to strive for an artificial consistency when the historical realities are messy and chaotic. -Zanhe (talk) 05:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Off topic, but this discussion somehow reminds me of Bo Yang's version of Zizhi Tongjian, where he consistently used only personal names. I agree with the opinion that we shouldn't strive for artificial consistency, but rather to examine each entity in this period individually and adjust accordingly to changing norms in Chinese historiography (sorry for being unhelpful). Alex Shih (talk) 07:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good observation and not unhelpful at all. Bo Yang, of course, is known for his iconoclasm. Most modern Chinese historians still follow the traditional naming convention. -Zanhe (talk) 01:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Using namespaces that include the word "Emperor" appears to be an anomaly. I do not see any reason why there should be so many articles about Chinese royalty in such namespaces. We don't see namespaces occupied by Queen Elizabeth II, King Felipe VI, Emperor Napoleon, Tzar Nicholas II – these are redirects. The only exception seems to be Queen Victoria, but it's not an exception that I can explain nor care to investigate. The Qin Shi Huang article seems to be "correctly" named in accordance with conventions (even though his pinyin name carries the word for "emperor"); Qianlong Emperor could easily reside at Qianlong without any need for disambiguation, as everyone knows who we are referring to. -- Ohc ¡digame! 15:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's because European royal names are far simpler (normally personal name + number), while Chinese rulers are commonly known by a variety of names: posthumous names, temple names, reign names, and rarely, personal names, which were traditionally taboo. When we do use personal names for Chinese emperors, we don't append their titles just like the European rulers, e.g. Wu Zetian and Puyi. And I also agree that "emperor" is usually not needed for temple names and reign names (as in Taizong of Tang or Qianlong). However, for posthumous names, the title is absolutely necessary, because there are only a small number of posthumous names used by a large number of rulers as well as nobles. For example, we have King Wen of Zhou and Duke Wen of Zhou, Marquis Wen of Jin and Duke Wen of Jin, Duke Xiang of Qi and King Xiang of Qi, Marquis Wu of Jin, Duke Wu of Jin, and Emperor Wu of Jin, etc. -Zanhe (talk) 00:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming the last 3 Song dynasty emperors

The guideline says: "Emperors of the Tang, Song, Liao and Jin (1115–1234) dynasties: use temple names". But Emperor Gong of Song and Emperor Bing of Song are not temple names. Gong is a posthumous name (or is it? I'm not even sure about that, it certainly wasn't mentioned in the annals of History of Song [4]), and Bing is a personal given name. I'm also not sure that Emperor Duanzong is the best-known name for the 8-year-old fugitive "emperor". I propose using the personal names for the trio like Professor Richard L. Davis in The Cambridge History of China Volume 5, Book 1, Chapter 12. Timmyshin (talk) 04:20, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that at least, there should be no dispute that "Zhao Bing" would be appropriate given, as you pointed out, "Bing" was the personal name. My opinions about using personal names in general was noted above, but I will note that if there's no temple name, I do think posthumous name is as close as it gets. --Nlu (talk) 02:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which name is which?

Do we have any resources for determining which part of a Chinese name is the surname, and which part is the personal name?

I have a source ("The Great Tangshan Earthquake of 1976: Anatomy of a Disaster") with six Chinese editors, whose names the publisher presents as "Chen Yong, Kam‐Ling Tsoi, Chen Feibi, Gao Zhenhuan, Zou Qijia and Chen Zhangli", but without indicationg which order they are in. This work is variously cite as "Chen et al." and "Yong et al.", with the names sometimes inverted and sometimes not. (And my Chinese-speaking source says "Chen" can be either a surname or a personal name.)

Short of trying to contact these persons directly (the book is 30 years old), how can I sort these out? Do we have any Chinese librarians on tap? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With a few exceptions, if one part of a Chinese name is monosyllabic and the other is disyllabic, the monosyllable is the surname. That's no help if both are monosyllabic, but here the surname of the first author is Chen: VIAF 304977083.[5] Kanguole 23:41, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That helps. Especially the reminder about VIAF. Thanks. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:27, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: "mainland China" or "China" in article titles

Hello everybody, there was a request to move "2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in mainland China" to "2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in China". Because arguments there doesn't necessarily constrain to the virus page only, I want to request for comments from the community if we can apply the consensus to all pages


Should we use "mainland China" instead of "China" in article titles, given that the article covers area under the direct jurisdiction of the People's Republic of China only and excludes the special administrative regions of Hong Kong and Macau and the disputed Taiwan.


Please, have a say! -- Akira😼CA 01:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think "China" is generally considered shorthand for "mainland China" and "Greater China" or "the PRC" can be used when one explicitly wants to talk about either entity as a whole. Kdm852 (talk) 07:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

support - use mainland China in titles if the article is dealing with post 1949 topics exclusively related mainland China and not involving Hong Kong, Macau and (disputed) Taiwan. Cinema of China, Video games in China seems like good starting points, as the thread starter had mentioned.Newslack (talk) 23:31, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - use China in titles as the standard. The standard is to use the country name even if there are autonomous and/or geographically detached parts of the state with their own arrangements. e.g. articles on France use "France" not "Metropolitan France". There's no good reason to make an exception for China. Timrollpickering (Talk) 23:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Chinese)&oldid=948777491"