Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)

Naming for Ming Dynasty emperors

It has been confusing after I saw the title "Emperor Xuanzong of Tang" and "Jiajing Emperor". The problem here is that mostly in informal ways and in text descriptions we could use the era name "jiajing" as a reference to this person because of there's only one era name used per emperor during Ming Dynasty. But essentially the era name does not represent the person himself. For example, I cannot use Veritas as the article name for Harvard University. Change those articles using era names as title into more representative and formal titles such as using Temple name or posthumous names would be better and more consistent without explaining difference saying share same characters while kings from Europe can use same names and differ with some roman letters.

• 明世宗（Emperor Shizong of Ming)
• 金世宗 (Emperor Shizong of Jin)

I just want to know how is it same if using correct addressing.-宋世怡 (talk) 00:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• • Furthermore, if I am not wrong, in official historical records, no matter by the proceeding Emperor or Dynasty, temple names were used.

@宋世怡: This part of our guideline is derived from WP:COMMONNAME, the most common name for the article subject used in English-language secondary sources. A quick browse through my sources shows about a halfie-half split for Ming dynasty emperors (Ming Taizu vs Hongwu Emperor), but for Qing dynasty emperors every source I know of uses the name of their regnal period rather than their temple name: e.g. always Kangxi and Qianlong, never Qing Shengzu or Qing Gaozong. We do have the redirects, as you can see.

From the Tang dynasty onwards the official histories use temple names; prior to that they use exclusively 諡.

I'm not sure what you mean by "I cannot use Veritas as the article name for Harvard University". Can you elaborate? Snuge purveyor (talk) 05:39, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@Snuge purveyor: The point I am trying to say is that I think the division in naming these articles should not appear because of the common use of the era name even if they can be used to identify. In addition, I tried to understand how the community established these rules, so I went through the explanation here and also the articles of era names in Eng to confirm if there's any different understanding of the same object. But as far as I researched, even though era names were used commonly in English-language secondary sources, officially should be temple name or posthumous names in Ming Dynasty. I am not much into Qing Dynasty so I do not comment on it. The historical records I used to identify their official uses are “Mingshilu” and “History of Ming”， both were written by government of Ming and Qing, I will show you a few quotes from them in origin language(Chinese).

• 诏下，朝野号恸感激，比之杨廷和所拟登极诏书，为世宗始终盛事云
• 世宗不豫时，给事中胡应嘉尝劾拱，拱疑阶嗾之 -《明史》列传第一百一
• 世宗皇帝以宗藩入继大统乃祖宗以来未有之事其即位礼仪及赏赉之类亦与先朝不同皆备书一追上睿宗献皇帝尊号祔庙称宗并上慈孝献皇后徽号及改建庙制议迁陵寝诸大典礼皆世宗皇帝所亲定者备书一册立皇后皇妃 -《明实录》卷五百六十六

Without saying, even the title of Mingshilu is combined with the temple name and the posthumous name but not era name; same in History of Ming, it used the temple names for every emperor.

• • For Harvard, simply because the article for era name uses the word "motif\slogan", just so to compare(not really academic way but enough for imagery)
  • Prior to Tang, I will use 汉书 as example:“高祖，沛丰邑中阳里人也，姓刘氏”,“高祖以亭长为县送徒骊山，徒多道亡。”-宋世怡 (talk) 15:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• Also, most historical records used temple names rather than era names(Ming Dynasty), if you do have the interest and time, you can look through my ongoing editing "徐阶" article in zh wiki-宋世怡 (talk) 15:39, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• FYI(1): I do need to clarify the importance and why they would use such names instead of others, which was defined not by modern society but ancient society, as I don't have a English translation edition in hand, I have to post origin texts from Book of Rites.
  • “凡治人之道，莫急于礼。礼有五经，莫重于祭。夫祭者，非物自外至者也，自中出生于心也；心怵而奉之以礼。是故，唯贤者能尽祭之义。”&“是故：王立七庙，一坛一墠，曰考庙，曰王考庙，曰皇考庙，曰显考庙，曰祖考庙；皆月祭之。远庙为祧，有二祧，享尝乃止。去祧为坛，去坛为墠。坛墠，有祷焉祭之，无祷乃止。去墠曰鬼。”

-宋世怡 (talk) 17:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@宋世怡: The idea is to use the article title that English-reading users will most likely recognise, not the most correct or most official name of the article subject. The explanatory supplement WP:OFFICIALNAMES begins "People often assume that, where an official name exists for the subject of a Wikipedia article, that name is ipso facto the correct title for the article… It's a very easy mistake to make, and a very common one." Our policy WP:COMMONNAME says "Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)".

The fact that the temple name for emperors is the proper one to use, and the name used exclusively by Chinese histories, is irrelevant to Wikipedia's article titles. Ming dynasty history is my weakest area of Chinese history, so I'm probably the least expert person here to talk to, but if you want Wikipedia to move its articles on Ming dynasty emperors to the titles using the official temple names (Ming Shizong for example, instead of Jiajing Emperor), you'll likely have to show that the preponderance of English-language sources use the correct, official term rather than using the era name as a shorthand to refer to the emperor. Snuge purveyor (talk) 19:55, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@Snuge purveyor:Thanks for your explanation about the difference, I have already read the policy and fully understand your statement, but I will still insist on my proposal until I have a better vision by researching more related English documents. Although I do agree with the point of using a commonly used name, the use of temple names of emperors during Ming Dynasty is preferred and common in many Chinese academic journals and books as far as I know. Thank you again for your help as I don't know how to start in Eng Wiki because of those naming problems confused me so much at the beginning.-宋世怡 (talk) 21:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

This is part of an important, ongoing, and inconclusive discussion. We should thank @Snuge purveyor: for keeping it in front of the community, for instance in the extremely well-done article Translation of Han dynasty titles. However, I am both a scholar and a teacher, but my feeling is that Wikipedia should favor my students, who are easily confused, over my colleagues, who are better able to look after themselves! That is, I would not change the long-established WP:COMMONNAME policy even though it is sometimes awkward.ch (talk) 22:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Jiajing Emperor is more common than Shizong of Ming, but the common name for Hongwu Emperor is undoubtedly Zhu Yuanzhang. Timmyshin (talk) 04:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Timmyshin. The name Hongwu Emperor usually throws up blank looks, but you immediately see a reaction when Zhu Yuanzhang is mentioned. In China, recognition of the former may be higher, but the same case of higher recognition of Zhu Yuanzhang applies. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 15:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

RFC on Chinese railway station title/style conventions

FYI, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC on Chinese railway station title/style conventions. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Related: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC on naming of Chinese railway line articles. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:40, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

For those following these things and desirous of consistent results, see also WP:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Russian railway line article titles.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  04:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

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 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)

• 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)

• Can you please find some English-language sources supporting this usage? Timmyshin (talk) 04:29, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

• Google books search for "Emperor Wen" Liu Song -wikipedia returns 2,580 results, whereas "Liu Yilong" -wikipedia returns 493. Note that many sources add "the" before "Liu Song", or omit "Liu", or replace "of" with a comma, or add a hyphen between Liu and Song, but they are all minor variations of the posthumous name. -Zanhe (talk) 04:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• These are all good arguments. However, I think either way you will have some naming inconsistencies within a given dynasty (just look at each subcategory in Category:Southern and Northern Dynasties emperors). Anyway, I have notified User:Nlu and will defer to his opinion because he created and titled most/all of these articles. Timmyshin (talk) 06:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
• Also notice the issue of disambiguation also exists for emperors of other periods, e.g. Fu Jian, but personal names were still used. Timmyshin (talk) 06:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• Support. I don't think there is a logical reason to treat the Northern/Southern dynasty emperors any different than Three Kingdoms or Sixteen Kingdoms emperors. Using personal names allows greater consistency and avoids personal judgments as to such emperors as Xiao Baojuan and Emperor Houfei of Liu Song. (Also, some of the emperors had multiple posthumous names given by rival sides of civil wars – e.g., Emperor Xiaozhuang of Northern Wei.) --Nlu (talk) 15:14, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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, as in Wu Zetian, Puyi, etc. 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)

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)