This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: | B1 <!-- Referencing and citations --> = y/n | B2 <!-- Coverage and accuracy --> = y/n | B3 <!-- Structure --> = y/n | B4 <!-- Grammar and style --> = y/n | B5 <!-- Supporting materials --> = y/n
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Emperor Taizu of Later Liang which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 17:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 22:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
There is a problem though: While this convention of temple name can and should be followed for Tang, Song and other long-lasting dynasties, it cannot be applied to the 5d10k period without sacrificing consistency. Take a look at these names, all of them emperors in this period:
As you can see there is no consistency, the naming convention is completely arbitrary, and it is incredibly confusing. Therefore my proposal, as well as the previous one in 2010, is to change all of their names to personal names.
The most authoritative book in the West on Chinese history is probably The Cambridge History of China. In Volume 5, Part 1, there were many genealogy diagrams in its first few pages. In Figure 5, they had only temple names without personal names for Song Dynasty emperors. However, for the 5d10k period:
For Later Liang emperors (Figure 1), personal name first, followed by either the temple name, the posthumous name, or simply the word "emperor".
For Later Tang emperors (Figure 2), personal name first, followed by either the temple name or the posthumous name.
For Later Chin (Later Jin) emperors (Figure 2), same as above.
For Later Han emperors (Figure 3), same as above.
For Later Zhou emperors (Figure 3), same as above.
For Wu emperors & Southern Tang emperors (Figure 4), only personal names.
For Wuyue emperors (Figure 4), same as above.
For Southern Han emperors (Figure 4), same as above.
For Chu emperors (Figure 4), same as above.
For Jing'nan emperors (Figure 4), same as above.
For Former Shu & Later Shu emperors (Figure 4), same as above.
One of the reasons, other than consistency, for preferring personal names for these emperors was: unlike emperors in long-lasting dynasties such as Song Dynasty, who were merely princes before ascending the throne, most of the 5d10k emperors in my proposal were famous generals and warlords before they took over. These include, at least (since I do not profess complete knowledge of the period) Zhu Wen, Shi Jingtang, Li Cunxu, Liu Zhiyuan, Guo Wei and Chai Rong. Take the example of Liu Zhiyuan: he only ruled for 1 year, and it was his outstanding accomplishments in countless previous battles that distinguished him rather than a forgetful reign, and not only the biography but also the title should reflect that.
Support, with comment. I believe that using personal names is consistent and proper, and further moves us toward a more NPOV coverage of the period. (There is precedent in that this is done with the Three Kingdoms emperors as well.) As far as which of the personal names to use for people who used multiple ones, I believe that that bears further discussion individually, but I think the key is to first reach a consensus on moving to personal names. --Nlu (talk) 04:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Support per Cambridge History of China. _dk (talk) 06:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Comment this appears to be a proposal to moodify NC-ZH, therefore speedy procedural close as this is occurring at the wrong place, and possibly should be an RFC -- 22.214.171.124 (talk) 21:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:NC-ZH#Names_of_emperors states "Name of emperors: ...The general principle is to use the name most commonly used in English reliable sources, per policy." My proposal is simply following this principle. Timmyshin (talk) 21:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Comment—The nomenclature argument seems to be mildly persuasive, but I'm nervous about severely truncating these titles. The proposed titles look like names that could be possessed by thousands of people; and it is useful to the reader-in-search to have "emperor" in the title, isn't it? Tony(talk) 02:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
One of the things one needs to understand about this historical period is that it differs significantly from a long-lasting stable Chinese dynasty that people think of, for example the Song Dynasty. Song Dynasty lasted over 319 years with 18 emperors, that's about 18 years per emperor's reign. Then look at the 5D10K period, it lasted only 53 years, but there were 55 emperors. If you look at the basic stories behind the guys I'm trying to rename, you probably could have a better picture why (the following is just my understanding of the history, you can probably check the links to read more):
Emperor Gaozu of Later Jin → Shi Jingtang: this dude was a warlord who rebelled against his emperor, also his stepbrother in-law, and proclaimed himself the emperor after causing the latter's death.
Emperor Zhuangzong of Later Tang → Li Cunxu: this dude was a warlord who rebelled and attacked the Zhu's, eventually proclaiming himself the emperor. He killed his own brother whose followers eventually killed him.
...etc. You get the idea. In fact 6 of the 12 rulers (Shi Jingtang, Zhu Wen, Li Cunxu, LIu Zhiyuan, Guo Wei, Li Bian) I tried to rename had been warlords who killed or usurped power from those whom they once swore allegiances to. At least 2 others (Li Siyuan and Chai Rong) were major generals for a significant period before they took power. My point is, calling them by personal names greatly simplifies descriptions of the already confusing events of the period, also achieving consistency with the already existing 26 pages. Hence the choice of The Cambridge History of China for this period. Hope this clarifies some things. Timmyshin (talk) 03:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Support. Historical Dictionary Of Medieval China (pp. cxvi-cxvii, 32-34) has a summary of this period that uses the proposed forms. In particular, Zhu Wen is far better known as a scheming, eunuch-slaughtering Tang dynasty general than as an emperor. Kauffner (talk) 14:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Shi Jingtang's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)