 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Requested moves edit
- 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. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: no consensus. This RM has been left open for over a month, and there has still only been two participants other than the proposer. I suggest waiting a couple of months, and trying again, this time notifying relevant WikiProjects (like WP:CHINA?). Number 57 12:57, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Zhu Yousong, Prince of Fu → Hongguang Emperor
- Zhu Yujian, Prince of Tang → Longwu Emperor
- Zhu Yuyue, Prince of Tang → Shaowu Emperor
- Zhu Youlang, Prince of Gui → Yongli Emperor
– These people are far better known as emperors of the Southern Ming than by their personal names and titles before they became emperors. All Most other Wikipedias, including the Chinese, use their imperial titles. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 16:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC) Zanhe (talk) 01:16, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
In the Chinese tradition, the subsequent dynasty produces an "official history" of the previous dynasty. The Qing historians classify the Hongguang emperor as a legit ruler. The other three are considered pretenders.[1] Each of these "emperors" was progressively less imperial than the last. So the Prince of Fu can certainly be moved to Hongguang emperor. What to do with the others is trickier.Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KauffnerI get 80 post-2000 hits for Ming "prince Gui" OR "Prince of Gui", 357 for Yongli emperor Ming.On another note, "emperor" should be lower cased when it appears after the era name. (See here.) La crème de la crème (talk) 11:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking the time to research the sources. The picture becomes much clearer if you include Chinese sources, which are far more extensive than English ones. For example, Google search for "朱聿键" ("Zhu Yujian") yields 2,990 results, but "隆武帝" ("Longwu Emperor") returns 10,600. This is why the Chinese wikipedia, as well as all other languages, uses their imperial titles instead of personal names. The authoritative Cambridge History of China also refers to them by their imperial titles, see here. (note: being published in the 1980s, it used the then-prevalent Wade-Giles spelling). Also, all other Ming dynasty emperors included in Template:Ming emperors have their articles under their imperial titles (with capitalized "Emperor") rather than personal names. -Zanhe (talk) 06:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- Support. per general convention like in the Cambridge History of China. --Cold Season (talk) 03:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose
Misleading information provided by nominator in regards to the "authoritative" Cambridge History of China to support his claim.Whereas "Yung-li emperor" did occur 9 times in the book, the corresponding personal name "Chu Yu-lang" occurred 11 times, and the person is also listed under "Chu Yu-lang" in the index rather than under "Yung-li emperor" (which doesn't appear to have an entry), as well as the genealogy chart. Google Books searches: 137 results for "Chu Yu-lang" + "Southern Ming" vs. only 70 results for "Yung-li emperor" + "Southern Ming". Template:Ming emperors is hardly an argument as the people in question are Southern Ming emperors, not traditionally regarded Ming dynasty emperors, Southern Ming being more of a (at times not even cohesive) resistant movement after the fall of the Ming empire, rather than an actual empire, these so-called emperors more like fugitives. The current titles are also bad, support moves to Zhu Yousong, Zhu Yujian, Zhu Yuyue, and Zhu Youlang respectively, since I'm not seeing any disambiguation with these personal names. Timmyshin (talk) 01:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- How is my information misleading? The Cambridge History of China uses "Yung-li emperor" almost exclusively in the main text, the only exception being p. 677, where the prince is introduced, before he was proclaimed emperor. All other ten appearances of his personal name occur in the index or appendix, a fact you neglected to mention. Your other argument, as to whether they "deserve" to be called emperors, is irrelevant. History is full of emperors and monarchs who have little real power, but article titles are about common names, not about whether the person deserves the title. As I mentioned before,
allmost other Wikipedias use their imperial titles, there's no good reason why the English wiki should be different. -Zanhe (talk) 04:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- How is my information misleading? The Cambridge History of China uses "Yung-li emperor" almost exclusively in the main text, the only exception being p. 677, where the prince is introduced, before he was proclaimed emperor. All other ten appearances of his personal name occur in the index or appendix, a fact you neglected to mention. Your other argument, as to whether they "deserve" to be called emperors, is irrelevant. History is full of emperors and monarchs who have little real power, but article titles are about common names, not about whether the person deserves the title. As I mentioned before,
- Point taken and my inaccurate remarks deleted. Yes, you are correct that 10/11 of appearances of "Chu Yu-lang" are in the index/appendix and I failed to mention that. However, if you only look at the narrative, there are also 3 mentions of "Prince of Yung-ming" referencing the same individual that you neglected to mention. According to the preface to Volume 7: "Emperors are referred to by their temple names during their reign and by their personal names prior to their accession." Calling an individual by his title during that period is probably so to facilitate narrative clarity, and does not indicate "common name" in my opinion. The "common name" is the one the authors use in the index, and that is "Chu Yu-lang", at least that's how I look at it. Otherwise why would they use "Chu Yu-lang" in the index? Timmyshin (talk) 05:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- And how could you make the claim "all other Wikipedias use their imperial titles" when you have Czech Czech Norwegian Russian Russian Russian Korean Vietnamese clearly using their personal names? Timmyshin (talk) 05:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- You're right about that. I only checked Wikidata for Longwu, and assumed that the others were the same. Thanks for pointing out my mistake. However, it remains true that most Wikipedia articles, including all the Chinese ones, use the imperial titles. -Zanhe (talk) 06:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- The Russian entry "Чжу Юйцзянь" is also a transliteration of "Zhu Yujian". Anyway, I think this is an important move request and probably should be relisted multiple times to involve more editors familiar with Chinese history to build a consensus. At the very least, we both agree the current titles need to go, especially the "Zhu Youlang, Prince of Gui" one, as p. 677 of The Cambridge History of China vol. 7 said that "Prince of Kuei" ("Prince of Gui") was an inaccurate designation used by many Qing and 20th-century historians. (Another reason I prefer personal names over noble titles.) Timmyshin (talk) 09:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- You're right about that. I only checked Wikidata for Longwu, and assumed that the others were the same. Thanks for pointing out my mistake. However, it remains true that most Wikipedia articles, including all the Chinese ones, use the imperial titles. -Zanhe (talk) 06:15, 9 October 2014 (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.