Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles

< Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jnc (talk | contribs) at 20:47, 30 August 2005 (→Footnote, template or something: We can make it short). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Latest comment: 19 years ago by Jnc in topic Footnote, template or something

Archived discussions

See also the old discussion of the name order in the article title.


Would some of these form good candidates for collection Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars ever

Names of modern Japanese emperors

Latest comment: 19 years ago60 comments10 people in discussion

There have (long long) been debates over the names of the latest 4 emperors: Akihito, Hirohito, Taisho Emperor and Meiji Emperor. Before proceeding with individual matters, I think we should agree at least:

  1. The names of the four should be exception - Names like Akihito and Hirohito are personal names while Taisho and Meiji are era names. The rest of emperors were given neither personal names or era names. Hence, using the uniform name format for the four would be misleading. Not mention to names like Emperor Heisei of Japan are never in use and incorrect.
  2. In wikipedia we do not name articles to ensure respect; this is why we have an article George W. Bush while no reasonable person call him simply that name. This time cannot be different.

-- Taku 23:23, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. There should be different standards between the emperors of old Japan and modern Japan. 青い(Aoi) 01:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Agree only that there should be a different standard for the current emperor. There is no reason for Emperors Meiji, Taishō and Shōwa to be any different from the 121 emperors who preceded them. Their names are Meiji Tennō, Taishō Tennō and Shōwa Tennō. They are exclusively referred to by these names in Japanese, whether in dictionaries, encyclopedias, text, newspaper articles, television broadcasts, ordinary conversation, etc. So Meiji, Taishō and Shōwa are both era names and the actual names (posthumous) of the emperors. The posthumous name given to someone (including Shōwa Tennō, or Empress Kōjun, etc.) is referred to in Japanese as tsuigō (追号), and if you check the definition, for example in Daijirin, it says 人の死後、生前の徳や功績をたたえて贈る名。(i.e. a name bestowed upon someone after their death to reflect their virtue and achievements while alive.) The only thing "unique" about these 3 emperors is that the era name remained the same during their entire reign and the decision was made to bestow the name of the era during which they reigned as their posthumous name. It was a system change and nothing more. But how they got their posthumous name or where it comes from has no bearing on the fact that their name is now as I described above. The current emperor is a bit more problematic. His name currently is Akihito (as far as I know) though he is referred to only by a title. I would be open to leaving his article named Akihito, although I prefer Emperor Akihito since this is what is widely used in Japan. I understand there is a convention against titles in article names (and in this case tennō is merely a title, not part of his name), but just for the sake of consistency I would be inclined to using Emperor Akihito of Japan for the current emperor.
So, since these are in fact their names, I think it leaves us with 2 options. 1) Just use their romanized name (i.e. Meiji Tennō), but I think this is far from the convention, or 2) use a partial translation of their name, since half of it is also a Japanese word with meaning, almost universally translated as "emperor." This gives us 2 further options of "Meiji Emperor" or "Emperor Meiji." Even though the word "emperor" comes second in the Japanese name, I think the convention is to refer to them as Emperor X. For example, check page 12 of the introduction to Volume 1 of The Cambridge History of Japan (sorry I don't have volume 6 yet.) Meiji Tennō is referred to as Emperor Meiji. It is certainly the convention for every emperor that preceded him in everything I can recall ever seeing.
By the way, I partially disagree with what Taku says above. The emperors before Meiji were given personal names (Prince X, or X 皇子, etc.) and they have tsuigō given to them after their death (with a few exceptions like Emperor Godaigo who chose his own posthumous name because he idealized the time of Emperor Daigo).-Jefu 03:46, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
I understand your concern, however, it is against general Wikipedia naming conventions to use titles when referring to monarchs. This is why the article about the Queen of the UK is at Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom rather than Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. Exactly why the previous Japanese emperors use the format "Emperor X of Japan" is a mystery to me, but then again, European naming conventions aren't applied to eastern biographies. I would actually favor changing the names of all the articles on Japanese emperors to simply their era names, i.e., simply "Meiji." This is how the Encyclopædia Britannica lists Emperors, and it makes sense because the "of Japan" is unnecessary and titles aren't used in the naming of articles for monarchs. However, in the case of Hirohito, an exception might be necessary to comply with the rule of thumb on naming articles on non-European/non-Western people: using the name most commonly used in English. While it might be disrespectful, barely anyone who speaks English natively knows the Showa Emperor under that name (Hirohito is obviously more common; Google shows 28,100 results for "Showa emperor" compared to 98,100 results for "Emperor Hirohito"). 青い(Aoi) 04:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
But what I'm trying to say is the convention doesn't necessarily apply in this case because the word emperor is actually part of their name. They have all been posthumously named Exmperor X. And while I understand your point about Hirohito, I don't see any reason to break from consistency just because the world happens to have known his previous name and is familiar with it. That's what a redirect is for. As long as people can find him, that's all that matters. I do however agree that the "of Japan" is unnecessary. I'm not quite as animated about that. But just naming the emperors Godaigo, Temmu, Meiji, etc. isn't only odd, I think it is simply wrong because it isn't their name. As far as I know this is quite a different custom from British monarchy, etc. Elizabeth II was never actually named (and won't be named posthumously) Queen Elizabeth II. -Jefu 07:37, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
Okay, that's a very compelling argument, so I'm dropping my opposition to renaming Hirohito to "Showa Emperor" or whatever, as long as the name is consistent with whatever naming convention is adopted for the emperors Meiji and Taisho. In addition, I've also thought about it and realized that using the form "Meiji Emperor" would help solve the disambiguation problem between the emperors and their eras. Plus, since consistency within specific topics is important in Wikipedia, you are probably right that Hirohito shouldn't be excepted, especially since the use of the name "Showa Emperor" is technically more accurate than Hirohito. As long as sufficient redirects are created/maintained, I'll be willing to compromise. BTW, I'd favor the use of the form "X Emperor" as opposed to "Emperor X" since the latter suggests the employment of titles rather than, as you say, simply the proper use of their posthumous name. Thank you, 青い(Aoi) 21:47, 4 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Like you Jefu, I tend to favor consistency in naming and indeed it is often the case; for example, we have Hiroshima, Hiroshima (which understandably some people think is ugly), as every city article follows the format of "{city}, {prefecture}". I think I see your argument (that the naming scheme is essentially the same for the three (Meiji to Showa), but at the same time, it is true that Meiji Emperor, especially in terms of naming, really does differ from the past emperors. I know very little on this issue, but there seems to be a difference between Okurina and Tsuigo. By reading ja:明治天皇, Meiji, as in Meiji Tenno, is both the era name and tsuigo but not technically okurina; the past emperors like Ichijo Emperor are okurina but not tsuigo, as I understand. (See also ja:諡) Though I don't have relevant books in my desk at this moment, I believe someone should be able to verify this. Or we can ask in Japanese wikipedia.

In any rate, like Aoi, now I basically agree to leave this issue to you, as it is clearly to me and others that you are knowledgeable on this issue. (My speciality is math and comp science, so I am not an expert on this at all :)

-- Taku 01:14, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

There seems to be a problem with using just one name. Akihito is a name that is used in Japan, it would be like naming an article for the queen of the U.K. "Elizabeth". There are multiple articles in Wikipedia with persons having that name. The article for Empress Michiko is also not titled "Michiko". Therefore I would plead for consistency. It makes sense to use "Taisho Emperor" and "Meiji Emperor", the logical continuation would be "Showa Emperor", with Hirohito leading to a redirect to it. In the case of Akihito, again this is just a japanese personal name. I would propose either Emperor Akihito of Japan, making it consistent with the articles on previous japanese emperors, or something similar like just Emperor Akihito. In Japan, they are known as "Showa tenno", "Meiji tenno", etc.. but referring to "Showa" has another meaning, and the term "Hirohito" is not used. File:Gryffindor.jpgGryffindor  12:13, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

So a number of people have expressed various opinions on the topic. It seems that there aren't any objections to renaming the most recent 4 emperor articles and the only issue is what to name them exactly. This is my proposal:

  1. The emperors prior to the current emperor should all follow the format "Emperor X" since technically that is their posthumous name and not just a title. Some have expressed the opinion that it should be "X Emperor", and although I understand the reasoning behind that choice of format, in my experience this is just very non-standard. I don't think any reputable publications I have ever seen, including the Japan Times or The Cambridge History of Japan, use this format for the Japanese emperors. My first impression upon seeing "X Emperor" (when I saw the current title for Emperor Meiji's article, for example) was that it was a translation of "X Tenno" by a non-native speaker of English who is merely following the word order of the Japanese, and who doesn't understand that it sounds somewhat rather odd to a native speaker.
  2. I think the article for the current emperor should be "Akihito of Japan". This is consistent in that the only name he currently has is "Akihito" and it is consistent with the Wikipedia style of naming monarchs using the name of the monarch and the country (like "Elizabeth II of Great Britain") but not the title. When Emperor Akihito passes away he (and his article) will be renamed "Emperor Heisei" and the current crown prince's article will be come "Naruhito of Japan" (and perhaps Aiko's article will become "Aiko, Crown Princess of Japan"...) -Jefu 11:12, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
It sounds good. But then if you drop the "of Japan" part away, what is the difference between ruling empresses and consorts? We would end up having Empress Suiko as well as Empress Michiko? I would suggest we keep the current "Emperor (Empress) X of Japan" format, which otherwise would involve a huge logistical undertaking to move everything, and name consorts simply as "Empress X" Ex: Empress Kojun. Would this proposal be satisfactory to everyone? File:Gryffindor.jpgGryffindor  14:38, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Your suggestion sounds good to me Jefu. "of Japan" doesn't bother me. It is consistent with European kings and queens, and although slightly redundant, it isn't wrong or confusing (Gryffindor has a good point there).
Emperor Meiji of Japan, Emperor Taisho of Japan, Emperor Showa of Japan and Akihito of Japan sound good to me. I'm very much a proponent of getting rid of "Hirohito" as the article title. If most academic publications and the Japanese themselves use the above, then why should Wikipedia stick to "the most popular name"? An encyclopedia's aim is to educate, not to be urbandictionary JeroenHoek 18:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

They do not need "of Japan", none of them. The territorial designation is (for European and muslim monarchs) just because so many of their countries use same first names. Whereas Japanese first names are not easily ambiguate with names in any other country. "of Japan" is thus redundant. Akihito is just fine, without a title, without a territorial designation. Hirohito is so well known in English, compared to Showa, that he should continue under Hirohito. Taisho is nowadays so little known that it is almist same what is his name, Yoshihito has been used. Mutsuhito is almost as familiar as name as is Meiji - he is the only one whose posthumous name has gained wider familiarity. Above, someone tried to say that the order od words would be wrong. Not in my opinion, not necessarily. Think Meiji as "adjective", as an attribute, and Emperor as the noun. Thus there could be "Meiji Emperor", in sense of "the Emperor of the Meiji era" - similarly as there is "the queen of French revolution". Re those older ones, "of Japan" just is redundant there too. If someone would make the work, they could be taken away. I oppose territorial designation "of Japan" re each of all those. I oppose title and territorial designation to Akihito and Hirohito. I oppose the unnecessary move to use "Showa". I am ready to accept the use "Meiji Emperor", though I would approve alternatively Mutsuhito. Arrigo 18:05, 11 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

I'm not particularly happy with the Wikipedia article naming policies (at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)) but as long as those are the policies, we should stick to them.
Naming the article on Hirohito anything but "Hirohito" (with a possible variant of "Emperor Hirohito") completely contravenes these policies. He is universally referred to as Hirohito in English - see e.g. Herbert P. Bix, Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan (2000), which refers to him throughout as "Hirohito", with one or two uses of "Emperor Hirohito" at the start (and please note that Bix is a major scholar). In the dust-jacket blurbs, the director of the Reischauer Institute of Japanese Studies at Harvard refers to him as "Hirohito". (I suppose I could go find some of Reischauer's own books and see, but I don't feel like walking upstairs to get them; in any case, it would be pointless, because IIRC Reischauer died before Hirohito, so would have had no possible opportunity to call him Showa).
Similarly, one almost never sees "Mutsuhito" in English-language works (I didn't know that name at all for many years, in fact); he is almost universally referred to as "Emperor Meiji". Use of "Meiji" alone would be inappropriate, as Meiji should be a disambiguation page (for "Meiji era", "Meiji restoration", etc).
Yes, this isn't consistent. So what? We don't have all articles on Western people at "John Q. Loser", either: some are at "John Loser", some are at "Johnny Loser" (check out Bill Clinton), some are at "J. Q. Loser", etc, etc. Whatever they are best known as, generally.
And as for "Emperor X" versus "X Emperor", sorry, but this is the English Wikipedia, not the Japanese Wikipedia, so we use English language order, i.e. "Emperor X". E.g. Bix uses "Emperor Meiji". Noel (talk) 14:09, 12 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

I completely agree with Noel here (Although I think that "the Meiji Emperor" is more commonly used than "Emperor Meiji"). Having Hirohito listed as Showa is just a violation of a number of wikipedia naming policies. john k 00:35, 13 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Which naming policies does it violate? The naming policy on monarchs clearly says that Eastern monarchs are exceptions. And did you follow the discussion above where I explain that his name is not Hirohito? That it was posthumously changed to Showa Tenno (Emperor Showa)? -Jefu 07:06, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
It contravenes our basic policies on using common English names. Name changes are not necessarily relevant to this at all. For instance, we have Malcolm X at Malcolm X, not El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz. Frankly, the question of whether "Hirohito" is disrespectful or not strikes me as irrelevant. Hirohito is not a person who deserves some special measure of respect, even if it is acceptable for Wikipedia to give it to those who are. - Nat Krause 08:22, 13 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Jefu, "Use common names" is a bedrock principle of wikipedia. Obviously there are some instances where we don't exactly use the most common form, and there are other instances where we elaborate special rules because it is unclear what the most common form is. But we should not depart from "use most common name" without very good reason. john k 15:35, 13 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
It has nothing to do with respect, it has to do with an understanding of how the names of Japanese emperors work. The fact that his name has changed to a name that is *exclusively* used in Japan (and that includes, for example, English language publications in Japan such as the Japan Times), and is beginning to be used more and more often outside of Japan, seems to me to be a "very good reason" for changing the article and use a redirect for people who search using Hirohito. Can we at least agree that Taisho Emperor and Meiji Emperor should be changed to the format of the other emperors, Emperor Meiji of Japan and Emperor Taisho of Japan? -Jefu 00:15, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
I don't have a major problem with those last two, and I also don't mind moving Hirohito to some form of "Emperor Hirohito". But he's still by far better known in the West as Hirohito. Noel (talk) 01:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

For Meiji and Taisho, I think it would be useful if somebody could find various reputable historical works on Japan in this period, and see what term they use. I feel fairly certain that I've normally seen "Meiji Emperor," at least (Taisho rarely shows up, in general), but this isn't incredibly important. As to Hirohito, this is how he is known. Google turns up more than three times as many hits for "+Hirohito +Emperor" than it does for "+Showa +Emperor". Furthermore, I have read a number of historical works that mention Hirohito, and they all call him Hirohito. On google news, which should compile only modern media references, there are 296 hits for Hirohito, and only 33 hits for Showa +Emperor (a company called Showa Denko brings the number of hits for just "Showa" too high to count, but all hits for Hirohito seem to be to the Emperor). Lookin at major papers for lexis-nexis in the past six months, there are 48 hits for a search on "Hirohito" and only 23 for "Showa," and the latter includes many references to Showa Denko, or to the Showa Era, or to other things than calling Hirohito Showa. john k 02:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

I'm dropping my request to rename Hirohito. I understand the argument that this is how he continues to be most widely known in the West. I've made some minor edits to the article that I think clarifies the points that were of concern to me.
As for Meiji and Taisho, I really think the current titles (and I know they are used in the wild as well) just sound like really bad translations to me and I have most often seen them both referred to as "Emperor Meiji" and "Emperor Taisho". Unfortunately virtually all of my historical sources are in Japanese, but here are a couple:
  1. [Emperor of Japan: Meiji and His World by Donald Keene] (Follow the link and read the inside jacket and first chapter.)
  2. The Cambridge History of Japan: Volume 1, Ancient Japan, by Delmer M. Brown, Department of History, University of California, Berkeley. Although this book is about Ancient Japan (and by the way uses the format "Emperor X" for the emperors of the time), Professor Brown refers to "Emperor Meiji" in the Introduction to this volume. Unfortunately I don't have the two most recent volumes of this series which would have references to Emperor Meiji and Emperor Taisho, but I'll bet money that these volumes have all adopted the exact same format. -Jefu 04:51, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
Will Durant also refers to Emperor Meiji. Not that he's a great source on Japanese history, but that's all I have in front of me. I'm going to withdraw any objection to renaming the Meiji and Taisho articles. Having three different standards for Japanese emperors is a bit silly. john k 05:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Regarding the order of words, "Emperor Individualname" or "Individualname Emperor", I favor the latter, for several reasons, one of which however is that IMO we should not begin headings with titles but they should begin with something individual, if that can be arranged - and here it can be arranged (other alternative is to leave the whole title out from the heading). When putting articles in alphabetic order, if all those begin with "Emperor", they all clump under "E". I understand there are several different things named e.g Ichijo, thus disambiguation is the ground to have Ichijo Emperor or Ichijo (emperor), of which I favor the first, but some strict disambiguationists may favor the latter. I concur to the view that Tenno is a part of the known name of the monarch in question, and therefore I refrain from requesting "Emperor" to be dropped altogether. 217.140.193.123 19:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Alphabetization isn't a problem. That's what bars are for in categories, e.g. [[Category:Japanese Emperors|Ichijo]] Nik42 16:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

At least I agree that for those 100+ ancient monarchs, the "of Japan" is redundant. It does not add any disambiguation, as no other country uses same first names/reign names/whatever those individual names precisely are. Redundancies basically should not be in headings - all such can be explained in the text of the article. I request that the "of Japan" is allowed to get rid of (perhaps sooner or later some editors find time and effort to go through that heap of articles). Wikipedia style for Westerners refers "to preemptively disambiguate all monarchs by appending the country to their name", is intended to European and Muslim monarchs as there several countries share same first names. The WP Naming Convention in question states clearly that those are NOT guidelines for Eastern civilizations. Already the "pre-emptive" and "disambiguation" says it: it is used for civilizations where it presumably helps to disambiguate. It IS intended to prevent confusion. I believe sooner or later editors will take "of Japan" away from the said hundred headings. 217.140.193.123 19:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Your reasoning makes good sense to me, and I would be happy to drop the "of Japan" in all the article titles. Noel (talk) 02:39, 18 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
I concur. john k 03:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
I agree as well. -Jefu 05:13, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

So if I can try to summarize (so that I can add this to the actual Manual of Style):

  1. Emperor article titles will be in the format "Emperor X" for all of the emperors from Emperor Jimmu through Emperor Meiji.
I do not agree with that contention. Arrigo 17:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
This does not give you the unilateral right to move the articles to whatever you decree to be the proper title, especially after the issue has been debated at length here by others and after I already spent a great deal of time moving an article (and fixing all of its double redirects, which you apparently don't seem to concern yourself with at all.) Nobody has even suggested, much less agreed, that the female emperor articles should be named "X Tenno" of that the others should be "X Emperor." -Jefu 23:20, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
I would be willing to move all the articles to the "Emperor X" format, but I can't, since those pages are already taken (as redirects). If an administrator could delete those pages, I could then start the process of moving them Nik42 01:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
I already began the process and moved the first 15 plus the empresses (and made move requests for those that were already taken). However, we're going to first have to deal with User:Arrigo who has apparently decided unilaterally that the empress articles should all be named "X Tenno" (and then did a half-assed job of moving them without bothering to remove double-redirects.) -Jefu 04:20, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
  1. The rule regarding preemtively adding "of Japan" will not be adopted for Japanese emperors (and the current article titles will be moved by some generous soul with lots of free time...)
  2. Emperor Showa's article will remain entitled "Hirohito" because he is overwhelmingly known by that name in the west and we can address the actual name issue by having a proper redirect and explaining it clearly in the article (which I have already done.)
  3. The current emperor's article will remain entitled "Akihito" for the same reason.

Does this make sense? -Jefu 05:24, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

It sounds okay to me. I have two questions, though: 1) What about the article on the Taisho Emperor, and 2) will the form "Empress X" be used for reigning empresses? 青い(Aoi) 10:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Oops, I already "decided" that reigning empresses will be "X Tenno", as they were formally "female emperors", and "empress" is more reserved as translation to certain other titles such as chugu and kogo. Arrigo 10:56, 18 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

To respond to Aoi, I meant to say Emperor Jimmu through Emperor Taisho. The only exceptions would be Emperor Showa and the current emperor. To respond to Aoi and Arrigo, I don't think it makes sense to rename only the females as "X Tenno". Far better to keep them as "Empress X" since the English "Emperor" is obviously reserved for males. As for what to do with the wives of the emperors, I think they only recently began being referred to as empresses. For the official wives (i.e. Kōgō, etc.) of all the past emperors, I think they should be referred to in text as consorts (and the articles should just have their names like Soga no Kitashihime. For non-official wives, they should be referred to as concubines. The most recent wives (other than the current empress) whose posthumous titles are "X Kōgō", I think they should be "Empress X", just like Empress Kōjun and Empress Shōken. The current empress is titled Empress Michiko of Japan, but since this is a title, I think it should be moved to just Michiko without the "of Japan". -Jefu 11:14, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

My opinion is in favor of "X Emperor". That is the afaik more usual usage in English. 217.140.193.123 08:28, 19 August 2005 (UTC) Moreover, I remind that there have been pieces of this same discussion in other talk pages, of articles, and some other editors here have also expressed that they prefer "X Emperor" - the following diff presents editor John Kenney's opinion in those certain articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATaisho_Emperor&diff=20204454&oldid=20196641Reply

Also Nik, regarding Meiji, has written: ".... In Meiji Tennō, Meiji is an adjective rather than a name, since it's simply the name of the era that corresponded with his reign.... Nik42 02:39, 13 August 2005 (UTC)". I concur with the idea of adjective. 217.140.193.123 08:28, 19 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

This is simply flat out and utterly incorrect. Anyone with even a passing understanding of Japanese understands that the "Meiji" of "Meiji Tennō" is not an adjective. Adjectives are not joined to the nouns they modify in Japanese by simply putting them in front of the noun.
No or na are not always needed for adjectives. For example, "British English" is igirisu eigo, not igirisu no' eigo. The Americas are Amerika tairiku, not Amerika no tairiku, and so on. Still, I'm in favor of "Emperor Meiji", for consistency's sake Nik42 16:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Your examples actually strengthen my point. You point out instances where nouns are joined together without a connector. Sure, there are lots of examples of this in Japanese "Meiji Ishin", "Furansu Kakumei", etc. And low and behold, they're all proper names of things, not simply adjectives modifying nouns. Similarly if you wanted to express the Meiji emperor (i.e. using Meiji as a noun modifier to mean the person who was emperor during the Meiji period) you would use a "no" connector to do so (although it would be Meiji jidai no tennō). "Meiji Tennō" has no connector between the two nouns precisely because it is a proper name. In fact, it is his only name since it was changed after his death. Meiji is not being used as an adjective in Japanese or in English. -Jefu 04:06, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
If it were intended as an adjective (or more properly a noun modifier) it would have to be "Meiji no Tennō". That kind of phrase doesn't exist in Japanese. Even if you did mean to say the Tennō from the Meiji era it would be "Meiji jidai no Tennō". And the other problem with this "adjective" theory is it is only the three emperors from Meiji through Shōwa were named using the names of the eras they presided over (this rule has now been codified into Japanese law.) The emperors prior to Meiji were given names posthumously that often (usually) had nothing to do with the often multiple eras over which they ruled (the modern rule of one emperor one era is also new since Emperor Meiji.)
Right. And that's what I pointed out in the rest of my comment, which was left out of that quote. That for the Emperors preceding Meiji, they were posthumous names Nik42 16:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
No, for all the emperors preceding the current emperor, they are posthumous names, including Emperor Meiji, Emperor Taishō and Emperor Shōwa. It was just the system of assigning posthumous names and choosing nengō that changed. -Jefu 04:06, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
Just to note - for the Chinese emperors who were named using the names of the era they presided over (that is, the emperors of the Ming and Qing Dynasties) the "Name Emperor" format is in wide use. "Meiji Emperor" is in analogy to Qianlong Emperor, and so forth. Clearly, we shouldn't use "Name Emperor" for pre-Meiji emperors. I think that probably, we should just stick with the same format throughout, but there is a reason for it. john k 13:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Furthermore, as I also describe at length above, "Meiji Tennō" is his name. His actual name. It was changed posthumously to "Meiji Tennō". It wasn't left as "Mutsuhito," it isn't just "Meiji" and it isn't just "Tennō". It is "Meiji Tennō", full stop. This is true for all of the emperors prior to the current one. We have decided to leave Hirohito as is because he is so widely known by that name and not Emperor Shōwa, at least outside of Japan. And the current emperor isn't yet renamed Heisei Tennō and won't be until he dies. Instead I edited the contents of the Hirohito article to address the points that I had an issue with. I also provide a couple of very reputable sources above that refer to the emperors as "Emperor X". Personally this is all I have ever seen in English, save for a few sites on the Internet, many of which I think are simply misunderstood translations that stiltingly maintain the word order of the Japanese name and thus become very unnatural phrases in English. -Jefu 08:59, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

This is great. We have a discussion going on here, that was basically headed in the direction of naming the Emperors, certainly prior to Meiji, and probably including Meiji and Taisho as well, as "Emperor X". Then we have User:Arrigo who has unilaterally decided to rename the articles "X Tenno" and then we have 217.140.193.123 who has unilaterally decided to rename them all "X Emperor". So now we have emperor articles with names that are all over the map and edit histories in the names we were agreeing on that means we are going to need an editor or admin to actually come in and move them for us. I'm beginning to wonder if my efforts at joining Wikipedia and contributing to the articles about Japanese history is going to be very short lived... -Jefu 09:22, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

You wrote that the right name is Meiji Tenno, and apparently the similar to all other emperors. I would be happy to settle that form, Meiji Tenno, and X Tenno. Is it possible, or have others ruled it totally out? However, if it is not to be X Tenno, then I would prefer X Emperor, as I already stated. (As some have complained about double redirects, I try to go through some articles and make the newer links there, as I already did in some Fujiwara articles.) Why are you Jefu not endorsing "X Tenno"? 217.140.193.123 10:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I stopped in at the huge Maruzen near Tokyo station this evening and checked a number of books about Japanese history written in English. I looked through about ten books in total. Every single one of them (with the exception of Reischauer's old book) uses the format "Emperor X" when referring to the emperors, including Emperor Meiji. Reischauer was the only one who referred to them only by "Kammu" or "Temmu". Even the huge tome by Donald Keene about Emperor Meiji referred to him throughout as Emperor Meiji (and his father as Emperor Kōmyō. This is, quite simply, how they are overwhelmingly referred to in English. I've never even heard of phrases like "X Emperor" until beginning participation in Wikipedia. I truly hope this settles the issue and that User:Arrigo and 217.140.193.123 will stop making unilateral changes to these articles without convincing a majority of people participating in this discussion that their way is correct. Everyone else participating in this discussion (so far as I can tell) agrees that the titles should be "Emperor X" or "Empress X". -Jefu 11:36, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

And to respond to 217.140.193.123's question, I don't support naming them "X Tenno" because Tennō is a Japanese word, not an English word. No reference I have ever seen or read uses "X Tenno" and I suspect none ever will (including Wikipedia.) -Jefu 11:39, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Do whatever you want with the modern Emperors. But for the historical Emperors, I strongly suggest we stick to the current format of "Emperor X of Japan". Yes, I have seen references to "the Showa Emperor" and "the Meiji Emperor", but these are titles, not names, referring more to the era in which they ruled than the emperors themselves. It'd be like naming an article "Elizabethan Queen", "Victorian Queen" or "Edwardian King" because those are the periods during which they ruled.
* We should keep the "Emperor" in front, because I don't think the average user will understand what they're looking at if we drop it. How is the article title "Kotoku of Japan" or "Tenji of Japan" any different from "Cuisine of Japan" or "Art of Japan"? If I saw an article called "Ramesuan of Ayutthaya" or "Ramesuan of Thailand" instead of "King Ramesuan of Thailand", I'd be confused too. Japanese emperors, particularly the older (pre-modern) ones, are not as well-known as Richard II, Louis XIV, or Charles V, and we cannot assume that their names will be recognizable enough or distinctive enough with the "Emperor" dropped.
* We should keep the "of Japan" at the end because, again, the Japanese emperors are not as recognizable and well-known as some of the European monarchs. The average user does not know the difference between the sound or appearance of names in Chinese, Japanese, Korean, or any number of other languages. If it were just a name, "Go-Toba" or "Emperor Bidatsu", I think plenty of people would be confused. Take a look at the following names: Minh Tông, Worawongsathirat, Qiwam ud-Dawlah Toğrül. Can you honestly tell me that you know which country these people ruled over without looking them up? To be honest, I don't see why we don't put "King" or "Queen" in the article titles of the European monarchs. You'd think there'd be more to separate "William II of England" from "William of Orange" or "William Shakespeare." If I lived in London, could I make an article about myself called "William of England"? He's a frickin' King! You'd think his title should be there. LordAmeth 12:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
That argument doesn't make sense. Where would you see the name "Go-Toba" or "Emperor Go-Toba" in a context that doesn't make it clear that he's a Japanese Emperor? In some random listing of names? A Japanese Emperor would be linked to in an article about Japanese history, or, in some cases, about the history of some other nation which was impacted in some way by Japan (e.g., pre-WW2 Korean history) Nik42 16:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Dear Ameth, this is encyclopedia. The information about the subject is written in the text of the article. The heading should be kept short and simple. The heading should not try to include explanations of the subject, rather the heading should be easily accessible. Accessibility means also that the "average reader" should not need to know in advance whether the subject is fish or fowl, monarch or cleric, thai or englishman. All that is explained there under the heading, i.e in the text. Please try to learn more how an encyclopedia works. Could you kindly check several printed encyclopedias and report whether there is some full titulary in headings, or is that left to be narrated in the text. 217.140.193.123 13:04, 19 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Okay, you're right, there's no need to explain the topic in the title. Nevertheless, there is no need to be attacking people. I have a BA in History from a very good school, and soon I'll be going on to a Master's. I know how encyclopedias work. So, I guess we could drop "of Japan." But I stand by my assertion that we should go with "Emperor X" or at worst just the name "X". Putting Emperor afterwards, as that one user did unilaterally, just sounds wrong to my mind. As I said before, "Meiji Emperor" or "Showa Emperor" sounds too much like "Elizabethan Queen" or "Edwardian King" - you're naming the monarch after the period in which they ruled, which was in turn named after the monarch to begin with. Whatever we come up with, I hope there's a consensus relatively quickly and painlessly. LordAmeth 13:22, 19 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
The plain "first name" has of course been appealing to me, but already some time ago I considered that there are often several things similarly named in Japanese culture. Therefore I have accepted the need of "Emperor" (or "Tenno") here in these headings. 217.140.193.123 14:01, 19 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Actually, the eras were not named after the Emperor. They were named by the Emperors, but then teh Emperors were named posthumously after the Emperor. It would be more analagous to calling FDR "The New Deal President" Nik42 16:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

So there is one more opinion in favor of "Emperor X". User:Arrigo and 217.140.193.123 (who someone has suggested to me actually may be the same person...) will you agree to stop unilaterally changing the titles to a format that nobody else supports? -Jefu 13:38, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the important thing to me is to find time to go through the heap and drop the "of Japan". And that also means that I and/or others would go through all linked material and put straighter links there, too (though it is not necessary to do instantaneously). I still favor "X Emperor", and I hope discussion continues of it. I have understood there has been other support for that form too. Regarding the links I have been doing in Fujiwara articles, the better to be done, and it actually is not so dangerous because double redirect is tolerable, compared to triple etc. It just should be done when time allows - I at least do not have limitless time... 217.140.193.123 13:48, 19 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

I think that one of the problems with "X Emperor" of "Emperor X" maybe the loose translation of the Japanese title into the English word Emperor which in can have several different meanings in English anyway. Perhaps someone who is fluent in both languages can comment on this.
I have commented ad nauseum on this point. First of all, it isn't just a title. It is part of their posthumous name. Be that as it may, people have always translated Tennō into "Emperor" (or "Empress" for the historical Tennō who have been women). One of the English books I saw today in the bookstore decided to refer to the emperor as "Heavenly Sovereign" as a more direct translation. But I'm guessing we can all agree that that is just a silly example of some author trying to be unique and make his mark (and I saw about 9 or 10 other reputable books that all use "Emperor"). -Jefu 14:40, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
"They do not need "of Japan", none of them. The territorial designation is (for European and muslim monarchs) just because so many of their countries use same first names." I disagree the countries are not included for this reason. Many of the names are unique particularly if one includes their common names (Eg William the Conqueror) and Gustavus Adolphus or use their native language names. Including the territory in the name also:
  • aids in technical computer searches. If the "of Japan" is included then a search can be done to pull up all the people who have had this title. Emperor of Japan What links to Emperor of Japan (I Not sure this is correct syntax but the point is made)
  • There is also a legal requirement in the form that to be recognised as a reigning monarch (in modern parlance a head of state), one has to be monarch of an internationally recognised state which has an internationally recognised (territorial) existence. This helps to sort out those of reigning monarchs from pretenders and no one is disputing that the Japanese Emperor is emperor of the nation, country and state of Japan. So including the term of Japan is no more incorrect than including the term "of the United Kingdom" in Betty's title. BTW the technical legal argument of not using the modern parlance can go much further: the "British Armed Forces" are not the "British armed forces" they are "Armed Forces of the Crown", ie Betty's own personal armed forces (nukes and all), not those of the nations which make up of Britain. But if one goes too far down that medieval line of reasoning the titles of articles would be very obscure and difficult to find unless one was a constitutional lawyer. It is easier to keep to the modern short hand for these things, therefore I think that this is another reason that "of Japan" should be tacked onto all the articles about Japanese Emperors. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:58, 19 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Legal requirement by whom? The Japanese emperor is not the head of state, first of all. And I don't follow how the stream of conscious rambling above about Britain is "another reason that 'of Japan' should be tacked onto all the articles about Japanese emperors. And many of the emperors in question weren't even emperors of "Japan." The term Nippon didn't come into use until Emperor Temmu's time, and even then his ___domain included only part of what is today considered Japan. -Jefu 14:40, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
The Japanese emperor is not the head of state Well the US state department thinks that he is "Head of State--Emperor Akihito". [1] so does Betty [2]. Philip Baird Shearer 15:26, 19 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
The Japanese constitution thinks he is not, at least not in any meaningful sense. [3] He has absolutely no power to do anything without the advice and approval of the cabinet. What those sources are referring to is the notion of him being head of state in a purely ceremonial sense (i.e. in his function as the "symbol" of the State from Article 1.) . -Jefu 15:46, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
To be head of state one does not have to he a dictator. A symbolic head of state is still head of state. The nation state that the Emperor is head of is Japan so I think the articles should be styled "Emperor xx of Japan". As for your point that earlier emperors weren't even emperors of "Japan." Then what were they emperor of? Philip Baird Shearer 16:21, 19 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Yamato Nik42 16:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Most European monarchs have no power to do anything without the advice and approval of the cabinet, and yet are still considered heads of state. Presidents of parliamentary republics frequently have no meaningful powers, either, but are certainly considered heads of state. The King of Sweden, as a specific instance, has absolutely no governmental powers of any kind whatsoever, but is still the head of state. By definition, the monarch of a country is its head of state. john k 16:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

You forget Gustav Adolf of Mecklenburg and Gustav Adolf of Stolberg, at least. Please believe, when persons better acquainted with medieval and era of absolutism histories are saying that certain cultures have countries that basically share same first names. (And, of course, if a nation-specific first name can be found, as is Zbigniew of Poland, imo the territorial designation can be dropped - but many will say that as almost all his fellow monarchs of Poland have it, for consistency poor Zbigniew also gets it.) However, Philip, believe those who had written in the Manual that Eastern civilizations are an exception. 217.140.193.123 14:08, 19 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

If I did not know better, I would think that an IP address was trying to patronise me, but perhaps it is just a language problem between Finnish and English[4]. Thanks for pointing out to me that you know my what I am forgetting better than I know myself and for stating "when persons better acquainted with medieval...". I was not forgetting other people who could be termed Gustavus Adolphus (see Talk:Gustavus Adolphus how about Gustav VI Adolf of Sweden? The point I was making is that in the words of the English football chant "There is only one insert name of favourite player" it does not matter that others could use that title in English only one man is commonly known as William the Conqueror, Gustavus Adolphus, Peter the Great. A more contentious one is William of Orange... however all of them reside under names of ordinal and country. I see no reason for not doing this with Japanese Emperors. For the reasons I gave above. Philip Baird Shearer 15:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Of course no one is patronizing you, Philip. Actually, no one ever would even dream of getting you to heed such. Or, if someone would, it obviously remains a dream. My deepest apologies that you had even got an idea that you are being patronized - that's entirely non-intentional. And though you do not necessarily always know better, it is self-evident already from your above comment that you know when you are not patronized, and also you certainly know what you have not forgotten. Well, regarding your question about Gustav VI Adolf, the territorial designation "of Sweden" does not help to disambiguate between him and Gustavus Adolphus, who actually was Gustav II Adolf of Sweden, the guy apparently the first with that precise name combination (I would not insinuate that you have forgotten from whom HE got those two names, you know) after whom several others got their names, including apparently his centuries-later collateral relative Gustav VI Adolf. In that case, we usually disambiguate using ordinals, "II" and "VI", as actually is the original reason for existence of those ordinals anyway, you know. The territorial designation, on the other hand, helps to disambiguate between identically-named personages of different teritories, such as Mecklenburg, Sweden and Stolberg. And that brings us back to Japanese monarchs, as those first names have not very often been in use in any other country. I may have forgotten something, but I think I can swear that there has never been e.g Ichijo II of Sweden 217.140.193.123 08:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
As we clearly have here some new company, let's begin from the beginnings. Emperor of Japan is an expedient Western construct of a hereditary officer who mostly has a deeply ingrained position in Japanese society and civilization, without any necessary role in government. Actually, Japanese governments are in position that they need to live with Tenno - as Italian government has Pope within the practical borders of Italy. We conventionally regard that officer as a monarch, in approximately same sense as Caliph and Pope and Stadtholder of the Netherlands have been regarded as monarchs. In most (if all) periods, that monarch has had at least some official role in the government of Japan - we should perhaps say that governments have utilized the influence of Tenno. Up to rather recent centuries, Japan did not include several remoter regions of what is now regarded as its territory. The name Nippon came into use only many many centuries after the start of bigger monarchy. Centralized government was known just approx from Prince Shotoku's time. Tenno was more like revered embodiment of divinities or something like that rather than the official head of an official government. Japan has always had it easy to let ambitious lords have power, as it has not been inherently contrary to the Tenno's position. Parliamentary government today continues similar coexistence with Tenno as did various shoguns, regents, warlords, guardians etc. It is a distortion to call that monarch straightforwardly as Emperor. Rather, he has been always Tenno. Something so specific that in Europe, similar constructs get their own name (such as Pope, Fuhrer). Tennos came into being when their sphere of influence was apparently only wide of some provinces - not all Japan, not even all Honshu. If you check carefully, historically the titles of Tenno in Japanese have never included any territorial designation of Japan. The position is a territory-independent phenomenon - Tenno is Tenno, even if he has followers only in one province, and basically it is not important to that position even if Japan would rule all Eastern Asia. "Of Japan" is something that is only an import of non-knowledgeable who want to make similarities with Europe or whatever. Thus, they actually are not monarchs OF JAPAN - rather, they are monarchs of independent position without territory. And Jefu is correct in stating that earlier Tennos were not even of JAPAN in the sense of having influence in all Japan. Arrigo 16:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
None of this changes the fact that Tenno is not an English word, and has almost univerally been translated into English as "Emperor." -Jefu 17:10, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
Tongue-in-cheek: Well, why is it then listed here under List of English words of Japanese origin.. 217.140.193.123 20:16, 19 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Arrigo, even within Europe the actual powers of the various "Emperors" were at wild variance. Not only that, even with a single country the actual powers of the Emperor varied over time! Everyone understands that, and doesn't expect to understand what actual power an "emperor" had without studying the particular country in more detail.
I cannot claim to understand why some names for positiions in some languages were adopted into English (Pope, Tsar, Shogun), and others were not (Furst, Kniaz, Tenno). However, the point remains that Tenno is not a word which which 99.9 % of English-speaking readers will have any familiarity, and to use it in an article title is, frankly, simply ludicrous. Noel (talk) 18:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for admitting that there are things in this you do not understand. Actually, although the real powers of European emperors varied somewhat, they all were more or less understood as rather similar. The tradition started by Romans dictated quite much of the content to the concept in Europe. See the article about emperor. However, East-Asian monarchs were products of totally different tradition(s) and similarities with Europe's are much smaller (actually, the only similarity basically is that both are "mighty" monarchs). It is not so self-evident that the translation "Emperor" should be accepted determinative in this naming. Of course we know that it is the usual translation, but we know that it is just a translation, contrary to emperors in different European countries who somehow share the same essence, there it is not just a translation but the perpetuation of the original concept of Roman emperor. Btw, have you checked the List of English words of Japanese origin.. Arrigo 11:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for admitting that there are things in this you do not understand. - I don't know if this is a result of you having an imperfect command of English (and so not understanding my I cannot claim to understand why some names for positiions in some languages were adopted into English ... and others were not), or whether you thought you were being funny, or what. Whatever your reason, this comment was annoying and not at all helpful.
To return to the issue, the point of my comment was that nobody (including you) knows why some words were taken up, and others were not. English doesn't have an Academy Francaise that controls the language.
And anyone can edit List of English words of Japanese origin, to add whatever they want. The fact remains that "Tenno" is not a recognized word in English. E.g. my 1970 Webster's New World Dictionary, a massive tome of 1600 oversize small-print pages, does not include it. I refuse to waste the time to look in others. Noel (talk) 20:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)Reply


It was my understanding that the Japanese themselves considered their Tennos to be equivalent to Chinese Emperors (although they did not use the same term for the Chinese Emperors). As such, the usage of "Emperor" is not simply a western improvization. It is one based on the already established usage of "Emperor" as a translation of the Chinese "Huangdi." I suppose we can object to the latter translation as well, but then we are reaching the point of absurdity. john k 20:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

I am not thinking of the total invalidity of the translation/usage. Rather, I think Tenno as a part of the name. Well, we have an elsewhere accepted possibility that the name of the person is sufficient without any titles if it is not ambiguation-prone. And the first monarch has originally, years ago, come to my knowledge originally as Jimmu Tenno. As a name. Now, also here I hear (from Jefu) that it is his full (though posthumous) name. Jefu says that his name basically is not Jimmu, it is Jimmu Tenno. I agree. Now, as apparently no other thing is Jimmu Tenno than the late monarch, no title is needed to the heading (Tenno is sufficient disambiguation). Voilá, we can have him as Jimmu Tenno and nothing more is needed. Certainly not Emperor Jimmu Tenno. And it is his name. And he is more or less known by that full name, also in some English literature. Other monarchs after him: I presume that the same applies. At least Jefu has said so. And I have read some literature where at least some of them are mentioned as X Tenno. Anyway, they are not so well known in English-speaking world that readers would get catatonic if seeing "X Tenno" in use as the name. 217.140.193.123 20:11, 19 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Sigh. Please go read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). It doesn't matter what their names are in Japanese, because this is the English Wikipedia. The term "Tenno" is simply not used in books in English (see Jefu's post above - I stopped in at the huge Maruzen near Tokyo station this evening and checked a number of books about Japanese history written in English. I looked through about ten books in total. Every single one of them .. uses the format "Emperor X" when referring to the emperors). I can confirm this from my extremely extensive library of books on Japanese topics - about 1,000 volumes. End of discussion.. Noel (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
While I'm still not too thrilled about using "Emperor" in the name of these articles, it's a lot better than using "Tenno." The rule of thumb for naming articles about Eastern civilizations' royal families (according to Wikipedia's naming conventions) is to use the name most commonly used in English, and the form "X Emperor" or "Emperor X" (or Empress X) is much common than "X Tenno," so if one of those forms would have to be used in naming articles, I'd much rather see the word "Emperor" in the title as opposed to "Tenno." 青い(Aoi) 06:03, 20 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
I think the concept behind using "Emperor X" (as opposed to simply "X"), when we normally don't include the title in Western monarchs, is that is the closest English can get to "X Tennō", which is the proper Japanese name. Contrast this with Western formal usage, where Elizabeth II's full title is something like (don't have the energy to look it up, but this gives you the idea) "Elizabeth II, by the grace of God Queen of England, Wales, Scotand and her other possessions" - i.e. she's not "Queen Elizabeth II" in her full, formal title. Noel (talk) 19:57, 20 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

I don't know if people participating in this discussion realize this, but 217.140.193.123 and User:Arrigo, who unless proven otherwise I believe may be the same person, has been unilaterally changing and moving the articles to "X Emperor" and "X Tenno" even as we continue to discuss the issue here (with what I believe to be a consensus of naming them "Emperor X"). I count at least 25 to 30 articles that have been moved over the past couple of days. And he hasn't even been bothering to fix double redirects. If anyone in this discussion is an admin or sysop, is there anything that can be done to prevent this kind of behavior? -Jefu 01:00, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment (WP:RFC) section Comment about individual users.

Rather than simply referring the matter to RfC, it would be good if an admin would go through and move the pages back to where they were. In most cases, Arrigo has changed the redirects (creating new double redirects in the process), making it impossible for non-sysops to move them back. - Nat Krause 03:45, 21 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
On reflection I an neutral on whether the title Emperor is included in the name of the article if "of Japan" is tagged on the end. I read that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) says "These conventions do not apply to eastern civilizations. See also: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (China-related articles), Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)." But that is what we are debating here. AFAICT the rules for naming European monarch's articles would work reasonably well for Japan, providing the name used for naming the Emperor is agreed upon and whether when speaking English "Emperor" is part of the name or a title. If no two or more have ever been known by the same name then the ordinal issue dose not arise. If the format "Emperor xx of Japan" or xx "of Japan" is not used in articles then redirects can take care of that. It is not as if Queen Beatrix or other European monarchs are usually described under their full article titles names in other articles.
I can see that a number if people object to "of Japan" in the page name, could they please explain why they do? --Philip Baird Shearer 10:30, 20 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
It's unnecessary. Things like Charles II of England are needed because other European monarchs exist with that name (and for consistency's sake, even those that are unique follow the pattern). No other nation's emperors or kings or other rulers shared names with the Japanese Emperors Nik42 16:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Let me see if I understand where we are - the previous discussion has been fast and furious! With the exception of Arrigo and 217.140.193.123, we all seem to have agreed on using just plain "Emperor X" and "Empress X"? (And maybe PBS too, I can't tell from his comments!) Is that accurate? Noel (talk) 13:38, 20 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

That's my understanding as well (and if Arrigo and 217.140.193.123 are the same person, that's only one against.) My understanding of PBS's stance is that he is the only one in favor of adding "of Japan" to the end of the title. I'm not hugely animated about it, but I would prefer to leave it off. I just don't see a need for it. I think the burden of proof is on him as to why it should be in there. The reason it is a general rule in the naming of monarchs is because it serves as a disambiguation tool. You don't need to disambiguate with Japanese monarchs, and the general rule clearly provides for an exception for Eastern monarchs, (which is precisely what we are trying to hammer out here.) -Jefu 13:43, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
Roman emperors are under page names in Wikipedia without title or estate, so I have no strong position on Japanese emperors for either title or estate. However I think from an access/finding point of view and consistency with page names on Wikipedia about other modern monarchies, eg Mswati III of Swaziland to take a none Eurpean example, it helps if "of Japan" is included in the page name. But as they can also be found through List of Emperors of Japan and category:Japanese emperors I appreciate this is not a strong argument for including them particularly as redirects can do the same job. Philip Baird Shearer 19:39, 20 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Yes, we will definitely have the full set of "Emperor X of Japan" redirects (and "X", "X of Japan", "X Tenno", "X Tennō", etc to boot :-). Noel (talk) 19:43, 20 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

The project page now has a suggested first attempt at a policy on naming Japanese emperors that I think reflects the consensus (notwithstanding the lone objections of Arrigo/217.140.193.123) and with a couple of style suggestions that I think basically follow. Please let me know what you think. -Jefu 22:09, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

No, I do not accept, for example I cannot accept the way you have added your text to policy page as if it is a policy already accepted - at the same time you are asking here whether to accept it. And, the wording has not been here and is even now not here, to be formulated. There are of course things written in your proposed formulation which should be otherwise. I reject it. Arrigo 06:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

I added the text on the policy page as a proposal to discuss. If you are interested in discussing it, please give us your comments. All you have done so far is unilaterally move articles to where you think they should be, despite a consensus here, delete my proposed policy, and write things like "I do not accept" and "I reject it" without proposing any actual suggestions or alternatives. As I read all of the comments above (and jnc agrees), a consensus has been reached regarding the use of "Emperor X" for emperors prior to Emperor Shōwa, as opposed to the other alternatives that have been proposed. Within that framework, if you have suggestions regarding my proposed policy on the project page, let's hear them. -Jefu 10:03, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Your allegation eg "write things like "I do not accept" and "I reject it" without proposing any actual suggestions or alternatives" is of course a misrepresentation. Were I to make a not "assume good faith", it could be suspected as your tactic - and it could be suspected that you know it as misrepresntation. I have presented alternatives and reasons to be taken into account, as you see above. hen, you simply do not add some "proposal" to the policy page and put it to discussion at the same time. If you desire to present a worded proposal, you write bit here, not to the policy. Now readers may have an erroneous understanding that the thing that reads in the policy page, is not under discussion, but it is already fully accepted policy. I thought you are a lawyer, but you seem not to grasp the difference between proposal in parliament and an enacted, published statute (did I make an analogy sufficiently easy to you to understand?). As you apparently need help in such things, I will copy the proposed textpiece below, though in no way subscribing to it. You should remove it from the policy page - otherwise you are alleging that it already is in force. The purview of the above duscussion has been "Names of modern Japanese emperors" and I believe it is not correct to draw any decision outside of that purview. The proposals, if accepted, are thus applicable to modern emperors. Arrigo 11:08, 23 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Arrigo stop moving articles without discussion first. 130.133.8.114 [5]

Propositions

Latest comment: 20 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

Proposal by Jefu

Names of Emperors: For Japanese emperors prior to Emperor Hirohito, including emperors from both the northern and southern courts during the Nanboku-cho Era, use the form [[Emperor {name}]], which is a partial translation of their posthumous name. Note that the word Emperor is an integral part of the name and not merely a title, so it should be capitalized and the article the should not appear before it. It is also acceptable to refer to a Japanese emperor using only the {name} portion of their name, so long as the first appearance of the name uses the above format.

For Emperor Hirohito, although he too has been posthumously named Emperor Shōwa, it is also acceptable to refer to him as Emperor Hirohito, or just Hirohito, as that is the name by which he continues to be most widely known in the West. Similarly the current emperor may be referred to as Emperor Akihito, or just Akihito. Note that it is incorrect to refer to Emperor Akihito as Emperor Heisei, as he will not be renamed Emperor Heisei until after his death.


Dear Jefu, you have not made proper explication of what to do with headngs and how to use in texts. The above proposition is even confusing in that regard. Arrigo 13:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
I think it is quite clear on all the important stuff. I certainly agree with Jefu on most of it. I'm not quite sure about the Northern Ashikaga ones, though. If it were a western monarch, I would definitely prefer titling the article by the name alone, i.e. Kogon, Go-En'yu, etc. - Nat Krause 10:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Other formulations

Very preliminary:

Names of modern emperors:

Article headings: Akihito, Hirohito, Taisho Emperor and Meiji Emperor. Their official wives: Empress Michiko, Empress Nagako, Empress Teimei and Empress Shoken.

Use in text and in references: For Emperor Hirohito, although he has been posthumously named Emperor Shōwa (which can be used in appropriate places), it is also acceptable to refer to him as Emperor Hirohito, or just Hirohito, as that is the name by which he continues to be most widely known in English-speaking usage.

Similarly the current emperor may be referred to as Emperor Akihito, or just Akihito. Note that it is incorrect to refer to Emperor Akihito as Emperor Heisei, as he will not be renamed Emperor Heisei until after his death.

For modern Japanese emperors prior to Emperor Hirohito, use appropriately the forms [[{name} Tenno]], [[Emperor {name}]] and [[{name} Emperor]], which is a partial translation of their posthumous name, or Emperor Mutsuhito, Emperor Yoshihito. Note that the word Emperor is an integral part of the name and not merely a title, so it should be capitalized and the article the should not appear before it. It is also acceptable to refer to a Japanese emperor using only the {name} portion of their name, so long as the first appearance of the name uses the above format.

For monarchs prior to Meiji Era, no full convention has been determined. Use their recognized name that is widely known. Territorial designation is unnecessary.

Those who were merely contested pretenders, no endorsement of their titles should be given. Such should be explained in the text using NPOV.

Discussion

Titles to Nanboku-cho era monarchs are entirely a different discussion. Wikipedia policy states that we are not to endorse any pretensions or claims. You know, NPOV. If someone has not been a fully recognized, an uncontested emperor, that title should not be used in the heading. The situation is to be explaimed in the article text, where various POV's are reported. One of the solutions is to use just the name of the person in question as heading in such cases. Arrigo 11:13, 23 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

I know I sound like a broken record, but it isn't a title. These emperors too have been posthumously named "X Tenno" or "Emperor X" and are referred by that name without exception. Adding "rival emperor" to the Northern Court emperors and not the Southern Court emperors (as you did, without consulting anyone) is taking sides. Calling all of them by their name and nothing more, then explaining the situation in the article (as is the case currently, or will be soon) is the NPOV mandated by Wikipedia policy.
Thank you, o broken record. I say that basically names cannot be translated. Partially nor wholly. Yes, if those are treated as names for pretenders, you know, such a name cannot be translated. If it is translated into something that is a title, then that is POV. We should check more carefully, was Tenno a recognized part of names of those pretenders. If it is, then based on recognized name, the heading could be "X Tenno". If it is not part of the recognized name, then they will probably be X (rival emperor). Arrigo 13:44, 23 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Are Empress Consorts named according to these ideas, or what? There has been someone who has added "dowager" to many empress' headings. On one hand, it is somewhat correct, as those posthumous names usually were granted when they already were widows. On the other hand, dowager is anyway redundant, as it can be explaimed in the article text, and the heading could be correct also without it. Arrigo 11:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

We haven't really discussed the issue in any detail, and I haven't given it that much thought. I think probably the consorts and concubines for everyone prior to Emperor Meiji should just be referred to in the article titles by their name, and in the text as concubines or consorts as the case may be. The most recent four are generally referred to as empresses in the titles and articles, if they have been given a posthumous name that includes such an appellation. In any event, I'm open to suggestions regarding this and whatever we come up with can be added to the above policy. -Jefu 13:22, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Posthumous name: This aspect needs some more maturing. If a monarch was not known by such name contemporaneously, it might be a mistake to use it. This point makes it impossible yet to draw rapid conclusions what should be the headings for pre-Meiji monarchs. Arrigo 11:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

This has been discussed way beyond the 5 days mandated by Wikipedia and you are the only person who opposes it. -Jefu 13:22, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

How many people actually realized that they were discussing of a decision of earlier monarchs, particularly when the rubric of the thread said "modern emperors", and when often those earlier ones were just thrown into as examples, or something. Actually, many discussants had already left before earlier emperors came. And, there is no 5-day system at least to push a contested decision when policy is in question. Votes on small things (such as one individual deletion) are a different issue than making policy. Btw, have you now erased your preposterous ukaz from the policy page. Arrigo 13:35, 23 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

I think the format Emperor X of Japan is fine until the present emperors. Consorts can be named Empress X. The discussion is going to drag in the end. Also Arrigo please stop moving the articles on royalty all over the place. Your moves are unwarranted, so please stop it. File:Gryffindor.jpgGryffindor  15:10, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

City names

Latest comment: 20 years ago40 comments6 people in discussion

I don't understand what is the benefit of absurd article titles like Hiroshima, Hiroshima and Osaka, Osaka. I also don't see that there has been any consensus that this is appropriate as a general rule. The vote at Talk:Hiroshima, Hiroshima clearly shows that a majority was in favor of leaving it at Hiroshima, and the vote which was conducted here was completely inconclusive - there were approximately three votes. I'm going to suggest that, at least for cities which are the eponyms of their prefecture, we should not have this silly, not at all useful form. Really, for any city which is the primary one of that name, there is no reason to include the prefecture in the article title. john k 06:29, 13 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

I agree -Jefu 07:06, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Titles like Hiroshima, Hiroshima are not absurd, nor are they silly; they are useful, and so I disagree. Fg2 07:43, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

The ", Hiroshima" and ", Osaka" are present as disambiguations. However, disambiguation is not necessary in these cases, any more so than it is necessary, for instance, to move Buddha to Buddha (Buddhist concept). - Nat Krause 08:26, 13 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Fg2, perhaps you'd explain how these titles are useful. I fail to see anything at all useful about them. There is no danger of confusion with the prefecture, which is always at the title Osaka Prefecture - administrative subdivisions named for their capital are not normally thought to be meant when the city's name is mentioned, anyway. As to other cities called Osaka and Hiroshima, there is no need to disambiguate - the ones which are capitals of their own prefecture are self-evidently the most important cities of that name. john k 15:31, 13 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

I don't think this is a matter of which title is suitable for one particular article, but how to name places in Japan. The current naming scheme is analogous to that for US cities like Chicago, Illinois; or History of Japan while Japanese history sounds clearly more natural. For place names, we have an uniform format {{city-name, prefecture-name}}, {{town-name, prefecture-name}} and etc. I conceded some sound simply stupid; Hiroshima, Hiroshima!? But unless we agree to have exceptions (the big question is the scope of exception), we should stick to them. This is why I think we should be discussing this issue here and not arbitrarily. -- Taku 03:35, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

I think it is fairly easy to come up with a reasonable scope for exceptions - at the very least the rule "all cities which are the eponyms of prefectures do not need to have the prefecture in the title" would be quite clear and limited. Another possibility would be "all prefectural capitals do not need to have the prefecture in the title," although there might be some exceptions to this. I'd suggest a more basic rule - "only disambiguate when necessary to distinguish the city from a like-named city of similar or greater importance." As to Chicago, Illinois, I don't think that's necessary either - but at least this doesn't look absurd. We do not have New York, New York, any longer, and have not for a long time now. As to Japanese history vs. History of Japan, perhaps your not being a native speaker of English has led you astray here. Both terms are perfectly natural English expressions with somewhat different connotations. The term "History of Japan" implies that it will provide a narrative of the history of Japan from its beginnings to the present. The term "Japanese history" can be used to discuss any element of Japanese history, not necessarily a grand chronology. If someone says, "I'm writing a book on the history of Japan," that has a somewhat different connotation from "I'm writing a book on Japanese history." The former sounds like a textbook; the latter like a monograph. Our History of Japan article is just that - a history of Japan. An article on Japanese history would imply something a bit different. john k 04:32, 14 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

As an example, the current article Yokohama, Kanagawa should be at just Yokohama, since it is by far the best known and most important city called Yokohama. The article Yokohama, Aomori should remain where it is. john k 04:36, 14 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

I need a clarification for "only disambiguate when necessary to distinguish the city from a like-named city of similar or greater importance" Does this rule apply to (1) every city (2) every city and town (3) every municipality? Would you mind to give more examples? especially for names like Okinawa, Okinawa,Sapporo, Hokkaido, Kyoto, Kyoto and Gunma, Gunma. I don't think either (2) or (3) is practical. Needless to say, it is tedious and error prone to try to figure if a given name requires disambiguation or not. Now assume you meant (1). Then we have a situation where there is Okinawa, which is a city and Gunma, Gunma, which is a town. And do we have to rename towns when their status is promoted to a city? How should we handle current disambig pages like Yamanashi? As for Japanese history, then what about Economy of Japan? Japanese economy sounds more natural (at least to me).
In short, I am plainly concerned with the consistency and potential problems. So the rule "all cities which are the eponyms of prefectures do not need to have the prefecture in the title" looks more workable and I prefer something like it. -- Taku 08:23, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
I would want to be constructive as well so here are some of my proposals of rules:

-- Taku 08:41, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Forgive me, Takuya, but I am not familiar with the distinction between cities and towns in Japan. To deal with specific issues - Okinawa, Okinawa is a special case, perhaps, since the city of Okinawa is not a large one, and when people say just "Okinawa" in English, they generally mean the island. Sapporo and Kyoto (and to my mind, at least Fukuoka), seem to be clear instances where disambiguation is not needed. Basically, I think the largest Japanese cities are the ones where this issue really matters - Kitakyushu, Fukuoka, Nagasaki, Kobe, Hiroshima, Osaka, Kyoto, Nagoya, Tokyo, Yokohama, Sapporo, at least, perhaps some others. But, I mean, the issue of determining whether a given name needs disambiguation or not is not so difficult. Given a presumption in favor of disambiguation, and the existence already of articles on most (all?) Japanese cities, it shouldn't be too hard to figure out which ones are the largest of their name, and can go at the main article. If all of the cities of a given name are small (<200,000?), they should all remain at the disambiguated ___location. It would require some judgment, but it would be something that would only have to be done once. john k 15:26, 14 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Another possibility - whenever the main article City redirects to City, Prefecture, that article should just be at City. john k 15:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

The population criterion is very confusing. Besides, every year we have to be checking if the population reached or falls below 200 thousands line. If we want to restrict the rule to large cities, we can use cities designated by government ordinance or core city, instead. I thought that it may be also workable to strip the prefecture suffix from top 20 cities or something. But this will create a situation where there is Hiroshima but Nagasaki, Nagasaki. To clarify my statement about disambiguation, I meant it would be tedious to apply the rule to every single municipality instead of just city.
I think what we are missing here is how to justify an exception. I do agree that Hiroshima, Hiroshima looks ugly, so, like I proposed above, it seems to make more sense to pick a couple of cities and allow for the exception for only them. In this process we must be careful about consistency; it makes wikipedia look stupid if there are the titles Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Nagasaki at the same time. The question in essence is how much ugliness we can live with :) -- Taku 22:48, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
Obviously, you are more familiar with the designations of Japanese cities than I am, Taku. Whatever you think would be the easiest and most consistent way to insure that the best-known Japanese cities in the west aren't disambiguated would be okay with me. john k 16:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

The naming conventions for cities, see Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(city_names), generally seem to prefer [[city]] rather than any disambiguated form except in the US and Canada (presumably due to the national format being [[city, state]] and [[city, province]]). I assume the convention for Japan has been [[city, prefecture]] since without the -shi, -cho, -mura suffix the English versions of the names are highly ambiguous. For example, I note the name for the article about the city of Hiroshima in the Japanese wikipedia is 広島市, not 広島, and the address is listed as 広島県広島市, which to my ignorant Gaijin eyes looks pretty much like "Hiroshima, Hiroshima". Would it be better to revisit the decision to drop the suffix for Japanese place names? On the other hand, given that Hiroshima redirects to Hiroshima, Hiroshima and the other cities similarly redirect (i.e. Hiroshima is not a disambiguation page, but a redirect) is this even worth worrying about? What do people find so ugly about "Hiroshima, Hiroshima"? I think the proper postal address format (whatever its legal name) for the capital of the state of New York is actually "New York, New York" which contextually I read as "New York (city), New York (state)". Do people not read "Hiroshima, Hiroshima" similarly, as "Hiroshima (city), Hiroshima (prefecture)"? IMO, using non-disambiguated place names for cities is a mistake. Yes, we all know London refers to the one in England and not the one in Ontario but what does it hurt for the article name to be London, England as long as London redirects you there? -- Rick Block (talk) 13:37, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't hurt at all. "Hiroshima, Hiroshima" makes perfect sence, even though it may seem odd to a few people. I think using the prefecture "-ken" postfixes may indeed provide a good alternative, but for the moment, as long as redirects are in place, I don't think there is a problem. JeroenHoek 10:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
New York, New York is a fairly common expression, and the name of a song reflected that. The USPS is happy when senders (especially those out of state) write "New York, NY" on envelopes, and even if it's less common in conversation than in writing, it seems reasonable to me as an article title. Wikipedia didn't choose that, but it would have been reasonable. Likewise, Kyoto, Kyoto is very reasonable as a postal address, and even though it's rare in spoken Japanese it makes sense in writing. "Kyoto, Kyoto Prefecture" would make more sense, and maybe "Kyoto City, Kyoto Prefecture" more still, but there's no need to go that far. "Kyoto, Kyoto" is a good middle ground, being the closest thing to correct that's reasonable, and most reasonable thing that's close to correct. Also, it's memorable, since it fits the pattern that we've established as City, Prefecture for every city in Japan. It makes it easy for editors to get the links right, and redirects make it easy for readers to get the article they want. Who is badly served by this system?
One problem with making exceptions is where to stop. One person wants Kyoto, Osaka; the next wants Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Then it's Nara, and the person who lived in Toyama must be served. Along come Fukushima, Fukuoka, Okayama, Fukuyama (whoops! that one's not a prefecture) and by the tenth or fifteenth one, everybody's tired of it. Meanwhile, people are battling to get some of them reverted.
Why bother with all this? We have a good system. The editors can reliably get the link right, and the readers can reliably get to the articles they want. Let's spend our time improving articles rather than trying, for the third time this year (is that count right?), to make exceptions to a simple, workable rule. Fg2 11:44, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
As I said way back above (though no one seemed to bother reading it), City, State might seem natural to USers, but personally I'd throw a fit if someone started renaming every town in the UK Town, County on the basis there are lots of other places named after 'em - the {{otherplaces}} tag exists for just this purpose. The lot of you need to remember common names - the emphasis is not 'consistency' but 'least surprise'. In a way Japan geeks shouldn't be discussing this at all, you're perfectly aware that Hiroshima might refer to city or prefecture, or somewhere else altogether - to the common user, as demonstrated by the few general discussions that have taken place, the insistance on strict convention just looks odd. And once again, New York City is the article title, not New York, New York, and as a parallel, ja:京都市 is the article title, not 京都,京都. It's a lot of fuss over nothing, but don't enforce a policy just because you like everything to look the same, against the usage in English. Simple rule, if you're doing a straight redirect from a simple name to a complex one, something is wrong. --zippedmartin 16:10, 15 August 2005 (UTC) Simult. edit, was aimed up hereReply
Fg2 - The post office address "New York, NY" does not refer to the entire city of New York, but only Manhattan. Letters to Brooklyn are properly addressed to "Brooklyn, NY," those to Queens to "Flushing, NY" or "Long Island City, NY," or "Jamaica, NY," or "Far Rockaway, NY." And the proper post office address for the capital of New York is Albany, NY. So please stop trying to prove your point from stuff you know nothing about. Beyond this, I still don't see what would be unworkable about "if the city name redirects to City, Prefecture, that article should just be at 'city name'" rule. There's a huge number of Japanese cities for which this is the case. If either a) there's already a disambiguation notice at the top, or if there's only one city of a given name, I don't see why we should disambiguate it. It should be noted that in the United States, almost every city is going to have a namesake of some sort, and, furthermore, we have articles on every city, town, village, borough, township, and census-designated place in the United States. And there's a whole ton of them. In Japan, there seem to be fewer repeat names, so disambiguating all city names seems unnecessary. The fact that in Japanese there can be confusion between city and prefecture if we don't distinguish is irrelevant to the fact that in English, we assume that if we just get "Name" that's going to refer to the city. I fail to see what it is about Japanese cities that makes the U.S./Canada model more advisable than a "don't disambiguate unless necessary" model.

Incomplete list of articles on Japanese cities at form City, Prefecture to which the article City redirects:

  1. Yokohama
  2. Kobe
  3. Osaka
  4. Nagoya
  5. Kitakyushu
  6. Nagasaki
  7. Okayama
  8. Naha
  9. Sapporo
  10. Hiroshima
  11. Shimonoseki
  12. Aomori
  13. Toyama

The only major city I've found which doesn't do this is Fukuoka, which is a disambiguation page, but given the other examples, it probably should redirect to Fukuoka, Fukuoka. It seems to me that either, all these pages should be made into disambiguation (which would be absurd), or the main article should be moved there. If there is no need for a disambiguation page, why is there a need for a disambiguated article title?

BTW, here's Wikipedia:Disambiguation: Some topics have a primary topic which editors agree is the primary meaning for the term (Rome, for example). In this case the disambiguation page is named Rome (disambiguation), and the primary topic keeps the topic word or phrase.

Does everyone here disagree that these cities are the primary topics in English of the names Tokyo, Kyoto, Osaka, Nagasaki, Hiroshima, and so forth? If not, could you explain why you feel this? I just don't understand why there is a need for a special naming convention for Japanese cities at all. john k 16:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Given that there is an established convention, and it would take effort (and in at least some cases, effort from an admin) to move the articles and fix the navigational templates (etc.), I think the proper question here is what is the compelling rationale for making this change? Is this perhaps a US/UK difference? I'm from the US, and I don't know of anyone who would object to an article about, say, London, being titled "London, England". BTW - the New York example is mine, not FG2's (including the capital mistake) and Tokyo is actually a special kind of prefecture (not a city). -- Rick Block (talk) 18:45, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
If talking to a (US) friend about Osaka City, what would you refer to it as? As for the 'effort' wiggle, it took effort to move the articles to this scheme in the first place, and it happened despite objections on some of the talk pages, it's not much work to move articles back over the common redirect. And as I said, twice already, City, State is peculiar to your continent, probably due to extrodinany lack of imagination when naming cities, requires a lot of dab. --zippedmartin 19:05, 15 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
The "established convention" never had any consensus behind it (look at the "vote" on the matter further up this page - nobody voted. And when individual votes were held, as at Hiroshima, they came out in favor of keeping it at Hiroshima). As far as the work involved, I would be happy to do that myself (and I am an admin, so no problems there). The NY mistake was made by both FG2 and you, but yeah, you made it first. john k 20:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
  • 99.9% of Japanese cities in Wikipedia are in [City, Prefecture] format ... rather than start down the slippery slope of trying to figure out which cities deserve an "exception" why not leave it alone? As we've seen with Japanese personal names, coming up with somewhat arbitrary rules and conventions just leads to even more confusion. I don't see the point of changing conventions, especially when the main argument seems to be that in the case where city and prefecture are the same, this offends some people's sense of aesthetics! Don't fix what ain't broken! CES 23:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Why should Japanese cities be treated completely differently from those of most other countries in the world? For American and Canadian cities, it makes some sense because there's so many repeat city names. This simply isn't a major problem for Japanese cities, and there is absolutely no reason to have the [City, Prefecture] format as a basic convention at all. I would suggest a [City] format, except in cases where disambiguation is necessary. For non-city municipalities, I am happy to leave the [Town, Prefecture] form as a convention, if that's what people want, but I really don't see why the usual "don't disambiguate unless you have to" rule is not appropriate to Japanese cities. As to arbitrary rules and conventions, what is more arbitrary than deciding that Japanese cities need this form of pre-emptive disambiguation? john k 17:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

I agree completely -Jefu 08:58, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
I guess I just don't really see what the harm is in having the prefecture in the title. By having the prefecture in the article title, the user knows exactly which city is being discussed the instant the page opens. Not only that, but it lets the user know that indeed a city is being discussed instead of a prefecture or even a personal name or geographical feature (the default assumption is not always the city ... think of Okinawa, maybe even places like Yamaguchi and Kochi). The very fact that many Japanese cities (including most of the big ones) have names similar to or identical to prefectures, other cities, personal names, geographic features, etc. indicates to me at least that "pre-emptive disambiguation" is not unwarranted. CES 13:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

A couple of points of potential "harm." Firstly, there is an issue of consistency. Not within Japanese cities, but between Japanese cities and other cities. With the exception of a few American cities (which I have also argued should not be disambiguated), most large cities are only disambiguated in the instance that they need to be. Japanese cities are disambiguated even if there is absolutely no need to disambiguate them. Is there anything named Kitakyushu besides the city? The issue of prefectures is a red herring. Italian provinces also share names with Italian cities, but that has not led to this kind of disambiguation for Italian cities. In fact, most countries in the world name their provinces after cities. But because the province/prefecture is almost always, in English, referred to as "Suchandsuch Prefecture," confusion doesn't arise. Obviously, there are some exceptions. "Okinawa" most commonly refers to the island (oddly, our article Okinawa redirects to Okinawa Prefecture, which includes the other Ryukyu Islands - this should probably be changed). Kochi should certainly be disambiguated, because there is a major Indian city of that name. Particularly small cities that share names with prefectures, like Yamaguchi, can perhaps still be disambiguated. But the fact that the line can sometimes be hard to draw doesn't mean that we should just say "No line is to be drawn! Onward with Tokyo, Tokyo!" john k 15:45, 17 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

I think your post proves my point. Half of it is taken up with concessions for reasons why cities need to be disambiguated (and you don't get to even half of them). The biggest problem with going on a case-by-case basis, as you seem to propose, is that what needs to be disambiguated is often ambiguous. If you hear "Hiroshima" you likely think of the city. But what about "Tokushima"? "Okayama"? City or prefecture? Not to mention the fact that many English-speakers (even smart Wikipedians!) probably couldn't tell you what a prefecture was, let alone tell you what the wikipedia convention is for prefecture articles.
I understand your point--that for a handful of cities (Kitakyushu, Nagoya, etc.) there's no need for the [,Prefecture] so why bother? But, the cities that have no need at all to be disambiguated are far outnumbered by the cities where there is indeed ambiguity. And there are dozens if not hundreds of cases that are borderline. And as we've seen on articles such as Hiroshima and Nagasaki (or even this talk page) we end up spending lots of time going around and around on a point that will never satisfy everyone.
Sticking to the rule of [City, Prefecture] is not an example of "no line is to be drawn." On the contrary, it's the most decisive and discriminating line that can be drawn. 99.9% of the time the system works. Why tear it down for that 0.1% of the time when it might seem redundant? Having a rule, and a simple rule at that, eliminates confusion 100% of the time. And that is what should count in an encyclopedia.
I'll give you one point though: there shouldn't be a Tokyo,Tokyo!
CES 13:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
"99.9% of the time?" Where is this number coming from. I will concede for the sake of argument that for 90% of Japanese city articles, this convention works okay. But I would guess that for, say, 80% of actual page views of Japanese cities, people are going to be looking at the largest cities, for which the disambiguation looks stupid and unprofessional. Furthermore, as to "going around and around on a point that will never satisfy everyone" for Hiroshima and Nagasaki is another red herring - the only reason that anybody thinks those articles should be at Hiroshima, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Nagasaki is because we have a convention (never agreed to by a consensus!!) that all Japanese city articles (except, apparently, Tokyo and Kyoto) must be at this format. If we removed this standard, it is fairly clear that those articles would rest at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As to Tokushima and Okayama, if you click on those links you will notice that those articles already redirect to Tokushima, Tokushima and Okayama, Okayama, suggesting that the city use is predominant, anyway. Beyond this, the fact that most English-speakers may not know what a prefecture is is irrelevant. If they don't know what a prefecture is, they're incredibly unlikely to be looking for the prefecture when they type in Okayama. For those who do know what a prefecture is, they are unlikely to think that they will reach the prefecture by typing in Okayama. (I would guess that most people who know enough to be typing in "Okayama" will have some basic knowledge of Japan). At any rate, as I've said before, the prefecture is a red herring. See Antwerp, Florence, Venice, Milan, Naples, etc. for cities that are also the eponyms of subnational divisions, but which we feel no need to disambiguate. I genuinely think that disambiguation is only needed in a few cases - mostly not-particularly-notable cities that share their name either with a more important city or with other not-particularly-notable cities. Okinawa, Okinawa is, as I said before, a special case - but because it shares its name with the island, not because it shares its name with the prefecture. john k 16:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree here ... from the beginning your primary argument has been that "the disambiguation looks stupid," and it's hard to have a debate when your main sticking point involves your sense of aesthetics. If your argument was that the disambiguation system was inaccurate, confusing, or unhelpful (even you concede that 90% of the time it's at least ok) then I could see having a valid debate based on facts and logic. But it's hard to say much when your arguments are largely subjective: the system looks "stupid" "silly" and "absurd," the prefectures are "red herrings," assumptions about how knowledgeable people are about Japan. Consequently, Tokyo is a metropolis (都), not a city/prefecture tag team--my point in saying this is not to show you up, but to simply show that most of us don't know what we don't know (definitely count me in this group!)--another reason why assumptions are dangerous and conventions help.

This will be my final word on the subject: the system is effective and helpful at least 90% of the time and eliminates any and all possible confusion 100% of the time ... sorry if some people think it looks stupid, but as a convention for article titles I think that's a pretty darn good success rate. CES 14:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

I have to say I'm with john k here. This is another situation where I've never seen Japanese cities referred to in English as City, Prefecture. And, while I don't disagree with the point that it looks utterly stupid, the practical reason is that it is confusing to see Hiroshima, Hiroshima in the title of an article. Has anyone explored at least naming them "Hiroshima, Hiroshima Prefecture"? That would at least be an improvement. Although I think if the body of the article notes the prefecture in which the city is located, that is where such information should be conveyed. As someone else pointed out elsewhere on this page, the information doesn't need to go in the title. That's what the body of the article is for. -Jefu 14:27, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

CES - I certainly think it is unhelpful. That's what I mean when I say "completely unnecessary." It probably is confusing for most English-speakers, who are, as you note, completely unfamiliar with the Japanese prefecture system. I didn't say prefectures were "red herrings." I said that the argument that people will be confused between prefectures and cities is a red herring. I will add that I have not conceded that 90% of the time it's at least ok. I conceded for the sake of argument that it is okay for 90% of articles. I would say that probably for 90% of hits, it is not okay, and I tend to think it's not ideal for a pretty high percentage of articles. As to eliminating confusion - it only eliminates confusion for people who are aware of the prefecture system, which you yourself have admitted is not terribly many English-speaker. For those unaware of the prefecture system, it seems as though the name is being repeated for no reason. Disambiguation should be used to disambiguate - and in many of these cases there is no actual need to disambiguate. Furthermore, you have yet to address the fact that for a huge percentage of the major Japanese cities, the article City already redirects to City, Prefecture. If we were worried that people wouldn't be looking for the article on the city when they type in City, we should make these pages disambiguation pages. Finally, whatever the established policy, it seems to me that a positive case has to be made for having a naming system that is at such wide variance from generic wikipedia naming conventions. So if I have not made completely convincing positive arguments for my position, it is because I feel that I am not the one who should have to make positive arguments for what is essentially a negative position. At root, my position is "there is no need for a special naming system for articles on Japanese cities. We ought to make sure that disambiguation, when necessary, is consistent, but that is all." Since this is the default position for city articles everywhere except the United States (most major Canadian cities, for instance, are not "pre-emptively disambiguated"), you should have to explain why it is not sufficient for Japanese cities, and why a specific standard is necessary. john k 14:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Very well put; agree completely. Noel (talk) 16:50, 19 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Ditto. I agree as well. -Jefu 17:00, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Given that we've been around and around on this, and there seem to be a fair number of people who are committed to different views on this, would it be wise to try to devise a poll on this issue? I'd want to think carefully, though, about exactly what the option (or options) should be for changing from the current set-up. john k 17:19, 19 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

I hate going back on my promise of my last post being my last word on the subject, but I apparently haven't explained myself (positively or negatively!). If we are going to have a poll I'd like the chance to make my comments clearly one last time (although, I'd hoped that's what I'd been doing all along, so I apologize for any redundancy).
My main reasons why the convention should stay in 100% usage:
  • It immediately lets the user know the article is about a city (ie disambiguates from prefectures, other cities of the same name, personal names, natural objects, etc.)
  • It immediately lets the user know what prefecture the city is in
  • It draws a decisive and accurate line in the sand and eliminates the need for debate on individual city talk pages
Comments and responses to common arguments:
  • I think that Japanese city names are a unique case, and probably need disambiguation more than even American city names. Why? Because the potential for ambiguity is high and comes from multiple sources. Take "Ishikawa." It's a prefecture, a city, a surname, and the name of probably dozens if not hundreds of rivers in Japan. This type of situation is quite common in Japan. If someone types "Ishikawa" into the search box, we need to take into account that he or she may be searching for any one of these. Same goes for "Yamaguchi," "Hiroshima," etc. etc. Having a consistent format clears up any possible confusion.
  • If the prefecture issue is a "red herring," then it's because of a naming convention identical in spirit to the city name convention--that of calling all prefecture articles "X Prefecture" even when the need to do so is not immediately clear. More proof that conventions work when adhered to, even when a few exceptions exist (disambiguating "Tochigi" essentially serves no more purpose than doing the same to "Nagoya").
  • American cities are in the [City, State] system, Italian (and other) cities aren't. So? The logical conclusion is that the [City, State/Prefecture] system evolved (or was it intelligently designed?) because it filled an actual need in the cases in which it became convention. Egg before the chicken.
  • Again, the major argument for getting rid of 100% usage of this convention is that when city and prefecture have the same name, it looks stupid. Are we seriously having a debate about whether article titles look stupid? Apparently we are though, because to the best of my knowledge the only city talk pages that get into these naming conventions debates are places like Hiroshima and Kyoto, not Yokohama or Nagoya.
  • Although the prefecture name is also in the body of the article, having it in the article name immediately lets the reader know which city is being discussed, and assuming they know where the prefectures are, a pinpointed idea of where the city is located without even needing to look at the article.
  • I really don't buy the argument that "Hiroshima, Hiroshima" confuses people. Everyone in the world knows the song "New York, New York" ... I really can't find it possible to believe that the [City, Prefecture] format is really blowing people's minds. Let's give our fellow Wikipedians some credit! At the worst, people don't know why Hiroshima is "repeated." I don't think I'd really call that "confusion" as in "what the hell page is this?!?" confusion.
  • Conventions are only truly useful when applied all of the time. Look no further than the Japanese personal name mess for proof of real confusion when conventions are sparingly applied. Or the emperor names debate above or the date debate below for cases when there is no obvious guideline for a convention. The [City, Prefecture] convention is 100% accurate 100% of the time, no matter what angle you look at it from. It's helpful to many if not most users, and at worst it serves no purpose to the people who don't know about prefectures. At absolute worst it offends the aesthetics of some people. Let's look at the big picture here.
John, I hope I explained my position accurately and whether you agree or not, I hope I at least addressed the comment that started this whole line of conversation: I don't understand what is the benefit of absurd article titles like Hiroshima, Hiroshima and Osaka, Osaka. I feel like the major issue is being missed in your comments: the question is not whether "Hiroshima, Hiroshima" looks absurd, but whether the system as a whole makes sense.
If people have concrete alternative solutions rather than just complaints about the present system, let's please see them and take a vote so we can move on to bigger and better things. Like naming order =) CES 22:47, 20 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

My main problem, with all of the issues on this page, is that most of you are looking at stuff from the perspective of Japophiles and not considering the actual users of en.wikip. You guys all know the intracacies of dates, emperors, placenames, naming order, transcription issues etc... and assume that everyone else should as well. Fact is, wikipedia *has* a disambiguation policy, and there's no reason it shouldn't apply here. Kent is at Kent, not County of Kent, England, despite the pretty impressively long Kent (disambiguation) page. I've not seen any good argument so far for applying rigid naming conventions to Japanese places, nor any kind of concensus for doing so. My concrete alternative solution? Just follow the general Wikipedia:Naming conventions:

When there's no obvious 'main candidate' for a string, stick the dab at the root. If the root is a redirect, you're doing something wrong. Convention for the sake of convention is silly. --zippedmartin 00:27, 21 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Zippedmartin - this is exactly what I have been trying to say, but much briefer. john k 00:39, 21 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

User:Hottentot has moved Kobe, Hyogo to Kobe. Fg2 04:20, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

The move occurred unilaterally and in violation of the J MoS ... I think it should be moved back to where it was unless and until we resolve this debate to the contrary. CES 11:57, 25 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
OMG! World will explode. Some editor not involved in the discussions here moved an article in-line with general naming conventions because of a query on talk, rather than keeping it at a ___location proposed by some editiors here. Why not leave it as-is until this discussion is resovled? Certainly don't move it back for being "in violation of the J MoS", which, quite frankly, is a joke. --zippedmartin 12:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Sorry you think the Manual of Style for Japan-related articles is a joke ... most people here would disagree of course (and I wonder why you're here if it's a waste of your time?). I see nothing on the Kobe talk page that indicates a discussion of this move, on the contrary I see a request for further disambiguation. Whether you agree with the current convention or not, surely you don't advocate the unilateral moving of a page as major as Kobe? The [City, Prefecture] format is not a proposal, it is the standard on the Japan-related MoS. The convention was established because it was deemed useful and helpful to most. When a concensus is reached that it is no longer useful and helpful to most, a change will be made through a process of discussion and voting. But making changes to the MoS without discussion or concensus weakens your argument and is an insult to the people who work hard on these topics, people who work not to advance their personal objectives but to make Wikipedia better! CES 13:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Indeed, my personal objective in life is to make you poor dedicated encyclopedists miserable by moving your articles around (don't quote that out of context, irony doesn't travel well). The thing is, the manual you're refering to as scripture does not relect concensus, and you're fooling yourself if you think it does - just read the comments by various people above. If you poll a limited number of Japophiles, you won't nesesarily get the results most users want, and there are some things that 'expertise' doesn't help with. --zippedmartin 13:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Ehe, if you're going to revert my change with no comment CES, I suggest you at least move Hokkaido to the silly Hokkaido Prefecture that the 'J MoS' is ordering there. --zippedmartin 12:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, you posted while I was still typing. My comments above stand: if you have a problem with the MoS, bring it up for discussion. Don't just change it on your own. If you think something is silly, say why you think so and propose a change. Ideas like yours bring about change in Wikipedia. Actions like yours are what trigger edit wars. CES 13:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Ahaha, don't try and pull the 'acting unilaterally' card on me. Hokkaido has been there for over a month, and the objection was first raised well over a year ago - with no counter argument presented. If the 'manual' you're refering people to doesn't reflect the concensus, it needs to be changed, and this is wiki - a revert with no comment is what triggers edit wars, not updating pages. --zippedmartin 13:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Just in case any unfortunates wander into this debate, like I did a while back, this is the concensus of three that CES refers to. If people are in straw poll mood, I'd suggest they stick it somewhere where average users of wikipedia have a chance of seeing it, and don't weight the question in such a ridiculous manner. Personally, I think the issue is clear already, though some editors want a special-Japan-version that is opposite to everything in the main MoS, this isn't a case it's needed. --zippedmartin 14:22, 25 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Responses:
  • I plead ignorance on Hokkaido ... I was on vacation most of the summer and have no knowledge or participation in the switch between Hokkaido and Hokkaido Prefecture either this summer or last year. I am not the Manual of Style, so save your gloating. If what you say happened did happen then it should be reverted in my opinion. Still, I'm not sure why you think that two wrongs make a right.
  • I'm not really sure what it is you want to accomplish here, especially by insulting the people who edit these pages. We held a discussion a while back and the concensus (sorry, but seeing how this is hardly a "hot" topic in the grand scheme of Wikipedia, it didn't seem to attract much interest or opinion outside of the "japophile" crowd) was that the convention stay. We've had another discussion in the last few weeks and the opinion seems to be split about 50/50 and there's been no vote. Results inconclusive. You're mad because "japophiles" are making guidelines for Japan-related articles. Do you not see the irony? Who else is going to set the guidelines? The "average user of Wikipedia" probably doesn't give a darn about most of the stuff debated here or most of the articles the guidelines effect. It comes down to a question of which is more important for a rule: the number of articles it affects or the number of article hits. It's a question of perspective, not "expertise" that makes the difference.
  • Personally, I think the city name convention is useful and worthy of an exception to the general MoS. At the same time, I think the parameters for cities could be improved. As I've always said, there are cities that probably don't need disambiguation in the title. You're beating a dead horse with the Hiroshima issue. I think most people here would probably agree that Hiroshima doesn't need to be disambiguated. My argument is that for the sake of the whole system (which I argue is useful except for a few exceptions) [Hiroshima, Hiroshima] causes no harm. My point is that before making a switch from [Hiroshima, Hiroshima] to [Hiroshima], it needs be decided ahead of time rather than on a case by case basis which other cities should have an exception and how to set up guidelines to describe this change in convention. If you are arguing that the convention works except for a few exceptions, then let's work to fix the situation. However, if you are arguing that the convention in its entirety is not useful, then I disagree strongly and I'm not sure we'd be able to find common ground. CES 15:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Rather than "gloating", "insulting... people", getting "mad", "not see[ing] the irony", "beating a dead horse" or just "arguing" anything any further, I'll present you with a simple choice, to be acted on as soon as you read this message. Either:

  • Move the Hokkaido page to Hokkaido Prefecture where the current version of the MoS (J) explicitly says it should be, present your reason for the move on the talk page, and be prepared to debate the change and listen to the arguments of others.
  • Change the line in the MoS (J) to reflect the current status yourself, as you will revert me if I 'change it on my own'.

Fair? I'm gonna go back to actually editing articles for a bit, less circular than the politics. --zippedmartin 17:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

I'm the person who most recently moved the article to Hokkaido, simply because "Hokkaido Prefecture" is redundant. It'd be like having an article at "PIN number" or "ATM machine". If the manual of style says it should be at "Hokkaido Prefecture", the manual of style needs to be changed. (Alternatively: Have an article at Hokkaido about the island, and one at Hokkaido (prefecture) about the prefecture. Just a thought.) --Golbez 17:54, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
With me and you, that's a concensus of two. Get one more person, we'll have a mandate to go round saying people are acting 'unilaterally and in violation of the J MoS' if they move it back. --zippedmartin 18:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Zippy - While I'm a little disappointed that you've regressed to giving orders, parroting my comments (how old are you?), and attempting to change the subject to Hokkaido of all things, I am pleased to see that you've grasped the "concensus" idea at least. Get a few more people and I personally see no problem with changing the MoS, if that's what a concensus indicates. You seem to be missing the point--this isn't about Hokkaido. And no matter how hard you're trying, it's not personal either. I reverted your change to the MoS because you did so without discussion or concensus, an act not much different from vandalism. You got caught at it. If you want to talk about Hokkaido, please start another discussion thread, this one's long enough as it is and going nowhere fast. CES 20:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

As CES is choosing to ignore my simple suggestion, may I request another editor tries revising the wording? I don't want to do it again myself, treading on the hallowed MoS (J) ground switched me from being ignored to being refered to in the diminutive and having my age questioned (what's next? sexuality?) Oh, and if you keep refering to your concensus, it's fair to make fun of the fact that it was three votes in a weighted straw poll - which seems to give you the right to berate people but not to correct a giant fallacy in the current version. --zippedmartin 00:28, 26 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
I am not so sure about what I might accomplish here but I want to try to write about some historical background and sort out things. (I have been following the debate but has been distracted by a snap election in Japan :) I was hoping to see some consensus to emerge but it didn't happen very unfortunately.
Among issues we have here, one is about the procedure; that's how to come up with a convention and enforce it. I am the who started this page with a hope to ensure the consistency in style and, more importantly, gives a quick guideline to those who contribute to Japan-related articles. In other words, I believe the manual of style must both be consistent about style and reflect the views of the majority of contributors. I don't suppose that there is a correct style and an incorrect one but one that is preferred by many and and one that is preferred by few. To reflect the preferences of contributors, we, however, should look at not just the sheer numbers of contributors but those who do actual many contributions to many articles. In this case, the likes of Rick Block do a lot of tedious but very invaluable edits, and we must agree that we can't ignore the voices of those and the manual of style, if any, needs to be something preferred by such people. They may appear to be authority figure policing articles, but that's something we badly need in wikipedia. I have seen so many valuable contributors leaving wikipedia because they think the editing process here is not functioning, and we all should agree that
In any rate, we are probably all aware of problems so I don't have to repeat here. Instead, I started a new page Explanatory note for Japan-related articles. Some people (i.e., User:WhisperToMe and Jefu) have suggested to put a footnote at each article to inform readers about the conventions. So I thought we can put a link to this page at each article in the form of footnote, and we can prevent disparity from arising between those who follow this manual of style and those who are unaware of it and obliviously create inconsistency when they try to fix a problem. -- Taku 01:11, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea. I think part of the problem is, as you said, many people are unaware of the conventions and why they arose. I commented a little more on the footnote idea below. CES 02:26, 26 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Japanese Dates

Latest comment: 20 years ago28 comments8 people in discussion

Would a mention of the Japanese system of naming years be useful? I just found an example of some one refering to "Showa 33" as "Hirohito 33" - [[6]]. 07:06, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

A short paragraph with a link to Japanese era name would suffice I think. JeroenHoek 11:35, 6 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Now for my next pet topic: dates. This will only be of interest to people interested in pre-Meiji Japanese history, but I'm noticing a lot of date problems, misunderstandings and inconsistencies in Wikipedia. As many of you probably know, Japan used a lunisolar calendar prior to January 1, 1873. I think we should adopt a standard of primarily using Japanese months and dates for dates prior to this. The reasons are:

  1. Virtually all Japanese language history sources use Japanese dates exclusively. In fact I don't think I've ever seen one that has taken the trouble to actually convert them into Western dates, because there is no need to do so.
  2. Although I'm not as familiar with English language Japanese history sources, I'm pretty sure that using Japanese dates is the standard in English sources as well.
  3. Note that this has no effect on dates after January 1, 1873 (Gregorian), which is the date that Japan adopted the Gregorian calendar, so dates from modern Japanese history would remain as is (this is also the standard in Japanese history books.)

In any event, this has to be a one or the other proposition. If we end up with some articles that use Japanese dates and some that use converted Gregorian or Julian dates prior to 1873, we will end up with a confused mess when trying to compare when various Japanese events happened in relation to one another.

The only exception I would propose is events that are added to the "On this day in history" pages. For events in Japanese history prior to 1873 that are added to these pages, I think they should be converted to Western dates. I've actually been adding a number of such items, and what I have been doing is converting pre-1873 dates to Gregorian, adding the Japanese historical event to that particular date in Wikipedia, and then including a parenthetical at the end of the entry that gives the date according to the traditional Japanese calendar (to avoid confusion.)

Assuming this is acceptable, the only problem is what we should do about the Wikipedia rule on dates that other calendars can be used, so long as the date is given in Julian and/or Gregorian as well (See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Different Calendars. Do people think this is really necessary? If so, what format would you suggest for doing so? One way to do it is to footnote the Japanese date and include the Gregorian or Julian equivalent in the footnote. In that case I think the Japanese date should not be linked (since it would link to the wrong date anyway) but the date in the footnote should be linked. For an example, please see: Emperor Konin of Japan. Any thoughts? -Jefu 07:44, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Western dates have an obvious advantage in that you can subtract them. It's hard to guess how long the Onin War was when you know that it ran from Onin 1 to Bunmei 9. Knowing that the years were 1467 and 1477 makes it easier. Fg2 12:09, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't very clear. I'm talking only about the months and days. I do not mean to suggest that we should use Japanese eras for the years. For example, January 18, 1467 by the Japanese calendar (the date that fighting between Hatayama Yoshinari and Hatayama Masanaga broke out, which escalated into the Onin War) was actually February 13, 1467 by the Julian calendar (which is the one Wikipedia mandates since the date was before October 15, 1582.)

It seems like having both dates would be best ... I think either way you have the potential for confusion as some sources will use Japanese dates and others will use Western dates (and the sources might not make it clear which they are using). Wherever possible, I'd suggest having both dates, with the Western date given priority (although the articles are on Japanese subjects, this is still the English Wikipedia). CES 13:45, 17 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
When you say "Japanese subjects," you are using Japanese to refer to a culture/country. But when you say "English Wikipedia" you are using English to refer to a language. In other words, I don't think this has anything to do with the language. I think it has everything to do with the culture. While I don't necessarily disagree that we should probably have both dates (and that is what the Wikipedia style requires), I do not necessarily agree that priority should be given to Western dates. I also note the following from the preface to Volume 1 of The Cambridge History of Japan: "Years recorded in Japanese eras (nengō) are converted to years by the Western calendar, but months and days are not." This is exactly what I am proposing, except that we should probably also include the Western dates (Gregorian or Julian as the case may be) in footnotes, which goes a step beyond The Cambridge History of Japan. -Jefu 15:15, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
What would be the problem with using both sets of dates? john k 15:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Hoo, boy, this is a tricky one. Not sure quite what to do...
While I'm pondering, a few comments on the language/culture issue. For the vast majority of languages around the world, language and culture are deeply connected. That's not the case for English (and there are a few others where this is true, like Spanish). Still, English is the primary language (i.e. language spoken at home by the majority of people) in only a few sizeable countries (UK, US, Canada, NZ, Australia) , and they all have fairly similar cultures. So it is cultural, too. Noel (talk) 13:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Not a problem really, just a bit of a pain to calculate since virtually all sources that give specific dates give Japanese dates only. What I would really like to do with this dialog is come up with a standard format for presenting dates and add a section in this article explaining whatever format we come up with. An example of my proposal can be seen in the article Emperor Konin of Japan. I think footnoting is far less clumsy than putting two dates in the actual text along with labels for which one is which. But I'm certainly open to other suggestions. -Jefu 15:41, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
Hmm...I have to say that it seems really weird having dates not line up like that, and with it only noted in footnotes. I think if people see a date, they will assume it is the Gregorian or Julian date. At any rate, events of significance in both Japanese and western history (like Perry's visit), should certainly give both dates. john k 15:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
I looked at two articles on the Japanese Wikipedia. ja:大政奉還 gives dates using both systems and ja:大化の改新 doesn't specify (but the date they gave links to ja:6月12日 (旧暦) which is the old system). Not quite sure where this leaves us... Fg2 05:52, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
Part of the question is what is typical in the West when speaking about Japanese history. I've got to believe that using Japanese dates without conversion is the norm. I don't have that many English language resources on Japanese history prior to 1873 (partly because there simply aren't very many), but I did check two huge standards. Sansom's books seem not to give specific dates for events, only years. One specific date I noticed while leafing through them was the date that the Treaty of Amity was signed with the United States, which was translated into the Western date (which, in hat context, I think makes perfect sense, but for most of Japanese history, it probably does not.) What's the point in giving the primary date of Taika no Kaishin as July 10, 645 when virtually everyone familiar with this event knows it as June 12? And my second source was the Cambridge History of Japan which, as I mention above, uses the Japanese dates as is and only translates the year into Western years (and converting the year is common practice among Japanese historians as well.) The problem with giving primarily Western dates, other than the fact that for 95% of the events in Japanese history there is simply no need to do so, is that the resources out there that people are liable to check are overwhelmingly Japanese and they of course use Japanese dates. If there were tons of English language books on Japanese ancient history that took the trouble to translate all the dates into Gregorian or Julian, I might understand the preference. But as long as we footnote the dates and make it clear that they are Japanese dates that are standard for use in speaking about Japanese history, I think we should be fine. I honestly think translating the dates and giving the western dates will introduce confusion rather than quell it. -Jefu 06:38, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
Someone else, who may join the discussion here shortly, seems to have an issue with using January, February, etc. when talking about months in the old Japanese calendar. I'm not at all animated about this issue. I think as long as you make it clear that we are talking about Japanese dates in the footnote, who cares if you translate ichigatsu as January? The calendars don't line up anyway. Although using phrases for Japanese dates of, for example, "the 12th day of the sixth month, 645" may provide a stronger signal than a footnote that the dates are Japanese and not Western (to respond to a concern raised above), you would then have the problem of what to do about the leap months (known as uruuzuki in Japanese). In the Japanese calendar there were essentially repeated months every few years to keep the months basically aligned with the seasons. So in a year where the repeated month is february, you would have ichigatsu (first month, or January), nigatsu (second month, or February), uruu nigatsu (leap second month, or Leap February), etc. But if you start translating months into english using ordinals you get into a weird situation where it looks like you are using ordinals, but where the leap month (which is the third ordinal month) wouldn't be referred to as the third month. I think it just gets too bizarre. To me it is far more preferable to use the month labels that English speakers are already familiar with and just append "leap" to the uruuzuki. So in my example above you would have January, February, Leap February, March...December. Anyway, we'll let him speak up on this issue when he joins the conversation. -Jefu 06:38, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
I am absolutely, utterly, opposed to using "January" instead of "first month". For one, it's simply wrong (and mis-leading to our readers); the two system are just different, end of story. Second, a lot of the time the months don't even approximately match up, because the lunar New Year often fell a long way from January 1 (e.g. in Meiji 5, when they converted, the 2nd day, 12th month was December 31st; I see one source that says "The first lunar month of the year always corresponded with the sign Pisces during the months of February and March"). Add in intercalary months, and it gets even worse. Either convert the dates properly (see my note below), or leave them in the Japanese calendar. Noel (talk) 23:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
I'm slowly beginning to see how the Japanese convention makes sense. If we do make one (Japanese dates) the standard, I would advocate allowing editors to add the other (Western dates) at their option. And an article on the traditional Japanese system of dates, with content like what you just wrote, would be helpful for readers. (It could go in Japanese calendar, but that article's already pretty far-reaching; certainly, a link from there would be useful.) Fg2 07:08, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
My proposal, which I would suggest we add to this Manual of Style, is that authors use Japanese dates prior to 1873 (unless, of course, you don't know it for some reason, but I doubt that would happen) and footnote it. The footnote would say that it is a Japanese date and not a western date, and it would give the Western date, which thanks to several online sites, are relatively easy to convert. I don't think I would advocate using Japanese dates without indicating in some manner that it is, in fact, a Japanese date. For an example of the style I propose see Emperor Konin of Japan
And I would be happy to write an article, or add to the existing one, about the old Japanese calendar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jefu (talk • contribs) 07:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Can you please point us to these several online sites? Thanks! Noel (talk) 23:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
If most dates in source books about Japanese history are given with the Japanese date, but if this date is indeed easy to convert as the above user indicates (please sign your posts!), why not use both in the article then? This is the English wikipedia, and by English I of course refer not only to the language but the culture of English speakers, most of whom assume a date is in the Julian/Gregorian system when they see a date. Leaving out the western date would be inappropriate in my opinion. CES 12:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Also, I was wondering: is there a reason why English-language sources of Japanese history use the Japanese date? Is that just a convention that arose from translating Japanese sources? No matter which way we end up going with this, we'll need a footnote. CES 13:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Wow, I don't know. It's going to be one heck of a lot of work to convert Japanese dates, isn't it? (Which may be a good part of why nobody does it! :-) Is there a table somewhere which says which months were short (29 days) and which were long (30 days) in each year? (Since the pattern changed every year, with no two years ever using the same pattern, at least in theory.) I seem to recall seeing one in some reference book, but I can't recall where. (I know that in the Edo period e-goyomi were produced as a way of propogating that information, because of the government monopoly on printing of calendars.) And then there are the inter-calary months, but tables of years with those are common.
One thing I'm not too sure about is the start date (in the Western calendar) for each Japanese year; is that easy to work out (based on whether or not the previous year had an intercalary month, etc), or was is based on astronomical events (which would of course require more research)? Actually, a (large :-) table which simple allowed on to look up a Japanese year, and see on which Western dates each Japanese month of that year started would be the best of all, but does one exist? Without some practical means of conversion, the issue of whether we should convert them may be moot. Noel (talk) 13:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
I located that table of long/short months; it's in Egoyomi and Surimono, by Matthi Forrer - but it only covers dates from Genroku forward. (I scanned in the first page here if anyone wants to see what it looks like.) We ought to have this info in Wikipedia, so if there's no online source, I volunteer to scan the table in and OCR it (although I'd like a hand for proofreading, etc).
Before I do any more on this, though, can I ask Jefu to point us to those online sources that do date conversion? No sense in duplicating anything... Noel (talk) 23:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

I understand it might be a fag, but I think editors should try and convert dates as they write. It's silly to expect readers (of English, primarily familiar with the western calendar) to sidetrack and read an article on Japanese dating systems just to be able to learn about the history of Japan, then perform on-the-fly date conversion, for each and every article on a pre-Meiji topic. Also, I like the wiki feature of having clickable dates in history articles that give context - currently these pages tend to be quite euro-centric, but that won't change unless there's date conversion from other systems. I agree a page explaining conversion is needed, either way. --zippedmartin 23:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

As to Noel's comments above, I don't understand the opposition to using the names of dates that are already familiar to English readers. What does "February" convey to an English speaker other than "second month of the year"? Do you think that when a reader sees "second month" they don't automatically generate an association with the word "February" anyway? To give a perfect example of how this does not create confusion, I give you the Japanese language. The second month of the year is called nigatsu whether one is speaking about the old calendar or the new. And although nigatsu is literally second month. Japanese readers don't go around saying "Oh, that's nigatsu in the year 740, so it may have been more like what I think of now as ichigatsu." The only important thing is to convey to the English reader that the dates are Japanese dates. And if we provide them with a conversion (which I think can done fairly easily), we can actually pinpoint them to the exact date in the calendar they are accustomed to. And by the way, what do you propose we call Leap February for a year where the second month is repeated under your proposed system? -Jefu 23:52, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
Just as an example of how dates can convey different information, the attack of the Forty-seven Ronin took place on December 14 according to the Japanese traditional calendar, and that's barely (or not even) winter. But it was January 30 by the Western calendar, very close to dead center of winter. Similarly, knowing whether a battle or campaign began before or after the harvest can be of interest (if the soldiers also farmed). Fg2 01:58, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
I would support having bracketed info, such as "1973 (Shōwa 48)," but anything beyond that -- as in "January 1467 (February 1467)" -- could get exceedingly confusing. Exploding Boy 00:57, August 19, 2005 (UTC) -- Added: I think that for the majority of the readership, having Western dates be primary in the articles makes the most sense. I'd be quite happy to see a footnote that explained that X Western date correspnds to Y date by the old Japanese calendar, however. Exploding Boy 01:04, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
I don't have a 'proposed system' - I just raised an objection (basically that of the ExplodingBoy addition above). As I presume the unsigned comment saying only "talking only about the months and days" is yours, the worst implication of your proposal is at least nullified, in that the reader still gets a comparative clickable 1473 etc. History articles should really not require the reading of lengthy calender debates though, just to mentally place events 'in the right order'. --zippedmartin 01:16, 19 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
I can't believe we're having this discussion about writiting "day X, 1st month" (say) as "January Xth". There's a very simple reason not to do so: it's incorrect. Day 1 of First Month is not January 1! HELLLLLOOOOOO! This is supposed to be a quality encyclopaedia, not a place where we knowingly include incorrect data because we're too [insert choice phrase] to do it right.
Jefu may have a bit of a point that naive readers may read "3rd day, 4th month" and mentally translate it to "April 3rd". The solution, however, is to stop using the word "month", which gives naive readers the impression that it is the "months" they are familiar with that are being referred to. Use some other word/phrase: "calendar period", "lunar month", whatever.
We have only two viable choices: i) use Japanese dates, and make absolutely clear that these dates are in the Japanese lunar calendar, or ii) convert them properly to the correct Western-style calendar dates. I don't have a strong preference one way or the other; I lean to the second (for the convenience of the bulk of our readers) - but only if we have an easy way to do the correct conversion. Noel (talk) 02:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

These slow Wiki servers are really making it hard to post comments. I thought I responded earlier to the question of sites for date conversion, but it was either never accepted or it disappeared. Anyway, the site that I always use for date conversion (and it converts correctly into Gregorian and Julian) is here: [http://www2s.biglobe.ne.jp/~yochicaz/]. The problem is it is in Japanese and I haven't found one in English. Anyway, it is easy to navigate. In the menu on the left there is a section of links that all say "VB Script" or "CGI" after the link. Click the third from the bottom. In the frame that appears top right, the entry fields are year, month, date. The next button is "Convert", the second button is "Clear", the left radio button is to convert Japanese to Gregorian/Julian and the right radio button is to convert Gregorian/Julian to Japanese. The answer appears in the main frame and appears after the "-->". The numbers that result are year, month and date. -Jefu 03:18, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. Can you figure out how it works, to make sure it's correct? I.e. does this site really have a complete database of the dai and sho month patterns for each year? (See the link I provided above to my scan of one page of such a table.) If so, is there any way to pull that information out, so we can include it in an article (well, OK, maybe it's a separate page, given how long it's going to be :-) on the Japanese lunar calendar system? Noel (talk) 04:33, 19 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
I just discovered something very cool. If you go back to the left side and click on the last link in the script section (two down from the one I mentioned above) you will get a Japanese to Western only conversion function. This time the input is a box where you input YYYY M D separated by spaces. To input the leap month, you need to input YYYY 閏M D. Anyway, if you put in a nonsense date, the panel below will give you a sort of warning that includes the short and long months in that particular year. So for any particular year you can just enter YYYY 1 31 (which will be a nonsense date for every year in the Japanese calendar). The long months are marked with a 大 and the short are marked with a 小 (the leap month is marked with a 閏 before the month and I'm not sure what the 13 is...). Anyway, I just checked about half of your scanned list and it all appears to be correct. I also sent an e-mail to an e-mail address I found on the site to see if the guy will send me his script. We'll see what happens. I could easily create an English language form on my own site that uses English input and accesses his script, but I'm actually more concerned about the site going bad. He hasn't updated it in several years. -Jefu 05:33, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

And as for Noel's and Fg2's points above, the issue of how to name the months certainly isn't as clear as you both make it out to be. If it is, you're going to have to let all 130 million Japanese, including the thousands of historians here, that they need to relabel their months when speaking of the old calendar to avoid the mass confusion that you are saying would ensue. Japanese have happily been reading for years that the attack of the 47 ronin happened on December 14th (12月14日) even though everyone here draws precisely the same association with that date that anyone who lives in a part of the Northern Hemisphere where there are four distinct seasons. And making people go through the mental gymnastics of calling months first month, second month (or even more ridiculous first lunar month, first calendar unit, first dodecaunit, or whatever), when they're going to mentally translate into the months they are accustomed to anyway, is a very pedantic writing style as opposed to a user friendly writing style, that aids in understanding. The word "February" conveys exactly the same concept as second month, which is the same information that is conveyed to a Japanese reader who reads "２月." The only important thing (and I agree it is very important) is to signal to the reader that the dates are given in a different calendar. Calling it 14th day of the 12th month isn't going to let people know that it was the end of January any more than calling it December 14th will. And if you footnote December 14th and note that this was January 30th by the Julian calendar, this is in no way inferior or more confusing than calling it the 14th day of the 12th month and noting in the footnote that it was January 30th. -Jefu 03:18, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

The thing is that I expect most Japanese know full well that "1st month" means one thing in 1800 and something quite different in 1900. However, I doubt one Western reader in 1,000 knows that. Which is why it's safe to 'overload' (to use the computer science term) the term '1st month' with two different meanings in Japan - and not safe to do so in the West.
And as far as "pedant"ry goes, if that's what it takes to avoid including knowingly incorrect data, well, yeah, we'll have to live with it. Writing "January 3rd" on something when we know that it didn't happen on the day known to most readers as "January 3rd" is just plain wrong.
Besides, if we adopt your suggestion to write "3rd day, first month" as "January 3", then when someone is reading a Japanese-subject article and comes across "January 3", how exactly do you tell if it's really January 3rd (Western), or "3rd day, first month"? People just aren't going to be careful, and always give whatever little mark distinguishes one kind of "January 3rd" from the other. However, if we use a completely different syntax for Japanese dates, and only ever use "January" for Western-calendar dates, there's no problem.
If we want to put in Japanese dates, we have to include some explicit sign that they are in a different calendrical system - "lunar month" is a least a "heads up" that something funny is going on. The other option is to (correctly) convert all dates to Western-system date (Julian or Gregorian, as the case may be, depending on how old they are). Noel (talk) 04:33, 19 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Let me go home and check my Cambridge History of Japan on this point. I know that they use Japanese dates without conversion, but I don't remember how they translate them. To be honest, I never even imagined this particular issue would be such a sticking point with people, probably because I've been reading Japanese dates that use the same words for both old and new for so long that it never even occurred to me that you wouldn't use January through December when translating into English as well. I mean I can see the point you are trying to make, but it certainly is not so obviously "wrong" to me. I still don't understand what February conveys to an English reader other than "second month of the year." Using anything else just seems far too bizarre for any added benefit. -Jefu 05:33, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
Well, I can't speak for all native English speakers, but to me they have always been the names of months in the Western calendar, with no particular ordering significance. (Ironically, the names "September" - "December" are in fact originally Latin names whose literal meaning is "seventh month" (sic!) through "tenth month" (sic)! In other words, they are off by two!) But I think you've put your finger right on it - when one's native language's name for a month is simply "Xth month", it's easy to take away the meaning as being ordering; but when it's just a random name, with no other meaning, you tend to lose a lot of that sense. Noel (talk) 16:50, 19 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Okay, it looks like I stand corrected. I stopped at the Maruzen near Tokyo Station this evening and checked out a number of English books on Japanese history. All of them used "Third Day of the Fifth Month" format for dates (one book didn't capitalize the words). The only book that used January, etc. was the Keene book about Emperor Meiji, but they were all converted dates (which makes sense for that period of history, even though the first several years were under the old calendar). It still seems rather bizarre to me, but I guess it is because I'm so used to reading dates in Japanese which uses the same term for modern months and months under the old calendar. Anyway, I'll drop my objection to using numbered months. But I do think the primary dates should be Japanese and the converted dates should be in parentheses or in footnotes (maybe parenthese in text but footnotes when the dates themselves are already in parentheses like the birth and death dates for someone). But I'm still not sure of what to call the leap month. Should it be "Third Day of the Leap Fifth Month" or "Third Day of the Intercalary Fifth Month". I sure don't want to have to use intercalary. Nobody would have any idea what it means. Any other suggestions? -Jefu 11:54, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

There's an article at Intercalation. "Leap month" or "intercalary" could link to it. Fg2 12:16, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
Okay. In that case I guess using intercalary wouldn't be so bad. On further reflection "Intercalary Fifth Month" does sound better than "Leap Fifth Month." although the intercalation article itself needs to be expanded a bit to discuss the insertion of months into lunisolar calendars. -Jefu 12:23, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Isn't the most important thing to convey the information in such a way that readers will understand it readily? What on earth is wrong with giving the Western date -- we're still talking about the same moment in time after all, and the Western date is the one that will be understood by the majority of readers -- as primary, and providing an explanation of the corresponding Japanese historical date by way of a footnote? Exploding Boy 19:10, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

The biggest reason is that translated dates aren't used by anyone to my knowledge. People reading and studying Japanese history prior to 1873 are going to be exposed to Japanese dates, whether they are reading in English or Japanese. Why should Wikipedia be an exception to that? It is Japanese history after all. -Jefu 00:32, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Noel as an old hacker I would have thought that you would have suggested date conversion automation. No idea if it works but here is an example:[7]

There are good reasons for putting in conversions, it will help none experts if they wish to compare history in Japan with contemporary history elsewhere. Most English speaking none experts will have no idea when an event took place in Japan if the year is not described in the Gregorian/Julian calender. As to the conversion of the month/day, if it is needed then it should be done correctly (whatever that means see below). For example the campaign season was presumably in the northern hemisphere summer in Japan and, if so, a battle which take place out of the usual campaign season would be be notable. It may well be that experts feel more comfortable with Japanese dates, but those should be included as secondary dates as they are going to be a minority of the potential audience.

In the middle ages in Europe dates are often written as "In the third year of the reign of XXX", (and the day of often given by the saint of the day), but people expect them to be converted into the Julian/Gregorian calender in contemporary articles. (BTW as an aside the battle of Austerlitz is an example of where the simultaneous use of the two calenders had a big impact on history. The Austrians (and the French) were using Gregorian and the Russians Julian so France won the battle as the Russians did not turn up on the expected day!). As by that time the British were using the Gregorian the date of Austerlitz is always recorded in Engish accounts using the Gregorian system. However with dates before 3 September 1752 can be in either and some confusion exists. There is also the problem in Engish of the start of the year, see peypes Diary FAQ "Why do some years appear like 1659/60 instead of just 1660?" the new start of the year was adopted on 1 January 1753. What tends to be the solution for those who bother to worry about it is is that the 1st January will be specified in as the start of year being January 1st, but the day will be mapped as if there was not 12 days diffrence. So an event which took place on 12th of January 1659 old calander, will be mapped to 12th of Jaunuary 1660 in modern texts. This is so that events like the Battle of Agincourt can be thought of as taking place on St Crispins day rather than 12 days later! Philip Baird Shearer 11:52, 20 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Philip, the problem with automated date conversion support is that our hard-working developers will probably get to it in 2008 or so! Also, nobody (AFAICT) is proposing that we use year dates of the form "Go-Mizunoo 5" - I think everyone agrees that years need to be in BC/AD form, for ease of understanding and comparison.
As to days of the year, in practical terms, for events before 1939, I don't think comparison of days in the year to see if event X in the West happened before or after event Y in Japan is ever an issue, really (with the possible exception of the Russo-Japanese War of ought-whatever - and there you have to deal with the fact that Russia was still on the Julian calendar at the time :-), so I don't think that's a strong reason there. I think Jefu has a very good point that anyone studying Japanese history to any degree at all will soon come up against days in the form "X month, Yth day" - that is absolutely true. I personally don't have a strong feeling either way, as to which of the two day dating systems we should use. Noel (talk) 12:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Philip, I've never suggested that we shouldn't have Western dates. I just don't think we should have Western dates exclusively. And since Japanese dates are used exclusively in the literature (at least in my experience), I think the Japanese date should be the primary date given. We could then either footnote the Western date or put it in a parenthetical. Part of the reason I started this discussion was just to agree on a format for dates that could then be added to the project page. We got sidetracked briefly on wether to use First Month or January, but I think we're back on track now. -Jefu 13:00, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
Anyway, my suggestion is that for dates that are in parentheticals, we put the Western converted date in a footnote. For dates that are in the text we can put the date in parentheses (although the first instance of a Japanese date should be footnoted to explain to the reader that Japan uses a different calendar and provide appropriate links.) -Jefu 13:00, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
And by the way, Japan adopted the Gregorian calendar in 1873 so it is only dates prior to that that are an issue. And other than a few isolated events (Perry's arrival in Uraga is another that comes to mind), I don't think the comparison issue is anything to be concerned about either. -Jefu 13:00, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
Ah, let me make sure I understand your proposal - your reference to "Western dates" and "Japanese dates" made me wonder. As you saying we should put dates in as "1st month, 3rd day, Go-Mizunoo 5" (and then the Western equivalent), or "1st month, 3rd day, 1615" (and then the Western day-of-the-year)?
Also, I see a lot of Japanese articles already seem to use "January", etc when they really mean "First month" - see, for example, Tokugawa Ieyasu.
Finally, in reference our previous conversation about whether "January" has a meaning of "first month" to Westerners - it turns out that before about 1600 or so (it varies from country to country), in the West, the year didn't start on January 1 in most countries! (I had forgotten about this!) Some used March 1, others used other dates! See Julian calendar#Beginning of the year and New Year#Historical dates for the new year for more. Noel (talk) 13:33, 20 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
I think it is very important to use the Western years. Japanese history is divided into too many eras for such dates to make any sense to anyone but the most hardcore historian (even in Japanese, dates are almost always accompanied by Western years to give people some sort of bearing, and Japanese schoolchildren learn important events using Western years.) However, I think we should come up with a format to get in all 3 pieces of information. Since the year is already in the Western date, what if we used a format like this: "First Month, Third Day, Fifth year of Kaei (January 23, 1852)" -Jefu 04:15, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
It seems to me that the main issue here is not so much Japanese vs. English-speaking-world culture, but that the articles in question are part of Wikipedia, which is a huge encyclopedia covering many subjects, all of which are linked together. Because of this, I think it would be a very good idea to use a uniform calendar as the primary one for all articles, viz. the Julian calendar before October, 1582 and the Gregorian calendar afterwards. We can certainly give the dates according to other calendards as a parenthetical addition. Further, Wikipedia is considered to be a work in progress, so there's no reason for dismay in cases where the dates are not yet converted to Julian/Gregorian, especially when this is difficult to do. However, it would probably also be a good idea for us to make it very clear when we are using some other calendar, so as to avoid confusion. I definitely agree that calling the months of the Japanese calendar January, February, etc. is inadvisable. How about just leaving them untranslated? For instance, "November 31, 1582 (3 Ichigatsu, 5 Kaei)"? - Nat Krause 05:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
In the English speaking world the change over date is 2/14 September 1752. Even the UNIX command "cal" uses that date! Start of year is confusing but usually kept as January 1st in most texts for all of history. Certainly most computerised programs run using that assumption. One of the propeller-head sports in the year 2000 (Y2K) testing was to check if a program had a year 0 or not. There is also a leap year problem to consider if one does not use the Gregorian clanadar throughout for example was the year 400 a leap year or not? However for day to day usage starting the year on January 1st and mapping to the Julian/Gregorian either side of Sep 1752 is good enough for most of Eurpean mediaeval events if one is not tying in celestial observations. I am not sure what is done by historians for places other than Europe and for European cultures before the high middle ages though. Philip Baird Shearer 15:58, 21 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

I know that for British history the 1752 date is normally the cut-off. But it was always my understanding that continental events between 1582 and 1752 are normally given in the Gregorian calendar. john k 18:28, 21 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

e.g. the Battle of Blenheim is always given as August 13, 1704. Isn't that the Gregorian date? john k 18:29, 21 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

I checked and yes you are correct. It seems that the old joke about New Zealand was true about the UK at this time "You are now disembarking in England please put your watch back 11 days". So William of Orange arrived at Brixham in England on November 5, after a setting sail from the Netherlands on November 11[8]! Irish bashing took place under the "Old Style (OS)" calender on July 1 but is rembered as taking place on July 12 "New Style (NS)". Why William is rembered as landing on November 5 OS but fighting a battle on July 12 NS is odd (I guess in the case of the battle of the Boyne that it is to do with protastants not at first recognising popish dates so they continued to celebrate the aniversery on their protastant 1st of July). Dating and time anomalies still cause some problems, for example the attack on Pearl Harbor and the international date line. It looks from the dates using Zulu time, as if the Japanese waited a day to attack in Asia which is not true, it was on the the same day but a different date! Or the end of the War II in Europe which was on the 9th not the 8th under Zulu time and British double summer time. I have to say that before this discussion I had not given the topic of dates before 1752 much thought, but now my head is starting to heart :-( --Philip Baird Shearer 20:08, 21 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Wow, what a mess. Personally, I would like to see Wikipedia standardize all dates to Gregorian after October, 1582 while being completely clear about what we're doing so as to minimize confusion. In the meantime, this does present the opportunity for confusion in Japanese history articles that give dates between 1582 and 1752. I still think what we should do for dates before and after is pretty clear. - Nat Krause 09:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
I basically agree. Use retrospective Julian and Julian before 1582, Gregorian after. Note old style dates in parentheses where appropriate. john k 16:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Which date goes in the parentheses may seem like a minor point, but I guess the biggest problem I have with using Western dates primarily is the fact that the Japanese date is the only date we can ever really be sure of. In other words, there is no argument among historians that certain incidents in Japanese history happened on certain universally agreed upon dates. But the agreed upon date is the date according to the old Japanese calendar. What those dates convert into isn't always clear as you point out in the discussion above, not to mention the fact that anyone studying Japanese history prior to 1873 is going to come across almost exclusively (and perhaps even exclusively) Japanese dates in the literature. I agree we should include Western dates, but they should just be a guide to the reader to give them bearing using the calendar to which they are accustomed, and to give the author the ability to link those incidents into the rest of Wikipedia. In other words, I think the Western date should be given secondarily and should go in parentheses. -Jefu 01:22, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for joining the discussion late, but consensus has apparently been reached on a system I completely agree with. I agree with Noel on almost all points, especially that a Japanese date like Month 2, Day 3 must not be given in an apparently Western form like February 3. For a non-Japanese reader, a date like "February 3" would never be viewed as month 2 day 3. Stating that "February 3" is in the Japanese lunisolar calendar is useless. When Jefu added that note to Emperor Konin of Japan, I did not understand what he meant even though I am quite familar with the traditional Chinese calendar, having studied it for many years. However, the Japanese year should be given in a Japanese style like 5 Kaei or as a number of years since Emperor Jimmu Tenno in 660 BC. Of course it must also be stated in a Western year, but it must be the correct Western year. If the Japanese date is in month 12, the Western year is almost certainly in the year after the year given by a table of nengo years. Repeating the western year found in a nengo table only compounds an existing error for the one or two Japanese months at the end of a Japanese year.
I agree with Jefu that the Japanese date should be given first, and with the equivalent Western date in parentheses or as a footnote (but I would not object to the inverse). The exact order for the elements of a Japanese date is not my concern, although it seems obvious that it should be in the standard Japanese order, if there is one (year-month-day?). The order of the Western date is automatically determined by user preferences when both the month-day and year are wikilinked (Preferences in upper right-hand corner if you are logged in). To use an extreme example, the ISO 8601 form [[1852-01-23]].would be displayed as January 23, 1852 if your user preference is month-day-year.
Although I lean toward "intercalary month 2" (for example); "leap month 2" is also acceptable. "Leap 2nd month" (using the ordinal number) is also OK. The Japanese date could be in Japanese like 12月14日, although an English translation to month 12 day 14 would seem to be preferable in the English language Wikipedia. Note that when using cardinal numbers (12, 14), the units of time (month, day) become adjectives which appear before the numbers.
Some other points mentioned above: Almost all historians use the January 1 to December 31 historical year regardless of the first day of the numbered year (like March 25 or December 25). I do not use "New Year's Day" because throughout medieval Western Europe, New Year's Day always meant January 1, even if the numbered year began on March 25, as in England. King Henry VIII exchanged presents with his court on New Year's Day (January 1) while Anunciation Day or Lady Day, when the year number changed, was just a special religious day. Similarly, Samuel Pepys always called January 1 New Year's Day while changing his year number on March 25. Hence most Western European countries adopted January 1 as the first day of their numbered year while they were still using the Julian calendar. See Gregorian calendar#Beginning of the year. Standard historical practice regarding the Julian/Gregorian changeover date agrees with Wikipedia: That dates before October 15, 1582 be Julian dates and dates after October 4, 1582 be Gregorian dates, unless a particular country adopted the Gregorian calendar at a later date. Then the thorny problem of what calendar should be used in the interim appears.
A standard work used to convert Japanese dates before 1873 into a Western date is Japanese Chronological Tables from 601 to 1872 A.D. by Paul Yachita Tsuchihashi. Whether the online converter given by Jefu gives the same dates, I cannot say.
Although I am quite familiar with the traditional Chinese calendar, including its history and calculation, I am not familiar with the Japanese methods of specifying the date. A big difference between the two forms is that the Chinese were quite concerned that their calendar be in harmony with the sun and moon, whereas the Japanese were satisfied as long as it indicated astrological good and bad days, not caring if their date was two days off. So after the Japanese imported a Chinese calendar in 692, it was used for about a millennium until 1684, while several Chinese reforms were made during that period. See The Lunar Calendar in Japan. In my study of the Chinese calendar, I found the works of Kiyosi Yabuuti very helpful.
— Joe Kress 04:39, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Footnote, template or something

Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I and others have been thinking of putting in each article about a Japanese person a footnote or a link near the article title to inform readers about the name order. There was also a talk about dates started by Jefu (good work, Jefu) There are many options to do these things, and I would love to know what people prefer. Here are options I am aware of; please add it if you know one. -- Taku 01:53, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

  1. Tokugawa Ieyasu[1] (徳川 家康; January 31, 1543 (December 26, Tenbun 11) – June 1, 1616 (June 1, Genwa 2)) was a Japanese ruler.
    Junichiro Koizumi[1] (小泉 純一郎; born January 8, 1942) is a Prime Minister of Japan.
    [1] is put by {{ref}}. [1] links to a footnote and the footnote talks about name order or date convention, if needed, and links to a longer note. See Template talk:Ref for how to use this footnote method.
  2. Tokugawa Ieyasu[1] (徳川 家康; January 31, 1543 – June 1, 1616) was a Japanese ruler.
    Junichiro Koizumi[1] (小泉 純一郎; born January 8, 1942) is a Prime Minister of Japan.
    Like the above, but dates in the old calendar are put in a footnote.

Put you comments below:

I prefer (2). -- Taku 01:56, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

I agree, #2 looks good ... I still wonder about which date should be given priority (Western vs. Japanese). I think in an ideal world it would be Western (which is the form the vast majority of users expect), but if the Western date is not always known/calculable (which seems to be the case?) then we might have to go with Japanese. Either way, it probably would be a good idea to explain the Western/Japanese calendar date issue in the Explanatory Note footnote you are working on. My only comment is that the Explanatory "Note" looks like it will inevitably be as long as the Japanese Manual of Style itself, which might kind of defeat the purpose (maybe a link to the J-MoS might work instead?). Or, should each main topic (Japanese names, Japanese dates, Japanese place names, etc.) get its own "explanatory note" for simplicity's sake? Just a few thoughts. CES 02:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

I agree we don't want to simply duplicate MoS, but we could make a short page which gives a quick summary of each point, and links to the appropriate reference; e.g. the line about names would just say something like "Japanese names were historically given with the family name first", and link to Japanese names, etc, etc. Noel (talk) 20:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Japan-related_articles&oldid=22199344"