![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on November 28, 2013, November 28, 2015, November 28, 2016, July 28, 2017, November 28, 2018, and November 28, 2021. |
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Emperor Taizu of Later Liang which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RM bot 17:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Chinese)#Names_of_emperors, the word 'emperor' should be put before the current title. Kayau Voting IS evil 07:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was moved. -- BDD ( talk) 22:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
– (see talk page) Timmyshin ( talk) 03:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Very similar proposals have been made by another user 3 years ago (see Talk:Emperor Taizu of Later Liang#Requested_move), which were rejected. I hope to relist the proposals.
First, some background:
All of these emperors were rulers of ancient China's Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period ( circa 907-960). Wikipedia:NC-ZH states "Emperors of the Tang, Song, Liao and Jin (1115–1234) dynasties: use temple names, such as Emperor Taizong of Tang (唐太宗)." The 5d10k period is between Tang and Song dynasties and concurrent with Liao Dynasty.
There is a problem though: While this convention of temple name can and should be followed for Tang, Song and other long-lasting dynasties, it cannot be applied to the 5d10k period without sacrificing consistency. Take a look at these names, all of them emperors in this period:
Current Article Title | Personal name | Temple name | Posthumous name | Relationship |
---|---|---|---|---|
Emperor Gaozu of Later Han | Liu Zhiyuan | Emperor Gaozu | Emperor Ruiwen Shengwu Zhaosu Xiao | |
Emperor Yin of Later Han | Liu Chengyou | none | Emperor Yin | Liu Zhiyuan's son |
Liu Min | Liu Min | Emperor Shizu | Emperor Shenwu | Liu Zhiyuan's brother |
Liu Jiyuan | Liu Jiyuan | none | Emperor Yingwu | Liu Min's grandson |
As you can see there is no consistency, the naming convention is completely arbitrary, and it is incredibly confusing. Therefore my proposal, as well as the previous one in 2010, is to change all of their names to personal names.
The most authoritative book in the West on Chinese history is probably The Cambridge History of China. In Volume 5, Part 1, there were many genealogy diagrams in its first few pages. In Figure 5, they had only temple names without personal names for Song Dynasty emperors. However, for the 5d10k period:
One of the reasons, other than consistency, for preferring personal names for these emperors was: unlike emperors in long-lasting dynasties such as Song Dynasty, who were merely princes before ascending the throne, most of the 5d10k emperors in my proposal were famous generals and warlords before they took over. These include, at least (since I do not profess complete knowledge of the period) Zhu Wen, Shi Jingtang, Li Cunxu, Liu Zhiyuan, Guo Wei and Chai Rong. Take the example of Liu Zhiyuan: he only ruled for 1 year, and it was his outstanding accomplishments in countless previous battles that distinguished him rather than a forgetful reign, and not only the biography but also the title should reflect that.
Timmyshin ( talk) 03:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Shi Jingtang's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "ZZTJ280":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on November 28, 2013, November 28, 2015, November 28, 2016, July 28, 2017, November 28, 2018, and November 28, 2021. |
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Emperor Taizu of Later Liang which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RM bot 17:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Chinese)#Names_of_emperors, the word 'emperor' should be put before the current title. Kayau Voting IS evil 07:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was moved. -- BDD ( talk) 22:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
– (see talk page) Timmyshin ( talk) 03:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Very similar proposals have been made by another user 3 years ago (see Talk:Emperor Taizu of Later Liang#Requested_move), which were rejected. I hope to relist the proposals.
First, some background:
All of these emperors were rulers of ancient China's Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period ( circa 907-960). Wikipedia:NC-ZH states "Emperors of the Tang, Song, Liao and Jin (1115–1234) dynasties: use temple names, such as Emperor Taizong of Tang (唐太宗)." The 5d10k period is between Tang and Song dynasties and concurrent with Liao Dynasty.
There is a problem though: While this convention of temple name can and should be followed for Tang, Song and other long-lasting dynasties, it cannot be applied to the 5d10k period without sacrificing consistency. Take a look at these names, all of them emperors in this period:
Current Article Title | Personal name | Temple name | Posthumous name | Relationship |
---|---|---|---|---|
Emperor Gaozu of Later Han | Liu Zhiyuan | Emperor Gaozu | Emperor Ruiwen Shengwu Zhaosu Xiao | |
Emperor Yin of Later Han | Liu Chengyou | none | Emperor Yin | Liu Zhiyuan's son |
Liu Min | Liu Min | Emperor Shizu | Emperor Shenwu | Liu Zhiyuan's brother |
Liu Jiyuan | Liu Jiyuan | none | Emperor Yingwu | Liu Min's grandson |
As you can see there is no consistency, the naming convention is completely arbitrary, and it is incredibly confusing. Therefore my proposal, as well as the previous one in 2010, is to change all of their names to personal names.
The most authoritative book in the West on Chinese history is probably The Cambridge History of China. In Volume 5, Part 1, there were many genealogy diagrams in its first few pages. In Figure 5, they had only temple names without personal names for Song Dynasty emperors. However, for the 5d10k period:
One of the reasons, other than consistency, for preferring personal names for these emperors was: unlike emperors in long-lasting dynasties such as Song Dynasty, who were merely princes before ascending the throne, most of the 5d10k emperors in my proposal were famous generals and warlords before they took over. These include, at least (since I do not profess complete knowledge of the period) Zhu Wen, Shi Jingtang, Li Cunxu, Liu Zhiyuan, Guo Wei and Chai Rong. Take the example of Liu Zhiyuan: he only ruled for 1 year, and it was his outstanding accomplishments in countless previous battles that distinguished him rather than a forgetful reign, and not only the biography but also the title should reflect that.
Timmyshin ( talk) 03:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Shi Jingtang's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "ZZTJ280":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)