Talk:Xuāntǒng (宣統) (era name)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Page move suggested

Yao Ziyuan, I just saw that you pasted a link to the page in classical Chinese. Could you please respond to the suggestion that this page be moved?--Niohe 04:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The article Puyi is about an emperor, this is about an era name, emperor ≠ era name, obviously, and an emperor may have multiple era names. Actually, there are many article about era names already in here, see Category:Japanese eras, we should write more article about its Chinese partners, not delete or merge. If you don't like hanzi in title, you can move it to Xuantong (era name). Yao Ziyuan 04:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I know it is about era names, but most Ming and Qing emperors only had one and are identified by their era names, unlike their pre-Ming predecessors and Japanese counterparts. Do we really need separate articles for the era names? I think it will be very confusing for many users and the era names can easily dealt with in the articles.--Niohe 13:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

1) article titles should not display non-standard characters as not all computers have the relevant fonts installed and 2) no reign title has its own article separate from that of the article. i really don't see what would belong in the article on the "era name" that would not belong elsewhere. why should puyi be the exception?--Jiang 07:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I've shown you Category:Japanese eras. Lacking of articles on a topic is not the reason to delete the article already exist, but we should create more that not exist on the topic. Yao Ziyuan 07:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yao Ziyuan, it would be nice if you responded to arguments previously raised, instead of just reiterating what you have said. There is an obvious difference here, which I have already told you and that is the fact that in Japan, era names do not correspond to imperial reigns prior to 1868. Furthermore, in Japan many era names are often closely connected to political periods, such as the Tempo reforms. There is no counterpart to that in China after 1368, when Chinese emperor adopted only one reign title per name.--Niohe 16:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The goal of an article about an era name is different from article about emperor. Era name articles should contain the calendar, signifiant events happened in the era, while emperor article is a biography about a person. They are very different. I can't understand why you proposal the merge. Yao Ziyuan 16:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. You may have a point, but I remain skeptical. I'm aware of the fact that there are articles on Japanese eras, but we should stay aware of the fact that Wikipedia is not an almanach and I'm not sure that the Japanese era articles are the right way to go either, save for the fact that they do not correspond to single emperors. In the Chinese case, creating separate articles is getting very close to duplicating a lot of material that is already covered in the articles on each emperor.

Please wait for other editors to weigh in on this matter before you go ahead with anything, Yao Ziyuan. Whatever you decide to do, please allow me to offer two pieces of advice. (1) Do not create a confusing disambiguation page whenever a reign title happens to coincide with an emperor as you did with Chongzhen. The distinction between emperors and era names is not a primary one for most English speakers. It is much better to create a disambiguation link at the top of the article for whatever emperor the reigns title happens to coincide with. (2) Please stop creating articles with Chinese characters in the name and unnecessary pinyin diacritics. We have already been through this once more and the consensus seem to be that we should avoid that.--Niohe 21:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)