User talk:130.49.148.51

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In regard to your recent edits of Emperor Norton and Joshua A. Norton, please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people). Thanks -- malo (talk)/(contribs) 02:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Well I see you read the first part, now read just below that where it says:
don't add qualifiers (like "King", "Saint", "Dr.", "(person)", "(ship)", etc), except when this is the simplest and most NPOV way to deal with disambiguation;
In this case "Emperor" is not an appropriate title for an article. And since this isn't a matter of disambiguation, and Emperor Norton already redirect there, I think the title of the article is just fine the way it is. -- malo (talk)/(contribs) 02:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] emperor norton

its a matter of prestige, by descibing him as a mere man the fact that he was trully an emperor is denigrated. i dare say some people believe the man to have been insane and for this reason refuse him the respect and good humor that people gave him in his own time. this is unacceptable. if you insist with your conventions to omit across the board the term emperor, perhaps "Norton I" would be better, this being the same prestige given to folks such as king james. Or even "oshua a Norton, Emperor of these United States and Protector of Mexico", following other convetion listed on this website. but calling him by his name and nothing else? that is heresy!


This page has been automatically marked for deletion under the criteria for speedy deletion U2 (recycling IP talk pages). If you are adding a new message, please remove this notice.