Wikipedia talk:History standards for China-related articles

message: Han Gaozu is under Emperor Gaozu of Han China, but the history standard states:
*Use Emperor (posthumous name) of (name of dynasty) China for rulers from Han Dynasty up to Sui Dynasty.
And Han Gaozu isn't mentioned as an exception. So shouldn't it be Emperor Gao of Han China? Currently this is a redirect. --Xiaopo's Talk 02:31, Jan 4, 2004 (UTC)
:Google states that Emperor Gao yields more result than Emperor Gaozu. IMO it's better to change the main article under Emperor Gao instead of making one exception.  大将军, 都督中外诸军事 and  (talk) 07:12, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Exceptions

message: It seems the Julian Calendar is being used for older subjects such as Hongwu Emperor and the proleptic Julian calendar used for even older subjects such as Qin Shi Huang. This is counter to the conventions currently spelled out and I believe this is western-centric. Everything should be in the proleptic Gregorian calendar or Gregorian calendar since the Chinese used a completely different calendar than the Europeans and there's no need for date-matching. --Jiang 10:36, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Western centric? I don't see what's Western centric about using the Julian calendar rather than the proleptic Gregorian calendar. Jiang must be joking. All historical works always use the Julian calendar for dates before 1582. Even Chinese historical works, when they translate the dates in Western calendar, use the Julian calendar for dates before 1582. If Wikipedia starts to use the proleptic Gregorian calendar we will be creating our own sets of dates that won't match with other sets of dates that exist in books published worldwide. The world is already complicated enough, let's not make it more complicated! Hardouin 18:23, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gregorian calendar vs. Julian Calendar 

message: User:Nanshu has unilaterally moved all Yuan dynasty emperors to their khan names, which is counter to the "use common names" approach. I don't disgree with his moves, but anyone who does should comment. The standards currently call for templale names  to be used for Yuan emperors after Kublai Khan. --Jiang 02:56, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yuan Emperor naming conventions 

message: Should traditional Chinese characters be used for articles on history?  The set of simplified characters is a relative recent invention, and historical figures never write their names with the present set of  simplified Chinese characters in their days.
:Do you mean to phrase your question, "Should simplified Chinese characters be used for articles on history?" The current MoS says to list both (mainlanders writing about history will still use simplified). I don't object to changing the rule though. In any case involving historical topics pre-Communist China, traditional should be listed first. --Jiang 00:06, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Traditional Chinese characters (&#27491;&#39636;&#23383;) 

message: We're having a discussion at Talk:Xiao Xian Chun on how to properly name Qing empresses. Based on recent scholarly sources, I would suggest that the above mentioned article be renamed Xiaoxian Empress, but others argue in favor of Empress Xiaoxian. Please weigh in on this, so we can settle the matter and move the articles to a proper place. We need to do something about these articles before the erroneous naming spreads to other versions of Wikipedia.--Niohe 23:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Qing dynasty empresses 

message: I proposed naming conventions for Mongol rulers at Talk:Yuan Dynasty. If you are interested, please leave your comment. --Nanshu 08:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming conventions for Mongol rulers

message: This is a really awful convention.  Why Emperor Wu of Han China when Han Wudi is both shorter and more familiar?  Personally, I think that we should have conventions as follows:
#For rulers up through the Sui Dynasty, Dynastyname Posthumousname, e.g. Han Wudi, Sui Yangdi, Zhou Wuwang
#For Tang through Song, Dynastyname Templename, e.g. Tang Taizong, Song Taizu
#For Ming and Qing, what we have now - Eraname Emperor, e.g. Yongle Emperor, Qianlong Emperor.
What exactly is the objection to this?  I see that this has been suggested before, but never adopted, and I'm at a loss to understand why.  It's simple and not nearly as hideous as the current format.  Obviously, it is less obvious that Han Wudi was an emperor of China than that Emperor Wu of Han China is, but I think the advantages are well worth this, and we obviously have plenty of articles on rulers where it's not obvious from the title that the person is a monarch.  I note, for instance, Charlemagne, Tiberius, Alexios I Komnenos, Sulayman ibn Abd al-Malik, Atahualpa, Mansa Musa, and so forth.  The fact that the current convention requires us to use bizarre forms like "Emperor Wu" for the emperor usually called "Wudi" or "Wu-ti" makes the current convention particularly inappropriate. john k (talk) 22:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Emperor X of Y China" 

message: I am interested in getting opinion on the correct location of the articles on Qing empresses which are almost all currently located at hideous violations of pinyin rules.  I don't have opinions on the format or even the names themselves so I would like to get some consensus before proposing moves.  (But please, no hyphens and no CamelCase!)  The articles in question are every CamelCase or hyphenated name plus Empress Xiao Xian and Abahai at :Category:Qing Dynasty empresses and :Category:Qing Dynasty empress dowagers.  If you are interested please discuss here. —  AjaxSmack  03:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is Empress Dowager Cixi the pinyin standard? If so, I see no reason not to regularize. Please check as you go that there are Wade-Giles redirects; they are particularly important here since there will be literature on them from before pinyin existed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that Abahai appears to be Manchu. If this is in fact what English usually calls her, we should leave it alone; there is no reason why some of the Qing should not be under Manchu names. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Move. There should be no hyphen or CamelCase according to the rules of pinyin. --Neo-Jay (talk) 03:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

text: There seems to be general agreement on the need for a move but what about the new titles' name format?  Should the present versions of the names be kept or should the third character listed in the title line be added (e.g., Empress XiaoCheng become Empress Xiaochengren)?.  In addition, what's the best name for outliers like Empress Ulanara or Lady Abahai?  (Interestingly, the Chinese article for Abahai is at "Ulanara Abahai" (烏拉那拉·阿巴亥).  —  AjaxSmack  01:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Qing dynasty empresses redux

message: There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB (talk) 20:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: MoS naming style

message: moved to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)#On removing capitalization from "dynasty" in wiki titles
*Comment: Can somebody move the discussion to the active page, Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese), and place a pointer here?  This talk page is deprecated and should not be used for discussion. Viriditas (talk) 09:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: done.  Kanguole 11:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Dynasty" should not be capitalized in wiki titles 

message: Is there a naming standard for these individuals. Timmyshin (talk) 14:36, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  non-Qing Dynasty empresses, empresses dowager, princesses and royal women

message: Hi, I'd like to suggest adding in a section regarding naming conventions for heads of houses of Han, Zhao, Wei pre-Partition of Jin. It's very common to see posthumous names like 趙簡子 translated as Viscount Jian of Zhao, even though the 子 in 趙簡子 is not a title of nobility. What does the community think about adding something like "Pre-Partition of Jin heads of houses of Han, Zhao, Wei should be referred to using their names (e.g., Han Jue) or posthumous names (e.g., Xianzi of Han)"? Hanfresco (talk) 01:12, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spring and Autumn Head of House Naming Convention