- Hi Zanhe, when I saw the I and II's next to an ancient Chinese ruler's name, I thought it strange. I understand that the I's and II's help distinguish those rulers and certainly makes sense to a Western audience, but it's not the convention used in China. The only time that a numbering system (that I can think of) is used is for Qin Shi Huang and Qin Er Shi, and it's an exception, not the rule. Personally, I think it makes more sense to use title (historical period) for these situations, and turns out is the system used in the Chinese Wiki. See zh:秦惠公 (春秋) and zh:秦惠公 (战国) for Duke Hui I of Qin and Duke Hui II of Qin. I also understand that conventions in other Wiki projects do not dictate English wiki conventions, but even this numbering convention is different in Western monarchs and nobles too. See John II, Duke of Brittany, Edward III of England, Edward Smith-Stanley, 12th Earl of Derby, Edward Smith-Stanley, 13th Earl of Derby; why are they not Duke John of Brittany II, King Edward of England III, Earl Edward Smith-Stanley of Derby I, and Earl Edward Smith-Stanley of Derby II? The following examples may not necessarily be relevant to Chinese nobility, but do demonstrate the precedence of using eras in the English wiki: John Smith (Medal of Honor, b. 1826), John Smith (Medal of Honor, b. 1831), John Smith (Medal of Honor, 1880), Elisabeth of Bohemia (1292–1330), Elisabeth of Bohemia (1358–1373). So, should we stick to convention, rather than inventing something new? Hanfresco (talk) 08:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC) (Discussion moved here from User_talk:星光下的人)Reply
- I agree it's strange to see a number next to a Chinese ruler's name, but that's mainly because Chinese rulers rarely share the same name. The two Duke Hui's are of course exceptions. I did not invent the names for these articles. The names Duke Hui I and Duke Hui II have been listed on Qin (state) for many years, although no one had bothered to write the articles in all these years. They're also used by Burton Watson, one of the most influential translators of Chinese classics, in his translation of the Records of the Grand Historian (see here). A similar situation is Emperor Yi of Chu, whose other title is translated as King Huai II of Chu. As for the examples you listed, I'm not familiar with all of them. But for the two Elisabeths of Bohemia, one was the queen of Bohemia, while the other was duchess of Austria. They were not in the same line of succession, so it's obviously inappropriate to differentiate them by numbers. --Zanhe (talk) 23:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
- 这种东西用一世二世当真是四不像，后面那个惠公的谥号明显来自于多字谥号的省称，这种情况在春秋末期就十分常见，代代楚王基本都是如此，秦国君主也有多见。我不清楚英语维基的人物命名是否有译名常用原则，但用一世二世来命名中国君主，不适合。——星光下的人 (talk) 02:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
- 我有同感，可是只要出本书，错也是对（笑）。translation: I feel the same, but as long as you publish a book, wrong is right, lol. Hanfresco (talk) 01:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
The thing is, Burton Watson is not just anyone who publishes any book. Watson is the most famous English translator of Shiji. If you see a quote from an English translation of the Shiji, 90% of the time it's from Watson's translation. Besides, the numbering system is also used by other sources such as the Chinese Text Project. Remember guys, this is the English wiki and using numerals is the standard way of differentiating rulers in English (as well as most other European languages). And the system has its benefits: if you need to mention both rulers in the same sentence, it's so much easier to say "Duke Hui I and Duke Hui II" than "Duke Hui (Spring and Autumn) and Duke Hui (Warring States)". --Zanhe (talk) 05:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
