Talk:Liu Wu, Prince of Liang

Title

Preliminary discussion

There's an argument to be made for Prince Xiao of Liang; there isn't a decent one for including both of his names in the title (especially at a misspelling). Redirects exist. I followed the general naming practice and the format for dabbing other Han princes. If PXL is the common name in English sources, present that evidence and move it there but then check the other Han princes and see if they need moving as well. — LlywelynII 10:44, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Either way Prince should be capitalized since the title Prince of Liang is a proper noun; Han Dynasty prince is not. Also BC should be written out; it looks terrible at this point.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The name Prince of Liang is a proper noun. The title prince over Liang isn't. It depends on the context and whether it is being used as a title or a name. See, inter alia, Capitalization in English. — LlywelynII 10:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Also you do know some of these categories you are creating are not exclusively Han titles? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:36, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Including the category Princes of Han doesn't preclude them from having been used in other eras as well. Include or create those categories as well. — LlywelynII 10:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Kavebear that Prince should be capitalized, see Charles, Prince of Wales. -Zanhe (talk) 07:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Obviously, I disagree. Prince of X is properly capitalized where it's a proper noun and properly left lowercase where it's a descriptor of its bearer (as here). Xiao, Prince of Liang, should be capitalized but I personally prefer this namespace until it's apparent that some other is the common name. Then again if there's a strong consensus to move the article and use less exact grammar, that just comes with the territory of working at Wikipedia.

EDIT: Charles, Prince of Wales, looks the way it does because the second title is being used as a formal part of his name rather than as a descriptor. It's fair to consider that one name of his is Liu Wu and another name of his is Prince of Liang and putting them together should work like Charles's name. Personally, I don't see the harm or violation in treating it like the dab it actually is, either. We could always just go with Liu Wu (Liang) but blehhh. — LlywelynII 10:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Better example is Yixuan, Prince Chun.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

It isn't, actually, unless you were proposing a move to Liu Wu, Prince Xiao. Chun was a regnal name, not a location he was prince over. Again, you can win this by making friends and just pressing for consensus, but your grammar is kinda shaky. — LlywelynII 10:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Do you even understand Chinese history? Chun is most definitely not a regnal name (your right it isn't a realm either; Qing Dynasty titles are much weirder than prior princely titles). Chun was a title like Liang or Wales; Prince Chun of the First Rank (醇親王) passed down to each iron cap prince of that line much like the title Prince of Liang is passed from successor to successor until revoked by the emperor. Also regnal names do not exist in China; given names, courtesy names, era names, temple names and posthumous names do exist though. Yixuan's posthumous name is Prince Chunxian of the First Rank (醇賢親王). Prince Xiao of Liang is Liu Wu's posthumous only applicable to him and no other Prince of Liang. One other thing, he cannot be just called Prince Xiao 孝王 without any territorial designation. I wouldn't say this is my consensus or that I am the radical one here. I give all these example in which proper titles and I merely supporting the practice already used in these articles. I am merely pressing the consensus already in place and correcting your new handed method which deviates from what is the accepted form. Also I don't need to push my argument or "make friends" (I assume you mean canvassing) to win my arguments. I find it extremely insulting you would be suggest that.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 11:12, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Has nothing to do with Chinese history. Prince Chun was a title name having no relation to land = regnal, regardless of whatever the Chinese term is. It has to be capitalized and shouldn't be used generically. It's off-topic to this discussion. — LlywelynII 11:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Chun is a qualifier for prince just like Liang was too. Not "regnal" and also never suggested Prince Chun could be used generically.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 12:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Qualifier has nothing to do with it. We're talking about proper and common nouns. Liang is a realm that can have generic princes one of whom happens to be Liu Wu. That's the entire discussion. Xiao must strictly describe a particular prince* and, if were talking about that, Chun would be the appropriate analogy (except it can refer to more than one person... Still, it's not a realm and there aren't generic "princes Chun". It's off-topic. All the same, there are still on-point examples given below. — LlywelynII 14:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Who supports you again? There is no example of Wikipedia that doesn't capitalize title after a name. Look at all the articles on European princes like Wales or Asturias and even Qing Dynasty princes. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 09:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I know I just created a few and that I've got the backing of Capitalization in English. It could easily be a problem with customary British usage, though. I might look up what that's about if I have time. — LlywelynII 10:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Well ... bleh. Looking through the search results, I can find counterexamples but Kave is certainly right that the other usage (which as far as the title goes isn't wrong—just uglier, misleading, and unnecessary) seems to be completely standard for the Chinese prince articles. I could go through and fix those ^_^ but let's just fight one of those battles at a time. — LlywelynII 10:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

"uglier, misleading, and unnecessary" all POV terms. I admit, you may find counterexamples, but the majority of all articles out there will capitalize territorial/proper titles unless used in a generic sense like "Liu Wu, a Han Dynasty prince" or "Charles, a British prince".--KAVEBEAR (talk) 11:12, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that we should include those words in the article. — LlywelynII 11:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved, at my request (as closer), by an admin. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

---

Liu Wu, prince of Liang → Liu Wu, Prince of Liang – Noble titles following the personal given names of all Chinese imperial princes should be capitalized. He was the Prince of Liang. Lowercase prince can be use when using the word prince without referring to it as proper title; what I mean: Liu Wu was Chinese prince, a Han Dynasty prince, and Prince of Liang much how like Prince Charles is a British prince but Prince of Wales not prince of Wales. Examples for capitalization include all European titles are name followed by the comma and a capitalized form of the title follow by the realm like Charles, Prince of Wales or Albert II, Prince of Monaco. And more pertinent are examples for Qing Dynasty princes like Zaifeng, Prince Chun or Yikuang, Prince Qing. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 10:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. Plus my edits capitalizing the proper titles for Prince in the article should be added back.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 10:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
• @Zanhe:
• Grudging Support. Kave far overstates the case above: the Qing titles he is citing are a completely separate beast where Chun and Qing are actual names and certainly must be capitalized. The titles on this realm-based format needn't be capitalized, particularly when being used as a generic dab. Nonetheless, there's nothing wrong with it aside from aesthetics* and there are other examples more on point than those above that are currently formatted the other way. Since they are, let's maintain the style. Even capitalized, it's still an improvement over a parenthetical.
  
  The edits to the running text of the article remain grammatically unnecessary or mistaken and should not be restored.
  
  (There's the minor point that it makes the title seem like it goes with the name Liu Wu, which it doesn't. The names are Liu Wu (who was a prince over Liang); the living title Prince of Liang (used in place of his personal name but no good here owing to dab issues); and the posthumous rename The Filial Prince of Liang (which is never given like that but in a variety of inconsistent translations, romanizations, and spacings more or less converging on Prince Xiao of Liang). I went with the first because I was just dabbing out the personal name and the personal name is the norm for these Han prince articles. That said, now that the title is involved, Kb does seem to be correct (however mistaken his own examples and reasons) that other similar pages like Zhu Yousong, Prince of Fu, and Zhu Yujian, Prince of Tang, follow the present British usage. It's not really worth fighting over where the capitalized version isn't completely wrong.) — LlywelynII 10:47, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

  My examples are not mistaken. I find it hilarious you can compare Emperor Jing of Han to Charles II of England (one is a posthumous name and the other his given name followed by a regnal number) when you seek to move the former to just Jing of Han but totally disregard my Western examples when it comes to this article. Placing there name next to the title does not give the impression that the title goes with that name. The European examples like Charles can mean that his name is Charles and he is "the Prince of Wales" in his lifetime not that he was Prince Charles of Wales. Similarly the proposed title means the person was named Liu Wu and was "the Prince of Liang" not Prince Liu Wu of Liang; not capitalizing doesn't make any difference In your worry that people will get confused because either way the title follows the name. Putting it in parenthesis would solve what you are worried about but that 's something new that should be brought up if need be in another section. Posthumous, era, temple names are given the same way as "Prince Xiao of Liang" even with the emperors and it has work well so far.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 11:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

  I don't know why it should be. Once he became king, he took Charles as his regnal name and there's no effective difference between the two. Your Western examples here are badly-taken, so I object to them. Again, I don't think your grasp of the grammar here is really solid (inter alia, in the passage above, there for their when you mean his). But it's all cool because you won in the end, anyway. ^_^ — LlywelynII 11:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

  Not proofreading my messages to you so don't really care. Thanks for the insult though.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 11:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

  Also, Chun is not a name. Could User:Zanhe (if you know) explain the situation with Qing Dynasty titles because I am not 100% myself.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 11:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

  "Prince Chun" most certainly is a title or regnal name similar to Xiao here. It's a necessarily proper name that is a different beast from the title of a territorial prince similar to Liang here. — LlywelynII 11:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

  My edits should definitely be restored because capitalizing territorial titles that are not used generically is grammatically correct.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 11:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

  Except they are (generally) being used generically here: his brother replaced him as a new prince over Dai, not his brother replaced him as the person Prince of Dai; Liu Rong became a new prince over Linjiang not a new person named Prince of Linjiang. Some of your edits were well-taken (Prince of Chu killing himself, e.g.) and I put those back in. — LlywelynII 11:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

  Yes, I was questioning those which why I made post on the language ref desk. I am generally thinking of Prince of realm as a title. To me it should read his brother replaced him as the Prince of Dai much like Obama replaced Bush as the President of the United States not Obama replaced Bush as a president. Most of edits were capitalizing/correcting pipelinks which should be restored.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 12:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

  Except that's a very awkward way to phrase things. "President Obama of the United States", yes, but if you're dabbing a series of presidents Obama, there's nothing improper with noting that one was Obama who was the president of a place called the United States: "Obama, president of the United States" versus "Obama, president of Micronesia".
  
  The only fly in the ointment is Wiki seems to have already decided on its formatting, so we'll just go with that. It's not "right"—it's just arbitrary custom. — LlywelynII 14:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support: Llywelyn's approach is nuanced and laudable. It can be argued that the "prince" in "prince of Liang" is a position, and not part of the proper noun. But at the same time, it's difficult to distinguish among the thousands of princes in Chinese history, which titles were positions, and which were proper nouns. As many princes had no fief, their titles were purely ceremonial, therefore should be considered proper nouns. It's much easier (and not incorrect) just to treat all as proper nouns and capitalize everything, which seems to be the prevailing approach on Wikipedia. And I don't think it's worth trying to change the status quo on such an inconsequential matter. -Zanhe (talk) 20:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wealth

Pretty sure it counts as WP:OR to put this in the article, but for the curious: given the value of ~252 gr to the Western Han catty given here and the value of ~US$40,000 per kilo in late Nov 2013 given here, the prince's 400k catties in gold would come to around a quarter of a billion dollars. (If the figure were accurate, which of course it probably isn't.) — LlywelynII 11:18, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Letter from BirmingShaanxi Jail

For the curious, there's a non-WP:RS translation of the letter here. — LlywelynII 14:49, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Jade suit

I posted a comment on this before, but there was no citation there because I couldn't find any scholarly articles in English talking about the grave goods, just photos from the museum on Picasa, &c. I just now found something in Chinese and will put it up, but it'd still be nice if someone with access to Jstor could find more about the toilet, &c.. — LlywelynII 16:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

"Prince of Suiyang"

Well, that's unpleasant. Haven't seen this before, but searching this pdf for 'Liu Wu' pulls up that his title after 161 during life was Prince of Suiyang (睢陽王). Seems to have come out of Sima's treatment of the family, so wonder how to work that in or whether Liang was technically in abeyance during his life. — LlywelynII 11:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Photo size

It is not helpful to have an unintelligible image on the theory viewers can 'link through': one might as well post a text link. The images are there to be seen. For better or worse, both of the ones on this page are relatively busy and need to be somewhat larger than normal to be effective. (That said, given the relatively low-res image at the top, it probably is better to use 350px rather than 400+ as before.) — LlywelynII 17:10, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

450px images are almost never appropriate, and I don't see this as a case where an exception should be made. Even in articles on fine art, the images of the art are kept at a limited size. In several common screen resolutions, 450 pixels, factoring in the width of the default vector format's bar on the left, takes up more than half of the screen. Please drop them to 300, or better yet, the default size. If people want to see greater detail, they can click on the images. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

The lower image was formatted to span the two paragraphs beside it but could be somewhat smaller. You were editing the one at the top, though, which (to my eyes) needs to be fairly large to provide a decent view of the Prince at the center of the composition. I suppose you could create a cropped version and post that smaller image instead without any loss. — LlywelynII 17:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

BC and AD

Could the BC and AD be written out normally rather than subscript or minimized as they are right now? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Considering that I've never seen it written in subscript before on this project, I'll go make that change. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done - Also got one each of BCE and CE while I was at it. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

They could, but why? It looked better and was clearer the other way. — LlywelynII 16:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Liu Wu, Prince of Liang. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304115320/http://202.119.248.240/kns50/detail.aspx?filename=GGBW200503006&dbname=CJFD2005&filetitle=%E5%85%B3%E4%BA%8E%E5%A2%93%E8%91%AC%E5%A3%81%E7%94%BB%E8%B5%B7%E6%BA%90%E9%97%AE%E9%A2%98%E7%9A%84%E6%80%9D%E8%80%83%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%E4%BB%A5%E6%B2%B3%E5%8D%97%E6%B0%B8%E5%9F%8E%E6%9F%BF%E5%9B%AD%E6%B1%89%E5%A2%93%E4%B8%BA%E4%B8%AD%E5%BF%83 to http://202.119.248.240/kns50/detail.aspx?filename=GGBW200503006&dbname=CJFD2005&filetitle=%E5%85%B3%E4%BA%8E%E5%A2%93%E8%91%AC%E5%A3%81%E7%94%BB%E8%B5%B7%E6%BA%90%E9%97%AE%E9%A2%98%E7%9A%84%E6%80%9D%E8%80%83%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%E4%BB%A5%E6%B2%B3%E5%8D%97%E6%B0%B8%E5%9F%8E%E6%9F%BF%E5%9B%AD%E6%B1%89%E5%A2%93%E4%B8%BA%E4%B8%AD%E5%BF%83
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203132407/http://www.zjqhwh.com/down/%E6%B2%B3%E5%8D%97%E6%B0%B8%E5%9F%8E%E8%A5%BF%E6%B1%89%E6%A2%81%E7%8E%8B%E9%99%B5%E5%A2%93%E5%87%BA%E5%9C%9F%E8%91%AC%E7%8E%89%E8%A0%A1%E6%8E%A2.pdf to http://www.zjqhwh.com/down/%E6%B2%B3%E5%8D%97%E6%B0%B8%E5%9F%8E%E8%A5%BF%E6%B1%89%E6%A2%81%E7%8E%8B%E9%99%B5%E5%A2%93%E5%87%BA%E5%9C%9F%E8%91%AC%E7%8E%89%E8%A0%A1%E6%8E%A2.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)