Talk:Saigū no Nyōgo

Requested move 18 January 2018

The following is a closed 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. (non-admin closure) — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

---

Princess Kishi → Saigū no Nyōgo

(1) WP:COMMONNAME. The only Japanese encyclopedia I could find with a title equivalent to this is Wikipedia, while multiple encyclopedias (including the Nihon Koten Bungaku Daijiten - the best one) use the proposed title - see 徽子女王 vs. 斎宮女御. If one leaves out the macrons (which seem to screw things up; oftentimes the preview pretends no diacritics are present even when they clearly are in the actual book) GBooks comes up with a whole bunch of English-language hits for both forms (27 for "Princess Kishi", 26 for "Saigu no Nyogo", at least right now on my Japanese-set iPad's Safari), but a bunch of the "Princess Kishi" ones appear to be talking about (fictionalized?) versions of her appearing in later historical novels[1] or other artistic works,[2] or about different people altogether[3][4][5] (which makes me wonder about whether "Princess Kishi" should be a disambig page).

(2) While Japanese Wikipedia can use 徽子女王 (her actual name and title in kanji) as its article title without choosing one reading over the other, we are arbitrarily deciding to give priority to "Kishi" (a safe assumption based on the standard readings of those kanji) over "Yoshiko" (a reconstruction that was probably closer to her actual name).

(3) The proposed title would bring the article in line with Saigū no Nyōgo Shū, which is never called the "Kishi-joō Shū" or anything like that.[6]

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 21:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Pinging User:Keivan.f who apparently moved the page to its current title four months ago. That move was good (the previous title was a stylistic mess), but I think the proper title would be a different one altogether anyway. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support I agree that we should use the suggested name. The only reason that I moved this page was to bring it in line with the other articles about Japanese princesses as the article states she was a member of the imperial family. Thus I assumed that Joo would be equivalent to Princess, but it seems that it's not that case. Keivan.f^Talk 23:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@Keivan.f: No, your translation of joō as "princess" was fine (despite what modern Japanese dictionaries might say); the problem is that regardless of whether we translate joō, "Kishi" presents other problems of romanization (names of ancient and medieval Japanese imperial women ending with "-shi" are almost always less than ideal) and in this case she actually has a separate, unrelated name by which she is better known. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

•  Comment: I am relisting for more discussion, as it seems as this discussion was just starting to be seen by others yesterday. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 21:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

@Zppix: What made you think that? It's a minor technical request (for which I only opened an RM discussion because it kinda-sorta involves diacritics) that no one opposed for six days, then I noticed that the reason I hadn't been able to make the move myself was because e page was recently moved by someone else, so I pinged that editor for comment, and they supported. No one "noticed" this discussion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.