Talk:Liu Ju

Jiang, I think that the Liu Ju article should start with his personal name -- because although people might not immediately know who "Liu Ju" is, far fewer people would know who "Crown Prince Li" is (in English or Chinese). Was there a reason to change the order? --Nlu 08:45, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm basing it on wikipedia convention to start biographies with the full name. Jimmy Carter begins with "James Earl...."--Jiang 09:07, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But in this case, Crown Prince Li is not a full name; it's a posthumous name. I don't see an analogy. Can you elaborate? --Nlu 09:08, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

by "full name" I mean "formal name". A posthumous name, not the personal name, is the name by which a person is properly known in all contexts. Mary, Queen of Scots is seldom "Mary I". I don't see what's wrong with starting the article is the full proper name as is done everywhere else in wikipedia. The article's location is another matter. --Jiang 04:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

However, the convention here appears to be going by "common name," and you're rarely going to hear Liu Ju being referred to as Crown Prince Li. For example, Liu Bei (before I touched it, and it is still that way after I touched it) starts as "Liu Bei," not as "Emperor Zhaolie of Shu Han." --Nlu 04:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

im probably wrong on the convention. (solly!) but i think "(戾太子) (literally, "the Unrepentent Crown Prince")" should be done within the same parenthesis instead of two. two parenthesis closing and opening in succession is unsightly.

we should probably codify the convention for Chinese-related articles at Wikipedia:History standards for China-related articles (this seems to be already done for the qing)--Jiang 17:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]