Talk:Jiajing Emperor

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Can the tones be indicated somehow?

Genealogy[edit]

Would it not be appropriate to describe his specific genealogy? Was his father a younger son of the Chenghua Emperor, or was his connection more distant? john k (talk) 16:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to "The Ritual Formation of Confucian Orthodoxy and the Descendants of the Sage"[1], p569, the Jiajing emperor "insisted on bestowing the title of emperor on his natal father and grandfather (who never actually served as rulers)", so it must be a more remote connection. I'll have a dig and see what I can find out. Gonzonoir (talk) 10:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
His father, Chu Yu-yüan (1476-1519), the Prince of Hsing, was the fourth son of the Ch'eng-hua emperor (r. 1465-1487) and the eldest son of three sons born to the emperor's concubine, Lady Shao. That's taken from The Cambridge History of China (1988), edited by Mote and Twitchett, Volume 7 Part 1, Chapter 7 (which chapter is written by James Geiss) Page 440

--Quywompka (talk) 09:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jiajing Emperor. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 06:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 August 2018[edit]

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: Consensus not to move (All the IP votes are by the nominator, per this Sockpuppet report), therefore, not moved. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 12:22, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Jiajing Emperor → Zhu Houcong (Emperor Shizong of Ming) – This article mainly talks about Zhu Houcong, Emperor Shizong of the Ming dynasty, but there is an article which has a similar title "Jiaqing Emperor" and mainly talks about Aisin Gioro Yongyan, Emperor Renzong of the Qing dynasty, in English Wikipedia. In order to distinguish from each other, I think it is a good idea to change this article's title to "Zhu Houcong (Emperor Shizong of Ming)". 111.194.18.194 (talk) 07:44, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because the two articles' original titles are so similar (the difference is only the fourth letter "j" and "q"), I decide to distinguish between the two emperors by using their birth names and temple names. It can also make the distinguish template unnecessary. In conclusion, my proposal can distinguish between the two emperors better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.194.18.194 (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There is no need to go against the various naming conventions and consistency issues when the distinguish template does a good enough job. Let's not try to solve a problem that doesn't exist. _dk (talk) 18:47, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Reason mentioned above. To _dk: please read the comment made by 111.194.18.194 above carefully. You will know what he or she means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.121.173.87 (talk) 02:58, 26 August 2018 (UTC) (Striking !vote, as this is a duplicate of the IP user's creation of this proposal – see the outcome of the SPI discussion). Impru20talk 17:07, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Both the IP that introduced this request and this IP are located in the same city and began editing the day of these requests, with edits only pertaining to a single interconnected set of move discussions. The IP here also filed a similar move request with identical editing idiosyncrasies (including adding the new request to the top of the talk page instead of the bottom) that may indicate a connection between the user(s) of these IP addresses. Dekimasuよ! 15:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Reason mentioned above. In addition, what do you think about the proposal put forward by 111.194.18.194, Dekimasu? You should focus on the page-moved proposal here, instead of the irrelevant behaviour of 111.194.18.194. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.124.233.241 (talk) 16:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC) (Striking !vote, as this is a duplicate of the IP user's creation of this proposal – see the outcome of the SPI discussion). Impru20talk 17:07, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes your behaviour is very relevant. I suggest you to read WP:SOCKPUPPET. What you're doing can get you banned and does not help you move the pages you want to move. _dk (talk) 17:02, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is 111.194.18.194's behaviour, not mine. I just want to say that this discussion is about the moving the page, instead of the user's behaviour. Please understand the key point of this discussion––just moving the page, not others.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.124.233.241 (talk) 05:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, you can keep pretending, but your actions will just result in the proposals being thrown out. There is no discussions to be had with sockpuppets here. _dk (talk) 07:46, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please notice that I am the user 123.124.233.241, an innocent user. I repeat my proclamation here: That is 111.194.18.194's behaviour, not mine. I just want to say that this discussion is about the moving the page, instead of the user's behaviour. The user's behaviour is a sparated issue and will be administrated by the administrators, not you. We only talk about the page-moved proposal here. I know you oppose the proposal, but please focus on the proposal itself, instead of talking about the irrelevant things so long to disturb this discussion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.124.233.241 (talk) 09:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Using sockpuppetry to try to give the impression of more support for a position than actually exists is not allowed, nor more than one account should be used in a way that suggests they are multiple people. This behaviour is pretty much relevant. Impru20talk 14:46, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please read my comment above carefully. I am innocent. If you think the user 111.194.18.194 disobeyed the rules of Wikipedia, please talk with the administrators or the user himself or herself. We only talk about the page-moved proposal here. I know you oppose the proposal, but please focus on the proposal itself, instead of making snowball (in other word, disturb this discussion) to talk about the user's behaviour, which is irrelevant to the page-moved proposal itself. Finally, let's back to the page-moved proposal itself. Thanks!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.124.233.241 (talk) 15:11, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose not convinced the current name is the best, but the suggested change is clearly worse. The IP edits are concerning. The minimal difference between "Jiajing" and "Jiaqing" is not a reason to move. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. Due to the minimal difference between "Jiajing Emperor" and "Jiaqing Emperor" (only the fourth letter), and the dynasties which the two emperors lived in (Ming dynasty and Qing dynasty) are too close, I support the page-moved proposal. I agree that it is necessary to distinguish them by their birth names and temple names. If we continue to obey the rules of Wikipedia mentioned above, the two emperors will still be confused.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.124.233.241 (talk) 10:36, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Nominator has been blocked for sockpuppetry. Now that's been put aside, it seems the nominator's only response to the opposition was "please read and you will understand". This condescension is in line with the nominator's string of page move proposals: it assumes people can't read properly (whether it be the nomination or the {{distinguish}} hatnote), and that people cannot differentiate between the letters 'j' and 'q'. _dk (talk) 17:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Death[edit]

The Jiajing Emperor died in December 1566 or January 1567? Both dates appear in the article. Please clarify. 37.223.167.218 (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead is too long[edit]

For the editor who makes the lead edit, please follow MOS:LEADLENGTH Danial Bass (talk) 11:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jiajing_Emperor&oldid=1211597271"