Jump to content

Talk:Art name

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Art-name)

Originated from China

[edit]

No doubt such form was originated from ancient China. (Buhuzu (talk) 05:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

According to Japanese wiki, it was first used by Li Bai, a Chinese poet in Tang Dynasty. (Buhuzu (talk) 05:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Title

[edit]

Probably it should be , rather than go.

Fixed. Noel (talk) 04:02, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Kanji/syllables?

[edit]

One can often track the relationship among artists with this, especially in later years, when it seems to have been fairly (although not uniformly) systematic (particularly in the Utagawa school) that the first syllable of the pupil's gō was the last syllable of the master's gō.

Thus, an artist named Toyoharu had a student named Toyohiro, who, in turn, had as a pupil the famous landscape artist Hiroshige.

Surely that should be "kanji" rather than "syllable"? Hiro, for example, is two syllable, but quite probably one kanji. Nik42 08:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are of course quite correct - hiro is a single kanji (廣), but two syllables. I used the term 'syllable' in an attempt to be easier for Western novices (who wouldn't know what a kanji is) to understand. Noel (talk) 19:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Go?

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Do not move. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1

[edit]

Art-name — More technically correct name. While (号) could technically have other meanings, "art-name" is not really a standard term; the Japanese term is in any case more correct. Every single time I have linked to this page, I have done so by writing [[art-name|gō]] and not [[art-name]]. LordAmeth 00:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.


  • Oppose Stick to the unambiguous title. An additional benefit is that I won't have to come back lateer and clean up after fools who make moves like this without getting them properly sorted in categories. 66.97.235.173 18:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC) That's me, Gene Nygaard 18:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
Add any additional comments:

Is the intended move really for lower case instead of ? Bendono 00:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since all articles on Wikipedia must begin with a capital letter, those are both technically the same article. (^_^) ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have added and to the Go disambiguation page. They may be changed after a decision is made. Something belongs at , but I will leave it alone for the time being. Bendono 00:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but do remember that one purpose of a dab page is to disambiguate links, and so links there should not be masked. No rush about this; let's see where this page winds up. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, something does belong at . What belongs there is a redirect to the disambiguation page at Go. 66.97.235.173 18:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC) that's me, Gene Nygaard 18:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wow

[edit]

This article name seems pretty awful. There are only two sources on the page, neither of which are linked or seem to support "art name". Is this a Japanese thing? or don't they typically say go the way that the Sinologists typically say hao?

"Pen name", I've seen. "Poetic name", I've seen. This, never. Any explanations? or sources? — LlywelynII 10:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cursory googling: 1 (!) result for the current name space.
3 for "literary name"
3 for "artistic name" (including the source for this page's name; seems he just forgot some letters the second time he wrote it...)
4 for "studio name"
49 for "pen name"
85 for "pseudonym"
Plenty (200, but almost all off topic) for "alias"
Plenty (2k, but mostly off topic) for go
Plenty (14k, but mostly off topic) for hao
I'm all against taking something from the Sinosphere and imposing a Japanese name on it (was this a WP:Japan project? it doesn't seem any of the editors above considered that at all) and, if it's very common in Japan, there's no rush to impose the Chinese name out of priority either. That said, the present name is a complete non-starter. (If we're just making things up, we should translate 号 as "mark" but that's an uncommon translation of this sense.) How do people feel about "pseudonym" versus "pen name"? or is there another common one I'm forgetting about? — LlywelynII 10:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've heard of nom de plume and pen name, and pseudonym (something different, really), but "art name", what is that? I'd agree with Llywelyn that this seems very odd, if not straightforward invention. We should get rid of it forthwith, and I don't even think it should have a redirect. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]