Talk:Art name

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

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 gō, 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 → Gō — More technically correct name. While gō (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 ~~~~.


  • Support... this is not a direct translation anyway. No one would search for the article here. Dekimasu 01:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral per Kusunose's comment and my response below. Dekimasu 11:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. BlankVerse 05:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as stated; conflicts with go, which is a disambiguation page. Having go and gō as separate articles is technically feasible but undesirable; it will confuse the search engine and our readers, and this is not even a primary use of the word. I would support go (pen-name), or gō (pen-name). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - is it really a penname? haimyō (俳名) or ペンネーム is a penname. LordAmeth 23:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I do not see how they conflict. Gō could easily be added to the existing Go disambiguation page. Spell it correctly as Gō and you are at the actual article. Misspell it as Go and you are at the disambiguation page and from there you find the real article. Bendono 00:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I am going to have to agree with Bendono this time. I don't see how they conflict or how they could confuse anyone. No one is going to link accidentally to a macronned form, and no one is going to search accidentally for a macronned form. Dekimasu 09:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose — Go is already occupied by a disambiguation page. WP:DAB applies here, meaning Gō should rather redirect to Go, and so this article should be moved to something like Gō (art-name) instead. See Do on how disambiguation is done in such cases.--Endroit 08:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Can you explain why Gō should redirect to Go? The macronned form should be added to the Go dab page, but I see nothing that conflicts with the macronned form. As far as I know, WP:DAB has nothing to say about this. Dekimasu 09:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • (continued) If anything, the applicable section would be WP:DAB#Specific topic, which suggests that the macronned form would be fine. Dekimasu 09:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The average person does not know the difference between the letter "ō" (with a macron) and the letter "o" (without). Hence there is "risk of confusion", mentioned in WP:DAB. The situation is similar to Noel and Noël which are proposed to be merged.--Endroit 10:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • However, while Noël and Noel cover pretty much the same topic (and thus ought to be merged anyway), go and gō do not. The average reader may not understand the significance of the macron, but they will certainly recognize it as not being the "normal" writing of the letter, and thus not what they are looking for. If I were looking for Chess, I would not click on "Cheß." LordAmeth 11:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Gō is hardly a uniquely identifying article name in English and in Japanese. Plus, the Japanese romanization Gō is ALWAYS interchangeable with Go. I already find another example of Gō in Hiromi Go. So you'd have to disambiguate anyways. Gō would be too ambiguous, and a bad name for this article. Again, I suggest something like Gō (art-name) instead.--Endroit 12:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • And if Endroit is correct on the romanization, go (board game) is a better claimant to the simple name. Better to leave things alone. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I must clarify here that the CONVERSE is not always true. (ie: The Japanese romanization Go is NOT always interchangeable with Gō.) For example go (board game) is only romanized as "go", but never "gō". But the topic of this article can go both ways, and can be romanized as either "go" or "gō".--Endroit 19:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • That the converse isn't true is why the proposed title doesn't conflict with the disambiguation page Go. If there was any risk of confusion, a {{redirect}} tag would eliminate it. Dekimasu 07:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • The situation is similar to León and Léon, which both redirect to a sole disambiguation page Leon. Gō should likewise redirect to Go. There is no reason to keep a separate disambiguation page just for Gō. And there is even less reason to move this page to Gō, because primary usage of Gō for Art-name has never been established or proven.--Endroit 11:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - ambiguous, need better name (or with a parenthesized term for disambiguation). The proposed name would conflict with the article about gou (合), a Japanese unit of measurement, which should have been named "gō" per WP:MOS-JP#Romanisation. --Kusunose 09:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That article was already transwikied to Wiktionary and I doubt it has any prospects for expansion. We don't have articles on its brother measurements that are 10 or 100 times larger, so I don't see why this one is necessary. As it stands, however, you are right. Dekimasu 11:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Japanese article ja:合 has more information. I think it can be expanded in similar manner to shaku and koku. --Kusunose 11:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as any disambiguation needs would be handled by the Go article, and a disambiguation link to Go at the top of the Gō article would be sufficient to alleviate any confusion on the part of anyone visiting the page. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Gō is a general term that means pseudonym and title. It doesn't mean only art-name. For example:
    • Yagyū Sekishusai Muneyoshi (swordsman), "Sekishusai" is his gō.
    • Takuan Soho (monk), "Takuan" is his gō (道号 dōgō).
    • Akishino-no-miya Fumihito shinnō (Prince), "Akishino-no-miya" is his (family's) gō (宮号 miyagō).
    • Reigizan Tenryū-ji (temple), "Reigizan" is a gō (山号 sangō).
    • Hokusai (artist) is one of his gō (雅号 gagō). Gagō is art-name.
    • Matsuo Bashō (haiku poet), "Bashō" is his gō (俳号 haigō or 俳名 haimyō). Haigō is included in gagō. MMTD 16:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: This would seem to be more of an argument to support this move. If the article is moved, then it could be expanded to include the other meanings of the word, which would in turn make a better article, IMHO. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The Japanese Wiki article Gō (ja:号) is a disambiguation page. You can incorporate all the information from that page into this article. But then you'll just end up making this page a pseudo-disambiguation page as well.--Endroit 19:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support My reasons are given above. Regardless of the move outcome, either the article or a redirect should exist at Gō. Also, something needs to be added to Go. I would have never found this article under the current title. Bendono 01:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with all Bendono's comments but the support; Gō should redirect to Go, and this page should be a disambiguated form of one of them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 gō instead of Gō? 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 Gō and Gō to the Go disambiguation page. They may be changed after a decision is made. Something belongs at Gō, 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 Gō. 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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Art_name&oldid=1205370285"