Talk:Etiquette and Ceremonial

WP:ERA

Per WP:ERA, this edit established the usage of the page as (B)CE. Please try to maintain consistency and remember that CE (unlike AD) follows (and does not precede) the date. — LlywelynII 08:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Uncommon title

Does renaming Yili (text) as Etiquette and Rites violate the WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NC-ZH guidelines? This Ngram shows that "Yili" is the most common, while "Etiquette and Rites" is statistically insignificant compared to uncommon "Ceremonies and Rites", "Ceremonies and Rituals", and "Book of Etiquette and Ceremonial". Keahapana (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

No.

First, "violation" is a bit strong, considering the original title violated WP:USEENGLISH and MOS preferences for avoiding unneeded dabbing in titles. I used the preexisting translation in the article on the assumption it was already the most common, but if your Ngram suggests one of the other translations is better (Google stuff is a pain to run right now in China), that's peachy. If it's so uncommon as to qualify as WP:OR, certainly go with the actual most common.

As for the supposed "commonality" of Yili, though, try actually running the search. The vast majority of references have nothing to do with the Confucian classics. On the first page of my Google Book results, I have a Chinese-English dictionary, something in Turkish, more Turkish, someone named Yili, more Turkish, more names, and "Yili horses". And in fact, searches of dictionaries do not show this book to be a prominent use of the pinyin yili at all. I rebuilt the article and "仪礼" still does not show up as a suggestion when I type yili into my pinyin>汉字 program. It's just a really uncommon use.

I think the current title section covers this all quite well, but if one of the other translations does predominate, CTRL+H it in. Maybe the place to look – rather than vast searches of unrelated uses of terms – would be some of the authoritative translations. — LlywelynII 12:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Search at Google Scholar pulls up "Book of Etiquettes [sic] and Ceremonial", "Rites and ceremonies" [sic], "Ceremonious Rituals", "Etiquette and Ceremonial", "Yili" (several, but all in reference to Hu Peihui's article title), "Book of Etiquette and Ceremonial", "Rites", "The Study of the Rites", "Ceremonies and Rituals", "The book of ceremonies and rites" [sic], and "I li". So maybe a move to Etiquette and Ceremonial or Book of Etiquette and Ceremonial? but could use more poking around. — LlywelynII 13:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi LLywelynll, first I apologize if "violation" seems offensive or dickish. You are correct that various Google searches for yili refer to topics like Yili horse instead of the ritual text. WP:USEENGLISH says "Names not originally in a Latin alphabet, as with Greek, Chinese or Russian, must be transliterated into characters generally intelligible to literate speakers of English" unless there is a "common English form of the name, if there is one". Your list of GS translations (including "Etiquettes") clearly demonstrates the lack of a common translation for Yili. WP:NC-CHINA specifies, "The titles of Chinese entries should follow current academic conventions [Encyclopaedia Britannica has "Yili (Chinese ritual text)"], which generally means Hanyu Pinyin without tone marks. Exceptions would include: When there is clearly a more popular form in English (such as Yangtze River)." I agree that if there were one popular English term for 仪礼, we should use it, but there are only some uncommon translations. Would some title like "Yili (Chinese ritual text)" be better than "Yili (text)"? Lastly, I sympathize with being behind the Great Firewall, and could help you with a Google workaround. If you WP-email me a specific search, I will gladly send you the Ghit results. Keahapana (talk) 22:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I get what you're saying but seems like there's no firm consensus except to not just call it "The Yili". EB made an editorial call and maintained consistent titles at "Zhouli", "Yili", "Liji", "Wujing", &c. while following those with their translations and other common names. It's not an "academic convention" but a house rule.

Personally, as I already said, I see a soft consensus for some form of "Book of Etiquette and Ceremonial", although EB has "Ceremonies and Rituals" (and mistakenly translates Ili as though it were a different title – "Book of Ritual" – rather than the Wade for the same characters) and we could use more examples – particularly from translators of this work in whole or part. What did Legge call it? or anyone more recent? — LlywelynII 08:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, this site claims the only full English translation remains John Steele's (available at archive.org). He called it "The Book of Etiquette and Ceremonial"; so that or just "Etiquette and Ceremonial", pending some newer consensus? — LlywelynII 08:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Heh. And solved another mystery about where the current translation must've come from, although I agree given your Ngram work that Steele's version is better and more common. — LlywelynII 08:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

We cited different versions, sorry for the misunderstanding. The title is "Yili (Chinese ritual text)" in the digital reference version of the EB and "Yili" in the free online version. Yes, the Britannica house rule is consistent use of pinyin, and so is the Wikipedia guideline to use pinyin unless there is a more common English term. Since modern sinologists and historians give diverse English translations of Yili, there is no agreement within "current academic conventions". One 1922 Yili translation does not constitute "consensus", soft or hard. As you mention, many Google Scholar searches do not refer to the Chinese ritual text, but adding the Chinese title "儀禮" into the search finds 21 for "Yili", 15 for "Yi li", 5 for "I li", and 4 for "Etiquette and Ceremonial" – the pinyin is more common. Nevertheless, we can agree to disagree for now and leave the title question for other editors to resolve later. I am more concerned with the latest changes of the article's existing WP:PAREN citation format to footnotes. Please read WP:CITEVAR and discuss. Keahapana (talk) 23:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)