User talk:Enkyo2/Kakitsu 嘉吉 1441

Jitō (period)?
I've just created the article for the era of Shuchō. The list here, along with the information presented at ja:朱鳥 seem to indicate that the era spanned roughly 16 years, being followed by Taihō. However, my "Japan Encyclopedia" by Louis Frederic indicates that it instead lasted less than a year, being followed by the Jitō era which was in turn followed by Taihō. What's up here? LordAmeth 18:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * fr:Utilisateur:Sixsous from the French Wikipedia introduced me to an online nengō conversion website which is maintained as part of the Japanese studies program at the German University of Tübingen at http://www.uni-tuebingen.de/geschichte-japans/nengo_calc.htm.


 * This "Nengōcalc" software proposes plausible subdivisions within the otherwise undifferentiated 38-year time-span of Hakuchi:
 * 650 白雉 Hakuchi (era) ... Duration not consistent with Japanese Wikipedia; and
 * alternate era /period chronology is proposed for use + added 29 Jul 07, Tübingen/Tsuchihashi source
 * 655 斉明 Saimei (era) /Saimei (period) ... empress' reign, 655-661+ added 29 Jul 07, Tübingen/Tsuchihashi source
 * 662 天智 Tenji (era) /Tenji (period) ... emperor's reign, 661-672+ added 29 Jul 07, Tübingen/Tsuchihashi source
 * 672 弘文 Kōbun (era) /Kōbun (period) ... emperor's reign, 672+ added 29 Jul 07, Tübingen/Tsuchihashi source
 * 673 天武 Temmu (era) /Temmu (period) ... emperor's reign, 672-686+ added 29 Jul 07, Tübingen/Tsuchihashi source
 * 686 朱鳥 Shuchō ... Duration not consistent with Japanese Wikipedia; and
 * alternate era /period chronology is proposed for use + added 29 Jul 07, Tübingen/Tsuchihashi source
 * 687 持統 Jitō (era) /Jitō (period) ... empress' reign, 686-697+ added 29 Jul 07, Tübingen/Tsuchihashi source
 * 697 文武 Mommu (era) /Mommu (period) ... emperor's reign, 697-707+ added 29 Jul 07, Tübingen source
 * 701 大宝 Taihō (era)


 * This suggests a plausible reason for seeking consensus about incorporating these additional options within the ambit of Japanese era names? Ooperhoofd 19:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I notice that the German Wikipedia includes the following additions to its list of pre-Taika nengō:
 * 660 v. Chr. 神武 Jimmu (era) ... emperor's reign (proximal)
 * 581 v. Chr. 綏靖 Suizei (era) ... emperor's reign (proximal)
 * 549 v. Chr. 安寧 Annei (era) ... emperor's reign (proximal)
 * 510 v. Chr. 懿徳 Itoku (era) ... emperor's reign (proximal)
 * 475 v. Chr. 孝昭 Kōshō (era) ... emperor's reign (proximal)
 * 392 v. Chr. 孝安 Kōan (era) ... emperor's reign (proximal)
 * 290 v. Chr. 孝霊 Kōrei (era) ... emperor's reign (proximal)
 * 214 v. Chr. 孝元 Kōgen (era) ... emperor's reign (proximal)
 * 157 v. Chr. 開化 Kaika (era) ... emperor's reign (proximal)
 * 97 v. Chr. 崇神 Sujin (era) ... emperor's reign (proximal)
 * 29 v. Chr. 垂仁 Suinin (era) ... emperor's reign (proximal)
 * 71 景行 Keikō (era) ... emperor's reign (proximal)
 * 131 成務 Seimu (era) ... emperor's reign (proximal)
 * 192 仲哀 Chūai (era) ... emperor's reign (proximal)
 * 270 応神 Ōjin (era) ... emperor's reign (proximal)
 * 313 仁徳 Nintoku (era) ... emperor's reign (proximal)
 * 400 履中 Richū (era) ... emperor's reign (proximal)
 * 406 反正 Hanzei (era) ... emperor's reign (proximal)
 * 411 允恭 Ingyō (era) ... emperor's reign (proximal)
 * 453 安康 Ankō (era) ... emperor's reign (proximal)
 * 456 雄略 Yūryaku (era) ... emperor's reign (proximal)
 * 480 清寧 Seinei (era) ... emperor's reign (proximal)
 * 485 顕宗 Kenzō (era) ... emperor's reign (proximal)
 * 488 仁賢 Ninken (era) ... emperor's reign (proximal)
 * 498 武烈 Buretsu (era) ... emperor's reign (proximal)
 * 507 継体 Keitai (era) ... emperor's reign (proximal)
 * 531 安閑 Ankan (era) ... emperor's reign (proximal)
 * 536 宣化 Senka (era) ... emperor's reign (proximal)
 * 540 欽明 Kinmei (era) /Kimmei (period) ... emperor's reign, 539-571+ added 31 Jul 07, Tübingen/Zöllner source
 * 572 敏達 Bidatsu (era) /Bidatsu (period) ... emperor's reign, 572-585+ added 31 Jul 07, Tübingen/Zöllner source
 * 585 用明 Yōmei (era) /Yōmei (period) ... emperor's reign, 585-587+ added 31 Jul 07, Tübingen/Zöllner source
 * 587 崇峻 Sushun (era) /Sushun (period) ... emperor's reign, 587-592+ added 31 Jul 07, Tübingen/Zöllner source
 * 593 推古 Suiko (era) /Suiko (period) ... emperor's reign, 593-628+ added 31 Jul 07, Tübingen/Tsuchihashi source
 * 629 舒明 Jomei (era) /Jomei (period) ... emperor's reign, 629-641+ added 31 Jul 07, Tübingen/Tsuchihashi source
 * 642 皇極 Kōgyoku (era) /Kōgyoku (period) ... emperor's reign, 642-645+ added 31 Jul 07, Tübingen/Tsuchihashi source
 * I wonder if there a plausible reason for seeking consensus about incorporating these additional options within the ambit of Japanese era names? At this point, I'm not personally eager to delve too much into pre-Jomei history; but the question implied by the German Wikipedia seems relevant nevertheless. Ooperhoofd 19:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * In this context, maybe it's a good idea to mention a question about something missing in the 38-year span of years which the English Wikipedia now identifies as being with the Hakuchi era?
 * 645 大化 Taika 6-year duration (congruent in de-, en-, es-, fr-, ja-, nl-Wikipedia pages)
 * 650 白雉 Hakuchi 37-year duration (congruent in de-, en-, es-, fr-, ja-, nl-Wikipedia pages)
 * 686 朱鳥 Shuchō 16-year duration (congruent in de-, en-, es-, fr-, ja-, nl-Wikipedia pages)
 * 701 大宝 Taihō 4-year duration (congruent in de-, en-, es-, fr-, ja-, nl-Wikipedia pages)
 * My curiosity has a context in Brown and Ishida's translation of Gukanshō:
 * "These era names fell in the Temmu reign: (1) Suzaku, which was one year long [672]. (It began in mizunoe-saru.) (2) Hakuhō, which was 13 years long [673-686]. (It began in Mizunoe-saru, the year Suzaku began.  Did both begin in the same year?) And (3) Suchō, which was eight years long [686-694].  (One year of this era fell within the Temmu reign.)" -- Brown, Gukanshō, at p. 269.


 * At this point, my guess would be that the English Wikipedia would be best served by incorporating both the suggested additions from (a) the University of Tübingen's web site and (b) the current iteration of the German Wikipedia, but I think we can safely leave aside any other similar concerns for another day, perhaps in 2008? Ooperhoofd 19:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow. You've really done a lot of work with this. Please, go ahead and make whatever changes you think appropriate. LordAmeth 23:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

ATTENTION: If anyone checks here, I did add the Tübingen-proposed eras today in the context of this exchange with User:LordAmeth. Also, I did remove the piping from every era name which would remain otherwise unchanged. These are quite enough changes for one day. Better to let this settle for a while, thus giving more people a change to comment or to suggest alternatives. In my view, any questions of further (pre-Taika) additions are best left for another day -- perhaps in September. Ooperhoofd 23:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Consulting the Japanese Wikipedia, we discover anomolies at the end of the 7th century -- that is to say (1) between the Hakuchi era and the Shuchō era, and also (2) between the Shuchō era and the Taihō era.


 * 開始年_________________________________
 * (西暦)__元号名___読み_______年数___改元事由
 * 645年____大化___たいか_______ 6___Taika (era)
 * 650年____白雉___はくち_______ 5___Hakuchi (era)
 * 654年____廃止___
 * 686年____朱鳥___しゅちょう____ 1___Shuchō
 * 686年____廃止___
 * 701年____大宝___たいほう______ 4___Taihō (era)


 * I wonder if this small tidbit of information might have some utility? Ooperhoofd 19:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Examples of Homonyms
The eras of Japan encompass 16 emamples of homonymns. It becomes a problem of finding the best way of differentiating amongst them. A number of attempts have been made, but that doesn't necessarily mean the end of our problems. I you have a useful idea, good -- the future of this Widipedia is yours. Be BOLD in proposing a better way to handle this small problem.

The French Wikipedia is handling the homonyms in a unique way, but the English Wikipedia is handling this same issue in a different way. I personally don't really like the French option, but it is clear and it is consistent. Unfortunately, I have no ideas about how to handle this in any better way. In this context, does it make any sense to propose re-visiting any of the decisions which have already been made in the context of our English-language Wikipedia? Ooperhoofd 16:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Eishō, 2 homonyms

 * ère Eishō (1046 - 1053) (永承)
 * en:Eishō (Heian period)
 * ère Eishō (1504 - 1521) (永正)
 * en:Eishō (Muromachi period)
 * REDIRECTS ...?

Jōgen, 2 homonyms

 * ère Jōgen (976 - 978) (貞元)
 * en:Jōgen (Heian period) -- created 6 August 2007
 * ère Jōgen (1207 - 1211) (承元)
 * en:Jōgen (Kamakura period) -- created 6 August 2007


 * REDIRECTS
 * Jogen--->Jōgen -- disambiguation
 * Jōgen-- disambiguation --->Jōgen (Heian period) + Talk:Jōgen (Heian period)
 * Jōgen-- disambiguation --->Jōgen (Kamakura period) + Talk:Jōgen (Kamakura period)
 * Jogen (first)--->Jōgen (Heian period)

Jōō, 2 homonyms

 * ère Jōō (1222 - 1224) (貞応)
 * en:Jōō (Kamakura period) -- created 27 July 2007
 * ère Jōō (1652 - 1655) (承応)
 * en: Jōō (Edo period) -- created 27 July 2007
 * REDIRECTS ...?

Kōan, 2 homonyms

 * ère Kōan (1278 - 1288) (弘安)
 * en:Kōan (Kamakura period) --created August 7, 2007
 * ère Kōan (1361 - 1362) (康安)
 * en:Kōan (Muromachi period) -- created August 7, 2007
 * REDIRECTS ...?

Kōji, 2 homonyms

 * ère Kōji (1142 - 1144) (康治)
 * en: Kōji (Heian period) -- created August 8, 2007
 * ère Kōji (1555 - 1558) (弘治)
 * en: Kōji (Muromachi period) -- created August 8, 2007
 * REDIRECTS
 * Kōji--->Koji-- disambiguation
 * Koji-- disambiguation --->Kōji (Heian period) + Talk:Kōji (Heian period)
 * Koji-- disambiguation --->Kōji (Muromachi period) + Talk:Kōji (Muromachi period)
 * Kōji (first)--->Kōji (Heian period)
 * Koji (era)--->Kōji (Muromachi period)
 * Koji (era)--->Kōji (Muromachi period)

Kōwa, 2 homonyms

 * ère Kōwa (1099 - 1104) (康和)
 * en:Kōwa(Heian period)
 * ère Kōwa (1381 - 1384) (弘和)
 * en:Kōwa (Muromachi period)
 * REDIRECTS ...?

Shōwa, 2 homonyms

 * ère Shōwa (1312 - 1317) (正和)
 * en:Shōwa (Kamakura period)
 * ère Shōwa (1926 - 1989) (昭和)
 * en:Shōwa (Shōwa period)
 * REDIRECTS ...?

Tenshō, 2 homonyms

 * ère Tenshō (1131 - 1132) (天承)
 * en:Tenshō (Heian period) ???
 * ère Tenshō (1573 - 1592) (天正)
 * en:Tenshō (Momoyama period) ???
 * REDIRECTS ...?

Chronology of 16 homonym pairs

 * 976_   貞元 |Jōgen (976 - 978)
 * 1046 永承 |Eishō (1046 - 1053)
 * 1099 康和 |Kōwa (1099 - 1104)
 * 1131 天承 |Tenshō (1131 - 1132)
 * 1142 康治 |Kōji (1142 - 1144)
 * 1207 承元 |Jōgen (1207 - 1211)
 * 1222 貞応 |Jōō (1222 - 1224)
 * 1278 弘安 |Kōan (1278 - 1288)
 * 1312 正和 |Shōwa (1312 - 1317)
 * 1361 康安 |Kōan (1361 - 1362)
 * 1504 永正 |Eishō (1504 - 1521)
 * 1555 弘治 |Kōji (1555 - 1558)
 * 1573 天正 |Tenshō (1573 - 1592)
 * 1652 承応 |Jōō (1652 - 1655)
 * 1926 昭和 |Shōwa (1926 - 1989)-- Emperor Shōwa

I guess the question becomes: What should be done? Ooperhoofd 16:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the current system of disambiguating by period (e.g. Heian, Kamakura, Muromachi, etc.) seems just fine to me - none of the homonym pairs land within the same time period. Though, the French model does look a bit cleaner in the sense that it describes directly the years involved. I suppose that anyone looking for one or the other of a given homonym pair would know which period it's in - otherwise, if they are *that* unfamiliar with Japanese history, why would they be looking for it? ... Either system is fine with me, as long as we're consistent about it. It shouldn't really pose a big problem - we just need to decide upon a set standard form and then apply it. Thanks again for all your work. LordAmeth 00:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback. Personally, I have no preferences -- but it is a fact that our rational choice was not immediately obvious to the French.  As yet, other non-English Wikipedias have not reached even tentative decisions about this kind of comparatively trivial issue.  In those undefined contexts, this section of en:Talk:Japanese era name becomes practical and useful model, because it documents a process used by those interested in expressing a view.  Equally important, we do something today to ensure that the current conventions of our English-language Wikipedia will continue to be open questions which may be re-visited in the future. Ooperhoofd 02:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree with LordAmeth. They should just be differentiated using eras. But we should also keep in mind that era names are primarily going to be used by people who already understand enough Japanese to be able to differentiate them anyway, since they are primarily used in Japanese texts to begin with. I think most western historians will just use western years, and if they do use Japanese eras, the context in which they are used will make it clear when it is (i.e. nobody is going to rely on the era name alone without specifying what year they are talking about in western years). Therefore, this is really only a naming problem in Wikipedia, not a practical problem. And for that purpose, I think it is fine to adopt LordAmeth's suggestion, but perhaps useful to also create redirects too other systems as well.-Jefu 17:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)