Talk:Nagaoka-kyō

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it.

Nagaokakyo (長岡京) is the same city as 'Nagaokakyo, Kyoto.' While the historical boundaries and modern boundaries are slightly different, they are most certainly the same location and the modern city encompasses the older famous sites of the capital such as Shoryuji Castle, Nagaoka Tenmangu, and Komyoji temple.

I suggest that we merge the two together so as to not confuse people into thinking that they are separate.

-Joshua Maciel 11:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

YES: In my view, this is an excellent time to merge these two articles -- at the same time that an exhibit is closing at the Japan National Historical Museum. This special exhibit focused attention on the historical capital city in the 8th century; and it will be closing in December.

• Japan National Historical Museum exhibit

I myself am a bit unclear about what would be involved; but I would be glad to volunteer to help someone who knew a little bit more than me .... --Ooperhoofd (talk) 23:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. They are completely divided by 1,178 years (794 to 1972) of time, during which no city called Nagaokakyō existed. Although the areas of two cities overlap, boundaries are quite different; the ancient capital was far larger than the present city and covered present-day Mukō and a part of Kyoto. --Sushiya (talk) 06:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree -- User:Sushiya raises a good point; and this perhaps underscores something I guess I haven't quite understood and parsed adequately. I assumed that it made sense to combine the material which has been posted about these two municipalities. My thinking was that the text should be combined until the scope of the merged article made it reasonable to separate them again at some point in the future. My view is informed by the following:

• There are today two distinct articles about Edo and Tokyo, but the pre-2005 Wikipedia considered these distinct municipalities as a single merged subject. The scope of the article developed over time; and then the two separate articles were established.
• There are today two distinct articles about the pre-Meiji Naidaijin (内大臣, Naidaijin^?) and the Meiji period Lord Keeper of the Privy Seal of Japan, which is also "Nadaijin"(内大臣). At one point in early 2007, it would have made sense for the two articles to have been combined; but now that the substance of both have evolved sufficiently, I think that a merge would be unhelpful.

I'm not disagreeing with Sushiya when I think it makes sense to merge these articles about two historically distinct Nagaoka-kyō municipalities. Rather, I'm assessing what I imagine to be the best way to ensure the optimal rate of growth towards a time in the future when the subject will be more fully developed .... Do you see my point? Two relevant factors to be considered are: (1) Will the rate growth be greater with merged or separate articles? (2) Will the distinctions between the historical municipality and the modern municipality be more clearly drawn with merged or separate articles?

If I'm mistaken in this way of perceiving Wikipedia as a growing, evolving entity, please help me understand why and how I'm missing something crucial. If I'm wrong here, a better appreciation of the factors involved might well affect how I respond to future suggestions like the one Joshua Maciel made several months ago. In other words -- if my thinking is a bit muddled here, then I'm looking forward to learning how I should approach have approached this issue in a different manner. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 16:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I am also opposed against merging the two posts together. To my knowledge, the present municipality derived its name from the Nagaoka Tenmangu shrine located on its territorry and not the capital (of which the major part and the government offices were located in present Mukō).^[1] As Sushiya has pointed out, prior to 1972 there was no city called Nagaoka-kyō. From 1949 until 1972 the city was called Nagaoka-chō, and prior to that there were three separate villages, none of which were known as 'Nagaoka'.^[2]

Also I would like to stress that Shōryūji Castle, Nagaoka Tenmangū, and Kōmyōji temple all postdate the Nagaoka capital and cannot be labelled "older famous sites of the capital" (Joshua Maciel). Shōryūji Castle is believed to have been constructed by Hosokawa Yoriharu in 1339, Nagaoka Tenmangū was only constructed after the exile of Sugawara no Michizane at the beginning of the 10th century, and Kōmyōji temple was constructed on a site where Hōnen (1133-1212) used to live.

I understand the issue of growth rate. However, since the majority of the sites pertaining to the Nagaoka capital are located in Mukō rather than Nagaokakyō, one could also argue to merge the entry on the Nagaoka capital with that of Mukō. As the wiki entries are now, with the modern cities as separate entries and cross-referencing to the entry on the capital, I believe there is sufficient clarity and opportunity to add to the entries. Also it avoids confusion as to where the information on the Nagaoka capital should be added.

On a final note, there is actually a forthcoming book on the Nagaoka capital: Ellen Van Goethem, 2008, Nagaoka: Japan's Forgotten Capital, Leiden: Brill.--Tsuruhime (talk) 02:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose in context presented by Tsuruhime. --Tenmei (talk) 13:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Given that many months have passed since the merge was first proposed, I think it has become clear that these two articles will evolve separately. Further opposition to this merge, see Talk:Nagaokakyō, Kyoto#Merging two articles about Nagaokakyo. --Tenmei (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

ISSUE RESOLVED -- NO MERGE