Talk:Eiheiji Temple

The temple is an attraction of the village. We write articles about destinations, such as villages, and have temples in the article as an attraction. I am moving the article to Eiheiji for that reason. If the article about Eiheiji gets too dominated by the temple, maybe then it can have its own article - though you go to the village to see the temple - right? So maybe not. -- (WT-en) Huttite 03:25, 15 Jan 2006 (EST)


 * I probably didn't explain well, but the village outside Eiheiji Temple is basically a line of shops and a few hotels serving visitors to the monastery. It is definitely not an attraction, and I think historically it didn't exist. Eiheiji is in a very isolated part of Japan, so any visitors making the effort to get there will do so to see the monastery itself, not the concrete village outside. Anyway, I'll leave it up to you to decide the title for the article. (WT-en) WindHorse 15 Jan 06


 * I was wrong. According to Wikipedia, "as of 2003 Eiheiji town has an estimated population of 6,520". It has been many years since I visited the area, and maybe I passed through in meditational bliss and didn't see the town. Definitely, the sole attraction there is the temple, but the town is bigger than I thought and so could be used as a title. Anyway, as I said earlier, I leave the decision up to you. (WT-en) WindHorse 15 Jan 06


 * The -ji of Eiheiji already means "temple", so for reasons of redundancy alone I'd favor plain ol' Eiheiji. (WT-en) Jpatokal 04:46, 15 Jan 2006 (EST)


 * Yeah, that's true. However, because the ji (寺) has become such an itegeral part of the title, it sounds strange when omitted. I notice the subject 'Eiheiji Temple' has ten times more listing on google than 'Eihei Tample', but still its better to be correct and lead the crowd than incorrect and follow the crowd. So, 'Eiheiji' it is. (WT-en) WindHorse 15 Jan 06


 * Nono, I'm not arguing for Eihei Temple, I'm arguing for "Eiheiji" (cf. a really long and tedious discussion on Wikipedia). (WT-en) Jpatokal 06:45, 15 Jan 2006 (EST)


 * Yes, that is a long and tedious discussion, but I read it and the conclusions make sense. Simple old 'Eiheiji' is fine with me. Thanks for pointing me in the direction of the discussion. (WT-en) WindHorse 15 Jan 06


 * I was suggesting the temple as being the attraction of the place. The fact that a line of shops has appeared on the street outside the temple gates to cater for visitors, and both are then called the same name, is how places get named. What we are documenting is the current situation the traveler will find and how it fits in with our article writing style. As I saw it, this article was about a change in focus, from just the temple, to the whole place. By the sound of it, that was actually a good move but for completely different reasons. -- (WT-en) Huttite 16:20, 15 Jan 2006 (EST)