Talk:Rajōmon

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

Suggestion of moving the article[edit]

The name of the gate was Rajomon(羅城門), not Rashomon(羅生門). Akutagara wrote a novel "Rashomon", and Kurosawa directed a film of the novel. The character 城 means castle(or city), and 生 means life. Akutagawa may have changed the character to express life and death. The article is about the gate itself, so I suggest to move the article to Rajomon.--Mochi 19:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

城門 is pronounced じょうもん(jōmon), but I'm not sure 羅城門 was definitely always らじょうもん(rajōmon). Google hits are split, and the 2005 manga Otogi Zōshi by Narumi Seto, which is set in the Heian period, definitely has furigana らしょうもん(rashōmon) for 羅城門 on page 49 and other pages. There may have been a pronunciation change sometime in history; it may have to do with the dakuten (and its associate voiced sounds) not being part of the phonology or writing system back then. pfahlstrom 00:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this included in Mythical/Sacred Locations of Japanese Mythology?[edit]

The article doesn't make any mention of Japanese mythology other than citing an obscure legend. Either the place of this gate in hte mythology should be expressed, or it should be removed from the Japanese Mythology series. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.0.124.130 (talk • contribs).

Image[edit]

The image on jaWiki [1] is a much better shot showing the entire pole and the fence, and it's under GFDL, though it's not on commons so I recommend copying it over here.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  04:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By all means do. My old photo is ready to be retired. Fg2 04:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just added the second photo. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rashōmon vs. Rajōmon[edit]

After further study, I believe this article should be at Rajōmon. The Japanese article uses "Rajōmon" exclusively. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Fg2 09:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Correct or not, Rashōmon is the most common pronounciation used in English, not unlike Godzilla instead of Gojira. A note should be made of the pronounciation, but the title should be kept as it is. MightyAtom 04:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Godzilla" is the official Japanese romanization of his name. It is not the same thing. ww elvenscout742 (talk) 07:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's the most common pronunciation of the Kurosawa film and perhaps the Akutagawa novel (although English has no macron). The gate itself is not so widely known that English matters. So I still favor the "j" for the gate. Fg2 10:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Even Kyoto's official site [2] calls the gate "Rajomon" in English). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well my Japanese wife says that the most common pronounciation is Rashōmon...I just asked her. :P I think most people looking this up would know the term Rashōmon from the book and movie. I am not opposed to moving it, so long as there is a re-direct for misplaced searches. MightyAtom 11:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another well-known Japanese movie, though not as well-known as the Kurosawa film, uses Rajomon. elvenscout742 (talk) 03:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So far I am not convinced about a Rajomon, because I think the term Rashomon is by far more widely known. Gryffindor 16:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Rashomon is more widely known by far as a name for the film, not as a name for the gate. But this discussion is not about the film; it's about the gate. The gate is pretty much unknown in English. Arguments about widespread pronunciations of the name of the film aren't particularly relevant. Fg2 20:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems likely many people, in and out of Japan, will have first heard of the gate through the film (or story).--Cúchullain t/c 21:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. And the link from the articles on the film and the short story to the article on the gate, at the proper spelling for the gate, will make it easy for them to find out about the gate. It's unlikely that readers will look for the gate first, so we don't have to worry about them being unable to find the gate when we locate the article at the correct spelling. (Also, redirects will make it even easier.) The articles on the film and the short story won't be moved, so they'll remain easy to find. Fg2 06:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What are the Japanese calling it now? - check japanese brochures, websites

More about Rajōmon (羅城門)[edit]

Neither Nara nor Kyoto were walled cities in the sense that we in the West today usually think of a fortified, defensible metropolis. Nor were there castles built in these cities. "Castle gate" would therefore seem to me to be a poor translation. An alternate meaning for "jōmon" is "city gate" which fits very well. The Rajōmon gate served more of a ceremonial function than anything else.

"Raseimon" (羅生門) is an impossible reading for this compound word.

Oldbubblehead 00:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move Rashōmon → Rajōmon, no consensus for second move. Additionally make Rashōmon a redirect to Rashomon. Salix (talk): 21:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

– The actual name of the gate is Rajōmon, and Rashōmon principally refers to either the Akutagawa story or the Kurosawa film. This page should be moved to the historically accurate name, and Rashomon should be moved to Rashōmon, as per Japanese Wikipedia (ja:羅城門, ja:羅生門). (As an aside, shouldn't the disambiguation page have used standard Hepburn from the beginning, and have been called Rashōmon (disambiguation)?) elvenscout742 (talk) 02:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support on 1; neutral on 2 - given that ja.wp gives らじょうもん, first is open and shut. Rashomon is only a disamb page and although the Japanese items under disamb are clearly Rashōmon, there's a Taiwan pop album and pseudo psychology Rashomon effect which aren't. Neutral. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, although given the relative minority of the two items you mention and the fact that they both clearly derive from the Rashōmon, I still think the title of the main disambig page should have a macron. However, this raises the issue that if this page is moved, Rashōmon will immediately become a redirect to that page. Would you say the shō spelling should redirect to the disambig page, then? elvenscout742 (talk) 06:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
change to Support 2 as well - Okay now I see your point. In reality the argument that it is "only a disamb page" cuts both ways, since the redirect is automatic, so might as well do it by Hepburn and JapMOS, it is after all a spelling change that was generated in 1420s by the original Rashōmon (Noh play). Every spelling on the disamb derives from the Noh play ultimately, might actually be helpful to be consistent. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the second. I see no point in moving a disambiguation page from the simplest form. Since there are non-Japanese entries on it, moving it would bias the disambiguation page, and need to create a second disambiguation page at the current disambiguation page's name, because the new name would not be appropriate for those entries. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 07:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, my concern is that not moving it biases the disambiguation page. Regardless of who uses it, the word itself is Japanese, and the majority of its usages are specifically Japanese anyway. We can't have the disambig page spell it both ways in the title, but having no macron in the general title is a violation of WP:MOSJ. elvenscout742 (talk) 07:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Moving it biases the disambiguation page. The current spelling is used for the Japanese entries anyways in the world at large, while the proposed spelling is not used for the non-Japanese ones in the world at large. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 11:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The title having a macron or not doesn't create bias one way or the other, but Wikipedia policy is to use Hepburn for Japanese words unless there is a reason not to. The only "real" Rashōmon, and the obviously primary topic, is the gate. The only other two that are remotely similar in importance are the short story and the film, both Japanese works of fiction that don't have "English names" per se. Either spelling does not perfectly match every item on the list, but the "core" word is Japanese and should be romanized as we do. Your suggestion would mean that the romanization of the title of the page doesn't match that of the gate or the story. elvenscout742 (talk) 13:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is a disambiguation page, there is no reason for it to match the macron forms, there are many different romanizations for Japanese. Using the plain form follows the non-Japanese uses, and many appearances of the Japanese uses in the world at large. Whatever the "primary topic" is doesn't matter since it is a disambiguation page. Which ever is most important doesn't matter, since it is a disambiguation page. Those things only affect the ordering on the page. The disambiguation page spelling should be the more generalized form to encompass the forms needed to appear on the page, the more specialized the spelling of the disambiguation page, the more you throw out (to the "see also" section; or creating a second disambiguation page for other uses that don't match the usage defined in the title); -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Primary or no, the "non-Japanese" uses are extremely obscure by comparison, and are all derivative from the Japanese uses. Additionally, you are failing to see the point that the title does not need to directly match every item on the list, especially when the only difference is whether we use a macron or not. Either way we are not being accurate to some of the items on the list, but moving the page works with MOSJ (this is a Japan-related disambig page we are talking about) and matches the majority of the items on the list more accurately. elvenscout742 (talk) 01:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is a disambiguation page, not a WPJapan article, it should follow disambiguation page guidelines. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 01:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is covered by WikiProject Japan, as are all other Japan-related Disambiguation pages. Therefore, MOSJ applies, and the arguments that you brought elsewhere[3][4] rather than continue them here still don't work. The list of individually non-notable plays with "Rashomon"/"Rashōmon" in the title and the quasi-psychology reference to the Kurosawa film don't really outweigh the other 8,000,000 items on the list that are unambiguously pronounced Rashōmon. (As an aside, if half the plays in the list of plays do not have a macron, and so the title of that page doesn't have a macron, it still hasn't been established whether a disambig page that lists that list should or shouldn't have the macron.) elvenscout742 (talk) 13:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not ever article entry is covered under MOSJAPAN, and the guideline with the most specificity is that for disambiguation pages. It is clearly not only covering topics that are covered by MOSJAPAN. You accepted the same reasoning at Talk:Saito, another disambiguation page you tried to move. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 06:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are no items on the list that do not derive in some way (2 links or less) from the gate and the Noh play, or in some more direct way (1 link) from the short story or the film. All of them are Japanese words, and can (should) be spelled with a macron. At Saito, at the time I accepted the reasoning, both of the two items were Japanese as well, but one of those two items could not be spelled with a macron (西都/さいと). This was the result of a coincidence that an obscure enough Japanese place name is romanized in a similar manner to a Japanese surname, but the two are in no way related. You will never find a single use of the word "rashomon" that isn't ultimately a variant romanization of 羅生門 (らしょうもん, Rashōmon). elvenscout742 (talk) 01:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 1, Neutral 2Oppose 2 - As far as I am able to understand, the correct name is "rajo-mon" and this article was put in rasho-mon due to some kind of confusion between some fictional works and the actual place. But, at the moment the article text is a complete mess, with both "rasho-mon" and "rajo-mon" versions of the name, and the referencing of the article is a bit weak looking. Before proposing the move, it would have been smart to beef up the references, including for the name of the place, and convert all the "rasho-mon" into "rajo-mon". Also I don't know what the point of having a disambiguation page with/without a macron. Either way is OK, e.g. Shozo Makino. JoshuSasori (talk) 08:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Change vote to oppose per points brought up on Wikiproject Japan talk page. JoshuSasori (talk) 10:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The gate's name has apparently had a number of pronunciations (かな表記) and spellings (漢字表記), as I point out in the section below. The best-known pronunciation/spelling in modern Japan and outside Japan is Rashomon or Rashōmon (羅生門), thanks primarily to Akutagawa's story in the former case and Kurosawa's film in the latter, but this doesn't match the "official" name currently used by ... what I imagine is the Kyoto City Culture and Tourism Board, or something ... which is Rajomon or Rajōmon (羅城門). However, since the sh spelling is only known through the derivative works, and the current primary name for the actual gate is Rajōmon, this page should be moved. elvenscout742 (talk) 13:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And with regard to the referencing: moving the page is easier in the short term, especially with open-shut cases like this where a good case was made for moving the article six years ago and then just forgotten about. I may work on cleaning up this page a bit later. elvenscout742 (talk) 04:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on 1 and 2 per nominator and MoS ja. Oda Mari (talk) 09:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. When you google Rashomon -wikipedia, every result on the first two pages refers to the Kurosawa film. So that subject should be the primary topic. The gate's claim to fame, such as it is, is as an inspiration for the film. So it should be Rashomon Gate. I didn't find anyone else using the spelling "Rajōmon," which appears to be completely original. The DAB should be Rashomon (disambiguation). A DAB title is not expected to be the accurate name any subject, and leaving off the diacritics makes it typeable and easier to use. "Per Japanese Wikipedia"?? Do they even use marcons on Japanese Wiki? Or am I missing something? Update: I am changing my vote to Rajomon Gate (no macron) in light of this source. As for the DAB, the title should not contain diacritics, per WP:DABNAME. Kauffner (talk) 04:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose "Rajomon gate". It's tautology and other mon articles do not use such title. See Category:Gates in Japan. Oda Mari (talk) 07:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's ridiculous. The gate is almost unknown outside Japan, and within Japan very few people have seen the film or know about it's connection to the gate. The short story is at least as notable as the film, and the 600-year-old Noh play named for the gate, and numerous other Japanese works dealing with the gate. Please read the other arguments on this page. The Japanese Wikipedia page on the gate uses Rajōmon, as do alltwo of the three non-Kurosawa sources currently cited in the article, the English version of Kyoto City's homepage. Additionally, if you think that the film is the primary topic, then shouldn't you be in favour of moving this article away from its current title? elvenscout742 (talk) 05:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The city gives the name of this subject as "Rashomon" here. I didn't find "Rajōmon" anywhere. Not only that, but none (0!) of the sources used in this article give this spelling. In fact, this page, cited in the article, gives the name as "Rashômon". Kauffner (talk) 06:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
          • I find it very difficult to believe that "within Japan very few people have seen the film". Kurosawa is an icon in Japan, and his films are very well known. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone in Japan who hasn't at least heard of the film, let alone seen it. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Of course I know most Japanese have heard of the film, but few have seen it unless they were alive at the time it was released. Both Kurosawa himself and the film in question (though not Kurosawa's earlier films) are more highly regarded outside Japan than within. The wording of the last part of your comment is odd, though: most Japanese have at least heard of it, but that doesn't mean they have seen it. I'd imagine many people think it's based on the Akutagawa story of the same name; and every Japanese I know has not only heard of the Akutagawa story, but read it as part of their Kokugo curriculum in school. My point was merely that while maybe 1/50 people outside Japan have seen the film, everyone in Japan has read the Akutagawa story, so arguments over the relative notability of the story and the film are completely irrelevant. elvenscout742 (talk) 08:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • And that is why on Japanese Wiki ja:羅生門 is a disambig page and Kurosawa's film is at No. 6. elvenscout742 (talk) 08:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Whether or not the "Kyoto Travel Guide" is "Official" as it claims (official according to the city? the prefecture?), the official website of the Kyoto City Municipal Government uses "Rajomon" 8 times and "Rashomon" only once or twice, in reference to the title of Kurosawa's film. Additionally, since this is a real location in Japan that has a real name, we can't simply say "Kurosawa's film that has a peripheral connection to the location calls it one thing, so we have to call it that". Therefore, giving the correct romanization of the actual Japanese name should be a priority. (Despite all the references to Akutagawa and Kurosawa on the site 554 is still greater than 504.) elvenscout742 (talk) 07:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to the source you mention that is cited in the article: I already noticed it, and that is why I retracted "all three" and made it "two out of three". All the source proves is that Rashōmon is a variant name for Rajōmon, which should be a given by now. It may even be more common than the official name: but that is not why we give articles their titles. Additionally, the article as it stands now contains a photo of a large stone marker that clearly reads 羅城門 (Rajōmon), and the caption hilariously reads this as Rashōmon. By the way Kauffner, this has come up a few times in our discussions, where you refuse to recognize Japanese sources and/or the logic behind Japanese words, names, etc.: would it be okay to inquire as to whether you actually speak/read Japanese at this point?? elvenscout742 (talk) 07:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Kauffner. Japanese dictionaries say it's らじょうもん. See 大辞泉 and 大辞林. And this online encyclopedia too. You didn't find "Rajōmon"? Kyoto city says it's らじょうもん. The name of the bus stop is 羅城門/Rajomon. Hepburn romanized transcription of らじょうもん is "Rajōmon". Oda Mari (talk) 07:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no need to affirm that the kanji for this subject is 羅城門 in such detail as I have not challenged this. But as the pronunciation of this word is irregular, there is more than one way to romanize it. A city bus map and a photo of a sign aren't much to go by, but I guess they are better than nothing. I suggest the title "Rajomon Gate" to correspond to the sign and to Kurosawa's own account. This subject is all about history and fiction. The "real location" is not notable. It isn't even mentioned in the travel guides, and you can see why if you look at this photo. Kauffner (talk) 06:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, there isn't more than one reading for 羅城門. It is read Rajōmon. The current title, Rashōmon, is actually written as 羅 生 門 in Japanese. That is another thing that needs to change about this article -- the opening sentence currently contains a blatant error, but it can't be fixed until the page is moved. Anyway, please tell me you are not saying English Wikipedia article titles should be based on the English explanations given in Japanese tourist spots.[5] (We have our own MOS for these kind of things. Also, I wanted to find a ridiculous English explanation or one that read Razyoomon or something, but this should do. If you tell me your e-mail I'll send you some photos of horrific ones, though.) elvenscout742 (talk) 12:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support #1 (Rashōmon → Rajōmon). Per Japanese and English sources, and WP:MOS-JA. Thanks for making the proposal, it makes a lot of sense. ---> Prburley (talk) 12:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ignore #2 (Kurosawa film). This discussion page is for the article about the gate, 羅城門, a geographic feature, and currently, a request to move. The discussion page is not intended for other articles and/or requested moves for those articles. ---> Prburley (talk) 12:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, please see WP:RM. I wanted to move both pages -- this one to a different title, and another one to this title. (The Kurosawa film has nothing to do with either move, since the other is a disambig page.) The double-move request had to be placed on one of the two pages, and I thought this one more appropriate since it needs to be moved first before the other one. elvenscout742 (talk) 08:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, this discussion has provided some excellent content to add to the article. Thanks Elvenscout742. ---> Prburley (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, Prburley, what do you say to moving the disambig page now that I have clarified that it is not about the Kurosawa film? elvenscout742 (talk) 01:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying that there's consensus on the proposal(s). Move them, or find an editor who knows how to move them, and close this discussion. End of my input here. Best of luck! ---> Prburley (talk) 15:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support #1 per nom the arguments above. I'm not against #2 but aren't DAB pages often at the nondiacriticized version of they contain both forms? —  AjaxSmack  02:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus?[edit]

The move proposal is a now more than 7 days old. Have we reached consensus to move Rashōmon to Rajōmon? We have:

  • Four Support Rashōmon → Rajōmon
  • One Oppose Rashōmon → Rajōmon

(And one oppose from some IP address). ---> Prburley (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm still curious about the disambiguation move (2). Consensus on the article (1) was clear from the get-go, since in reality the IP address was clearly only against (2) and didn't say anything about (1). The only Oppose vote for (1) is from a user who doesn't like macrons but supports the move in principle (i.e., thinks the move should be to "Rajomon"). elvenscout742 (talk) 08:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! I'll move this article (Rashōmon → Rajōmon). Then you can take up the discussion of #2 (the Rashomon (film)) on the talk page for that article. ---> Prburley (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Requested deletion of Rajomon redirect page in order to rename this page. ---> Prburley (talk) 16:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I had to revert you, because the page you nominated for deletion was the macron-less "Rajomon" rather than "Rajōmon". There is no consensus to abandon the macron, as this was unilaterally suggested by the one guy who didn't like the move request because he doesn't like macrons. Also, I heard once (I think it was from In ictu oculi, but I might be wrong) that requesting deletions for redirects in these cases is bad, because it deletes the histories of those pages as well. Best just wait for this to play out. elvenscout742 (talk) 01:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can't move Rashōmon to Rajōmon... when a page for Rajōmon already exists. Please find someone to move the page properly and close this discussion. It's gone on far past seven days. ---> Prburley (talk) 06:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please don't confuse me with the someone who doesn't like macrons or other diacritics. They're a critical part of my work as a librarian. Best of luck! ---> Prburley (talk) 06:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh of course I didn't mean to imply that you have something against macrons. I was referring to the user who opposes moving this page to Rajōmon. I assume that your tagging Rajomon (no macron) for speedy deletion was just a good faith mistake. This has near-unanimous support, and will almost certainly be done in due time, regardless of how the other proposed move turns out, so there is no need to speedy any redirects in the time being. Additionally, you seem to have misunderstood what the other page is. Rashomon is a disambiguation page listing this article, as well as the article on Akutagawa's famous story, articles on numerous plays, and the Kurosawa film. I'm not sure if anyone else made the same misunderstanding as you and opposed the Rashomon→Rashōmon move because of this, but I have no intention of moving the article on the Kurosawa film. elvenscout742 (talk) 07:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Also note there is new Requested Move: Rashomon (film) → Rashomon and Rashomon → Rashomon (disambiguation) at Talk:Rashomon (film)#Requested_Move: → Rashomon which impacts on option 2 mentioned here.--Salix (talk): 21:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Name" section[edit]

I made this edit[6] just now and my full explanation was too long for the summary. I haven't seen any evidence that the kan-on reading sei was ever more common than jō, so I removed "what is now". I also moved the entire discussion into a new section for the name. The source[7] cited for "Raiseimon" only mentions it in a list of possible variant names, and specifies that it was called this in two literary works (the Uji Dainagon Monogatari and the Yotsugi Monogatari or Eiga Monogatari), and other works have apparently used at least three more different names, most of which appear to just be different kanji for the sounds ra-jō, ra-shō, ra-sei, rai-jō, rai-shō and rai-sei. I'm not sure how important any of these are for the article, but it seems like if we are going to mention the name used in one relatively minor work of Heian literature, we should mention them all.

That's why I thought it was necessary to create a new section.

elvenscout742 (talk) 07:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dimensions[edit]

Now, I have only been studying the Rashōmon since today and as such I'm willing to be called wrong about this, but I very much suspect the mentioned dimensions are wrong. Or more precisely, wrongly described. The article states two 'heights'. (106 feet (32 m) wide by 26 feet (7.9 m) high, with a 75-foot (23 m) stone wall) In this context, what does "a 75-foot stone wall" mean? Which "wall" is this? The pieces of wall on either side are clearly not 75-foot high. The 75-foot is probably a better match for the height of the main structure, but then where does the "26 feet high" come in? The only dimension not mentioned is the depth, but I personally can't confirm it to be 26 feet, although it would make sense. I'd rather not change this myself, but at the moment the description is at the very least confusing. OmikronWeapon (talk) 13:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rajōmon&oldid=1212599273"