Line 7:
Line 7:
::I've been thinking about it--I think there was something in the forums about this a while back, but the main article probably should not have 'no' in it. That way, we can be standardized across the board. The 'no' can be a separate redirect if it is used enough, but I think we should probably leave it out unless there is a really good reason to use it. To look at it another way--if someone sees a name in Japanese and doesn't know anything about it, they will look it up without the 'no'. It is easy enough for someone with a 'no' name to simply delete it out on their search. --[[User:JLBadgley|JLBadgley]] 16:10, 27 November 2007 (PST)
::I've been thinking about it--I think there was something in the forums about this a while back, but the main article probably should not have 'no' in it. That way, we can be standardized across the board. The 'no' can be a separate redirect if it is used enough, but I think we should probably leave it out unless there is a really good reason to use it. To look at it another way--if someone sees a name in Japanese and doesn't know anything about it, they will look it up without the 'no'. It is easy enough for someone with a 'no' name to simply delete it out on their search. --[[User:JLBadgley|JLBadgley]] 16:10, 27 November 2007 (PST)
+
+
:::The problem I see with not using "no" is that pre-Kamakura history books *do* include "no". When I first read Capital and Countryside, I felt so awkward not seeing the "no" in names in which I had been seeing it in multiple books before. If it were me, I would do "no" where it is already standardized (Heian and before), and write a resource page on the issue. I've got 7 days left before I leave the University -- I'll ask some kanbun and history professors. [[User:Nagaeyari|Nagaeyari]] 11:22, 9 December 2007 (PST)
==Ako Affair==
==Ako Affair==