Talk:Wakayama

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconDisambiguation
WikiProject iconThis disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Requested move 15 August 2018[edit]

The following is a closed 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: moved -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:07, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wakayama (disambiguation) → Wakayama – There is no primary topic between Wakayama Prefecture (population 944,000) and the capital of the prefecture, currently located at Wakayama, Wakayama (population 360,000). A similar discussion at Talk:Nagano recently resulted in moving the disambiguation page to the base title. Wakayama is often linked intending the prefecture, but the plain title now redirects to the city. Dekimasuよ! 07:13, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • A primary topic redirect to the prefecture would also have a link to the city on the second line, and would have the advantage of preventing any links and searches from arriving at something that's simply incorrect (it would instead be just imprecise). This is the setup, for example, at Tokushima. But I think it's more likely that there's no primary topic at all here. Dekimasuよ! 07:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point as before is that the city is "Wakayama" while the prefecture appears to be mainly "Wakayama Prefecture" but yes per WP:DABCONCEPT they refer to the same place so choosing one as primary will still allow those looking for the other to find it easily. In any case either the city of DAB should be moved to "Wakayama" per WP:PRECISION/WP:MALPLACED or "Wakayama" should redirect to the prefecture. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, the answer would be that the prefecture is often (perhaps usually, but I have no data to support this at the moment) referred to as simply "Wakayama". Dekimasuよ! 08:04, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crouch, Swale: in pretty much all cases, the "Prefecture" tends to be dropped in speech. "Shizuoka", for instance, refers to Shizuoka Prefecture far more often than it does its capital city. Appending "Prefecture" to almost all the prefectures is simply a Wikipedia convention that few users will be well aware of. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 18:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The train station is also usually just called "Wakayama". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:05, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm basing this too much on English conventions like Durham/County Durham and Worcester/Worcestershire but my point is still that I would expect the city to be the natural topic at the base name. JAWP appear to have them at "Wakayama City" and "Wakayama Prefecture". Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:24, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Worcester is easy because "-shire" is kind of like the English version of the Japanese "-ken". So it seems you only have one naming conflict; thus a "convention" established by a single example. As a thought experiment, imagine that there was a village, population 5000, named Essex in Essex. Would the small village still be the primary topic? Essex (disambiguation) shows this isn't an implausible scenario; there are several places named Essex in the US. wbm1058 (talk) 14:53, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"shire" means "county" which is the highest level diversion in England, similar to states in the US and provinces in Canada. If there was a settlement in Essex I would expect the county would be called Essexshire, there is Somerton, Somerset (4,697) and Somerset named after it, so I would expect it would still be like Worcester. Alternatively it might be like Swanley and Swanley Village and be "Essex Village". The US towns are different as they are named after the county, not the other way round. In any case I would look at English sources first to determine name/PTOPIC, then look at Japaneses sources if the first fails. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, if it's not obvious which is PRIMARY, then neither is. If it can be debated, then there is no PRIMARY. PRIMARY is not a matter of which gets numerically more hits—it has to be overwhelming. The metropolis at Toronto is PRIMARY because it would be surprising if someone typing "Toronto" into the search box were actually searching for one of the many other Torontos. It would not be in the least surprising if someone searching for "Wakayama" were searching for either the city or the prefecture, even if a technical majority of hits happened to be for the prefecture. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 16:26, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The names of prefectures were mostly established in the last 150 years. The names of towns or cities that match the names of the prefectures are sometimes older and sometimes newer. Sometimes the towns with names that match the names of prefectures were formed by mergers of older towns after the establishment of the prefecture. Thus a naming convention that privileged namesakes would require people searching for articles to know quite a lot of history of the places they are looking up. But which place name came first isn't a criterion we use to establish a primary topic, luckily. Dekimasuよ! 01:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hoped that could be a different discussion–I'm not sure we should continue down that road before we figure out what to do with the guideline at WP:MOS-JP. After this discussion, though, only Gifu and Kagoshima are sore thumbs in terms of disambiguation. Almost all the other plain titles that point to the cities (Kumamoto, Fukuoka, Okayama, Tokyo, Kyoto, Osaka, Hiroshima) at least fit together as a set of designated cities. (Then there's Nagasaki). Dekimasuよ! 10:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this should be discussed at the guideline level; Nagano (city) was moved over some objections that the guideline was the better forum for discussion; I don't recall any arguments being made there that Nagano (city) was some sort of valid exception to the guideline, which would have justified the local discussion. Rather, getting consensus at the guideline-level was deemed too difficult, thus the request seemed like an attempt to bypass the guideline. I'm still not following why "Wakayama city" (capital "C" or not) is "translationese" while "Wakayama Prefecture" (capital "P" or not) is an acceptable name. Americans don't automatically title all of their states in the form "Kansas State" (oh, wait, that's a university). I suppose one could argue that todōfuken are more equivalent to US counties, where we do include "County" in the name, though there are 47 of them, vs. 50 US states, and they are the highest-level subdivision, as US states. Sorry, I don't mean to start a major sidebar to the primary issue up for discussion here. – wbm1058 (talk) 11:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Wbm1058: Umm ... of the four Korean pages you link, only two of the articles have those titles, and those should probably be moved because those titles look awful. Encyclopedia article titles should not look like the addresses on postcards. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:05, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hijiri 88, I understand that you don't like the "City, Prefecture" naming convention which is equivalent to the "City, State" convention. Maybe there is a good reason for a different convention for Japan, which I still don't understand. Maine, Maine is how you would address a postcard, usually with a zip code added after the state for good measure, though the post office can still find the place without it. Few US-based editors would object to that convention. I suppose the issue is with how common it is for cities and prefectures to have the same name.wbm1058 (talk) 20:54, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, but the Korean examples you list are not "City, Prefecture"; they are (kinda-sorta) "Wakayama-shi"-type names. I don't address postcards in the "City, Prefecture" format, but with the Japanese order and the whole thing written in romanized Japanese ("Wakayama-ken, Wakayama-shi..."). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now I think I finally get it. Japan's address convention is "Prefecture, City", not the western "City, Prefecture" order, which is why the latter seems odd in Japan. That's an easier problem to understand than the more ambiguous "translationese". Right, I guess I was wondering why "romanized Korean" is an acceptable convention for Korean cities, but Wakayama-shi is deprecated as translationese for Japanese cities, leaving Wakayama (city) as the only viable option after rejecting "City, Prefecture" for being in the wrong order. Of course, Wakayama, Wakayama is the same in either order, but just sounds redundant. lol – wbm1058 (talk) 14:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
wbm1058: No, City, Prefecture seems odd to us in Japan because people don't do that in English, not because of the way people do it Japanese. It's perfectly normal to see Shinzō Abe in English, even though in Japanese it's always Abe Shinzō. On the other hand, people do not go around saying Mishima, Shizuoka—I've never once heard it come out of a human mouth. This is a Wikipedia convention that is rarely if ever encountered in real life. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 16:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Both of you are missing the point. I was not talking about a "City, Prefecture" problem because that was not the subject of the (part of) Wbm's comment to which I was responding: the Korean analogy, even when it applies at all (two of the article titles given are not actually article titles but redirects), is bogus, because those Korean article titles are terrible. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 19:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but we should really have a wider debate first and produce a general guideline, after which this might become a technical move. Certes (talk) 11:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no primary topic for "Wakayama" in Japan: 和歌山 – could be either Wakayama Prefecture or Wakayama-shi. wbm1058 (talk) 12:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and redirect Wakayama to Wakayama Prefecture. Considering that the prefecture has consistently had more page views than the city (and the difference is even more significant on the Japanese Wikipedia) the prefecture should be considered the PTOPIC. feminist (talk) 15:58, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • feminist: "more page views" does not equal "primary topic". For a topic to qualify as PRIMARY, the numbers have to be overwhelming, which here they clearly are not. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 18:49, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—confidence is low as to which "Wakayama" a user is searching for, thus a redirect at the base title is the optimal solution. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 18:49, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'm pretty busy IRL so I don't have time to figure out if this process is becoming more, rather than less, ad hoc as it moves forward, but on it's face this is a good move. The PRIMARYTOPIC argument for the prefecture being moved to the base title is weak (the difference is not so large that, for example, we would not be inconveniencing more readers who are looking for the city than readers who are looking for the prefecture we'd be helping, since "Wakayama Prefecture" shows up in the search box and a bunch of people probably click that rather than writing "Wakayama" and pressing return, while some of the people who do the latter are not looking for the prefecture), and there's literally no other reason not to do this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 19:55, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was the simplest one to change. I am avoiding Gifu and Kagoshima because they would require us to restart the argument over "(city)" etc., which is not attracting much interest at the MOS talk page. Dekimasuよ! 01:44, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dreamy Jazz: I'm a bit unsure what was meant by "no absolute clear consensus"? The redirect currently points to the city and all others have opted for removing that primary topic (although I have suggested the city should be at the base name) while the oppose argument was that the prefecture should be primary instead. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:46, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Crouch, Swale: I only relisted it because the oppose vote was there. I would have wanted for the oppose vote to be cancelled by Feminist before absolute consensus was drawn.
Separately, on reflection, I will close this move request as move, as I had not fully read into the argument by Feminist (my mistake). Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 11:54, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I just thought it was a bit odd when that comment suggested not only is the city not primary but the prefecture might be, that suggests that the move to base name should happen, then a later discussion to move the DAB back to Wakayama (disambiguation) in order to allow redirection to the prefecture could be discussed later. I appear to be the only one who has supported having the city as primary but that was probably based on my lack of understanding and if it was primary it should be at the base name anyway. However there is clear consensus that the city isn't primary. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:59, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Crouch, Swale: I would now want to close this as move, however, I cannot carry out the move. Leaving for admin to deal with. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 12:04, 23 August 2018 (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.

Post-move clean up[edit]

I have moved the page. The disambiguation page, however, now has many incoming links that should be retargeted to the city. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:07, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Fukushima (city) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:16, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wakayama&oldid=1142213346"