Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan/Districts and municipalities task force
Add new sections to the bottom.
Spelling of Gunma
Is someone noticed that spelling of Gunma Prefecture are not conforming to Wikipedia:Manual of Style for Japan-related articles. How should we do?
- Keep up with "Gunma" consistently.
- Use "Gumma" in new articles. Rename gradually.
- Rename all at now.
Wards
I think the suffixed form "{ward}-ku" is commoner than "{ward}". How about putting ward pages at "{ward}-ku, {city}"? --Nanshu 01:40, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- What about Chiyoda, Shinjyuku and such famous wards in Tokyo? [1] shows {ward}-ku sounds rather a part of address. -- Taku 06:55, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)
That's because the 23 special wards are now officially called "cities" in English (see the Tocho's website). So I suppose we don't need the "-ku" for them. -- Sekicho 20:04, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
O.K. Then what about other wards? --Nanshu 03:32, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I guess Chuo-ku sounds better than just Chuo. So I agree with {ward}-ku, {city} for ones except 23 special wards. -- Taku 06:22, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)
Naming of cities
I strongly object to the "city, prefecture" setup, especially for the names of large cities. It's great as a disambiguation measure, but otherwise, it's ridiculous. There has already been a negative reaction to Hiroshima, Hiroshima (see Talk:Hiroshima, Hiroshima). Even though a couple of people have agreed to this, many others have voiced opposition to it. I think there should be a vote. In fact, I'm going to put one below. (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japanese districts and municipalites/Archive for other viewpoints on the matter) -- Sekicho 22:41, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)
- In favor of "city, prefecture" for all cities
- In favor of "city, prefecture" as a disambiguation measure (i.e. if multiple cities have the same name; e.g. Hiroshima, Hiroshima or Osaka, Osaka. There are more than one hiroshima and osaka in Japan. But not Sapporo, Hokkaido since Sapporo is the only name for the city in Hokkaido.)
- In favor of "city, prefecture" as a disambiguation measure, but put major cities in the "city" article and disambig on a separate page. e.g.
- By major city criterion: Osaka, Yokohama, Nagoya, Sapporo, Sendai, Kyoto
- By disambiguation criterion: Chikugo, Fukuoka, Hiroshima, Hiroshima
- By non-major city criterion: Kitami
- In favor of "city" alone
Regarding *** Quick note: this means you favor Hiroshima, Hiroshima or Osaka, Osaka: Taku, are you smoking crack!? It does not! This vote is being held because Sekicho thinks Hiroshima, Hiroshima is ridiculous! Jpatokal 01:19, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Because those Hiroshima, Hiroshima are for disambiguation in short. Please also notice this is consistent with the US ones. Why do you think Chicago, Illinois is acceptable and Sapporo, Hokkaido is not? -- Taku 02:40, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
We can make redirections from [[Sapporo]] to [[Sapporo, Hokkaido]], from [[Morioka]] to [[Morioka, Iwate]], and so on. -- Takanoha 12:38, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Exactly. So nothing wrong with the current naming scheme. I have no idea what this vote is about. -- Taku 15:10, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
I have no objection to make exceptions for most famous cities, but the current scheme is to disambiguate Japanese local governments systematically that often shared names. I oppose changing the scheme if someone wants. --Nanshu 03:32, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)~
- Since I have got an answer of this question, what exactly is the rationale of giving exceptions for some famous cities? It seems all of US city articles, regardless of being famous or not, are of a form of [[{city-name}, {state}]]. Since there are appreciate redirects, there is no problem that readers cannot find an article for the most common usage. If you think Sapporo, Hokkaido is silly then I think so is Chicago, Illinois. Besides, I hate to have a dispute drawing a line between major (presumably not meant famous) cities and the other. -- Taku 07:30, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)
Taku: Why do we have to use the American convention for Japanese place names? Nobody calls Osaka "Osaka, Osaka." In Japan, you would never see somebody say 大阪府大阪市. "New York, New York" and "Chicago, Illinois" are seen in the US: we use them on addresses, for instance.
I think that, at the very least, we should put the cities designated by government ordinance in articles titled "Osaka," "Kyoto," "Hiroshima," etc. There is no reason to include the prefecture name, except as a disambiguation. Japanese Wikipedia simply uses the city name as the title: this looks better and eliminates most redirecting. -- Sekicho 16:24, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, a disambiguation is a reason to put prefectures. There exists Hiroshima Town nearby Sapporo as a matter of fact. This is the same situation seen in the US cities, like Chicago, Illinois. Also, I disagree that it looks ugly because I prefer the consistency, regularity over making special cases. If every city in Japan has the same naming scheme, it helps the readers to see those cities are the same ones seen in other part of Japan. Besides, the consistent naming scheme helps the writers. If there are two schemes, writers need to check if they need to use [[{city}]] or [[{city, prefecture}]]. It is a wasting time and it is the reason we need to create every redirect after all because some writers, undoutedly, write a link city, prefecture without knowning it is an unique name. Naming must be done for the sake of readers and writers and I see no reason to confuse them. We used to have [[{city}]] naming scheme. That was simple and sufficed for a while. But as we are adding more old provinces or towns and villages, some disambiguation is necessary. In wikipedia, it is a norm to pre-emptively disambiguate names. Take Emperor of Japan. No one, I say no one, calls Emperor Go-Daigo of Japan because Go-Daigo is an unique and only name for one emperor in Japan in the past. Or in terms of English grammar, I think History of Japan is less correct than Japanese History. I am not saying we have to adapt American convention but I am saying there is a virtue of this sort of pre-emptive disambiguation used throughout wikipedia. So in short, there is a good reason to put a prefecture suffix and, though depending on perfonal preference, I think Sappro, Hokkaido isn't too bad. By the way, 大阪府大阪市 returns 604,000 hits at google.
For me Osaka, Osaka is rediculous. I understand though 'Osaka' is ambiguous. I prefer 'Osaka (City)' & 'Osaka (Prefecture)'. KIZU