Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles/City naming

message: *Kobe
*Nagoya
*Yokohama
*Kitakyushu
*Sapporo
*Sendai
These are well-known cities in Japan with either unique names or clearly the primary usage of the unqualified name refers to the city. These already all redirect to the city article (or is the city article the case of Kobe and Yokohama). These cities can be renamed to use the unqualified name since there are no ambiguities and they are all major cities.
:I concur. john k 21:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Group 1" should be in the form <cityname> as suggested.  My previously suggested list included all these except Sendai.  But I'd have to agree that Sendai is notable in its own right, and should be included as well.--Endroit 22:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I concur with the above list of cities. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I believe the city name alone is an acceptable article title for these cities. - Jecowa 05:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Group 1: Designated cities with unique names

message: ====Group 2A: World famous cities====
*Osaka
*Kyoto
*Hiroshima
The unqualified name is overwhelmingly used for the city (Note: I am just assuming this). In the case of Kyoto and Osaka, it is for their historical as well as current global importance. For the case of Hiroshima, it is because of the atomic bomb. All three are already at the unqualified name.
:I concur on this as well. john k 21:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Group 2A" should be in the form <cityname> as suggested.  My previously suggested list also included all of these cities.--Endroit 22:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I concur with these, as well. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I believe the city name alone is an acceptable article title for these cities. - Jecowa 05:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Fukuoka is quite a large city - think it can stand on its own.  64% is already pretty decent.  I would also much prefer Chiba (city) to Chiba, Chiba, and so forth. john k 21:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm leaning towards using <cityname> for all of these because they are "designated cities".  WP:MOS-JA can and should take precedence over WP:Disambig here, if we are only talking about comparing the "Cityname" vs. "Prefecture-name" here.  Actually, I've changed my mind, based on my discussion with Nihonjoe above.  Let me quote what Nihonjoe said above:  "...if a city is large enough to be made into a designated city by the national government, it's obviously large enough to have a significant impact locally, regionally, and even nationally, and given time, internationally."--Endroit 23:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with my previous statement on these. I think it would make our job much easier if we just go with what the government of Japan has decided is a significant city (or, as they call them, "designated cities"). The list is liekly to grow, but not very quickly, so it won't be a chore to keep up with it. Doing it this way also significantly reduces the chances of someone else making a mistake, since the guideline would leave nothing to the imagination. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support Nihonjoe on this.--Endroit 15:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: With respect to Chiba, we should consult WP:Disambig on whether Sonny Chiba, Tetsuya Chiba and others are notable enough, just to make sure.--Endroit 23:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be better to just create Chiba (disambiguation) to point to all the other possibilities. Then put a disambig link at the top of each affected page. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, if George Washington is not notable enough to make Washington a disambiguation page, I think there has to be a very high standard for a person to be considered the primary reference for their surname. john k 23:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think Sonny Chiba and Tetsuya Chiba are all that notable.  So Chiba (the city) should be in the form <cityname> also.--Endroit 15:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't have a strong opinion about these cities (though I do like the simplicity of using unqualified city name for all designated cities), it's worth noting that the city of Saitama didn't exist until 2001 and is a rare case where the city is named after the prefecture, not vice versa. Whether that matters to Wikipedia article naming, I don't really know. Ytny 22:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that does make a difference, especially the fact of the city only existing for five years. john k 22:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, whenever I hear "Saitama" or "Chiba", I think of the prefectures. I have plenty of friends who've said "I don't really live in Tokyo; I'm out in Saitama" or "I'm going out to Chiba for the weekend..." These statements do not refer to the cities. LordAmeth 13:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I do not believe the city name alone is an acceptable article title for these cities. - Jecowa 05:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Group 2: Designated cities with the same name as their prefecture

message: *Osaka
*Kyoto
*Hiroshima
The unqualified name is overwhelmingly used for the city (Note: I am just assuming this). In the case of Kyoto and Osaka, it is for their historical as well as current global importance. For the case of Hiroshima, it is because of the atomic bomb. All three are already at the unqualified name.
:I concur on this as well. john k 21:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Group 2A" should be in the form <cityname> as suggested.  My previously suggested list also included all of these cities.--Endroit 22:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I concur with these, as well. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I believe the city name alone is an acceptable article title for these cities. - Jecowa 05:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Group 2A: World famous cities

message: *Fukuoka
*Chiba
*Saitama
*Shizuoka
These all currently link to disambiguation pages. I did a random sampling of links to the unqualified name (as I described in the previous section above). Here are the percentages of those links that actually refer unambiguously to the city: Fukuoka - 64%, Chiba - 11%, Saitama - 50%, Shizuoka - 25%. Feel free to do your own sampling. 
I would argue that Chiba, Saitama, and Shizuoka need to be disambiguation pages. The actual naming of the city articles we can discuss later (I prefer using "<Cityname> (city)"). Fukuoka could go either way but I am leaning towards moving the city article to the unqualified name since Fukuoka is the center of a major metropolitan area.
:Fukuoka is quite a large city - think it can stand on its own.  64% is already pretty decent.  I would also much prefer Chiba (city) to Chiba, Chiba, and so forth. john k 21:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm leaning towards using <cityname> for all of these because they are "designated cities".  WP:MOS-JA can and should take precedence over WP:Disambig here, if we are only talking about comparing the "Cityname" vs. "Prefecture-name" here.  Actually, I've changed my mind, based on my discussion with Nihonjoe above.  Let me quote what Nihonjoe said above:  "...if a city is large enough to be made into a designated city by the national government, it's obviously large enough to have a significant impact locally, regionally, and even nationally, and given time, internationally."--Endroit 23:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with my previous statement on these. I think it would make our job much easier if we just go with what the government of Japan has decided is a significant city (or, as they call them, "designated cities"). The list is liekly to grow, but not very quickly, so it won't be a chore to keep up with it. Doing it this way also significantly reduces the chances of someone else making a mistake, since the guideline would leave nothing to the imagination. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support Nihonjoe on this.--Endroit 15:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: With respect to Chiba, we should consult WP:Disambig on whether Sonny Chiba, Tetsuya Chiba and others are notable enough, just to make sure.--Endroit 23:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be better to just create Chiba (disambiguation) to point to all the other possibilities. Then put a disambig link at the top of each affected page. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, if George Washington is not notable enough to make Washington a disambiguation page, I think there has to be a very high standard for a person to be considered the primary reference for their surname. john k 23:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think Sonny Chiba and Tetsuya Chiba are all that notable.  So Chiba (the city) should be in the form <cityname> also.--Endroit 15:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't have a strong opinion about these cities (though I do like the simplicity of using unqualified city name for all designated cities), it's worth noting that the city of Saitama didn't exist until 2001 and is a rare case where the city is named after the prefecture, not vice versa. Whether that matters to Wikipedia article naming, I don't really know. Ytny 22:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that does make a difference, especially the fact of the city only existing for five years. john k 22:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, whenever I hear "Saitama" or "Chiba", I think of the prefectures. I have plenty of friends who've said "I don't really live in Tokyo; I'm out in Saitama" or "I'm going out to Chiba for the weekend..." These statements do not refer to the cities. LordAmeth 13:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I do not believe the city name alone is an acceptable article title for these cities. - Jecowa 05:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Group 2B: Not so famous cities

message: *Nagasaki -- for the atomic bomb
*Nagano -- for the Olympics
These two cities, while only core cities and not designated cities, have achieved some degree of world fame for the above-listed reasons. A majority of the incoming links to the unqualified name are for the city. I believe these deserve the use of the unqualified name as well.
In all cases, a disambiguation or other uses note should be at the top of any article using the unqualified name. --Polaron | Talk 20:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think these articles are fine to be at unqualified name.  Nagasaki already is. john k 21:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These 2 cities may be in the form <cityname> as suggested; I have no preferences either way, although not in my previously suggested list.  As for "Nagasaki", it has been notable as an "international city" for over 300 years, as the only port of entry into Japan during their Sakoku period.--Endroit 22:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, this is another special qualification of Nagasaki. john k 23:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I concur with these two. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I believe the city name alone is an acceptable article title for these cities. - Jecowa 05:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sendai - Done. I have not, however, changed the links within the many many articles that link to one of the redirect pages. I wonder if a bot or something could do that? LordAmeth 20:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Group 4: Special considerations