Talk:Nagano (city)

message: I've heard Nagano was the southern-most Olympic venue. Can anybody confirm? Include it?  Tony "Shot Put" Soprano 07:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I figure you obviously mean southern-most Winter Olympic venue. ;P  And whaddya know -- just looked at the latitudes for each Winter Olympics (slow day here at work), and at 36°38 N it seems to be. Next closest (south) would be Squaw Valley at 39°11 N. Drcwright 23:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Gangsta]] [[Olympics]]

message: I suggest this article be renamed to "Nagano City," with "Nagano, Nagano" redirecting to it.  You can observe a similar usage for Gaza City and especially New York City. YechielMan 21:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been discussed many times, most recently here.  The basic consensus seems to be that the move (reverse of redirects) to Nagano would be supported, but you will not find much support for Nagano City (or XYZ City for any city in Japan). Neier 08:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename?

message: Should the 2011 March 12 6.6 earthquake be mentioned in the article? 184.144.160.156 (talk) 08:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I just removed that blurb. Even if there had been damage from the earthquake, it shouldn't have been in the lead paragraph to begin with. purplepumpkins (talk) 22:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: 12 March 2011 quake

message: This section is an extended response to "" This is not correct. While it is uncommon for US places to share the name of the state that they're located in, with one very notable exception – New York, New York – this convention is common in other countries including Japan and China. Maine, Maine is not the main city in Maine. Per WP:USPLACE, articles on populated places in the United States are typically titled Placename, State (the "comma convention"); there is no rule stating that the name on the left side of the comma needs to differ from the name on the right. wbm1058 (talk) 15:20, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I stand by what I said. I only went down the left column, but most of these are redlinks, and almost all the rest are redirects. Almost all of the geographical ones are actually titled Yada City, Yada. The only title which is Yada, Yada is Georgia, Georgia, which is the title of a film. Imaginatorium (talk) 15:35, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  You mean that Maine City, Maine really is the main city of Maine, not Maine, Maine, the unincorporated village?  wbm1058 (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I did go through in the end, and there is exactly one example of Yada, Yada, which is the Maine one. I have never, ever, to my knowledge, during 30 years living in Japan heard anyone say "Yada, Yada"... well, I mean "Nagano, Nagano", or "Tochigi, Tochigi". It is an abomination. Imaginatorium (talk) 17:41, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  So what would be the better way to disambiguate, when there is no context for differentiation other than the title itself.  and  seem to be the viable alternatives. Comparing with New York, which may or may not be a good point of reference, I feel like  is more the abomination. New York City is the common name, but the "comma convention" is used for the official name which is New York.  I see there are many links to , so not everyone apparently shares my view that "City" is redundant there. That form is kind of a conflation of the common and official name. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:55, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  The disambiguation is not between Yada in Nada or Wada (see above); it is between the city of Nagano and the prefecture of Nagano. The obvious way to achieve this is to write Nagano (city) or Nagano (prefecture). But an unparenthesised "Nagano City" would also surely be reasonable. Imaginatorium (talk) 18:16, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: cf. Djibouti (city), Luxembourg City; we can also compare this to other cases that don't fall under USPLACE. But there are also cases in which there are locations of the same name in other prefectures. For example, Yamaguchi, Yamaguchi is disambiguated from Yamaguchi, Nagano. Fukushima, Fukushima is disambiguated from Fukushima, Hokkaido, Fukushima, Nagasaki, etc. and "(city)" doesn't necessarily work to pinpoint these. They may reflect primary topics, but fail WP:INCDAB. The current Kōchi is also suboptimal. It is disambiguated from the larger Kochi in India by a macron (WP:SMALLDETAILS), but it's unlikely that this reflects English usage, and still does not distinguish Kōchi from either Kōchi, Hiroshima or Kōchi Prefecture. These are not great examples, but they speak to the advantages of maintaining a consistent system of disambiguation. Dekimasuよ! 18:55, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm cool with either Nagano City or Nagano (city). I note that "natural disambiguation" is usually preferred to "parenthetical disambiguation", although I'm not sure whether Nagano City is truly "natural" since it is still quite artificial and ugly (not as ugly as Nagano, Nagano, mind you). There is actually another Nagano City in Japan, which is artificially disambiguated in its official name by incorporating the name of the former province, Kawachi-Nagano (although the municipal and prefectural governments, and therefore English Wikipedia, prefer a romanized spelling that makes this fact less obvious, a pattern that is also followed with other places like Rikuzen-Takata), but since the name is already disambiguated (unlike, say, Ibaraki, Ibaraki vs. Ibaraki, Osaka) we don't need to distinguish the two by way of a ", Nagano". (I do note, however, that Kawachinagano, Osaka is doubly, and unnecessarily, disambiguated). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:38, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Kawachinagano was never "Nagano-shi" before the Kawachi was appended (not to mention that most readers will be unfamiliar with Kawachi Province). But whatever disambiguation system is used shouldn't require editors or readers to know things like that. Dekimasuよ! 00:16, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: And thanks for bringing up Ibaraki, Ibaraki, which is a better example. Dekimasuよ! 00:19, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I know, and I'm not suggesting we can't use "Nagano City" because it doesn't fully disambiguate. What I meant was that we need to either (a) come up with a guideline that can adequately address all these problems and not introduce unnecessary double-disambiguation like Rikuzentakata, Iwate (I actually don't know many people from Kawachinagano, but locals in Rikuzentakata frequently just call their town "Takata" because that's the "actual" name, with "Rikuzen" having been inserted to distinguish it from all the other Takatas -- this is visible in the famous Takata-matsubara) or (b) deal with all such pages on a case-by-case basis for the same reason. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:24, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  American cities and states named the same 

message: I see the following five valid options, none of which can be disqualified on the basis that they are flat-out wrong:
* Nagano, Nagano (current "City, Prefecture" naming convention)
* Nagano City (the "New York City" naming convention)
* Nagano city (because the real proper name is just Nagano, or the "Washington state" naming convention)
* Nagano-city (Nagano-shi)
* Nagano (city) (the Wikipedia disambiguation naming convention) but Nagano (city), Nagano would be even more abominable than Nagano, Nagano
I'm comfortable with any of these choices. The argument for Nagano (city) over Nagano City, Nagano city and Nagano-city seems to be 'the "City, Prefecture" naming convention is good when the city and prefecture names are different, but "abominable" when they're the same, and of the other ways to indicate "city", Nagano (city) is the only format that machines or professional translators will never translate to'.
I still don't view the argument for Nagano (city) over the other options as particularly strong, and there's no policy, guideline or naming convention helping to sort this out.
The only policy we need to follow is WP:CONSISTENCY:  and that policy says we need to keep the title right where it is.
I suggest that the next step is to submit a new multi-move request for all Japanese city articles where the city name is the same as the prefecture name. The request may be filed on this talk page or the talk page of any of the other similarly named cities, or it may be filed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan. The only way to not break WP:CONSISTENCY is to move them all at once. I'd put all of these options up for a vote, and let the voters decide. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:27, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress