Talk:Gifu

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: Move. A few things here. First and foremost, while several editors have said the "Gifu, Gifu" construction seems off, it is definitely established in reliable sources for this topic. Additionally, it is clearly the preferred version per MOS:JP#Place names guideline. That said, there's a clear local consensus here for the proposed name "Gifu City", and solid arguments that this name better suits the general WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NATURALDIS policies. As such, I will move the article to the proposed title. It's probable that discussion should continue at the MOS page, as this article (and perhaps others) are now out of step. It was also suggested below that the city may be WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the term Gifu, which would moot the issue in this particular case. There wasn't a consensus for that measure in this discussion, but it may be worth having a second discussion dedicated to that point. Cúchullain ^t/c 14:46, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gifu, Gifu → Gifu City – It seems to me that "Gifu City" is more commonly used and/or is a bit more of a natural disambiguation than "Gifu, Gifu". Right now all of the cities in Japan that share a name with the prefecture use the "FOO, FOO" format, but this is a first attempt to suggest that this should probably be changed to "FOO City". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per MOS:JP#Place names. RGloucester — ☎ 17:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I realise that this proposal is not in harmony with the current guideline, but this is essentially a first stab at suggesting that this guideline should be changed when the city and the prefecture share the same name. Because of that, I've posted a notice of this discussion at the JP manual of style's talk page. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed at MOS:JP numerous times. Changes to the guidelines should come first, not after such a proposal as this. Regardless, I oppose a change to the guidelines. The present format is the most recognisable and natural form of disambiguation that can be used in English for this purpose. There is no need to make an exception to the "city, prefecture" scheme here, as doing so would make the disambiguation system for Japanese cities inconsistent and more confusing. (For convenience, pershRGloucester — ☎ 23:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the order or forum of the discussion is particularly important. The significant thing is that there is ample participation and a resulting consensus. I think many users find the "FOO, FOO" format confusing, so whether or not a change to the guidelines would overall increase or decrease confusion is pretty subjective. (For convenience, perhaps you could link here to one or more of the previous discussions on this issue that you are aware of.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You personally reverted last changes to the guideline [1] even after a consensus at WT:MOS-JA has been reached, so it seems that no process can satisfy your demands. No such user (talk) 16:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Consensus" had not been reached. No RfC was held, and editors actually at the pages you wanted to move rejected such changes outright. There was no neutral closing by an uninvolved administrator. No advertisement of an RfC at the relevant article talk pages. Said discussion did not meet the restrictions set forth by WP:CONLIMITED. Regardless, I've come here to say that I support Nihonjoe's proposal to move this article to just Gifu as the best way forward. RGloucester — ☎ 16:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@RGloucester: Per WP:BURO we're not required to have RFCs, neutral closing by uninvolved administrators and whatnot to add one sentence to clarify an universally-hated (well, OK, you seem to like it) guideline. Part of the problem is that whenever a RM from a Silly Title has been proposed, editors could not agree whether to move it to Sensible Title 1 or Sensible Title 2, and as the guideline tacitly supports Silly Title anyway it ends up in a "no consensus", reinforcing the guideline. When I tried to change the guideline, you demanded {{shrubbery}}, and there we got a catch-22. However, I'm not here just for an argument, and I appreciate your moving forward at least on this particular issue. If it takes a formal RFC and all the shrubbery to change the damn guideline, let's have it. No such user (talk) 16:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not so much that I like the guideline, but that I like a stable consistency, and find the arguments about the weirdness of "Nara, Nara" strange. However, I agree with Nihonjoe that when one says "Gifu" in either Japanese or English, one usually means the city. If one meant the prefecture, one would say so. I also tend to think that when cities give their names to prefectures, it is obvious that the city should take precedence as a primary topic. The only thing that I strongly dislike is "Gifu City" or whatever, as that's an artificial construction that is rarely used to refer to the actual city itself, and is an overwrought translation of the Japanese shi (市). RGloucester — ☎ 17:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. The guideline says only to "use the form [[{city-name}, {prefecture-name}]]." So when the city name is the same as the prefecture name, we get this silly double naming. No one in the real world calls this city "Gifu, Gifu." The guidelines should reflect community concensus as expressed in the RMs. H. Humbert (talk) 00:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In light of the comments below, I'd like to add that just plain "Gifu" is fine with me as well. H. Humbert (talk) 09:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The official website calls itself Gifu City, and so do the visitors bureau, and a google search shows that the term is used consistently by The Japan Times and the Asahi Shimbun, too. Since the term is in common use I'd support '[place] City' here (as with New York City), but perhaps not for all instances. Other locations might not be referred to like this by prestigious English language or official sources, so we'd need to consider WP:COMMONNAME as well. --Prosperosity (talk) 01:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I support the change also. If the change has to be made at the MOS first, then I would support changing that too. The current style makes sense for small towns and cities, but there should be an exception in the rule to avoid this repetition. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Following Nihonjoe's reasoning below, I think moving this article to Gifu and the current contents to Gifu (disambiguation) is an even better option. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 08:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Support : "Nara, Nara" does not sound like a city to me; at best it provokes a suppressed giggle. I know the Americans say "New York, New York", but has R Gloucester ever hear anyone say "York, York", or "Bristol, Bristol" (it's actually the City and County of Bristol, so should it be "Bristol, Bristol and Bristol"?) I cannot honestly understand the suggestion that anything like "Nara City" would be "confusing". Imaginatorium (talk) 03:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no functional difference between Nara, Nara, and Kanmaki, Nara. Both refer to cities in Nara Prefecture. If you are so childish as to "giggle" at such a simple form of disambiguating a city from a prefecture of the same name, I do not know why others should take your opinion seriously. RGloucester — ☎ 04:16, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, ease up, cowboy. Let's not take ourselves so seriously that we can't allow a user to express some personal humour without deciding that their opinion is of the unserious kind. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

R Gloucester, you said above that "Gifu, Gifu" is "the most recognisable and natural form of disambiguation that can be used in English for this purpose." I simply cannot believe this, but perhaps it would help if you could show us some examples of places in the English-speaking world where the "FOO, FOO" repetition is used. I know about NY, NY, and the US is a special case, in that there are (I believe) lots of same-named cities in different states, and therefore the "City, State" pairing has become a fixed expression. Perhaps even when not ambiguous, just to remind strangers of where the city is. I seem to remember that it has also been pointed out repeatedly, but the "FOO, FOO" repetition is not in fact used for WP articles on cities in the US: for example Missouri City, Missouri. Your claim of "no functional difference" is quite true in a mathematical sort of way, but whereas to a new reader "Kanmaki, Nara" is obviously some kind of elaboration on "Kanmaki", whereas repeating "Nara" is at least somewhat mysterious. Imaginatorium (talk) 08:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose except in cases where the city or location is not the most well known by that name. I would argue that the city of Gifu should be at Gifu, and anything else should be disambiguated from there (and there should be a redirect to it from Gifu, Gifu). Most English-speakers in Japan are referring to the city if they state "Gifu" without any other qualification. If they mean the prefecture that will either be established explicitly ("Gifu Prefecture") or implicitly through the context of the conversation. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be OK with this change as well—it makes sense and would be an application of the regular rules of disambiguation/primary usage. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which we should be following anyway. We shouldn't be creating rules which go against established consensus elsewhere on enwp. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support (I would also be fine with plain Gifu) and let's get finally amend that silly guideline. Disclaimer: I was the one who tried to update the guideline a year ago, only to be reverted by User:RGloucester's filibustering [2] "find consensus first". See the original discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles/Archive 27#Nara, Nara and decide for yourself. No such user (talk) 15:54, 15 December 2015 (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.

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. There is a rough consensus that the city's most common name is simply "Gifu" and that the city is the primary topic for all subjects covered by Wikipedia that are known as "Gifu". Jenks24 (talk) 04:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Gifu City → Gifu
• Gifu → Gifu (disambiguation)

– In the recent discussion immediately above, which resulted in a rename to "Gifu City", there was support for the position that the city is the primary meaning of "Gifu". A second nomination was suggested in the close to pursue this proposal. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for the reasons I already gave. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I think the guidelines should be changed, and this discussion should be moved to the guideline page. About "Gifu City": I actually share R Gloucester's dislike ("insane loathing", even) of the "city" business. I live in a town, but since it consists of a number of 町 joined together into a 市, I'm supposed to regard it as a "city". At least it (佐野市, Sano in Tochigi-ken) really is at least a town: there seems to be a general principle that once 3 村 have joined to make a 町, three of these 町 can join to make a 市, which must be called a "city", when "nine villages" would at least be more appropriate. However, Wikipedia is not about what I (or RG) think things should be called, it's about widely accepted usage, and it is clear that "Gifu City" is a widely accepted usage. So are "Tochigi City", "Nara City", and others I can't remember. For Nara in particular, there would be a long and tedious battle before it could possibly be called "Nara", whereas "Nara City" could not really be argued with, and would instantly remove the "X, X" silliness. Imaginatorium (talk) 06:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. It's almost always "Gifu" in the RS as opposed to "Gifu City." See this ngram. H. Humbert (talk) 20:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's all the way to 2008 (the latest year they cover). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per the reasons given by Nihonjoe in the previous discussion. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 23:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Administrator's comment: As this move requires moving the dab page away from "Gifu", we need to see evidence that the city is really the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC over the prefecture, region and all other topics of the name. Without that, it substantially weakens the case for the proposed move.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:22, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prefecture got 10,700 views in the last 90 days, the city 7,576 (7147 + 429), the castle 1,744, and the region 276. I don't think any of that should matter. The first and foremost purpose of a title is to tell the reader name of the subject. By this standard, "Gifu City" is a misleading title. The city is "Gifu," and the prefecture is "Gifu Prefecture." They are not in competition. In any event, I'm sure more readers are looking for the city than for a disambiguation page. H. Humbert (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Nihonjoe – The common name of the city is "Gifu", and "Prefecture" is specified when referring to the prefecture. "Gifu City" is unnecessarily disambiguated. RGloucester — ☎ 19:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Note The prefecture is named "Gifu Prefecture," so no competitor. I'm unsure though whether the city clearly is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC over the region. If someone can show us that it indeed is, then I'm perfectly fine with it. Otherwise the city's WP:COMMONNAME still seems to be simply "Gifu", so we'd be usually disambiguating it as Gifu (city). --PanchoS (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2016 (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.