Talk:Hachinohe

Famous?

The name of this city is awfully familiar. Is it famous for anything else historically? LordAmeth 00:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
It hosts the biggest float festival in Japan (Sansha Taisai). It is the final stop on the Tohoku Shinkansen line. fotochap 15:12, 22 October 2007 (GMT)

A shrine in the city seems to house a remarkable suit of 14th-century armor of which a repro is available at http://www.japanese-armor.com/japanese-armor.shtml. If there is anyone with local knowledge who could edit this entry with info about the armor, that would be very much appreciated. Fatidiot1234 (talk) 02:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 21 July 2018

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move, after extended time for discussion. Although unnecessary disambiguation is frowned upon, WP:MOS-JP does not clearly bar the application of this principal here. It is likely that a clarification of that guideline is needed to resolve that situation. bd2412 T 03:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• Hachinohe, Aomori → Hachinohe
• Goshogawara, Aomori → Goshogawara
• Kuroishi, Aomori → Kuroishi

– Unambiguous so no disambiguation is needed. feminist (talk) 07:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412 T 17:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose for consistency with other articles in the category. ╠╣uw [talk] 12:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Right, if other cities are unambiguous we should move them as well. But we shouldn't perpetuate a mistake for the sake of consistency. feminist (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I have added Goshogawara, Aomori to the nomination. feminist (talk) 15:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Kuroishi, Aomori is also unambiguous. Note that Hirosaki is at its base title, and has remained so since 2016. feminist (talk) 15:50, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. Goshogawara is unambiguous but "Aomori" helps with recognizability for this relatively small town. Changing titles of place names on this scale would involve thousands of articles and it seems like it would go most smoothly to find consensus for that at WP:MOS-JP before coming here. Kuroishi is ambiguous because of Kuroishi Domain and Hachinohe is ambiguous because of Hachinohe Domain (for that matter Hirosaki is ambiguous because of Hirosaki Domain). In the cases of Hirosaki and Hachinohe, at least, the city articles are probably the primary topics for the terms. But "Aomori" unambiguously marks them as the modern incarnations rather than the feudal domains. Dekimasuよ! 17:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support per nom; the proposed titles already redirect to these articles. Hatnotes can address User:Dekimasu's concerns (per WP:TWODABS). I encourage User:Huwmanbeing to compare the entries in, say, Category:Cities in Chiba Prefecture. There as with other Japanese cities, the ambiguous titles are very consistently disambiguated, while the unambiguous ones are not. —  AjaxSmack  17:55, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• I am probably happy with hatnotes for these, but still feel like it would be better to avoid doing this piecemeal. I'm not sure anyone much benefits from removing the "Aomori" from something like Goshogawara that isn't well known even in Japan. That said, I understand the desire to avoid preemptive disambiguation. Dekimasuよ! 18:07, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• We can work on other article titles later. WP:Wikipedia is a work in progress. feminist (talk) 01:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, but in the absence of establishing underlying consensus in the guideline, different discussions may come to different conclusions, in which case we are not making progress toward consistency at all. Dekimasuよ! 16:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

@AjaxSmack: None of these are unambiguous. See below. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per MOS-JA and previous discussions on this subject. --MChew (talk) 00:47, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Previous discussions involve ambiguous titles, e.g. cities whose names are the same as the prefecture they are in. This RM only involves unambiguous or mostly unambiguous cases. feminist (talk) 01:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
    • User:MChew, the principle of superfluous disambiguation was removed from the WP:MOS-JA section on place names recently. A couple of RMs at Talk:Gifu also recently undermined it. A discussion at WT:MOS-JA a few years back was inconclusive. Also nb from my example of Category:Cities in Chiba Prefecture that it does not seem to be widely practiced. —  AjaxSmack  16:34, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• The linked removal makes this look like not enough people are maintaining WP:MOS-JP. There was no discussion about this at all that I could find in the talk page archives. On the one hand that makes it seem like an uncontroversial change, but on the other hand it is a major shift to a guideline page made by a single editor for there to have been no discussion (perhaps because it was characterized as "Generalize and simplify text" rather than as the major change it was). I'd have had objected if I'd been active last summer. Perhaps the simplest solution would be to reinstitute the older phrasing. Dekimasuよ! 17:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
• As an aside, I was unaware of the set of Gifu RMs. I find it extremely unlikely that the city is the primary topic there over the prefecture. Several well-respected editors contributed to those discussions, but the idea that "prefecture" is always appended when referring to prefectures is simply incorrect, and both discussions were influenced at least a bit by a Kauffner sock. Dekimasuよ! 17:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
• The whole section was changed from being about disambiguation to being about what to put for a place of birth for example in an infobox. Before that change, it had "When disambiguation is required:" at the top, which means disambiguation is not always required and that had been there since 2014[1] when it was added as the result of an RFC. Peter James (talk) 22:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose A reasonable argument could perhaps be made that one, or two, or even all three, of these are the WP:PRIMARYTOPICs for their respective base titles, but the argument that they are unambiguous because the base titles on en.wiki happen to currently link directly to the articles on the modern municipalities is flawed, and is not even true now that I've created the disambiguation page at Kuroishi. (I was unable to establish on a brief Googling whether English-speaking go players ever use kuro-ishi and shiro-ishi to refer to the pieces used in that game, but if they do that should probably also be added.) Goshogawara is also apparently a type of apple, and I'm not even going to bother creating a disambig page to correspond to ja.wiki's "Hachinohe" disambig page (and yes, I am aware that one entry on that page is actually pronounced Yae[-no-sato] and another entry actually challenges the notion that even the title "Hachinohe, Aomori" is unambiguous); we do probably need an article on the Hachinohe clan, mind you. If anyone wants to RM these pages based on a proper PRIMARYTOPIC reasoning, they can fire ahead -- I'm not saying that any of these topics, or even all of them combined, are more likely search terms than the modern municipalities -- but you can't say the names are unambiguous when this clearly is not the case.

Also, that Gifu RM should be overturned; Nihonjoe's argument that in English "Gifu" by itself normally refers to the city was nonsense, and any RM where a Kauffner sock was a significant percentage of the !votes should probably be reassessed; Kauffner's comments in that RM were obvious trolling, since he was arguing that the city was the clear PRIMARYTOPIC, but cited NGrams that clearly showed the prefecture article getting more views.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• Hijiri 88, I would be happy to contribute to a new discussion on Gifu, but for the time being the active discussion on this topic is taking place at Talk:Nagano, Nagano without any apparent socking. Dekimasuよ! 20:38, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

It looks like the Ja DAB page for Hachinohe just lists sub topics or PTMs. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale: The modern city is named for the earlier village, which in turn was named for the earlier feudal domain, neither of which was coterminous with the present city, so it's debatable whether they are "sub topics". As I said above, if you want to argue that Hachinohe, but not the other two, is the primary topic at present, I might agree with you, but the RM's basis (that the current redirect targets "prove" their targets to be the primary topics) is intrinsically flawed and should not pass on that basis alone. I definitely agree that the article needs to be moved because Hachinohe, Aomori is a WP:PDAB and looks awful, but the proposed move doesn't address that. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:56, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

We don't have separate articles for the previous entities, it looks like the present entity simply absorbed other entities but is still the same place. Similar to how the current city boundaries of Manchester expanded over time. If the base name already redirects to the qualified name, there is implied consensus that it is the primary (or in this case only) topic, but that doesn't mean that we can't review that here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

If the base name already redirects to the qualified name, there is implied consensus that it is the primary (or in this case only) topic That's not how it works; per WP:NOTFINISHED, we must assume that notable, encyclopedic topics that do not currently have articles will at some point. Last night I took a random selection of twenty or so entries in the Nihon Koten Bungaku Daijiten to make a list of redlinks for me to turn into articles -- I assumed one or two of the ones that got longer articles in the NKBD would already have at least stubs on Wikipedia but every single one was red. If you want to create an article on the village (we already have an article on the feudal domain -- it's fallacious to assume no one ever calls it "Hachinohe" because our article has a "Domain" tagged onto the end) or on Goshogawara apples, fire ahead. Or wait for Asian Month; I won last year, so I'll probably just write a dozen or so entries this year, meaning there's one less competitor for the top spot. :P Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support The 1st 2 already redirect and look unambiguous, the 3rd looks primary over the red links and things not called just "Kuroishi". Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Per above, it's not true that the first two are unambiguous; the lack of a disambig page or a headnote linking to the identically named pre-modern domain is an error. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:02, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

The Hachinohe Domain is named after the city, I doubt readers are likely to confuse it. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:14, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per MOS-JA and previous discussions on this subject In ictu oculi (talk) 19:13, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose pending (re-)clarification of WP:MOS-JP on this point, and per the discussion above. Dekimasuよ! 20:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support - superfluous disambiguation and WP:CONCISE. There is absolutely no reason to include a state name here.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:57, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Asteroid name

After poking around a little, I found that the asteroid mentioned in the “Other” section isn’t actually named after the city. It’s apparently named for a person whose surname is Hachinohe. You can verify here. Should this bullet point (and I guess the whole Other section) be removed? Shanpanman (talk) 17:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)