Wikipedia

Talk:List of Historic Sites of Japan (Aichi)

Latest comment: 2 years ago by Spekkios in topic Requested move 21 March 2022
Learn more about this page
edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Historic Sites of Japan (Aichi). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of Historic Sites of Japan (Aichi). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:36, 25 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Requested move 21 March 2022

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago50 comments15 people in discussion
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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus: This was a very tough one to call. Going by a strict count of supporters and opposes, the supporters are in the clear majority. However, consensus determination also requires evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions. Supporters of moving the articles generally argued that the titles are not proper names, with some referring to WP:NCCAPS, WP:LOWERCASE, MOS:PROPERNOUN, MOS:CAPS, etc. Opposers of the move generally argued that these historic sites are officially recognised by the Japanese government, and since other articles on Wikipedia capitalise the names of similar articles, these should be capitalised as well.

In the aforementioned policies, and indeed some of the comments made during this discussion, it is emphasized that the capitalisation of article titles should be consistent with the source material. Very few sources were actually cited during this discussion, which makes it hard to judge the weight of statements concerning the source material. Therefore, in regards to arguments about source material, I find the statement by No such user to be the most convincing: this is a clear demarcation problem with no single satisfactory solution, and that citing source material is difficult due to the different profile of those sources when compared to other countries.

Given that other articles on Wikipedia capitalise similar articles, that very few sources were refereed to during this discussion, the majority of commenters argue that these titles are not common names and therefore shouldn't be capitalised, and that citing source material is difficult in this scenario, I find that there is no consensus on what the article titles should be. (non-admin closure) Spekkios (talk) 23:33, 14 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

– Per WP:LOWERCASE, as suggested at Talk:List of historic sites of Japan (Kōchi)#Requested move 21 March 2022. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:18, 21 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

No, because, as is clear from the article, Historic Sites are designated also at a prefectural level. Historic Sites of Yamanashi Prefecture sounds like 山梨県指定史跡, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 03:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
The link in the Monuments of Japan article of this guideline seems to suggest that yes, Historic Site is indeed an actual designation in English. Canterbury Tail talk 17:42, 22 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure that one pamphlet is enough to hang our hats on for English-language sourcing, but it's something. A question: the articles describe several different types of designations of historic importance, at least including designations at the national, prefectural and municipal level. Are all of these designations determined by the national Agency for Cultural Affairs, or are some of them determined at a more local level? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Hello, the prefectural/municipal designations are in accordance with the national law (potentially in conjunction with or via local regulations) but by more local bodies; The agency For cultural affairs' overall statistics include the more local designations, but for information on the designations themselves, one has to refer to the prefectural/municipal government sites, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 14:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Well, a start would be the 文化庁 sources provided in the article overleaf; otherwise refer to the literature in English, including eg the more general recent OUP handbook on international cultural heritage law as well as the Japan-centric studies in your university library. Please provide the balance of evidence that would require this discussion and the disruption of the status quo, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 03:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
NO, because the designations under this system include paintings, and paintings listed against one prefecture might in fact be not only temporarily on displahy in but deposited in another prefecture; Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 14:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Well I suggested some, can you not find them? Also, how do you propose to distinguish between Historic Sites and historic sites? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 14:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Right, I could not find any in my own search, and now I can't find where you sugggested some. Maybe you can make a "===Sources===" subsection for us to consider, instead of a vague mention. Dicklyon (talk) 16:24, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Per WP:RMCI#NOTOTHERPAGES, an RM that was just closed shouldn't be overturned by an RM that didn't even list that article. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 05:16, 12 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Source

edit

If you look at the translation of the relevant legislation in the UNESCO database of national cultural heritage laws, a translation which says it by the Japan Centre for International Cooperation in Conservation and the National Research Institute for Cultural Properties, Tokyo, this uses what you would expect and how it should be, i.e, "Historic Site" etc, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 15:17, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

It looks to me like that translation never speaks of "Historic Site of Japan", nor "Prefectural Historic Sites", nor "Municipal Historic Site", nor just "Historic Sites", other than in the context of the two quoted special designations 'Historic Sites, Places of Scenic Beauty and Natural Monuments' and 'Special Historic Sites, Places of Scenic Beauty and Natural Monuments'. There's not evidence that 'Historic Sites' would be capped in other contexts. Dicklyon (talk) 16:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Please read Cultural Property (Japan) then return. Historic Sites, like Places of Scenic Beauty, like Natural Monuments are the three elements that together comprise Monuments of Japan; they were introduced together in the legislation hence are spoken of together in the legislation; this is an utterly ridiculous waste of time, go and be disruptive somewhere else, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 17:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
The law of Japan, or a translation of it, and any publications of the Agency for Cultural Affairs of Japan, should be considered self-published and/or primary sources when talking about the programs of the Japanese government. Ideally, there should be WP:independent sources that are WP:reliable sources that discuss the subject with WP:significant coverage in English, in order to make a determination that a particular capitalization is consistently followed. But it seems that finding English-language independent reliable sources may be difficult in this case. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:30, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
See, this is exactly what I warned above: "Follow the usage in sources" is a pretty hollow mantra, since sources discussing Japanese historical sites will be of different profile than those discussing, for example, Brazilian ones, [...], producing inconsistent results. Official designations of protected areas, historic sites and like should all be treated WP:CONSISTENTly, whether they are located in Japan, Kiribati, Paraguay or the United States. I don't have a strong preference for either lowercase or uppercase (both have their merits), but going case-by-case and examining sources (beware of WP:COMMONSTYLE fallacy) is counterproductive, since there will be inevitable inconsistency in sources treating essentially the same subjects. If necessary, let's have a RfC somewhere (I'd propose a limited scope only about natural and cultural heritage items) and then apply it consistently. No such user (talk) 09:16, 24 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

More over-capitalization

edit

Multiples sections include "Sites" over-capitalized (I just fixed). I left headings "Prefectural Historic Sites", though it's hard to imagine that this RM will conclude that "Historic Sites" is a proper name with or without Prefectural or Municipal. We'll see. Dicklyon (talk) 16:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

You introduced errors, which I have since reverted; please attend for example to this item in the database (the line "Ōtaka Castle ruins" overleaf); in terms of Historic Site designations, this is but one, but three component sites that are themselves historic (each of which has its own jawiki article, each its own Commons category) together form this one (designated) Historic Site. Please desist, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 19:04, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
I did not introduce errors. The only thing you reverted of my was to re-capitalize "Sites" where it stands alone. The page you link is in Japanese, but the English translation I get has lowercase sites, so it's not clear what you're trying to tell me here. Dicklyon (talk) 01:20, 24 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Even though these terms are clearly not proper names, I get the feeling that people might want to capitalize them anyway, as a way of indicating that the terms have a special meaning. That's the impression I got from my generally-opposed RM at Talk:National Historic Landmark#Requested move 18 January 2022. It may be, for capitalization, sort of analogous to the following guidance from WP:THE: "If a term with a definite article has a different meaning with respect to the same term without the article, the term with the article can be used as the name of a Wikipedia article ... For example, "crown" means the headgear worn by a monarch or other high dignitaries, while "The Crown" is a term used to indicate the government authority and the property of that government in a monarchy." In this case, the capitalization is being used to convey the indication that the term is an officially conferred designation. That seems potentially contrary to MOS:SIGNIFCAPS, and it could be a slippery slope, but I think it is what is motivating the opposition to the downcasing. (Being capitalized doesn't mean they are proper names in the grammatical sense, of course.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
A reasonable way to do this would be something like "This is a list of sites that have been given the designation 'Historic Sites, Places of Scenic Beauty and Natural Monuments' ...", and then to use the lowercase "sites", "historic sites", etc. elsewhere. Dicklyon (talk) 01:23, 24 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
So are you suggesting we rename this page and the rest to List of sites that have been given the designation Historic Sites, Places of Scenic Beauty and Natural Monuments (Aichi) (Japan) (Historic Sites)? I certainly wouldn't click on one of the red links above, because they are saying they will take me to a random hotchpotch of historic sites, rather than a/this list of Historic Sites, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 06:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
That's certainly my concern. The capitalisation allows the reader to distinguish betweeen a list of officially designated Historic Sites vs. a random list of historic sites made up ad hoc by an editor. If there's another not-too-cumbersome way to make that distinction without using caps, I'd be happy with it. Colonies Chris (talk) 16:07, 25 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
I proposed another way immediately above your comment. WP style is to not use caps for such purposes. Dicklyon (talk) 17:29, 26 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Sounds like it is not fit for purpose then, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 23:08, 2 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Historic_Sites_of_Japan_(Aichi)&oldid=1203649560"