Talk:Niigata (city)

Transportation

Why is the current information not related to the article? It seems fully appropriate to me.

--Ehroru —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ehroru (talk • contribs) 04:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

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.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. Clear consensus in favor of moving, but insufficient evidence provided that this is the primary topic. So, executive decision is to compromise by moving to standard disambiguated form for such situations (e.g., Cork (city)): Niigata (city). Born2cycle (talk) 23:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Requested move

Niigata, Niigata → Niigata — The name of the city is simply Niigata.  Dr. Loosmark  13:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Support - the convention for Japanese settlements appears to be Name, Prefecture. Thus Niigata, Niigata is correct, just as is Gifu, Gifu. In these two cases this also helps disambiguate the city from the prefeture of the same name. However, larger settlements such as Tokyo, Yokohama, Sagamihara etc. seem to just use the city name. So the question is - is Niigata a sufficiently important city that it should (a) take the primary topic name ahead of its prefecture, and (b) not need to use the Name, Prefecture nomenclature because it is sufficiently important.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• The answer to your question is obviously yes. Niigata is one of the government-designated cities plus the biggest city of on the Japan Sea coast. If that isn't a sufficiently important city then I don't know which is. To be frank I don't even understand what do you mean by disambiguate the city from the prefecture, if somebody wants the article about the prefecture he will simply type Niigata Prefecture.  Dr. Loosmark  12:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

  In that case I am happy to change my comment above to a support the move. Re my point about differentiating city and province, think of New York City vs New York (state). Neither is a primary meaning for the term "New York". Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Regarding city vs province, the thing is there is a huge difference between a US state and a Japanese prefecture, the US being basically a federation of states and the states having a relatively big amount of sovereignty.  Dr. Loosmark  13:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support per nom. JJ98 (talk) 23:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I was about to close this survey and perform the move but found that Niigata already exists as a disambiguation page. This leaves a few possibilities. First, the question becomes, is the city the primary meaning of Niigata? If so (and this is shown) the dab page needs to be moved to Niigata (disambiguation) and then this moved to the solo name, with hatnotes added and/or fixed as the case may be. If it is not the primary meaning, then it needs to be disambiguated in some manner. The current title is, of course, one way, but others would be Niigata (city), Niigata City and so on.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

  I think Niigata is the primary meaning. As a major city, this takes precedence over its prefecture (as discussed above), and all the other titles are either related to the city, or clearly of lesser importance (i.e. the railways and the 19th century newspaper).  — Amakuru (talk) 12:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - Niigata, Niigata is proper and standard Wikipedia geographic name disambiguation. When Niigata is used it is substantially likely to be the prefecture as opposed to the city, even if the city were to be at 50% or 60% of the usage. Thus the disambiguation page is the reasonable default. Given the other uses, I would leave as is. --Bejnar (talk) 23:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - According to these 1 2 3 4 5 pageview statistics from last month, the traffic looks like this:
  • 50% - Niigata Prefecture
  • 25% - Niigata, Niigata
  • 20% - Albirex Niigata
  • 4% - Niigata Stadium
  • 1% - Niigata Transys
• That doesn't lead me to agree that the city is the primary topic. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Those stats prove nothing at all because 1) we don't know how people got to those pages 2) even if more people are interested in the Niigata Prefecture than in the city it does not mean that Niigata Prefecture is the primary meaning of Niigata. The name of the city is Niigata and the name of the prefecture is Niigata Prefecture. It's as simple as that.  Dr. Loosmark  11:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not really claiming that they "prove" anything. I do bring them up because it's not a priori clear what the primary topic is, and it's worth at least considering pageviews. In this case, as you point out, the city of Niigata is the only thing called simply "Niigata". When User:Bejnar says above that the name is "substantially likely to be the prefecture," I find myself asking whether we can put a number to that, to determine how true it is. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

 Dr. Loosmark , I am not talking about the primary meaning (if any), I am talking about substantial ambiguity, which according to the Wikipedia guidelines on disambiguation is to be resolved by having the search term default to the disambiguation page, so that the users can see all their options. --Bejnar (talk) 22:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - Here is one way of looking at it: If we have the city at Niigata, then with an appropriate hatnote, users looking for the prefecture would have one additional click, and users looking for any of the 3 other topics would have 2 extras. On the other hand, if we put a dab page at Niigata, then all readers have one extra click. (That's discounting anyone whose goal is the dab page itself - this is probably rare. It's also discounting anyone looking for "none of the above". I don't know how rare that is.)

  Thus, looking from a purely click-minimizing perspective, we should put the city at the simple title if more readers who search "Niigata" are looking for the city than are looking for the football team, the stadium and the manufacturer, combined.

  There are, of course, considerations other than minimizing clicks; I only mention this to provide one additional perspective. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support - whatever the conventions may say, the present title just looks silly and fails to help anyone. If we think most people associate the name Niigata with the prefecture, then let Niigata redirect to there, and call this article "Niigata (city)". However, in the absence of any evidence that that is the case, I think we should apply common sense and assume that people are mostly looking for the city under that title.--Kotniski (talk) 11:10, 6 September 2010 (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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Niigata, Niigata. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927191039/http://www.city.niigata.jp/info/kikaku/seirei_shitei_toshi/singikai/tousin/tousinitizu.htm to http://www.city.niigata.jp/info/kikaku/seirei_shitei_toshi/singikai/tousin/tousinitizu.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 19:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Maps in infobox

There are two maps in the Infobox that show up as if they are positioned with latitude and longitude both being zero. --FredTC (talk) 13:00, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Toponymy

It appears that this description of "another island settlement that relocated" could be derived from the corresponding section of the Japanese version of this page that reads "元々は新潟島の海岸部にある村". However, as it is taken out of context without "Niigata-" beginning of "Niigata-Jima" which refers to a quasi island of the central downtown area, made after 1972 by the completion of the Sekiya-Bunsui bypass. As this particular paragraph is describing much older dates of the origin of the name of the place "Niigata", referencing to "Niigata-Jima", itself, does not seem to be not relevant. I would propose a solution, simply, to drop "island" from this sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rararakagaku (talk • contribs) 22:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC) --Rararakagaku (talk) 21:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

History

I was trying to locate sources of theories why Niigata was removed from the atomic bomb target list. It appears there are many unrelated factors that may be considered to have some influences on the decision. However, none of them are described as definitive, or have some kind of official record validation. One of the theories, the distance from B-29 bases to Niigata appears in one reference, , but it does not indicate any more credibility in other ones, such as distance between higher priority cities, namely Hiroshima and Kokura, and Niigata, as it may be required as a on-the-fly diversion if the weather conditions of the mission day dictate. so I wonder if it is appropriate to have some more qualifications of such nuance to this statement.--Rararakagaku (talk) 21:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

In addition, in a larger context, I found that the governor evacuation order was actually issued after the second Nagasaki bombing.

I may do some more fact-finding research, meanwhile start considering a rewrite draft for this entire paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rararakagaku (talk • contribs) 19:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I would propose to rewrite the paragraph as follows; In 1945, near the end of the war, Niigata was one of four cities, together with Hiroshima, Kokura, and Nagasaki, picked as targets for the atomic bombs if Japan did not surrender. There were several theories about the reasons that it was removed from the list of targets, such as poor weather conditions, its distance from B-29 bases in the Mariana Islands, and other factors. .

on August 11, 1945, after the second atomic bombing in Nagasaki, The governor of Niigata Prefecture ordered the people to evacuate as concerns rumors of an impending bombing heightened spread, and the city was completely deserted for days.--Rararakagaku (talk) 21:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

The reference to the relocation of the Niigata Station in the current English version is specifying 1950, but multiple sources indicate that it was in 1958, such as a material from Niigata City . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rararakagaku (talk • contribs) 22:21, 21 November 2021 (UTC) --Rararakagaku (talk) 21:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

A separate comment to see if there is anyone who has any thoughts, regarding the "Mergers" section. This section in Niigata City English page uses many references of an English word "amalgamate" including the instances of simply merge or absorption of the municipal entities. Related topic English pages of Japanese municipality administrations use "merge", "annex", and/or "amalgamate". I wonder this page on Niigata may be over-using "amalgamate" for ones that could better be described by the simpler/plainer "merge" expressions.--Rararakagaku (talk) 19:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Usages in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_mergers_and_dissolutions_in_Japan# use mostly "merge", "merger" as the baseline wording for the municipal mergers. there are references specific to the Great Heisei Merers as the "Great Heisei Amalgamation" but still the majority of the references in that general description of the article use "merge". Rararakagaku (talk) 16:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Rararakagaku (talk) 16:38, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

edited the "Merger" subsection of the page to use "merge" instead of "amalgamate." Rararakagaku (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Rararakagaku (talk) 16:38, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

References

Culture

The description "due to the strategic location to the north" in the second sentence of the first paragraph in the section Culture does not have obvious source of the information. Also "the north" is an ambiguous expression, whether it means locally, domestically, or internationally. Rararakagaku (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Education

I think the recent addition of "College of Biomedical Technology Niigata University" may be acceptable, as an historic listing including past organization(s). however, it is no longer operating for almost 20 years, and was organizationally a part of Niigata University. if listing includes this school, I propose to consider making it distinguishable from other currently active organizations, like putting it at the last with a note or identification of its discontinuation, or leave it as one subtopic for the Niigata University's main page, omit it in this city main page. Rararakagaku (talk) 17:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

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)