Talk:Himeji

Discussion Page

I decided I would start up the discussion page for Himeji. I've just (finally!) joined Wikipedia as a contributing member and I'm also a resident of Himeji, so I expect I'll be contributing what I can when I have time. Threat42 04:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Sister Cities and Castle

I modeled the Sister city section after the Osaka page model in hopes of keeping all the Japanese-related articles looking consistent. I hope this is the proper protocol. Threat42 04:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Islands

What are those islands that are shown to be under the city's jurisdiction on the map? They should at least be mentioned by name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.157.155.247 (talk) 11:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

requested move

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 not moved. It has long been the case that project-specific naming conventions are followed over general ones. The general naming conventions cited below were written based on observations of many naming discussions, and those observations did not include general rules superseding project-specific ones. If the criteria listed at WP:AT seem to imply that project-specific naming conventions are to be "trumped", then they're not written correctly. - GTBacchus^(talk) 03:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Himeji, Hyōgo → Himeji – Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC) the disambiguate ',Hyogo', is not needed as this is clearly the most notable place, person, or named (just) 'Himeji', 'Hijemi' already redirects here, firstly. Mayumashu (talk) 12:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. The Manual of Style for Japan-related articles stipulates that all Japanese city articles (with the exception of designated cities - of which Himeji is not one) should be named using the form [[{city-name}, {prefecture-name}]]. Until consensus changes, it is difficult to support the move proposed. --DAJF (talk) 12:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support. WP:TITLE (policy) trumps Manual of Style for Japan-related articles and consistency with such guidelines is but one of five principal naming criteria listed at WP:TITLE which we are to consider:

• Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.
• Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English.
• Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. (See § Precision and disambiguation, below.)
• Concision – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. (See § Concision, below.)
• Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles, in the box above. (See § Consistent titling, below.)

The two titles are essentially equal on recognizability and naturalness, but the proposed title beats the current title on concision (obviously) as well as precision (the current title is overly precise). The proposed title meets the criteria better than the current title. Anyway, to reduce confusion, the MoS should be updated to be more consistent with WP:TITLE, in particular to not call for unnecessary disambiguation. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:55, 22 July 2011 (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.