Talk:Keihanshin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Keihanshin article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

[edit] Move to Keihanshin?

Why isn't this at Keihanshin? If the term doesn't have any grounding in English, it also seems silly to change the order of the cities in the title. Dekimasu 08:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. This didn't seem to generate a lot of discussion, but it's been a while and no one has raised objections, so I'm following your suggestion. -- Exitmoose (talk) 04:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

(Copying remark from [[1]])

  • The name "Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto" is clearer. As the article says, the name Keihanshin (京阪神) is not a tradiitonal name but was constructed by extracting a representative kanji from Kyoto (京都), Osaka (大阪), and Kobe (神戸), but using the Chinese reading instead of the corresponding Japanese reading for each of the characters taken from "Osaka" and "Kobe". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
    • The anagram-like Chinese reading of kanji (which I think has a name, but, it's too early on Monday for me to remember it) is quite often used, so, I'm not sure what the argument is. Hanshin is but one example (from which Keihanshin is just an extension).　I think sticking with the actual name of regions in any language is preferred, rather than cobbling together an English equivalent. We don't need to have West of the border and East of the border articles, just because the Japanese name is a bit unfamiliar. Neier (talk) 23:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree with Neier. There are other examples as well, such as Hanshin Industrial Region (as opposed to Osaka-Kobe Industrial Region). -- Exitmoose (talk) 00:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • What's wrong with Greater Osaka, as the article's intro uses. 70.55.84.42 (talk) 04:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Most people outside Japan do not know Japanese, or which "on'yomi" pronunciation corresponds with which "kun'yomi" pronunciation. But most people have heard of Osaka and Kobe and Kyoto, at least via the news. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
      • That's true, and each of those cities has an article under their respective names. However, most people haven't heard of "Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto", because it's not a term regularly used in English. In this case, it's more appropriate to use the Japanese term in the same way as other articles as Neier writes above. The on'yomi/kun'yomi issue is secondary, as it's more about the etymology of the word than about whether the article should be at that title. -- Exitmoose (talk) 09:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't think "Greater Osaka" is as appropriate as "Keihanshin". The region isn't as dominated by Osaka as, say, the Greater Tokyo Area. The three cities collectively define the region, which is precisely why the word in Japanese is composed of elements of each. It would be like having the Minneapolis-Saint Paul article at Greater Minneapolis. -- Exitmoose (talk) 09:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
It would be like renaming Randstad to Amsterdam-Rotterdam-The Hague-Utrecht... HermanHiddema (talk) 22:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • To reply to Anthony Appleyard: Yes, the name consists of a kanji each from Kyoto, Osaka, and Kobe and uses the sound-based readings; however, that's one of the main ways that normal Japanese words are formed. That formulation doesn't make it any less a common term or traditional name; it is, and I don't see the need to prefer a descriptive title to a precise proper noun. Support the move, as I seem to have a year and a half ago. Dekimasuよ! 13:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I also note that there are two talk pages now. The article and the talk page are separate. Dekimasuよ! 13:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removed move request template

The page has been removed, so I removed the move request template. -- Exitmoose (talk) 00:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)