Talk:Nagasaki, Nagasaki

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nagasaki, Nagasaki article.
Article policies
Nagasaki, Nagasaki is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
January 19, 2004 Refreshing brilliant prose Not kept
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a project to improve all Japan-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Japan-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Japan To-do:

Contents

[edit] someone should fix this sentence in the article

"According to statistics given at the Nagasaki Peace Park, the dead totalled 73,884, injured 74,909 and diseased 120,820." I don't think it was written by an English speaker - it doesn't make sense. Does anyone know what it should say?

--- Radiation poisoning perhaps, the sentence reads fine as is.

Furthermore, below that sentence, there's one that says the Japanese deserved it for the atrocities at Nanking, which is hardly relevant. I suggest it either be removed or clarified to show the whole scope of the second world war, and its impact.

[edit] Consensus?

Um ... 7 (6?) to 5 is a consensus? I'm not really sure votes should be "cut and pasted" ... it sets a very bad precedent. I think this page should be moved back to where it was short of a clear consensus. CES 02:30, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

The vote was included because it was a vote for the exact same thing - it's just the situation has been badly organised following opening and closing votes. I count 8 to 5 for the move (you missed the submitter of the request) and that is a clear enough majority for the move. I suggest that the naming conventions should be updated and such situations discussed. violet/riga (t) 08:35, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
I didn't count him/her because they are not a registered user. The vote you cut-and-pasted was made before the ensuing discussion that changed at least one other person's mind, who knows how he would've voted ... please don't cut and paste other people's votes. Personally I'm not really sure that 8-to-5 even is enough for a move. A majority is not the same thing as a consensus ... does Wikipedia have a policy on what makes a consensus to avoid this kind of disagreement? CES 12:30, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
There is no reason not to count registered users. The vote I copy/pasted is acceptable as it is a vote for the exact same decision – if you are bothered about it I suggest contacting the user involved. If he objects to me doing that then by all means he can retract the vote, though I still see the decision as fair. The majority of people wanted the move and it has been done – there is no mandate that we must gain a specific number/percentage of votes. violet/riga (t) 14:22, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't want to turn this into a war of words, so I'd like to make this my last comment on the subject.
  • The naming convention is pretty clear, and on the Japan-related Manual of Style we're working to make it clearer. To the best of my knowledge, Hiroshima, Kyoto, and now Nagasaki are the only cities in Japan not in the "City, Prefecture" format.
  • I think counting unregistered users gets a bit dicey ... it makes it hard to make sure there isn't ballot stuffing going on (which I don't think happened here, but it is a general point).
  • It is the principle of cutting-and-pasting votes to which I object. It doesn't matter that it's the same subject--let people vote for themselves. I know that I for one have changed my mind before and would be upset if someone took my opinon as a given.
  • A simple majority is not a consensus. A consensus is "an opinion or position reached by a group as a whole". To move a page without even a 2/3 majority seems hasty and encourages pages being switched back and forth depending on which way the wind blows that week.
  • What disturbs me the most is the method in which you handled the situation. You took a vote that practically tied at 6-5 and hadn't been commented on for almost a week, and then without warning or discussion added two votes and promptly moved the page at the same time. We need clear cut procedures for page moves so that it is a community decision and not the whim of an individual.
CES 16:40, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
I followed WP:RM procedure and, considering I am basically the only admin that does those requests (and has ever done) then I'm pretty fluent about the process. The naming convention is disputed on the talk page as being "ambiguous" as well you know and it is standard policy that we should adhere to on this (not requiring the prefecture). I agree that IPs should be discounted sometimes but, as you said, I think this case is clearly acceptable. The principle of cut/pasting a vote is fine in this case in my opinion - it is obviously the same vote and that user may not have returned to change his mind anyway. The idea of consensus is difficult as there is no middle ground, hence having to go with majority rule. Finally, the move was given two days more than the usual five days and me coming and adding two votes is not really a problem. violet/riga (t) 17:26, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
I can see your points, and I have no doubt if you followed the process. But, this is just not the way we work in wikipedia. To begin with, wikipedia is not democracy, and no matter whatever the number in the poll is, I don't think people like CES are persuaded. It is true that sometimes we need a poll like at a time when either option is problematic. But I don't think this is a right way, whatever guideline you cite says. This is a delicate issue, and we have to realy make sure about what we want. If we made a wrong decision, somone someday would point out a problem and suggests changes. In any event, I started a slighly different but less problematic poll, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)/Survey. This issue is, unfortunately, not over. At least, the title of the article should follow the manual of style, and the title of this article does not. -- Taku 19:56, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
WP:RM is all about polls. Wikipedia has to be about democracy when the policies are not clear enough, but the policy should be fixed rather than having a move request for one article. violet/riga (t) 20:34, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
We really cannot debate this. Suffice it to say that I am not the only one who believes 51% support is enough to change anything from NPOV policiy to the name of an geographic article. As you may or may not notice, currently Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles) says this article should be named Nagasaki, Nagasaki. The reality is that whatever the poll for request for move says, the title of an article should follow the naming convention and if you want to change the title of this one, we first have to discuss the modification to the manual of style. -- Taku 20:39, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
As you said yourself "the sentence is ambigious" regarding the convention. This move has highlighted that problem and has led to the beginnings of clarification. A page move is not permanent and when the policy decision is made we can sort it out. violet/riga (t) 21:02, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
Hello, I'm new to wikipedia so this probably isn't formatted right, but I just wanted to let you know that I've changed some elements of the city's history. Whoever wrote the Sengoku-Edo stuff was missing a lot of details, especially regarding the expulsion of Christianity from the country. I don't know how much detail to go into, but I tried to keep it related to Nagasaki itself.

[edit] WP:RM

  • Talk:Nagasaki, Nagasaki ? Nagasaki, Nagasaki → Nagasaki ? Because it is a very significant city, since an atomic bomb was dropped on it. 132.205.45.148 17:50, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, Support. Proteus (Talk) 19:10, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support -- Oarih 19:27, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Please see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(Japan-related_articles)#Place names -- Rick Block 20:02, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - "City, Prefecture" is the standard form for articles on Japanese cities. It helps disambiguate cities with the same name in different prefectures, and especially in the case of cities such as Nagasaki, differentiates between the city of Nagasaki and the prefecture of Nagasaki. CES 20:17, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Considering I proposed the same yesterday, then withdrew to propose the other way for Hiroshima & Kyoto to make everything consistent (see above archive). I guess I have to vote this way :D -- KTC 21:25, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Still. See the comments I made on yesterday's vote (above). Fg2 21:33, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support —Michael Z. 2005-05-3 01:39 Z
  • Support, for the same reasons as for Talk:New York City#Oppose. DmitryKo 19:33, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. James F. (talk) 01:44, 2 May 2005 (UTC) (restated James F. (talk) 20:01, 4 May 2005 (UTC))
  • Oppose - Agree with Rick Block and Fg2. Atsi Otani 20:16, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, other Japanese cities with the same name of city and prefecture are located at [[cityname]] rather than [[cityname,prefecturename]] (e.g. Kyoto, Hiroshima). New York City sets the precedent for losing the [[cityname,geographicregionname]] format for notable city articles. - MykReeve T·C 22:53, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - violet/riga (t) 18:14, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 18:14, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Requested Move

This is an archive of the discussion about the proposed move of the article from [[Nagasaki, Nagasaki]] to [[Nagasaki]]. This is no longer live.
The proposal was withdrew by proposer. KTC 02:30, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


  • Support. James F. (talk) 01:44, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, other Japanese cities with the same name of city and prefecture are located at [[cityname]] rather than [[cityname,prefecturename]] - MykReeve T·C 01:50, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The standard format for names of Japanese cities, towns and villages is Name, Prefecture. Other Japanese cities with the same name as the prefecture should all be Name, Name, e.g. Aomori, Aomori; Okayama, Okayama; Okinawa, Okinawa (and these three all are). Kyoto was moved from Kyoto, Kyoto and should be moved back. Nagasaki already redirects to the city; what benefit would moving the article give? Fg2 01:54, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • Personally, I much much perfer just [[City]] than [[City, City]] and it make sense to me more. However, if it is agree here that it should be City, City, then all the other articles need to be the same. -- KTC 01:59, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
      • There are many hundreds of articles on Japanese cities, towns, and villages, and authors have diligently followed the standard City, Prefecture. Check out any prefecture and see the list of municipalities at the bottom. Also, I just checked Kagoshima, Kagoshima; Saga, Saga; Kumamoto, Kumamoto; Oita, Oita; and Fukuoka, Fukuoka (all in Kyushu, along with Nagasaki). They follow the Name, Name pattern. Fg2 02:05, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
        • I am checking ;) -- KTC 02:07, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Also, Yamaguchi, Yamaguchi; Tottori, Tottori; Shimane, Shimane; Osaka, Osaka; Fukui, Fukui. Fg2 02:09, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Alright. I would have replied faster had FF not quit working for me for 5 mins. -- KTC 02:15, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

      • For those not yet convinced, let's add Akita, Yamagata, Fukushima, Nagano, Gunma, Tochigi, Ibaraki, Toyama, and Nara: all follow the Name, Name pattern. Fg2 02:19, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
        • I think we get the point :P I'm going to list for move those that is the other way. Give me time. KTC 02:22, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


This is now preserved as an archive, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue should be place below. Please do not edit this part

[edit] Density

An anon IP changed the density from 1321 to 1322. I do not know which one is incorrect; however, I've decided to rv to the original revision (1321). Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:35, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Whitespace Elimination

  • I just spent over two and a half hours eliminating a 'horrible' esthetic appearance wherein large verticle blocks of whitespace migrated to different and awkward places in the article depending on the brower font size selected. The resultant effort displays nicely regardless of which of the five browser font size settings a user may view.

The key auto-formatting problem here is the outsized Japan City template Box, and persons on the Japan Cities project might take it under advisement to break this into smaller boxes, or many Japan Cities articles are going to be UGLY (With a capital 'UG'), IMHO.

  • The chain of breaks and divs and the placement and sizing of the initial picture are integral to the success of that effort, so move them or alter them only if you can guarantee a similarly nicely displayed output! Without significant textual additions, these should stand up pretty well to small edits and sentence-sized changes where they are.
  • Otherwise, only eliminating one pic or another could ease the Wiki-autoformating to give a more evenly dispersed textual output, IMHO.

FrankB 15:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nagasaki vs. Nagasaki City

Sorry to return to this topic but all official documents released by Nagasaki City refer to Nagasaki as 'Nagasaki City'. This is their official policy and seems to be the policy of most places where city and prefecture share a name.

Wikipedia does not have to refer to a city by the form of the name the city chooses for itself. Japanese cities generally name themselves according to the pattern X-shi (-shi is the kanji 市). This is true of Nagasaki and hundreds of other cities nationwide. Similarly, in the US, cities typically choose either the form City of X or the form X City. See, for example, the *official web site of the city of Los Angeles. Outside of the US, Toronto follows this pattern, too. And within the US, an unusual example is the City of Oklahoma City. The Wikipedia articles for LA, Toronto, and Oklahoma City are at Los Angeles, California, Toronto, Ontario, and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, not City of Los Angeles, City of Toronto, City of Oklahoma City. That is, none of these article titles follows the official name of the municipality.
The article on Nagasaki was previously at Nagasaki, Nagasaki, following the (city name, prefecture name) naming convention that the Wikipedia community adopted for cities, towns, and villages in Japan. Someone renamed the article Nagasaki, and here it is today. I would prefer that it be at Nagasaki, Nagasaki for uniformity among all municipalities in Japan.
Fg2 07:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
From the perspective of WP:ENGLISH I'd have thought [[Nagasaki]] should be the city, or at least a redirect to [[Nagasaki, Nagasaki]] with a hatnote to [[Nagasaki Prefecture]]. Making it a disambiguation page just adds a click to most searches, and creates a needless pitfall for people linking to [[Nagasaki]] (for instance from G. E. M. Anscombe) who would be linking to [[Nagasaki Prefecture]] if that was what they meant. I'm curious as to how the bot is recognizing which links to change ... --Paularblaster (talk) 02:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused - why is it wrong to say "Nagasaki, Nagasaki" as the official title, even if we call it "Nagasaki" in English. We also call it "Houston" but the article is "Houston, Texas." I will comment that the disambig is questionable - I would consider the city to be the primary meaning (in English anyway). I also consider it a bit unnecessary to tack "City" on there, since that's something that's picked up in translation. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mesotardigrada

Nagazaki is the only place where Mesotardigrada have been spotted in history. Doesn't that warrant inclusion in the article?--SidiLemine 10:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, why not? Perhaps add a wildlife or fauna section. cyclosarin 01:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Factual errors

I've corrcted a sentence that said that tempura was imported by the Portuguese. Boy, was it embarrassing when my supervisor pointed out this error to me when I wrote it in an essay.

More importantly, it says here that the Portuguese were confined to a prison in Deshima. I have two problems with this: first, it was the Dutch who were confined here; second, the word, 'Prison,' takes the perspective of those confined - we're not talking Guantanamo Bay here, it was a mere restriction on the movement of foreigners. Seems like it will be more difficult to change this inaccuracy as it's pretty tangled into its paragraph. For this reason, and also because I'm sure people will disagree with my second reservation on the matter, I've not changed it myself but thought I should put it on the table.

Much love,


Rupa zero 19:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)rupaZer0


I also removed a factual error about the death toll; there was an unsourced wildly off figure for radiation illnesses. Gtadoc 17:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kameyama yaki photo

Added a photo of a good Kameyama Yaki jar with trading scenery of the city. Iwanafish

Thanks, it's a nice photo. Do you know about Wikimedia Commons? If you upload your photos there, they can be used on all Wikimedia projects, including Wikipedia articles in all languages. It's fun to find your photos in articles in Japanese, French, Russian, Hungarian, and various other languages. Simply get a user name on Commons and upload your photo, with a free license. It's recommended to add it to a category or gallery too, such as Nagasaki or Category:Nagasaki. Thanks! Fg2 09:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Map

It would be great if there was a second (or just a better) map in the article to help readers have an idea of where Nagasaki is globally. I have no idea how to do it otherwise I would. 138.16.52.11 (talk) 07:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)