Talk:Mount Hiuchigatake

Merger proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge Hiuchi and Mount Hiuchigatake into Hiuchigatake DFT B3LYP (talk) 16:01, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that Hiuchi be merged into Mount Hiuchigatake. These two articles are duplicated. I don't know whether there is existing naming convention for Japanese mountains or not, but in my opinion "Mount Hiuchigatake" is more suitable for the article name since "Hiuchi" is too ambiguous. If there are any existing conventions, please let me know in this discussion. Thank you. --DFT B3LYP (talk) 12:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have not spent much time looking at mountain articles, but I have seen some dubious naming. Almost all Japanese placenames include the type of place (mountain, river, etc) as part of the name, and this results in awkwardness if "river", "mount" etc is mindlessly added. This seems to be a case in point: the name of the mountain is Hiuchigatake, consisting of elements Hiuchi (flint) - ga (connecting particle) - take (peak). So "Mount Hiuchigatake" is reduplicative; calling it "Mount Hiuchi" is somehow missing something. I suggest the article title should be "Hiuchigatake", since that is the name of the mountain. As usual, a strong appeal to disregard input from non-English-speaking contributors, which discounts any "official" naming from the Japanese government. (Of course both existing article titles can redirect). Imaginatorium (talk) 13:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I cannnot determine which article name is better "Mount Hiuchigatake" or "Hiuchigatake" as of now, and "Hiuchigatake" is also OK to me. I only oppose the idea of "Hiuchi", which is ambiguous and differs from the full official name. --DFT B3LYP (talk) 14:49, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~I would support merging to Hiuchigatake. Unless there's a clear preference for adding "Mount" before it in multiple English reliable sources, it's best to not make the title redundant.~~ It looks like Hiuchigatake needs to be a disambiguation page as it could refer to the celestial object, too. So, I support Mount Hiuchigatake. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This seems an odd argument: plainly the celestial body is named after the mountain, so the mountain "owns" the name. The other thing should be called "Hiuchigatake (comet)" or whateveritis. Imaginatorium (talk) 04:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no problem. The minor planet already has a redirect article called 6883 Hiuchigatake which conforms to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (astronomical objects)#Asteroids.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 05:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

f.y.i. There is also an article named Mount Hiuchi(火打山, Hiuchi-yama in Japanese), which is totally different from Hiuchigatake(燧ケ岳). A new disambiguation page may be needed after Hiuchi and Mount Hiuchigatake are merged so that the readers can distinguish these two mountains. I wasn't aware of it. User:bamse notified me about it.[1] )— Preceding unsigned comment added by DFT B3LYP (talk • contribs) 16:23, 15 December 2017 (UTC) additional explanation --DFT B3LYP (talk) 14:23, 17 December 2017 (UTC))[reply]

The MOS says that the place-type word shouldn't be removed if it is an "integral part" of the name. But what makes it an integral part? When it's present, "ga" seems to act like a kind of glue, so that the name seems incomplete without what comes after it. In other cases, like "-kawa", you often hear that it should be kept if the name would be "too short" without it. What's too short? This translator agrees with the "integral part" criterion and says that "too short" would be only one character left after deleting "-kawa", as in Arakawa River (荒川). Which seems kind of subjective, but I thnk it agrees with common practice. Anyway, in this case, I think the name should be "Hiuchigatake", because it contains "ga". That leaves the question of whether to add "Mount". Since I know what "-gatake" means, it seems more natural to me without "Mount". But the problem is that very few of our readers will know that. Looking at our articles on the 100 famous mountains, all of them have "Mount" in the title, even when they have "-gatake" in the name. Like Mount Aizu-Komagatake. So I would say the article should probably start with "Mount". As in the original proposal, merge "Hiuchi" into "Mount Hiuchigatake". – Margin1522 (talk) 04:33, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Just to make a personal comment on this: I do not have the sort of energy that would be required to start arguing about the MOS.) For what proportion of the earth's mountains (and similarly rivers etc), is it necessary to make a version of the name in (often mangled) English? Mountains in the Alps normally have a name which includes a "peak/mountain" element, and they are referred to in English by their names: Mont Blanc, Matterhorn, Monte Rosa etc (I believe that Americans do say "Mount Blanc", though I have no idea how they pronounce it). This is somewhat different from rivers, whose names do not normally include a "river" element: the Po, the Seine, the Meuse, the Rhine (replacing its various original spellings), and so on. Mountains in the Himalayas include Mount Everest (which was named in English, because it is not visible from the plain to the south), but also Kanchenjunga, Lhotse, Nuptse, Nanga Parbat, etc etc, and for none of these is it seen necessary to add "Mount", nor to attempt to translate bits of the name to "explain" them (not necessary anyway, because the first sentence will be "Hiuchi-ga-take is a mountain..."). So is Japan just "different"? How much do we have to be influenced by the cack-handed attempts by beginners at English? How many general readers would pronounce "River Tone" / "Tone River" (roughly) correctly, versus how many would get "Tonegawa"? What about "Mount Kōya (高野山 Kōya-san) is the name of mountains": huh? "Mount X" is not actually *a mountain* at all. It seems to me that this mindless "remove the end element, stick 'Mount' in front" stuff is unneeded, unhelpful, and silly. Imaginatorium (talk) 06:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just describing current practice, not saying what would be desirable. I can't speak for British readers, but American readers expect mountain names to have mountain words in them. That's why they are added systematically to foreign names regardless of what the names may mean in another language. Especially when the other language is less known, say Sami or the Native American languages. See List of redundant place names. Are you suggesting that we should go with the Hepburn romanization for all mountain and river names? We could do that, but I think it would be unusual. Less drastically, we could do it for "integral part" names only. That would be easy to add to the MOS, although we would at least have to gesture toward defining what counts as an "integral part". (About Mount Kōya, sure. Sometimes a word turns out to be unexpectedly plural. But this would be easy to fix – just move it to "Kōya Mountains" – without revamping the entire naming system.) – Margin1522 (talk) 14:27, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW (I am not a native English speaker and don't care all that much about the naming as long as it makes sense and is consistent): my suggestion would be to go with the form used in English sources. This way we'll probably end up with (i) "Mount" + shortened Japanese name for the more famous mountains such as Mount Fuji and with (ii) the Hepburn romanized name for more obscure mountains like Hiuchigatake. Could still discuss whether there should be any hyphen in such names like in the temple names ending in -ji. bamse (talk) 21:15, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The MOS says to insert a hyphen before in (院), ji (寺), gū (宮), sha (社), tera/dera (寺) etc., but not to hyphenate if they are part of an indivisible name, like Hachimangū. I agree with all of that (with the possible exception of "dera"). Although I don't know why Hachimangū seems indivisible. It just does. This is kind of like the Chicago Manual of Style, where the rules for capitalization go on for pages. And of course the rules change over time. So maybe this should be taken as guidelines. I'd also note that apparently some English speakers are more comfortable with "Hachiman Shrine". That appears several times in List of Shinto shrines in Japan, even when the actual article follows the MOS, like Morioka Hachimangū. – Margin1522 (talk) 03:30, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A PDF document published by Japan Meteorological Agency says just "Hiuchigatake" without adding "Mount" or "Mt.". --DFT B3LYP (talk) 09:19, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I feel sorry to have left the discussion undone though I had started it. As User:Imaginatorium suggested above, I propose that the two articles Hiuchi and Mount Hiuchigatake be merged into Hiuchigatake without adding unnecessary "Mount". Provided there is no opposition, I will merge them in a several weeks. Thanks. --DFT B3LYP (talk) 13:50, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Without any opposition I have performed the merger. Please note that Hiuchi is now redirected not to Hiuchigatake but to Mount Hiuchi. These two mountains are totally different. --DFT B3LYP (talk) 16:01, 24 June 2018 (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.