This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 17:45, January 27, 2016 (JST, Heisei 28) (Refresh)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rivers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rivers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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.
If the river is particularly famous under one name, then choose that name.
If the section of the river that uses a particular name is much longer than other sections, then use that as the name.
If everything else is equal, then choose the name for the section of the river closest to the river's mouth, since generally that is where the river is widest.
In my view, the Seta-Uji-Yodo River is famous under the name Yodo, which is applied to the longest portion (from the three-river confluence point in Kyoto to the river's mouth in Osaka). Seta does not match any of the criteria above. --Sushiya 20:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I have placed an official request for move. If you oppose, please comment. --Sushiya 02:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Strong support. Yodogawa is the location of the Japanese article and by far the most famous name for the river. The portion called Setagawa is historically significant, but so is the portion called Yodogawa. Anecdotally, in my experience, most people have never heard of the "Seta" name. Dekimasuよ! 03:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Strong support per above. John Smith's 15:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Both Seta and Uji has interesting notes to be added, but Yodo should remain the name used as the title. --OhMyDeer 15:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Strong support per above. ···巌流? · Talk to Ganryuu 12:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.
(After all is it maybe better to merge both Uji and Katsura articles into this one, given the length of each contents?)
Uji is an alias of the main stream of the Yodo, but the Katsura is a branch of the Yodo. So, I suppose there is no reason to merge Katsura River article to Yodo River article. As for Uji River, we can merge if it is better or recommended to do so, but I'm not sure whether we should do. --Sushiya 03:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Thank you for dropping a comment on this. You are right about Katsura River. In the case of Uji River, it is probably better to merge it into Yodo River; hopefully it will help readers --- who arrives at the article through either with the name of Yodo or Katsura or Uji --- find the river a little more intriguing than they might have though. Another hope is that it may help expanding the article than presented in a deconcentrated way. The article can always be splitted if in real need, when enough contents is there. I am not going to insist, but if anyone else would agree, we may just put up a "merge" sign for a while and see. --OhMyDeer 03:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)