Talk:Chōzuya

Hi.
Please add comments here.

Basically this article needs a little more detail... Can you help?--Sean-Jin 09:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The title is wrong. The word is either chôzuya or temizuya, not chozusha. (The last character is usually read "sha", so some Japanese might read it in that way, but it is not the correct reading). I edited the text, but I do not know how to edit the top title. There should also be a link to the Japanese page, since it is a Japanese word. Grape, 15 May 2007


 * Agreed. I moved the page accordingly. Please note WP:MOS-JA: Wikipedia uses macrons instead of circumflexes for long vowels. I also created redirects for Temizuya, as well as one for Chozuya without diacritics. Bendono 00:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Requested move 11 July 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Not Moved. Was already relisted, no more participation since. (non-admin closure) Sam-2727 (talk) 04:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Chōzuya → Temizu – more general topic, the action performed using basins of various names, for which we currently have short articles that could advantageously be merged to give a more detailed article with more context. HLHJ (talk) 03:59, 11 July 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. Jack Frost (talk) 05:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Bendono, Sean-Jin, comments on this proposed move? HLHJ (talk) 03:59, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose temizuya maybe, not temizu. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)


 * 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.

Proposed merges
I oppose the suggested merge from Tsukubai. That's a nice little stand-alone article in its own right, on a well-defined topic, decently referenced. This one is a mess: largely unreferenced, with visible errors in the sources that are provided. It has a big warning template saying that more citations are needed, and another that calls for the title to be changed to something else entirely. I've removed the merge request, which was not even mentioned at the target article. MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:10, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Closing; uncontested opposition and no support. Klbrain (talk) 10:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)