Talk:Daikanyamachō, Shibuya

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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. 

The result of the move request was no consensus. —harej (T) 07:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Daikanyama → Daikan'yama &mdash; The correct romanization for this name is "Daikan'yama", where the apostrophe is needed to disambiguate between the n+ya and nya syllables. Precedent for use of this scheme in other similar place names exists in the form of e.g. San'ya. -Amake (talk) 01:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

This article should be moved to its correct romanization, Daikan'yama. In fact I did move it there, but then User:Phoenix7777 moved it back without discussion. He or she claims that "Daikanyama" is well known and does not need proper romanization, but I find this claim highly dubious. He or she also went so far as to put a meaningless edit into the Daikan'yama redirect, preventing any further moves without consulting with a moderator. I find this behavior to be in extremely poor faith.

Back to the article title: If San'ya requires an apostrophe, then so does Daikan'yama. Claims to international recognition of the non-apostrophe'd version need to be backed up with actual evidence.

-Amake (talk) 01:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There are some people blindly obey WP:MOS-J, however the rule is somewhat controversial.
 * In that case, it is recommended to refer the idea of WP:Use Common Sense, and WP:Ignore all rules as indicated by WP:MOS-J.


 * My guideline for romanized naming of Japanese name is as follows;


 * Established romanized name in Japan shall never be altered for Wikipedia.


 * Station name is established. Railway companies usually display the romanized name and publish it.
 * |Tokyu-corporation call the name as Daikan-yama.


 * As for the name of place, the following name shall be used.
 * If the government(either state, prefectural or municipal) indicates the romanaized name in their official document or web site, it should be used for Wikipedia.
 * If the romanized name of a place is widely used within Japan, it should be used for Wikipedia, even if it is not widely known around world.
 * The romanized name used by published map in Japan is also established name.
 * The name of San Francisco shall never be altered to San Franciscō, even if the name were not widely known around the world.


 * Daikanyama is a sophisticated town and its name is often written in romanized name as "Daikanyama" (no apostrophe or hyphen) in Japan.
 * You can easily find this by googling the name with the result exceeding 200,000.
 * Furthermore Google Map shows it as Daikanyama.


 * The apostrophe is never been used for romanized name in Japan. If you accustom to a name with apostrophe, you will be confused when you come to Japan.


 * Lastly I don't want the Japanese romanized name be discussed by a person who insist this. Talk:Junichiro Koizumi ― Phoenix7777 (talk) 03:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not beholden to the tyranny of the masses. If we based all our decisions on Google hits then we wouldn't be using macrons, for instance.  Yet most knowledgeable people agree that macrons are a good thing, and we use them here widely.  With Daikan'yama we have a similar situation:  Like macrons, apostrophes are not widely used, but they are part of the Hepburn standard and are required for accuracy and disambiguation.  So you are basically asking us to dumb Wikipedia down for no reason.
 * Finally, I'm not sure what you're trying to insinuate with that last remark, but you're clearly delving into ad-hominem attacks at this point. Coupled with your obvious sabotage edit to Daikan'yama, frankly I think you should remove yourself from this discussion immediately.-Amake (talk) 04:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * How do I know that the reasoning which you are asserting here is factual? — V = I * R  (talk) 11:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, First of I think both of you need to take a breath and calm down. Hysterics are not going to help resolve the dispute, and there's nothing about this that is truly pressing. Everyone should remain civil at all times, regardlss. Incivility doesn't advance the purpose of improving Wikipedia at all.
 * @Amake, it would have helped me out if you had pointed out WP:MOS-JP from the beginning. That was what I was really asking about above. I could have been move clear about what I was asking about myself, so you have my apologies for that. Anyway, now that I've found MOS-JP and skimmed over it, I see that there is a section on that guideline for WP:MOS-JP. In that section it states: "Article titles should follow all of the points [in WP:MOS-JP]" and "Article titles should use macrons as specified for body text except in cases where the macronless spelling is in common usage in English-speaking countries (e.g., Tokyo, Sumo and Shinto, instead of Tōkyō, Sumō and Shintō).", which, along with the text from the article itself suggests to me that the "correct" article title should be Daikan'yama-chō, unless the romanization in the article lead is incorrect (I have no clue how to properly accomplish Revised Hepburn romanization).
 * @Phoenix7777, in light of the existence of MOS-JP, as outlined above, I see no compelling reason to give your personal opinions on "proper romanization" any weight in this discussion. If you want to debate what the "proper romanization" of Japanese is or should be, I suggest joining or starting a discussion at Wikipedia Talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles). Currently, the Guideline clearly indicates the accepted procedure for Romanization based on consensus, so that overrides whatever personal feelings you have on the subject. You could be the highest authority on the planet when it comes to this subject and it wouldn't change anything, since that's the way that Wikipedia works.
 * Obviously, if I'm missing or misinterpresting something from WP:MOS-JP, then anyone should feel free to point that out. — V = I * R  (talk) 14:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I am raising a question that current WP:MOS-JP completely ignores the actual condition in Japan. I am not discussing the interpretation of WP:MOS-JP. A rule is simply a rule. It must be revised if it doesn't not meet the actual condition in Japan. Yes, this discussion should be extended to WP:MOS-JP over time, however we should behave quickly against an imminent threat. Please keep in mind that WP:MOS-JP indicates at first line "Use common sense in applying it; it will have  occasional exceptions." No one can preclude "personal opinions", if it is reasonable enough to override the existing rule. So, please discuss my "personal opinions" above, instead of discussing whether it conforms to existing rule or not. ― Phoenix7777 (talk) 01:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand what you are saying, but I still see no obvious reason for invoking common sense or  creating an exception here. You seem convinced that there's some sort of "imminent threat" (to use your own words, which prompts me to point out WP:NODEADLINE. Content issues are almost never actually urgent.), but you're not backing that assertion up with anything concrete. The policies, guidelines, and some essays are concrete examples of consensus which we should try to follow. Where we can't, it is fine to ignore them; however, where that creates controversy (as in this case), it is appropriate to use the current appropriate guideline or policy because they outline what Wikipedia consensus is. If, as you are asserting here, there is conflict about the guideline then that should be addressed at the guideline page and the original issue can be readdressed at a later time. —  V = I * R  (talk) 04:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no objections to Daikan'yama. However, if I remember correctly, the English signs use Daikan-yama, which avoids the issue. It's a bit rainy at the moment, but I may go check a little later. Bendono (talk) 07:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is a good resource: Tōkyū Line]. Bendono (talk) 07:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The thing is that there is (currently) consensus established to use a specific style of Romanization of Japanese as Wikipedia's house style (see: Manual of Style (Japan-related articles) for complete details). There's consensus specifically against relying on "official sources" for names as well, as can be seen at Naming conventions (common names). — V = I * R  (talk) 16:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss there from now on. ― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I posted this issue to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles) and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles).
 * Please don't attempt to fracture this discussion. That sort of activity could be viewed as uncivil, disruptive behavior. — V = I * R  (talk) 15:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not permitted to strike out/move/delete/ a description on talk page posted by a person other than you. It is considered to as vandalism. ― Phoenix7777 (talk) 21:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

My two yen: There's little doubt that "Daikanyama" is, by far, the most common English name of the place, and given the extreme rarity of the syllable "nya" in Japanese, no reader even vaguely familiar with the language would attempt to parse that as *Dai-ka-nya-ma. However, for avoidance of doubt, it should be an acceptable compromise to use "Daikanyama" as the article title and include the apostrophe in the romanization: "Daikanyama (代官山) is..." Jpatokal (talk) 07:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This sounds reasonable and believable, and according to WP:COMMONNAME is the recommended colution. The problem is that not everyone seems to agree that "Daikanyama" is, by far, the most common English name of the place. All of us going back and forth on the talk page saying "yes it is"/"no it isn't" is not going to help the situation any, either. If someone, anyone, can find even a single applicable, verifiable, and reliable, references to add to the article then that would sort the issue out fairly immediately. — V = I * R  (talk) 15:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I am the starter of this article, originally naming it "Daikanyamachō". I believe the "Daikan'yama" romanization is currently the most appropriate. Skimming the above discussion, I understand that some people, especially those familiar with Tokyo, experience strong discomfort with the apostrophization of n. They are asserting that the apostrophization system should be abolished. I also agree, based on my own experience, that non-apostrophized notation is more common. But I believe that it's nearly impossible to verifiably determine which notation is the most/more common. How many pages are hit by Google is not authoritative enough. "I've never seen..." or "I often see..." is clearly against No original research. This means that, practically in all cases, we must follow the consensus ("Use the Revised Hepburn Romanization") achieved at WP:MOS-JP. As Ω pointed out, now that not everyone has the same assertion, the only solution might be Neutral point of view. This prompts me to believe that we should be just most objective and follow the Wikipedia rule. (Actually, because I believe that systematicity is the most important in Wikipedia, I hope [[Daikan'yamachō, Shibuya, Tokyo ]] to be the title of this article, but at this stage it is not the point of the argument. I would like to raise the question after the current controversy is settled.) --Occhanikov (talk) 19:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Revised Hepburn romanization

 * The lede of WP:MOS-JP says "Revised Hepburn romanization (described below) should be used in all cases, excepting..." followed by "Use of apostrophes should be avoided except in the case of the syllabic "n" followed by a vowel (see "Body text", below)". At this point, This rule clearly excludes use of apostrophes before y. And WP:MOS-JP says "Take care with these points regarding usage in article body text (anything that is not the title of the article)".  This mean the description "5.  Syllabic n ん is written n' when followed by a vowel or y ...." does not apply to the title of the article.  There is no description about apostrophe in the WP:MOS-JP, then the rule written in the lede of WP:MOS-JP should be used.  So, I am sure "Daikan'yama" for the article name is a wrong notation for proponents of WP:MOS-JP. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 01:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty tendentious reading of the MOS:JP. Y is a semivowel in Japanese and the use of apostrophes for words like San'yo is well established.
 * That said, Google comes up with 289k+ hits for "Daikanyama" and only 34k for "Daikan'yama" -- which, incidentally, mostly matches "Daikan-yama", and the only non-WP hit matching the ' comes in at #35. I think this is pretty conclusive evidence that plain old "Daikanyama" is, indeed, the most common name by at least one order of magnitude. Jpatokal (talk) 03:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am sorry I made a false statement. WP:MOS-JP does not stipulate that apostrophe should not be used for Article title. Instead, WP:MOS-JP stipulates that Use of apostrophes for Article title should be avoided in the case of the syllabic "n" followed by a letter y. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 05:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Jpatokal: I appreciate your support for Daikanyama. However I am a bit different position for San'yo. Google hits for "Sanyo" exceeds 44 milion, whereas "San'yo"(including "San-yo" and "San Yo" ) only 40,000. A thousand times difference. This is of course by a contribution of Sanyo electric company. So I requested for a change from San'yō-Onoda to Sanyo-Onoda before.See here ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 07:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Phoenix7777, you seem to be avoiding the first sentence of WP:MOS-JP, which states "Article titles should follow all of the points above, with the following exceptions:". It goes on to detail that Macrons should be used, except in cases where the macron-less spelling is so widespread that it will likely cause controversy if it is used (with the excellent example being "Tokyo").
 * Honestly, I have no idea where all of this is coming from, or any clue as to why it should be an issue. If I had my personal preference, I wouldn't want macrons or diacritics at all in article titles since they are unnatural to me. Consensus, as expressed through the Wikipedia guidelines and policies, clearly indicates that the preference is to use diacritics, so that's what we have and that's what titles should currently use. The point here is that I don't particularly care what the guideline is, but whatever it is it should be followed as much as possible. If an exception is to be made then that's fine, but there should be a clear and unambiguous reason for it (such as the "Tokyo" example, earlier). If, as seems possible here, the guideline may be "wrong" in some manner, then that should be discussed on the Wikipedia Talk page associated with the guideline so that it can be changed or adjusted. — V = I * R  (talk) 21:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not want go further to the interpretation of WP:MOS-JP because I am not a proponent of WP:MOS-JP. This manual is not complete and detailed. It is just a very basic guideline not a specification. Without the statement at first line " Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions",  it will not endure for use as specifications.  As I posted in WP:Talk:MOS-JP, there are no descriptions as to what name be used for Place names and Station names. Without such descriptions, someone believes he/she can create/forge the name only adhering to current descriptions in WP:MOS-JP completely ignoring the existent name.  It is apparently a fatal flaw of WP:MOS-JP.   I became confident that place names should be the romanization used in maps published in Japan. Please participate the discussion in WP:Talk:MOS-JP, without further discussing whether the romanization conforms to current WP:MOS-JP or not.
 * As for the interpretation of WP:MOS-JP, it explicitly says "Take care with these points regarding usage in article body text (anything that is not the title of the article)" in Body text section. Then it is natural to consider "all of the points above" should exclude Body text section. However as I said above, I do not want to repeat this nonproductive discussion. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 00:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's fine, nobody can insist that you support the guidance offered by Wikipedia guidelines. Just don't be surprised when your personal opinions are discounted in favor of the guidlines which have been reached through consensus. I recommend that you take a look at Policies and guidelines as well, since based on what you said here you're misunderstanding the role of guidelines on Wikipedia. — V = I * R  (talk) 03:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

widely accepted English name
I already showed the result of Google hits before. However another criteria is written in guidelines. The main article of WP:MOS-JP is WP:Naming conventions. And WP:Naming conventions refers to WP:Naming conventions (geographic names). It says a "widely accepted English name" should be used for the title. It says one of the criteria to determine a widely accepted English name is Google Scholar and Google Books hits.

Result: (Below is the number including the number of times the word is used in a book.)

Google Book:


 * Daikan'yama 7 from 71hits including Daikan yama and Daikan-yama.


 * Daikanyama 594

Google Scholor:


 * Daikan'yama 0 from 13 hits including Daikan-yama.


 * Daikanyama 298.

The guideline says "If the name is used at least three times as often as any other, in referring to the period, it is widely accepted." This clearly shows widely accepted English name is Daikanyama not Daikan'yama. So, Daikanyama should be used for the article title. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 04:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Please actually read the Search engine test how-to guidance. If the links that are returned by Google are verifiable and reliable, please add them as references to the article (they can be added anywhere and for any purpose. Their use to establish WP:COMMONNAME is incidental to their presence, but the fact that they are in the article is important). The search engine test is not definitive of anything, but references certainly can be. — V = I * R  (talk) 04:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.