Talk:Mooka, Tochigi

Article title
At first glance it seems that 真岡 should be pronounced with separate も and おか, but since the city is romanizing it "Moka" it seems that perhaps it's actually an elongated も, meaning that "Mōka" may be more appropriate. Can anyone comment on this? -Amake (talk) 12:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * After googling around a bit, it seems that the correct pronunciation is "Mōka," so I went ahead and adjusted the article. -Amake (talk) 12:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * User:DAJF has undone my changes without discussion. He says "It's romanized as Mooka, since it is Mo + Oka, not Mou + Ka. Bilingual atlases will confirm this," but that doesn't address my question here and I feel that it is not sufficient evidence to rule out the "Mōka" pronunciation.  -Amake (talk) 00:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry for not checking this Talk page before moving the article back to "Mooka". I'm not convinced that "Mōka" is the most appropriate way to romanize the name of this city, so I think more discussion is needed before making any changes. As I see it, there are three main options for naming this article: "Mooka", "Mōka", and "Moka". My reasoning for sticking with "Mooka" is based on two factors, which I touched on in my edit summary. Firstly, as the name is 真岡 (mo + oka), I feel that this should be reflected in the way it is romanized, i.e. "Mooka" rather than "Mōka", just as we write "Hiroo" rather than "Hirō" for the district and station in Tokyo. Secondly, the two bilingual atlases I have checked ("Japan - A Bilingual Atlas" by Kodansha and "Road Atlas Japan" by Shobunsha) both use the "Mooka" spelling for this city rather than using macrons as used on other extended vowels. On the web though, it actually seems that "Moka" has become the defacto official romanized form for this city's name, so much so that I wonder if we shouldn't actually be discussing renaming the article to "Moka". Apparently, this spelling came about because English speakers tended to pronounce "Mooka" in the English way (i.e. "ムーカ"), so "Moka" was seen as being slightly better. The city itself, and the Mooka Railway seem to prefer to use "Moka" in their publicity, not "Mōka", or, thankfully, "Mohka". I found one primary school website that uses the "Mooka" spelling. So this is why I cannot see any pressing reason for moving the article to "Mōka". --DAJF (talk) 09:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As for the first point, 真岡 is not (mo + oka) because the character 真 has no reading of "mo." Rather, its original form seems Maoka (ma + oka). In (old) Japanese, "ao" in spelling sometimes turns into pronunciation "ō," as in 赤穂 (Akaho → Akō), 直方 (Naogata → Nōgata) and 青木 (Aogi → Ōgi, in Kobe). In this way, in 真岡, "o" in "oka" has been absorbed into the preceding element "ma" and now "oka" does not exist as it was; there is no reason to spell it separately. Here my conclusion is that the spelling "Mōka" is more reasonable than "Mooka." --Sushiya (talk) 11:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I think DAJF may be right about the origins of the Moka spelling, but Sushiya has (much more eloquently than I could manage) explained basically what I wanted to say about the "correct" romanization of the name. I think this may be hard to solve without consulting someone who actually knows how locals pronounce the name. Ultimately we may have to follow the example of Minoh, Osaka and call it "Moka" regardless of the actual pronunciation. -Amake (talk) 14:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Amake, do you mean that the article name should be "Moka" (without macron)? If so, I would oppose your proposal. It is almost clear (from the fact that the city spells its name "Moka" instead of "Mooka" or "Mo-oka") the the city recognizes that the city name is pronounced モーカ, which is spelled "Mōka" in English Wikipedia absent any special reason e.g. that the name must be recognized as (mo + oka). --Sushiya (talk) 14:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That's what I mean, yes. I think we are required to respect the romanization that the city itself chooses (per here), whether it's valid Hepburn rōmaji or not (see, for example, Minoh, Osaka which would be "Minō" if the city hadn't explicitly chosen "Minoh").  I don't like "Moka", and I agree that "Mōka" is probably the "correct" romanization, but all of that is really beside the point.  -Amake (talk) 13:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

"Mouka" is correct, too.--125.14.19.209 (talk) 05:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

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: not moved. No compelling reason has been shown that "Moka" is used more in reliable English sources; the name the city itself prefers is only relevant if it is at least as common as any other usage. Aervanath (talk) 13:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Mooka, Tochigi → Moka, Tochigi — Irrespective of whatever the "correct" romanization should be (see discussion above), the "official" romanization as used on the city's homepage is Moka. PC78 (talk) 18:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Survey

 * Support the city's spelling is idiomatic, and not formulaic. The "correct" and "official" spelling "Moka" is different from the robotic and phonetic spelling "Mōka". 70.24.251.71 (talk) 05:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. "Moka" does appear to be how the city likes to spell its name, so that should be the spelling we use here too. --DAJF (talk) 09:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per Asahi Shimbun, Daily Yomiuri and Japan Times. Check out the city's delicious strawberries here and here. Kauffner (talk) 05:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * But see, and  from those very same news sites which use the spelling "Moka". PC78 (talk) 14:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * On Google Books, Mooka Tochigi gets 167 (62 deghosted) post-1980 English language hits, Moka Tochigi gets 99 (55 deghosted). GeoNames gives "Mooka". I don't see a reason to use something other than the standard transliteration, which is apparently "Mooka". Kauffner (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not the name that the city itself uses. Is that not a reason? PC78 (talk) 01:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:OFFICIALNAME: "They should always be considered as possibilities, but should be used only if they are actually the name most commonly used." WP:MOS-JA: "You should generally honor the current anglicization used officially by that party as it will often be the form in common usage in English-language reliable sources." (emphasis added). We don't use a name just because it is official. --Kusunose 03:03, 12 March 2012 (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.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Mooka, Tochigi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080418104716/http://www.kokudo.or.jp:80/new/cities/sub/kanto/09.htm to http://www.kokudo.or.jp/new/cities/sub/kanto/09.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)