Talk:Yamada Line (JR East)

Requested move 29 September 2016

 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved according to proposal agreed below. Namely: Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yamada Line → Yamada Line (JR East)
 * Yamada Line (Kintetsu) → unchanged
 * Yamada Line (disambiguation) → Yamada Line

– The current Yamada Line article does not seem a primary topic according to an important indicator: incoming wikilinks. The current Yamada Line article has 139 incoming wikilinks, while Yamada Line (Kintetsu) article has 171. It does not mean that Yamada Line (Kintetsu) article is a primary topic, however, it would be better to place an disambiguation page at the base name: Yamada Line. It is also better to have Yamada Line (Kintetsu) changed to Yamada Line (Mie). Thanks. KU (talk) 13:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yamada Line → Yamada Line (Iwate)
 * Yamada Line (Kintetsu) → Yamada Line (Mie)
 * Yamada Line (disambiguation) → Yamada Line

FYI: as of FY2014 passenger-distance, the Yamada Line of JR East is just 101,835 passenger-kilometer while that of Kintetsu is assumed to be less than 599,697,107 pkm. . Of course, JR East Yamada Line's passenger-distance is not 0.017% of that of Kintetsu since it is also a regional railway line. However, the ridership of JR East Yamada Line is assumed to be less than 1/100 of that of Kintetsu. Thus, it is hard to say that JR East Yamada Line is a primary topic in terms of physical presence. KU (talk) 09:31, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It would make more sense just to move Yamada Line (Kintetsu) back to its original logical name at Kintetsu Yamada Line and relying on the hat note at the top of the (JR) Yamada Line article for disambiguation. But if there is evidence that more people are likely to be searching for the Kintetsu article, I would suggest using Yamada Line (Kintetsu) and Yamada Line (JR East) to disambiguate the two articles, as that makes it far clearer which is which. (If this principle is to be used in future for other articles, problems will arise for lines not contained within a single prefecture, which is why it makes more sense to use the operator's name in the article title.) --DAJF (talk) 23:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support alternative proposal. No primary topic (otherwise we wouldn't need the DAB at all, and it's certainly not the current article in any case - but deleting a DAB is never a good idea owing to the possibility of external links). So move it to Yamada Line (JR East) and the DAB to the base name, and leave Yamada Line (Kintetsu) as is. Andrewa (talk) 06:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think anyone would dispute that, but do you think using "(Iwate)" and "(Mie)" to disambiguate the two lines is the best way to do it? Don't you think it would be more logical and clearer to use the operators' names? --DAJF (talk) 01:11, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

In addition, Yamada Line (Mie) and Yamada Line (Iwate) could be created as redirects to ease search. And both articles need hatnotes pointing to each other per WP:TWODABS. — JFG talk 15:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support alternate moves
 * Yamada Line → Yamada Line (JR East)
 * Yamada Line (Kintetsu) → unchanged
 * Yamada Line (disambiguation) → Yamada Line
 * User:KU, is that an acceptable outcome for you as proposer? It seems the obvious way forward to me. Andrewa (talk) 18:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reviewing and judging. I'm fine with the outcome. However, it may need to revise or update the naming convention on line names of the WikiProject_Trains_in_Japan/Style somehow, I think. Anyway, thanks again.KU (talk) 23:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree that the style guide should be updated (or there are some other alternatives, but try that first). That update should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains in Japan according to the note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains in Japan/Style. Note that WikiProject Trains in Japan/Style is not a Wikipedia naming convention, and that it's not in the power of the WikiProject to make it one... that decision is made at WT:AT. The style guide is a reflection of the decisions that have been made, and in that one of the article title criteria is consistency, it does have some authority, but not as much as a naming convention, which is an official Wikipedia guideline. Andrewa (talk) 07:03, 17 October 2016 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.


 * Comment – Naming guidelines were discussed in 2008 at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains in Japan/Archive 5, where the conclusion was to place the operator name before the line name in case of ambiguity. As KU noted, the style guide has a different convention: append the province name in parentheses, so Amakuru's proposed move followed this convention. Perhaps you want to revive this conversation? — JFG talk 15:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Good catch! Ideally, this should be cleaned up by the WikiProject. Their naming guide talk page should link prominently to relevant archived discussions, and of course the guide itself needs to be consistent with current practice.
 * I note that deference to official names features prominently in that archived discussion. I'm guessing that Japanese Wikipedia may defer to official names more than English Wikipedia does. In Wikipedia there is no consistency between different languages so far as such policies or practices go, which takes many by surprise. Andrewa (talk) 22:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)