This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofcities,towns and various othersettlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Taiwan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofTaiwan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.TaiwanWikipedia:WikiProject TaiwanTemplate:WikiProject TaiwanTaiwan
The following is a closed discussion of arequested 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 amove review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@AjaxSmack: That's not true.This source uses "Hsinchu" in title but actually refers to Hsinchu County.These sources[3] use "Hsinchu City", therefore using "X City" by no means violateWP:UCRN. I should also point out that county-administered cities (e.g.Pingtung City) use "X City" except for Miaoli and Changhua, so there is a lack of consistency too.Ythlev (talk)13:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. If there are no ambiguity, then we shall use the shorter name, thus "New Taipei City" shall be "New Taipei", same like the other municipalities in Taiwan (e.g. "Kaohsiung", "Taichung" etc). For "Hsinchu", I have to say it is better to rename it to "Hsinchu City" because we have "Hsinchu County" name also, which can create ambiguity, so same goes in this case for "Chiayi", "Miaoli" and "Changhua". Many articles about companies in Hshinchu, they said they are located in "Hsinchu" (thus I assume it is Hsinchu City), but they also include the township location (thus I definitely know they are located in Hsinchu County (which consists of townships), not Hsinchu City (which consists of districts)). For "Yunlin County", a bit similar to New Taipei, since there are no other article that uses the name Yunlin, then we can safely shorten it to become "Yunlin", same like "Kinmen" (instead of "Kinmen County"). One more for "Taoyuan, Taiwan", I suggest to have it changed to "Taoyuan City" (for standardization naming and its direct translation from its full official name in zh-tw (桃園市)), not "Taoyuan" only, because there is "Taoyuan District". Lastly, please try not to use the argument ofcommon English usage because there is no exact term derived from that. A common English usage probably will refer the "United States" as "America" (which is technically wrong), refer "Netherlands" as "Holland" (which is technically and geographically wrong), refer "United Kingdom" as "England" (which is geographically wrong) and refer "South Korea" as "Korea" (which is also geographically wrong also). Again, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (with precise and technically-correct naming terms), not a tourism guide book (using "tourist-friendly" naming terms).Chongkian (talk)02:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By default if (let's say) we type 'Changhua', then it should be the ambiguity page, e.g. Did you mean 'Changhua City' or 'Changhua County'. More or less it should be like that.Chongkian (talk)04:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of arequested move.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on thistalk page or in amove review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is a closed discussion of arequested 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 amove review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose Even if we take it for granted that Hsinchu County is commonly referred to as just "Hsinchu",the pageviews suggest that the city would still qualify as primary for the name. Generally, I think the nomination would benefit from more data to establish theWP:COMMONNAME /WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for each of these cases.Colin M (talk)00:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The goal is to measure interest intopics, not terms. 4-5x as many users are viewing the article about the city as are viewing the article about the county. Even if 100% of users searching for information about the county search for "Hsinchu" rather than "Hsinchu County", those false positives would still make up a tiny percentage of theHsinchu page views, since most page views on Wikipedia originate from the user clicking a link (either from another article, or from an external site such as a search engine), not from Wikipedia's search function.Colin M (talk)01:16, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The goal is to measure usage amounts in general, not just on Wikipedia.A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is more likely than all the other topics combined to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. The term is often used to refer to the broad area rather than any specific administrative division, e.g.Hsinchu Industrial Park. That usage combined with the county is more than Hsinchu City. Not to mention your argument for sure doesn't apply to Changhua and Miaoli.Ythlev (talk)03:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I haven't presented evidence to oppose the other moves. But you haven't provided evidence tosupport those other moves. IMO, as nominator, there's an onus on you to provide evidence in your nom that the moves are required by policy. You didn't provide any page views, ngrams, or other evidence of RS usage. The RM you opened 2 weeks prior for the same set of moves was closed with a comment that specifically noted the brevity of the nomination rationale. I looked into the pageviews for one of these moves, and found that, IMO, the threshold for primary topic is not met. My default is to also oppose the others, since it seems like due diligence hasn't been done on the set as a whole (or that we're working from irreconcilably different interpretations ofWP:PRIMARY).Colin M (talk)06:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of arequested move.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on thistalk page or in amove review. No further edits should be made to this section.
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
level-5 vital article is ratedC-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale.
