Talk:Hsinchu

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hsinchu article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 30 days

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

Taiwan High‑importance

	Taiwan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taiwan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Taiwan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TaiwanWikipedia:WikiProject TaiwanTemplate:WikiProject TaiwanTaiwan articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move 14 November 2019

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: No consensus. Next time anyone wants to move six different articles, try to have a nomination statement at least six words long. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 23:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

– WP:PRECISION. Ythlev (talk) 07:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC) —Relisting. Colin M (talk) 20:54, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The proposed names are counter to common English usage, i.e. cities are no usually appended while counties are (e.g. [1] [2]) — AjaxSmack 00:58, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@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 violate WP: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 of common 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]

So which part do you oppose? Ythlev (talk) 03:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ya, looks like I agree to all of those suggestions ~ :P Chongkian (talk) 04:06, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question for nominator: for the first 4 moves, is it your intention that the old name redirects to the new title? e.g. that Changhua redirects to Changhua City rather than a disambiguation page? Colin M (talk) 20:58, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, because they are ambiguous names. Ythlev (talk) 01:06, 26 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]

Yes, like Hualien. Ythlev (talk) 16:35, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Requested move 3 December 2019

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: No consensus. (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:43, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

– Based on WP:PRECISION, as these name can mean the city or county. These names should be disambuguation pages. Ythlev (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC) —Relisting. SITH (talk) 13:01, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 the WP:COMMONNAME / WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for each of these cases. Colin M (talk) 00:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've made the wrong comparison. "Hsinchu" is more general so of course it would get more views. WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY: the exact title of a page or a redirect. You need to compare "Hsinchu City" with "Hsinchu County". The county has more views, but really neither are primary. Ythlev (talk) 00:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The goal is to measure interest in topics, 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 the Hsinchu 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 to support 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 of WP:PRIMARY). Colin M (talk) 06:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Colin M, while its true that we do disambiguate by default when there are 2 or more topics that are full matches for a term, as noted the counties get less views [[4]] and they look to be sub topics of the cities (similar to Fareham/Borough of Fareham and Gloucester/Gloucestershire) so WP:DABCONCEPT could apply since the counties are linked at the top of the articles anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:06, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Emblem of Hsinchu City.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]