Talk:Kamakura (disambiguation)

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. 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: page moved -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

---

Kamakura → Kamakura (disambiguation) – All terms relevant to the disambiguation of "Kamakura" are either directly related to the city or simply named after it. The two most common terms besides the city itself (Kamakura period and Kamakura shogunate) can't even be referred to as just "Kamakura". The dab page should be moved to Kamakura (disambiguation) while Kamakura should redirect to Kamakura, Kanagawa. --Relisted Tyrol5 [Talk] 00:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC) Peter ^Isotalo 17:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose both the period and the shogunate can and are referred to as just "Kamakura". On wikipedia, their articles are using WP:NATURAL disambiguation, for which the article "Kamakura, Kanagawa" is also using. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 06:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a source where just "Kamakura" refers to the period/shogunate? Perhaps Kamakura, the city could qualify as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC!? bamse (talk) 10:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. There are plenty of periods or dynasties named after places, but none have these kinds of dabpages. Examples: Edo — Edo period; Ashikaga — Ashikaga shogunate. When talking about eras or dynasties named after a clan, place or something else, I don't think there is a single instance of referring to them without specifying "era/period/dynasty/whatever".

Peter ^Isotalo 17:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support, all of the disambiguations except the GI Joe character are named after the city, there is no evidence that the word "Kamakura" alone refers to either the Shogunate or the period. JoshuSasori (talk) 07:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I would like to support this, given that all other uses are linked/subordinate to the city, and the above Anon comment in opposition is woefully misinformed. But can someone clarify the policy on why the article on the city is currently Kamakura, Kanagawa? It seems all other Japanese city/town/village articles (except for some of the larger prefectural capitals) follow this convention. The move request seems to indicate that Kamakura should be changed to a redirect page to the city article, but I still amn't sure why we need disambiguators when (for instance) Morioka redirects to Morioka, Iwate and Uji redirects to Uji, Kyoto. elvenscout742 (talk) 05:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

As far as I understand the move request, this is exactly what is proposed, so I don't understand your question. The move request is, make Kamakura redirect to Kamakura, Kanagawa and create a dab page Kamakura (disambiguation) for all kinds of Kamakuras. bamse (talk) 09:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear. My problem is that the most basic form of the title (Kamakura) shouldn't be a redirect. If the primary topic is the city (and it might well be), then why can't Kamakura, Kanagawa be moved to Kamakura? elvenscout742 (talk) 14:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean. Either way would be fine with me, i.e. "Kamakura" redirecting to "Kamakura, Kanagawa" or vice versa. bamse (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't really mind either way, either. But it still seems wrong for the simple form to redirect to [[City-name, prefecture-name]], especially when there is no need for disambiguation. As a result, I have posted here with a query about the MOSJ. I found the relevant passage, which does indeed say the city article should be at Kamakura, Kanagawa, but this seems wrong. I also still think this page should be moved to Kamakura (disambiguation) and Kamakura, Kanagawa should be moved here. elvenscout742 (talk) 01:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose: Per WP:MOS-JA and other city-related manuals of style; only designated cities in Japan do not need their prefcture stated, much like the status of cities in the United States.—Ryulong (琉竜) 00:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

  You've misread the proposal -- this is about making Kamakura redirect to Kamakura, Kanagawa by default, instead of keeping it a disambig page. Jpatokal (talk) 00:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

  Duly noted. Change to support.—Ryulong (琉竜) 01:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support. The primary meaning is clearly the city, and Kamakura period and Kamakura shogunate are both functions of that city. Edo is not a disambig either, even though there's also an Edo period. Jpatokal (talk) 00:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. The helpful label "disambiguation" will allow readers to know exactly what kind of page this is before they click on it. Kauffner (talk) 05:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
• Neutral Support - It wouldn't be unthinkable that Kamakura redirects to a smallish modern town, though note that Tudor is a redirect allowing people to choose between Tudor dynasty and Tudor period without wikipedia falling down. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Kamakura is a historic capital, not just a "smallish modern town". And despite the questionably U.S.-influenced article naming, Kamakura is still referred to as just "Kamakura". Peter ^Isotalo 15:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Support. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:03, 20 January 2013 (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.