Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/松山

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

松山

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

This is a dab page created by a user in 2011, attempting to combine Matsuyama (disambiguation) (which he redirected to this one but I've since undone) and Songshan on the premise that they are written the same way in Japanese and Chinese. Obviously, this is entirely unnecessary. Not only does this page duplicate two other suitable pages, it does so in a way that violates WP:UE by having a title parsed in CJK characters. —Ryulong (琉竜) 04:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is little reason for the outcome of this debate to not follow that of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/南山, as community consensus, embodied in WP:FORRED, has not changed in the intervening 16 months since the end of the 南山 discussions of September 2011. GotR ^Talk 05:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you honestly think that consensus won't change in over a year's time? And how does WP:FORRED cover this when we have the actual page titled in the foreign language, rather than some redirects? Also, it's kind of disingenuous to restore the redirect you made at Matsuyama (disambiguation) and remove entries from Songshan, while leaving everything at 松山 and not eliminating Songshan as you did Matsuyama.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1) In the absence of evidence showing otherwise, the status quo is the status quo. If it has indeed changed, then there is nothing I can do about the past; CCC is a moot point. 2) "Songshan" can be meant as 嵩山 well; please be WP:COMPETENT before rushing to conclusions about whether I am disingenuous. 3) A DAB page isn't an "article" as, for example, Mount Song is. GotR ^Talk 06:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So just because "Matsuyama" is always writen as 松山 and "Songshan" also exists as that, there should be a unified disambiguation page for the two terms when in English no one is going to want something known as "Songshan" when they're looking for "Matsuyama"?—Ryulong (琉竜) 10:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me rephrase myself, why should all entries that match 松山 be on one page and all the entries that are 松山 and Songshan omitted from "Songshan"? It just seems to me that you want "Songshan" to just be about the holy mountain rather than serving as an actual disambiguation page leading people to other articles that may be titled "Songshan" and just happen to be "Pine Mountains".—Ryulong (琉竜) 11:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"It just seems to me that you want 'Songshan' to be just about the holy mountain"—that is ridiculous and I never claimed anything as such. I doubt the subdistrict of Zhuzhou, Hunan (hundreds of kilometres away from Mount Song itself) is named after the mountain. I won't argue about anything else any longer; I'll let others do the talking. GotR ^Talk 15:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, useful joint Chinese-Japanese disambiguation page. Having the title in characters seems to be the easiest way to describe what the dab page is about. I can't think of an "English" title that is even half as good as the current one. —Kusma (t·c) 09:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page does what its supposed to. If it didn't exist, I really don't think the searchbox would suffice. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Easy. There's searches for the Japanese form "Matsuyama" and the Mandarin form "Songshan", both of which exist as separate disambiguation pages and there's no real confusion between the two.—Ryulong (琉竜) 10:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Then again, won't people arrive here because they typed 松山 in the search box? And isn't this supposed to be English Wikipedia? I don't know what to think now. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. There's no real reason to have this as a disambiguation, and certainly no reason to remove all entries from another page because they match this one. It seems that GOTR wants only entries named after Mount Song on Songshan, while all entries whose CJK characters translate to "Pine Mountain" on this page, including those that are Japanese in origin. It's going to be rare that someone's going to type these CJK characters into the search bar on the English Wikipedia. If anything, this page should be a dab page leading people to Songshan and Matsuyama (disambiguation) rather than a unified disambiguation for anything that translates as "Pine Mountain".—Ryulong (琉竜) 10:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep this and any other foreign-script alternative name disambiguation page that does not correspond to a single English transliteration. Here's the flowchart:
1. Identify foreign-script alternative title
2. Redirect that title to the article, since the article is titled using English. Alternative title redirects per WP:AT: "All significant alternative titles, names, or forms of names that apply to a specific article should be made to redirect to that article.", and this is what {{R from alternative language}} exists for.
3. If the alternative title is ambiguous, create a disambiguation page for that alternative title, also per WP:AT: "If they are ambiguous, it should be ensured that the article can at least be reached from a disambiguation page for the alternative term."
4. Since there is no one target appropriate for the redirect 松山, a disambiguation page must exist. (If this is deleted, where would you redirect 松山 to instead, since it is a valid alternative-language redirect title?)
See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 June 15#Category:Disambiguation pages with Chinese character titles -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But I absolutely agree the existence of and contents of this dab page should have no effect on the contents of the transliterated-title disambiguation pages. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a disambiguation landing page. The whole point in these pages is, while this is the English Wikipedia, it doesn't prevent people from searching for articles based on its original name. Here 松山 can translate to both Matsuyama (Japanese) and Songshan (Chinese).

As per WP:WPDAB-CJKV, in lieu of WP:UE it states "CJKV disambiguation should be used whenever a simple Roman character redirect will not work," e.g. where there are multiple translations of the same character(s). Suppose a user came here with only the characters 松山, they may not know whether they want Matsuyama, Songshan or whatever variant. It would be unfair to the other language if one were to have redirect preference over the other. There could be a case for the characters to redirect to one of the main articles and have a disambiguation page coming off that, if one was more well known than the other (like 九龍), but you can't just have them pointing to one and not the other.

In regards to content, whether to have all the links on one disambiguation page (松山) or to have a double disambiguation (one disambiguation (松山) linking to two separate disambiguation pages (Matsuyama and Songshan)), you should probably discuss this at WP:WPDAB. Funny ^Pika! 13:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you JHunterJ and FunnyPika for clearing these things up. However, the issue still stands that it seems GotR will want to eliminate one of the other pages in favor of this one as its creation seems to have only been to keep Songshan devoid of places that are known as "Pine Mountain", despite both being pronounced and transliterated the same way. What should be done?—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Revert, and then resolve the dispute normally. I'll help. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I haven't slightest idea about the difference between Mandarin Chinese or Japanese, nor am I that bothered: however, as an English speaker on an English Wikipedia, "松山" is not a term I would ever search for, whereas I might come across Matsuyama and/or Songshan on the web and search for it here. That said, I see the answer as being simple: either you have full duplication across 松山 and the translated articles (which, although against Wikipedia standards, may also be valid), or you have both of these articles redirect to 松山, with all content being there. I suppose you could also scrap this page altogether, and on each particular page, you could put "this disambig page is for the Mandarin Chinese/Japanese translation of 松山. For the Japanese/Mandarin Chinese translation, see here" (obviously with better wording). Lukeno94 (talk) 14:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I've no objection to keeping a CJK disambiguation page when those characters may have different common transliterations. However, it seems a problem to duplicate the contents of the various disambiguation pages. Would it not make more sense to have this CJK disambiguation page merely point to Matsuyama (disambiguation) Songshan (disambiguation)? older ≠ wiser 15:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reader is better served by having the content duplicated (rather than having to click through two disambiguation pages, or even three if they don't know which transliteration applies). Not all duplication is bad. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Except that these pages will become out of sync. English editors are unlikely to know about or care about the CJK page and are likely to only update the corresponding English-language pages. Similarly, if a CJK-savvy editor updates the CJK page but not the corresponding English-language pages, very few editors will have both pages on their watchlists. older ≠ wiser 15:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. In fact, every disambiguation page might get out of sync with Wikipedia. We could link the grouped pages through their "See also" sections to help the reader until editors can get the pages caught up again. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dab pages will always run a bit behind the encyclopedia, but it doesn't help to incorporate designs that makes such synchronization issues more likely. older ≠ wiser 17:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, we have a choice here between better reader navigation or easier for editors to keep it in sync. As far as I know, consensus goes with "burden the editors" over "burden the readers". -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how one additional click to another disambiguation page is such an burden for a reader -- especially when compared with the burden of having to decipher incomplete/incompatible information in what should be duplicate information. older ≠ wiser 20:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You identified the burden: one additional click. I didn't claim it was onerous, but it's certainly right up there with "one blue link per entry" or "put the blue link at the beginning of the line". But this discussion would be better suited for the dab project generally. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also identified a different burden, that of expecting a reader to know or care about multiple disambiguation pages that cover essentially the same subjects but with possibly incomplete or incoherent coverage. From a reader's perspective, I think pages like this might be better off being a sort of broad concept dab that briefly explain why the characters are ambiguous and then link to the related disambiguation pages for disambiguation of the English-language terms. older ≠ wiser 21:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's no problem with a broad-concept article, if one could be written encyclopedically. However, there's no burden on the reader to know or care about multiple disambiguation pages introduced with the duplicate solution: all of the cross-dab links are still there in the non-duplicate arrangement too, so the reader does not suddenly get burdened with them when additional information (none of which would be incoherent, and making each more complete than it was) is added to each dab. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep - It fits with a convention of CJK dabpages. Duplication is a good thing, especially with any content a user might not know exactly how to find. Also, dispite what is said above about CJK dab pages, people use them. I'm a native english speaker and I need to search for things in Chinese sometimes because the translation is not obvious or totally standardized. There ends up being a lot of overlap and disambiguation become a neccesity. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 12:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.