Talk:Fukushima (city)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

References to Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Removal[edit]

References to the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant were removed from this page because the power plant is not located in Fukushima City. It is located in Okuma, which is perhaps 40 miles away from Fukushima City near the coast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.253.44 (talk) 18:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC) Once again, people keep reverting this page to include information on the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plants. Yes, the Nuclear Power Plants are in Fukushima Prefecture, but they are not in Fukushima City. They are not even close to Fukushima City. It is like confusing New York City with New York State, so it is akin to saying that something in Buffalo, NY is happening in New York City. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.253.44 (talk) 11:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • 40 miles from New York City is still New York City. I came here to look up how the accident affected the city population. But the article does not mention anything post 2011. Stupid girl (talk) 02:15, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You responded to a seven-year old comment, but I'll bite anyway. A quick summation of post 3/11/11 Fukushima City would be: "Many residents were in mourning for lives lost in the tsunami and got angry at TEPCO then went about their lives more or less normally." I haven't had a desire to seek out citations in order to say that's it's more or less just another normal Japanese city. There are multiple normal and functioning cities closer (and with higher populations) to the nuclear plants than Fukushima City, but thanks to geographic misunderstanding those pages are left alone while this one is occasionally vandalized. If you wish to know more about the cities where the plants are actually located you can look up Ōkuma, Fukushima, Futaba, Fukushima or the nearby Namie, Fukushima and Tomioka, Fukushima, though with the caveat that the English language pages generally leave much to be desired in quality of content and sources. purplepumpkins (talk) 06:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are preventing people from researching information, and you seem to be trying to cover up any negative image associated with this area. Please stop. If you have relevant information to contribute, then do so, rather than removing information which is associated with an extremely popular event. 76.90.114.55 (talk) 00:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit because Fukushima City is not the location of the power plants. For information on the nuclear incident please refer to the relevant pages. purplepumpkins (talk) 02:59, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Earthquake and Tsunami damage[edit]

I recently noticed that since shortly after the earthquake happened someone added:

"After the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami, Fukushima City suffered a great deal of earthquake damage, including issues with water shortages and petrol rationing."

This had been on the article (and uncited at that) for over three months now until I just now deleted some of it and reworded/cited other parts of it. So for any interested parties, I just wanted to point out that while a few buildings in the city suffered major damage and many other buildings suffered minor damage, saying "a great deal of earthquake damage" is an exaggeration.

I also expanded and sourced the "issues with water shortages", however "petrol rationing" is a bit misleading. In the week or so following the quake most gas stations on the eastern coast of eastern Japan, if they had gas, would only supply gas to emergency vehicles. There was rationing that took place later, but due to it being so widespread throughout said region of the country and not necessarily concentrated in Fukushima City, in my opinion, it's not notable enough to be in this article. -- purplepumpkins (talk) 11:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Complete rewrite[edit]

I just gave the article a huge overhaul, with large portions of it being based on the corresponding Japanese article. I also removed the "stub" assessment for the page, as it's most definitely no longer a stub.

It still needs refinement and some proofreading, but considering that most of the content is there I decided it was time to make it live. Any feedback and/or corrections are appreciated. -- purplepumpkins (talk) 07:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Castle[edit]

I am left wondering what happened to the castle, as it was obviously important in the early history of the region and is no longer standing. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Fukushima Fukushima" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Fukushima Fukushima and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 24#Fukushima Fukushima until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:10, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 23 February 2023[edit]

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: not moved. While I stand by my argument, it is clear that the consensus is that many of these are not the primary topic, and any possible moves need to be discussed individually.

This appears to be a WP:SNOW situation, so to save everyone time I'm closing my own move request. Normally this would be a withdraw, but I'm listing it as not moved due to the level of envolvement and clear consensus. (non-admin closure) Spekkios (talk) 03:25, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

– These cities are the capitals of their prefecture, which is why they have the "(city)" qualifier. However, they all appear to be the primary topic, as all Japanese prefectures on Wikipedia include the word "prefecture" in their title (e.g: "Wakayama Prefecture"), and all other pages listed on the disambugation pages for these cities include their own qualifiers (e.g: "Yamaguchi (surname)", "Yamaguchi, Nagano", etc). This will also standardise these city and prefecture pages with the others on Wikipedia, which are:

Note that the following cities are not included in this move request:

--Spekkios (talk) 23:40, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Japan has been notified of this discussion. Spekkios (talk) 23:40, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Cities has been notified of this discussion. Spekkios (talk) 23:40, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - I cannot even begin to tell you how obnoxious it is needing to disambiguate random cities that have the base name ambiguated for seemingly no reason at all, except for in instances where there's multiple cities of the same name in different prefectures. DarmaniLink (talk) 00:02, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The desire for standardisation is admirable; but for several of these the primary topic is the Prefecture, not the City (non-exhaustive examples: Chiba, Saitama, Shizuoka). For others the primary topic is clearly the city (Kyoto, Osaka). Real world usage (including that in RS) is not standardised. - Rotary Engine talk 02:11, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The articles for those prefectures are at Chiba Prefecture, Saitama Prefecture, and Shizuoka Prefecture respectively. --Spekkios (talk) 02:34, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See also WP:CONSISTENT: There are two main areas, however, where Wikipedians have consistently shown that consistency does not control:
Disambiguation. For instance, just because Georgia (country) exists, there is no reason to have articles titled, for instance, Azerbaijan (country), Armenia (country), etc. This applies to natural disambiguation, as well; the existence of Querétaro City and Chihuahua City does not mean we have to retitle Guadalajara to Guadalajara City. - Rotary Engine talk 03:07, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how that is relevent here. We have Chiba Prefecture and Chiba (city). The later is used because Chiba is a disambugation page. The proposal is to move the city page to Chiba and the disambugation page to Chiba (disambiguation). That paragraph of WP:CONSISTENT would apply if the proposal was to move Osaka to Osaka (city) because Chiba is at Chiba (city). --Spekkios (talk) 03:27, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is not a common pattern for primary topic across the proposed moves; sometimes it's the City, sometimes the Prefecture. They need to be considered more granularly than is proposed above.
The primary topic for "Chiba" is the prefecture, not the city. The primary topic for "Osaka" is the city. Moving the current disambig, "Chiba" to "Chiba (disambiguation)"; and moving "Chiba Prefecture" to "Chiba" (or redirecting "Chiba" to "Chiba Prefecture") might be supportable. Moving "Chiba (city)" to just "Chiba" (or redirecting to that effect), for mine, isn't. - Rotary Engine talk 03:47, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had some time, so looked at pageviews over the last 12 months (to see if there were any proposed moves which could be supported on the basis of the City as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC); results as follows (instances where one page has views more than double the others bolded):
Akita (city) 27,881; Akita Prefecture 64,625; Akita (dog) 678,603
Chiba (city) 90,009; Chiba Prefecture 126,842
Fukui (city) 14,408; Fukui Prefecture 43,416
Fukushima (city) 24,232; Fukushima Prefecture 94,230
Miyazaki (city) 24,859; Miyazaki Prefecture 36,885; Hayao Miyazaki 1,553,598
Nagano (city) 84,543; Nagano Prefecture 84,850
Nara (city) 75,564; Nara Prefecture 80,904
Niigata (city) 75,501; Niigata Prefecture 71,583
Ōita (city) 19,922; Ōita Prefecture 42,973
Saitama (city) 106,898; Saitama Prefecture 148,632
Shizuoka (city) 52,075; Shizuoka Prefecture 131,135
Tokushima (city) 14,680; Tokushima Prefecture 37,178
Toyama (city) 33,930; Toyama Prefecture 43,934
Wakayama (city) 18,631; Wakayama Prefecture 45,441
Yamagata (city) 8,045; Yamagata Prefecture 56,988
Yamaguchi (city) 18,511; Yamaguchi Prefecture 83,426; Yamaguchi-gumi 361,395
Of the proposed moves, there's only one instance (Niigata) where the pageviews for the City are higher than those for the Prefecture; and then only 5% higher. In 9 of 16 instances, pageviews for the Prefecture are more than double those of the City; in three instances (Akita, Miyazaki & Yamaguchi) the primary topic is neither the City nor the Prefecture. - Rotary Engine talk 22:07, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For completeness, comparison for the instances where the City is already at the root term (eg. Kyoto, Osaka). In 5 of 10 instances (Fukuoka, Hiroshima, Kyoto, Nagasaki, Osaka) the City has more than twice the views of the Prefecture. In 2 instances (Aomori & Gifu) the Prefecture has more views. - Rotary Engine talk 23:07, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aomori 67,120; Aomori Prefecture 76,169
Fukuoka 232,104; Fukuoka Prefecture 97,207
Gifu 36,643; Gifu Prefecture 66,905
Hiroshima 693,019; Hiroshima Prefecture 64,734
Kagoshima 93,581; Kagoshima Prefecture 73,999
Kumamoto 80,239; Kumamoto Prefecture 54,346
Kyoto 594,001; Kyoto Prefecture 89,246
Nagasaki 388,738; Nagasaki Prefecture 59,932
Okayama 61,740; Okayama Prefecture 45,363
Osaka 600,440; Osaka Prefecture 143,910
Oppose per @Rotary Engine. Estar8806 (talk) 02:24, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, PRIMARY.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:38, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as a blanket nomination; in at least most of the cases here, the prefectures are more prominent than the cities. Dekimasuよ! 08:06, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely strong support per nom and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Request for comment (RfC) about WP:USPLACE --- Tbf69 P • T 19:19, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in theory. I think some of these should not have been proposed, due to lack of primary topic at the base name; see the views comparison above. For those, I counterpropose Fukushima City (etcetera) as per Quebec City, Kuwait City, etc. Red Slash 04:35, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I agree with Rotary Engine and Dekimasu. In addition, Wikinav/clickstream may be worth considering, for example Wakayama (roughly even; 54% prefecture, 46% city for 2023-01) or Yamaguchi (plurality for the surname; 47% surname, 23% prefecture, 14% city). Note that, when determining whether there is a primary topic, topics like Yamaguchi (surname) are not excluded from consideration just because they "include their own qualifiers". Readers reasonably search for the name and the prefecture using the term "Yamaguchi". It is not merely, say, a partial title match. Adumbrativus (talk) 05:07, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose due solely to WP:TRAINWRECK issues. For one, a contender for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC status for "Akita" is Akita (dog). Steel1943 (talk) 14:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I haven't seen any evidence that most of these cities are the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for their names, while participants in the discussion have made convincing cases for many of the cities in this RM actively not being the primary topics (see Rotary Engine's analysis above, for instance). I'd be open to considering some of these individual moves in isolation, if there's strong evidence that a given city actually is the primary topic above its prefecture, but I don't see the proposed moves collectively as an improvement. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:06, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for several reasons (including due to multi-nom WP:TRAINWRECK issues) — with reasons well-stated above by User:Steel1943, User:ModernDayTrilobite, and especially User:Rotary Engine et cetera. While I can appreciate the desire for standardization, these requested move proposals should probably be proposed individually, as they ALL seem to differ on whether the city, the prefecture, or other notable topics (like the dog breed Akita, the last name Yamaguchi, or the surname — or incredibly famous director — Miyazaki) are the primary topics for each of these names. Like, the location pages for Akita, Yamaguchi, and Miyazaki have pageviews that are quite small compared to the specific non-location examples mentioned — and the rest of the city vs. prefecture conundrums seem to be a mixed bag of which one's the primary. So, I oppose this batch of moves, and (while I understand the desire for consistency) I recommend considering addressing each pair one-at-a-time. Paintspot Infez (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per WP:TRAINWRECK, they need to be discussed individually. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:07, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fukushima_(city)&oldid=1212022058"