From Wikivoyage
Jump to: navigation, search

Archived discussions

Pearl Harbor[edit]

"...destroying a large portion of the U.S. Pacific fleet..."

Begging your pardon, but I read a book about FDR (titled "FDR", I think), and some other sources I don't recall, that claimed that most of the Pacific fleet were out on maneuvers, and that most of the ships in the harbor were older ships, several of which were facing decommissioning in the near future. The only real losses were, perhaps, the aircraft, buildings, and certainly the humans. In any event, if the number of ships destroyed (16 according to constituted the majority of the Pacific fleet, then the US had a very weak presence in the Pacific. I don't buy that. ReveurGAM (talk) 03:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I changed it to "small". Does it read better now? (If not, by all means plunge forward and try to improve it) I also got rid of the silly 'attrocities' part. In a wartime situation, I don't think we can really separate how many people were killed in typical warfare versus 'attrocities'. I also don't think mentioning attrocities is particularly appropriate in an article that goes from the beginning to the end of the war in 2 sentences. It's enough to give the Asian deaths. We already know as stated in the article that Japan was the agressor and that they died at the hands of the Japanese. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 10:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Sorry if I sounded like I was coming on strong. I have no idea if small is the appropriate adjective or not, but I can't imagine that the 16 ships that were damaged or sunk were even half of the fleet. I think you were probably right to remove atrocities since it was a wartime act, and every act of violence is an atrocity anyways. Further, in the FDR book, it was suggested that the Japanese actually sent a message to the US warning of the attack so that it would be honorable, but that the message was deliberately delayed by US military personnel at every stage such that, by the time FDR received the formal declaration, it was already too late. I have not seen this information elsewhere, but factions of the US government and business world desperately wanted to enter the war, which would've been strong motivation to do so given the attempts America made to provoke first Germany and then Japan into attacking the US. I'm not sure if this information can be put in the article or not. I no longer have access to the resources I once had, since I'm living in a small village partway up a mountain in central Java, so I can't provide proper references. If someone else wants to take a stab at it, sally forth! :) ReveurGAM (talk) 12:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not sure 'small' is the best word either but I thought it worked well enough with the following 'but' to imply it was enough to get the US involved. I think the rest of the information you've stated is interesting but too much detail for Wikivoyage (as a sidenote, you don't need sources unless someone contests the information). Currently, our article is neutral on the point of Pearl Harbor, since it only states that Japan attacked, and I think that's the best solution. While we certainly don't want inaccuracies in our 'History' sections, we try to keep it as short and concise as possible (while maintaining lively writing and a cohesive progression of events). It's definitely a challenge, though, since history is so complex and looooong. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Traveller/traveler and travelling/traveling[edit]

I would hope that nobody seriously disputes that the US variety of English is the one overwhelmingly taught and used in Japan (and Israel, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, the Philippines and Taiwan) and that, according to current policy, this is the variety to be consistently used in these countries' articles.

However, what many newcomers do not realise/remember is that way back in the early days of Wikitravel there was serious discussion about making Commonwealth English (as opposed to US English) the default language for both travel topics, Wikitravel policy pages and Wikitravel destination articles that did not have a strong connection to US English (since Commonwealth English was used at that time by many more countries than US English).

In the end Evan decided not to switch to Commonwealth English for the default but, as a kind of sop to those who opposed US cultural hegemony, decided to keep the (unusual spelling for US English) of both traveller and travelling.

I don't ever remember seeing a discussion after the migration to Wikivoyage proposing to change this original "quirk" and I am rather reluctant to see this debate resurrected again so perhaps the editor(s) concerned would switch back to our time hallowed spellings of both traveller and travelling? -- 20:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the spelling of this particular word is news to me. I was just fixing a bunch of words of which 'travelling' happened to be one of. I happen to work in many different Asian countries, and frequently adjust my spelling style to suit each so I'm used to spotting these things quickly.
I would also say it is nearly inevitable that the spelling debate will be raised again, just because there is no clear direction on this on WV. I don't support a particular spelling style although I would support a stronger policy on this!
FYI I have replaced the spelling with the 'll' varieties. Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
That's very kind of you, Andrew and much appreciated.
There are very many little quirks like this with Wikitravel that metamorphosed into Wikivoyage - some hugely important, some not at all.
In the hugely important category come our current deletion policy for articles and honouring reader's preferences if they bother to set them.
Keeping a good collegiate atmosphere amongst regular editors is, of course hugely important, and quick responses (such as your own) and "roolz" (perhaps such as you might support/propose) to decide disputes less acrimoniously where there is no objective "right or wrong" also slither into that "less than trivial" category... -- 02:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


Has links to the country's major cities and other destinations (usable status or better), a valid regional structure, and a Get in section describing all of the typical ways to get there. Information about the country's currency, language, cuisine, and culture is included. At least the most prominent attraction is identified with directions.

Yet this article is an outline -- what's not meeting the usable criteria? Jpatokal (talk) 04:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

outline is the default categorization when an article is created. It is incumbent upon contributors to determine whether a promotion to usable, guide or star is needed.
It is a useful guide for quality, although the high number of articles and the (relative) low number of contributors means that no one is actively chasing these articles down and fixing them systematically.
For Japan I would suggest an immediate upgrade to usable followed by a discussion around guide status. (I think it meets guide) Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I've been around Wiki{travel,voyage} since 2004, thank you very much ;) But IIRC the Japan article was at least a guide at some point, although it was demoted to usable because not all subregions are/were up to scratch. Bumping it back up. Jpatokal (talk) 09:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I didn't realize the question was rhetorical :) Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Tax Increase[edit]

From April 1 prices of basically everything will rise so all of our Japan articles will likely display incorrect prices. All transportation fares (train, bus, etc) will be wrong, and many/most attractions will also likely raise their entrance fees. If we want to remain up-to-date and useful, our price listings will need to be checked/changed nationwide. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 01:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

That is an interesting point that I never considered. How do we normally check such prices across the board?
I assume that checking every single establishment to see how they responded to the tax rise is unrealistic? Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I've never seen a discussion about something like this, so I'm not sure if we have any policies/practices to refer to, but I can't really see any way to know what each place will charge except to verify each listing wherever prices are given, unless someone else knows something we don't. I would say that at the very least, we must work to update all prices given in the "Get in" and "Get around" sections. It is known that they will rise and they will affect all travelers. Attractions, hotels, restaurants, etc should be verified, but are slightly lower in priority since some will remain the same and slight changes in attraction prices are not as serious to underestimate than transportation fares. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 02:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
The hard thing is that there are prices everywhere, and it will be tough to track what has been updated and what was not. It may be possible to do page by page, from a to z. If the price did actually not change, then it is possible that contributors verify the price again and again… - Fabimaru (talk)
Probably the reality is that all prices that are in WV (and any other type of travel guide) are potentially outdated.
I wonder if a template for prices might be used that at least indicated the recorded date of a price if the user does a mouse over? (For example, A bowl of Udon costing Y250 in 2004 would tell me that this is almost certainly not the price in 2014, but still indicative) Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Example below: (with HTML)
Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I really like this approach. It should be possible to write a tool that would scan the database dump, find all the prices, find when they were entered(the tricky part) and generate updated pages with this syntax (which would be manually be updated into WV). Do you know if there is some tool allowing to find when a given part of a page was entered (in the same way than "svn blame" for those who are in software development)? (currently, I do it manually) Fabimaru (talk) 18:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Wikiblame - Fabimaru (talk) 18:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Wikiblame would work if each price in an article is distinct although if you have 4 listings each with $10 then that wouldn't work.
I'm not sure if there is sufficient metadata for listing on WV in order to track the changes to each individual listing, although I will certainly look into a solution. Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

It's definitely a huge task, as our Japan articles are some of our better-covered articles. We could also have some sort of box that mentions it placed at the top of Japan articles and remove it on pages that have been updated. It could also go on the talk page, but in that case, I don't know if everyone updating would know to go there and remove it afterwards. Rather than an A-Z approach, we could also start verification by prefecture (work on each city within a prefecture and then check off the prefectures as they're verified. This might make a great collaboration. It's a large task but a lot of prices, particularly for attractions can be found by anyone. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Is it really possible to keep all the prices in all the articles up to date all the time? If we have a million prices here on WV from hotel rooms in Seattle to bus tickets in Cairo and fast food in Lhasa and many establishments don't have a web page/it's not up to date/it's in a language most Wikivoyagers cannot read etc. and we don't have a local there I think the answer is no (likely even in each Wikivoyager's home city/town's article there are some prices that are outdated). And as Andrewssi2 said, it's likely that prices from 2004 are too low even without taking this tax increase into account. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually I'm wondering whether the listing template should have a 'created' and 'modified' metadata tags that would not be visible in the article text itself? WV is an accurate reflection of edits made at the time they were entered, although there is no simple way to determine when that was.
Although many listings such as hotels will still be valid in 2024, there are many others such as hostels, bars and budget restaurants that are unlikely to last that long. Although we can't keep all prices up to date, we could nevertheless indicate how recent they are. Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

ライダーハウス / Riders' houses[edit]

I've started to hear about a very low cost type of accommodation that exists in Japan primarily for people doing bicycle tours.

They are called "ライダーハウス" (riders' houses) and there is an article on the Japanese Wikipedia, but so far I can find very little information in English.

We could benefit cyclists and people who must or who enjoy travelling on very low budgets if we can find some information on these to include. — Hippietrail (talk) 01:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Introduction needs work[edit]

I placed the 'Understand' section further down the article in order to be consistent with the Country Template.

It does mean however that the introduction is very empty looking compared to other countries. Can someone with Japanese familiarity (I don't have a great deal, having only briefly visited a couple of times) have a go? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

It seems okay to me. Most countries only have 1-3 paragraphs in the introduction before the first section. Is is the length you have a problem with, or the introduction's content and style? --Bigpeteb (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Nevermind, I didn't realize someone had already started writing something before I replied. --Bigpeteb (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Needs c/e'ing though - I see now how awfully I've written it, but I guess I am still lacking the necessary perspective to c/e myself. PrinceGloria (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Translation help[edit]

(edit: sorry for the temporary deletion of the rest of the page, I don't know what happened).

Hello, I translate parts of this page to French, and I am not sure to understand the meaning of this sentence: "However, many Japanese hotels only accept online bookings from 3 to 6 months in advance, so either contact the hotel directly or try again later if it's more than 3 months out and you're seeing weeks on end booked full, especially if it's on a third-party booking site.".

My understanding of the part in bold is that one can book between 3 and 6 months in advance (so before 3 months and after 6 months it may not be possible). I really don't get the part after that:

  • I am not sure if the two recommendations (call or try later) apply to what is after the "if". Or maybe only the advice to call later apply to the "if".
  • Does "more than 3 months out" means "if you want to book for a date at least 3 months in the future"?
  • For "you're seeing weeks on end booked full": which "end" is it? The period at the beginning or the end of the 3-6 months periods?

Thanks for your attention. - Fabimaru (talk) 20:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

This passage isn't the easiest to understand, and I almost edited it yesterday based on a misunderstanding of its meaning, but then figured it out. What this means is that many Japanese hotels accept online bookings no more than 6 months and no less than 3 months before the day the customer is reserving. So if you want reservations for a hotel that looks full on a website, call them if it's less than 3 months before the date you'd like to reserve, but check the website again if it's still more than 3 months before the date you're trying to reserve. Maybe this should be edited, after all. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you a lot for the explanations, I think that now I know how to put that in the French Wikivoyage. I really struggled to understand "3 months out": I could not find in a dictionary the meaning of "out" in this case (though I can try to guess), and according to a web page it seems that it is American English. Also, as a non-native English speaker, I often struggle with the phrasal verb (having a preposition like "out", "over"…); their meaning is often not present in the French Wiktionary, and sometimes I guess their meaning incorrectly. - Fabimaru (talk) 11:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I find German harder in this respect, as the separable part of the verb is usually at the end of the sentence! Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
But the real fun starts if the author has used the sentence structure and vocabulary of their native non-Indo-Europeic language. Well, you just need a little imagination. ;) ϒpsilon (talk) 12:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
This sounds wrong to me...I always booked my hotels a few days in advance--Josquius~enwikivoyage (talk) 09:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
It sounds wrong to me too, for the same reason. It's not saying that there's an online reservation window that starts at 6 months before and ends and at 3 months before, as Ikan suggests. It's not saying that 3 months is the minimum required advance notice. I think the proper interpretation of the author's original intent would be that many hotels limit the amount of advance notice with which you can book, and that this advance limit ranges from hotels that don't take reservations more then 3 months in advance to hotels that don't take reservations more than 6 months in advance. That would make much more sense to me.
That said, I still don't really understand the "if you're seeing weeks on end booked full" part of the statement either; the only way I can see it making sense is if it means "if it's more than 3 months early (and therefore potentially beyond the advance limit I just mentioned) and the site shows nothing available, it probably doesn't actually mean there's nothing available, it just shows that way because you're beyond their limit, so call the hotel to find out for sure." Texugo (talk) 12:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
So this passage obviously needs to be edited in such a way that it's no longer confusing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I'd suggest that the following wording is less misleading:
However, many Japanese hotels and third-party booking sites do not accept online bookings more than 3 to 6 months in advance, so if it's more than 3 months out and you're not finding anything available, either contact the hotel directly or try again later.
Texugo (talk) 13:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
So much better! Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for updating the article Ikan. Fabimaru, perhaps you should read over the continuation of the conversation above and update the French version accordingly. Texugo (talk) 15:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you a lot to everyone, I will update the French page. - Fabimaru (talk) 15:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Trimming down "get around" section[edit]

This guide on Japan is already quite long. Mostly because Japan is a country with lots to offer that attracts many people and is vastly different from even the countries in its close proximity, so many things that would be obvious to Japanese people need to be explained here. That being said, there is really no need for get around sections that detailed. I have copied the by bus and by train sections to individual articles, but as I have never been to Japan and know very little about it, I didn't want to be the first to lay the axe at the too detailed parts. If you could do so, it would increase the quality of this guide (people who want more detail can always look at the specialized travel topics, just like we do it for the USA or Germany) and the chance that the sections in question are actually read. Best wishes and thanks in advance. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

There is a lot of detail for the Rail network. For other countries we typically put that detail into a separate article ... which I just noticed you have been adding to here : Rail_travel_in_Japan  :)
I would personally prefer a shorter 'get around' section with critical information, and then with links to dedicated travel topics such as the above. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
That's what I am suggesting. But I am not knowledgeable enough, to do the trimming down of the main article myself... Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:25, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


I think this needs to be updated, but since this article has a lot of editors who (may) support the current section, I thought I'd bring it up here first. Our current discrimination section reads: "Although violent attacks against foreigners in Japan are almost unheard of, there is discrimination against foreigners in employment. Even Western visitors have been refused entrance into certain onsen and restaurants, especially in rural areas. Some apartments, motels, night clubs, and public baths in Japan have been known to put up signs stating that foreigners are not allowed or that they must be accompanied by a Japanese person to enter. Such places are rare, however, and many Japanese claim that the prohibitions are due to perceived social incompatibility (for example, foreigners may not understand proper bathhouse etiquette) and not racism. Banks are often reluctant or unwilling to give cash advances to foreigners, stemming mainly from stereotypes of untrustworthiness. If you need to get a cash advance from your bank then Japanese language proficiency, or a Japanese friend to vouch for you will strongly help your case."

It seems to be outdated, off-topic, and even a bit offensive. The employment discrimination is off-topic (not travel related) and yet we've given it our primary spot in the very first sentence. Mentioning residents are more likely to experience discrimination than travelers is enough on that, I think.

The second sentence, "Even Western visitors" sounds very offensive. Why "Even"? The implications here seem kind of racist. Or at the very least, has a feeling that people who appear to not be from Europe or America are expected to be denied access every now again and that's okay, but the Japanese have dared to lump the almighty "Westerner" in the same group with those lesser peoples so now we need to know. Beyond that, in spite of the line at the end that does say "such places are rare", the sentence reads as though it's reasonably common. I think many of these places need to be separated out, because some are at the point of "almost unheard of" in terms of not allowing foreign patrons. The exception seems to be adult entertainment establishments, but even at these, it is not common.

A few other reasons that are given for not allowing foreigners are that the owner(s) only speak Japanese so they cannot understand people who come and speak in other languages and that in the past when foreigners visited, they caused problems. The language barrier seems to be the most common reason when it's at a non-adult place rather than social incompatibility.

THe cash advance thing is more likely to be because Japan isn't much of a "cash advance" society itself. Is this even discrimination at all? (Also is "cash advance" really meaning a cash advance or simply making a withdrawal? ChubbyWimbus (talk) 17:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Discrimination does exist in Japan, although Japanese might not regard it as such. For example foreigners may be (sometimes) turned away from Onsen (hot baths) because the owners fear that the foreigners do not understand the hygiene procedures. The owner does not feel he is being racist although he has actually performed an act of discrimination.
"Even Western visitors" does sound very offensive. However there are many cases where Japanese do discriminate between white people and those with darker skin tones. Travellers should be made aware of this with more sensible language.
Your insight into Japan is likely the best here. Why not just update directly yourself? Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:47, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Too Much Tokyo[edit]

In reading many major cities, like Kyoto and Osaka, I was pretty shocked to see that all of the "Get in" information was about Tokyo. Tokyo is the entrypoint for many visitors and a lot of English-speakers also reside there, so of course it should be covered however, it's quite sad that we've forgotten the rest of the country, so I thought I'd leave this note here for editors; Look at some of your favorite places and see if perhaps there are options that have been left out. In particular, bus options are where it is glaringly obvious. I added sections in Kyoto and Osaka and listed all that I could find (and there are so many, which is why I was so shocked not even one option outside of Tokyo was listed except for Yamaguchi Prefecture given a subheading in the Osaka article.) My list is very simple; just separating same-day options vs overnight options, but at least the options are listed. I actually imagine these being more useful for residents of Osaka/Kyoto to see how far they can go for trips to other places, so for that reason as well, the lists are useful for a lot of people. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

"Do" section[edit]

It's been bugging me that the Do section has for a long time been mostly empty, containing just a short bullet list of suggestions with no descriptions.

Then I noticed the Amusement subsection under Understand, which lists sports, games, entertainment... all the things that would normally be found in the Do section!

I went ahead and moved it, just to get things started. But the Do section could use a lot of work. Here are a bunch of ideas that come to mind:

  • Some items like anime don't really belong under Do, although I'm not sure where else it would belong. (Perhaps it can get folded into the anime section under Buy.)
  • Onsen is also an odd one; it would normally fit under Do, except that it's already pretty well covered by Bathe and the ryokan subsection of Sleep. If it's mentioned at all under Do, perhaps it only needs a general overview, and maybe some suggestions about what kind of itinerary to plan/expect, along with links to the other sections of the article.
  • A whole subsection on nature, climbing, and hiking certainly seems appropriate.
  • Golf should surely be mentioned, as it's well known to be popular (if exclusive) in Japan.
  • Skiing and snowboarding probably also deserve a mention.
  • Beaches should probably be mentioned (although it's interesting that for an island nation, Japan isn't hugely known for its beaches). Probably surfing and other aquatic sports, too.
  • What about the performing arts... music and concerts, theater (various types)... as well as things that don't quite fit anywhere else, like geisha, tea ceremony, etc.
  • It's especially disappointing that festivals (matsuri) are barely mentioned; these certainly deserve their own subsection. I'd particularly like to have links or suggestions for how to find out when and where festivals are taking place, and/or a list of major or recommended festivals.

I'll start working on these to the best of my ability (and as I have free time), but this will definitely be a group effort.

If you have other ideas for what should go in this section, or thoughts on how to (re)organize it, share them here so we can develop a plan for a new-and-improved Do section. --Bigpeteb (talk) 14:57, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes to all, and as a musician, I find Japanese performances involving music to be particularly interesting. Japan has great Western classical music, and that deserves a glancing mention along with the Japanese pop scene, but what I've found most captivating is kabuki, noh and bunraku. And yes, the tea ceremony is quite interesting as well. I also saw part of a series of performances by geishas in Kyoto in 1975, demonstrating their talents to prospective employers. That was a great thing to see, as well, and I also remember it because when we left the performance, I met two pretty, graceful geishas, and they thought I (then 10 years old) was very cute because I bowed deeply to them. But I digress. Ikan Kekek (talk)
Concerning the baths, I think we should have most of it in "Bathe" because the information would deserve to be in "Sleep", "Do" and "Respect", but that would not be convenient for the reader if we choose arbitrarily one of them. I think it that the section "Do" should have a introduction and a link to Bathe and Sleep, but not much more because I don't see how it would not be redundant with the other sections. — Fabimaru (talk) 20:57, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
That makes sense to me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
As I'm writing some of these sections, I think that it's probably more important to call out options for English speakers for the various arts than anything else. You can watch/do a sport, play an arcade game, etc., without much Japanese language ability, but trying to appreciate a traditional play or comedy routine in a language you don't understand would be difficult. So I think we should make an effort for some of these to talk about English-language ways to enjoy Japanese arts and entertainment. --Bigpeteb (talk) 18:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Bigpeteb (and any knowledgeable person): I am translating the hot spring sections to French, and I noticed a contradiction:

  • in the section "Hot springs": "An even smaller number of ryokan have mixed-gender baths, but bathing suits may still not be allowed (often it's only allowed for women)."
  • in the section "Bathe/Onsen": "Commercial operations with kon'yoku baths tend to enforce bathing suits for both sexes.".

I don't know if one of the statement is more correct than the other, or maybe it should be reformulated a bit. — Fabimaru (talk) 08:57, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Rereading it a few times, I don't think it's actually contradictory... but in any case, I think the info about alternatives for body-shy people should get moved to the "Bathe" section anyway. That keeps the part in the "Do" section to just a short overview. And I think that will eliminate any conflicting info such as you pointed out. --Bigpeteb (talk) 21:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I like this reorganization. — Fabimaru (talk) 18:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Article Status of Prefectural Capitals[edit]

A list of the status of each of the prefectural capitals.

Prefecture City To do
Hokkaido Sapporo (usable)
Aomori Prefecture Aomori (usable)
Akita Prefecture Akita (usable)
Iwate Prefecture Morioka (usable)
Yamagata Prefecture Yamagata (guide)
Miyagi Prefecture Sendai (guide)
Fukushima Prefecture Fukushima (usable)
Gunma Prefecture Maebashi (outline)
Tochigi Prefecture Tochigi (outline)
Ibaraki Prefecture Mito (outline)
Chiba Prefecture Chiba (outline)
Saitama Prefecture Saitama (usable)
Tokyo Prefecture Tokyo (usable)
Kanagawa Prefecture Yokohama (usable)
Niigata Prefecture Niigata (usable)
Nagano Prefecture Nagano (usable)
Yamanashi Prefecture Kofu (outline)
Shizuoka Prefecture Shizuoka (outline)
Aichi Prefecture Nagoya (Guide)
Gifu Prefecture Gifu (usable)
Toyama Prefecture Toyama (outline)
Ishikawa Kanazawa (Guide)
Fukui Prefecture Fukui (outline)
Shiga Prefecture Otsu (outline)
Mie Prefecture Tsu (outline)
Wakayama Prefecture Wakayama (Usable)
Nara Prefecture Nara (Guide)
Kyoto Prefecture Kyoto (Guide)
Osaka Prefecture Osaka (Usable)
Hyogo Prefecture Kobe (Guide)
Okayama Prefecture Okayama (Star)
Hiroshima Prefecture Hiroshima (Star)
Tottori Prefecture Tottori (Guide)
Shimane Prefecture Matsue (Guide)
Yamaguchi Prefecture Yamaguchi (Usable)
Kagawa Prefecture Takamatsu (Usable)
Tokushima Prefecture Tokushima (Usable)
Kochi Prefecture Kochi (Guide)
Ehime Prefecture Matsuyama (Guide)
Fukuoka Prefecture Fukuoka (Guide)
Saga Prefecture Saga (Usable)
Nagasaki Prefecture Nagasaki (Usable)
Oita Prefecture Oita (Outline)
Kumamoto Prefecture Kumamoto (Guide)
Miyazaki Prefecture Miyazaki (Outline)
Kagoshima Prefecture Kagoshima (Usable)
Okinawa Prefecture Naha (Usable)

ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Consistency in names of articles for Japanese islands[edit]

It looks like there is no consistency in the names of the pages of the Japanese islands. In Japanese, the names of most of the island are suffixed with "-shima" or "-jima" (which means "island"). So we have:

I wonder if the names of these pages were chosen with some strategy in mind. Maybe some have been chosen using the most popular name for foreigner speaking English… Or using the name of the municipality if it covers only the island (not the case for Miyako: the city of Miyako covers other islands than Miyako island). It also looks like there is no rule for Wikipedia pages. Do you have any idea about how the pages should be called? I think at least we should avoid the suffix "island", and maybe use the Japanese name as much as possible. (context: I started translating to French the page about Awaji Island) — Fabimaru (talk) 18:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

As per Wikivoyage:Foreign words, we are supposed to use the commonest English form of the name. Even if that is not consistent in the use of suffixes. However, if there is no common English term, we might wish to make some rule of thumb for this... Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Most of them look right to me. It would be very odd to write Yakushima or Miyajima any other way. Awaji Island is both well known by that name and it distinguishes it from Awaji City. The Okinawa Islands can be tricky. For example Miyakojima is the name of the main island but the Miyako Islands are the name of an island cluster. Ishigaki is technically a city that encompasses Ishigaki Island along with other islands. Iriomote is a single island (technically part of Taketomi). So for those articles, the naming may be more a matter of scope; whether the article covers a single island or island groups. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:32, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Similar situation for Korean islands which all end in 'do' - 도 in Korean.
  • names without the Korean suffix, like Jeju which should technically be named Jejudo
  • names with the Korean suffix and with an "island" suffix, like Marado_Island
  • names with the Korean suffix like Chujado or Dokdo
I guess the inconsistency has never been an issue. Jeju Island is always called Jeju in English language tourism literature, whereas lesser known islands tend to keep their suffix.. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 13:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

New page banner[edit]

Current banner.
Suggested banner 1.
Suggested banner 2.

The current banner leaves more to wish. I made a new one. /Yvwv (talk) 15:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I greatly prefer the current one. The new one strikes me as an uninspired "any city" shot which is especially disappointing for a country banner. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:43, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
A new banner, of the same view as the banner for Fuji Yoshida. /Yvwv (talk) 20:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Yvwv, I really appreciate your work with pagebanners, but in this case, I think the current banner is very aptly chosen, so as to show an example of Japanese culture not obviously tied to a particular place. Of course, Fuji-san is a major symbol of Japan, but I don't think it's good to have two places' pagebanners be so similar to each other. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:06, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Can these banners be considered for other articles? /Yvwv (talk) 16:11, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Sure, go ahead and propose them on whatever page you think they make sense. Personally, I don't think the Tokyo skyline one is an improvement over the existing banners for Tokyo or Tokyo/Sumida or any of the other wards or suburbs. One distant view of a city skyline is very much like any other, and the only distinguishing factor of Mt. Fuji in the background is much less prominent in this one. The second suggestion with the pagoda and Mt. Fuji looks pretty good, but I don't have a suggestion for what article might benefit from it. --Bigpeteb (talk) 19:26, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Wikivoyagers hold a varied distribution of aesthetic preferences, but I'm going to agree that the existing banner is the best one to represent the country of Japan for reasons given above already. That said we are lacking banners for many Japanese articles, so any contributions on those in similar styles to the proposed banners here would be great. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:16, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

External links in "Accessibility and disability"[edit]

The editor who originally added the section Japan#Accessibility and disability included two links to external sites. Officially, these are forbidden by WV:XL because they're not primary sources. However, they provide a lot of useful information for a particular and obscure topic. Should these links stay? (If so, is there a better way to integrate them into the text?) Should they be removed? Or, following the advice on WV:XL, should we try to learn as much as we can and collect similar information in a new Accessibility in Japan article, to further the goal of WV being a travel guide for all individuals? --Bigpeteb (talk) 19:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not completely clear on policy here, but the first site looks useful (it allows you to search for accessible friendly hotels, and doesn't appear to be commercial in nature). The second site is also useful, but is basically external content (on one page) that would make a good internal WV article. I would keep the first and remove the second. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC)