Talk:Obihiro

This page is for discussing the corresponding article or guide. For more about using talk pages check out Project:Using talk pages.

Listing buses and car rental agencies

• Just listing a place name and phone number is better than nothing, but if possible, it would be better to have a more detailed description of each place. That way, people can actually find the places. --(WT-en) Orcrist 03:14, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

Obihiro in addresses

The word Obihiro appears in many addresses. This is necessary because of the address system - not as bad as New York, New York! - which is ambiguous if the city name is left out. Not all the addresses given are in the city. Thanks. -- (WT-en) Kleinzach 06:23, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

The addresses are not ambigious, because this article is called "Obihiro". The town name only needs to be listed if the place is not in Obihiro. (WT-en) Jpatokal 06:49, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Obviously I hope you will respect my view on this. After all I live here. If you remove 'Obihiro" from the address then it will be necessary to append most of the entries with a sentence saying This place is in the centre of the city or That place is outside the city. This might not be necessary for Hoboken, New Jersey, but the Japanese address system is not one that is immediately intelligible to the foreign visitor. It's not one that is 'readable'. -- (WT-en) Kleinzach 09:34, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, I genuinely don't understand the issue here. Virtually all listings already seem to be in 帯広市, and the one that is 30 min away by car is already listed as such. And yes, you should provide directions of how to get there ("across the street from the railway station", etc), although obviously the ideal would be to draw a map. (WT-en) Jpatokal 21:41, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Very few people understand non-linear Japanese addresses so you aren't the only one. Directions and maps are indeed a good idea. Please don't hesitate to make any practical suggestions about improving the formatting of this article! Regards. -- (WT-en) Kleinzach 01:17, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

I've lived in Japan for four years and wrote most of the Wikipedia article on Japanese addresses, so I'd like to think I do understand them a bit. ;) The issue isn't that, though, but whether we need to repeat the word "Obihiro" for every single listing in Obihiro, and be it Japanese, American or Martian addressing, I don't think it adds any value to the traveller. If they're in Obihiro, and they're looking at a map of Obihiro and a listing in the Obihiro article, what's the possibility of confusion? (WT-en) Jpatokal 01:44, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

The article on the Japanese address system doesn't cover Hokkaido, . . . . This issue wouldn't come up for logistical reasons for, say, Tokyo. Obihiro people always include Obihiro (or not) in the address, because of the way that the (relatively small) city is laid out and the way it interacts with surrounding areas. That indicates that it isn't superfluous.

I see you also changed 'takes two and a half hours' into '2:30' - an extreme abreviation which would also be confusing for many people. Are abbreviations a special interest of yours? -- (WT-en) Kleinzach 05:33, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

As a matter of fact they are, because my current project is making printed guidebooks, where space matters more than it does online... But I see you've added "hours", which is good.

But please explain to me one more time why travelers need "Obihiro" in addresses, because this just isn't sinking into my dense, little skull. Are there cases where eg. "Nishi 13, Minami 9" could refer to two different places, one in Obihiro and the other nearby but not in Obihiro? What is the potential for confusion if it's not listed?

OK, one more time then. Visitors cannot distinguish places with short addresses like Midorigaoka or Nishi 1, Minami 5, or Nakasatsunai or Memurocho. They won't know whether they are in town or out. Half addresses will not be intelligible. That's why full addresses are used here - by the Japanese. -- (WT-en) Kleinzach 12:17, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

OK, now I understand — thanks for your perseverance. I still think, though, that for an article called Obihiro travellers will assume any listings are in Obihiro. If it's not, then address should be glossed with directions/driving time to emphasize the fact. (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:15, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

And as you were asking for formatting suggestions, one thing that would be Really Nice(tm) is using the listing tags instead (<see> <eat> etc, see the editing box). They're a little harder to deal with (at least until Evan gets the neat-o GUI editor up), but they ensure that formatting is purrfect. (WT-en) Jpatokal 06:07, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

I agree formatting could obviate some problems. It's not ideal at present. I tried to use the listing tags when I started but gave up on them. If you can give me some example code perhaps I can make it work? The other Hokkaido pages don't seem to be using any. -- (WT-en) Kleinzach 12:18, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

Hi Kleinzach, I commend you on your efforts in creating this article. It's looking really good. However, I fully agree with Jpatokal that we do not need the name of the town at the end of each address. If the attraction/accommodation etc is not in the downtown, then the name of the suburb will suffice. That is standard for all articles in Japan, and it has not caused any confusion so far. So, for the sake of standardization and maintaining harmony among editors, would you consider removing them? Please give it some thought. Thanks. I appreciate it. Incidentally, if you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Finally, did you ever sort out the article credit issue? Take it easy. (WT-en) WindHorse 07:54, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

The short answer is no. Full addresses are essential in this article, otherwise it will not be clear which places are in the city and which are not. Full addresses would not be essential for many other places in Japan. Better formating - which would be a good thing anyway - could obviate this problem (possibly using tables) but at the moment I can't see how this can be done. I looked for templates when I started the page and couldn't find any. I'm open to any practical suggestions.

This page is an experiment - if it is a success I will develop it and start some other ones. As a Wikipedian I am used to the software, but I am concerned whether it is possible to work within existing WikiTravel style restrictions. On Wikipedia there are mechanisms for improving not just the articles but also editing practice. Is there a similar flexibility here? -- (WT-en) Kleinzach 11:46, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

My apologies, but I still don't understand. On all the Japanese articles the addresses do not contain the name of the town at the end of each line. Yet, it is totally clear where the attractions are located. Why is Obihiro different? If, as you say, the places are not in the city, then shouldn't they be on a different article? I guess the final the decision on this will come down to a consensus, and at the moment I admit that I am not convinced of the benefit adding the name of the town to the address. Sorry about that. (WT-en) WindHorse 12:03, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

I'm sorry you didn't answer my question about flexibility, but I will answer yours about Obihiro.

You write "Why is Obihiro different? If, as you say, the places are not in the city, then shouldn't they be on a different article?" My answer: Obihiro is a small city in the middle of an important agricultural area called Tokachi. Tokachi deserves it's own article. What should be in the Obihiro article and what should be in the Tokachi article? This can only really be resolved after the Tokachi article has been written (if it is written) but I'd suggest the criteria should be practical and based on the needs of the visitor. For example it would be practical to include the airport in the Obihiro article rather than leave it to the Tokachi one. -- (WT-en) Kleinzach 13:08, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

Well, flexibility about policy and guideline changes at Wikivoyage depends fully on the persuasiveness of the argument for the proposed change. Unlike at Wikipedia, decisions about changes are made fully by consensus, rather than voting or any other mechanism. So, if you can convince just about everyone that a change makes sense, we will make it. But I must say, I don't think you have been very persuasive thus far on this particular issue—I too don't understand your rationale. Perhaps you could explain more fully what makes Obihiro exceptional? Or why perhaps all of Japan should constitute exceptions? The standard practice is to leave out city/town names in the addresses of listings and to include any other necessary (like the name of a nearby village) in the directions section of the listings template. So if a restaurant is somewhere else in Tokachi, but listed in this article, we normally would just note the name of the village in the directions="" section. This method has worked just fine (IMHO) for, well, just about every article I have seen, but I'm certainly open to arguments that Obihiro is an exception, I just remain to be persuaded ;) In any rate, I certainly do hope you stick around, because you are doing an excellent job! --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 22:47, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

Whoops, yes, sorry I did forget to answer your question about flexibility. Mea Culpa. However, Peter has done so, and in a more clear and succinct way that I would have done. Anyway, from what you state, I think that the name of the town could be left for the time being, but removed once the Tokachi article is written. What do you think? However, if the consensus flows in the direction of removing the name of the city on addresses for attractions within the city itself and instead using the name of villages as a means to distinguish the two, then that's fine with me too and I'll support that motion. As for the airport, if it basically serves Obihiro, then, yes, I agree. It should be in the Obihiro article. That is common for most places, especially large cities where the international airport is often out in boonies. Anyway, thanks for explanation. (WT-en) WindHorse 05:13, 4 August 2007 (EDT)

Obihiro itself is out in the boonies. :P I've created Tokachi, but I think it's best to list the airport under Obihiro and just do a pointer from the region page. (WT-en) Jpatokal 05:42, 4 August 2007 (EDT)

In that case, maybe the name of airport should be changed to Inakapoi Kuku. Ha Ha. By the way, Jpatokal, how do you feel about leaving the name of the town in the addresses until the attractions in the outer villages are transfered to the Tokaichi aricle? I do not have a strong feeling either way, but it seems like a good temporary solution. (WT-en) WindHorse 05:58, 4 August 2007 (EDT)

I don't like putting attractions in region pages, because they're unlikely to be found there. I still think the correct solution is to nuke the Obihiros and just make it very clear if something is not in town. (WT-en) Jpatokal 11:12, 4 August 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I'd forgotten that Tokachi was a sub-prefecture. So, I rephrase my question. How do people feel about leaving the name of the town in the addresses until the attractions/accommodation in the outer towns/villages are transfered to the their appropriate articles? This would be a temporary solution only, and made clear that it is as such. (WT-en) WindHorse 12:04, 4 August 2007 (EDT)

I am no longer developing this article so I have deleted my earlier comments. -- (WT-en) Kleinzach 05:14, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

Once again I am deleting my own comments (nobody else's). (WT-en) Jpatokal should not revert them. They were not contributions to WikiTravel for publication. They were comments. -- (WT-en) Kleinzach 06:39, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

I don't quite think you quite understand this Creative Commons thing. You agreed to license your comments under CC when you hit the "Save page" link, so they can be published by Wikivoyage, the New York Times, Myanmar's military junta, child molesters and, yes, even little old me, whether you like it or not. We usually respect a user's wishes out of common courtesy, but a one-sided discussion without your side sounds rather strange, so I'm not going to agree to deleting it. (WT-en) Jpatokal 11:40, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

Thank you, (WT-en) Jpatokal, for not pretending to respect common courtesy! Actually the Creative Commons 'thing' applies to article pages, not to talk ones - even if sites like these are badly set up and don't distinguish properly between between kinds of pages. Creative Commons shouldn't be used to deny users the right to edit their comments - or on occasion to delete them (which is form of editing).

Since I'm quitting WikiTravel and you're determined to haunt this page (and the rest of WikiTravel) like an evil incubus, there is little point in my re-removing my comments, however let me remind you: I have not given you, (WT-en) Jpatokal, or anybody else on WikiTravel, permission to reproduce any of my written work for commercial purposes -- (WT-en) Kleinzach 09:14, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

You're welcome. When you hit the Edit button on any page, article or talk, you were told in no uncertain terms that "All contributions to Wikivoyage must be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0" and "If you do not want your work to be re-used on other web sites and modified by other users please do not submit!". So, yes, you have given that permission, and as you appear to have a history of thousands of edits on Wikipedia (whose content can also be used commercially), I'm a little surprised you're even claiming something to the contrary.

Incidentally, being called an "evil incubus" is kinda neat, but "servile spine-waddling trull with your tattle-footed bizzardry" still gets the top spot in my all-time top list of insults. (WT-en) Jpatokal 11:48, 15 October 2007 (EDT)