Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/土城 (2nd nomination)

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 merge‎ to Tucheng (disambiguation). A majority of editors favor merging; arguments for keep were an argument from inertia, and an argument that there is an entry that could not be merged to the suggsted title. This was rebutted with reference to WP:ONEOTHER _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:52, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

土城

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The entries in 土城 have a major transliteration "Tucheng" and additionally most of the entries in Tucheng (disambiguation) correspond to the Chinese characters "土城". Therefore, these dab pages could be merged, like that in Nanchan Temple (disambiguation) (from a RfD outcome) and Ni Hao. Because it's unnecessary to keep separate dab pages in the similar case, I also propose to disambiguate entries in CJKV dab pages together with their major translation if the Chinese characters also hold the major place in dab page of this translation. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 10:43, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I choose to remove all of the bundled nominated articles per WP:BUNDLE that An article with a fair or better chance of standing on its own merits should not be bundled—nominate it separately. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 17:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As an alternative option, Tucheng (disambiguation) has to be expanded to entries which was actually transliterated from "土城" and Tucheng District, the primary topic of "Tucheng" will also be that of "土城". Thus, 土城 will be moved to 土城 (disambiguation) and the base name will be turned into a primary redirect. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 14:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disambiguations, China, and South Korea. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 10:43, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Maybe we also need to review if the various Chinese-language titled dab pages are duplicating existing English-language titled dab pages like this AfD for instance, frequently saw multiple of such recently in Page Curation, all created by the same user. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 11:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Paper9oll: User:NmWTfs85lXusaybq has added several other pages to this AfD. You may want to update your comment. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:59, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As far as I can tell nothing has changed since the previous discussion. Redirects from foreign languages are well-established (WP:RLOTE). Ideally this page would redirect to a transliteration, but in this case it appears there's no single transliteration that's valid for all targets. If Toseong Station is not a valid entry for some reason, then we can merge to Tucheng (disambiguation). —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let's clarify that the previous discussion did not end with any kind of decision. The nomination was withdrawn by the initiator in order "to create a broader discussion for deleting all pages in this category." -The Gnome (talk) 14:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. The rationale, scope, and suggested outcome of the proposal have all been changed. As long as the title of these dab pages hold a major place in each other, they could be merged together, such as Nanchan Temple (disambiguation), in which Nanzen-ji is a different transliteration of "南禪寺" from "Nanchan Temple". NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 15:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've now added a whole list of pages to this AfD, but you seem to be proposing merging instead of deletion. If that's the proposal, AfD is not the right place for it. In any case, I think the case for keeping is even stronger for some of the others. Take 台東, for instance – "Taitung" is only a valid transliteration for the topics related to the Chinese language, not the ones related to Japanese. If the merge took place, would we need to add the relevant entries from Taito (disambiguation) to the Taitung page? That seems unhelpful for readers. Keep all per WP:TRAINWRECK. Feel free to make individual merge proposals in cases where you think it's appropriate. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given that 台東 has no major transliteration and both Taito (disambiguation) and Taitung exists, it could be kept as it is. While the other nominated CJKV dab pages do have benefit to get merged with the only dab page of its transliteration. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 16:14, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As for the entries of disambiguation page in 台東, not all entries in these pages are transliterated from "台東". Thus, you have to add every matched entries directly into 台東 unless you can reorganized a section in Taito (disambiguation) and Taitung that only consisted with entries of "台東". NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 16:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Toseong station says the Hanja is "土城驛". The other entries in 土城 are for Chinese-related topics and have the Tucheng prefix:
Since "土城" has two transliterations ("Tucheng" and "Toseong"), 土城 is a necessary disambiguation page.
Cunard (talk) 11:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A CJKV dab page with more than two transliterations doesn't have to be one with no primary topic, such as 九龍 (disambiguation) ("Jiulong", "Kowloon", "Cửu Long", "Guryong", "Kūron" and "Kuro"), 昭和 (disambiguation) ("Shōwa" and "Zhaohe") and 安康 (disambiguation) ("Angang", "Ankang" and "Ankō"). Tucheng District or Tucheng (disambiguation) is clearly the primary topic with respect to usage in this case.

There were originally only two topics Tucheng (disambiguation) and Toseong station here while I expanded the former because not all of its entries are transliterated from 土城. However, as the precedence Nanchan Temple (disambiguation) I provided, it's easy for 土城 to be merged and redirected into Tucheng (disambiguation) per WP:ONEOTHER, otherwise it could be moved to 土城 (disambiguation) and leave the base name as a primary redirect to Tucheng District. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 12:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. I acknowledge the twin transliterations involved, but that can easily be handled on the target DAB page, with something like, "土城 may also refer to: Toseong station", or similar language. As it is, the page is a redundant fork. Owen× ☎ 17:36, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I just added Toseong station to the "See also" section in Tucheng (disambiguation). Regardless of the outcome of this AfD, this link belongs on that page, if only for the shared "土城" name. Hopefully, this would also make the merge decision easier. Owen× ☎ 17:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: THere doesn't appear to be a pressing need to close this, so relisting for more discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 11:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Query: I do not understand the rationale for CJK entries on the EN Wikipedia.

Serious question: How is this encyclopedic content for an English-language audience? Is this not more appropriate to host at EN Wiktionary?

If someone runs across a CJK string and doesn't understand it, I would expect them to look that up in a dictionary first, and from there (from that dictionary entry) decide 1) which language they are interested in, and 2) whether they want to know about the word (lexical information appropriate for a dictionary), or the concept or thing referred to by that word, as described in English (subject-matter information possibly appropriate for an encyclopedia).

Are we really intent on including pages for potentially any and every title in the ZH, JA, and KO Wikipedias?

If so, we are basically reproducing a lot of information that is often already hosted at Wiktionary. This strikes me as a lot of work -- both the initial build-out, and then the ongoing maintenance work -- for no appreciable benefit.

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some information is here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/CJKV task force. CJKV titles are sometimes appropriate as redirects, per longstanding practice described at WP:RLOTE, but in cases where they are ambiguous between pages related to two or more languages, the usual solution is to make them disambiguation pages. If you disagree with the broader practice of catering to foreign-language search terms for topics related to that language, that might be something to discuss at WT:RLOTE, or maybe at some related policy page. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 02:22, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is no sense in keeping an article bearing a title in Chinese, since, right away, the article would be impossible for the overwhelming majority of English Wikipedia users to search & find. Therefore, we either locate an "acceptable transliteration" or the article gets defenestrated. Keep in mind that a decent transliteration would suffice, since we can create Redirects to it from the other versions. -The Gnome (talk) 14:03, 26 November 2023 (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.