Talk:Mount Ontake

Mitake/Ontake

The article says: It should not be confused with Mount Mitake, a mountain in Tokyo written with the same characters..., however the characters in this article (嶽) and in Mount Mitake (Tokyo) (岳) are different (both read as "take" though). bamse (talk) 16:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I thought it a nonsense in my first glance ... if someone read kanji, they may not confuse. It can be removed? --Aphaia (talk) 06:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Though I think the explanation in this article is insufficient, it's not nonsense. The charactor "岳" is an alternative form of "嶽", and Mount Ontake is sometimes written in the spelling of "御岳山" (the same spelling as Mount Mitake). See http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E5%B2%B3 --122.132.104.4 (talk) 15:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. "岳" and "嶽" are equivalent character with the same meaning in both Kanji and Chinese. ppa (talk) 19:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Prior two posts are correct, but perhaps not 100% clear. There are lots of "takes" and "dakes" with diff kanji and diff meanings, but these two, specifically, are variants of one another. One is basically a "simplified" form of the other, and oft substituted in casual writing. I'm not sure how to reword the sentence; saying they're the same looks silly to people who actually compare them; saying they're just homophones, however -- like all those OTHER takes and dakes -- is simply not the case.

If I were writing about this in a paper I'd prolly say "written with the same kanji, sort of" and explain it in a footnote. That seems messy here.

Perhaps something like "Mitake-san, written similarly"? I'm not sure if English readers here need an entire kanji lesson. 209.172.23.191 (talk) 03:31, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The lead section of a Wikipedia article is not supposed to provide disambiguation between different topics with the same name.

• If there's ambiguity, there should be a note in italics placed at the top of an article to provide disambiguation.
• If the origin of the name and different spellings are important, they should be placed in a separate section.

And I agree that the info makes the lead look messy. It must be deleted from there. --Moscow Connection (talk) 05:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your feedback, guys. I concur with Moscow Connection and the anon 209.172.23.191, it is redundant here in the lead, and it would be moved at best.

As Kanji possible confusion, I dare say Japanese readership may not be confused. In Japanese literacy, specially on proper names, there are established convention in each case either "simplified" one or "traditional" are selectively used. On this case, there is no compatibility. So Japanese Kanji readers may not be confused. On the other hand, other Kanji using readership, including Chinese one, may be confused here. So I withdraw my earlier opinion and indifferent to retain it in this article.

As the name origin itself, it deserves a description in my opinion. "On" is a honorific prefix - it might come from its religious aspect. Mount Ontake has been a sacred place for Shintoism since the ancient time. The mountain and its cult has a long history. The religious group may be better to have its own article, but a brief description of Ontake cult in Shintoism (well cited, of course) deserves a section as its history and cultural significance. --Aphaia (talk) 05:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

In Japanese literacy, specially on proper names, there are established convention in each case either "simplified" one or "traditional" are selectively used.

just to smooth out the English a bit, the point is that the two characters are in principal "the same", but for w/e historic and linguistic reasons, certain place names use one and certain place names use the other. It's a bit like Cathy vs Kathy, Charlie vs Charley, or Johnson vs Johnston in English.

Smythe happens. 209.172.23.191 (talk) 07:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I notice that there is a tag at the top of the article asking for a disambiguation to other volcanoes in Japan called ontake - first one I found was the NE summit of Suwanosejima (I initially found that and mentioned it here Talk:Suwanosejima) there may be more - but I'm not sure I'd set up a disambigaution page just for that ? EdwardLane (talk) 08:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The NE summit of Suwanosejima is Otake, not Ontake as far as I made a short research. I have no particular opinion to have a disambiguation page, but if so, it should be "otheruses". --Aphaia (talk) 10:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you and 209.172.23.191 should just do whatever you want. Just change the lead as you like. It won't be worse than now. (I think we need to delete the part about other mountains from the lead cause it will just look better and now it may confuse people). --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

LOL. i beg to differ -- it could DEFINITELY be worse if i get involved!

anyway, i was thinking...how about rewriting the first parenthetical as "(御嶽山, also seen as 御岳山)" or "(...informally as 御岳山)" or the like. after all, the park named after it uses the other form!

after which, a simple disambig up top to the few other ontakes, mitakes, gogakus, w/e, would be in order.

plan B is to leave it as is, but tweak the last line to "It should not be confused with other Mount Ontakes, or with Mount Mitake, a mountain in Tokyo written similarly in Japanese."

btw, is it even correct to use "Mount"? i was always taught that u wrote "Mt" but said "mount". would any native-english mountain actually be listed as "Mount" in a database? should this one be any different? 209.172.23.17 (talk) 17:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

There is a full list of mountains called 御嶽山, most of them unnotable, along with location, height and hiragana pronunciation for each one, at ja:御嶽山. If you want to really disambiguate this to the hilt, just google translate it and create a corresponding page here on en-wiki. --dab (𒁳) 18:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

It has been fixed by User:Dbachmann. Great! I read the comment by 209.172.23.17 and was opening the page to do almost exactly the same thing (to add the sentence suggested by 209.172.23.17 as a note at the top). --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd personally love to delete this part, but have no strong opinion. On the proposal of 209.172.23.17, sorry I strongly decline at this time; because I haven't seen such "informal" instance. Mount Ontake is 御嶽山 in Japanese and only, if someone write it down correctly. If you would like to rewrite it so, you should provide sources. --Aphaia (talk) 12:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

pls tell that to the govt officials IN CHARGE OF the place!

i have no opinion abt the disambig up top; the important thing i believe is to change that PARENTHETICAL to "(...also seen as 御岳山)" or "(...informally as 御岳山)", as i said, at which point the comparisons with MITAKE will make sense! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.9.95.217 (talk) 20:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the example, since I confirmed they Nagano Prefectural Gov't use loosely two kanji as compatible (both wordings appear on their website), so I lift up my former opposition. --Aphaia (talk) 22:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

*happy* 209.172.23.190 (talk) 03:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm okay with completely deleting the note at the top. It just seemed a good solution for getting rid of the lengthy explanation in the lead. But now the idea that "Mount Ontake should not be confused [in English] with Mount Mitake" seems confusing to "normal people", and the whole note seems useless. --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I will delete the note now and see what happens. :) (By the way it links to the Japanese Wikipedia, and I think if I remove the note I will save many people from accidentally finding themselves in a very strange place.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Correction: It doesn't link to the Japanese Wikipedia. I thought it did for some reason. --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:37, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

2014 Mount Ontake eruption

I've created a separate article for the eruption: 2014 Mount Ontake eruption.

(I noticed that people were being invited to create a separate page. Someone redlinked the title both here and on the current events page. So I created it. There was a separate page in the Japanese Wikipedia already.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Since we have a dedicated article for this eruption, is the all day-by-day updates of the dead and injured from the beginning better to keep there, not here? For encyclopedia, is it suitable for the latest report of those numbers only? Just a thought. --Aphaia (talk) 23:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mount Ontake. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140927203928/http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/html/20140927/t10014923031000.html to http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/html/20140927/t10014923031000.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140929175230/http://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/english/news/20140927_22.html to http://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/english/news/20140927_22.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141002132114/http://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/english/news/20140928_21.html to http://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/english/news/20140928_21.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)