Talk:Miyoshi (Tokushima)

Districts considered harmful

Thia "city" should not be districtified: Miyoshi not a huge city in any sense of the word, and there is no point at all to monster article names like Miyoshi (Tokushima)/Iya Valley. The administrative units are irrelevant to the traveler. Jpatokal (talk) 22:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Miyoshi (Tokushima)/Iya Valley, Miyoshi (Tokushima)/Oboke and Koboke and Miyoshi (Tokushima)/Ikeda are already well written. I can't see how removing the districts is helpful in any way here. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 22:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  To clarify, I'm not referring to the article content, which is fine, just using the "huge city" naming convention here: they should stand alone at Iya Valley etc instead of being artificially districted under Miyoshi as Miyoshi (Tokushima)/Iya Valley. Jpatokal (talk) 04:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  Okay, make it an extra region then. SHB2000 (t | c | m) 05:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose A city of any size can be districtified if the articles within it have enough content. You have stated that you don't believe that any of the districts should be deleted, so we have a city with enough content to hold 3 districts. That's enough to warrant districtification. When you say "artificially districtified", you mean properly placing districts within the city that they belong in. I know you have stated that you prefer detaching destinations from their real-world locations and for whatever reason you hate using "administrative units" like city names, but it's usually better to use them, because people will see them. Miyoshi has been around long enough that it does have travel information, travel brochures, and of course it appears on maps. There are clear benefits to giving the city an article and making its districts districts. People who just care about one district can still find it like any other city we've districtified and the Miyoshi article can give specifics about traveling between the districts. On the other hand there is no discernable benefit to not using districts for a city that can hold it. It is "artificial" for us to knowingly dissociate destinations from their real-world locations. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

  I am in violent disagreement with you here, and I'm concerned this may set an unfortunate precedent across all of Wikivoyage. Please chip in at the discussion at Wikivoyage talk:Geographical hierarchy#"Huge cities" that are actually rural areas. Jpatokal (talk) 12:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

• Jpatokal, if you don't like the Wikivoyage term for districted cities, argue for a different designation at Wikivoyage talk:Huge city article template. Don't argue for cities to be undistricted because of a term. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)