Talk:Sea of Japan naming dispute#parties to the dispute

:The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved per WP:CONCISE (non-admin closure) >>> Extorc.talk 07:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

----

:Sea of Japan naming dispute → {{no redirect|Sea of Japan-East Sea naming dispute}} – There are some articles about naming dispute whose titles include other variant names in dispute as well. For example, there are Gulf of Mexico–America naming dispute and Denali–Mount McKinley naming dispute. I believe that it is more reasonable to mention the names in dispute from the beginning because it is more precise way to explain the disputes about the names. Can we rename this page to follow this convention? RaveEffect (talk) 06:45, 18 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. cyberdog958^Talk 14:13, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:I've redone the request using {{subst:requested move as advised in the hatnote. I'm out of my depth here, but it seems to me that a review of all articles related to these sometimes-so-called "naming disputes" is in order, considering the namings by the International Hydrographic Organization -- almost all nations are member states of that organization, including most or all nations said in those articles to be involved in naming disputes. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:21, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

• Comment May I suggest "Sea of Japan–East Sea naming dispute" instead? Masterhatch (talk) 07:26, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
• :I agree. I couldn't catch '–' was being used insted of '-' RaveEffect (talk) 08:19, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:Note: INACTIVEWP, WikiProject China, WikiProject Russia, WikiProject Oceans, WikiProject Korea, WikiProject Geography, WikiProject International relations, WikiProject Japan, WikiProject East Asia, and WikiProject Politics have been notified of this discussion. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 16:28, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:Support follows naming convention established by similar articles. Just make sure we're using an en dash, not a hyphen. RachelTensions (talk) 16:43, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:Support Clarifies what the duspute is. --Altenmann >talk 17:36, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:Support per nom seefooddiet (talk) 01:38, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support per nom. To clarify that there is a dispute between the two names. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 07:11, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Not so fast: See the suggestion from Eyer in the RM I just opened at Talk:Gulf of Mexico–America naming dispute#Requested move 19 April 2025. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:33, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• :Thanks, @BarrelProof. It seems like we don't need to spell out the two disputed names in the article title. (What if there were more than two disputed names, for that matter...?) Instead, we can use the generally accepted common name of the geographic feature—in this case "Sea of Japan naming dispute"... and then explain multiple disputed names in the article itself. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 20:38, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::Oppose per Eyer. The current title is more WP:CONCISE and more common in English than the suggested one. Adding the other name would only be attempting a false balance. We should consider the common name in independent reliable sources written in the English language, not politically motivated attempts to manipulate language. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:23, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
• Comment I'm weakly support the name change for this article, but giving that there also exist similar page move request (for Gulf of Mexico), i'm suggest this discussion be close and merge with Gulf of Mexico naming dispute discussion in the link above. For me, having two page move discussion with similar contents seem redudant. 2404:8000:1037:469:E118:746C:5176:1E50 (talk) 00:03, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
• :I agree Masterhatch (talk) 00:47, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree with User:Eyer. What if there are 3 disputed names? Do we include all in the title? What if there's a 4th disputed name that is lesser known? Does that get put into the title too? I think the current title is best. Masterhatch (talk) 03:13, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. Sea of Japan naming dispute, as it stands, is the most concise title for the subject. Mentioning more than two names is only appropriate if multiple names for the area are equally common in English. It is the Gulf of Mexico dispute article that needs to be renamed. Ringo62 (talk) 08:17, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose – "Sea of Japan" is the common name in English and the proposed title is much less concise. While I mean no offense to those who support calling it the East Sea, putting both names in the title seems like false balance. (Also, if this is moved, the title should use an en dash and not a hyphen.) Toadspike [Talk] 20:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose{{snd}}Common name in English takes primacy. Yue🌙 22:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. I leaned support initially and have changed my view after following this for a few days and considering points raised above. On balance, the current article title fulfills the naming criteria better than the alternatives. Sea of Japan is the common name for this body of water in English. Recognizability at WP:CRITERIA states: {{tq|The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.}} The descriptive title for this article is recognizable and reasonably natural and precise, both because of the common name for the body of water and because anyone familiar with the dispute will understand what is being described. The current title is obviously more concise. As for consistency, there is currently an "article title dispute" (RM) over one of the articles the nom mentions. Most of the entries at List of geographical naming disputes include only one geographical name in the article title. There are good reasons why some of these article titles would be "inconsistent" based on the particular factors at play in a given dispute, but broadly there is no pattern or practice of including multiple disputed names in article titles. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 19:21, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose, the article suggests that there is potentially a third name "Korean East Sea" for North Korean use, so a title ideally should have all contested names or just the sole most common. Which, under MOS:GEO and WP:CONSUB we must use the same name as the parent article (as the title is also descriptive) which is merely only titled "Sea of Japan". As well as the current being WP:CONCISE enough. DankJae 22:03, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:* Support - per WP:CONSISTENT, WP:NPOV

:Thehistorianisaac (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2025 (UTC)