Jump to content

Talk:Kōban

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

neighbourhood police post

[edit]

Surely this isn't a police box, as in a police call box, merely a neighbourhood police post, i.e. a smaller version of a police station where members of the public can seek help from a real person rather than using it to call for assistance? --khaosworks 21:29, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Which is what British police boxes originally were - officers actually used them to sit in to have their breaks, do paperwork, and be accessible to the public. So it is a police box as much as they were. -- Necrothesp 22:32, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

merge proposed

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it.

Merge tag has been placed. I keep thinking to myself that if a Japanese user of the Japanese Wikipedia is reading the equivalent article over there and wants to see how a police box is described in English (by clicking on the English link on the left side of the Japanese article)...we'd be doing that user a great disservice by leading them to a page that only shows the Japanese version of things. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 04:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the merge proposal suggests discussing it at Talk:Police box, I've started a discussion section there. Fg2 (talk) 10:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Square footage or square meterage

[edit]

It would be ideal to add to the article how many square feet or meters a Koban typically is. Could anyone research this and add it? I tried to find it online but I'm having hard luck at it. Thanks. --70.179.185.102 (talk) 01:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They vary widely, from small to larger. There is no one (or two or three) standard size. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although this doesn't answer the question about floor space, a couple of photos in the Japanese Wikipedia give an idea of size by including patrol cars. In one photo, the patrol car is parked in an alcove in the side of the building, so you can compare the sizes pretty easily. Fg2 (talk) 00:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some links to make it easy for you: here, here, and here. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Street furniture?

[edit]

I've removed the article Koban (police box) from Category:Street furniture, which contains things like street signs, fire hydrants, and mailboxes, but another user has repeatedly added it. In what sense is a kōban like a street sign, fire hydrant, or mailbox? Fg2 (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All kōban I've seen are either in their own building (less common) or a small office within a larger building on the street (most common). They are not like the British police box, not even close. Therefore, they are not "street furniture" as far as I can tell (at least not any more than any other building on the street is "street furniture"). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I should also note that kōban don't fit into any of the definitions of street furniture found in that article. They are small buildings (or small offices within other buildings). I've never seen a kōban that was any larger than a standard fast food restaurant, and usually they are a bit smaller than that (maybe 700 ft²). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there is no reason for including this article in the "Street furniture" category. I wonder if the editor mistakenly assumes that kōban are like old British police boxes, although the difference ought to be immediately clear from actually reading the article. --DAJF (talk) 23:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked him to come participate here in the discussion. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've taken an accusatory tone against me on my talk page. A return to civility is in order if we're to continue. --SSBohio 14:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if you took it that way, but I was only stating the facts. You were engaged in an edit war to keep the category on the article (as evidenced by the history of the article). Therefore, you were trying to force the issue without attempting to discuss the issue. Instead of continuing to add the category, after the very first reversion you should have begun a discussion here on the talk page to find out why the category was being removed. I have not acted in an uncivil manner here. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, you accuse me of forcing the issue. Now you've accused me of edit warring. If you feel that you have a case, you're free to make a complaint at WP:ANI. As to why the category was being removed, the edit summary Fg2 provided explained why they felt it needed to be removed. I do a fair amount of categorizing, and I don't do it arbitrarily. This article is entitled Koban (police box); A police box is an item of street furniture. Perhaps a koban is more of a police substation than a police box. In any regard, even if my judgment was wrong, there's no need for anything beside civil dialogue. --SSBohio 21:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of the edit summaries explaining the inclusion in Category:Street furniture reads, "A koban is single-purpose street furniture similar to a police box or a public lavatory." This makes me agree with DAJF that there is confusion with British police boxes. While it's true that a kōban is single-purpose, it's also true of a grocery store or an office building, so I don't see that as a relevant criterion. I think it's true that free-standing kōban have addresses, and that this is one distinction from fire hydrants, street signs and phone booths. Fg2 (talk) 00:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All kōban have addresses, even the ones that are just small offices inside other buildings. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your minds appear made up. Who am I to contradict? Just because a small, street-side structure containing 3 or 4 police officers doesn't appear all that different from a small street-side structure containing 1 or 2 police officers, why should I place them both in the same category? Instead of reverting me, discussing the matter neutrally is what should've happened from the first. Instead, every time I turn around, there's another attempt to decategorize this article, and, to add insult to injury, also revert the noncontroversial copyedit I made. Are none of my edits of value? Fg2 and 日本穣 would do well to assume I've acted in good faith and not assume that I am (a) wrong, (b) confused, or (c) a fool , by reverting my edits out of hand. The handling of this smacks of article ownership, and was undertaken by the same editor who stridently opposed a previous effort to unite the two concepts, going so far as to materially misrepresent what a police box is in furtherance of keeping the two concepts utterly divorced from each other. I have years of experience improving this project; It's rare that I've faces such concerted opposition over a seemingly minor point, particularly without the courtesy of a discussion. As I've already been dismissed, minimized, and insulted, I'll say this: factually right or factually wrong, your tactics are deplorable. --SSBohio 14:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read what I've been writing above? I specifically asked that reverting stop while this issue was resolved. I haven't reverted one of your edits at all. I presented information supporting why I don't see them as street furniture, and I asked you to come participate in a discussion rather than continuing your revert edit war. As for our minds being made up, since we've both lived in Japan (and Fg2 continues to live there, IIRC) and have seen hundreds (if not thousands) of kōban, I think we might know a thing or two about them. Now, I can see a police box or a telephone booth being seen as street furniture, but a building as big as a small fast food restaurant? Furniture is, by definition, somewhat portable. None of the kōban I've ever seen in many cities and towns in Japan come close to being moveable without a major undertaking like you'd see if any other permanent structure was moved. While the concept may be similar as to function, the implementation is completely different. I would suggest that, if you really do want a discussion in the future, that you begin one immediately upon any conflict rather than continuing the conflict by reverting other editors. That's much more effective than arguing your point via edit summary. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I read what you wrote above. That's how I got to here, below. I'd appreciate your assuming I've read the discussion to date before I commented. I haven't readded Category:Street furniture since I was made aware of this discussion. Indeed, you haven't reverted my edits, only Fg2 has; You simply supported their contention and backed up your support with unsavory accusations about me both here & on my talk page. Nothing in the article indicates the size or construction of a koban; Concluding that a "box" is at least somewhat relocatable is reasonable given the common definition of "box" and the specific definition of "police box." As I've said, if a koban is not street furniture, so be it. My objection has been to the tone & approach in handling the difference of opinion, particularly the offhand dismissal of my edit and the reversion of the entire edit, rather than just the offending portion. After the fact, I also object to the accusatory tone you've taken with me throughout, e.g. "forcing the issue" and "edit warring." It's hard to assume good faith when one is being accused of wrongdoing. --SSBohio 21:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have made this situation much, much more dramatic than it needs to be. It seems to me that some editors are making arguments here about why the article should not be placed in a category, and instead of stating your counter-argument, you are simply taking offense to the fact that they disagree with you at all. Why do YOU think it should be placed in street furniture? It seems as though valid arguments have been made as to why it should not. --TorsodogTalk 16:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm taking offense to the way the 2 editors I named have treated me, not to "the fact that they disagree with [me] at all." What I've said is here for all to see, and I didn't say what you allege I did. Your version of what I said is self-serving in that it supports your contention about me.
Consensus is against me here. So be it. That does not excuse them (or you) from the requirement to be civil. Casting aspersions on me instead of accurately portraying my objections to the way I was treated is not a civil thing to do. My issue is with their conduct. If the owners of the article don't agree that something called a police box in the article title is as much a piece of street furniture as another police box, so be it. However, they & you have no business casting aspersions on me and reverting my entire edit under the guise of reverting the categorization they disagree with. The user conduct issues are inextricably bound up with the content issue. Overrule me on the categorization, but don't treat me like something unpleasant that stuck to your heel in the process. We're all hopefully here to improve the encyclopedia, and tactics like these don't advance that mission. --SSBohio 18:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the term "police box" is used to describe a koban doesn't mean it is exactly like other police boxes that ARE street furniture. A koban is a building, which does not seem to fit any definition of street furniture. This seems to be a very valid arguement IMO. And I don't know what tell to you other than to chill out a bit. Wiki shouldn't stress you out so much! I haven't seen anyone being uncivil in this discussion. And I don't see any ownership of this article. Several editors have explained why they think this categoration is inaccurate. --TorsodogTalk 19:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It needn't be like other police boxes in order to be street furniture. however, as above, if it's not street furniture, so be it. My objection is to the way I was treated with regard to this issue: One editor repeated reverted my entire edit, not just the part they ostensibly objected to, making no effort to counter my rationale for the categorization except to flatly deny it; Another has made accusations of wrongdoing against me both here and on my talk page. It's no less an attack for its not being a personal attack; The article itself makes no claim that all koban are small buildings or parts of buildings, nor does it describe their size. The assumption that I am ignorant of the content of the article is part of the problem. I considered the content when deciding to add the category. I may have been wrong in so categorizing the article, but I didn't deserve to be treated as a transgressor over it. --SSBohio 21:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You would do well to take your own advice, and not cast aspersions on other editors who happen to disagree with you. We are all here to improve the encyclopedia, and your first participation in the discussion here has been to accuse anyone disagreeing with you of being uncivil. I have been nothing but civil with you this entire time. You apparently took my comments as attacking you, but they were not intended as such. As I've indicated before, I only stated the facts which can be easily seen if you review the history of this article. I apologize if you took that as attacking you in some way, but it was not intended as an attack.
Now, if you have some specific reasons why you think the Japanese police "boxes" should be in the street furniture category, please present them here. That's the whole point of this discussion. Thank you for participating. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've made accusations against me, rather than confining your prose to the edits you are challenging. So far, all I've received from you to counter that has been a non-apology apology (i.e. Hey, there's nothing wrong with accusing you of wrongdoing, but I apologize if you take offense at being accused). As I've said, I won't object if the gatekeepers of this article want to keep it out of the street furniture category. My objection all along has been to the tenor of the dismissals and accusations I've received. There is, after all, a difference between being wrong & doing wrong. --SSBohio 21:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you insist on taking offense, there's nothing I can do about that, but that certainly wasn't the intention. I've left further comments on your talk page. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't insist on taking offense; I've already taken offense. Your response to that was not to apologize for the offense, but to express regret at my being bothered by it. An actual apology would express regret for your action, rather than for my reaction. The term "non-apology apology" was coined to describe expressions of regret that sound like apologies, but don't actually contain one. I'll respond further on my talk page. I've self-reverted the categorization, based on subsequent edits made which changed the description of a koban in the article such that it no longer appears to have commonality with a police box. I would repeat my recommendation that information on the size of a typical koban be included in the article, as the vast majority of people on the planet have never seen one in person and have no way of telling whether the koban pictured are typical of all koban. --SSBohio 14:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article name change

[edit]

Could this article be renamed to "Kōban", adding the macron and therefore removing the potentially confusing parenthetical? --TorsodogTalk 17:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think so, and I've been bold and moved it. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You rock!! --Degen Earthfast (talk) 18:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Japanese koban

[edit]

No mention is made of the numerous adaptations of the koban system in countries outside of Japan. Wakablogger2 (talk) 02:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of other countries adopting it from Japan. If you have sources for this, you are welcome to add a section, however. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A condescending tone?

[edit]

Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but could "Although often translated to English as "police box",[7] the kōban bears little resemblance to the British police box" be interpreted as condescending? Why is it necessary to include "although" in that spot? Does the British police box qualify more as a police box than a Japanese kōban?

The statement could be changed to "The kōban is often translated to English as "police box"[7] but bears little resemblance to the British police box." I feel a nuance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.238.246.167 (talk) 23:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The main difference is the Japanese "police box" is more of a building, whereas the British police box is a phone booth. I don't see it as condescending but more of "even though". ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In Thailand

[edit]

Thailand also has mini police stations called "ป้อมตำรวจ" in Thai and "police boxes" in English. So far they are not mentioned either here or in the police box article. — Hippietrail (talk) 15:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Kōban. 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:

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) 03:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kōban&oldid=1203339082"