Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:15, 4 March 2011

• WT:WPDIS
• WT:WPDAB

For discussion related to disambiguation on Misplaced Pages but not to the project, please see the Misplaced Pages talk:Disambiguation (general disambiguation) or the Manual of Style (specific style questions).

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Disambiguation/Adopting disambiguation pages

• Updates of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Disambiguation/Adopting disambiguation pages seem to be flagging. • Ling.Nut

Ruling needed on Cardboard

I am having some difficulty getting through to the handful of editors who are interested in Cardboard that (1) the primary topic for this term is the various forms of heavy paper stock, and (2) that term is not ambiguous, but is merely a genus encompassing several species. I hereby convene a special session of the High Council of Disambiguators to make a final determination of this question, and request a ruling that the title, Cardboard should be a non-disambiguating article describing the general concept of different forms of stiffened paper, and that the remaining ambiguous terms be removed to Cardboard (disambiguation). Cheers! bd2412, Senior Editor III/Labutnum of the Encyclopedia T 19:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be resolved for now. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Sky Dome

I've seen a thunderhead in the sky once that was too big for my eyes (or the light filtering through the skydome) to handle. Is there a technical term for when the naked eye sees a thunderhead that "bends" because it's too high for the hemisphere to physically show a straight-up thunderhead from your point of view? Or is it simply known as "Skybending" or "Skydome Effect"? 71.87.112.14 (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

You may want to ask at Misplaced Pages:Reference desk. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Article page is a dabpage, talk page is a redirect

I've asked at Misplaced Pages:Bot requests/Archive 40#Article page is a dabpage, talk page is a redirect for a bot to help fix these. DuncanHill (talk) 15:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if we can also bot-delete the disambiguation page talk pages that consist only of the dab project tag? -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Best for comments to go on the bot request thread. DuncanHill (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

dab page and primary topic

Re: Rosalie (disambiguation), which has the following single line:

"Rosalie", a song by Bob Seger from his 1973 album Back in '72, covered by Thin Lizzy on their 1975 album Fighting Snowman (talk) 18:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• This is one song originally by Seger that was covered by Thin Lizzy. Does it go on one line or two? Snowman (talk)
• There is a discussion about the topic's primary page in a page move discussion, opinions welcome; see Talk:Rosalie#Requested move (February 2011). Snowman (talk) 18:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

If viewed as two topics (the song by Seger and the song by Thin Lizzy), it can get two. If viewed as one topic (a song by Seger covered by Thin Lizzy), it can have one (with a single blue link). -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Cytherea

Should Cytherea REALLY be a disambiguation page? The meanings listed are: -an epithet of Aphrodite (by far the predominant meaning)

-two generic names which are invalid, because junior synonyms

-an insect genus that is obscure enough not to have an article

-a silent film that has been lost

-a pornographic actress (I do admit that this is the primary reference found by Google, but the case of a 21st century pornographic figure vs a classical matter is practically the paradigmatic case for Internet bias.)

Surely Cytherea should simply redirect to Aphrodite... Vultur (talk) 05:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Cytherea is the appropriate place for this suggestion. I have responded there. Note that every editor can justify dismissing the criteria that do not support his or her desired primary topic. We typically do not dismiss the criteria. Synonyms are not invalid. Google web searches are not the only tool in the box, and book, news, and scholar searches are also useful (but do not favor the goddess either). Traffic stats are not too useful here, since the base name dab gets fewer hits than the prospective primary choices, so those readers are not coming through the dab. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

And it just occurred to me, if you're going to discount synonyms, then Aphrodite is out too. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd argue that an *epithet* of a deity is a very different linguistic phenomenon from a junior synonym of a taxonomic name (which, ideally, shouldn't be used). But the rest does make sense; I guess leaving it as a disambig is best. Vultur (talk) 00:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The Day the Earth Stood Still

Hello. In 2007, an editor disambiguated The Day the Earth Stood Still, and moved the original film to The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951 film). We now have three articles, the dab, the original film, and The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008 film). Shouldn't the dab page simply be the location for the original film, with a hatnote to the remake? Viriditas (talk) 05:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It depends which is the primary topic. I don't know much about The Day the Earth Stood Still, but I would imagine that, yeah, the original movie's the primary one.

Disambiguation pages for two articles are rarely done, so it'd be best to decide whichever one is the primary topic. It's most likely the original though, as I said. Harry Blue5 (talk) 11:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (films)#Between films of the same name seems to be the source of the problem. It makes no mention of possible primary topicness, and editors seem to be reading it as if it implies that there can be no film can be primary topic if two films are ambiguous. We may need to work with that guideline first, before redressing any of the affected film articles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll raise the issue on the talk page. Harry Blue5 (talk) 13:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Given that both films are high profile, I would suggest that neither is a clear candidate for primary topic, therefore it is correct to disambiguate. Rob Sinden (talk) 13:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

That could be true in this case. The arguments on the move requests don't indicate that reasoning, only that the film naming conventions dictate the format. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I would say that the 1951 is the primary topic. The second one is a remake of that one, which means it's subject matter is a direct relation to the 1951 film making that topic the primary topic. This isn't the case where you debate two different films that share a title and which one should be primary (or if neither should). This is a case of one film being a remake of another and that kind of makes the original the defaulted primary topic.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

That kind of ancestry relationship is not one of the criteria for primary topicness. It does often lead into the other criteria of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC though. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The article about the 2008 film is viewed about twice as often as the article about the 1951 film, so in this case the earlier film does not appear to be primary usage. Station1 (talk) 23:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It's true that the remake has higher visitor stats, but that's often the case with articles about recent topics. There was a similar discussion in the case of Avatar (2009 film) and it was decided that making such a recent film the primary topic would be reacting to recent trends. I think the case is analagous here: the original film is a classic, much more has been written about it over the years and making the remake article the primary topic would be just following the recent trend. The article on the remake was viewed over a million times in 2008, and half that in 2010. The original film should remain the primary topic and can be reassessed when the visitor rate to the article about the remake stops trending downwards. Betty Logan (talk) 00:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Traffic stats are a tool, not the final determination. Google Scholar and Google Books results, two other tools, favor the 1951 film, for instance. This would be a place to apply the "An exception may be appropriate when recentism and educational value are taken into account" clause. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I was about to make a remark along those lines. The 2008 film was a bit of a flop; the 1951 film was very popular and has its place in pop culture. From the 1951 article:

• "Since the release of the movie, the phrase Klaatu barada nikto has appeared repeatedly in fiction and in popular culture"
• "... selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry as 'culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant' "
• "Lou Cannon and Colin Powell believed the film inspired Ronald Reagan to discuss uniting against an alien invasion when meeting Mikhail Gorbachev in 1985" (!!!)
• "Danny Elfman noted The Day the Earth Stood Still's score inspired his interest in film composing"

--JaGa 03:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I made a request to move the 1951 film to occupy the primary topic slot. The discussion can be seen here. You may also be interested in discussion at Talk:Avatar (Hinduism)#Requested move 2 since the Hinduism-related topic was dislodged from its primary slot partially due to the 2009 film. Erik (talk | contribs) 04:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I think either film as primary would be an improvement on the current situation where 14,000 people per month are landing on the dab page, where presumably none of them want to be, and which currently attracts a couple dozen incoming links. Which one to make primary gets to the fundamental question of the purpose of an article title. Is it a navigational aid to make sure the majority get to the article they are seeking as quickly as possible, or do factors such as derivation, educational value or scholarly attention take precedence, or is it a combination of those? It's pretty clear that at least 2/3 of readers are looking for the 2008 film and that proportion has lasted since 2008, so to me recentism doesn't seem to apply, but do the other arguments in favor of the 1951 film outweigh the 2:1 ratio of pageviews over time? I think reasonable arguments can be made either way. If the ratio was 10:1 or 100:1, though, reader preference would tip the scale at some point. Station1 (talk) 05:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Each films has higher traffic than the dab page -- more readers are reaching them through wikilinks than through searches. If we had a better measurement of how people were exiting the dab page, that would help address those concerns. It is a combination of those that you listed -- and which one "wins" should be hammered out at the move request discussion. And I absolutely agree about the ratio; a "big enough" ratio will also indicate that there isn't as much educational value or scholarly attention. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Adel

Adel has been a dab page since 2008 when I did a major cleanup. An editor has just done some cut and paste moving to make Adel a page about the male name "Adel", with lists of name holders, and moved the rest to Adel (disambiguation). I'm not sure that the name is the primary usage, and my inclination is to move the name page to Adel (name) - not sure whether the correct thing would be to revert to a previous version and then explicitly copy from that version, though I suppose attribution etc isn't an issue for dab pages.

I'd be glad if someone else would have a look and offer a view as to whether the current situation is right. Thanks. PamD (talk) 08:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I split the most recent edits off to Adel (name) to keep the rest of the edit history at Adel. older ≠ wiser 13:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

CATD

I can't find a guideline on this. Someone made a dab page for things that the acronym CATD could stand for, but all of the links are to pages that don't exist, and nothing links to it. I'm thinking speedy delete, but I don't see any appropriate criteria. What's the right thing to do here? Ivanvector (talk) 16:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

{{db-disambig}} can be used, but I found some appropriate replacement entries. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Awesome, that's even better. Thanks for pointing out that template, too. Ivanvector (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Departments and Ministries

We have dozens of disambiguation pages for various common government departments and ministries. In my opinion, not a single one of these should be a disambig page. Instead, each one should be an article describing generally what the purpose of such a department usually is, and identifying in a list the various countries which have such a department. Here is as complete a list as I could cull from special pages:

• Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry; Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries; Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries; Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
• Department of Agriculture and Food
• Department of Agriculture and Land Affairs (South Africa) (distinguished by historical period)
• Ministry of Commerce
• Department of Communications; Ministry of Communications; Ministry of Communications and Information Technology
• Department of Conservation
• Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
• Ministry of Construction
• Department of Correctional Services
• Department of Defence (or Department of Defense); Ministry of Defence
• Department of Economic Affairs; Ministry of Economic Affairs; Ministry of Economic Development
• Department of Education; Ministry of Education; Ministério da Educação
  • Department of Education and Science; Ministry of Education and Science; Ministry of Education, Science and Culture
  • Department of Education and Skills
  • Department of Employment, Education and Training
• Department of Energy
• Department of the Environment
• Department of Environment and Conservation
• Department of Environment and Local Government
• Department of Environmental Management
• Ministry of Environmental Protection
• Ministry of External Affairs
• Ministry of Finance and Economy (note that Ministry of Finance redirects to Finance Minister, which is an article on the general concept)
• Ministry of Fisheries
• Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade
• Department of General Services
• Department of Health Services; Ministry of Health; Ministry of Health and Welfare; Ministério da Saúde
• Ministry of Home Affairs
• Ministry of Industry
• Ministry of Information; Ministry of Information and Broadcasting; Ministry of Information and Communication; Ministry of Information and Communication Technology
• Ministry of Irrigation
• Ministry of Islamic Affairs
• Department of Justice
• Department of Juvenile Justice
• Department of Labor
• Department of Main Roads
• Department of Mental Health
• Department of Natural Resources
• Department of Parks and Recreation
• Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs
• Ministry of Petroleum
• Ministry of Police
• Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
• Ministry of Public Security
• Department of Public Works; Ministry of Works
• Department of Revenue
• Ministry of Railways
• Ministry of Religious Affairs
• Department of Science and Technology; Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation; Ministry of Science and Higher Education; Ministry of Science and Higher Education
• Ministry of Shipping
• Ministry of Statistics
• Department of Tourism; Ministry of Culture and Tourism
• Department of Trade and Industry
• Department of Transport
• Department of the Treasury
• Department of Veterans Affairs
• Ministry of Water Resources
• Ministry of Works

Cheers! bd2412 T 19:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Finale

There were several pages on pieces of music, film or other art that linked to the DAB page Finale. That page currently includes definitions of finale in classical music, opera, and musical theatre with blue links to those key words, but none of the linked pages describe or define finale. As such, MOS:DAB suggests that they should not be included on the page.

Should such incoming links to the page be redirected to Wiktionary:finale? Or should they simply be removed? I have opted for the latter, removing internal links from La romanzesca e l'uomo nero, Matilde di Shabran, Ivan Susanin, The Scottsboro Boys (musical), Taualuga, Rozen Maiden and It's Tough to Be a Bug!. I would welcome a better solution, though.

I have also asked at WP:WikiProject Classical Music, WP:WikiProject Opera, and WP:WikiProject Musical Theatre for suggestions of somewhere else to link to. Cnilep (talk) 03:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Why not just have an article on Finale (music)? bd2412 T 04:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Further discussion is at Talk:Finale#Definitions. Cnilep (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Particle

Please join the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Particle, where a number of editors are seeking to foist what they perceive as a problem on us by turning this article back into a disambig page, despite the clear primary meaning for the term and the large number of perpetually unsolvable disambig links this change would generate. bd2412 T 22:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Norwegian Wood

I am a little unclear on the purpose of this dab page. When a user types in Norwegian Wood, they want to be taken to the song, not to the dab page. The current dab page lists a music festival which states on the article page that "the festival refers to the famous Beatles song Norwegian Wood". The dab page also lists a 1987 Japanese novel by the same name which clearly says in the article: "the original Japanese title Noruwei no Mori, is the standard Japanese translation of the title of The Beatles song "Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown)"...the song is often mentioned in the novel, and is the favourite song of the character Naoko." The dab page also lists a 2010 film based on the book. Finally, the dab page contains two red links. It is obvious then, that all of the references on the dab page primarily refer to the song, and as such the dab page should be moved to Norwegian Wood (disambiguation), and Norwegian Wood should be redirected to Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown) as the primary redirect, with a hat note linked to the dab page at the top. Are there any objections to this proposal? Viriditas (talk) 02:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the primary meaning is the Beatles song, and every other meaning is a reference to it. bd2412 T 03:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Please see: Talk:Norwegian Wood#Requested move. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 08:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Infantilism

Could someone at the wikiproject give a comment at talk:infantilism? It's an odd DAB page and I'm not sure I've enough experience to say for sure what is appropriate. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 17:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Please be aware that this is actually the fifth page that WLU has involved in this conflict, which as shown in the chronology posted to number four, has been continuous since it started here. BitterGrey (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

How should this work?

Should SHARP, a disambig page, be folded into and redired to Sharp (disambiguation)? It seems odd to have two, and most similar pages I've found use only one. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Not a regular here, but might be able to offer an uninvolved opinion: See wp:Disambiguation#Double_disambiguation. It describes cases like this as rare but gives examples (suggesting that they aren't against policy). Have you thought about proposing a merger and seeing what others there think? BitterGrey (talk) 16:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Right. They are allowed to be merged, but they are not required to be merged. The decision should be made based on length of the lists and the likelihood that a reader reaching one page would have intended a topic on the other. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I decided to be WP:BOLD and combined the two dab pages. PamD (talk) 23:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

結婚相談所　フィリピン

フィリピン国際結婚の結婚相談所。フィリピン専門の結婚情報です。 <a href="http://crea.2-d.jp/kokusai" target="_blank">結婚相談所　フィリピ ン</a>　　　　 今から20年くらい前、フィリピン人女性と国際結婚してしまいました。 最初は国際結婚に対する偏見のようなものもあり、日本人相手に何回も お見合いしていましたが、数十回（20回？30回くらい）お見合いしたので すが、自分で断った事もありますが、大半は断られ、いい加減疲れていたところ 結婚相談所のおじさんが、こんな方法もあるよ！とフィリピン人との国際結婚を 持ち出しました。 相談所のおじさん曰く、可愛い女性でもほぼ　100％結婚可能と言う、確かにウワ ットと驚く可愛い女の子が、 選びたい放題で、当時200万円で、ちょっとためらいもあったのですが、年も30半 ばにさしかかり、ダメもとでも、 可愛い女の娘としばらくは遊ぶ事できるし、フィリピン旅行もできるし、といっ た軽い感じで、そのおじさんにお願いしました。 フィリピン人女性との国際結婚の斡旋とかビザ取得とか。 ＊タガログ語とはフィリピン首都マニラの言語でフィリピン標準語です 国際結婚をお考えの皆さん! ただ待っているだけではチャンスはやって来ません 。海外にメールフレンドを作るか、国際交流パーティに参加するか、それとも自 分に合った業者さんを探すか、とにかく最初の第一歩を踏み出してみてはいかが でしょうか？　国際結婚に役立ちそうなサイトばかりを集めてみました。どうぞ ご利用ください。 国際結婚の青葉堂；安心、実績、アフターケアでは定評があります 青葉堂ブログ 奥さまは中国人 ◇ 青葉堂 2nd ブログ 「ひびせい」 中国美人との出会いはコチラ！ アフターケアサービスには定評があり、特に成婚者様から大好評頂いております 。

国際結婚紹介サイト  

サイト名 料金システム等 (※システムがそれぞれ異なります。詳細はご自身でお確めください) 掲載写真　 点数 対象 相手国 アメリカ中国国際結婚 ニューウィング 在日成婚料６８万円。海外はお見合いと結婚式の２回渡航込で１ ４５万円です。紹介者の身内の女性ばかりです。モデルの様に綺麗・可愛い女性 で素直で家庭的な方ばかりです。名古屋と東京に事務所があり、安心です。主催 者のコメント= 身内の女性を紹介する為、結婚後のフォローも万全です。 男性50 女性100 男・女 アメリカ、中国 ＳＥＩＲＩＮ国際結婚 現地女性と無料ＴＶ電話お見合い、女性と自由に交際、納 得してから現地へお見合いに。今回限り９月３０日までレギュラープラン特別キ ャンペーン、価格140万円(お見合い渡航まで28万円、結婚渡航まで112万円)。 主 催者のコメント=弊社の強みは独自のルートでの女性会員募集、開放的に自由交際 を支援。 100 男性 中国 アジアンマリッジ企画 タイお見合い１０万円、ミャンマーお見合い20万円～結婚 費用は弊社サイトとおり追加金は発生しません（オプションは除く）。主催者の コメント= アジアでは性格NO1と評判のミャンマー女性も紹介しております。 100 男性 タイ、ミャンマー 国際結婚　ハルピンの花嫁 ●ご結婚渡航コース総額８０万円。２０年以上の実績 とベテランの仲人スタッフが、良心的な価格で親切丁寧にサポートいたします。 キャンペーンも適時実施中！●主催者のコメント= ハルピン女性との縁談は、信 頼と実績ある弊社にお任せ下さい。国際結婚ブログも好評です！ 200 男性 中国 フィリピン女性との国際結婚情報サイト 出会いの為の渡航料金 135 000円。(税 込・専用車・宿泊代込み）結婚手続きの為の渡航２回分で1 145 000円。（税込・ 専用車・宿泊代一部込み）出会い～来日まで合計１２８万円です。（オプション を除きます） 主催者のコメント= 女性との「結婚承諾書」の署名後に、ご契約の 運びとなります。 818 男性 フィリピン ハッピーライフジャパン ハッピーライフジャパンでは、厳格な調査と事務手続き を行い 皆様に安心の出会いと交際、そしてご結婚をプロデュースいたします。 総費用194万円。主催者のコメント= 陽気で人情味溢れたコロンビア人女性はいか がでしょうか 100 男性 コロンビア 中国人女性との国際結婚 在日・在中国女性との国際結婚紹介・仲介。ご安心出来 るお見合いから結婚後のフォロー迄しっかりサポート致します。良心的な費用・ 信頼感や離婚率低いの自信が持っています。 主催者のコメント= ブローカーを使 わず、会員様は当社事務所で募集しております。 1180 男性 中国 タイ国際結婚紹介所 中高年の方にもお勧めのタイ女性との国際結婚紹介は、お見 合い渡航料金：９万円、ご結婚渡航料金：７０万円（basic plan）、１００万円 （option plan）の当サイトへ。主催者のコメント＝「安心・安全・適切なサポー トを良心価格で！」がモットーです。 50 男性 タイ 大連-幸せな笑顔・ 日中国際結婚交流会 お見合い１０万円。三つの種類の結婚サービスがあり、1、 総計160万円を支払う；2、30万－60万円の紹介料だけ支払う；3、男女分担に紹介 料を支払う。日本語で交流できる大連の美人がたくさんいます。大連での観光無 料。 主催者のコメント= 安心・信頼・高品質のサービスを提供する国際結婚相談 です。 200 男性 中国 □愛する人を大切に■ ■国際結婚の青葉堂□ ● E文通・TVお見合・国際結婚小冊子無料、お見合旅行24 万円、結婚旅行サポート144万円、総額168万円。 ● 女性会員さんの写真、動画 が充実。中国に日本人駐在員がいるので奥様が来日後も意外と便利だったりしま す。 ● 主催者のコメント= 弊社の強みは現地ブローカーを通さず日本人駐在員 が調整すること 300 男性 中国黒龍江省ハルピン WBC World Bridal Commnications プラン1：総額98万円（2回渡航）プラン2：総 額78万円（1回渡航）　主催者のコメント=私共のサイトを、あなたの出発点にし て下さい。 120 男性 中国 ＳＥＩＲＩＮ国際結婚 現地女性と無料ＴＶ電話お見合い、女性と自由に交際、納 得してから現地へお見合いに。プラン価格は82万円から～、現在レギュラープラ ンはキャンペーン、価格148万円(お見合い渡航28万円、結婚渡航120万円)。 主催 者のコメント=弊社の強みは独自のルートでの女性会員募集、開放的に自由交際を 支援。 110 男性 中国 いちごマリッジ お見合い費用１０万円、婚約から成婚まで１１３万円の合計１２ ３万円。微笑みの国、タイ最北端の街から、身元保証された女性のみをご紹介し ます。お見合い時トラブルがないよう無料スカイプを実施中。安全保障規約あり ます。主催者のコメント=入会から結婚そして日本入国後１年間安心のサポート体 制あります。 80 男性 タイ王国、チェンライ県 国際結婚相談所　北京の恋 納得いくまでテレビ見合い、何度でも無料です。相互 に気に入れば訪中して結婚します。訪中前費用75万円、帰国後75万円。航空券、 披露宴20名、結婚登録費用、宿泊代、食事代など含む。結納金、指輪代は含まず 。 主催者のコメント= 当社のテレビ見合いは納得いくまで無料で出来ます、成婚 多数。 300 男性 中国 IMC国際結婚センター お見合い費　３２万円　結婚手続き費用１０２万円　総額 １３４万円大連・上海・延吉を中心に中国の広範囲の都市の女性を紹介していま す。複数の都市でのお見合いが可能です。主催者のコメント=女性への選択枝が豊 富です。 130 男性 中国 ハルピン女性との国際結婚 安心価格を設定。お見合い費用23万円。結婚費用112 万円。主催者のコメント= 信用と実績。 50 男性 中国 結婚・国際結婚ポータルサイト 結婚相談所の道しるべ

このサイトを通じて結婚相談所に行ってよかったと思う人がいてくれたら幸いで

す。 結婚相談所、結婚仲介、結婚情報の総合サイト 全国の結婚相談所と結婚に関する 情報（結納、ジュエリー、式場、美容等）を提供しています。 国際結婚の動きを、人口動態統計により、夫婦の一方が外国人の婚姻件数、離婚 件数の推移から見てみることとする。国際化、グローバリゼーションの進展に伴 い、国際結婚は増加している。日本人と外国人の結婚は、1960年代には4～5千件 であったが、1980年代、特にその後半から、急増しはじめ、1983年に１万件、1989 年に２万件、1999年に３万件、そして2005年に４万件を越えている。　婚姻数全 体に占める国際結婚の比率は、実数以上に大きく上昇している。1970年代にはな お１％を下回っていた国際結婚比率は、1989年には３％を上回り、2005年には、5.8 ％とほぼ17件に1件は国際結婚となっている。　日本にいる外国人は約200万人（ 外国人登録数）と総人口の２％以下であるのと比較しても国際結婚の比率はかな り高いといえよう（外国人登録数は図録1180参照）。嫁不足現象は農村からはじ まって、都市にも広がっていると言われるが、日本人男女同士のミスマッチが国 際結婚の増加を生んでいる側面も無視できないと思われる。　国際結婚が多くな るに伴って、外国人との結婚の破綻（離婚）も増加しており、2005年には、離婚 件数全体の6.0％を占めている。特段に国際結婚比率より、国際離婚比率が高い訳 ではないので、外国人との結婚が日本人同士より壊れやすいということもないよ うである。　国際結婚の内容であるが、日本人女性が外国人を夫にする場合と、 日本人男性が外国人を妻にする場合とがあるが、後者の急増が目立っている。1974 年までは外国人夫が外国人妻を上回っていたが、75年から逆転し、現在では、ほ ぼ外国人妻が外国人夫の４倍となっている。　外国人妻の国別推移については、 かつては多くが在日が主と考えられる韓国・朝鮮人女性が多かったが、1992年以 降、フィリピン女性が最多となり、1997年以降は、中国人女性が最多となってい る。　一方、外国人夫の場合は、1970年までは米国人が最多であったが、1971年 以降は韓国・朝鮮人男性が最多となった（日本人女性と結婚し帰化する在日の男 性も多かったと思われる）が、韓国・朝鮮籍男性との結婚は1996年から減少に転 じ、それに代わって、米国人や中国人の他、「その他」に示される多種多様な国 の男性との結婚が大きく増加しているのが目立っている。(ウィキペディア)

• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists, unused