Talk:List of sumo stables

should be 'heya', not 'beya'--168.168.43.250 (talk) 15:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We go with the English version of the Japan Sumo Association website - note it says Sumo Beya Guide, not Sumo Heya Guide. List of sumo heya already exists, as a redirect.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nishonoseki expulsions

I notice that on the English version of the JSA website Takanoahana, Otake, Onomatsu and Magaki stables are still listed under the Nishonoseki group, despite the fact that they were all kicked out around the time Takanohana ran for a board position. Has the Japanese version been updated yet? We really need an official source before we can change the article.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kise-beya founding date

I've changed the Kise-beya founding to 2003 as the NSK appears to consider the 2010-12 merger with Kitanoumi-beya merely some sort of caretaker phase, not an actual shutdown of the stable; the Kyushu 2012 banzuke topics on Jokoryu's makuuchi debut claimed that ex-Higonoumi "reestablished the heya on December 1st, 2003" and adds a note that "Kise Beya was temporarily absorbed into [Kitanoumi-beya]". At least on the English side - the Japanese version of the topics didn't even bother to add the latter note.

Do note that "reestablished" (in Banzuke Topics parlance) only refers to the fact that there were other Kise-beya before 2003, so it's not a case of a date mix-up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeyes (talk • contribs) 04:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that - we should definitely try to follow the English NSK site as closely as possible. In the light of this I've removed Kise from the mergers and closures section.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:12, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

My reason for using "sumo beya" when I started this article was probably because the NSK site uses "heya" but I am leaning toward changing it to "List of sumo stables" as all stable article are under "So and so stable" and it is easier for the layman to understand, AND the confusing "heya/beya" pronunciation issue doesn't come into it. Comments welcome. FourTildes (talk) 01:51, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Isn't it a style preference to use the English version rather than the Japaenese in any case?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:32, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. FourTildes (talk) 23:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

bold = active

Still needed after the recent column split between active and former? Zeyes (talk) 00:29, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, they should be de-bolded. I split the columns but neglected to do that.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And done. Zeyes (talk) 00:44, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Zeyes.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I like the added column, less crowded this way. Just noticed it. FourTildes (talk) 12:34, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mergers, closures, re-namings

Is there a better way of handling the "Recent mergers and closures" and "Recent re-naming" sections? The former goes back to 1994, which is an arbitrary cut-off and hardly "recent" now. Perhaps these sections would be better in a table format like the main section?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:53, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stables organised by ichimon

Should there perhaps be either a list of sumo ichimon article, or indeed individual Kokonoe ichimon, etc, articles? I mention because the article on each heya tends to have some text like "part of the Isegahama ichimon or group of stables", either entirely unlinked, or with just a link to the ichimon glossary entry. Or if there's not very much to say about the ichimon as distinct from its members, should such text perhaps simply linked here? As it is, the reader may be left wondering "... and who are they, then?" without it being at all obvious how to find any list of the other stables in the same group, for example. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 15:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]