Takiyama → Mount Taki?

Compare for instance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Kamitaki or see this list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...pan_by_height.

Oh my, oh my, you step in a wonderful world of inconsistency and "who the hell did that" ^^
I'm always amazed how suffixes for moutains, rivers, temples, etc. are (badly) handled in English. Most of mountains loose their suffix (Mount Fuji, etc.), most of temples do not (Kinkakuji temple), and rivers were probably just decided with a coin flip ^^

I just adopted this. I assume this sentence was either something written by an early English-speaking visitor to Japan, or was written purposely this way by the writer to have both end with "yama."

Do you think it should be changed?

* It's not uncommon to see "Mt. Fujiyama" in old books about Japan.

The city is called Tsuyama, and there is indeed a Mt. Taki (滝山) at its border. Bunbuku’s sentence is OK. Here you even have a pic with some info: http://www.okayamanoyama.com/takiyama_frame.htm. 😊

I left the comment because I felt that “is Takiyama” seemed strange, but it might just be one of those “phenomena” of the English language. Judging from that Wikipedia list of mountains in Japan, it seemed that nowadays mountains with names ending in 山, like 滝山, were consistently rendered as Mt. Taki etc. I thought it should at least be “is the Takiyama” with the definite article. Some European mountains are treated that way, e.g. “the Zugspitze”, where “Spitze” also means mountain, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zugspitze. So I thought by analogy, suspecting this translation might have been rushed. Maybe it is good the way it is, compare for instance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinmoedake. I’ll leave it to your judgement of course, and I’ll shut up now.

I don't know. I'll just release the sentence.