Talk:Tokyo/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Confused

The Map has a bar that states 1000km but the Tokyo prefecture is tiny compared to the bar and yet the article says that tokyo has a area of 2,817 km. Am I reading this right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.142.168 (talk) 21:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Good question! Area is length times width (for a rectangular box). So a box that's 40 km high and 50 km wide would have an area of 40×50 km² which is 2,000&nbs

p;km², even though it's much less than 100 km (never mind 1,000) in size. A different box 36 km high and 60 km wide would have an area almost exactly the same as Tokyo (notice it's 2187, not 2817). Look at the detailed map in the Japanese Wikipedia (click the link to 日本語 under Languages in the left column of the article—it's between Nederlands and Norsk) and you'll see that Tokyo is pretty much like that. So yes, it's right. Fg2 (talk) 00:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

.

so is tokyo like london if the square mile was annexed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.76.223.111 (talk) 21:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Name of Tokyo

Is the name of Tokyo just a rearrangement of the name of Kyoto to signify the move of the capital of the country? — Rickyrab | Talk 16:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, "Kyoto" = "capital city", but "Tokyo" = "eastern capital". (See Kyoto) However, there might be wordplay involved. (The name "Saikyo" (western capital) never really took as a name for Kyoto, and perhaps the Tokyo-Kyoto name pair served as a useful mnemonic, thus making the name "Saikyo" unpopular.) — Rickyrab | Talk 16:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

"Tokyo" is 東京 and "Kyoto" is 京都. One kanji is in common but each name has another kanji that's not in common. When you add -to to write "Tokyo-to" (東京都), you get closer... but the "-to" is a later addition; initially it was "Tokyo-fu" (東京府) and inside it "Tokyo-shi" (東京市). Tokyo is truly in the East, and it was named "Eastern Capital"; apart from "kyo" (京) meaning "capital" the similarity of Tokyo and Kyoto is probably just an accident. Fg2 (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Travel Guide Link

I would like to add Peter Greenberg's Off-the-Brochure Travel Guide on Tokyo to the External Links.

Off-the-Brochure Travel Guide - Tokyo by Peter Greenberg Staff —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpalmer22 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Peter Greenberg's Off-the-Brochure is interesting, but does not warrant inclusion in the list of external links. These should be links to exception sites with significantly more information that is not on Wikipedia. Whats up skip (talk) 00:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Area of Tokyo

In the infobox, after the area of Tokyo is an additional value in parenthesis (45th) which does not have an explanation. It would be helpful if this were fixed. Legioss (talk) 00:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I've written "Rank among prefectures"; let's see how people like it. Fg2 (talk) 00:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The label "Area" is linked to List of Japanese prefectures ranked by area. This seems pretty clear to me. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Rick, your update with "Area (rank)" and the word "rank" linked to that list is very nice. Fg2 (talk) 12:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Is the population density right?

I was looking at the page List of cities by population and I was confused since I remembered seeing a much lower number for the density on this page. Since the List of cities by population page has a reference, I went looking for the correct answer. The latest data I found dates back to 2005 and is available in Microsoft Excel 97 format at the following address : http://www.toukei.metro.tokyo.jp/tnenkan/2005/tn05qytia0210.xls. In that spreadsheet there are different values given. There is Tokyo-to that appears to be a total of all the districts that gives a population of 12576601 people and a land area of 2186.96 km² which gives a density of 5750.7 people/km².

What confuses me is that they list different values for "All-ku", "All-shi", "All-gun", "All-mura", etc... According to my limited knowledge of Japanese, mura means village and ku means something close to neighborhood. I don't know is what "Tokyo-to" means exactly. Is there someone with better knowledge of Japanese that can confirm that "Tokyo-to" means "all of Tokyo" and correct the articles accordingly?

The value appears close to 5750.7 so I'd suppose it's right.

"All-ku" probably means the population of the 23 special wards divided by the area of those wards; these collectively make up the former Tokyo City. For "all-shi" it would be the cities of Western Tokyo; these are the populous suburbs within the boundaries of Tokyo but west of what was once Tokyo City. For "all-gun" it's the total of the districts (which are sparsely populated) divided by their area; "mura" are villages. These are breakdowns of the major components of Tokyo. Tokyo-to is Tokyo Metropolis, including the 23 special wards, plus the cities, plus the districts. Much more extensive than the former Tokyo City. Fg2 (talk) 04:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Rome and Tokyo are Sister Cities???

Rome is only sister city with Paris and vice versa. Rome is only partner cities with Tokyo. As in " only Paris is worth of Rome, only Rome is worth of Paris". This quote can be found on both article of Paris and Rome.--Faizaguo (talk) 19:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Replacing a photo

I would like to suggest replacing Image:Tokyo 2006.jpg with Image:Tokyo aerial night.jpg. Arthena^(talk) 21:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Here are the two photos for comparison.

Image:Tokyo 2006.jpg (presently in the article)
Image:Tokyo aerial night.jpg (Arthena proposed putting this in place of Tokyo 2006)

Fg2 (talk) 21:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Support. I don't know this statue.--Triglav (talk) 22:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment. Triglav, the fact that you do not know it does not means that it does not exist, it only means that you have never been in Tokyo bay, Odaiba area, where from the AquaCity complex this status can be seen if you look towards the rainbow bridge (in the back of the picture). Regardless, I think that a picture of Tokyo tower (possible including Roppongi Hills and/or Roppongi Midtown complex), or Shinjuku goverment offices buildings (potentially including Docomo tower), or the National congress building with the National library, or even the emperor's palace gardens will feature Tokyo better than these two pictures. Miguel.mateo (talk) 23:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment. The Statue of Liberty is not a symbol of Tokyo. This photograph is used in ja.wikipedia.--Triglav (talk) 12:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, is a different opinion now, and I do agree with that one. However, the night view of Tokyo does not seem good to me either. There are tons of very good images in the page you linked, some of them are my previous proposals. Miguel.mateo (talk) 12:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Eastern capital

Re: this addition, I don't see why this minor grammatical curiosity is noteworthy, and I note that no source was provided. For comparison, is it important that Ohio State could be read as "O, hi, o state"? Jpatokal (talk) 09:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you speak Japanese? If so, you can not do the comparison with Ohio, since you do know that To Kyo To means "Easter Imperial City" translating kanji per kanji, and what a coincidence that Tokyo is to the east of Kyoto. Have you research why Tokyo-to? Why is Tokyo finishing in TO, instead of KEN or SHI like the other provinces of Japan? None of that is mentioned in the article ...

BTW, the article says in the very first sentence "formally Tokyo Metropolis (東京都, Tōkyō-to)" this is absolutely not true, '都' does not mean metropolis and this is not formally, it is still used today, check any address in Japan in Japanese! Miguel.mateo (talk) 10:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do speak, read and write Japanese, thank you very much. Tokyo itself means "Eastern Capital", so of course it's to the east of Kyoto. Kyoto itself was briefly renamed 西京　Saikyo ("Western Capital") in the early Meiji era.

The Tokyo#Geography and administrative divisions section covers the 都 thing in detail (with a pointer to Politics of Tokyo) and, yes, 都 is officially translated as "metropolis". And yes, it is a formal name, it's used in addresses and formal contexts but not in everyday speech (or have you taken a Shinkansen from Tokyo-to to Osaka-shi lately?). Jpatokal (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I see your point, but read the first sentence carefully, 'formally' sounds there like 'in old times, not anymore' ... what i am trying t osay, and even a few Japanese realized after explaining it, is that Tokyoto does mean "Easter Imperial Capital", reading Kanji by Kanji ... but anyway, end of the discussion, if you do not want to add it, no big deal. Miguel.mateo (talk) 17:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you are confusing formerly with formally. Jpatokal (talk) 07:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Pop Den in Square Miles

I wanted to edit this page but I guess I don't have access. I wanted to update the population density to also include square miles (like on other pages such as Seoul, Beijing, etc).

5,796 (square kilometers) = 2,237.84811 (square mile)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonberling (talk • contribs) 20:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The article had a high level of vandalism by IP users. Unfortunately that also protects it versus new users like in your case. We have several choices:

- Tell me the exact text and source it and I will include it OR

- Wait a few days and the article will go unprotected again so you can edit it OR

- Continue doing edits in other articles using your account, create your personal page (even with no info) and try editing this article again ... you should be able to edit it then.

Thanks,Miguel.mateo (talk) 22:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I took the population density that's currently listed on the page and used google to convert it to square miles.

Here's a link http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=5%2C796+%28square+kilometers%29+in+square+miles

I don't really have any other sources then that, but since its not really new information that should be good enough, right? Thanks for all of your help.Jonberling (talk) 04:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I just found out a fundamental problem with your calculation, this number is density, meaning 5,796 people per square kilometer, this number is not area of Japan. Let me know if my understanding is incorrect. Miguel.mateo (talk) 07:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

A mile is bigger than a kilometer, and a square mile is bigger than a square kilometer. If 5796 people live in a little square kilometer of Tokyo, more people live in a big square mile. So the answer has to be bigger than 5,796. Specifically, when you want to convert a kilometer to a mile, multiply by 0.62137 (that makes the number smaller) but when you want to convert per kilometer to per mile, divide (since "per" means division) by 0.62137 (that makes the number bigger). Finally, to convert per square kilometer to per square mile, divide by 0.62137 and then divide by 0.62137 again. So 5,796÷0.62137÷0.62137 = 15,011 is the answer. This is bigger than 5,796 as we anticipated. The population density of Tokyo is 15,011 per square mile. Fg2 (talk) 08:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer but I just wanted the original requester to understand the mistake that he was at the point to make. I am not planning to change the article until the original requester agrees. Miguel.mateo (talk) 08:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I see my mistake. Although you could have pointed it out sooner. :) I agree that Fg2's answer is correct. Thank-you very much for you help. Jonberling (talk) 03:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

That is why I said "I just found out" ... I will be doing the changes in a second, can you confirm you can not change this article still? Thanks Miguel.mateo (talk) 03:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I tried, the information needs to be populated through an info box. I changed the info box and the results are OK if the information is populated, but for the other prefectures in Japan this information is not there. I saw that the info box for Japan cities calculate the number automatically. I have un-done all the changes since I do not have time right now, will try again later.

In the mean while, does any one know how to do this? Basically a new field needs to be added to the Japan Prefecture info box and display it only if the field is available when the info box is used. Or what is better, display the square miles automatically since it is a simple formula, based on square kilometers? Miguel.mateo (talk) 03:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Lede

This is a nice article, well-referenced and informative. Unfortunately, the lede spends almost all of its content on explaining the various informal/formal statuses of Tokyo. It does not, in other words, act as a summary of the whole article (per WP:LEDE) and is sure to fail any FA nomination for that reason. I propose instead that the majority of that be moved into its own section. Having one section on this may seem excessive, but given the confusion and subtleties, I think it's a good way to move most of the stuff out of the lede. I'm sure a good couple sentences can be cooked up that accurately encompasses all that information. --C S (talk) 02:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree. The lead section should make it clear what Tokyo is (a first-level subnational entity) and what it's not (a city). Details on this, or any, topic belong in separate sections. Moving details makes room for summaries of other topics. Fg2 (talk) 04:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You have my vote too. Miguel.mateo (talk) 04:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Lead: drafts

As a first attempt, to spur some discussion, here is what could be in the lede:

Tokyo (東京, Tōkyō), officially Tokyo Metropolis (東京都, Tōkyō-to), is one of the 47 prefectures of Japan and located on the eastern side of the main island Honshū. Tokyo is unique among the prefectures in being a megacity. For historical reasons, the twenty-three special wards of Tokyo, each governed as a city, are often informally considered as one city, the "city of Tokyo", with over 8 million people. The total population of the prefecture exceeds 12 million.

Because it is the seat of the Japanese government and the Imperial Palace, and the home of the Japanese Imperial Family, Tokyo is the de facto capital of Japan.^[1] The name "Tokyo" literally means eastern capital.

--C S (talk) 04:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, C S. I have a couple of comments. First, I would not describe the subject of the article as a "megacity" for a couple of reasons. One is that it pertains only to part of the subject of the article; it is quite incorrect for the mountainous western towns and the islands. The lead should clearly establish the subject of the article: Tokyo-to, not romantic notions of Tokyo the megalopolis. Another reason is that "prefecture" is an official, governmental designation whereas "megacity" is a conclusion drawn by others about Tokyo. The sentence mixes the formal and informal in a way that I find confusing. The "megacity" is the Greater Tokyo Area; Tokyo is not the same as the megacity.

Second, in my opinion, it would be an improvement to remove "are often informally considered" (which actually might have been my words; I've lost track) from the lead. How would you feel about this: "The twenty-three special wards of Tokyo, each governed as a city, cover the area that was once the city of Tokyo in the eastern part of the prefecture, and total over 8 million people. The population of the prefecture exceeds 12 million."

Third, I'd like to leave the de facto/de jure discussion for later in the article. In the lead, the summary would be "Tokyo is the seat of the Japanese government and the Imperial Palace, and the home of the Japanese Imperial Family."

That leaves us with something like the following:

Tokyo (東京, Tōkyō), officially Tokyo Metropolis (東京都, Tōkyō-to), is one of the 47 prefectures of Japan and located on the eastern side of the main island Honshū. The twenty-three special wards of Tokyo, each governed as a city, cover the area that was once the city of Tokyo in the eastern part of the prefecture, and total over 8 million people. The population of the prefecture exceeds 12 million.

Tokyo is the seat of the Japanese government and the Imperial Palace, and the home of the Japanese Imperial Family. The name "Tokyo" literally means eastern capital.

Comments? Fg2 (talk) 05:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I like it! --C S (talk) 05:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Having responded to FA complaints about lead sections before, I'd suggest that this is entirely too short. If the goal is to get this article to FA status (which I think should be the goal - I think it's inexcusable that Wikipedia's article about the most populous metropolis on the planet is not a featured article) the lead section from other WP:FA geographical articles should be closely examined and emulated. Per WP:LEAD, the lead is not just an introduction but a stand-alone summary of the entire article. The suggestion above might be the first paragraph of the lead but it then needs to go on to summarize the article, with perhaps a paragraph each about the history, geography, economy, and politics - all covered in more depth in the rest of the article. Any major topic in the article should be summarized in the lead and everything in the lead should be expanded in more detail someplace in the article. I'm not sure if there are FA-class "lead specialists", but in my experience writing an FA-class lead is extremely difficult. It might be worth trying to find an editor who's done this before (I don't know of any off hand). I'll ask around and try to find out if there is someone who might be willing to help. I notice the article is currently rated "B-class" both by Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities and Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan, and failed a WP:GA nomination in 2006 due to lack of citations (see Talk:Tokyo/Archive 2#Failed Good Article). I think the citation problems have largely been fixed, so it might be reasonable to request another GA review. I think getting to FA would require a significantly improved lead. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rick, I hadn't envisioned this as the entire lead. I agree it's too short and doesn't summarize the whole article but instead a replacement for the present lead, which has grown organically to present excessive detail that belongs in the main text, without summarizing important sections. The lead needs other topics at the same time it needs less of what's presently there. If you or a specialist can draft the next paragraphs it will be most helpful. Fg2 (talk) 06:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, I will remove the stuff from the lead as agreed, and put it into its own section. That section isn't going to look very good and will require substantial editing. --C S (talk) 07:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Section on status as "city"

I moved the non-redundant stuff from the lede into its own section. But now it is even worse than when it was the lede. Anyway, I'll look into the archives, as I remember there are some good explanations....but as I recall Fg2 was an important contributor there. If Fg2 has some ideas on how to proceed, I would be glad to hear them. --C S (talk) 07:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually I'm of the mind to just delete that section. The situation seems explained well on the administrative divisions section, and I think there is little in the new section to justify it. My only concern is that this assumes the reader will do a thorough reading of the relevant sections, but perhaps it's better to assume that. Thoughts? --C S (talk) 02:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed it for now, since it was an eyesore. Feel free to add it (or some version thereof) back if you think necessary. I'm going to now add more to the lede on the rest of the article --C S (talk) 08:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Here it is for easy access.

Status as "city"

The name "Tokyo" refers variously to Tokyo Metropolis (the prefecture) as a whole, or only to the main urban mass under its jurisdiction (thus excluding west Tama and Izu and Ogasawara Islands), or even the whole of Greater Tokyo Area, which includes Tokyo and parts of Kanagawa, Saitama, Chiba, Gunma, Tochigi, Ibaraki, and Yamanashi prefectures, depending on context. This article is about the prefecture and uses "Tokyo" to refer to it.
Tokyo is unique among the prefectures, providing certain municipal services characteristic of a city, as defined by Japanese law.^[2]
Because it is the seat of the Japanese government and the Imperial Palace, and the home of the Japanese Imperial Family, Tokyo is the de facto capital of Japan.^[1]
The Greater Tokyo Area,^[3] centered on Tokyo but also including Chiba, Kanagawa, and Saitama, is the most populous metropolitan area in the world with a population of over 35 million people.^[4]

It makes a point we should keep in the article somewhere: uniqueness among prefectures in providing municipal services to the wards. We should develop this a bit further, describing the services and how and why the prefecture provides them. We can make a historical link to the former Tokyo City. In doing this, it will be good if we avoid giving readers the impression that Tokyo is "less" than other prefectures and "more" like a city.

The reasons for considering Tokyo the capital of Japan are already in the new lead. What's not is the de facto/de jure distinction. We've got a separate article on the topic. We could write a sentence or two for Tokyo (in the lead or elsewhere). But I'm not sure whether this needs text or can simply be an inclusion in the "See also" section.

As for the other paragraphs, the "name" information has grown too much. Having made it clear that this article is about Tokyo (i.e. Tokyo-to, a prefectural-level division of the country), we don't have to dwell on other uses of the name. Still, the Greater Tokyo Area point is worth making, since it's significant to the prefecture. We should lead readers to the main article on the Greater Tokyo Area for details, but we should present the facts that are relevant to Tokyo-to.

Finally, we should decide whether to put what we keep in a stand-alone section, or integrate the material into other sections. If it's stand-alone, we'll need a title, a location in the article etc. Fg2 (talk) 11:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

A good source of detail on the services Tokyo provides that are normally associated with municipalities is at http://www.metro.tokyo.jp/ENGLISH/PROFILE/overview06.htm and http://www.metro.tokyo.jp/ENGLISH/PROFILE/overview07.htm. Fg2 (talk) 12:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems there is no need for a separate section. Your suggestions can all be incorporated readily into the rest of the article. As for the rest of the article, it seems there are some topics missing (see below). --C S (talk) 02:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: the municipal services, there is already a mention in the section on the special wards. This can be expanded suitably to address your concerns. I included a link to Greater Tokyo Area in the transportation section and mention of Tokyo as the "center", since that is where the term "greater Tokyo" first arises, but strangely there was no link there before. I hope that suffices. The status as capital business seems kind of complicated so I just added a link in "see also". --C S (talk) 04:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

As for the status as capital, see this. But it was called 帝都/Imperial capital until the end of the war and according to the ja Wiki the word 首都 started to spread in 1950. Oda Mari (talk) 05:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Mari. That's a reliable source stating that Tokyo is the capital of Japan. Whether it's the capital by law (de jure) or simply by the fact that the government has its headquarters, and the Emperor has his residence, in Tokyo (de facto) is a matter for a fuller discussion in the daughter article on the capital of Japan debate. Fg2 (talk) 05:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

ja:日本の首都 says it's de facto/事実上. Oda Mari (talk) 05:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Missing topics

I'll add to this as the thought strikes:

crime -- obviously the crime rate is relatively low, but for completeness, it needs to be explained what are the common type of crimes and their frequency.

--C S (talk) 02:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Excessive number of images

I wonder, do we really need quite so many images within the main article text and as a gallery at the end? I removed a number which had minimal relevance to the sections in which they were placed (such as the "Rainbow Bridge" picture in "History" and the "Izumi Garden Tower" and "Cocoon Tower" pictures in "Economy"), but I see they were almost immediately replaced without comment by new editor User:Dasistcafe, who, from the choice of user name and modus operandi, is clearly a reincarnation of User:Ichtrinken. I would also question the need to have images of such a large number of individual buildings and locations in the gallery section. In particular, four pictures of Roppongi Hills is really excessive. Personally, I would like to see images showing general views of districts (e.g. Shinjuku, Ginza, Akihabara etc.) in Tokyo, but images of individual buildings are probably better suited for inclusion in the articles discussing these particular districts or buildings. I would be interested to hear other editors' opinions, as simply removing the images is futile, since they are promptly re-added by the original editor. --DAJF (talk) 08:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

First, I agree the number is excessive. Next, I'd like to suggest that we approach the selection from the point of view of illustrating the article. The underlying principle should be that every illustration is in the article because the article benefits from it. We could decide, for example, to have an illustration of history, one of transportation, one for economy ... . We don't have to stick to the one-topic, one-graphic rule literally but we should use it, or some other clear concept, as a guide. This will help us balance the illustrations, as well as keep the number within reason, and avoid winding up with, for example, a dozen skyscraper shots.

I'm a strong advocate of galleries, and so is the Wikimedia Foundation. In fact, the Wikimedia Foundation has established Wikimedia Commons and given it the task of hosting galleries of media. We can move the gallery to Commons and link to it directly from the Wikipedia article. It will be very convenient for readers who want the additional visual information, while those whose primary interest is text with a carefully selected set of illustrations will see the article load faster. We can create specialized galleries, even (for example) an entire gallery of panoramas on Commons; it's unlikely that we need more than one in the encyclopedia article.

Finally, let's choose encyclopedic illustrations. Cherry blossoms and sunsets are nice, and I've taken them by the gigabyte. But let's cut down on tourism and nightlife in favor of topics that are in the text of the article, however prosaic they are. Fg2 (talk) 09:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Me too for all of the above. In particular, there should only be pictures on one side at a time. The article is already very cramped on my 1024-px screen, I can only imagine what it looks like for those poor souls on 800x600 monitors. Jpatokal (talk) 12:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree here as well. On the countrary I have a 1600x1200 monitor and STILL the article looks too crawded. I agree that we should keep very relevant pictures of Tokyo in the area that are needed, not necessarily one per setion, but not 5 or more either. Cherry Blossoms are nice, but "they are not Tokyo", same applies to sunsets. Roppongi Hills is big and nice, but do we really need even one picture of it? SMB (Shin Marunouchi Building) is the newest and "more inteligent" building in Tokyo (also the most expensive rent per square meter, around 80000 yen per tsubo) maybe at that level can stay, but if this is not mentioned, then relevance is gone and the picture of the building can go to. Now, symbolic landmarks like Tokyo-eki, or the Emperor's Palace (not the entrance bridge to the palace), or Tokyo-tawa should remain. I like the idea of the gallery in commons, that would give a nice touch. Just giving my two yen worth opinion ... Miguel.mateo (talk) 13:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The article looks like 'Buildings in Tokyo' now. Oda Mari (talk) 13:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I restored the Ieyaseu image and removed modern building images from History section. See what happens. Oda Mari (talk) 14:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Apparently what happens is that the editor will just come back and revert. I hope he or she gets the idea after a while. --C S (talk) 04:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The gallery, which is very nice, is now available on Commons at commons:東京. See the section named "General gallery of modern Tokyo." I had to remove a couple of images that are not on Commons (photos of boutiques) and in keeping with the new section title I took out a couple of Asakusa pictures. But it transferred pretty well. If someone's ambitious, the captions can be updated to link to Wikipedia in one language or another. I think it's a valuable addition to Commons, which can have many galleries with various themes such as Modern Tokyo (Oda Mari's name, "Buildings in Tokyo," may be even better). Fg2 (talk) 05:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Population problems (Day/Night)

The population differences between day and night don't add up. I've read the article on the metropolitan government about that, but think it would be best to label that as working population or clarify that a bit more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by alkora (talk • contribs)

Which numbers don't add up to which numbers? Knowing that can help us figure out how to edit the article. Fg2 (talk) 00:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the problem or confusion is. The population numbers make sense to me. --C S (talk) 04:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Crime Rates

The information is available at http://www.keishicho.metro.tokyo.jp/toukei/bunsyo/toukei19/k_tokei19.htm about reported crimes to the Tokyo Metro Police. Should we put up basic statistics of crime rates in Tokyo? This excel file from the Tokyo police shows 79277 cases for 2007. The information is there, and so I believe it should be included. What do you think? Since many people know that there is such a low crime rate in Tokyo, the numbers should be there to prove it. The full released list from the Tokyo Metro Police can be found here.—Preceding unsigned comment added by alkora (talk • contribs)

It would be good if someone could translate this. --C S (talk) 05:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Clarify

The article currently states:

Tokyo is the seat of the Japanese government and the Imperial Palace, and the home of the Japanese Imperial Family. The name literally means eastern capital.

This is patently wrong. Tokyo does not "literally mean" anything. Rather, Tōkyō "literally means eastern capital". I fixed it once and it was reverted. I put a clarifyme tag on it twice and it was removed. This is not how Wikipedia works. Either fix it or cite it, but stop ignoring the issue. If needed, the issue can be raised outside this article as well. 219.248.51.35 (talk) 22:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Tokyo Metropolis

The lead states: "Tokyo (東京, Tōkyō), officially Tokyo Metropolis 東京都, Tōkyō-to)..." First, there needs to be a reference for the "officially". Second, is it officially "Tokyo Metroplis" or is it officially 東京都? I would like to verify this, but there is no reference and when asked for one it was removed. The official webpage, for example, does not use the expression "Tokyo Metropolis", but rather "Tokyo Metropolitan Government". This needs to be clarified and referenced. 219.248.51.35 (talk) 23:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The webpage does indeed use the phrase "Tokyo Metropolis" everywhere. See for example [1]. If you're going to dispute something that was established through discussion long ago, you should at least do more than a cursory check of the relevant documents. --C S (talk) 01:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I did not dispute anything. Nor is it my responsibility to research unsourced statements. Rather, I could have just removed it, but decided to raise it here first to give a chance for it to be sourced. Thanks for the cite. It is now verified. 219.248.51.35 (talk) 07:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Population

This article gives the population of Tokyo as 12 million or there abouts (what is the special wards thing?). The 12th edition of The Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World gives the figure 35,467,000 (thirty five million, four hundred and sixty seven thousand). what's going on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.183.16 (talk) 00:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure you checked the population of Tokyo, rather than something that takes into account other areas like Yokohama? The figure being used in the article comes from the Tokyo government website and is backed up by checks in almanacs and dictionaries. --C S (talk) 01:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the 35.467 million figure is for the Tokyo Metropolitan Area, which includes Yokohama (technically the most populous city in Japan), most of the rest of Kanagawa and Chiba Prefectures, and so on. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

cheers, figured it was something along those lines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.131.82 (talk) 21:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:Tokyo weatherbox

I don't mind which weather template is used but the alternative Template:Tokyo weatherbox is a standard style that is used on most major city articles (see Category:Weatherbox templates), if anyone is interested in consistency. Regards, --Joowwww (talk) 13:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Weather and Template:Climate chart are each used on many major city articles. It's not clear to me which or even whether one is preferred over the other. I've started a thread on this at Template talk:Infobox Weather#This template or template:Climate_chart. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I've experimented with adding the climate chart to {{Infobox Weather}}. The examples are linked in the thread that Mr. Block gave above. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 03:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Adding an external link

I noticed with some surprise the notice in the Editing section for External links that asks users to submit a request here before adding a link. I have never before encountered anything like this in Wikipedia. Is this really standard procedure? It seems somewhat contrary to the spirit and the letter of Wikpedia's operating procedures.

In any case, here is the link I would like to add:

Location View [2] - interactive street view service

This is a unique and valuable web service for anyone interested in experiencing Tokyo and learning more about it, particularly those who are not able to visit the city in person. It is particularly valuable now that Google Maps has discontinued their Streetview service for Tokyo.

Yes, I did recently add a mention of the service to the Cityscape section, and I do understand that such a mention might not be appropriate for one of the body sections of a wikipedia article. In fact, I actually visited the page today with the express intention of removing it from that section and instead adding it to the external links section. I myself hadn't felt completely comfortable with putting it in the body in the first place. Therefore, I was not surprised to see that it had been removed--though I am surprised to discover that one needs some kind of official approval in order to add information to a Wikipedia page.

By the way, here is the wikipedia page for Location View. --Gregapan (talk) 01:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is unusual to include hidden comments in high-traffic articles like Tokyo to ensure that editors do not indiscriminantly add inappropriate or spam links. I should point out that you don't need any "official approval" to add links or anything to this article, but asking and checking beforehand will save the hassle of having inappropriate additions deleted.

But to the point in question, if you read Wikipedia:External links, and specifically the WP:LINKSTOAVOID section contained within it, you will see that the site you describe is not appropriate as an external link for at least two reasons. Firstly, it is not a specific site about Tokyo, and secondly, it requires users to register and log in with a password.

Finally, as an aside, why do you say that Google Maps has discontinued their Streetview service for Tokyo? It is still available. --DAJF (talk) 01:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. What you say makes sense. However, if I may address the three points you brought up: 1) Though LV does have coverage of other cities in Japan, the default location is Tokyo. A first time visitor to the site arrives smack dab in the middle of Tokyo. 2) Is the need for registration a disqualifier for any external links? A simple caveat next to the link could inform Wikipedians of this. 3) I would be overjoyed if SV were still available for Tokyo. On my server, whether using firefox or explorer, it has disappeared. There is no button for it anymore, no blue streets. If I've gone loony and somehow forgotten how to access it, please remind me. Yet its disappearance fits with what a Google Japan employee recently told me: that they would likely soon have to remove it due to complaints regarding privacy. You still get it? --Gregapan (talk) 23:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

2) Disagree with you, Wikipedia is not to promote sites specially when users need to register to get the info.

3) Disagree as well, Google SV just worked fine for me.

Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 01:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Another reason against using this link would be that the site is all in Japanese. This is the English Wikipedia, we only use non-english links when there is a very compelling reason (official site is non-english, information cannot be found anywhere else). The logic here is that less than 1% of all readers of the English version would be able to use the link, making it a waste of space and time for most readers. —fudoreaper (talk) 09:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

SV works for Tokyo--or elsewhere? It's certainly working for the US, etc. I still get nothing, however, when in Tokyo on google maps, though I used to use it frequently. --Gregapan (talk) 23:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The English version of google maps has a street view for Tokyo. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation of name

I was hoping for a link to an ogg audio file by a native Japanese speaker in the first line (example: Honshū). For all I know 'Tokyo' is pretty straightforward and very similar to the default western pronunciation of the name, but it's hard to determine until you've listened to it. Is there a native Japanese speaker who can contribute this? -- MiG (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a version on commons: at Tokyo. Per commons:User talk:PandaLimitedExpress the specific origin of the speaker is not clear. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Same speaker for both Honshū and Tokyo. The pronunciation in the file has long vowels, i.e. the speaker is saying "Tōkyō." Also, the file page says "What: Tokyo (東京; とうきょう) in Japanese." The file name is Ja-Tokyo.ogg including a language prefix and the word being pronunced. This is the way Commons does it for pronunciation files that are used on Wiktionary. (Even so, the entry for Tokyo in the Japanese Wiktionary doesn't have a sound file.) So I'd say this is the file MiG wants. Fg2 (talk) 21:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

GDP figure

A complete guess, but this change (changing "GDP of US$1,191 billion" to "GDP of US$1,191 trillion") may be related to the different ways different folks write decimal numbers. In particular, the user making this change is apparently in Germany where, as written, this number likely looks like 19% more than US$1 billion rather than 19% more than US$1 trillion. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) says decimal points, not commas, are used between the integer and fractional parts of decimal numbers and commas are used every three digits in large numbers. Perhaps this particular number would be more clear as "US$1.191 trillion". -- Rick Block (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Since no one has commented about this I've made this change. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Interwiki links

To help the interwiki bots figure out how things match up, I've changed ja:東京都 to link to en:Tokyo. ja:東京 also links here. I'm not sure what the bots do if there are two articles from one wikipedia linked to the same article in another, but it's not obvious to me that there's an en: article that better corresponds to ja:東京. If the bots continue to have trouble with this it might be best to remove the en: link from ja:東京. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Rick. I've also left a comment at the Talk page of the bot's owner (fr:Discussion Utilisateur:Vargenau) requesting a modification of the bot. Fg2 (talk) 20:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

I just tried to have consistent things. Some languages have two articles, one about the prefecture (e.g. de:Präfektur Tokio) and one about the town/city (e.g. de:Tokio).

To which one correspond ja:東京 and ja:東京都 ?

Best regards,

Vargenau (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

ja:東京都 ("Tokyo-to") is about the prefecture, same as en:Tokyo. The problem is there is no separate modern city. The historic city is the topic of both en:Tokyo City and ja:東京市. This city was merged with the historic prefecture (ja:東京府, "Tokyo-fu") in 1943 forming a single hybrid governmental entity. All of these use the same prefix name, i.e. 東京 ("Tokyo"). I don't actually read Japanese, but judging by the Google translation the ja:東京 article seems to be about the "downtown" part of the prefecture which is basically the same as Special wards of Tokyo (but this article exactly matches ja:東京都区部). -- Rick Block (talk) 01:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

According to the tag on ja:東京都, ja:東京 is about the general definition of Tokyo as a geographical name. The article is tagged to merge into ja:東京 (各国) which is about the name Tokyo in general, including historical Chinese cities and Tonkin. And ja:東京都 is, as Rick wrote above, about Tokyo Metropolis as an administrative unit. Oda Mari (talk) 05:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Vargenau, I appreciate the difficulty. It's difficult to be consistent with interwiki links when the Wikipedias are not consistent with their content. The English Wikipedia does not have an article about the same topic as the Japanese Wikipedia's ja:東京. Our Tokyo covers the content of ja:東京都. I think the French Wikipedia article also covers ja:東京都.

The German and Japanese articles seem difficult to compare. de:Tokio concentrates on the 23 special wards, but also includes some information about ja:東京都. In other words, it concentrates on part of ja:東京都. The Japanese article ja:東京, in contrast, has a broader scope than ja:東京都. So I would not equate de:Tokio to ja:東京.

ja:東京 is almost a disambiguation "article." It's primarily a guide to getting readers to the right article. It has more text than a disambiguation page, but less detail than articles. There's even a merger proposal to merge it with the disambiguation page, as Oda Mari noted (and discussed in more detail). It's not the Japanese Wikipedia's article about the capital. de:Tokio is the German Wikipedia's article about the capital. So those two are not a natural pair to link.

But to get back to your question, Vargenau, I agree with Rick Block and Oda Mari that the English Wikipedia article Tokyo corresponds best to the Japanese article ja:東京都, and the English Wikipedia does not have an article that corresponds at all to [[ja:東京.

Finally, thank you for linking the articles in different languages. I hope they're not all as difficult as this! Fg2 (talk) 08:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there a prefectural fish of Tokyo?

Is there a prefectural fish for Tokyo? WhisperToMe (talk) 22:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is. See this. Oda Mari (talk) 05:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it normal for a prefecture to have a fish representing it? --C S (talk) 12:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know, but most prefectures have. Here is the list in Japanese. Oda Mari (talk) 14:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Venice of the East?

It looks like Tokyo used to much more of a water-city before the 1923 eartquake and the WWII carpet bombing. She had many canals, which were filled in to make place for more people living and business districts. The remaining one were dammed to make sure typhoons cannot force the sea into the city.

This is probably worth discussion in the geopgraphy section of the article.

It's true that Edo/Tokyo was more of a water-city back then, but the label "water-city", Mizu no Miyako (ja:水の都) or Suito (ja:水都) in Japanese, has been associated with Osaka, among other cities, rather than Tokyo. So I'm not sure "Venice of the East" is really fit for this article. Osaka has many historic bridges over rivers and canals. Also, Osaka once had such nicknames as "Manchester of the East" and even "The Smog Capital" (ja:煙の都) because of its textile manufacture. Shinkansen Fan (talk) 10:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the old photo (which is a Featured Picture Candidate) doesn't identify the location. But boats like this, which appears to me to be a pleasure boat, once plied the canals and rivers of Edo, and probably continued until after the War. It would be a nice illustration for the topic, if taken in Tokyo.

The topic of canals would be very suitable for the article "Shitamachi." It only applies to a small part of Tokyo, and applies to more of the history than Edo and Tokyo City. Fg2 (talk) 10:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Confusion between Tokyo Metropolis (prefecture), Tokyo city proper (special wards) and Tokyo City (historic)

I believe there are some confusion among some of the readers and editors. Most people think "Tokyo" as in terms of a city (the 23 special wards that replace Tokyo City) rather then the whole prefecture. Also the Tokyo (disambiguation) does not do any justice on the explaining it. — ASDFGH =] ^talk? 22:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Still a major financial centre?

Does Tokyo still compare to financial centres like London and New York? Tokyo is nowhere near as dominant in Asia as London is in Europe or New York in the Americas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.234.55.222 (talk) 12:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

In Asia, the major financial centers would be Tokyo, Hong Kong, and probably Singapore. It's definitely as dominant in Asia as London and New York are in their respective geographical areas. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Picture in the 'Tokyo Metropolis' Box

I propose thaat the picture in the 'Tokyo Metropolis' Box- at the top- be changed. Currently, it's a map showing the location of the city on Japan, which doesn't really give the impression of a city. It would be better if the map were changed to a photo/collage showing streetscenes, as is the norm for most city articles.bob bobato (talk) 00:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, is Tokyo a city? Right now the article is on a prefecture. Perhaps a collage of street scenes, farm fields, mountains, etc., would be ok though. --C S (talk) 06:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Tokyo is not city, but a metropolis composed of several cities and 23 special wards. If it was a city, it would be written 東京市 instead of 東京都. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Tokyo is technically not a city, but it is built up urban area, which are, in general, called cities. I agree with the original comment by Bob bobato, that we should have a collage of images. —fudoreaper (talk) 01:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Tokyo includes much more than a city, and a collage of street scenes would not convey that. Tokyo encompasses dramatic mountains, deep forests, farmland, uninhabited islands, extensive suburbs and many things unrelated to skyscrapers and hordes of pedestrians at crosswalks. And of course it also encompasses skyscrapers and hordes of pedestrians. Any collage should show what Tokyo is, not just what tourists photograph on a ten-minute walk from their hotels. Fg2 (talk) 02:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, you're totally right, Fg2. I didn't realize it extended as far west as it did, into the mountains. And islands, as well. We would do well to illustrate its extent through a collage of images we create.

- this image shows the extent of Tokyo Prefecture, btw. —fudoreaper (talk) 06:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I have photos of Arakawa Gorge - still part of Tokyo, but an area of mountains, rivers, and onsens. If you want me to upload for use, let me know Kunchan (talk) 12:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

First, the photos would be most welcome. If you can give them a license that's free enough for Wikimedia Commons, that would be the ideal place to upload them. In making a collage, public-domain photos would make licensing easiest. Second, the location. The Arakawa I know is more urban where it flows through Tokyo; the remoter parts are in Saitama Prefecture rather than Tokyo. But I'm always interested in discovering new places, so if the gorge you photographed is in Tokyo, it's an exciting find for me. The place that came to mind when I read your description is the Nagatoro Gorge (長瀞渓谷), in Saitama Prefecture. The English Wikipedia has an article on the town of Nagatoro, but doesn't have any photos, so if your pictures are from Nagatoro, they have a home there. Fg2 (talk) 21:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

any songs about Tokyo?

List of songs about Tokyo
Thanks.Civic Cat (talk) 19:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Capital of Tokyo

There is some edit warring regarding the existence of the capital of Tokyo. According to the Tokyo Metropolitan Government, the capital seems to be Shinjuku. See Tokyo Metropolitan Archives News page 7[3] or TMG Pocket knowledge.[4]―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

External Links

Ok, I am not happy that some one has gone and changed/removed most of the external links even though there is express information on the page that changes to the external links should be discussed first before they are changed. Please see the previous discussion at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tokyo/Archive_2 (half way down)

While this discussion is over two years old, the content and reasoning is still sound. The Wikipedia policy on external links was followed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:EL). In particular "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons."

This is why there was detailed discussion on the linking to pages with external maps and the comparison of pages with maps on them.

I have returned the external link section back to the way it was. If anyone disagrees with this please enter into a discussion and don't just delete links without doing so. Whats up skip (talk) 00:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

NeilN removed the external links I returned to the original place citing "WP:EL". Clearly he has not read or understood the "WP:EL" properly as most if not all of the links I returned fitted this criteria. NeilN didn't bother to grace this page with any discussion on the topic. Unilaterally making edits and then leaving a cryptic note for me like I have never edited on Wikipedia before. I have returned the edits I made previously. Whats up skip (talk) 07:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the history of the page, but you have added, or readded, two links to advertising-heavy sites that concentrate on Tokyo as a tourist destination. What editorial content they have seems to be a collection of cliches (though I realize that many tourists are in search of cliches). The information each provides about a single specified part of Tokyo is not obviously better than what Wikipedia itself provides, and is often obviously worse. I believe that you have added, or readded a link to a page at "Wikitravel", which seems far superior and worth linking to, and from which perhaps links could be added, though I don't pretend to know about Wikitravel's linking policies as I've never edited over there. Incidentally, I leave cryptic notes to experienced editors rather more often than I leave them to inexperienced editors: I don't think that things need to be spelled out to the former. -- Hoary (talk) 08:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I see again you have been very arrogant with your editing. You don't bother to look into the extensive history and discussion that took place to determine which were suitable links and why. You have not bothered to wait for a discussion to continue before changing the links to what you think is right. You have a history of doing this sort of thing and it must stop!

You have erred in at least a couple of your assumptions about linking to other sites. 1) "two links to advertising-heavy sites" There is no reference to this in the "WP:EL". Indeed Wikipedia is basically one great big link farm for Google, Yahoo and Microsoft with tens of thousands of links to map pages with advertising in them, so you reason for excluding sites on the basis that they have advertising on them is severely flawed.

2) If you had looked back at the discussion you would have seen that http://www.japaneselifestyle.com.au/tokyo/tokyomap.htm was originally accepted as link as it had the best map of Tokyo that could be found on the web. Now at the time the map had 130 interactive points of interest. I notice that now the map is citing over 600 points of interest and there appears to be more text information, links and pictures. In addition to the on page map information the site even makes available the data available as a KML file so people can further use the map information.

This link was later changed to http://www.japaneselifestyle.com.au/tokyo/ as it was argued that the extensive number of unique photographs of Tokyo, plus the additional information found with the photos and elsewhere in the Tokyo section warranted linking to the primary page on Tokyo. I notice that the site is now citing that it has over 1,400 unique photographs of Tokyo. This number of photographs in themselves would probably qualify for a link in the first place.

I personally did not support the inclusion of Wikitravel as I don't really think the information included in there on Tokyo is that great.

If you want to know the reasoning behind the inclusion and exclusion of the other links then you must spend the time reviewing its history. Don't continue your self important editing style where you ignore the extensive work done by other. Whats up skip (talk) 10:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Consensus can change. You've got three editors who are saying these links shouldn't be added to the article. This article is about Tokyo, not tourism in Tokyo. The Wikitravel link more than adequately covers that specific topic. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I wonder who Whats up skip is referring to when he/she writes (in this edit) I see again you have been very arrogant with your editing. You don't bother to look into the extensive history and discussion that took place to determine which were suitable links and why. You have not bothered to wait for a discussion to continue before changing the links to what you think is right. You have a history of doing this sort of thing and it must stop! I don't suppose it can be me, as the history of the article reveals that so far this year I have made two edits to the article, each entirely irrelevant to this matter of external links. Yet the material close to this suggests that "you" is me. It's rather confusing.

Whats up skip, what is your main interest in Tokyo? It seems to me that various sections of it are terrible ("Popular media", which manages not to mention newspapers or magazines; "Education", which is merely a pair of lists; etc), and that there'd be a case for adding certain new sections, IFF they were concise and had a high signal/noise ratio. Perhaps you could work on something here. -- Hoary (talk) 14:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

He's probably referring to me, thinking DAJF's revert was mine. See my talk page for more info. Users sometimes get testy when you remove their pet links. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I did not attack another editor for removing spam links per say. I complained about the removal of links from a page that specifically had editorial notes on it stating that any changes to the links were to be discussed first. We had a period prior to this editorial note being placed on the page when there were many poor quality and spam links included on the page. The editors that had been actively working on the Japan pages discussed extensively which links should be included and why.

NeilN has stated that "Any link that opens to JAPAN HOTELS - GUARANTEED LOWEST RATES will be removed, regardless of its additional content." is complete rubbish and does not comply with the "WP:EL" policy. There is nothing in the the "WP:EL" policy that says a page that contains a particular advertisement or even a particular style of advertisement. NeilN has rejected a page on the basis of an advertisement that is currently running on the page.The "WP:EL" policy states "Links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising." should be avoided. Now the page "http://www.japaneselifestyle.com.au/tokyo/" area has less than 30% coverage by advertising, which is far less than a newspapers average 50%.

Now what is my involvement with Tokyo; I have been there six times and my wife is Japanese, so I have fair amount of direct knowledge and experience in Tokyo and greater Japan. It was through my trips to Tokyo that I became interested in finding the best online map. The Tokyo page in Wikipedia had some links to some very poor and indeed some very inaccurate maps, not the sort of thing that Wikipedia wants to be encouraging. I felt it was very important to find some better maps of Tokyo even if they weren't well know. I spent several hours investigating a large range of online maps and checking their accuracy. It is through this that I found http://www.japaneselifestyle.com.au/tokyo/tokyomap.htm which was and I still believe is the best English language online map. If someone can find a better online map and the explain why it is better in the talk page (allowing time for others to respond), then I have no objection to a link to it being included instead of http://www.japaneselifestyle.com.au/tokyo/tokyomap.htm or primary page http://www.japaneselifestyle.com.au/tokyo/.

The problem here has been the attitude of editors who have changed content when there are specific notes on the page (with good reason) stating that any changes should be discussed first. Whats up skip (talk) 04:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

You're incorrect on two counts. First, there are no notes saying that changes to the links are to be discussed first. The precise text is: DO NOT ADD LINKS HERE. Ask in the discussion section before you add a link here, otherwise it is likely to be deleted (emphasis mine). Second, I did not state that "Any link that opens to JAPAN HOTELS - GUARANTEED LOWEST RATES will be removed, regardless of its additional content." - that was Acroterion [5], who, being an admin, is probably pretty good at interpreting policy. It would also have helped if you had left an edit summary along the lines of "see talk archives". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Meetup in Tokyo

How about planning a meetup between wiki users around Tokyo in late February 2010? --Saki ^talk 08:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Population figures

Aren't the population figures in the second paragraph a little confusing? I've read it several times and still can't understand it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.100.191.184 (talk) 10:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It isn't consistent. This would make more sense - adding <part of>:

The prefecture is part of the world's most populous metropolitan area with 35 to 39 million people (depending on definition) and the world's largest metropolitan economy with a GDP of US$1.479 trillion at purchasing power parity in 2008.[3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssmats (talk • contribs) 07:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Prefecture vs. city

I changed the lead attempting to indicate that Tokyo is a prefecture, not a city. This change was reverted. I've tried a different version. What I'm trying to get across is that Tokyo is a prefectural level government, not a city government, even though "Tokyo" is still widely thought of as a city. I think starting the article with "Tokyo is the capital and largest city of Japan, and is a prefecture" doesn't quite do it justice since Tokyo is not actually a city. We've tried to wordsmith this before. Is the current version more acceptable? -- Rick Block (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Very acceptable. But thinking Tokyo as a city, in a native Japanese sense, it's only the special wards. The Western area and the islands are not included. There are words 都内/inside the Met area and 都下/municipalities outside the 23 wards. How about to change something like "Technically it's a group of small cities, the twenty three wards are considered the capital and largest city of Japan."? Oda Mari (talk) 05:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Tokyo is a metropolis consisting of 23 special wards and several cities. Its government operates on the prefectural level, and it is considered the capital of Japan. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 09:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Is Tokyo Metropolis considered the capital and largest city, or are the 23 wards (formerly the city of Tokyo) collectively considered the capital and largest city? Another way to ask this - what is the population of the capital of Japan and of its largest city, 8.6M or 12.8M?

The version user:Phoenix7777 objected to as incorrect said "The Tokyo Metropolitan government administers both the twenty-three special wards of Tokyo that cover the area often still referred to as the "city" of Tokyo and the additional areas that were part of Tokyo Prefecture.". I don't actually know how it's treated in most English language references, but I suspect most people outside of Japan still think of Tokyo primarily as the city that has not existed since 1943 comprised of the 23 wards - and when they say "Tokyo" don't actually mean the prefecture but what is now only the 23 wards. This is a topic that is probably too difficult to fully explain in the lead, but I think it should be clear from the lead whether "Tokyo" means only the entire metropolitan prefecture as opposed to the former city, or whether "Tokyo" is used ambiguously to refer to both the prefecture and the former city. Which approach to take here should reflect the predominant usage in English language sources regardless of what "Tokyo" legally means in Japan. I don't know if it's accurate, but perhaps the last sentence should say something like:

Although officially no longer a single city, the 23 wards are called the "city of Tokyo" by most English sources and are collectively considered to be the capital and largest city of Japan.

The goal here is not to be overly pedantic but to reflect what is verifiable according to reliable sources. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

If you might consider a proposal from a de/ja-WPedian: Why don't you create separate articles for the "city", i.e. the former shi/present-day ward area, (ja:東京 or rather ja:東京都区部/de/sv/...) and the prefecture (ja:東京都/de/sv/several other language versions may have separate articles as well)? It makes it a lot easier to write about something if you have a clear definition of what it is. In other words: Do you really think that the village of Ogasawara or Mt. Kumotori form part of "the largest city of Japan"? --Asakura Akira (talk) 19:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

You mean like Tokyo City (about the former city) and Tokyo (about the metropolis)? There's also Special wards of Tokyo (the 23 wards) and Western Tokyo (all the cities outside of the 23 wards other than the islands). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Not quite (Western Tokyo is the Tama district, not Tokyo in a narrower sense; Special wards of Tokyo is more about the legal status (ja:特別区) and Tokyo City only describes kyū-Tōkyō-shi before 1943/47). I mean Tokyo as an article about "Japan's largest city"; and a seperate article on Tokyo prefecture - or Tokyo Metropolis if you stick to the prefecture's English self-description - on Tōkyō-to, one of Japan's 47 prefectures. --Asakura Akira (talk) 19:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) There's no need to have a separate article about Japan's largest "city" when you can include that information in the article about the metropolis. The four articles I mentioned cover all the information you mentioned, though it's possible such coverage could be expanded in one or more of the articles. I could see a section in the Tokyo article discussing the "largest city" status and how the metropolis is technically not a city in the standard sense of the word, but rather a grouping of 23 special wards and several cities and a district governed as a prefecture. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The wards area is not a city in terms of administration, yes. But it functions as one city in many other ways (culturally, economically, sociologically). And as others have pointed out the English (or German or any other latin-script-based language I'm aware of) term Tokyo often refers to that city, not the administrative entity that reaches as far as 1000 kilometres south of the Imperial Palace. What's more important: Large parts of this article, too, are not about the prefecture but about Tokyo in the narrower sense:

"one of the three world finance command centers", Nishitama definitely isn't part of that.
"world's most expensive city", is a weekend in Ōshima that expensive?
"Tokyo was originally known as Edo", if I want to be pedantic that's not even true for Shinjuku and the other outer "new wards" of 1932 (unless this refers to Edo-fu)

In any case I think that it would be helpful to make some kind of distinction between "the two Tokyos" (I don't mind if that's within the same article, that's your call). At least, that's my experience from (de) and real world situations in which I talk about Tōkyō or Tōkyō-to to non-Japanese. --Asakura Akira (talk) 20:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

For comparison: a table on (ja) and (en) articles about "all Tokyos" (articles on more or less the same subject, not inter-language links which are in some cases plainly misleading).

(ja)	(en)
東京都区部	???
東京	???
東京都東京府	Tokyo
東京市	Tokyo City
特別区	Special wards of Tokyo
江戸	Edo
首都圏南関東	Greater Tokyo Area
関東地方広域関東圏	Kantō region

--Asakura Akira (talk) 20:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Definiton of 'city'

I've gotta say I agree with the confusion over the prefecture/municipal district vs urban area defintion of 'city' that this article is trying to straddle. The Tokyo article needs to be about the city, as in the urban area, not the 'city,' the municipal governing region or the prefecture. Explaining the difference in this technicality makes the lead paragraph unclear. There is a translation of the municipal district into the American municipal term 'city' which can also be translated into 'council district.' The problem with the dual meaning of 'city' with respect to this article is that some people's pedantry is creating nonsense such as 'Tokyo is not a city' when what they mean is 'There is no municipal district called Tokyo.' Tokyo IS a city in the simple, non-technical meaning of the word, and thats what this article needs to refer to. If people require an article on the more technical Tokyo prefecture/municipal area then they can be linked to it. Of course there should be information about the local government of Tokyo in this article, but so it dominates the lead paragraph and advises the whole article is only about the prefecture or metropolitan area. Mdw0 (talk) 03:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

This article is not about the urban area, but about the governmental entity in Japan called "Tokyo" (which is a prefectural level government), i.e. Tokyo-to (東京都 in Japanese) vs. just Tokyo as an unqualified name (東京). The government of Tokyo City (東京市) and the former prefecture of Tokyo-fu (東京府) merged becoming the single entity that is now the only Japanese governmental entity (municipal or not) called "Tokyo". It would be like if New York City and New York State merged and became one entity (probably called New York State). Tokyo has a governor, not a mayor, and is one of the 47 subnational governmental bodies (like states in the US). The urban area (what was the city) is the topic of the article Special wards of Tokyo, which is perhaps what you're thinking of as "Tokyo". If you'd like, feel free to try to clarify this further, but this article is definitely about the 45th largest prefecture that has a population of 13M and an area of 2187 km² including not only the 23 wards but also 26 cities in western Tokyo and the Izu and Ogasawara Islands. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand what is meant by the terms, I'm just saying that the article 'Tokyo' needs to be about the urban area referred to around the world as Tokyo, with a paragraph about its government, and that the municipal areas need to be separated into their own articles named Tokyo Prefecture and Tokyo Metropolitan Government, just as New York City and New York state are separate, and so are the individual boroughs of New York separate from the New York City article. Actually New York isnt a very good example - I've always though it was dumb to have 'New York' go straight to the state rather than the city. A better example is the comparison between articles on London and the City of London, or with Sydney and the City of Sydney, which differentiate the detail and statistics regarding municipal and state government areas from the primary article about the city. The scope of the Tokyo article needs to be more like the one for Paris, which is about the city, regardless of where the traditional boundaries may be located, which are mentioned in the opening paragraph as they should be. This Tokyo article already looks like the normal 'city' articles of New York, London, Paris etc. By saying this Tokyo article is about the prefecture or municipality means there isnt an article at all for Tokyo the city like these others. It also means there are items here with nothing to do with the municipal government area, such as in the history section where most of it occurred before there was any such thing as a prefecture. The Tokyo Prefecture and Tokyo Municipal Government articles should be more like the City of London or City of Sydney articles. An even better example are the Osaka and Osaka Prefecture articles. One is about Osaka, and the other about Osaka Prefecture. That's the separation I'm talking about. Of course there's a lot of overlap, but the articles arent confused about what they're describing. Your argument basically says the Osaka Prefecture article should be removed and the Osaka one rewritten with opening paragraph saying its about the Prefecture. In fact, what we have currently are two articles, one called Tokyo and the other called Greater Tokyo Area. Greater Tokyo Area should be renamed Tokyo. That is what people who search for Tokyo in English Wikipedia are expecting. I understand these articles are trying to correspond to the Japanese terms Tokyo-ken 東京圏, and Tokyo-to 東京都, but what we've got is an article under the name Tokyo 東京 written as an article for Tokyo-to 東京都 in the opening paragraph and which contains information on Tokyo 東京 and Tokyo-ken 東京圏 in the rest of the article. This is a technicality which obviously creates confusion for English readers who would definitely be expecting to see an article comprising Tokyo-ken 東京圏 when they type Tokyo into the Wikipedia search box, similar to articles on London, Paris and Sydney. In short this discussion is about which article owns the name Tokyo. Is it the urban area, similar to London, Paris, Sydney, or is it owned by Tokyo Prefecture alone? Ask yourself what comes to mind when people think Tokyo? I guarantee it isnt the metropolitan or prefectural government! Mdw0 (talk) 08:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not most people think of Tokyo as a "city", I think it's most reasonable for the article called "Tokyo" to be about the only existing geo-political entity called Tokyo, which since the city and prefecture merged is Tokyo-to (btw, Osaka is officially a city with a mayor, etc. in Osaka Prefecture which has a governor, etc. - which was previously the case for Tokyo as well). You're suggesting renaming Greater Tokyo Area (Tokyo-ken) to Tokyo and renaming Tokyo to Tokyo Metropolis (Tokyo-to). I suggested in the thread above that we should follow the predominant usage in English language sources. I actually don't know what's most common as far as sources go, but I kind of doubt that "Tokyo" generally refers to the Greater Tokyo Area. It might commonly be used to refer to the special wards area (area of the former city of Tokyo), but I haven't found anything conclusive in sources supporting this. I don't think "what comes to mind when people think Tokyo" is the issue, but rather what sources usually mean when they say "Tokyo". -- Rick Block (talk) 05:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The urban area is named Tokyo on every world map, so saying the only geo-political entity is the prefecture just isnt correct. Looking over it again, I wouldnt rename Greater Tokyo Area, I'd probably leave it as is as a minor article because that area has unique statistical data. However, if you look through that article, it showcases the confusion over different definitions of the city. What I'm suggesting is that a separate article for the Prefecture is created, named Tokyo Prefecture, which details the governmental aspects, and the restrictions on the current Tokyo article are relaxed so that it is more inclusive of all things Tokyo, inner, outer, whatever. Just because Tokyo doesnt have a standard governmental setup, that doesnt mean you take the general term Tokyo and rewrite the opening paragraph to refer to the prefecture only. Any non-standard governmental setup is secondary to descriptions of the city, the whole city. Placing restrictions on this article because its government setup isnt standard is counter-productive. Official (as in self contained government structure) or not, the simpler the name (Tokyo) the broader the scope of the article. I think your idea of what constitutes a 'city' is too narrow, and you're using the local government definition of Tokyo as the only one, as though the idea of Greater Tokyo as one city has no merit. Some cities have multiple local government areas, multiple business districts and some have only one, but their common aspect is a self-contained urban area. Saying a city is defined only by its governmental structure is limiting in the extreme. Mdw0 (talk) 03:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

What world maps? Please be specific. I looked for a reference supporting a statement like

Although officially no longer a single city, the 23 wards are called the "city of Tokyo" by most English sources and are collectively considered to be the capital and largest city of Japan.

and couldn't find one (the 23 wards are the contiguous heavily urbanized area that was the city of Tokyo and is what I suspect you're thinking of as the city of Tokyo). Your examples (except Sydney) all precisely define what the article is talking about (for purposes of what to put in the infobox if nothing else) to some administrative entity. There is no administrative entity for Tokyo other than the prefectural level government. From WP:Lead: The first paragraph of the introductory text needs to unambiguously define the topic for the reader, without being overly specific. What, exactly, is the topic of the article you're suggesting? For example what would you put in the infobox for population, or area? What people "think of" as the city of Tokyo seems rather subjective. For the purposes of an encyclopedia article, having the article on "Tokyo" be about the only legal entity in Japan with this name seems (to me) the most natural choice. Historically, it was a city in a prefecture with the same name - but it is now a unique entity in Japan, what might be called a city-prefecture (it is the only prefecture classified as a "to"). This is sort of like the consolidated city–county structure in the US, but rather than a merged city and county it would be like a merged city and state. It's confusing because it's foreign. Nearly all countries have subnational entities. All countries have cities. Tokyo is one of a very few number of examples that are both (I'm not a geography nut, but it would appear Berlin and Hamburg are similar - although these seem to be cities that are co-extensive with German states, which is not quite the same as the situation with Tokyo). You seem to think it's a pedantic point, but Tokyo is officially not a city. The neon downtown area is the city of Shinjuku in the prefecture of Tokyo Metropolis.

It seems like it might be helpful for some others to weigh in on this. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Japan is perhaps unusual -- it's certainly unlike any of the minuscule number of European languages of which I have a tourist's or better knowledge -- in demanding in many contexts (e.g. the writing of addresses on envelopes) that each meaningful element of a placename should be suffixed with its status. A tiny number of exceptions aside, the highest urban status is 市. This is unthinkingly translated as "city". Sometimes the result is (for me) appropriate, as it is for 名古屋市. Sometimes it is (for me) risible, as it is for 佐渡市. I'd therefore tend to ignore 市: after all, en:WP is not paid to be an English-language platform for nutty Japanese government decisions. ¶ But matters are complicated by the way in which in the US (with the highest population of L1 English speakers) "city" seems to have been debased beyond (my) belief: for example even Sarah Palin's obscure political base Wasilla is a "city". Perhaps we should recognize that, internationally, "city" has been rendered meaningless. ¶ Still, I venture that for most L1 English speakers, "city" does have a meaning, and that when they speak of "city life" and so forth, few have in mind places such as 佐渡 or Wasilla. ¶ The neon downtown area is the city of Shinjuku in the prefecture of Tokyo Metropolis. Yes, yes. But are comparisons of city living expenses in terms of London versus Lagos versus Shinjuku? Are festivals named after Minato-ku or after Tokyo? Does one give a book's publication details as "Chiyoda: Iwanami Shoten, 2001"? Do most people know or care where the boundary is between Bunkyo and Shinjuku? Does anyone other than a government employee, a boner-up for some trivia exam or a pompous pedant talk seriously of "the city of Shinjuku in the prefecture of Tokyo Metropolis"? -- Hoary (talk) 06:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

What I'm looking for is for the opening paragraph to be about the whole city, which reflects what's actually in the article. There is lots here which is related to Tokyo but not the Tokyo Prefecture, as there should be. Anything significant that can fairly claim to be a part of Tokyo should be included without a restriction to the Tokyo Prefecture. The prefecture is named for and exists because of Tokyo, not the other way around. This is a simple case of semantics where some have a more restrictive restrictive definition of city than others. Lets sample Webster for a moment;

city

a) - an inhabited place of greater size, population, or importance than a town or village

b) - an incorporated British town usually of major size or importance having the status of an episcopal

d) - a usually large or important municipality in the United States governed under a charter granted by the state

Definitiona a) is being denied in the statement 'Tokyo is not officially a city.' Official definitions of local government boundaries should most certainly be mentioned in an article, but they absolutely should not dominate an article about a whole city (definition a). I dont usually like to quote people back to themselves because it smacks of arrogance, but I think in The first paragraph of the introductory text needs to unambiguously define the topic for the reader, without being overly specific the bit about being overly specific is exactly what I'm suggesting we have here. Using the broader definition doesnt deny the use of statistics that relate to the prefecture. It just shows that the term Tokyo isnt only about the prefecture because the term Tokyo is much broader and more flexible than that. For me it really comes down to changing the opening line. A new Tokyo Prefecture article's opening line could be Tokyo Prefecture, officially Tokyo Metropolis (東京都, Tōkyō-to?), is one of the 47 prefectures of Japan. This Tokyo article's opening line should be similar to - Paris is the capital and largest city of France. - New York is the most populous city in the United States, and the center of the New York metropolitan area, which is one of the most populous metropolitan areas in the world. - London is the capital of England and the United Kingdom. This article should say Tokyo is the capital and largest metropolitan area of Japan and then the rest of the opening paragraph only needs a few rearrangements and the article's well on the way to shedding its C rating. If its decided that specifying what the administration of Tokyo includes and doesnt include is important enough to be in the lead parargraph, that's fine, but the situation as it stands now denies any use of the term Tokyo beyond the prefecture, and that needs to be fixed. Mdw0 (talk) 08:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The whole city? What do you mean by that, Mdw0? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and a place where to clarify things with facts. It is a fact that a lot of non-Japanese people think Tokyo is a city. But it's not correct nor accurate. It's only a convenient way to understand Tokyo. The fact is there is no "city of Tokyo". Tokyo is not a city. And "to" and "ken" are two different words and it is not correct to translate "to" as prefecture. That English doesn't have an equivalent word for "to" is a pretext. It's not 47 prefectures, but 47 to-do-fu-ken/47都道府県. It seems to me your suggestion would make things complicated and misleading. So I agree with Rick Block. Oda Mari (talk) 10:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Contrary to Mdw0's suggestion, I think what we should do is clarify that it is a popular misconception that Tokyo is a city in this article. Because this is not a travel guide. Oda Mari (talk) 14:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course it's a city. It exists. I'm in it right now. I crossed to its centre this morning and I crossed back this evening. No, I am not a solipsist, and so I believe an accumulation of sensory data that tell me that it's a city that in most ways resembles other cities I know, other than having a green hole in the middle (on which see Popham's excellent book on Tokyo) and being composed of boroughs that various government agencies perversely insist are themselves "cities". How is my conception of Tokyo as a city a misconception? How is it uncitylike or not a city? Merely by governmental fiat? Sorry, Mari, but the English language is not something that's legislated by the Japanese (or other) government. If some website of 大田区 tells me that that rather arbitrarily defined patch of land is a "city", I laugh privately and continue to think of it as a borough, just as I laugh when I read that 佐渡 is a "city". Similarly, when Thatcherism smashed the GLC, London continued to exist as a city. Incidentally, for historical reasons, there remain a very small "City of London" and a very small "City of Westminster" right in the middle of London; their existence does nothing to negate the fact that London, as a whole, is a city. -- Hoary (talk) 15:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, you mean 23 wards/23区 or 都区部 as a big city, Hoary. It's not that I don't understand. Then how about to add it to Special wards of Tokyo and redirect "City of Tokyo" to the 23 wards article? Or do you want to move Special wards of Tokyo to City of Tokyo? Anyway I don't find any reason to move this article to "Tokyo prefecture". It would be "Tokyo Metropolis", if needed to move. It may my personal preference but I cannot stand "Tokyo prefecture". Oda Mari (talk) 16:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean this in an unkind way, but can we focus on how reliable sources treat this rather than individual opinions? There's a discussion of what "city" means at World's largest cities. Tokyo-to defines the administrative boundaries of Tokyo. I'm not sure what the precise morphological or functional boundaries might be - both would seem to more or less correspond to the Greater Tokyo Area. As I said above, I think "Tokyo" (the article) should reflect what most sources mean by "Tokyo". I'll add that unless there's a clear consensus (among sources) for something different, I think what the Tokyo government officially uses should be what we use. The English language pages from the TMG use "Tokyo" to mean Tokyo-to [6]. On the other hand, the UN considers "Tokyo" to be the megacity (urban agglomeration) consisting of all of Tokyo-to plus 87 surrounding cities and towns including Yokohama, Kawasaki, and Chiba [7] - which I think is what Mdw0 is suggesting. What sources would others consider to be definitive? -- Rick Block (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Every time you see a world map with a dot on the east coast of Japan with Tokyo next to it, you're looking at a source that says Tokyo is a big city like many others. The details of municipal governance is secondary to that. If you'd prefer the detailed government-area article to be called Tokyo Metropolis or Tokyo Metropolitan Government, thats fine, but the English article titled Tokyo is must be broader than what the current opening paragraph describes. I'm finding it rather strange that some editors continue to say Tokyo is not a city according to a narrow, secondary definition. Do you or do you not acknowledge that Tokyo is 'an inhabited place of greater size, population, or importance than a town or village.' That is the primary English definiton of what a city is. According to that primary definiton in Webster, Tokyo IS a city. Even the Worlds Largest Cities article’s definitions of a city place the administrative one third out of three in the list. Every time you say Tokyo isnt a city, you're saying first and foremost that Tokyo isnt bigger or more important than a town or village, which is obviously ridiculous. If Tokyo isnt a city, what is it? Multiple cities? At a stretch I’d accept an opening line saying Tokyo is a conglomeration of cities in eastern Japan, but then you’d have to detail what is meant by a city or cities. The Tokyo government’s definition of Tokyo is not relevant here because of the context. Their definiton is local government specific, and in the context of defining local government jurisdiction that narrower definition is expected. The context in this article is Tokyo as a global city, so the broader definition is expected. Please look here for the sort of edit I'm talking about.(talk) 03:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

You've already said in your opinion the article called "Tokyo" should be about the "city". I'm asking about the predominant usage in reliable sources. Are you saying you don't care about this and want the article to be about the city, regardless of how the term is used in most sources? -- Rick Block (talk) 04:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Isnt the Webster dictionary reliable? Should I quote the Oxford and Macquarie as well? Fact is, you could find hundreds of references that use 'city' both ways, so thats why I'm quoting the dictionaries to determine premier usage. I just dont see why the opening paragraph in the Tokyo article should have this odd definition which is so glaringly different from the other city articles we've discussed simply because Tokyo doesnt sit in its own municipal district. Is my example really so bad? Is it inaccurate or non-neutral? Mdw0 (talk) 08:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

You take "Tokyo" as a metropolitan area, don't you? But which one are you refering to? And do you want to include the city of Yokohama, the capital of Kanagawa prefecture, in your Tokyo article? I think the city itself is too notable to mix up with Tokyo. Oda Mari (talk) 04:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly where the boundaries of the urban area Tokyo is obviously debatable, which is fine, and that debate should be mentioned in the article. The details of the municipal governance also ought to be mentioned. However, it remains that the definition and use of Tokyo is broader than its current definition in the opening paragraph. To clarify definitions I'm going to try avoiding the use of the word 'city' and only use 'urban metropolis' and 'administrative area' from here on in. I absolutely agree that the administrative area IS notable and should have an article and a link at the top of the Tokyo page as per my example. This would allow a more coherant article containing the details of the government where the use of the word city as administrative area is in its correct context. The more general Tokyo article needs to have more of a focus on the urban metropolis, and it does, which is why its basically only the opening paragraph which needs to be edited. Whatever my or anyone else's opinion of the definition of a city may be, the way it stands now is we have an article about the urban area with an opening paragraph about a completely different entity. Mdw0 (talk) 08:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Please answer my questions. I don't understand your intention. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 10:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

My point is that its irrelevant what my opinion is - and yours, regarding what constitutes a city or what technically and exactly constitutes the boundaries of Tokyo. These details dont belong in the opening paragraph of the Tokyo article, and this Tokyo article is obviously about more than just the official Metropolis. Mdw0 (talk) 01:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Whatever else Tokyo might be, is it a city? In the latest edit to the article, an editor seems to think that it isn't. Well, it's clear that some people believe that Tokyo can't be a city because it's own government chooses to deny that it is one, rather in the same way that Japan doesn't have armed forces because they're called "self-defense forces", or indeed that North Korea is democratic, of the people and a republic because "DPR" is part of "DPRK", innit?

The attempt to redefine "city" to exclude a conurbation such as Tokyo hasn't managed to prevent the publication of books such as:

Peter Popham, Tokyo: The City at the End of the World
Livio Sacchi, Tokyo: City and Architecture
Paul Waley, Tokyo: City of Stories
Jude Brand, Tokyo Night City
Noriyuki Tajima, Tokyo: Labyrinth City
Edward Seidensticker, Tokyo Rising: The City since the Great Earthquake
Sumiko Enbutsu, Tokyo: Exploring the City of the Shogun
Roman Cybriwsky, Tokyo: The Shogun's City at the 21st Century
Donald Richie, Tokyo: A View of the City
Saskia Sassen, The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo
John H Martin, Tokyo: A Cultural Guide to Japan's Capital City

Ah, but conceivably their publication demonstrates no more than appalling endemic ignorance -- caused by reptilians? -- of the true meaning of "city". -- Hoary (talk) 02:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

A word's 'true' meaning may be debatable. The primary use isnt, because the primary use for 'city' in all the dictionaries I've consulted concerns the size and importance of the inhabited place. In terms of this universal primary meaning, is there anyone still prepared to say that Tokyo is not a city? Or that the only form 'Tokyo' can take is that according to the Metropolitan Government's definition of itself? Mdw0 (talk) 01:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

You still do not give me the boundaries of Tokyo City. Please show it. What do you edit the infobox? How do you categorize "Tokyo City"? All articles on Japanese cities and prefectures are based on administrative divisions. Where's the official site of the city? Paris, London, and New York City have their official site and mayor, but not Tokyo City. I found little difference between this article and your version on your sub page. It seems to me that you want to rename the article and use the word "city" to describe Tokyo in the article just because you think it as a city. Oda Mari (talk) 06:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

You are confusing cause and effect here. The articles are not based on the administrative divisions. They are based on the cities, the settlement that is larger than a town. The administrative divisions are a convenient way to show some statistics and to describe the local government of the city which the article is about.

You can define the boundaries of Tokyo city any way you like. I dont really care what the consensus is there - you could have multiple definitons. I'm fine with whatever method that may be used to show statistics in the infobox. They are minor details. The problem I have with the article is that in the opening paragraph it says that Tokyo is nothing but the Tokyo Metropolis. That is incorrect. Tokyo as a city and as a concept is much broader than that.

Correct, there IS little difference between this one and my example, except that in mine these incorrect limitations have been removed. The opening paragraph is not trying to say that Tokyo is nothing but the Tokyo Metropolis, and its not trying to say they are the same thing. I dont want to rename the article, I just want to rewrite the opening paragraph to show that Tokyo is not just the Tokyo Metropolis. I'm saying that if there is to be an article about the Tokyo Metropolis and its government, it should be separate from this more general article. And yes, I most certainly do think of Tokyo as a city in terms of the primary use of the word city. Primary use as per any English dictionary you may care to name. Fact - Tokyo is a big city. That is correct usage of the word city, which is as a large settlement of people and the buildings and spaces they use, NOT merely an administrative district, which is a secondary, more technical term which relates ONLY to local government administration. Exactly what YOU think Tokyo is, well I'm still trying to guess. When someone who lives inside the 23 wards travels overseas, and someone asks them 'Are you from Tokyo?' What do they say? What should they say? Mdw0 (talk) 08:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

What is your definition of "Tokyo city"? What I meant "I found little difference.." is " the difference can be found only in the lede. The body of the article is same. The body is all about Tokyo-to. No need for two articles." The lede of your version says "Tokyo...officially Tokyo Metropolis...is the largest city and capital of Japan," but ,as you know, Tokyo-to is not a city. It's one of 47 都道府県/prefectures. In Japan Tokyo means Tokyo-to/Tokyo Metropolis, in a meaning of prefecture, not Tokyo city. Travelers from the 23 wards would say "I'm from Tokyo" and travelers from other parts of Tokyo-to would also say "I'm from Tokyo." As I wrote before, the article should be the place to clarify the unique status of Tokyo. Seeing city, metropolis, and cities of Japan, using the word "a city" as settlement in this artivle makes readers confused. It's not reader friendly, especially to those who are not native en speakers. Because the definition of city varies and there are 26 cities proper in Tokyo-to. The current version is more understandable. Oda Mari (talk) 10:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

You see? They both say I'm from Tokyo. Not Tokyo-to or Tokyo Metropolis. This is the point I'm making with regards to the article - the concept of Tokyo is broader than the Metropolis. I know what you're saying with regards to the prefecture, but you're not understanding the use of the word city. Tokyo IS a city in the primary usage of the word city. You need to be more specific in your use of the word city, or use a different word because the only way saying 'Tokyo is not a city' can make any sense is if you use the definition of city as the 'adminsitrative district', which is a minor technical usage of the word city and is not universally used in English. In saying 'Tokyo is not a city' you're ALSO saying Tokyo isnt a large settlement of people, buildings etc, which is obviously wrong. Correct, the body of the article is the same in my example, because I really only have issue with the lead paragraph. Correct, explaining the technicality of Tokyo's administration should be explained, just not in the lead paragraph. The current version is not more understandable, the current version is whats causing the confusion because of the insistance there's no such thing as Tokyo beyond the definition of the administrative district. I agree its confusing when different definitions of the same word are used, which is why the PRIMARY English usage has to be considered foremost. You cant engage a minor use of a common word without explaination and then pretend the more common usage doesnt exist, because then you end up saying things like 'Tokyo is not a city' which dont make sense to the majority of readers. The readers are obviously going to use 'city as settlement' foremost because thats the most common usage. Its the use of 'city' to mean a technical administrative unit which is causing the confusion, and part of the reason why the article is ranked no better than C class. You're right about that lead sentence in my example, though. The section about Tokyo being officially Tokyo Metropolis should be removed. I'll have another shot at the edit of my example. Mdw0 (talk) 01:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not only Tokyoites that they don't say to/metoropolis but also people in other places don't say prefecture or city most of the time both in English and in Japanese. The only exception is Hokkaido. Nobody says Hokkai. They say "I'm from Hiroshima" or "I'm from Yokohama". Your point is not reasonable. Please listen to this. Tokyo is not mentioned as a city but a megalopolis. It is possible to clarify that Tokyo is a large settlement without using the word city of its primary usage. I understand that the primary usage of city is a simple word to describe it. But it is ambiguous as there are other usages. Why should the word is needed to be used in the article? It is sad that English doesn't have the word 都市. There is no sentence "Tokyo is not a city" in the current version and I don't intend to use it in the article from the beginning. I don't think the current lede is the best. I found a mirror site and I prefer the lede of this past version to the current version. What do you think? I've got two questions. What do you mean by "the concept of Tokyo is broader than the Metropolis"? How broader? Please specify the concept and provide sources. Tokyo and Tokyo Metropolis are equivalent in Japan. "The section about Tokyo being officially Tokyo Metropolis should be removed"? I don't understand the rationale. Please explain about it. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 06:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course, Tokyo city (the administrative unit) has neither a mayor nor a website because it doesn't exist anymore. Yet, there are hundreds of references to kyū-Tōkyō-shi ("the former city of Tokyo"), the Tōkyō nijūsanku ("Tokyo's 23 wards") or the Tōkyō-to kubu ("Tokyo Metropolis wards area") in government websites, documents and even national laws. It is obvious that the former administrative unit is usually meant when anyone refers to a city named Tokyo. (and after the war some including the the Socialist candidate in the first gubernatorial election in 1947, Tagawa Daikichirō, wanted to reinistute the City of Tokyo or review at least some of the changes introduced by Tōjō and the Naimu-shō in 1943 to have tighter control over the wards and Tokyo affairs. But since Tagawa lost to Yasui (and because the people could now, at least, elect the governor thanks to Emperor Douglas) the to-sei was left in place. Even the prefectural administration says "it has the character of a single city in the area encompassing the 23 special wards." to justify the (ot: very undemocratic – as even after the war Tokyoites were not allowed to elect their special ward/"city"/ku mayors for decades) special rights with regard to the wards' local affairs. --Asakura Akira (talk) 15:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I've solicited comments about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Have not read all the material above (apologies) and I realize that Japan is different. However, every large metropolis has the same problem and has usually solved it by splitting the articles as follows: "Tokyo" (legal geographic city limits, if defined), "Tokyo metropolis" which may include other named towns and cities nearby that can qualify, "Tokyo prefecture" which has legal geographic boundaries. Usually the main effort is on the legal city limits article. The others are a bit neglected, by comparison. The problem for city article editors is to reject material outside the "legal" geographic city limits, if any. For example, if the airport is in the metro but not within the city, that is where it goes. New editors try to put metro and prefecture text in the city article. Boundaries need to be clearly established and enforced. Veteran editors need to be clear-eyed about this Student7 (talk) 14:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The issue with Tokyo is that the former legal city and the former legal prefecture merged into a single legal entity called a "metropolitan prefecture" (with a governor, not a mayor). Mdw0 is arguing "Tokyo" (the article) should be about the loosely defined city, in the sense of a contiguous urban area. Since there is no legal city the boundaries are not clear - i.e. he's arguing that this article be about an ill-defined metropolitan area not necessarily corresponding to any legally defined entity (sort of the reverse of what you're saying is the standard approach). -- Rick Block (talk) 16:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

In which way is Tokyo a "loosely defined" city? Currently the English Wikipedia says that someone is from Tokyo if he is born in Ogasawara or Okutama. That sounds very strange to me. If someone is born outside the former city of Tokyo he is born in some other city, town or village; if he is born in one of the 23 wards he is from Tokyo. Very simple and clearly defined: those borders have not changed since 1932 (putting aside minimal border corrections with Kawasaki, somewhere with Saitama prefecture and land reclamation in the bay). The Tōjō cabinet's reforms may have eliminated the city council and self-administered government; but they certainly haven't eliminated the city as such or its cultural identity. My family lived in Tokyo before the war; and (despite the fact that many of them may have actually believed in Tojo's propaganda) they still called the place Tokyo after the war when they returned from the four bloody corners of the scorched continent − at least those who did return. The change in how the city is administered did not change their idea of Tokyo in any way. What other definition of a city (not agglomeration, urban area, etc.) of Tokyo is there?--Asakura Akira (talk) 18:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. I had no idea my ideas about Tokyo were so far wrong. Can there be a forked article about the "Tokyo (historic)?" Maybe an article transitioning between the formal Tokyo of today and the Edo of yesterday?

Another possibility is to have "neighborhoods" as they do in other place articles, with Tokyo (historic)" being a very significant part of modern "Tokyo". Note that this could answer the issue that Asakura Akira has raised. Okutama would be a "neighborhood" of "Tokyo", the modern city.

For Rick Block, my thought would be to move the "loosely defined" city into a separate metro article. The problem this causes is loose boundaries, a problem for future editors. In the US, this is "solved" by a census bureau defining exactly where today's metro is (could change tomorrow, but always has precise boundaries someplace defined). IMO the Tokyo article, this article, should be the officially defined governmental one as it exists today.

This is essentially a "disinterested" second opinion. Having been wrong once, I will withdraw from the discussion. Student7 (talk) 19:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The closest example in the United States to how Tokyo-to operates is New York City with it's five boroughs, but even that isn't very similar. People from Queens will usually tell someone they are from New York City, but that doesn't mean they aren't really from Queens. Tokyo-to is a prefecture containing 23 special wards which operate as separate cities, as well as the 26 cities in Western Tokyo and the various towns, villages, and islands. It is not a city, but an administrative area (Tokyo-to) of cities, towns, and villages. The current article is very clear on this, and explains that many Westerners call it a city even though it isn't a single city. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 23:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah.

Then after my morning shower in one "city", I shall walk out of my front door heading east for five minutes, then cross from one "city" to another "city" (a boundary so important that it's actually signposted, if you are very attentive indeed and know which humdrum plates to look for on the relevant telegraph poles). I shall take my commuter train from that second "city" across a third to a fourth. I'll then take the Yamanote line from the fourth "city" across a fifth and to the sixth "city", where I'll take the Sōbu line to my stop in a seventh "city". This extraordinarily complex "intercity" trip will take me a total of one hour, including the walk to the one station and the walk from the other. As an entirety, this agglomeration is not a city. I am not going from a dormitory burb to its office centre, because there is no "it". Just because the entirety looks like a city, feels like a city, and has smog like a city, and just because a bunch of mere specialists in urban design (together with nonspecialist riffraff like me) regard it as a city -- that all means squat. The government has decreed that Sadogashima is a "city" and Tokyo is "23 special wards which operate as separate cities", decrees that Wikipedia should not presume to question. -- Hoary (talk) 01:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is denying there is a major urban area on the eastern side of Honshu. The question is whether this article should be about that urban area (which is undeniably a "city" that many people call Tokyo) or the legally defined entity the Japanese government calls Tokyo. Per Student7's comments, the usual practice is for an article called "X" (where X is a city) to be about the legal entity. For the purposes of an encyclopedia, I think "legally defined" wins (hands down) and the question becomes does there need to be a separate article for the former (and still widely recognized) city of Tokyo? If so, how is this not Tokyo City (I realize the existing content of this article does not reflect what Mdw0 is talking about)? I think the reality is geography changes. Bombay is now (or is again, depending on how you look at it) Mumbai. Peking is now Beijing. Similarly, the city of Tokyo is now simply part of "Tokyo Metropolis", which is one of the 47 todofuken (subnational entities) of Japan. One way to look at it is the city's boundaries and the prefecture's boundaries are the same - i.e. Tokyo is effectively a city-state, like Hamburg, or Berlin, or Moscow. The difference is these are legally cities (e.g. governed by a mayor) that also have the legal status of subnational entities, rather than subnational entities (governed by a governor) that encompass an area that was formerly administered as a city. Again, I'm not a geography nut, but I'm not sure there's another example quite like this anywhere else in the world. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

So... Tokyo (now) is a prefecture-level city (metropolitan prefecture)... like several places in China, Taipei, several other cities around the world that are at the same time a city and a province... So, the article "Tokyo" should be an overview article on the city that evolved from Edo, and the prefecture around it. The article "Greater Tokyo Area"/"Greater Tokyo" should be about the conurbation and metropolis that evolved from that city. The article "Tokyo Prefecture/Prefecture of Tokyo" should cover the current prefecture-level city and the previous prefecture. The article Tokyo City/City of Tokyo should cover the origin in Edo through to the current urban area, as an overview of the Special Wards article. "Metropolitan Tokyo" and "Tokyo Metropolis"/"Metropolis of Tokyo" is a problem... as in English, they should be about "Greater Tokyo/Greater Tokyo Area"... 76.66.193.224 (talk) 07:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

That's right - with the Tokyo article being the main one, covering information in lesser detail from all the rest. 220.101.168.33 (talk) 06:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The current organization of articles is just fine. There is no need to rearrange them as they already explain the differences between them, and cover what they need to. For someone unfamiliar with Tokyo and all it's meanings, it can be confusing at first, especially since there is nothing which corresponds to it outside of Japan. However, once you read through the various articles, it's understandable enough. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 03:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Understandable enough for a C rating, maybe. Near enough is good enough? Anyway, my point is that Tokyo should contain broader iinformation than Tokyo Metropolis or Tokyo City and the lead paragraph shouldn't even mention the Metropolis, let alone limit the article to only that particular area. No-one should have to read through ten extraneous articles on secondary topics in order to understand this, the central article.Mdw0 (talk) 14:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

^ ^a ^b See capital of Japan for the debate on whether Tokyo is also the de jure capital.
^ "The Structure of the Tokyo Metropolitan Government". Retrieved 2007-10-13.
^ City Mayors: The largest cities and urban areas in the world
^ "esa.un.org/unup/".

[capital-1] See capital of Japan for the debate on whether Tokyo is also the de jure capital.

[2] "The Structure of the Tokyo Metropolitan Government". Retrieved 2007-10-13.

[3] City Mayors: The largest cities and urban areas in the world

[4] "esa.un.org/unup/".

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]