From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Japan / Districts & municipalities / Prefectures (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 23:10, September 28, 2016 (JST, Heisei 28) (Refresh)
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by the Districts and municipalities task force.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by the Prefectures task force.
WikiProject Buddhism (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject East Asia (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of East Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Cities (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Museums and gardens[edit]

It seems very strange to me to group these two together. Also I think most people would think of the great gardens of Kyoto as being many located in temples or in particular those designated as "Special Places of Scenic Beauty" Whats up skip (talk) 23:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


  • Is the Byodoin really the oldest wooden building in the world? It dates from around 1052, and as far as I know, the Horyuji in Nara to the south is much older.

Also, Nanshu, calling Kyoto the "third target" is itself somewhat of an urban legend. I don't know where it developed (I myself first read it in a book on old Kyoto buildings by Keiko Aso), but the US only had two nuclear bombs in August 1945, and were months from having a third one. Kyoto's heritage certainly played a part in it not being one of the "finalists" for the actual nuclear bomb drops, even it it had been considered previously.

Recently I've been meeting people who have latched onto this "Kyoto was the third nuke target" with such fervor -- "See! Those Americans *are* evil after all! That supposed kindness in saving Kyoto was all a hoax!" I suspect the latest wave of anti-American hysteria is enough to distract people from evidence to the contrary. ----Heian-794 01:22, 7 Jan 2005

Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki does a pretty good job of explaining Kyoto's place on the list of cities to be atomic bombed. It's worth noting here that Nagasaki was the actual "third target," since Kokura was scheduled for destruction that day, but spared due to poor visibility when the second atomic bombing crew made their flight. --Carl 05:32, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Bombing of Kyoto[edit]

I removed the following sentence.

Because of the number of priceless cultural heritages in Kyoto, the city was not bombed during World War II.

This is nothing more than an urban legend.

  • Kyoto was bombed by the U.S. although not so thoroughly as Tokyo, Nagoya, Osaka and other cities.
  • The U.S. planned to nuke Kyoto.

In 1945 the U.S. bombed Nishijin (known for Nishijin brocade; near the Kyoto Imperial Palace) and Higashiyama-ku (near Gion). Of course, such bombings could not be without destruction of cultural heritages. But as a whole Kyoto was left almost untouched. Why? It is not because the U.S. wanted to preserve cultural heritages but because it planned to nuke Kyoto. To ascertain the effect of atomic bomb, target cities had not been destructed. It looks like only Stimson opposed an atomic bombing of Kyoto. He took care about postwar Japanese public opinion rather than cultural heritages, and Kyoto remained as third or later target. I don't know who started propagating this story, but obviously the U.S. has no incentive to revise this. --Nanshu 02:19, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think the removed sentence was actually correct. The US had Kyoto on their potential nuke list, along with the Imperial Palace, but they decided not to and favored Hiroshima and Kokura instead over Kyoto because of Kyoto's cultural heritage factor. I read this in a historical book some ten years ago, so I don't remember precisely. Nagasaki of course was also on the list, and it was chosen over Kokura because Kokura had poor visibility (cloudiness) on the day of the bombing, so the flight went to the nearest alternate city with better visibility. -- 01:50, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
From Richard Frank's Downfall:
[In May] From a number of candidates, the target committee distilled a list of four: the cities of Kyoto, Hiroshima, and Yokohama, and the Kokura arsenal. ... Kyoto's place at the head of the list stemmed from its large size (over one million population) and the fact that it had been thus far untouched due to its recognized cultural importance.
[In July] ... The conspicuous absence of Kyoto from the list was the result of direct intervention by Secretary of War Stimson, who deleted the city over vigorous and protracted efforts by Groves. Stimson had traveled to Japan and appreciated the cultural significance and spendor of the old capital and insisted that its artifacts, if not its one million inhabitants, be spared. Even so, the 509th continued to launch practice missions to the vicinity of Kyoto, which occasioned some erroneous postwar suggestions that it had remained a target.
—wwoods 19:37, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I think this topic, while controversial, should be included in Wikipedia even as a separate article to the main Kyoto article. This topic is mention in many other guide books and sites. It would be a shame for Wikipedia not to cover this in the public section. I have always been amazed that so many sites where not damaged given what happened to places like Tokyo. I will try to find out what the Japanese version says on this topic. Whats up skip 21:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm coming to this party very late, but I would like to stress just how few people in Roosevelt's administration EVER considered using the atomic bomb on Kyoto. The desire for Kyoto as a target was coming almost exclusively from the military, and one man in particular - General Groves. Groves' racism is well documented - however much a driving force he was to the Manhattan Project, by any analysis the man was a clod. Roosevelt (and I am no fan of this president) wisely used his own instincts (I wonder if Truman would have been so civilized?), and listened to the advice of Stimson and others who had lived or visited in Japan and knew how the Japanese would have been infuriated by the wholesale destruction of their cultural/religious center - it would have caused them to oppose surrender even more than they already did, and would have proved a very aggravating factor in the occupation of Japan. I feel the article should stress this point. HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)HammerFIlmFan


Currently the kanji + pronounciation for Kyoto has "shi" appended, which is a suffix meaning "city." In my (limited) experience, Kyoto is usually referred to in Japanese as Kyoto. Other entries, such as that for Tokyo, don't include the -shi. Should it be there in this one? --LostLeviathan 03:31, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

All Japanese cities in Wikipedia append the -shi, as that's part of the full formal name. Nik42 05:57, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
NB: Kyoto-shi is a correct formal name, however Tokyo-shi is archaic and no longer the formal name of Tokyo. See Tokyo City (shouldn't it be Tokyo city, or Tokyo-shi?)-- 02:01, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Tokyo-to ("to" as in "metropolis") is used instead of Tokyo-shi. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 11:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC).
No it doesn't, Tokyo-to refers to the prefecture Paullb (talk) 02:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I shouldn't have had to come to the talk page to figure out the difference between Kyoto and Kyoto-shi, though! Maybe say something like:
Kyoto (京都 Kyōto, pronounced [kʲoːꜜto]; UK /kɪˈoʊtoʊ/, US /kiˈoʊ-/, or /ˈkjoʊ-/; formally Kyōto-shi (京都市, Kyoto City), also formerly known in the West as Meaco)
Roybadami (talk) 08:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Moving material?[edit]

Some of the material in Kyoto Prefecture seems like it should be in Kyoto, particularly most, if not all, of the History section and the Tourism section, and perhaps the Culture section. Granted, this would leave Kyoto Prefecture somewhat of a stub. Nik42 06:13, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Since Kyoto links to Kyoto city, not prefecture, all that information should be in the city page. The prefecture page should contain only information about the prefecture as modern administrative unit. --Carl 12:22, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Requested move 2005[edit]

In Japanese?[edit]

I know that what the article currently gives is entirely correct, but I've seen the name represented as "京の都" (actually just in Samurai I : Musashi Miyamoto). What's with that? Should we mention it?

The same name appears in lots of jidaigeki. I suppose one could mention it somewhere. There's also of course just plain kyo. Fg2 10:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I added Kyo, Miyako and Kyo no Miyako.--Shinkansen Fan (talk) 05:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Area of Kyoto[edit]

Kyoto City Web site has both figures for the area of Kyoto: 610.22 and 827.90 km². Japanese Wikipedia ja:利用者:Sprinkler changed the Japanese Wikipedia from the smaller to the larger number on April 4, 2005. Does anyone know the reason for the discrepancy? Fg2 04:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The city's Japanese page has 827.90 km² only. Fg2 04:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The answer is: the merger of Keihoku Town on 1 April 2005. The area of the former town was 217.68 cm2. 08:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess the city only partially updated its English page. That solves the mystery. Fg2 08:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


I am a ten year European and Canadian resident of Kyoto. I've added a comment on the importance of the bicycle as a means of transportation here. Someone has removed this without reason. Please have a look around you the next time you are in Kyoto. There is a much higher density of bicycle usage than almost every other city in the world, with the exception of a few places in Europe, such as the Rand Staad and (maybe) Copenhagen. There is inadequate documentation of this fact and a comment in the Wikipedia seems like a good place to start.

If necessary I will add photos of bicycle usage in Kyoto. CIK—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

Is bicycle transportation in Kyoto out of line with that in other cities in Japan, or with Beijing, Ho Chi Minh, or other cities in Asia? Fg2 05:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not an expert on Asia, but it seems logical that if bycycle transportation is very common in Kyoto then it should be noted in the transportation section. Likewise, if bycycle transportation is very common in the other Asian cities you mention, then it should be noted in their respective transportation sections. Dionyseus 06:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The bicycle seems to be much more heavily used in Kyoto than other cities in Japan I am familiar with. In most Japanese cities and suburbs I've been in, the bicycle seems to be mainly a way to get to the train station. In Kyoto however, the bicycle is really a way of life. There are several factors including the scale of the city, its geography, relatively mild climate compared to some areas such as Hokkaido, Tohoku, or the Japan sea-coast, restrictions on the pace of urban development due to the large number of cultural heritage sites. I'm not familiar with the situation in Beijing and Ho Chi Minh, but I'd read that bicycle usage is declining in favor of scooters and cars, not least due to the pace of urban development in both of these cities. I'd go so far to say that Kyoto is one of the world's best cities for cycling. However this is so only in an informal sense: there are very few dedicated routes for cyclists, and the city administration has done little to encouraging cycling, for example, by providing free bicycle parking. Indeed they indirectly discourage bicycle usage by enforcing strict bicycle parking regulaations. However this does not stop a very large percentage of Kyoto residents from owning and regularly using bicycles. Might be interesting to look at this book: [1] CIK —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

Thanks for your research, Dionyseus 06:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I was the one removing the sentence. I think you might be new to Wikipedia and unfamiliar with some of the guidelines, I too live in Kyoto but Wikipedia is about stuff that is verifiable, not by one inhabitant of Kyoto might have perceived (see Wikipedia:Verifiability). I think the current revision is better than the previous one (stating that "Kyoto may be considered to be one of the world centers of bicycle culture" without even a source supporting it is far too bold a statement), but I still have my doubts about its inclusion. Also, you use a lot of time to write about your own personal experiences of European cities, but please note that one of Wikipedia's guidelines is Wikipedia:No original research ("There is inadequate documentation of this fact and a comment in the Wikipedia seems like a good place to start" signals you have a good motive but unfortunately that's not how Wikipedia works). As all of your arguments are simply your own experiences there's not really any need to discuss them, but I think you make weird suggestions for somebody living in Kyoto, and I'd like to address this. I would say Kyoto is one of the worst places for biking I've ever been to, and I know many Japanese people who share this view with me. It's almost impossible to go anywhere around shijou sanjou and gion, no bicycle roads, extremely narrow streets. The only positive aspect about biking in Kyoto would be the simplicity of the road map. Also, saying the climate is "relatively mild" seems absurd, since Kyoto is famous in Japan for being extremely hot during the summers and extremely cold during the winters, much like for example Gifu-shi, because of the surrounding mountains. Also, I too am a long time European resident and in my mind, there are many places (among them Copenhagen) where bikes are more common and important to everyday life than in Kyoto. Either way, I'm not going to revert your edit but I still think there needs to be a source. Try and buy that book off of amazon, it seems interesting. Mackan 17:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Mackan: I basically agree with you that the Wikipedia should be based on sources rather than personal experience or research. There seems to be a lack of scholarly work on cycling as a means of personal transport in Japan (there is definitely an interesting PhD topic in this for someone), but there are plenty of tourists reports and travel guides available in English which point out the large number of bicycles in Kyoto. The Lonely Planet Guide for example summarizes the situation pretty well when they state that cycling is a good way to visit the city, except for the one downside that the bicycle parking situation has some problems.
As for your other comments:
(1) When I say the winter is relatively mild, I mean that it is mild enough to cycle in the winter without too much discomfort. This is not true of some parts of Japan such as Tohoku, the Sea Coast, Hokkaido etc... Also I'd guess that it's less comfortable to cycle in Northern Europe in the winter, though people still do it.
(2) The cycling system here is different than in Europe: bike routes are on the pavement rather than the road, so that cycles have to negotiate with pedestrians rather than automobiles. I agree with you that this system has its disadvantages and it took me some time to get used to it. The flipside is that, at intersections, drivers treat cyclists in a similar fashion to pedestrians. Overall, I think the effect is that transport by bicycle is slower than in cities such as Copenhagen, but more relaxed. I'm not sure whether it is safer or more dangerous than in Amsterdam or Copenhagen and I really hope (or wish?) that someone is studying these sorts of issues professionally. CIK —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .
A small note, I think that the bike routes actually are on the road and not on the pavement(despite the fact that everybody uses the pavement). And btw, it'd be appreciated if you could sign your comments with four "tilde" (~~~~) after your comment so it's clear who wrote what. Thank you. Mackan 04:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
In fact most bike routes are on the pavement (what is called a "sidewalk" in North America). These are marked clearly to show the direction of traffic flow and to separate pedestrian zones from cycle zones. Most people ride on the pavement. It's legal and that in fact is the current convention. CIK (I'll sign myself as "cyclist in Kyoto" for purposes of this and related discussions).
Well, the exception to the rule is when there is a bicycle zone on the pavement. But when there isn't one, bikes are supposed to keep to the far end of the road. Mackan 07:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Would like to see a source for that, because I believe I've read otherwise somewhere. And, of course, as we know from our personal experience, most cyclists are on the pavement, whenever there is a fairly rideable one. CIK
[2] [3] Mackan 13:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that first link. As I understand it, from the Japanese Wikipedia article you linked, the law is that bicycles can share the pavement with pedestrians, with the fuzzy condition: as long as there is sufficient space, and the clearcut condition that they yeild priority to the pedestrians. The latter would also seem hard to enforce though presumably there are legal implications in the event of an accident. These rules are clear, however, that if there is a cycling zone marked on the pavement, the cyclist must use it exclusively. As you will know, this is often impossible due to various obstructions, including illegality parked bicycles, which in turn is due to the bad parking situation. So, yes, the situation is a bit out of control. Unfortunately I'm pretty sure things would get worse for the cyclists if they did try to control it. Mmm ... after all this discussion, we might want to think about making a short page on cycling in Kyoto. Would you like to have a start, since you seem to have more Wikipedia editing experience? CIK
If anything, an article on traffic/traffic laws in Japan (since these laws are the same in all of Japan) could be interesting enough to warrant an entry. Feel free to start a new article, and don't worry too much about making mistakes, people will point them out to you as you make them.Mackan 17:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes perhaps that would be a useful article. However I'm not the person to start it as I'm just interested in this as one aspect (agreed, important) of the cyclist's experience in Kyoto. Details of legal systems have never been one of my strong interests. Anyways thanks for the discussion on this, as I learned something and clarified my own understanding. That's all for now. CIK

ogg sound[edit]

I'm having trouble listening to the ogg files using vlc. I don't know whether this is a bug of VLC or the sound files. I can only hear part of the file. The first part is lost.

In Ja-Kyotoo.ogg, I can only hear "to", in Ja-Tokyo.ogg, I can only hear "okyo".

Can someone confirm that the soundfiles are ok? Should this be reported as a bug to VLC?

Kyoto works for me using Winamp. Fg2 21:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Japanese city article naming debate[edit]

Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles). --Polaron | Talk 08:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


I have changed the sentence claiming that the Japanese pronunciation has two syllables (kyo-to) to indicate that it in fact has three - きょ・う・と (kyo-u-to). But I don't understand IPA, so I need someone else to fix the IPA that comes after that sentence. Please. Thank you. LordAmeth 16:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi LordAmeth, actually, Kyoto consists of two syllables, one long and one short (きょう being the long one, naturally). The う is not pronounced as a separate vowel/syllable, only as an extension of the "o" in "kyo". Mackan 19:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, every mora in Japanese, that is, every kana, is pronounced as a separate syllable. LordAmeth 21:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Um... no..? I'm not trying to be rude, but that's not true. There are short and long vowels in Japanese. A quick search on google will give you many results indicating this, for example [4]. Mackan 21:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I, too, apologize if I come across as obnoxious, but as an MA student in Japanese Studies, in his fifth year of studying the language... I'm afraid that I'm right. They sometimes describe them as "long vowels" in early classes to help understand the concept, but they are still separate mora. That is, each kana is meant to take the same time, the same number of "beats", to pronounce. I guess it sort of depends on one's concept of the meaning of "syllable". LordAmeth 22:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be a small misunderstanding here. I know each mora is meant to take the same time, as I too am a long term student of the Japanese language. I've also studied linguistics at UCL. A mora is however not the same as a syllable. "いい", "ii", may have two kana/moras but is definately one syllable and would in IPA be denoted (approx, can't be bothered to find the proper code) /i:/. Am I making any sense to you?Mackan 08:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
From Mora (linguistics): "For example, haiku in modern Japanese do not follow the pattern 5 syllables/7 syllables/5 syllables, as commonly believed, but rather the pattern 5 moras/7 moras/5 moras". Mackan 08:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, that's fine. I've never studied linguistics, and if you say it's 2 syllables, that's fine with me. No need to quibble over something so minor. Just wanted to make sure that understanding about the moras was there. Sorry for causing trouble. LordAmeth 12:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
None caused at all.Mackan 12:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

KCJS and Stanford Japan Center: separate institutions?[edit]

In the spring semester of 2006, I participated in the study abroad program for the Kyoto Consortium for Japanese Studies, which at the time was called the Kyoto Center for Japanese Studies. It was housed within the Stanford Japan Center, next to the Kyoto City Zoo, and was administered by Stanford University.

Now, my impression was that from the 2007 academic year onward, the program came under the administration of Columbia University and moved to its present location at Kyodai Kaikan, but I hadn't heard anything about the Stanford Japan Center continuing on as a separate entity. If someone could clarify and/or confirm the current status of the SJC, I would be grateful. --Julian Grybowski 05:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I copied the words "KCJS and Stanford Japan Center" (without the quotation marks) into the Google search box and up came this link. Does the page answer your question? Fg2 06:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

External Links - Quality and Revision[edit]

Currently there are several external links that don't seem to offer much or only offer what is found in some of the other links. only has a few images with no or little descriptive information. I think this should be removed. has some very good information and the pictures are ok. I think this should be retained. has some really good pictures, but it poorly structured and has few if any descriptions. I think this should be removed as it is not a really great site. has a good range of locations, very good descriptions and good pictures. I think it should stay. should be removed as it does really seem to offer anything new. Good detailed maps are hard to come by, but this is better than any other online maps I have seen of Kyoto. I do wonder if the link should be directly to the site's Kyoto page as there is a fair amount of information and over 1,000 pictures of Kyoto. I haven't had time to review this site. Is the official site and should stay. This really isn't a great article as wikitravel goes. Much of it is covered in Wikipedia. I think we should review the continued existance of this link.

I notice the detail from the notes section has repeated again under the external links section.

Should the "external links" section be above the "further reading" and "notes" sections? It seems strange where it is.

Whats up skip 11:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Additional sites with little information or not really relevant have been added to this section again. Isn't suitable for a link on this page. This is of a general nature and not just about Kyoto. Broken link This is just a subsite of the official site and is therefore redundant. This is just a subsite of the official site and is therefore redundant.

Whats up skip (talk) 23:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Audio pronunciation file[edit]

The OGG audio file at the top of the page that is meant to show the pronunciation of Kyoto is clipped and unintelligible.

TNCMYRK 19:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)TNCMYRK

  • You are absolutely right - I went here (that is, the talk page) because I had the same problem. T-roland (talk) 00:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
    • It sounds OK to me. Try setting the volume on your on-screen player lower, and if you need a louder sound, set the analog audio volume higher. Maybe that'll work. Fg2 (talk) 01:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Except that it is a reading of kyōto-shi and the page makes no overt reference to shi, which would likely be confusing to the average English reader. Bendono (talk) 01:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Good point. Fg2 (talk) 01:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Sea of Japan Controversy[edit]

It's rather controversial in the map on the top right to call it the Sea of Japan as the Japanese and Koreans have been embroiled in debates about it for a long time now.

At the very least, a more non-partisan map should be chosen for integrity's sake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antiboy (talkcontribs) 06:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Iwatayama monkey park[edit]

Took out line regarding petting of the Monkeys. I Have visited this park in the last 3 months and it is forbidden to touch them. The only place you are able to feed them is through a steel caged building (already mentioned). On side note - the Monkeys also stole my water bottle and cigarettes from my bag - they are evil things! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


What food do people that live in Kyoto eat and is it good or bad? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Kyoto disambiguation is ok but...[edit]

maybe should be there one more link in the top of the article pointing to Kyoto Protocol. I think several people come here because of that (though i might be wrong).


This is a major city, and thus needs a montage, which many Japanese cities already have.--RM (Be my friend) 21:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC) contraversy[edit]

Hi! shouldn't the subjected info be mentioned, or at least cross-referenced in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Departmentstore and Shoppingmall[edit]

I will remove some less notable or unsourced events from the list and put them here. Feelfree to discuss. I have rough criteria in mind, but typing them would be too long. The years are missing from the copied elements.

  • Kyoto Daimaru Departmentstore (Karasuma)
  • Kyoto Takashimaya Departmentstore (Kawaramachi)
  • Kyoto Isetan Departmentstore (Kyoto Station}
  • Daimaru Departmentstore (Yamashina)
  • Takashimaya Departmentstore (Rakusai Newtown)
  • Kintetsu Departmentstore (Rokujizo)
  • Fujii Daimaru
  • Aeon Shoppingmall Kyoto Station
  • Aeon Shoppingmall Kyoto Hana
  • Aeon Shoppingmall Kyoto Family
  • Avanti Kyoto Station
  • Porta Underground Shoppingmall (Kyoto Station)
  • OIOI (Marui) Kyoto Kawaramachi
  • OPA Kyoto Kawaramachi

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 2[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 07:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Kyoto (city)Kyoto – Undo controversial page name move to Kyoto (city). There is no need to make "Kyoto" a dab page, since Kyoto and Kyoto Prefecture are two different pages. Also, now that the page has been moved, none of the backlinks work in the various templates where "Kyoto" is used. Funandtrvl (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment - did you try reverting this manually? or was it redirect locked? 09:42, 13 January 2013‎ Mayumashu moved page Talk:Kyoto to Talk:Kyoto (city): disambiguation required as 'Kyoto' commonly (citing WP:Commonname refers to both the city and prefecture) (undo) In ictu oculi (talk) 00:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Kyoto in English is commonly used to refer to the city not the prefecture. It is a very famous city internationally. JoshuSasori (talk) 01:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. If it were to be renamed, the naming conventions for Japanese cities would suggest it should be Kyoto, Kyoto. But I doubt there is a need to depart from Kyoto. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I did try to move it manually, but it needs an admin to do it. --Funandtrvl (talk) 01:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Snow support.. honestly these restore WP:RMs are a waste of time. A small strengthening in the wording to WP:RM would save the need See discussion. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Support The recent move to Kyoto (city) is a violation to WP:MOS-JA#Place names. Kyoto is a designated city, so no disambiguation is necessary. This RM should be speedy closed and the name should be moved back to the legitimate name. A user is trying to change the name of all the article linking to this article.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 02:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. The page has existed without a disambiguator for a long period of time, and has not needed disambiguation. However, given the large number of meanings, and the possibility that consensus could change in the future, I am concerned that the link is unstable. Having the links point to the "(city)" article will reduce the number of links to be fixed if the target of this link changes again in the future, so I intend to finish changing these. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support: Undo controversial and unilateral page move ASAP.—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support as per WP:MOS-JA#Place names, mentioned by Good Ol’factory and Funandtrvl. — Io Katai ᵀᵃˡᵏ 02:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
It seems like somebody decide to change all of the links pointing to this page, god knows why, I am reverting them per request from User:Ryulong. This is really bizzare given the discussion above moved it back to the current title... Snowolf How can I help? 07:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
You might consider discussing it with bd2412 first. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 07:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


"The history of Kyoto have allowed to retain a variety of vegetables."

what?? It is kinda weird how Tokyo and Kyoto were both capitals consisting of the Same exact letters (Kinda like on Naruto..Tobi/Obito - TobiTobi

The current article lists the population of Kyoto (city) as 74,927,181 per the 2011 census. Nearly 75 million? It is actually closer to 2,542,740, per the 2012 census. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I reverted a recent vandalism.[5] Thanks for the heads-up.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Non-NPOV in lead[edit]

To me it seems that the second half of the lead ("Kyoto is a beautiful city, from lakeside Biwako in the north-east, to the confluence at National Rt. 81. With temples, parks, bustling business districts, markets, from regal estates to the tightly-packed neighborhoods, Kyoto is one of the oldest and most famous of Asian metropolae.") is a little non-neutral (e.g. talking about Kyoto's beauty as a fact rather than being in the eye of the beholder). To me it reads like promotional material from someone trying to encourage people to visit. I'd fix it myself but I'm not knowledgeable enough to do it properly, so could someone else please do so? Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ (talk) 19:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


The romanization for the Kyoto's old name is a little off. 『みやこ』 should be romanized as Miyako, not Meaco. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Timeline of Kyoto[edit]

What is missing from the recently created city timeline article? Please add relevant content. Contributions welcome. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 16:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kyoto. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Sister city[edit]

ZH8000, I don't know what your obsession with the special bromance between Paris and Rome is, but it is irrelevant to other cities such as Tokyo and Kyoto. What I do know is that your edits are edit warring; once you are reverted once you can't keep hammering changes until you get your way. The sources make it clear that Kyoto and Paris are sister cities. Maybe not "super special exclusive twins since a long time ago", but they are sisters nonetheless. By way of analogy, my best friend has a twin sister and also has two other sisters. He might have a special relationship with his twin, but that does not reduce the "sister" status he shares with his other sisters. Surely you can see this analogy applies to sister cities also. So I invite you to put Paris back in the "sister city" list. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I have no "obsession" than the one to obey to the facts instead of unjustified interpretations. Your anolgy is useless and wrong. The official statements by the authorities of Paris (most current ones, see reference) and Rome are very clear and undisputable. Perhaps it is a lost-in-translation (every relation is called a sister city relation?)? Whatever, it does not change the facts that Paris and Rome do not have any other twin/sister cities relationships, until nowadays. Besides, all other city partners of Paris and Rome accept this fact – except for Tokyo and Kyoto? -- ZH8000 (talk) 10:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
You say only Tokyo and Kyoto were "unjustified interpretations"? Well, the only reason you can say other cities "accept the fact" is because you've been busy removing mention of Paris and/or Rome from the articles on Seoul, Jakarta and Beijing. Did the editors of those articles have translation problems too? What was "lost in translation" about the London entry? It just so happens that I had the two Japanese cities watchlisted and noticed what you are up to. I see that you attempted putting some sort of clarification in the Berlin article also, but FinnishDriver undid that edit. So don't try to make this a problem about the Japanese government misunderstanding when you have been clearing out the articles on all the major cities in the world. I've now noticed this a wide-spread problem you've cause, so will have to find the appropriate place to start a wide discussion. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC)