Talk:Tokyo/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Image

We should have an image of a famous part of Tokyo at the top of the page to keep consistency with the majority of the other major cities articles, rather than a map. A map would go better in geography. I suggest maybe this one: Image:Shinjuku-neon Tokyo.jpg.--Sefringle 22:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Infobox image

user:Sefringle has changed the infobox image to a Shinjuku night scene rather than a map showing Tokyo's location (consistent with the other todofuken articles). I'd be happy to change the infobox template to make this better supported, but is there general agreement that this is a desirable change? -- Rick Block (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add "# Support" or "# Oppose" in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Support votes

1. For consistency with the majority of other city articles.--Sefringle 22:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Support! I´m missing the Lead picture for a along time. Tokyo stands in the line with other global cities. The image is overdue. all the best Lear 21 01:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose votes

1. See below. Neier 00:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• I'd really prefer if we did this without voting (see Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion). Perhaps one thing to note is that this article is not about Tokyo the city, but Tokyo the "to" (metropolis) which is one of the 47 subnational administrative regions in Japan (see Prefectures of Japan). Since it's not actually a "city article", I don't think similarity with city articles is very important. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Similarity with other prefecture articles is more important in my opinion. The map is what is there, and it can be removed from the paragraph later on in the article. I reverted to the map, but, then noticed that it was "featured" here on the talk page and undid my reversion. Neier 00:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Similarity is important, and that is why I think we should include a picture first and foremost, and a map as well. The London article is about the metropolitan area, and that article includes both. Similarly, so do many other city articles, including Paris, Berlin, Dubai, Mexico City, São Paulo, Cairo, Cape Town, Nairobi, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, New York City, Toronto, Rio de Janeiro, Beijing, Shanghai, Seoul, Madrid, Barcelona and many others. Second, I would like to point out that there is an article called Greater Tokyo Area. This article should be about the city of tokyo, while the Greater Tokyo Area article is about the metropolis.--Sefringle 02:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Please read #Note: Tokyo-to is not a city and #City or not - clarification in intro? (above). Tokyo is actually not a city, and hasn't been since 1943. It's sort of like thinking an article about the US state of New York would be about the city. Tokyo, the current subnational administrative region, includes part of the Greater Tokyo Area (not all of it) but also includes lots of other stuff. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) Was going to say what Rick said. Shinjuku, Shibuya, etc are cities, but Tokyo is not. Neier 03:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Another photo has gone above the information box in Shibuya. As an editor who has uploaded a lot of photos (a thousand or two?) and placed scads of them in loads of articles, I favor illustrating articles, and this is a nice shot. But I think we ought to put the information box at the top, and for Tokyo put the map in the box. Tokyo is so varied that I don't think any single photo speaks for all of it. Moreover, this photo is more successful at larger sizes where the writing is visibly different from the Latin alphabet. It merits a place in the article, but I wouldn't put it in the box. Placement in the box isn't a matter of merit; it's a matter of function. Fg2 07:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll put the map back in the box for now until we finish the discussion and/or vote.--Sefringle 00:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

London Sister City Status

The London article lists Tokyo as a sister city with a link to the Greater London Authority website. At that site, it's described as a "Partnership Agreement". I'm not certain what that means, but the Tokyo Metropolitan Government website explicitly lists sister cities of Tokyo, and London is not on this list. Both sites are dated 2006, so who knows what the deal is, but it would be good if a third source could be cited to support one position or the other. -- Exitmoose 06:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This list does not indicate any such relationship. It was updated in 2006 on a date later than the "partnership agreement" article. Fg2 04:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

1. Mayor of London and Governor of Tokyo sign Partnership Agreement [1]

2.Tokyo and London conclude a Partnership Agreement on May 31, 2006 During an official trip to London, the Governor of Tokyo, Shintaro Ishihara and the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, signed a Partnership Agreement between the two cities. [2]

1and2,official web site

Not only Tokyo but also a page of London was deleted together. I expect a revision

Neither of these uses the term "sister city" or "twin city". It would be odd for the official website to explicitly use the term here, but not use it in a press release to announce a sister city relationship. In fact, the partnership relationship you cite appears to be specifically in relation to CO2. London should be removed. -- Exitmoose 23:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The IP user posted information on the IP talk page, and I put a reply there. However, because IP addresses change each time users log in, the user might not be able to see the reply. For that reason, I am copying my reply here.

Thank you for telling us about those web sites. They are authoritative and informative. Still, a partnership is different from a sister (or twin) relationship. If the partnership is important enough to include, you can write the information in some other part of the article, but because it is not about a sister (twin) relationship, it should not go in the "Sister relationships" section of the articles. If the partnership is about the economy, it can go in the Economy section; if the partnership is about the infrastructure or industry or education or tourism or another matter, it can go in the section on that topic. We are not opposed to the information, but we are opposed to calling it a sister-city relationship because it is a different kind of relationship.

Fg2 00:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I've moved London to the note following the list. I don't know what the point of a "partnership agreement" is, but it's clearly not the same as a sister relationship. I hope this is a compromise everyone can live with. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Ideally, the editor who added it (or anyone) would identify the section that's most relevant and move it there. Personally, I'm not inclined to pursue it any further. Thanks for clarifying in the article that it is not (as far as we know) a sister relationship. Fg2 03:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Protection

please protect this page from vandalism. I would, but I don't know how to revert things back to pre-vandalised yet :\ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.178.12 (talk • contribs)

Population

I really need a source on this 35 million number. It seems like a very liberal estimate which makes Tokyo the world's largest agglomeration. However, I can't even find numbers anywhere close to this even on the TMG website or on any other reputable source I have visted. I recently placed a tag on the article requesting a citation for this very specific and, dare say, boastful claim. I am in a bit of a friendly argument with my professor over this topic. Obviously professors avoid Wikipeda like the plague of death and it seems articles like this one are a good reason for such a case. I would be a very happy student if anyone has located some sort of scientific and reputable study utilizing highly acceptable methodology to show that Tokyo has 35 million inhabitants within it's agglomeration. In the meantime I will search for such a study. 204.56.177.248 01:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Krozar

The 35M is not the population of Tokyo, but, for the Greater Tokyo Area as linked in the article. Tokyo's population is roughly a third of that. Neier 01:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I added a link to the same United Nations report used for the numbers at List of metropolitan areas by population. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

There was an article in Forbes which used the 35 million figure, but it doesn't give details. [3]. --Itub 09:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Image in city template

I have created a sandbox of the image template that would include an image of Tokyo without changing the rest of the template. It can be viewed at Template:Tokyo-Infobox/Idea 1. Is it OK if I make this the official template?--Sefringle 05:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't look to me like the discussion above resulted in this as the consensus. I agree with user:Fg2 about the image size. At the infobox size it even looks a little out of focus. We can certainly discuss it again. Ages ago (e.g. this version), an image of Zōjōji with Tokyo Tower in the background was in this spot. I think at the time the general consensus was that there simply isn't any single image that can represent the entire prefecture. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Correction, please

Tokyo is not a prefecture.

都、道、府、and 県 are the largest administrative unit names. Think them as State. But why different names? Because the definitions are different. 都 is not a 県. 都 can be read as miyako, you know. And the noun miyako means a place where the Emperor lives. So 都 is the one and only administrative unit name. There are only 3 miyakos in Japanese History;Kyoto, Nara, and Tokyo.

Tokyo is divided in 3 areas. 都内/とない and 都下/とか and the islands. 都内 is 23区、都下 is the other area. Imagine there is a stone wall surrounding 23区. 23区 are the small cities within the castle wall. Hachioji, komae, and other cities and towns are the outside area but belonging to Tokyo-to. Though the name is same, 区 in Tokyo is different from other 区 in Yokohama, Osaka,Kyoto etc.　

I'm not sure my explanation is good enough. If you have any question, ask me. Anyway to is not ken/prefecture. --Oda Mari 06:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Umm, the article doesn't say that Tokyo is a prefecture anywhere. So what was your point? Jpatokal 09:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Oops — the infobox does, though. I don't see an easy way of fixing it though, because it's used for all the other 道県府 as well... Jpatokal 09:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Jpatokal, Tokyo is a prefecture, and IS NOT A CITY. Tokyo City does not exist. Tokyo University, Tokyo train station may exist, but CITY does not exist... Dark Angel-REX 23:17, 15 May 2007 (JPN)

There is one above the map. Another one under the population. In the second paragraph 3 or 4 prif.. And one in the Demographs.

In Japan there are one to(Tokyo-to), one dou(北海道/Hokkai-do), two fu(京都府/Kyoto-fu and 大阪府/Osaka-fu) and 43 /prefectures, not 47. neither 道nor 府 is prefecture.Have you ever heard ‘itto-itidou-nifu-yonjyusann-ken’? It is OK to translate 県 as Pref..But I don't think there's no equivalent English word for 都 and 道 and 府.--Oda Mari 15:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

...which is why I think it's acceptable to use "prefecture" for 都 and 道 and 府. Jpatokal 02:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. It is something しかたがない? But it's still strange to the Japanese. Please read my message on user Fg2's talkpage.--Oda Mari 06:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been thinking. My conclusion is it's not acceptable. To use prefecture for 都 and 道 and 府 seems to be only a convenient way for English writers. Because the Japanese people never regard Tokyo as a prefecture. Why don't you explain about the uniqueness of those 4 names? --Oda Mari 06:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The template title now says "Tokyo Metropolis" and I've dropped the "in Prefecture" for the population. Todofuken are explained at Prefectures of Japan. The wording of the first paragraph of the article now makes it sound like Tokyo is a city. I'll try a revision. -- Rick Block (talk) 13:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Rick. I agree that the best place to explain the different words to, do, fu, and ken is in the article on Prefectures of Japan. We should not repeat the explanation in any detail in the articles on the 47 todofuken. We have a link to that article, so readers can easily find the precise information they need. Fg2 21:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Fg2 on this: calling all the todofuken "prefectures" may not be precisely correct, but there's no convenient way around it in English. Just because the distinction is made in Japanese doesn't mean it must be made in English. In English we have separate words for "crocodile" and "alligator" but in Japanese they're all just ワニ. Sure, there's a way to distinguish them in Japanese, but for most purposes, it isn't worth it (and for that matter, most English speakers probably don't know the difference). Same thing here. Furthermore, we might solve this for Tokyo by referring to 東京都 as "the Metropolis of Tokyo," but that still leaves Kyoto-fu, Osaka-fu, and Hokkaido. Hokkaido is especially tricky since the "do" is part of the name--it is never referred to as "Hokkai Prefecture" (or whatever). adamrice 21:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest referring to Hokkaido as being "equivalent in all but name to a prefecture"; to Kyoto and Osaka as "prefecture cities" or similar and to Tokyo as "metropolis". As mentioned above, the distinction is impossible to render succinctly in English but the terms and distinctions can be explained within the articles (or, more conveniently, links established to Prefectures of Japan). Oda Mari's point about the Japanese understanding of the word is not only valid and correct, but essential to someone who is trying to understand precisely why they have different names at all. For this reason maintaining "prefecture" for all todofuken is inappropriate and misleading, but giving any explanation beyond a link to the detail on Prefectures of Japan is simply unwieldy and unworkable. 202.67.82.199 19:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a comment copy-and-pasted from my talk page, on the closely related topic of whether Iwo Jima is part of "Tokyo" or "Tokyo Prefecture" or "Tokyo Metropolis": This is only my personal opinion, but I really do think that Prefecture is best. 都 may translate as "metropolis", but "metropolis" also implies a concentrated urban area, and is not used in any other contexts (any other cities or states or countries) to refer to something equivalent to a state or a province. I appreciate the difficulty one may have in thinking that 県 means "prefecture" and that therefore 都,府, and 道 must translate to something else, but it is really quite normal in English to refer to all 47 as "prefectures". Even if it is not 100% accurate to the Japanese thoughts on the matter, I think that the use of the word "prefecture" in this case rather than "metropolis" would make the most sense to the average English-language reader who does not know the intricacies of the Japanese system. LordAmeth 19:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Mexico City as Sister City

I just added it! I relised it wans't there... I'm from there, so I know so 69.14.74.155 06:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• You need a source stating this. WhisperToMe 09:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Moreover, Tokyo's web site does not list Mexico City as a sister city. Possibly one of the municipalities within Tokyo has a sister-city relationship with Mexico City or a subdivision of it. If so, it's a good fact to list on the respective pages. Fg2 10:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)