Talk:Tokyo/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Contents

Tonkin redirect to Tokyo

Is it correct to be redirecting Tonkin to Tokyo? While I believe that "Tonkin" is etymologically derived from the same Chinese source words (eastern capital), I can't say I've ever heard Tokyo called "Tonkin" (at least, not in English, and not in my dabbling in Japanese), while the name "Tonkin" is well known to Americans as a place in Vietnam. (See Gulf of Tonkin Resolution) --Brion VIBBER 02:08 Aug 8, 2002 (PDT)

In response to the stunning silence, I've removed the recently added "also known as Tonkin" from the article, and have redirected Tonkin to Hanoi. --Brion VIBBER 22:43 Aug 8, 2002 (PDT)
An article on Vietnamese Tonkin has been created. --Menchi 12:40 29 May 2003 (UTC)
After all the years, probably, nobody cares about this issue anymore... But I'll mention it anyway. The Japanese Wikipedia has a disambiguation page for 東京. Those kanji can be read Tokyo or Tonkin. One is the capital of Japan; the other is in Vietnam. Since the ambiguity exists in Japanese, it makes sense to have the alternate reading in the page. Here in English, because we name articles using the alphabet rather than kanji, there is no ambiguity, so it makes sense not to have Tonkin in the Tokyo article. Fg2 05:10, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)

If "Tokyo" means "Eastern Capital", where were the other three capitals? --Menchi 00:51 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Not necessary to complete the four directions. Tokyo is the eastern capital compared to the traditional capital Kyoto. After moving the capital to Tokyo, Kyoto was temporarily called Saikyo (西京 Western Capital).--Nanshu 01:54 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)
See Beijing, Nanjing :) Sekicho 22:43, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

Can't we have a more interesting-to-read introductory paragraph? As it stands right now, the first sentence does not even mention that Tokyo is capital and largest city of Japan as well as being at the center of one of the largest metropolitan areas in the world. I think that would be more interesting to know than the fact that Tokyo is 2186.9km² in area. Is something like the following acceptable? --seav 00:29, Nov 3, 2003 (UTC)

Tokyo (東京, literally: "eastern capital") is the capital and largest city of Japan. A little more than 12 million people live in the city while hundreds of thousands of others commute everyday from surrounding areas to work and do business in the city. Tokyo is the business center of the country as well as being the home of the Japanese emperor and the seat of the national government.
The city is well known for its highly modern skyscrapers, thousands of flashing neon signs, a bustling network of roads always filled with traffic, and a very extensive underground railway system. [expand some more]
Tokyo occupies the Tokyo prefecture (東京都; Tokyo-to, Tokyo prefecture), which is located in the Kanto region on Honshu island. The prefecture is sometimes referred to as the Tokyo Metropolitan Prefecture or Tokyo Metropolitan Area. This stems from the fact that the character used for prefecture for Tokyo differs from the character used for other prefectures.
Tokyo is often considered part of the Greater Tokyo Area, which consists of Tokyo prefecture itself and the surrounding prefectures of Kanagawa, Saitama and Chiba. The Greater Tokyo area is the largest metropolitan area in the world having a population of 33,418,366.

I like this. I just applied this to the article. The intro seems too long and too detailed--like mentions about fu, shi and should be made compact later. -- Taku 06:27, Nov 3, 2003 (UTC)

Tokyo isn't a prefecture or a city: it's a hybrid of the two. If you go to the Tocho's website, you'll notice that Tokyo is always referred to as "metropolis" and "metropolitan," never "city" or "prefecture."

AFAIK, it's also incorrect to call the islands "sub-prefectures," as they have no real political status and their "sub-prefectural" offices are merely representatives of the Metropolitan Government. The actual administration goes from the Tocho to the village governments. Anyway, since Tokyo isn't a prefecture to begin with, the term is misleading in itself.

I was wondering about these island "sub-prefectures" too. The Tokyo metro website refers to these as villages or towns--I can't find any mention there of "sub-prefecture." Is there any official or semi-official origin for this usage?

I tried to explain this in a previous edit, but it was reverted out: if I'm wrong, somebody please point out my error. It might be a pedantic distinction, but it's almost as erroneous as calling the District of Columbia a state of the United States. I could possibly understand calling Hokkaido a prefecture, since it basically is one... but Tokyo is a special administrative case and political scientists like me are probably interested in knowing about it. Sekicho 22:43, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

Technically I have reverted more of what you have reverted. It seems Takanoha edited the article so that it reads Tokyo is a prefecture and you modify it. I have just reverted everything you and he has done to the version as of feb 20 because it seems many things are deleted.
Tokyo is technically still prefecture since Japanese word to is translated into prefecture and the governor of Tokyo is just like those in other prefectures.
-- Taku 22:58, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
I don't know about that last point. As I said before, if you go to the Tocho's website, they never refer to Tokyo as a prefecture. In fact, I have yet to see the Japanese government refer to Tokyo as a "prefecture" in English periodicals. So "technically," Tokyo is not a prefecture, in language or in structure, even though it might look like a prefecture to the average person, and have a "governor" like a prefecture's. I would support using official terminology in this article.
Sorry for belaboring this point so much, but facts are facts... Sekicho 23:28, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
Umm, actually I disagree. To my knowldge, legally and administratively Tokyo is treated as a prefecture, thus I don't see what's wrong to regard it as prefecture as Osaka or Kyoto is a prefecture even though they are not ken but fu. -- Taku 23:39, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
Fu are, to the best of my knowledge not different at all from other prefectures... and the Japanese government calls them "prefectures" in English. The to is structurally different from other prefectures, and is not called a "prefecture" in English. Sekicho 23:55, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
What makes Tokyo structurally different from the rest of prefectures? Also, if Tokyo is not a prefecture, it would not belong to Prefectures of Japan article. Tokyo is given an ISO_3166-2:JP number. Isn't it because Tokyo is just one of prefectures? -- Taku 05:18, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)
Japan has four kinds of administrative districts: to/do/fu/ken. These are equal but not identical. Tokyo-to, for example, handles some municipal services (fire department, public works) like a city; the ken do not do this. English usage for the fu is ambiguous. Kyoto calls itself a prefecture; Osaka calls itself a city. Go figure. I agree with Sekicho that Tokyo is a special case. adamrice
Don't confuse Osaka Prefecture and Osaka City. They are different. - TAKASUGI Shinji 07:43, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)

Also, just for the record, I would advise anyone adding or moving photos on this page to test the layout at 1024x768 before saving. At that resolution, many editions of this article have had very bad overlaps.

The first Landsat photo may not belong, as it actually mostly depicts Urayasu, Chiba-ken and only a small portion of Tokyo itself. Also, does anyone have any idea what portion of Tokyo the second Landsat pic depicts? Sekicho 22:56, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

Tokyo Disney Land is not located at Tokyo prefecture, but I think it is no problem to discuss it in the context of Tokyo. Again informally that Disney land is in Tokyo. So is Landsat, I think.
But I think the photo is rather ugly and is it really relevant? I will support your removal of the landsat photo. -- Taku 23:01, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

Where should I place the 1st photo? Should I place it in the Chiba Prefecture article? And as for the 2nd Landsat, I will put it back in the place of the 1st. WhisperToMe 23:53, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Actually, if we could get a thumbnail of the whole picture (i.e. what you get when you click on the current picture), that depicts the entire center city of Tokyo. A much more useful picture for the article, IMO. Sekicho 23:55, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

I just made a thumbnail of the 2nd pic, and the 1st pic was moved to the Chiba Prefecture article. WhisperToMe 00:31, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Cool, but do you think you could get a thumbnail of the center frame instead of the top frame (on the original NASDA site)? That frame covers central Tokyo and has more landmarks in it... in this picture, I can't really see anything too interesting. Sekicho 03:49, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)
I replaced the old image. WhisperToMe 04:56, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Prefectuer or City

We need a disambiguation on this page, because even those who are familiar to japanese topics get confused. That Tokyo-to had double aspects as a prefecture and a city is the past thnig. If you do not believe this, please think about a concrete example how Tokyo differs from other prefectures aside from its name and subtle points in taxation policy. -- Takanoha 14:17, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I reverted your edit, Takanoha, because it was factually incorrect. First of all, you put Tokyo's metropolitan status in the past tense. This is wrong. Tokyo still has a metropolitan government. You went on to talk about a "Tokyo prefecture" and "Tokyo City," entities that do not exist. I don't care if you want to make things more understandable, but talking about a "prefecture" and "city" that don't exist is counter to our mission, which is expressing the facts. The difference may not mean much to an average person, but it is a difference and we have to note that. Sekicho 14:30, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)

Because the current article (and some author?) makes confusion between Prefecture and City, we have to say that Tokyo City does not exist. Tokyo-to government no longer has a city aspect. If you do not aware of this yet, in Japanese, an entity (eg. Tokyo-to) often changes its characteristics while retaining its name and most of its substracture. The same name does not mean the same thing. By the way, I never deprived the metropolitan status from Tokyo. -- Takanoha 15:34, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Unless I'm misunderstanding something, the current article says all this. Please read the "administration" section again. It says that Tokyo-to administers the 23 special wards as though it were a city government, and that it administers the other cities as though it were a prefectural government.
By the way, Tokyo is not a "prefecture." Even though it acts like a prefecture, it is not called a prefecture. The following Google survey proves this:
"Tokyo Metropolitan Prefecture" = 70 hits
"Tokyo Prefecture"              = 3,000 hits
"Tokyo Metropolis"              = 4,000 hits
"Tokyo Metropolitan Government" = 23,000 hits

"Tokyo Prefectural"             = 300 hits
"Tokyo Metropolitan"            = 129,000 hits
There is a reason that Tokyo's website is www.metro.tokyo.jp and not www.pref.tokyo.jp. -- Sekicho 23:21, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)

Consult [1] for further study. -- 202.233.20.11 15:54, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Is it really that Tokyo is not prefecture? Right, it is neither ken, fu, or do. But I think in terms of laws, Tokyo is treated just like other prefectures. Tokyo, as an administrative unit, is among 47 prefectures and we claim it is not a prefecture? I oppose to call Tokyo Tokyo Prefecture because it is just not common. But for the sake of readers, we should be clear about this or clearly state we are not clear about this. -- Taku 06:11, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)

The fact is that Tokyo-to does not administer the 23 special wards as though it were a city government, as the current article reads. The to system was supplanted by the to-do-fu-ken system by the 1947 act. The function of the to as a city has been then gradually diminished. Admittedly, the to still offers some very limitted services as a city, it does not justify saying the to as a hybrid prefecture and city, as it were decades ago. -- Takanoha 10:46, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Tokyo is a "city" consisting of the 23 special wards, each of which is like a city. This is clear for the Japanese. If you say you want to go to Tokyo to be successful, you surely mean Tokyo "City", not Hachioji or Ogasawara Islands or whatever place in Tokyo-to. Whether Tokyo-to calls itself a metropolis or a prefecture doesn't matter, because Tokyo-to is parallel to other prefectures such as Kanagawa-ken. Each Japanese citizen belongs to two levels of local government, one with a mayor and one with a governor. In Tokyo "City", a citizen votes for the Tokyo governor and the ward mayor. In other areas, a citizen votes for the prefecture governor and the city/town/village mayor.
Most of the content of this article should be moved to the 23 special wards, because Tokyo usually doesn't mean Tokyo-to. Edo strictly means the former Tokyo "City". - TAKASUGI Shinji 07:43, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)
The idea that Tokyo is not a city takes some getting used to. But a city should have a (single) mayor and city council, not 23 of them. Tokyo does not meet that criterion. I agree that some things sound really weird. Like "capital special ward." But weird or not, it's fact: the government abolished the city of Tokyo more than sixty years ago. Now, about the article title. The article should describe Tokyo-to. In an ideal world, the title would also be "Tokyo to" or "Tokyo Metropolitan Government" or whatever name the Big To has taken for itself in English. But that would make it hard to find and cumbersome to link to, and I consider "Tokyo" to be the right title... given that it's not an ideal world. Fg2 10:36, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Okay. I know there is no Tokyo city. The problem is that what Japanese call Tōkyō is usually the 23 special wards, not Tokyo Prefecture, even though the former has no single administration. - TAKASUGI Shinji 14:59, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)
There's a lot to agree with in what you say. But it's kind of hard to figure out just where "Tokyo" ends in the Japanese mind. Does it include all of Nerima-ku? Suginami-ku? Are the limits the same for a person who lives there and for a person who lives in Osaka or Kanazawa or Akita? To some people, "Tokyo" is Chuo-ku, Minato-ku, Chiyoda-ku, Bunkyo-ku, Shibuya-ku, Shinjuku-ku and Shitamachi. And some would add Nakano-ku. Others think of all 23 special wards as "Tokyo." So I think the problem is that there are many things that can be called "Tokyo" and we just have to settle on one for this article. Governmental boundaries are very convenient, and they're what encyclopedias often use. So this article is about Tokyo-to. Still I definitely agree that the article is heavily slanted toward the 23 special wards, and a lot of content could be moved to that article. The article on Tokyo-to should have more balance between 23 wards and the Tama and island areas. Also, we might consider changing the title from "23 special wards" to "23 special wards of Tokyo" or something like that to emphasize Tokyo. Fg2 07:32, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Capital

Interestingly, Tokyo is not a capital of Japan legally. Since the capital has not moved from Kyoto to Tokyo officially, few people argue that Kyoto is officail capital while Tokyo is a practically capital.

I know this sounds very odd. But I think I have heard this and in fact there are some people say Tokyo is not a capital of Japan legally. The accuracy is what we cannot ignore. The Japanese edition of Japan article says the same. We probably should clarify this in the history section, what actually happened when Edo became Tokyo. -- Taku 07:55, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)

The Japanese Wikipedia article on "Tokyo" says: 第二次大戦後は、日本国憲法によって主権が天皇ではなく国民に存すると宣言されたため、国権の最高機関である国会の所在地をもって東京を首都とみなすのが妥当であろうという考えが一般化するようになった。
Basically, although the "capital confusion" was true before the war, the recognition of the Diet as the seat of the government, rather than the Emperor, makes the Emperor's status not affect which city gets to be capital.
I think what you mean to say, Taku, is that the capital was never explicitly moved. This is true. There was never a law stating that "the capital of Japan is Tokyo." However, there ARE laws that call the greater Tokyo area 首都圏 (for example), so Japanese law DOES recognize Tokyo as the capital of Japan. It's just implicit, not explicit.
I think I have already stated the history in the history section. Please feel free to add whatever I have left out. Sekicho 08:14, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)
Isn't the emperor living in Tokyo nowadays? WhisperToMe 08:58, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Dang it, right when I thought I was going to go to sleep on time, I ran head-on into an intellectual debate! Oh well. I have created a new article, Capital of Japan debate, where we can collate more information on this question. (It gets more and more bizarre the more I read about it.)

By the way, WhisperToMe, the emperor does live in Tokyo most of the time, but the Imperial Palace in Kyoto is still there, and it's still owned by the imperial family. So technically speaking, the Emperor can be said to live in both Tokyo and Kyoto. Sekicho 10:56, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)

Okay, someone reverted my edit when I placed in some alternate spellings of Tokyo at the very top of the article.

They should be in someplace in the top, but how should I deal with this? WhisperToMe 03:14, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I reverted it because it seems rather irelevant. I know there exists some alternate spellings for Tokyo. But are they really such common--common enough to be mentioned? I am pretty sure there are dozens of Japanese slangs for Tokyo but they are not mentioned to note. The article doesn't have to include every tiny info. -- Taku 03:19, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)
It doesn't have to, but look at Kabul - I still think it should somewhere, since it technically *does* have alternate spellings. No, they aren't used too much in the US, but they are used in Japan. WhisperToMe 04:02, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

So you mean we have a responsbility to provide alternative spellings. I added a sentence at the end of the opening section. What do you think? I think a spelling other than Tokyo freaks out even Japanese readers as well as English speakers. -- Taku 04:07, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)

What you did is good. :) Thank you. I did unbold the stuff in the para that is not a "name", though it is still italicized. WhisperToMe 04:09, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and as I added stuff to the Japanese articles manual relation to romanization, I have a proposed new opening...

Tokyo (Japanese: 東京; lit. eastern capital, Hepburn: Tōkyō or Toukyou, Nippon-shiki/Kunrei: Tôkyô, JSL: Tookyoo),

See: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_for_Japan-related_articles

WhisperToMe 02:11, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

All I want to know is, why? The goofy romanizations don't need to be the first words in the article. Put them elsewhere if you think they're important: I don't think they're important at all. -- Sekicho 02:58, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)

Saitama link

The link to Saitama in the sentence "Tokyo is also part of the Greater Tokyo Area, which consists of Tokyo itself and the surrounding prefectures of Kanagawa, Saitama and Chiba." leads to the city but should lead to the prefecture. I don't know how to change links... May 9, 2004

Suburban companies

Companies based in the Tokyo suburbs should be noted as well as companies in the city limits; suburbs are often associated with the main city. For instance, look at the companies list of Dallas and Chicago. WhisperToMe 03:41, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Chiba is not a "suburb", it's a different city in a different prefecture (with its own city center, transportation system, suburbs; Kikkoman's Noda is if anything a suburb of Chiba, not Tokyo). It also lies outside the Tokyo metropolitan area (東京都), which is a very strictly defined legal term. Are companies headquartered in Newark, New Jersey listed under New York, New York? Jpatokal 05:58, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
1. Companies listed in Newark aren't in the "New York City" list because I don't know of any in Newark. If I did, they will be listed in New York. Technically, the prefecture is (partly) a suburb because people live in Chiba pref. and commute to Tokyo. Also, the Greater Tokyo Area includes the Chiba prefecture - AFAIK, prefectures are included on a whole prefecture basis, which means the cities go in too. 2. As for Chiba, it appears (I don't know for sure; I haven't seen demographics in Noda) to be in the same boat as Sugar Land in Texas. Sugar Land has many local jobs, esp. with Imperial Sugar. But is also acts as a Houston suburb; people live in Sugar Land and commute to Houston, and Sugar Land is part of the Houston MSA. WhisperToMe 06:17, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Let's get some terminology straight. Tokyo Metropolitan Area is 東京都 (Tokyo-to), ie. Tokyo Prefecture only. Comparison: New York, New York, consisting of the Five Boroughs but not (say) Westchester or Newark. You need to say Greater Tokyo Area if you want to refer to 東京圏 (Tokyo-ken), which includes the Chiba, Saitama and Kanagawa prefectures. Comparison: Tri-State Region (NY, NJ, PA), which also has an excellent little map illustrating the difference.
So a chemical factory in Elizabeth, New Jersey is not in New York, New York... and Kikkoman's soy factory in Noda, Chiba is not in Tokyo, Tokyo. Jpatokal 06:25, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I understand that (confusion was caused by differences between U.S. and Japanese usage of "metropolitan area" - I still think that Kikkoman should be mentioned by name in the Tokyo article. WhisperToMe 06:38, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
While it's tempting to lump Chiba in with Tokyo, it's not The Right Thing To Do. People from Chiba do not say they're from Tokyo, just as people from New Jersey do not say they're from New York, just as people from Fort Worth do not say they're from Dallas. When Nissan recently announced plans to move its HQ from Tokyo to Kanagawa, there was lots of hubbub because a large company was "leaving Tokyo," even though it was staying inside the metro area. So there is quite a contrast between Tokyo and greater Tokyo, just as there is between other distinct cities/counties/prefectures in other metropolitan areas. Sekicho 21:03, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
I see there. While a person from Seagoville, Texas may say he is from Dallas, a person from Fort Worth may not. The Fort Worth scenario must apply to Tokyo. WhisperToMe 21:36, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
While I am not sure about American examples, I support to mention companies that are located in Chiba but are generally considered in Tokyo. Many people from Chiba or Saitama say they are from Tokyo. There are many companies, shops and places that contain a name Tokyo but are not located in Tokyo-to like Narita Airport, whose official name is New Tokyo International Airport. -- Taku 02:03, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)
It's official name WAS New Tokyo International Airport - It changed to Narita International Airport on April 1, 2004. However, Tokyo Disneyland still supports your example. WhisperToMe 03:49, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Is that right? It makes everyone happy. Anyway, I also want to point out that the article is named Tokyo not Tokyo prefecture or any other. I think Tokyo is more of conceptual. This article is not limited to the administration of Tokyo, that is, Tokyo-to (Tokyo Metropolitan Government, I presume). Hence, we don't need to limit the scope of Tokyo here rigidly. -- Taku 00:11, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)
Would Kikkoman count as one? ([2] This text states that Kikkoman is in Tokyo when it is in Noda, Chiba) WhisperToMe 18:59, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Just for the record, I live in Saitama and I have never, ever heard anyone from here refer to themselves as coming from Tokyo. Exploding Boy 18:47, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

Do you mean people in Saitama (at least where you are in Saitama) never refer to themselves as being from Tokyo even while going abroad e.g. while in another country? WhisperToMe 18:59, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Many of them will say "Saitama, near Tokyo," or something similar, but usually not just "I'm from Tokyo," no. And when talking to other Japanese people they'd never say "I'm from Tokyo." Exploding Boy 19:05, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)


Tokyo Tower image

I think the Tokyo Tower image should be above the prefectural table. Any other opinions on this? WhisperToMe 16:50, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It is standard for info boxes to be in the top-right hand corner of the page. Almost all pages use this layout, including all the city articles. ed g2s • talk 19:14, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I think Tokyo should be an exception, esp. since it's often treated as a city when it is technically not a city. In city articles, the picture of the city's most recognizeable landmark comes first before any infoboxes. WhisperToMe 20:02, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
A) A quick survey shows that picture/infobox rules are not consistently observed for cities or other administrative units; B) It's highly debatable what the most recognizable landmark in any city is (which is a good enough reason to prefer giving the infobox top billing)--in the case of Tokyo, the Imperial Palace, the Tocho, or Shibuya crossing would all be logical contenders; C) Tokyo Tower is an ugly-ass building that doesn't deserve that kind of prominence. adamrice 20:56, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Should the landmark pic become a part of the infobox? WhisperToMe 23:08, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Looking at several other city articles that include infoboxes, I haven't seen any other examples of landmark pictures in the infobox, and in most cases, the infobox comes before any photos. adamrice 23:48, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Which specific examples do this? WhisperToMe 23:54, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Well, I found Beijing and Ho Chi Minh City, but in terms of major ones like New York City, the infobox comes second. WhisperToMe 05:25, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The current image is small and blurry, a replacement would be ideal. Commander 21:29, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

I reverted the image so that the earlier, larger image is seen when one zooms in. WhisperToMe 00:10, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The standard format for prefecture articles is that there is no photograph at the top. So I moved the Tokyo Tower image down. Tokyo does not have to be an exception. It is more like a prefecture than a city. Photojpn.org 03:55, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image Captions Revamp

I've revamped the captions for the images on this page following the guidelines of the Caption Writing WikiProject. I used to live in Tōkyō (2001–2002), but of course suggestions and corrections to the new captions are welcome. --Che Fox 06:49, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I like your caption much better than mine, but I did turn it around so that the order of the words matches the order of the buildings. Incidentally, the convention we're following for names like Tokyo, which are common in English, is not to use macrons. We put the macrons in once, following the kanji, in parentheses, but follow ordinary English conventions in the article. Names like Zōjōji are not as widely known in English, and we indicate pronunciation using the macrons. Thanks again, though, for improving on my caption! Fg2 07:32, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
Huh, that's an interesting standard for long vowels (common names get no macrons, uncommon names get macrons). I'll follow it from now on, thanks for the heads-up. Glad to be of help with the image captions! -- Che Fox 15:32, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I agree, it's "interesting." I wish I knew what to do. The discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style for Japan-related articles continues (on the Talk page). Fg2 20:35, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

Population figures

User:Leonhart has been running around editing every reference to Tokyo as the world's largest, claiming the top spot for Seoul. I won't debate Seoul's size, but the Japan Statistics Bureau's own figures are that Tokyo, Kanagawa, Chiba and Saitama combined had 33,190,000 people in 2000, some 6 million higher than even the most optimistic Seoul figures. Jpatokal 16:29, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And by "Seoul", you also mean the suburbs of Seoul + Seoul itself, right? WhisperToMe 16:32, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Tokyo related categories

There are two Tokyo categories, Category:Tokyo and Category:Tokyo Prefecture (sic). I'm inclined to list Category:Tokyo Prefecture on WP:CFD but thought I'd raise the idea here first. Since Tokyo is NOT a prefecture, I think the prefecture category is at best misnamed (could perhaps be Category:Tokyo Metropolis), but I'm not sure the prefecture (metropolis) category has any purpose at all. I think the relevant categorizations should be:

Please indicate agreement or alternate suggestions. -- Rick Block 03:14, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Municipality figure

The article lists the number of municipalities in Tokyo as 39. Yet, according to Municipality of Japan, the special wards are counted as municipalities. Thus, there should be 62 (23 ku + 26 cities + 5 towns + 8 villages) Nik42 02:31, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Firebombing

I feel the section mentioning the bombing of Tokyo is somewhat evasive on the issue of the "firebombing" (c.f. Bombing of Tokyo in World War II). I feel that a mention and link to this important aspect of the bombing campaign should be added.--Malcohol 13:29, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

size

Does size matter? Looks/feels like the Tokyo wiki page simply has too much information. Many sections could be removed and replaced with a link to a new wiki. Particularly the tourism and culture sections. Shopping? Is that really necessary here? Also, it seems that many of the photos are redundant or simply not necessary. Tokyo station from the outside AND the inside? The TSE building? Is it remarkable for its architecture? Sanja Matsuri AND rickshaws in front of Sensoji? Two photos of Tokyo Tower?

Surely, I acted in haste. But I DID remove the entire tourism and culture section from this Tokyo wiki and put it in the Tourism in Tokyo wiki. Thoughts? Comments? Reversions?

Hey, those are my photos!  ;-> I agree, though, that we have too many, e.g. two photos of Tokyo Tower beyond Zojoji. The stock exchange is not remarkable for its architecture but rather for what goes on inside it. It has more place in the main article on Tokyo than in the tourism article, but doesn't necessarily have to be in either. Ditto the Supreme Court and Diet. The International Forum is noteworthy architecture, not noteworthy for what takes place in there (does anything take place in there?). The section on sports could probably go with tourism etc. But find a way to keep the sumo photo in Tokyo (oh, no! it's not mine!). Take out one or two cityscapes from Tokyo. The stone foundation of castle tower photo should go. Nijubashi is more famous, and one is enough.
We should probably split out Transportation into an article on Transportation in Greater Tokyo, and mention only the Yamanote line, the Shuto Expressways (not by name), and Haneda in the Tokyo article. Photos go with the text to Transportation article (hey, wait! they're my photos too!) Merge section from Greater Tokyo Area into new article. Fg2 04:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I made the transportation changes. Please, please feel free to revert if you don't like it! Fg2 07:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Media

The section on movies and anime that take place in tokyo is invariably going to be incomplete. Nor would making it complete add much to the article --- I'm sure that the total number is strictly in the hundreds, if not the thousands or tens of thousands. (Imagine adding a similar list to the New York article. The London article. incidentally, has handled it rather well.) We should either cut it down in some way (to "very well known" media, for instance, although that's sure to spark much useless debate), or give it its own article. Thoughts?

I'm all for a separate article and in the main article on Tokyo, mentioning the absolute top of the mountain. I think I did that for businesses. Fg2 06:49, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

"Tokyo Metropolis"

I took the liberty of changing the title "Tokyo Metropolitan Government" on the infobox. The box gives data on Tokyo Metropolis itself, not the government; putting "Kanagawa Prefectural Government" on the Kanagawa box would sound silly. Since we argued so much about whether to call Tokyo-to "Tokyo Prefecture" way back when, I thought this change deserved a quick explanation. If anyone has a problem with it, feel free to debate. - Sekicho 06:12, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the article is not only about the government; it's most of all about the things governed: the land and the people, together with their culture. So, the title of the infobox should not include the word "government" (in my opinion). Fg2 06:21, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

It should just be "Tokyo." I changed it to just "Tokyo." That's what the article is named, and no one calls it "Tokyo Metropolis." There's only one Tokyo, and no one can mistake it for anything else. Photojpn.org 04:06, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sister City

I somehow doubt that the State of New South Wales is a sister city of Tokyo. I am quite sure Sydney is not a sister city, however this is the biggest city in New South Wales, and indeed Australia. Can somebody clarify?

You can check here: Sister cities by CLAIR Be aware that it can be sister states instead of cities since Tokyo is not city. Photojpn.org 13:08, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

History as a chronology

I have converted the History section into a chronology (like the Japanese version). This will make it much easier for people to modify and add more text to this section. Photojpn.org 07:45, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Flaws in intro paragraph

Before I change this paragraph again, let me explain to Takuya and whoever wrote it, what's wrong with it. First of all, we are not writing a casual tourist pamphlet. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia where we must remain factual and technically correct.

Tokyo is not a city, and Tokyo is not the capital of Japan (Chiyoda-ku is). Tokyo is closest to being a prefecture of Japan. This is what should be in the first sentence of the introduction. In everyday conversation, I agree that there's no problem in referring to Tokyo as a city or Japan's capital. However, in an encyclopedia, this is not appropriate because it is not technically correct. You cannot say Tokyo is the largest city in Japan in an encyclopedia because it is not a city. You could say it is the largest urban area, and no further.

You don't need to mention the population because it is stated in the Info box. You don't need to mention the fact that many people commute to Tokyo because this is what occurs in ALL major cities in Japan and the world. People from neighboring towns, cities, and prefectures commute to the city. There is nothing unusual about it.

You already say it is the capital of Japan in the first sentence, so there is no need to again mention that it is the "seat of the national government." It is obvious that this paragraph needs to be cleaned up which I did before you changed it back.

Regarding the number of skyscrapers compared to other cities, WHO CARES?? I would delete this or mention it somewhere else. It is not essential information. And I don't think those of us who live in Tokyo would agree that there are few skyscrapers here. There are MANY or certainly enough for Tokyo to handle. See Shinjuku, Shiodome, Marunouchi, Shinagawa, Ikebukuro, etc. They are sprouting like mushrooms. Then the paragraph suddenly talks about the complex mass transit system and the crowded rush hours. All big cities have the same thing. This paragraph is obviously poorly written or edited. This paragraph and the entire Tokyo article needs a major cleanup and overhaul. Photojpn.org 01:25, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

--Photojpn.org, your opinions are certainly respected here, but I think you need to remember that the English language wikipedia is going to naturally be slanted towards English/American semantics. What the western world defines as a city is somewhat different than what Japan might technically call a city. Also, many people don't have any idea what life is like in a large metropolis, so mentioning the transportation patterns is actually quite useful. The number of skyscrapers is also of interest to many people, even if it is not of interest to you; the urban layout and density of development can reveal a lot about a particular city. Why don't you compare the article to other large cities like New York City and London, before you decide that the Tokyo article is terrible? --Jleon 01:52, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I can see your point, Photojpn.org. But please understand that we have to say the obvious, regardless of necessity. We need to write an article as if we were writing to someone who has never heard of Tokyo. And, of course, the intro would have duplicate materials because it is supposed to tell what is tokyo as succinctly as possible. If quite unrealistic, we cannot assume that readers know Tokyo is a big city, and many people have to commute to Tokyo. Those are obvious, but we need to say the obvious. As for the lose use of language, it is also necessary because we cannot assume readers are knowledgeable about cities or prefectures in Japan. So saying that Tokyo is not a prefecture makes no sense to some readers. You may not like this, but it is just the way encyclopedia is written. This is why an encyclopedia is often so boring. -- Taku 02:06, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

As for whether Tokyo is the capital or not, the bottom line is we cannot change the reality. Do you really claim that Tokyo is not the capital of Japan? Are you suggesting any reference work that says this is factually wrong? For example, I personally believe it is wrong to call what Japanese people call Sea of Japan Sea of Japan. But people do and we cannot correct the world. True, maybe we have to teach people in the world that Tokyo is not the capital of Japan, but wikipedia is just not a place to do that. -- Taku 02:13, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

You can mention the obvious after mentioning the facts. The intro implies that Tokyo is a city. It is not a city, it is more like a prefecture. It is counted as one of the 47 prefectures. It does not have a mayor, it has a governor. I don't pay local taxes to any city named Tokyo because there is no city called Tokyo. A prefecture cannot be the capital of the nation. You can say Japan's capital is in Tokyo, but you cannot factually say that Tokyo is the capital. This should be and can be explained. Photojpn.org 03:32, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To Jleon: Whoever wrote the skyscraper paragraph sounds like he/she last visited Tokyo 20 or 30 years ago. Anti-quake technologies in high-rise buildings have vastly improved, and so we are seeing a skyscraper construction boom during the past 10 years or so. As for comparing the number of skyscrapers, give me specific statistics. How many skyscrapers are there in Tokyo and how many in Manhattan, L.A., Paris, London, etc? If Tokyo is the largest city in the world, is there really a comparable city that we can compare it with? Based on what criteria? Population? Area? For the casual reader, what is the value in comparing the number of skyscrapers between big cities?

Perhaps you didn't see it, but just a few days ago, this Tokyo article (which pales in comparison to NYC and London) had a big notice at the top saying that this article needed to be CLEANED UP. And something like "do not add more info until after cleaning it up." So I finally actually read this article which looks impressive at a glance with all that text and images. But when I read it, sure enough, it was a real hodge-podge of text with illogical or disjointed paragraph structures, misinformation, and lack of information. Please read the article the way it was before April 15 when I started overhauling it. Read the Prefectural symbols section claiming that "a coat of arms" with sun radiating out (with an unrelated link). And nobody caught this??

If I may intercede for a moment here, this is Tokyo's coat of arms, and it appears on the official prefectural flag. See http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/jp-13.html - the green fountain symbol is the symbol of the metropolitan government but not of the metropolis itself, apparently. I'm not sure exactly how this works... Sekicho 01:50, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

A lot of band-aid contributions, but there is no one smoothing out the wrinkles. This is a serious drawback to this collaborative project. I really hope that Wikipedia will eventually hire or assign someone (a professional editor knowledgeable in the subject) to oversee articles. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that everyone loves to correct or add to other people's work, but very few are inclined to really contribute anything new or original. Just look at the history of this article. Photojpn.org 14:47, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Be forewarned that this paragraph will be changed, big time. I see that the original paragraph was mainly written by some person in the Philippines. No offense, but I'm getting tired of seeing passing tourists and non-residents writing major material about Tokyo and Japan. I've been living in Tokyo for not years, but decades. I'm quite fluent in Japanese, both reading and writing. I watch and read the news in Japan every day. So if I see something that is not right, I shall correct it. If you want to come play with me, I hope you have comparable knowledge and experience (and residency in Japan). Photojpn.org 07:38, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Comment to Photojpn: relax. This is a collaborative effort, and the ability to edit articles is not restricted in the ways you propose. Someone who doesn't speak a word of Japanese and has never set foot on Japanese soil has as much right to edit as someone who's lived there all their life. Articles on similar subjects on Wikipedia tend to follow a similar format. I suggest you look around at some of the others before you start being too heavy handed. In the end, editing is by consensus. Exploding Boy 15:33, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

1911

The 1911 template was placed in the article to replace a line about an alternate spelling of Tokyo. Now that we've removed those spellings, which were in any case common enough that nobody needed to refer to the Britannica to find them, can we remove the 1911 template, or does anyone know of a reason to keep it? Fg2 06:07, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

If you're referring to "Tokio," it has been retained on the first line under Modern history. You can explain this spelling if you want. A lot of other languages spell it that way too. Photojpn.org 15:06, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
My point's a bit different. I want to remove the 1911 template. Does anyone know of a reason why it should be kept? Fg2 22:19, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, remove it. Photojpn.org 22:13, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tokyo map

Mainland part of Tokyo
Mainland part of Tokyo

I've taken a map of the land portion of Tokyo, separately colored the 23 Special Wards and the Tama region, and labeled the surrounding prefectures and Tokyo Bay. Please comment on it. I can make some improvements before we post this in the article. Especially, if I've made any errors, I'd appreciate your letting me know here. Thanks to User:Photojpn.org for the link to the software for drawing the map! Fg2 01:17, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

I think light yellow would be a better color for the 23 wards (it would match the green better too). Anything blue looks like water. If the image is big enough, it would nice to label all the municipalities. Or number them with the ISO system. Then this map can be used in all of Tokyo's municipal articles. Photojpn.org 04:16, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Mainland part of Tokyo, yellow/green color scheme
Mainland part of Tokyo, yellow/green color scheme
Good point about the blue. See if you like the yellow better. I confess to ignorance about ISO system (I've seen it for prefectures but can't recall it for municipalities). The image's really big on screen and can accommodate a two-digit number in each space. But at 350 px, the size shown here, the numbers are too small to read. Fg2 12:05, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
Tokyo with some numbers for evaluation. Click to enlarge.
Tokyo with some numbers for evaluation. Click to enlarge.
Here it is with a few numbers added (there's no rhyme or reason for them; they're just to demonstrate it). Fg2 12:10, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
Looks good to me. If you use this, you'll have to add a note saying that the map does not show the reclaimed waterfront area (Odaiba, etc.) and the outlying islands. Photojpn.org 13:01, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think we need to have some more detail in the map of Tokyo. I think we need at least the outline of the coast line of Tokyo Bay. I don't think we need to go quite as far as this map though: http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%94%BB%E5%83%8F:Tokyo-pref.png Craig Fryer
That's a good idea. I encourage you to improve on the map! Outline of the coast of the bay would be a valuable addition. Fg2 09:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Organizing Tokyo on Commons: Invitation for suggestions

The article on Tokyo on Wikimedia Commons needs organization. I invite suggestions on the talk page. Speakers of other languages are welcome to post similar invitations in the other Wikipedias and sister projects. Fg2 00:36, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

I'm finished with Tokyo

Let it be known that I'm finished with this article and I won't be modifying it any further. I will unwatch it, so go ahead and do whatever you want with it. I'm withdrawing from active participation in Wikipedia's Japan-related pages. It's one thing to spend time writing articles and uploading images, and another thing to keep watching it due to vandals and uninformed and unqualified writers. I really don't care to spend time for the latter, and rather just concentrate on producing the content. And without any qualified editor-in-chief overseeing the quality and accuracy of articles, I cannot take this Wikipedia project seriously. (Although there are many good articles here, many more are just eternal stubs and poor-quality entries.) I will instead work on my own Japan site. A place where I won't have to worry about vandals, etc. I don't regret at all my brief participation here. It was a very interesting experiment and experience for me. But it just doesn't work for me. Thanks to all who helped me out. Photojpn.org 12:11, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Public transport "unsurpassed"?

I've rewritten the intro on public transport because I feel "unsurpassed" is an exaggeration. It's probably the largest (statistics, basis for comparision anyone?) network, and certainly incredibly clean and reliable, but also has some serious drawbacks. The network is not particularly well-integrated, partly due to the plethora of operators; while individual fares are quite reasonable, changing between networks can get quite expensive. The train system is orientated to bringing large numbers of people to and from the center (Yamanote line area); journeys between suburbs can be quite difficult and often easier to achieve via the Yamanote Line. Buses play a very subsidiary role and are also very slow, due to a lack of acceleration measures (bus lanes and the like), and are also split up between a variety of operators. Ianb 09:32, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

--New York City has the largest subway system by mileage of track and number of stations, while Moscow has the largest system by annual ridership. As far as cleaniless/efficiency is concerned, that's somewhat subjective but Madrid's system is probably close to the top in that regards. I beleive the cheapest subway fare is Mexico city's which is around $0.20 for the whole system. It's still safe to say that Tokyo's is among the best in the world though. --Jleon 19:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Economy

"Tokyo has a larger economy than any other metropolis -- larger, indeed, than most nations'. Its nominal GDP of around $1.315 trillion is greater than that of P.R. China, Canada, South Korea or Mexico."

The inclusion of China is erroneous. See https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html

59.167.84.254 06:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Correct Term?

What is the correct term for someone from Tokyo? Tokyoan? Tokyonian? Anthropax 21:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it's "Tokyoite". WhisperToMe 05:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Tokyoite brings in the most google hits (178 with 東京人), but I doubt it's 'official' though.  freshgavin TALK   00:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Ome vs. Oume

Because this won't get any attention on the actual page, I'll try it out here.

Please read the following carefully. As it is right now (although I have changed a few bits) the articles linking/relating to Tokyo's Oume City are spelled incorrectly. 青梅 (oume), meaning blue plum (basically), while APPEARING to have a long ō vowel, technically does not. The kanji meaning blue is read as a single syllable /o/, and the kanji meaning plum is read as /ume/. When you combine the two characters together, it does not become a long vowel ō plus a me, and the /u/ sound is not (for the most part) blended into the first /o/ as it would usually be with long vowels in Japanese. Thus おうめ (oume) or おおめ (oome) would be pronounced /oh-meh/ but 青梅 is pronounced /oh-ume/ albeit with a slightly shorter /o/.

Another example of this (I had a better example but it slipped my mind!) is the 白馬 (shirouma, white horse) which is clearly pronounced /shiro-uma/ without a long vowel.

Now the problem here is ... even the official website for Oume constantly spells it as Ome, because the truth is, a good portion Japanese people don't use/need Romaji on a constant basis and don't really care much for it. I don't think that's an excuse to spell it wrong (considering the pronounciation difference) and I hope you do to.  freshgavin TALK   05:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

For the sake of me trying to repeat myself those interested should read the discussion page on the wiki area for Ome, Oume. My argument is that, it might be an incorrect spelling, but thats how it is officially used, not only on the city government website, but the TMG website, and thats how it appears on official JR maps. The train line is also written as Ome and the train station is Ome. I'm stating that officially its three letters O-M-E not Oume, and if one wanted to point out how its incorrect and the proper way to write or pronounce it, write about it in the article, but I think the page and name should be left as its official english spelling with three letters not four. freshgavin states that "Japanese people don't use/need Romaji on a constant basis and don't really care much for it" while true, the reason there is an english translation is to help people who can't read japanese and to help find the place if one looked on a map, and if the official spelling is three letters O-M-E, thats how it should appear on the page here on wiki, as I noted in the discussion page, if I go to the train station and look up O-U-M-E I won't find where I need to go, but if I look up the official spelling OME on the map or in an index, I'd find where I need to go. I'm not aruging on how it should be spelled or pronounced, I'm arguing its the way its officially spelled and thats how it should appear here on wiki and if one wanted to point out the real/correct way to spell/pronouce it they can do a write up in the article page. Again please reference the Ome/Oume page for more of my thoughts.
stationmaster 19:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Talk:Oume,_Tokyo  freshgavin TALK   05:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Because this issue extends beyond Tokyo, I recommend moving the discussion to the MoS talk page. Fg2 07:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

NOTE: TOKYO IS NOT A CITY

Tokyo is not a city under Japanese law. Under Japanese law, Tokyo is incorporated as a metropolis, and is like a province, or a state of the United States, or a prefecture. There are dozens of municipalities incorporated as cities inside Tokyo. Tokyo has a governor (as opposed to a mayor), like a province or a state or a prefecture.

The "downtown" part of Tokyo consists of 23 parts called "special wards." Each special ward is like a city. Every one of them has its own mayor and city council. Each has a name, and several special wards have the English word "city" as part of their English name. Not one of them has the name "Tokyo."

The 23 wards together do not make up all of the Metropolis of Tokyo. Tokyo encompasses many more cities, towns, and villages outside the downtown part. Tokyo even includes some faraway islands such as Iwo Jima.

Decades ago, there was a city named Tokyo. You can find out more information by reading the article Tokyo City. Since 1943, no city in Japan has had the name Tokyo.

What makes this different to any other major city in the world? Cities such as London, Sydney and New York are all divided into smaller cities. They're still refered to collectively as a city. 62.254.168.102 14:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

New York is perhaps a good analogy. Tokyo is more like the state of New York than like the city, but there isn't a city in Tokyo called "Tokyo City". Referring to Tokyo as a city is like referring to New York State as a city. Just as no one would say "the city of the State of New York", no one should say "the city of Tokyo". The highly urban "downton" area within Tokyo is perhaps commonly thought of as "the city of Tokyo", but this is simply incorrect. Back to the New York analogy, the 5 boroughs comprising the city of New York really are a collective legal entity named "New York City". The 23 special wards comprising the analogous downtown section of Tokyo are NOT a collective legal entity called Tokyo - they aren't a collective legal entity of any kind, but cities in their own right in the larger subnational entity named Tokyo. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
To add to what Rick Block said very nicely, Tokyo includes things that nobody would call a city: towns and villages and farms and mountains and islands, including remote islands with no permanent population such as Iwo Jima. Some of these stretch a thousand miles and more from the bright lights of Ginza. There used to be a city named Tokyo but it was abolished long before I was born. Up to that time, the city of Tokyo had a mayor and a city council and wards and was very closely analogous to New York, New York. Now, Tokyo does not have a mayor, city council, or body corporate the way New York City does. It's not a city any more. Six decades and more after the city was abolished, isn't it time to stop calling Tokyo a city? Fg2 21:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
The capital of Japan is not Tokyo prefecture but 23 special wards.
The capital of Japan is not Tokyo prefecture but 23 special wards.

Re: GDP and last edit

Comment on the GDP was recently changed to Tokyo has the largest metropolitan economy in the world: its nominal GDP of around $1.315 trillion is greater than the 14th. largest economy in the world. This is unclear because it doesn't clearly define the scope in which the word economy is used. The previous edit stated that the nominal GDP of the Metropolitan Tokyo Area was greater than that of Mexico, which clearly states the scope of the economies but someone must have thought it irrelevant (or worse) that Mexico was chosen as the comparison. If nobody can think of a better way to phrase this I think it should be reverted. Also, what is the source that gives you 14th? Using the $1.3t figure, Wikipedia's List_of_countries_by_GDP_(Nominal) puts Tokyo at 8th, ahead of Spain.   freshgavin TALK    00:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I changed this to greater than the 14th. largest national economy in the world, but somebody really should add a reference - referring to List_of_countries_by_GDP_(Nominal) and changing it to 8th sounds fine to me. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Having hardly any background in economics I'm not really one to authenticate the rank but after a quick look on google and using the other wiki figures 8th place seems to fall within the range of anyman's logic so I'm changing it.   freshgavin TALK    06:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Sydney ---> New South Wales

I removed Sydney and inserted New South Wales in the list of sister cities according to this Tokyo Metropolitan Government web page. Since NSW is not a city, I labeled it "sister state," again, following the nomenclature on Tokyo Met's web page. Note that Sydney and Nagoya are sister cities. Fg2 12:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

(Sp?)   freshgavin TALK    01:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I can't find any info about Sydney and Tokyo (or any of the cities in Tokyo) being sister cities. I found this, which is current as of April 29, which indicates Nagoya (as Fg2 says above) is a sister city. ˑˑˑ日本穣 Talk to Nihonjoε 17:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Sister cities: Mexico City?

An editor added Mexico City to the list of sister cities. The Japanese Wikipedia does not have this information, nor could I find it in the article on Mexico City in English, Spanish or Japanese. Does anyone know whether it's correct? Fg2 20:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I presume this page is the official list: http://www.chijihon.metro.tokyo.jp/gaimuka/shimai/top.htm , and it's not listed there. (There does however seem to have been a recent exchange involving pandas between the two entities) Ianb 21:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)