Talk:Tokyo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is supported by WikiProject Cities, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Cities on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments for details.

	Tokyo is part of WikiProject Japan, a project to improve all Japan-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Japan-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
A	This article has been rated as A-Class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance for this Project's importance scale.
Japan To-do: edit purge Improve to Featured status Japan Improve ASIMO Burakumin and Buraku Liberation League Takako Doi Chikamatsu Monzaemon Education in Japan Japanese architecture Japanese art Japanese robotics Japanese strategic planning for the Pacific (1905-1940) List of Emperors of Japan (transl. from ja) Emperor Yozei of Japan List of Japanese artists Namioka, Aomori Nihonjinron Sadako Ogata Ōishi Yoshio Politics of Japan Yagyu Shinkage-ryu Center Shiken (大学入試センター試験) More... Review First Sino-Japanese War Hinduism in Japan Inland Sea Kigo Narihira Santosen Temple Sazae-san Stroke order Heizo Takenaka Giovanni Battista Sidotti Requests See Requested articles Listed for deletion See this page, this page, and this page for lists. Grammar corrections Gaijin Takefuji Need images Every prefecture, see Subdivisions of Japan Sendai - Add demographic images More... Translate from Japanese Wikipedia Iemoto (家元) Blue Ribbon Award (Film) (ブルーリボン賞 (映画)) Gesaku (ja:戯作) More... Transliterations missing for Military ranks and insignia of the Japan Self-Defense Forces Wikify Ibaraki University Ikawa, Shizuoka Ima, Ai ni Yukimasu Japanese sculpture Mori Goro Organization of the Imperial Japanese Central China Army Organization of the Imperial Japanese North China Army Sangaria Shaken Takefuji Vote: Talk:Dokdo#Rename vote Watch this list — Edit this list

Tokyo is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Geography article has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale.

Tokyo was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake. Date of review: 6 December 2006

Archives
2002-2005

Contents 1 Note: Tokyo-to is not a city 2 Capital functions relocation plan 3 whats the point ? 4 whats the point ? 5 Does this article really need the "tourist" section... 6 London is not a sister city 7 City or not - clarification in intro? 8 Idle land 9 Cost of living 10 References, article on the economy 11 So is Tokyo a city? 12 So what are the 20 largest GPD's? 13 TOEI Productions 14 Israel-Japan relations 15 Shinjuku as "Capital" ? 16 Adding politics link 17 spelling of prefectures 18 note: vandalism 19 Poor quality external links 20 External Map Links 21 Good article 22 Merge to Tokyo Prefecture 23 Ku and Cho 24 GA nomination note 25 Failed Good Article 26 This article or section may contain spam. 27 Image 28 Infobox image 28.1 Survey 28.1.1 Support votes 28.1.2 Oppose votes 28.1.3 Comments 29 London Sister City Status 30 Protection 31 Population 32 Image in city template

[edit] Note: Tokyo-to is not a city

The Wikipedia article Tokyo is about Tokyo-to. Other names for it are Tokyo Metropolis and Tokyo Prefecture. The article is not just about the city of Tokyo, which is inside Tokyo-to along with two dozen other municipalities. It's also about the other municipalities.

Tokyo-to, the subject of this article, is not a city under Japanese law. Tokyo-to is incorporated as a metropolis. It is like a province, or a state of the United States, or other prefectures of Japan. Tokyo-to has a governor, like a province or a state or a prefecture. It does not have a mayor, city council, or body corporate the way New York City does.

Tokyo-to is analogous to the State of New York. It's geographically larger than the former city of Tokyo. Its government is a prefectural (or provincial or state) government, not a city government.

Decades ago, there was a Tokyo City. Up to 1943, the City of Tokyo had a mayor and a city council and wards and was very closely analogous to the City of New York within the larger State of New York. Just as both the city and the state have the name New York, both the city and the prefecture had the name Tokyo. In 1943, Tokyo City was disbanded. Presently, no municipality has the name Tokyo. Instead, 23 legal entities, each an individual city, occupy the boundaries of the former city of Tokyo. These are the 23 special wards. Each special ward has its own mayor and city council. Each has a name, and several special wards use the word "city" as part of their English name.

These 23 special wards together do not make up all of Tokyo-to. Tokyo-to encompasses two dozen more cities, towns and villages, ranging from dense suburbs to farms, forests, 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.

---

The discussion below is based on an earlier version of the preceding explanation. To see the discussion in context, read an earlier version (click history and click a version on, for example, July 9). Fg2 11:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

---

This is a legal technicality. In common usage both inside and outside Japan Tokyo is thought of as a city, albeit an extremely large one with a unique governmental system. --D. Meyer 23:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not a legal technicality: It is reality. It is impossible to have a proper, even basic discussion about Tokyo when assuming it is a city, because within the borders of Tokyo there are numerous entities such as Hachioji City which are very clearly designated and acceptable cities, and cities do not exist within cities. This point is not up for discussion, the NOTE: is left at the top of the talk page because it has been settled on numerous occasions in the past and it does not need to be argued any further.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  05:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

You and the original author of this section are assuming a detailed technical definition for the word "city" that is not born out in common usage. The Japanese have no difficulty using the word "city" for both Hachioji and Tokyo, and the official term "Metropolitan" as well as "Metropolis" used by the section author refer to kinds of cities. --D. Meyer 05:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Tokyo is one of 47 prefectures of Japan. Although -to (都) is usually translated as metropolis and metropolis usually means major city, people in Japan rarely consider Tokyo-to as a city. --Kusunose 06:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you verify that "rarely"? I have direct testimony from two individuals in Japan plus the Tokyo Metro. Gov't website and 147,000 other Japanese websites considering Tokyo a city. Of course, Tokyo is one of Japan's prefectures, but it is at the same time Japan's leading city. It is also true that Tokyo is not a city like Hachioji or Osaka or New York, but the absolute "Tokyo is not a city" is pedantry at best. If there is really a problem with editors using "Tokyo City" in a way that suggests there still exists a governmental entity called 東京市 requiring a rule like this to be spelled out, "Tokyo is both a city and a prefecture" is the simple, correct, common sense answer. --D. Meyer 07:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

There are dozens of municipalities incorporated as cities inside Tokyo. I'd rephrase that as something like: "There are a lot of suburbs and towns incorporated as shi inside Tokyo." These shi extend to such dormitory suburbs as Komae, Tokyo, population under 80,000. If Japanese officialdom cares to translate shi here as "city", that's fine with me. (Ditto if it cares to translate ku [borough] as "city" rather than "ward".) I don't even mind if en-WP calls Komae-shi (or Arakawa-ku) a city: after all, this has a considerable comedy value. But to say (other than in some legal context) that Tokyo can't be a city because a city can't contain other cities such as Komae -- that really seems too absurd. -- Hoary 08:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't really understand why you choose Komae as an example: it's well known that city borders are calculated rather tightly in Japan (giving the appearance of lower urban population) and Komae has a population density more than three times that of Toronto, which gives it a pretty good reason to be a city. Mr Meyer seems equally misinformed, as your link to the Tokyo Metropolitan Government page provides the user with a link to the Tokyo Metropolitan Government's "TOKYO City Information" radio program, which broadcasts information to Tokyo residents living in cities and/or experiencing city life. As for the "detailed definition" that you seem to believe doesn't exist, please read city, especially the section about the way the word city can have different explicitly defined boundries in different regions of the world. Just because you're not willing to admit the existance of an entity larger than a city (a metropolis) doesn't mean that it's not real.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  00:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought of Komae because I knew it was small; I hadn't known it was the smallest but WP told me this. OK then, how about Akishima? ¶ Yes, I know that "city" has a variety of definitions. Yes, I know that there are bigger conurbations than mere cities; just to take one example, as I type this, I'm sitting close to what is regarded as the center of the world's greatest (or anyway, um, superlativest) megalopolis, the Ōmiya-to-Ōfuna monster. This particular part of it is called Tokyo, and Tokyo is routinely called a city in the lects of English with which I'm familiar. There are certainly occasions where it is better referred to as something else, but its inclusion of such suburbs as Akishima (population circa 110 thou, a shopping mall being its only feature noted by en-WP) seems a bizarre reason to disqualify it as a city. For better or worse, cities these days do tend to contain such suburbs as Akishima; this is part of their city-ness. -- Hoary 04:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Tokyo is, of course, a city. We all know it and feel it. People say it and write it. There once was a legally incorporated city here, and there still is a city, and it's called "Tokyo." So what's the problem?

As I've already written, two things had the name Tokyo. One was a city, like other cities of Japan (but with more people). And the other was a prefecture, Tokyo-fu, like some other prefectures. The prefecture contained various local governments, each with the status of city, town, or village. One of them was the city of Tokyo. Then, in 1943, the government of Tojo Hideki abolished the city government of Tokyo, leaving the broader prefecture intact. During the Occupation, 23 cities with separate governments were established within the boundaries of what had previously been the city of Tokyo.

The city did not disappear by fiat. Allied bombing and occupation did not eradicate the city. There's still (or again) a city there, and lots of people call it Tokyo. And there's still Tokyo the prefecture. It sports a new name, Tokyo-to. The "to" is the part that's usually translated "metropolis"; this is probably a misnomer, because Tokyo the prefecture encompasses much that's not metropolitan: rugged mountains, unpopulated islands, active volcanoes.

The article Tokyo is about the prefecture, or metropolis. The Big To. This Tokyo includes in its scope not only the 23 special wards, but also Komae and Akishima and other things that really, really are not the world city. Miyakejima and Hachijojima. Minamitorishima. Mount Kumotori. I hope we can agree that Tokyo-to is not a city.

The article Tokyo City covers the city whose government is defunct. But the modern city of Tokyo does not have an article of its own. Rather, each of the 23 special wards has a separate article.

If you want to think we're being pedantic and legalistic, you may have a point. But there are some pretty practical reasons to consider the special wards as individual cities. Each elects its own mayor and each elects its own city council. Each enacts ordinances. As an example, on one side of the line that separates them, you can get busted for smoking in public; on the other side you can't. If you live on one side of the line, you vote in Arakawa's elections; if you live on the other side, you vote in Bunkyo. That's just like Osaka and Sakai, or Kobe and Ashiya.

What are the boundaries of the city of Tokyo? To some, Tokyo is only the world city, the central wards: Chuo, Chiyoda, Minato. Others point out that the recently developed Shinjuku has the skyscrapers, and Shibuya has the center of youth culture. To many, the "real" Tokyo is the Shitamachi area: without Shibamata, or tatami- and tofu-makers, nothing can be a worthy successor to Edo. Komae has never been part of the city of Tokyo, but Nerima, with its daikon farms, was. Should we really consider it part of the city of Tokyo? Should we trim Itabashi and Suginami, making Tokyo smaller than the historical city?

The article on Shinjuku illustrates the point. Yesterday, Akanemoto added a map to it. The map shows Shinjuku dead center within the 23 wards. Yet if you look at the third (January 22, 2003) version of the article on Shinjuku, you see that the author placed it (Shinjuku Station) in western Tokyo. That author's concept of Tokyo seems to be the area served by the Yamanote Line. That's one view of what constitutes the city.

So the problem is, what is the extent of Tokyo? Maybe Tokyo the modern city is synonymous with its old borders. But does that really make sense six decades later? Since the boundaries were drawn, Kawasaki has swollen right up to the Tokyo line, and if we were going to establish a new city of Tokyo, reversing Tojo's act, wouldn't we include it? Let's annex Yokohama, too, and Mitaka to the west, Kawaguchi to the north, and some other formerly separate cities. Sure, everything from Omiya to Ofuna. If you're a sociologist or a geographer, you might have data on residence patterns, or transportation, or communications, to prove that all of these are part of Tokyo. And maybe even that Nerima isn't. People who live on one side of the Tama River know that they're in Tokyo, and on the other side, in Kawasaki. But we needn't draw the new lines to coincide with the old.

Even after all this, Tokyo is a city. In fact, it's lots of cities: it's the world city, it's the Yamanote Line, it's everything east of Nakano, it's Shitamachi, it's the whole strip from Omiya to Ofuna.

Where does that leave Wikipedia? With a solid article on Tokyo-to. With a separate article on the city whose legal framework is gone, but which lives on in the hearts and vocabularies of the people of the world. With 23 articles on the special wards, and one on the special-ward system.

Should Wikipedia also have an article on Tokyo, the modern city? Without the law to define the boundaries, we'd have to decide what geographic area such an article would cover. Clearly not Komae... but... where? Should we develop consensus that Tokyo ends with Nakano? Roppongi is in, and Suginami is out? Or should we be legalistic and pedantic? I'm not Tojo Hideki, so I can't answer these questions.

I wish I had named this topic "Tokyo-to is not a city."

Fg2 06:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Fg2, for a very thoughtful, accurate, balanced, and not-at-all-pedantic summary of a situation that will never be perfectly resolved. I can live with "Tokyo-to is not a city". --D. Meyer 07:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

If only Hideki Tojo hadn't been executed.... WhisperToMe 05:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Tokyo-to, as an administrative unit, is not a city. Tokyo (IMO, equivalent to the 23区), however, is a city in the sense that people identify it as their hometown, the city where they live, the big city where they go to shop, or whatever. Legal constructs and mental/societal ones don't always coincide perfectly. adamrice 15:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Capital functions relocation plan

"Capital functions relocation plan

　Capital functions relocation is planned for a long time in Tokyo. Capital functions relocation is to move from Tokyo to 60km outside if a present capital is mentioned in Tokyo. It clearly remains the stop of the plan at present also being. (The "首都機能移転" retrieval in detail in Wikipedia Japanese. )"

A wonderful example of engrish that needs to be adjusted. 66.240.10.170 03:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] whats the point ?

Tokyo Tower   freshgavin TALK    06:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] whats the point ?

All anyone does is argue argue argue! Yes some uninformed people post here but at least they are trying to help right? Why can't we all just live and let live?

[edit] Does this article really need the "tourist" section...

...I think it's just a waste of space? I mean it only has a couple of sentences!!

It replaced an article that was long out of proportion to the other sections in Tokyo, so we kept it just as a link to the article. In short, no, we don't need a section, we only need a couple of sentences to direct the reader to the main article. Fg2 09:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] London is not a sister city

I have searched and searched for a reference saying that London is one of Tokyo's sister cities, and haven't found any, this is a real list on Tokyo's sister cities, and London is not one of them:

[1] Jackp 03:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] City or not - clarification in intro?

Given the discussion above, is there something we could do in the intro to make the distinction more clear? Perhaps as follows? -- Rick Block (talk) 03:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Tokyo (東京, Tōkyō^?) listen (help·info), literally "eastern capital", is one of the 47 prefectures of Japan and includes the highly urbanized central area forming the heart of the Greater Tokyo Area. Although Tokyo is used to refer to this megacity and is formerly the name of Tokyo City, since 1943 the term Tokyo has legally meant only the special prefecture known in Japanese as 東京都 (Tokyo-to, usually translated as "Tokyo Metropolis"). Tokyo is home to the Japanese government and emperor and, even though no longer officially a city, is thus considered to be the capital of Japan. About 12 million people—10 percent of the country's population—live in the Tokyo Metropolis (prefecture), while approximately 33–36 million people live in the entire greater Tokyo area, making it effectively part of the most populated urban area on Earth.

Tokyo is located in the Kanto region on the island of Honshu. Its center is at 35°41' North, 139°46' East (35.68333, 139.7667) [2], but its borders extend to outlying islands in the Pacific Ocean, some as far as 1,000 km south of the mainland.

The downtown area of Tokyo, roughly the 23 special wards, is the nation's center of politics, business, finance, education, mass media, and pop culture. This area of Tokyo has Japan's highest concentration of corporate headquarters, financial institutions, universities and colleges, museums, theaters, and shopping and entertainment establishments. Although it is officially not a city, Tokyo is widely considered to be one of the world's major "global cities".

---

According to the description of Tokyo as a "megacity" (on the Megacity article), it "...includes areas such as Yokohama and Kawasaki." I've never heard Tokyo referred to as a "megacity", though it certianly is, but the interpretation seems to be different than what this page is trying to describe.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  04:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The point is that "Tokyo" (and, hence, this article) is officially the name of the "to"/prefecture (which has a governor, etc.), while what many people think of as "Tokyo" is the urbanized area that is the heart of the greater Tokyo area. 9 out of 10 people you survey, anywhere in world, would agree that "Tokyo" is a city in Japan. This article is not about this "city' (which doesn't actually exist, in a legal sense), but about the actual legal entity in Japan which has more of the attributes of Prefecture than City. Further clarification invited. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you're trying to define, and for the exact reasons you state (this article stands for the general conception of Tokyo as well as the legal identity called Tokyo) "megacity" doesn't seem to fit. By the wording of the megacity article, as well as the article on metropolitan area, and megalopolis, they seem to be describing the slightly looser area known as Greater Tokyo Area, which, even in casual conversation, does tend to include cities like Yokohama and Kawasaki. I hope I'm not being too semantic on this. What was wrong with metropolis in the first place, simply defined as a major city?  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  05:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Try this:

Tokyo (東京, Tōkyō^?, literally "eastern capital") listen (help·info) is one of the 47 prefectures of Japan. Prior to 1943, Tokyo was the name of two entities: Tokyo Prefecture, and also the populous City of Tokyo in the eastern half of the prefecture. In 1943, the government of the city was abolished, and since that time, the prefecture has been the only government having the name Tokyo. The former city, still popularly called Tokyo, now has 23 separate city governments, the 23 special wards. These, together with two dozen other cities, towns, and villages, constitute the modern prefecture of Tokyo.

Home to the Japanese government and emperor, Tokyo is the capital of Japan. About 12 million people—10 percent of the country's population—live in the Tokyo, while approximately 33–36 million people live in the entire greater Tokyo area, making it effectively part of the most populated urban area on Earth.

202.236.167.243 07:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC) Fg2 07:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC) (somehow I had been logged out)

My take, mostly based on Fg2's, but a little longer.

Tokyo (東京, Tōkyō^?, literally "eastern capital") listen (help·info) is one of the 47 prefectures of Japan and effectively the most highly populated urban area on Earth^[1]. Prior to 1943, Tokyo was the name of two entities: Tokyo Prefecture and the populous Tokyo City in the east of the prefecture. In 1943, the government of the city was abolished, and since that time, the prefecture—known officially as Tōkyō-to (東京都) or the "Tokyo Metropolitan Area"—has been governed as a single legal unit. The former city, still popularly called Tokyo, now has 23 separate city governments, the 23 special wards. These, together with two dozen other cities, towns, and villages, constitute the modern prefecture of Tokyo.

Home to the Japanese government and emperor, Tokyo is the capital of Japan. About 12 million people—9 percent of the country's population—live in Tokyo, while over 30 million people live in the entire greater Tokyo area^[2].

Tokyo is located in the Kanto region on the island of Honshu. Its borders extend as far as the outlying islands in the Pacific Ocean, some as far as 1,000 km south of the mainland.

Tokyo is the nation's center of politics, business, finance, education, mass media, and pop culture. It has Japan's highest concentration of corporate headquarters, financial institutions, universities and colleges, museums, theaters, and shopping and entertainment establishments. Tokyo is also widely considered to be one of the world's major "global cities".

 freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  03:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Rick Block that -府, -fu and -市, -shi need to be said but should be reserved for the full explanation later on, as there is no need to repeat kanji. I believe everything else here is suitable for an article intro (it is actually shorter than many of much larger articles) and it summarizes the rest of the article well, even as it is. I also believe the coordinates should be stated in the introduction, and this is becoming common (Paris, Toronto) as there are many users looking for that information specifically.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  05:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, I'm not so sure about those coordinates, which point to Tokyo Station, while the prefectures template states that Shinjuku should be the center.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  05:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the coordinates should be taken out of the introduction because {{Coor title ...}} already displays them in a more prominent location. Now they are just making the introduction needlessly longer. -- Meyer 09:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't see the coordinates because they go off the screen on my browser. I've removed them now.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  06:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

---

I propose:

Tokyo (東京都, Tōkyōto^?) (officially translated "Tokyo Metropolitan Area") is one of the 47 prefectures of Japan. Prior to 1943, Tokyo was the name of two entities: Tokyo Prefecture (東京府, Tōkyōfu^?) and the populous Tokyo City (東京市, Tōkyōshi^?) in the eastern half of the prefecture. In 1943, the two entities were legally merged into a single unit with a unique governmental system combining both prefectural and many municipal functions. The remaining municipal functions were devolved to the 23 special wards that constitute Tokyo's urban core. The special wards together are still popularly called Tokyo, but the name now officially applies only to the prefecture as a whole, which combines the core wards with over two dozen other cities, towns, and villages.

... then continuing with Fg2's 2nd paragraph. I realize making the article explicitly about Tōkyōto invalidates the pronunciation file, but I think it will make the text clearer for everyone. -- Meyer 08:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I like Fg2's version slightly better, specifically I think adding the Japanese Tokyofu and Tokyoshi is not likely to be helpful to anyone who does not speak Japanese. The municipal function stuff should go in the history or geography/administrative divisions sections. I also think it might be worth keeping the location information and the "nation's center" sentence, and adding the even though no longer officially a city bit to the sentence about it being the capital (which is another point of confusion that regularly comes up). This makes it kind of long for a lead. If no one else does it first, I'll change to the intro along these lines in the next day or two. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I tried to think of another iteration that ties everything together, but it is too big to wrap my mind around. The points I think need to come through clearer: Acknowledge the popular conception of Tokyo as a city while respectfully pointing out that that concept is no longer embodied by a single government unit. -- Meyer 09:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

To me, most of the shi are only "cities" because "city" is the conventional translation of shi, and likewise the ku are "wards" because "ward" is the conventional translation of ku. I think it's good not to start off by giving the impression that these are "wards" or "cities" in any normal sense. So I'd say:

Tokyo (東京, Tōkyō^?, literally eastern capital) listen (help·info) is one of the 47 prefectures of Japan. It includes the highly urbanized central area, which was formerly the city of Tokyo and is still popularly thought of as a city, now administered as 23 separate "cities" — the "special wards" (closer to boroughs than to cities or wards as the words are most commonly applied). Before 1943, Tokyo was the name of both the prefecture and the city. In 1943 the Tokyo city government was dissolved and, since then, only the prefecture as a whole has had a "Tokyo" government. In recognition of its special status, Tokyo is the only prefecture among the 47 to be named a to (都, to^?, metropolis).

Hoary 05:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Idle land

We read: Tokyo still sees new or renewed urban centers being developed on large lots of idle land.

One of the examples given is Roppongi Hills. It's a place where rich people live, flashy companies have offices, and the impressionable shop and eat expensively; all right, let's aggrandize that as an "urban center". But it certainly wasn't on idle land. The land was being used, and rather intensively. For example, there was an excellent (and pretty new) record store (called Wave) with an excellent cinema in its basement. There were unpretentious, pleasant restaurants, and there were places where moderately normal people lived. Perhaps it was "idle" in the sense of "not maximizing profit". Mori bought up the land, pulled down what was there, and replaced it with something that it calculated would bring in a lot more money. Just run-of-the-mill late capitalism at work.

I'm not sure how I'd rephrase this, but the way it's phrased now looks too much like a Mori PR release. -- Hoary 10:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I've reworded it. -- Hoary 13:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cost of living

We read: Tokyo was rated by the Economist Intelligence Unit as the most expensive (highest cost-of-living) city in the world for 14 years in a row ending in 2006. This cites a link that is now dead and that I don't think is of a type that web.archive.org bothers to archive.

I was first amazed to see that Tokyo was rated as more expensive than, say, London as recently as one year ago. Then I vaguely remembered what I'd read earlier about these so-called cost of living indices. They seemed to reflect the living and buying habits of bone-headed anglophone middle/upper-level suits and their families. The family lives and eats lumps of beef in a big house in a "good" [=honky] area of Ellay, around which it drives? Well then, it must live and eat lumps of beef in a big house in such an area (Hiroo) of Tokyo, around which it must drive. Maybe I exaggerate. But ask yourself: In 2004/5, were rents of places where normal people live in Tokyo that high? Were clothes that expensive if you were interested in being clothed (hint: Uniqlo) rather than waving around brand names? Was eating out that expensive in Tokyo? Etc. My uneducated guess is that this factoid from the Economist tells us rather more about the Economist than it tells us about Tokyo. -- Hoary 13:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Good point. My personal impression is that although land prices and rents are high in Tokyo (and the rest of the Tokai corridor), they are not so far above New York or London. Once you learn to live like a native things average out (great buys on fish and seaweed here!) and you can live nicely and fairly economically. I think it would be more meaningful to compare the total cost of a typical lifestyle as a percentage of typical salary, though there's plenty of subjective wiggle-room in that model, too. -- Meyer 16:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Devil's Advocate Department pipes up: At least I can understand what the Economist is trying to say. Contrast that with en-WP's own Cost of living by city! -- Hoary 22:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I think there's a grain of a good idea in that list and the template that goes with it: Be open about what's in the market basket and let Wikipedians report on conditions they're familiar with.

Obviously their current market basket is not only biased toward WASP culture but to the cretinous WASP travelling businessman sub-species (it takes one to know one

), and the figures for each item should not be in a currency but in something like percent of per-capita income for the country or city. But I think if this project was organized and well-publicized it could be a real coup for WP. -- Meyer 01:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

More devil's advocacy: I just did a little checking of rents and apartment sizes in Tokyo and NYC. A 6-mat apartment rents for ¥80,000 in Nakano. That works out to about US$4.10 per square foot. A 700 sqft studio in Brooklyn rents for up to $1500, or about US$2.15/sqft at the top. So on a price per square foot basis, yes, Tokyo really is a lot more expensive. Now, of course, apartments with less than 200 sqft are common in Tokyo and rare even in NYC, so you can save by going small. But it's not necessarily a fair comparison. adamrice 13:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References, article on the economy

Reviewing (and passing) this article for Version 0.5 I notice that the references section is rather weaker than it should be for an A-Class article. Only two refs are given - both on the economic aspects - one is an internal link and the other is a dead external link. For an article of this prominence and length there should be at least a dozen references. Could the people who contributed to this article please let us know where their information came from? Another thing: I was intrigued to see that Tokyo has such a huge economy of $1.3 trillion, but there is little I can read about it. The section in THIS article is fine, but surely such an important world-scale economy deserves its own article, along the lines of articles like Economy of Vancouver or Economy of Toronto? Or am I missing something? Thanks, Walkerma 04:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] So is Tokyo a city?

Is Tokyo a city, or a bunch of cities, and Tokyo is the offical name of all of them? Should it be reffered to as just one city. Could someone please explain what it actually is. 202.6.138.35 12:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

To answer that question, you have to make a decision: what is a city? Is the important thing a government? There is only one governing body named "Tokyo" in Japan, and it is not a city. Rather, it contains four dozen cities, plus some more towns and villages, and lots of things that are not city in any way (remote forest, tall mountains, unpopulated islands and so on). It's Tokyo-to, or Tokyo Prefecture, and it has a governor (not a mayor).

Or, is the important thing that it has lots of tall buildings, is crowded, has comprehensive services, neon lights, that kind of idea? Then there is such a place, and it lies within the eastern part of Tokyo-to. People call it "Tokyo" even if there's not a government with that name. It has loads of tall buildings, huge crowds of people, the usual municipal services, plenty of neon, all the things it takes to make people say it's a city.

So which answer is right for you?

Fg2 05:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] So what are the 20 largest GPD's?

Which 20 cities have the largest GPD's, if someone has a list, could they please post it? I know the first five is something like Tokyo, NYC, London, Paris, LA, so does anyone know the remaining 14??? 202.6.138.35 12:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TOEI Productions

Which part of Tokyo are shows like Aberenbo SHougun, Super Sentai and other tokusatsu filmed?

Abarembo Shogun was filmed in Kyoto, not Tokyo. Fg2 20:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about the others, but there were formerly Shochiku studios in Kamakura (at Ofuna outside of Tokyo). There were also Nikkatsu studios in Chofu, a city in Tokyo. Toei formerly filmed at what is now Toei Animation in Nerima. Fg2 21:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Israel-Japan relations

Open request to all users: Please improve Israel-Japan relations as you see fit. Thanks, Republitarian 02:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shinjuku as "Capital" ?

Does anyone know why Shinjuku is currently stated to be the "capital" of Tokyo ? As far as I understand, the metropolitan government is located in Shinjuku ward, but that does not mean this ward is any different from any of the other 22 ? Tensaibuta 14:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe this is interpreting "capital" as the seat of government, even though there is no "by law" proclamation. It would certainly be possible to clarify this in the text. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Shinjuku as the capital of Tokyo is a made-up "fact" by a Wikipedia contributor, and I am pretty sure has no currency in Japan. Although city hall is there, not all city functions are headquartered there. It's worth noting there's nothing like this assertion in the Japanese wikipedia article on Tokyo or Shinjuku, which simply note it as the ward where city hall is located. It should be removed. adamrice 20:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed "shinjuku", but it is inside a Template, so "capital" remains. If anyone knows how to remove the line, please do so. Tensaibuta 23:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. adamrice 13:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adding politics link

I added a politics link under the Tokyo#Geography and administrative divisions section. Perhaps we should try write a bit more on local politics in that section. --Jonte-- 14:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)Tokyo is also the main souce of Manga and Anime.

[edit] spelling of prefectures

A survey is being conducted at Wikipedia_talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related_articles)#Prefectures and macrons to determine which prefectures should have their spelling "macron-ized", per the existing manual of style. Oita has been changed already, and each of the others is current being discussed (Tokyo, Osaka, Kyoto, Hokkaido, Hyogo, and Kochi). Please join the discussion if you wish. Neier 00:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] note: vandalism

Note: there was some vandalism reading "Tokyo is gay!" and some other gramatically incorrect nonsense on this page. (a little while later) ...Wait a minute... I went back to the article to delete it, and it is now gone. Wonderful. ntfletch

[edit] Poor quality external links

Recently there have been many new external links added, but the quality of many of these is just not up to standard as they add very little in the way of information or the information they offer is already available in another link.

Particularly map related links:
Interactive satellite view from yesterday at ExploreOurPLa.net - The quality of this map is very poor and offers no additional information. Indeed it offers less than the standard Google Earth. I think this link should be removed.

Daily satellite pictures from ExploreOurPla.net do not target quality in terms of houses or cars. Instead it shows current weather conditions, smog and fires for example. The archive goes back 2 years, all of these 700+ maps are more actual and real than constructed and mosaiqued maps from google and others. In the long term it shows changing infrastructure and land use. Btw. the interface offers a comparison with gmaps, landsat7 and others.

--Noiv 22:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiSatellite view of Tokyo at WikiMapia - Sure this may be a "sister" site, but it again offers very little information. There are many other better Google Earth based maps out there. I think this should be removed.
http://www.mapstars.com/extern/tokyo-japan - This offers even less than many others out there. Definitely should go. It is basically spam! http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Tokyo&spn=0.168623,0.234180&t=k&hl=en - Something is wrong with this link. It should be removed or corrected.

I know maps are a real problem for Wikipedia as most useful maps are very expensive. I can see Wikimapia or similar is a possible solution, but it is not up to the standard yet. A quick search of Google for "Tokyo Map" delivers some good options.
http://www.japan-hotel-reservations.net/japan_map/tokyo_japan_map.html - Sure it is not interactive, but it does have some good detail there.
http://www.worldexecutive.com/cityguides/tokyo/maps.html - I don't think this really offers much of use.
http://www.japaneselifestyle.com.au/tokyo/tokyomap.htm - Another Google Earth based map, but with much more information than the others above.
http://www.lonelyplanet.com/mapshells/north_east_asia/tokyo/tokyo.htm - A basic map with some interactivity and reasonable information.

Other sites:
http://www.picturetokyo.com/ - There are many photo gallery sites out there with more photos of Tokyo. I don't think this site is anything special. I don't think it should stay.
http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e2164.html - I am not sure that this site is really offering much more than what is already in Wikipedia.
http://japan-travel-tips.blogspot.com/ - Interesting, but does it really add more than is already in Wikipedia. I think it should be dropped.

What about
Wikitravel - Tokyo - Yes similar information, but no more so than others listed above.

More links don't mean better links. There are many sites on Tokyo out there, but only the ones that offer more or different content should be included in the external links, otherwise you may as well do a DMOZ dump. (Whats up skip 04:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC))

I just pared down the link list using a simple criterion: is the link's content only about Tokyo? If no, out it went. And the official Tokyo Gov link goes on top. Jpatokal 06:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

LOL damn you. I was in the middle of a long post and i went to edit it and couldnt because you had done it while i was still typeing away. I think what you did works. It seemed to be a logical choice.

I do reccoment one more site that has a good interactive map of Tokyo - http://www.jref.com/practical/tokyo_areas_map.shtml

--Picturetokyo 06:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Removal of recently added links
Not of a high enough standard as per above
http://www.japanlinked.com
http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Tokyo
http://www.articlemyriad.com/34.htm
Whats up skip 03:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External Map Links

A continued discussion of external links, but specifically about maps.

I still don't think we have found a good map for Tokyo. Obviously if Google did cover Japan in English then it would be a good option, but they don't so I think we need to have a good option(s). I have noticed that Microsoft and Yahoo! maps of Tokyo are also in Japanese.

I have looked further at the WikiSatellite view of Tokyo at WikiMapia and the more I have looked at it, the less I like about it. Many of the links on the map contain incorrect information, spam or offensive comments. There is very little in the way of good information within the links to the key points.

There are some good points to like about the http://www.jref.com/practical/tokyo_areas_map.shtml map with all the points of interest listed below, however the listed points do not actually interact with the map. This means that there is actually very little on the map of great use.

I noticed that www.japan-guide.com seems to use a series of maps to cover Tokyo and in some respects there is merit in this. Their detailed maps of areas like Ginza and Harajuku are good, however I did notice that sometimes it becomes confusing as their drawings are stylistic rather than realistic. This means that some things aren't actually in the right place and proportions.

I notice that http://www.japaneselifestyle.com.au/tokyo/tokyomap.htm has been upgraded and they are now claiming over 120 points of interest. Many points now have information and links to detailed information. A few have pictures. This map now has some merit to it. It would be very handy in a PDA when exploring Tokyo. It could do with some simple continuous city labels and some more information on each point of interest.

I noticed that www.tourism.metro.tokyo.jp doesn't seem to have any good maps on it either.

Whats up skip 04:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good article

This article is a good article candidate. Visit the nominations page and pass or fail it when you've read it. --Gray Porpoise^{Phocoenidae, not Delphinidae} 22:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge to Tokyo Prefecture

de:Präfektur Tokio/de:Tokio, fi:Tokion prefektuuri/fi:Tokio, fr:Préfecture de Tōkyō/fr:Tōkyō, ja:東京/ja:東京都, nl:Tokio (prefectuur)/nl:Tokio

Tokyo Prefecture is not a Tokyo. --Guiyuizz 13:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ku and Cho

Various neighborhoods are listed as bigplace-ku and littleplace-cho. The distinction should be explained. Jim.henderson 07:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It already does: see Tokyo#Geography and administrative divisions. Jpatokal 15:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, somewhat. Only five Cho in the whole "To" or metropolis? My impression, during my visit, was that Cho are much more numerous, like very Ku has many Cho inside it. This would make Ku correspond more to a "Borough" of London or New York, whilst Cho would be clearer if translated as "Ward". This is, if I am understanding the situation correctly. I'm not seriously proposing a change in the standard translations, but I am proposing that the relation be clarified in the text.

Jim.henderson 15:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are not understanding the situation correctly. A ku is already the lowest administrative unit: below that are chome, banchi and ban, which are just basically postal divisions. Cho/machi are outlying towns of sufficient obscurity that I can't name a single one from memory despite having lived in Tokyo for the better part of four years, but legally they're more or less on the same level as ku. See Japanese addressing system for the full scoop.

Now, just to make things a bit more confusing, there are various sub-ku neighborhood names that end in -cho, like Yurakucho and Kabukicho. But these are not administrative units, and hence they're not included in the list of five chos. Jpatokal 17:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah. Splendid. So, it's not just my cloudy mind; it's officially cloudy, like New York where we have Concord Village and Greenwich Village which never were villages, and Queens Village and Long Island City which in a past century were a village and a city, and Garden City which was never a city, and Five Towns which is a part of Town of Hempstead with no towns inside it.

So, the Ku or boroughs of Tokyo have many places inside them called -cho that are not cho, and the whole system is a mess only made somewhat neat by the needs of the postal system. Thanks; it's nice to know the whole world is sloppy in this matter and it's not just my dimness that fails to follow it all. Sometimes I think the only place in the world with orderly, comprehensible municipal subdivisions is France.

Jim.henderson 15:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA nomination note

I was about to review the article when I noticed a significant lack of references. I suggest you back up more of the text with some citations in order to make GA status likely. LestatdeLioncourt ^talk 19:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Failed Good Article

The article is still lacking citations after the previous message. Since it's been over a week, I've removed it as a Good Article candidate. Please feel free to renominate it once citations are in place and the article is more thoroughly sourced. Shimeru 22:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article or section may contain spam.

This looks like an automatically generated message. I cannot see any obvious spam links. I think the statement should be removed. Whats up skip 06:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Survey

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] Oppose votes

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 [3]

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. [4]

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)

[edit] Protection

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)