# Talk:Nagoya Station

Can we change the opening year to 1886?  The casual reader might look at "opened: 1999" and assume it was opened in 1999, reasonably enough, without realizing it has been part of the backbone of rail in Japan for over a century.  It burned during the air raids.  If the station before 1999 really was a different station, then I think it should have its own article and a prominent link to it on this one.  I don't want to mess with an important article like this one without some discussion.  What does everyone else think?  Thanks haplo (talk) 04:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Definitely. We don't normally use the opening date simply to indicate the date when it was last rebuilt, unless, as you say, it was a totally different station (like Shimbashi Station in Tokyo), which is not the case here. I can't lay my hands on a reliable source for the original 1886 opening date right now, but I don't think there is much controversy in using the date given in the Japanese Wiki article. --DAJF (talk) 08:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The station and towers feature prominently in the film Gamera the Brava.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.74.55 (talk) 01:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC) 

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nagoya Station/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: AlphaBetaGamma (talk · contribs) 10:45, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Akaza (talk · contribs) 13:05, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
@AlphaBetaGamma I'll be taking this one over the next week. It might take a few days; hope you don't mind. ❆ AKAZA ❆ 13:05, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Sure, I don't mind at all. Both of my remaining GANs from the last wave are currently under review at the same time right now, and I have an exam coming up in some weeks, so my response may not be quick. (JR-Central Transport Service Jōhoku Line) AlphaBetaGamma  (Talk/report any mistakes here)  13:33, 1 November 2025 (UTC)


### Lede
"The station is adjacent to the Meitetsu Nagoya Station, the terminal of Meitetsu, and the Kintetsu Nagoya Station, the terminal of the Kintetsu Nagoya Line. It is assigned station number CA68, CF00, and CJ00 for the JR Central lines, H08 and S02 for the Nagoya Municipal Subway (NMS) lines, and AN01 for the Aonami Line." → "The station is adjacent to the Meitetsu Nagoya Station, the terminal of Meitetsu; and the Kintetsu Nagoya Station, the terminal of the Kintetsu Nagoya Line."
I would break up the sentence describing the terminals with a semicolon.
 Done
"It is assigned station number CA68, CF00, and CJ00 for the JR Central lines, H08 and S02 for the Nagoya Municipal Subway (NMS) lines, and AN01 for the Aonami Line." → "It is assigned station numbers CA68, CF00, and CJ00 for the JR Central lines, H08 and S02 for the Nagoya Municipal Subway (NMS) lines, and AN01 for the Aonami Line."
Station numbers, plural.
 Done
"Nagoya Station was initially planned and opened on 1 May 1886 as a station on an unnamed branch line extending south from the Tokyo-Osaka railway, which was originally planned to take the inland Nakasendō route." → "Nagoya Station was initially opened on 1 May 1886, as a station on an unnamed branch line extending south from the Tokyo-Osaka railway, which was originally planned to take the inland Nakasendō route."
The original iteration of this sentence suggest the station was planned on 1 May 1886. I would alter this to mention the opening date only, and would split the sentence with a comma after the year.
 Done
"After the route of the railway line was revised to instead take the Tōkaidō route, the station became a part of the railway, now named the Tōkaidō Main Line." → "After the route of the railway line was revised to take the Tōkaidō route, the station became part of the Tōkaidō Main Line."
This sentence should be shortened a little.
 Done
I would also include the detail about JR Central operating the station, since the current opening sentence of the 3rd paragraph could be a little confusing without it.
 Done


### History
#### Background
"The Japanese government initially intended to build a trunk line connecting Tokyo and Osaka with a route that goes through central Chūbu region, which was named the Nakasendo route."
Link trunk line to Main line (railway).
 Done
"The seaside Tōkaidō route was avoided at first by Japanese officials, due to concerns of vulnerability to foreign naval gunfire in case of wars. In the plan, a branch line would be constructed between Gifu Station and Taketoyo Station to transport materials for the main line, and Nagoya would've been serviced by only the branch line."
The citations in this paragraph are a tad sparse. If they are covered by Tokuda 2016, I would include it more frequently.
It is covered by a singular page with a dense text, nothing I can do about this.
I thought as much. I mean that citation should be attached to the other sentences that source covers. It's generally not a great idea to have a large chunk of text supported by a single source, with the exception of quotes.
"The city of Nagoya opposed the plan, as they considered the plan would hinder their progress to modernize the city."
Same suggestion as above. This should include (at least one) inline citation.
 Done


#### Post–construction
"Nagoya Station first opened on 1 May 1886. During the station's first year, the station was named differently with the name "名護屋", although the English name wasn't affected by this name change. On 19 July 1886, the government officially announced that the route of the Tokyo-Osaka railway will be changed to the Tōkaidō route. Nagoya Station was incorporated as a part of the Tōkaidō Main Line[a] as a result."
Similar concerns to a few sentences above, re the frequency of inline citations. I would also include an English translation for "名護屋", if one can be found within your sources. Similarly, I wouldn't include "although the English name wasn't affected by this name change" here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this would probably be implicit, since it is unlikely contemporaneous English sources would have had a more nuanced name for the station.
I don't get it. Nagoya is Nagoya. Do I have to talk about the etymology of the city's name?
Sorry, didn't make myself clear. I would include something like (lit. 'Nagoya'). The code for this template would be ({{literal translation|Nagoya}}).
"The first station building was located 200 meters to the south of the current position, near the Sasashima-raibu Station. The station building was wooden with two side platforms and two tracks. The first station building collapsed from the 1891 Mino–Owari earthquake, with the second station building constructed a year later."
Same as above, with regards to inline citations. Also, it would be worth mentioning that Sasashima-raibu is a modern station.
 Done
"After Kansai Railway's nationalization, two tracks and a platform is newly constructed to the west of the Tōkaidō Main Line platforms in 1913." → "After Kansai Railway's nationalization, two tracks and a platform were constructed to the west of the Tōkaidō Main Line platforms in 1913."
 Done
"[...] the operation of the station became too complex."
How did the operation become too complex? From the context established by preceding sentence, I assume it occurred due to the increased workload the expansions precipitated. Elaborating on this would help readers understand the context.
 Done
"As the station was not able to expand in the original location, plans arose to relocate the station north, locating the new terminal of Meitetsu and the modern-day Kintetsu Railway near the relocated station." → "As expansion of the station was unfeasible in its original location, plans arose to relocate the station north, locating the new terminal of Meitetsu and the modern-day Kintetsu Railway near the relocated station."
Why was the expansion constrained? Who made the plans to rebuild the station elsewhere?
 Done, detail not in book AFAIK. I'd assume it is the developments that took place around the area, but that's not something I can insert.
"The construction of the third station building and the elevation of nearby tracks by viaducts began on August 1934, and opened on 1 February 1937."
I would cite this.
 Done
"The Kansai Rapid Electric Railway, which is the predecessor of Kintetsu, opened what is now the Kintetsu Nagoya Station on 26 June 1938. The station was located underground, adjacent to the Nagoya Station."
Citations, as above.
 Done


#### Post–war
"After the Surrender of Japan, the Allied occupation forces occupied a large part of the station, such as the waiting room, and restricted access to it, establishing a Railway Transportation Office (RTO) on 30 September 1945. Around this period, orphaned children and other homeless survivors of the war were found in the station. The station came under the operation of the Japanese National Railways (JNR) upon its establishment on 1 June 1949. The occupation of the station and the rolling stock ended upon the signing of the Treaty of San Francisco."
Citations needed to cover this large section, presently unsupported.
#26 already covers the entire chunk
See above.
"Controversies arose when the station was skipped by one of the Nozomi services until 1997, when it was incorporated into the Tokaido Shinkansen. The third station building was replaced with the JR Central Towers, which opened in 4 December 1999. For the construction of the JR Central Towers, the platforms numbered 0 and 1 were put out of use, later being replaced by the new platforms numbered 1 and 2."
This section is supported by three citations at the end of the final sentence. They should ideally be re-allocated to the sentences they represent.


### Station layout
#### JR Central
Aside from a few minor editorial issues which I have now fixed, the section (and its sub-headers) included only two minor issues. Those being:

"Platforms 1 to 10 have Kishimen stands, all operated by a single company."
Which company operates the stands? If the name of the company isn't included in the sources, I would recommend trimming the sentence down to "Platforms 1 to 10 have Kishimen stands, all operated by a single company."
"However, the station no longer holds this record."
Which station superseded it in size?
Overall, this is a decent article. I'm putting it on hold until the remaining changes are made. ❆ AKAZA ❆ 23:28, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

For the second one, the entire category was abolished as far as I can tell.  Done AlphaBetaGamma  (Talk/report any mistakes here)  11:15, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Alright. Having read through the amended version, I'm approving this. ❆ AKAZA ❆ 19:11, 15 November 2025 (UTC)