Talk:Tokyo/Archive 4

message: I'm guessing this is an error? HertzaHaeon 13:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to you for pointing this out, and to Neier for fixing it. Fg2 20:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are the wards a subsection of climate? 

message: This article has the following sentence:
"Tokyo has the largest metropolitan economy in the world, despite falling in ranks in recent years due to economic stagnation "
Actually, Tokyo (and Japan) are in an economic expansion that is now (as of July 2007) in its fifth year. References to "stagnation" and "recession" are way out of date at this point. (And, as anyone who's actually lived in Tokyo can testify, even during the "recession" of the 1990s, Japan looked amazingly prosperous).
I removed references to outdated statistics (1995) and poor economic conditions. Whats up skip 23:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outdated info on Tokyo's economy 

message: This edit was reverted without comment by user:Sasanoha.  I suspect there are two issues:
# I changed the bold title from "Tokyo (東京 Tokyo-to) is ..." to "Tokyo Metropolis (東京都 Tokyo-to) is ..."
#I made what I thought were minor improvements to the wording in the the lead paragraph.
I'm inclined to reintroduce the wording changes, but would be interested in other opinions about both of these.  My reason for changing to "Tokyo Metropolis (東京都 Tokyo-to) is ..." is to make the English, Kanji, and transliteration match themselves and the infobox heading, and also to clearly identify the article topic (which is the subnational entity, not the "city" or the metropolitan region, or the 23 wards, or ...).  My understanding is that the official English name of the prefecture is "Tokyo Metropolis". -- Rick Block (talk) 13:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reintroduced the wording changes, but am still looking for comments about the name change in the introductory sentence. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I couldn't see what the problems were with the wording that required a revert by user:Sasanoha. I thought "Tokyo Metropolis (東京都 Tokyo-to) is ..." made a more accurate lead to the article, since it is about the metropolis. Whether or not we reinsert "Metropolis", I have reinserted the missing "都" in (東京都 Tokyo-to), as without that it is not "Tokyo-to". The infobox heading already says "Tokyo Metropolis (東京都 Tōkyō-to)", so I think the article lead should match that. DAJF 04:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tokyo Metropolis, the official name Tokyo adopted for itself in English, is fine in the lead sentence, in my opinion. It matches "X Prefecture" as we write in articles on the other prefectures of Japan. Fg2 10:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The various names in English should all be listed, bolded, and explained as in Washington, D.C.  Tokyo is the common name in English (per dictionaries, encyclopedias, etc.).  And Tokyo Metropolis is the official name, as well as the literal meaning of 東京都.  We need a lot more explanation in the lead, don't just use a simple  template thingy with only one bolded name.--Endroit 18:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Mind you, the "Metropolis" (都) designation is only since 1943, so I prefer Tokyo be mentioned first, then Tokyo Metropolis.  The details of this naming in Japanese is covered under Tokyo#Geography and administrative divisions.--Endroit 18:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  I may be wrong on this, but it seems "Tokyo Prefecture" is the best name.  There are 47 prefectures in Japan and 東京都 is one of them.  This is different from the USA where there are 50 states but Washington DC is not one of them.  However, if Tokyo's government has officially adopted "Tokyo Metropolis" than I suppose that's better, even though it's a silly name considering part of the western part of the prefecture is very un-metropolitan.Manmaru 09:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tokyo or Tokyo Metropolis, and wording of the lead 

message: Anyone else think this image is entirely too professional looking to be a new user's personal image?  I've looked a bit but can't find it on the web (Google doesn't let you search by pixel size, which would be real handy).  If anyone else has seen this image anywhere, please let me know. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My thoughts entirely. I also tried searching for it on the web without success. Until proper source information for the image can be provided by the user, I don't think it is right to use it in this article. -DAJF 08:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The user is claiming he is the photographer.  -- Rick Block (talk) 13:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As much as I don't like it he claims to be living in tokyo on the userpage and it is the right dimensions for a panoramic still taken by a digital or panoramic film camera.  Since it isn't readily found anywhere else on the web I'm inclined to go along with it until it is shown to be otherwise.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 14:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm jealous! It's a great shot. I hope it turns out to be legit. But a problem with panoramic images is that at reasonable widths they're very small, and at full-screen widths they turn an encyclopedia article into a coffee-table book. A width of 250 or 300 pixels is about as wide as we should go for an illustration. Fg2 22:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although clearly different, it's very, very similar to this one, http://www.yakei-kabegami.com/cgi-bin/photo/4314-photo.jpg (same vantage point, same lighting - perhaps a different exposure from the same session).  Is Hirofumi Takeuchi a professional photographer in Tokyo?  -- Rick Block (talk) 03:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The one you just found looks like it could be a cropped version (and less saturated version, too) of the panorama. I'm wondering, though: shouldn't we assume good faith unless it's proven otherwise? I can understand wanting to be wary, but do we have any reason to believe this guy isn't the photographer? ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm certain the images aren't the same (compare the water).  I've asked directly, on his talk page, with no response (which makes me suspicious).  Image copyright has been a pretty big deal for a while, I'm not entirely sure why but I suspect there was a significant legal threat of some kind.  I'm generally willing to AGF, but not so much when someone doesn't answer direct questions. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I can see some slight differences there, but increased saturation may account for them. As for the unresponsiveness, the user hasn't done anything since the initial spurt of activity. It's possible s/he hasn't been back since then. There are quite a few people who create accounts and then don't come back for a while. I'd give it some time. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been several SPAs recently adding pictures to the Tokyo and Shnjuku articles.  At first, the pictures were labelled as copyright fairuse; then, when they got deleted, another user uploaded a similar picture with a self-creation tag that was obviously a scan.  This one is better quality, and, the user names are different, but . . .  As for the detective work, the website above has a J-shaped vapor trail above Tokyo Tower, which is not in the panoramic shot.  But, all of the other lights look to be exactly the same; including crane positions to the left.  The only difference I can maybe see is the lighted barge/ship to the right side, above the bridge on the website.  It doesn't seem to be in the Wikipedia image. Neier 08:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Image:Tokyo_Shinjuku.jpg was the first one, I think.  It is headed for the chopping block on 8/25. Neier 08:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I have now listed the image in question on Wikipedia:Copyright problems and removed it from the Tokyo article until the issue is resolved. DAJF 14:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent work.  Although it is unfortunate the photographer is unwilling to release these images - having looked through an awful lot of images of this bridge in the past few days, I'd say these are among the very best that are out there.  -- Rick Block (talk) 18:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  User's image? 

message: Regarding the Tokyo panorama image uploaded recently, I emailed the owner of the Photo Dream site (http://www.photodream.org/) to ask whether he recognized the image. He has replied to say that the "panorama image" in question looks like it has been cropped from this image http://www.photodream.org/fujitv/fujitvsum/page_thumb1.html which was also taken by him. This explains the odd sizing. The unique coloration is a result of special night-photography lens filters, which a casual photographer is unlikely to possess. He also asks that the image be removed from Wikipedia, as it is being used without permission.  DAJF 14:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now listed the image in question on Wikipedia:Copyright problems and removed it from the Tokyo article until the issue is resolved. DAJF 14:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent work.  Although it is unfortunate the photographer is unwilling to release these images - having looked through an awful lot of images of this bridge in the past few days, I'd say these are among the very best that are out there.  -- Rick Block (talk) 18:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image is copyright and used without permission

message: The Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images recommends not using centered images and not using large images.  This article now has two, including one in its own section.  My attempt to address this was reverted.  Any other suggestions? -- Rick Block (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I recommend following the Wikipedia Manual of Style section on on images. Fg2 21:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made some adjustments which will hopefully be acceptable. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: This is the version of the New York City article when it was promoted to featured status.  The addition of the cityscape is already under discussion on its talk page (where a user has suggested the cityscape images be moved to a gallery, like the one at the end of the Tokyo article).  The other images added to the New York City article are also under discussion on its talk page.  In its current state, it too does not comply with the Manual of Style. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Centered images and cityscape section 

message: Please do not send the Tokyo map to the right. Arrangement is returned to the previous edition.--Sasanoha 05:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But why? Is there any particular reason why the right-aligned arrangement recommended by WP:MOS#Images is not the best solution here? --DAJF 05:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Exactly. The image should be right aligned there in order to allow the text to wrap around it. It should also be 400px or smaller. If someone wants to see the larger version, they can click on the image and view the full size. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please do not send the Tokyo map to the right. 

message: user:Cosc effectively rewrote the article as this version.  I've reverted to the version before this rewrite and suggest we discuss whether such a dramatic rewrite is necessary or warranted.  Among many other changes, the rewrite uses a custom template for the infobox rather than the standard one used for the other prefectures.  I think unless there is some sort of consensus the rewrite is an improvement it would be better to make slightly less sweeping changes. -- Rick Block (talk) 21:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that this large reform is good. I think that I think that Tokyo became more legible. I do not oppose it. --Sasanoha 05:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not a fan of the rewrite.  The custom template is much less informative, as is the lead.  While the history section has been expanded, much of it reads as POV.  The "details" section doesn't follow standard format for cities, which is confusing.  The flags for the sister cities are a nice touch, though.  Some obstructive images are removed, which is nice, but useful maps are removed as well for some reason. -- Exitmoose 03:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: It's felt that it only has to correct the part of the problem gradually.--Sasanoha 04:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Please agree with the change in Tokyo. Reason that I rewrote
* The article is made slim. 
* The history is made more comprehensible.
* An unnecessary part is removed. 
--Cosc 11:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The history section is copied from http://www.sakura-house.com/tips/tokyo_general/history/history.htm, so I've reverted this change.  We can discuss the changes section by section if you'd like, but please don't reintroduce this change in its entirety (particularly anything you've copied from any other website). -- Rick Block (talk) 17:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it was created to make it somewhat harder to vandalize. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. This is the grossly over-simplified infobox that was apparently created to replace the Tokyo-infobox currently used. — DAJF 13:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of [[:Template:{{ucfirst:Japan Infobox}}]]

message: Just as a favour i have added flags to the 'Sister Cities' section of the article just to make it more presentable. (♠Taifarious1♠) 04:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sister Cities

message: I think this image is good enough to add to the article. But the article already has a lot of photos and I have no idea where to put the image. What do you think? Oda Mari (talk) 05:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a very encyclopedic photo. Many other pictures of Tokyo are more beautiful, but this is a clear image showing an important aspect of Tokyo. One possible place for it is in the section on the twenty-three special wards. Presently, it has no images. This photograph illustrates one of those wards very appropriately. Does anyone have another opinion? Fg2 05:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about this image? 

message: What is the population of tokyo actually?? 35 million or 12,570,000(8,520,000 in special wards)
60.51.108.28 17:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Greater Tokyo Area has a population of 35 million.  The population of Tokyo Metropolis (the subnational region governed by the Tokyo Metropolitan Government) is 12.5 million.  Perhaps this should be clarified in the introduction. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population 

message: I've added several what I hope are high quality citations in response to the recent requests (from this edit]).  There are two remaining "original research" tags and 10 more citation requests.  The original research tags are for:
* Tokyo's rise to importance can be largely attributed to two men ... in the history section.
*:
*:This seems to be manifestly true, but I haven't found a reference that puts it quite this way.  
* Railway stations are not only transport, but the center of Tokyo and Japanese urban life, as everything is judged in relation to the railroads, taking on the significance of highways in the United States and elsewhere
*:
*:This seems like a pretty reasonable observation (perhaps true), but unless it's sourced I think I'd agree it's original research.  I haven't found a reference for this.
Of the 10 remaining citation requests, 9 are for things that seem to be pretty obviously true (although citations from reliable sources should still be found).  The one that's not obviously true is the first one: Central Tokyo, like Osaka, has been designed since about the turn of the century (1900) to be centered around major train stations in a high-density fashion.  From the sources I've found, I'm not sure this was design so much as simply what happened.  If anyone can find a reliable source (either way) for this, that'd be great. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rick, you've done extensive work establishing the reliability of the information in this article, and you deserve thanks from everyone who has edited it. Regarding the two remaining citation-needed tags, I'd say 
*Instead of claiming that the rise to importance can be attributed to those two men, why not simply name them? Their contributions have not been challenged, and are clearly important on their own. Deleting the sentence starts us on the right direction.
*Instead of stating that railroad stations are the centers of urban life, and including an analogy to the US highways, it might be simpler to say that railway stations are close to residential areas, and have retail and entertainment facilities nearby. 
*Regarding planning or lack of planning, Edward Seidensticker's "Tokyo Rising" might provide useful information. (I don't have a copy, unfortunately.)
Once again, many thanks for doing the hard work on this top-importance article. Fg2 05:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Central Tokyo, like Osaka, has been designed since about the turn of the century (1900) to be centered around major train stations in a high-density fashion: Depends what you mean by "central". By most notions of "central", most of central Tokyo has hardly been designed at all (except of course that the subways have been designed not to enter the area under tenchan's private park); the difference is whether its adhocness is delightful or nightmarish. As for suburban sprawl, it was indeed very often designed, and designed around any and all train stations, as the rail company was the primary landowner. Putting "design" aside, I'm afraid that Tokyo is now centered on its ever-multiplying konbini, with their convenient sales of consumption-fluffing magazines, junk food, sugary drinks, booze, carcinogens, etc. Sorry, no time to chase up these notions in citeworthy books. -- Hoary 05:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

text: For the sentence "Within Tokyo lie dozens of smaller entities, most of them conventionally[citation needed] referred to as cities." one could cite the special wards' own English web sites, which refer to the wards as "Chiyoda City" (see the bottom line of the page), "Shinjuku City" (see the top line) etc. Fg2 11:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I unilaterally removed the citation-needed template from the sentence "Once cherry blossoms, or sakura, bloom in spring, many residents gather in parks such as Ueno Park, Inokashira Park, and the Shinjuku Gyoen National Garden for picnics under the cherry trees." This needs no citation. I rewrote a couple of other sentences in ways that avoid the sentences that were marked for citations. Fg2 11:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research and citation requests 

message: A recent edit specified a width for a photograph in this article. The edit summary said "don't change the size, because 130px is the just fit size." It's nice to try to make things look great. In fact, I've tried to edit many articles to make the image sizes just right. However, it never works. The most important reason is that different screens have different widths. What looks right on one display looks wrong on another one. So we should give up trying to tailor image sizes and instead use the default size. The discussion that went into the Wikipedia Manual of Style has more information about this topic. Fg2 01:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image width 

message: Since I last brought up this topic a few things have changed. 
WikiSatellite view of Tokyo at WikiMapia - This map has got worse, more rubbish, very little information, many incorrect facts, spam and generally out of control. I really think the link to this map has to go. The real question is what should replace it.
Lonely Planet - Either my standards have changed or this map has. It now has very little interactivity, doesn't cover enough of Tokyo nor does it have enough detail. http://www.lonelyplanet.com/mapshells/north_east_asia/tokyo/tokyo.htm
One of the fundermental problems with many maps is that none of the big map providers (those who supply Google, Yahoo! and MSN) have anything in English. This means that mashups based on any of these will tend to have a satellite or Japanese based maps underneath.
http://www.japaneselifestyle.com.au/tokyo/tokyomap.htm - This is the problem for this map, but it does have significant embedded information and links to articles. (Might be why it is number one in Google)
Tokyo Tourism have some reasonable printed maps, but they are really lacking in the online field.
www.japan-guide.com have some reasonable maps for key areas of Tokyo, but they don't have a good overall map. http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e3011.html
http://www.jref.com/practical/tokyo_areas_map.shtml has some English, some interactivity, but is limited in its extent and does not have the detail offered by japan-guide.com's individual maps or the overall coverage and depth provided by japaneselifestyle.com.au's.
Does anyone else know of some good online maps?
Should we change the link to http://www.japaneselifestyle.com.au/tokyo/tokyomap.htm?
Whats up skip (talk) 03:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ReVisiting the linked map issue