Talk:Tokyo/Archive 3

message: 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)
thread_title: Image

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Infobox image 

message: Add "# Support" or "# Oppose" in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
====Support votes====
# For consistency with the majority of other city articles.--Sefringle 22:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Survey

message: # For consistency with the majority of other city articles.--Sefringle 22:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Support votes

message: # See below. Neier 00:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose votes

message: * 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Comments

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: London Sister City Status

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Image in city template

message: Tokyo is not a prefecture.
都、道、府、and 県 are the largest administrative unit names. Think them as State. But why different names? Because the definitions are different. 都 is not a 県. 都 can be read as miyako, you know. And the noun miyako means a place where the Emperor lives. So 都 is the one and only administrative unit name. There are only 3 miyakos in Japanese History;Kyoto, Nara, and Tokyo. 
Tokyo is divided in 3 areas. 都内/とない and 都下/とか and the islands.
都内 is 23区、都下 is the other area. Imagine there is a stone wall surrounding 23区. 23区 are the small cities within the castle wall. Hachioji, komae, and other cities and towns are the outside area but belonging to Tokyo-to. Though the name is same, 区 in Tokyo is different from other 区 in Yokohama, Osaka,Kyoto etc.　
I'm not sure my explanation is good enough. If you have any question, ask me. Anyway to is not ken/prefecture. --Oda Mari 06:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm, the article doesn't say that Tokyo is a prefecture anywhere.  So what was your point? Jpatokal 09:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oops — the infobox does, though.  I don't see an easy way of fixing it though, because it's used for all the other 道県府 as well... Jpatokal 09:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you Jpatokal, Tokyo is a prefecture, and IS NOT A CITY. Tokyo City does not exist. Tokyo University, Tokyo train station may exist, but CITY does not exist... Dark Angel-REX 23:17, 15 May 2007 (JPN)
There is one above the map. Another one under the population. In the second paragraph 3 or 4 prif.. And one in the Demographs.
In Japan there are one to(Tokyo-to), one dou(北海道/Hokkai-do), two fu(京都府/Kyoto-fu and 大阪府/Osaka-fu) and 43 /prefectures, not 47. neither 道nor 府 is prefecture.Have you ever heard ‘itto-itidou-nifu-yonjyusann-ken’? It is OK to translate 県 as Pref..But I don't think there's no equivalent English word for 都 and 道 and 府.--Oda Mari 15:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

text: I would suggest referring to Hokkaido as being "equivalent in all but name to a prefecture"; to Kyoto and Osaka as "prefecture cities" or similar and to Tokyo as "metropolis". As mentioned above, the distinction is impossible to render succinctly in English but the terms and distinctions can be explained within the articles (or, more conveniently, links established to Prefectures of Japan). Oda Mari's point about the Japanese understanding of the word is not only valid and correct, but essential to someone who is trying to understand precisely why they have different names at all. For this reason maintaining "prefecture" for all todofuken is inappropriate and misleading, but giving any explanation beyond a link to the detail on Prefectures of Japan is simply unwieldy and unworkable. 202.67.82.199 19:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a comment copy-and-pasted from my talk page, on the closely related topic of whether Iwo Jima is part of "Tokyo" or "Tokyo Prefecture" or "Tokyo Metropolis": This is only my personal opinion, but I really do think that Prefecture is best. 都 may translate as "metropolis", but "metropolis" also implies a concentrated urban area, and is not used in any other contexts (any other cities or states or countries) to refer to something equivalent to a state or a province. I appreciate the difficulty one may have in thinking that 県 means "prefecture" and that therefore 都,府, and 道 must translate to something else, but it is really quite normal in English to refer to all 47 as "prefectures". Even if it is not 100% accurate to the Japanese thoughts on the matter, I think that the use of the word "prefecture" in this case rather than "metropolis" would make the most sense to the average English-language reader who does not know the intricacies of the Japanese system. LordAmeth 19:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correction, please 

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