This is an archive of past discussions about Tokyo. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
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 References to "stagnation" and "recession" are way out of date at this point.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I removed references to outdated statistics (1995) and poor economic conditions.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 skip23:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Tokyo or Tokyo Metropolis, and wording of the lead
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)
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)
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. DAJF04:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
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. Fg210:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
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 {{nihongo}} template thingy with only one bolded name.--Endroit18:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
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.Manmaru09:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
User's image?
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)
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. -DAJF08:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
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. Fg222:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
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 Nihonjoe03:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
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 Nihonjoe04:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
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. Neier08:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
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. DAJF14:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
"The reason I make the image bigger each time is to make it easier to see. If you don't specify the size, the image is too small and difficult to see." Fg220:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
By the way, an earlier edit summary [1] had invited Sasanoha to post on the talk page, and said it's ok to post in Japanese. I think it's important to get the dialog going. Fg220:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
少なくとも、私は見づらいと思いませんので、全員ではありませんよ。この画像はあくまでもサムネイルだと忘れてはいけませんので、画像自体を大きく見たい場合はクリックするべきです。サムネイルだけを大きく見たい場合は上にも書いたように自分の設定を変えるべきです。せっかく自分のお好みやパソコンの環境に合わせて小さく設定している人にとっては、Sasanohaさんが自分だけのお好みを押し付けるのは迷惑です。DAJF06:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
As this is the English Wikipedia, I would respectfully request that when communicating, you use English. Also please put edit summaries in English so people understand what the purpose of changes were. Thank you! Ariel♥Gold07:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
To summarize so far, DAJF has provided a slightly augmented Japanese-language version of what he wrote at 22:31, one in which it's clear that the "you" of the English original has the impersonal sense (but of course applies equally to Sasanoha, DAJF, or you or me). DAJF says that for Sasanoha to Sasanoha's own preferences on others is to inconvenience them. Sasanoha counters that for DAJF to push DAJF's preferences on others is to inconvenience them; he/she points out that there are people who oppose DAJF's POV and that Sasanoha is one of them. -- Hoary09:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I hope that the summary above is neutral and fair. That's enough neutrality. Sasanoha has ignored DAJF's point that not to specify dimensions is to do no pushing at all. Further, Sasanoha hasn't taken up the (generously offered) opportunity to argue in his or her first language, but instead merely parrots back DAJF's exact words and states disagreement with no reasoning whatever. There's no attempt to reason or persuade. -- Hoary09:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
To ArielGold; normally, I would agree with you. But, in this case, Sasanoha seemed unwilling to discuss his/her constant reversions, so, I invited a comment in Japanese on this page via the edit summary. I think that was probably the quickest course to a resolution.
Hoary's summary is more or less accurate, and my new extra comment above was just pointing out that Sasanoha was only changing the size of pictures on Tokyo, whereas all of the English Wikipedia articles would have equally small (and difficult to see, subject to opinion) images. Changing the preferences as DAJF suggests would enlarge all the images; not just the ones on this particular article.Neier10:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Hoary and Neier, and Sasanoha's posting in Japanese is fine, but it is much more helpful to everyone if someone can translate it. So I thank you both for doing that! Ariel♥Gold10:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
if he/she wishes to type in Japanese, then he/she should provide an immediate translation. I live in Japan, I dont speak English in Japan and expect Japanese people to understand, or provide their own translations/translators.Sennen goroshi06:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
I still don't get it
So why isn't Tokyo considered to be a city? Only because it also has another classification? According to the city article:
A city is an urban settlement with a particularly important status which differentiates it from a town.
Because it's a conglomeration of several cities (a metropolis) just like New York (which is a metropolis with multiple boroughs (basically cities) in it. In the broadest sense, Tokyo is a city, but the Japanese government has classified it as specifically not a city. So, that's what we go with. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe02:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's not quite the definition of a metropolis but then, in that case, the cities inside of Tokyo could be considered cities within a city. Maybe there is some more jurisdicial definition of a city... I can't see why a CDP can't be considered a city either.
Reginmund03:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Please see Tokyo City and Prefectures of Japan. Tokyo was both a city (Tokyo-shi in Japanese) and a prefecture (Tokyo-fu in Japanese), very much like New York City and the State of New York. In 1943 the government of the city was merged into the government of the prefecture and the merged entity renamed in Japanese as Tokyo-to. This government officially calls itself (in English) "Tokyo Metropolis". It would be the equivalent to the government of the city of New York being abolished and its functions carried out by the government of the State of New York but being renamed as something other than a state (but still having a governor, and 2 senators, and all the other functions associated with a state, but also the functions previously associated with the city of New York). The administration of Tokyo-to is the same as that of the other prefectures of Japan (like the State of New York is a state, like the other states), but it also administers what was the city of Tokyo. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
No. It was formerly both city and prefecture (two different government bodies) but was merged into a single governmental entity in 1943, effectively by subsuming the city government into the prefecture government. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
One way to think about it is to consider New York City and the much larger New York State. Imagine that New York City got broken up into smaller pieces, for example Manhattan, Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island. Imagine that each one of the pieces became a city with its own mayor and city council. And imagine none of them named New York. But New York State continues to exist with no change. The result would be that the only governing body with the name "New York" would be the state.
That's not the exact details of what happened to Tokyo (Rick Block's remark is of course correct), but the outcome is similar. There was a Tokyo City and a larger Tokyo Prefecture. Tokyo City got broken up into 23 smaller pieces, for example, Minato, Shinjuku, and Chiyoda. Each one of the pieces became a city with its own mayor and city council. None of the pieces is named Tokyo. Now, the only governing body with the name "Tokyo" is Tokyo Metropolis (the successor to Tokyo Prefecture).
You can find a more extensive discussion in the 2006 archives. The links to the archives are near the top of this discussion page. Fg2 (talk) 01:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
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 Nihonjoe06:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
There is a a problem with this section. It does not list the 23 wards but instead popular tourist areas in Tokyo. This should be fixed. --Jonte--15:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I think we should list the wards here (as we list the cities in western Tokyo) and move all the details about what's in the wards (from Akasaka to Ueno) to the separate article on the 23 special wards. We can make an exception for something as world-famous as Ginza but it becomes very difficult to rein in the wish to add every neighborhood. To avoid this it might be simplest not to list anything that's in the wards. After moving the list, the information will be only a click away. Fg201:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
That is a good idea. Maybe a bit of elaboration for the most notable places in each ward, like on a DAB page, would also be appropriate:
That's almost what the present article on the 23 wards contains in its table. We almost should swap the two, putting the table (perhaps not formatted as a table) in the article on Tokyo and the details in the article on the wards. Fg202:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't like the new ward format. The earlier format was more appealing and a little blurb about each ward hardly hurt the article at all. Now, the article just seems to be full of more and more lists, which lower its quality. -- Exitmoose03:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
It's ok to put it back if you prefer. The reason I moved it is that the same sort of material is in so many places: Tokyo, Special wards of Tokyo, the articles on the wards, and the articles on the neighborhoods. I felt that the article on Tokyo had too much detail. Everybody added their favorite places, so after a while there were details about important places and not-so-important places and unimportant places. I think we should keep the detail to a minimum here, following the guidelines in Wikipedia:Summary style. Then the daughter articles such as Special wards of Tokyo have more detail, and the articles on individual wards and finally neighborhoods have even more detail.
So the questions are these: how much detail should we put in this section, and which details should we include? Fg210:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it is ok to put it back like it was. The old list was not of the wards, but, of neighborhoods contained in the 23 wards. Some wards were represented more than once, while others were not represented at all. A list similar to the one before, but, separated by wards instead of neighborhoods, would probably be ok; although, I still don't see why anything more than the DAB-like one-liner like I mentioned above is required, since each ward already has its own article. Neier12:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I have this radical proposal: why don't we merge Special wards of Tokyo into Tokyo? I agree that the current list of the 23 wards feels terse, and the problem is the distinction between these two articles is not obvious to many; that people would look for neighborhoods information currently in Special wards of Tokyo in the Tokyo article. It probably makes more sense to them (if not to us as we know more), for example, if Akihaba is mentioned in Tokyo. I think while this merger is logical (in that those wards are part of Tokyo), it poses a practical problem: The Tokyo article is already too long. So, I am still unsure about how this merger can be done if we want. But first what do you think? -- Taku03:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I think the length would be a problem. So it seems best to put the least detail in the top article (Tokyo), more detail in the daughter articles (Special wards, Western Tokyo etc.) and successively more detail in the articles on the wards and neighborhoods. I think Neier's suggestion is a good model for the amount of detail to put in. I'd suggest limiting it to the name of the ward plus fifty (or some other number) on-screen characters. The links to the article on the ward, and to the places named in the fifty characters, bring the reader to additional detail. We can shorten his model by writing "Minato" on-screen; the link takes the reader to the article on Minato, Tokyo. I also suggest alphabetizing key items, as Neier did. Fg204:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
You give way too much credit — the alphabetic order is just a coincidence. :-) I see Taku's point about what people expect to find in the Tokyo article, though, and some prose is important. Maybe a few sentences at the top of the 23 wards section to the effect of "Although many view central Tokyo as a series of neighborhoods such as Harajuku, Akihabara, and Ginza, the official administrative subdivisions are a different matter. " Neier06:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the lateness of the response. I've thinking. Anyway, I would argue that we even make room for the merger by moving stuff in the article to separate articles. First to expand on my proposal, it seems to me that the current article is ambivalent about what Tokyo is. From the administrative point of view, Tokyo is a prefecture and the 23 wards is one of parts of the prefecture (as is western Tokyo). So, the articles are organized accordingly, but not to the fullest extent. For example, in the current structure it is conceivable that the the 23 wards article has sections like education or history, for, for instance, the University of Tokyo is located in the 23 wards. But that would be duplication. In other words, the Tokyo article, inevitably, contains a lot of stuff that belong, strictly speaking, to the the 23 wards article. The obvious solution is the merger. (By the way, The term the 23 wards is defined at least three times in the Tokyo article, once in the lead and two times in Geography and administrative divisions. This is excessive.) Now, the "how" part, which is we should organize materials related to Tokyo in more categorical manner than the current half-administrative manner. That is to say, we create new Geography and administrative divisions of Tokyo or something by splitting off the section, or moving some stuff to Politics of Tokyo after being renamed to Politics and administration of Tokyo or something, or maybe there would no renaming. Additionally, we move stuff like islands and the list of villages to that new, renamed or existing article. Since the 23 wards article contains some legal technicalities, which we don't want in the Tokyo article, that stuff also goes to this article. This actually makes more sense since we really should discuss the administration of Tokyo is in one and only one place. The proposal sounds quite feasible to me, but still love to know the problems. -- Taku03:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Rewrite
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)
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. -- Exitmoose03:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Cosc's repeated creations of templates and insertions of apparent copyvio's is bordering on disruptive, no arguments there. But I have a question regarding the current template. Template:Tokyo-Infobox, a single-use template, is being used in this article. What advantage does that have over using Template:Infobox Prefecture Japan, which is in use for all the other prefecture pages? Tarc15:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Having a full listing of every single ward, city, district and island in the main article is counterproductive. This is better left to the existing Tokyo Metropolis template and the separate islands articles. It would also be good to have a separate article for Sport in Tokyo, explaining some of the sports history and culture as well as removing the current list of teams from the main article. These two changes would go a long way towards simplifying the article without requiring a full re-write. 221.89.167.14815:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
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)
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? Fg205:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreement
Please give agreement to my sweeping changes. Please do not oppose one-sidedly. Please teach the part that should be improved. --Cosc14:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Your "sweeping changes" are terrible, to be blunt, and make the article weaker. Perhaps if you learn to write your own words and not copy from other websites, that'd be a good placed to start. And stop recreating templates. There is no reason to use another completely different one when the current serves its purpose quite nicely. Tarc15:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I've suggested this before, but how about discussing these changes individually rather than as a single sweeping change? I suspect some may be agreed to, but others may not. Looking through your changes I think they primarily consist of deletions and formatting changes. Deletions without some particular reason (not simply because you think the article is too long) will rarely be agreed to. Formatting changes may or may not. Note that the article has changed since you edited your version so taking a previous version from the history and making it the current version is simply not going to work. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with that we need to discuss changes, so as Rick Block said small changes, one at a time, would be better. In fact, we can discuss proposals for change here on the talk page before making the changes in the article. Fg201:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
For example, one of your changes is to change the 2-column bullet lists in various sections into two column tables, with the entries becoming alphabetical across rows rather than down the columns. Anyone have any comments on this specific change? -- Rick Block (talk) 13:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
For example, see this version. My opinion is that the 2-column bullet lists look better. Also note all articles about Japanese prefectures use this format rather than tables. Unless there's a significant number of folks who prefer the table format I'd suggest leaving these as they are. Other comments? -- Rick Block (talk) 18:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC) and now we wait for other comments to see whether there's a consensus to make this change
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)
Original research and citation requests
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)
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.)
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. -- Hoary05:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
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"[2] (see the bottom line of the page), "Shinjuku City"[3] (see the top line) etc. Fg211:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
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. Fg211:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Image width
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. Fg201:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
ReVisiting the linked map issue
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.
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.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.
The Map has a bar that states 1000km but the Tokyo prefecture is tiny compared to the bar and yet the article says that tokyo has a area of 2,817 km. Am I reading this right.
