Recent Articles

Tokyo, Japan

The link to Saitama in the sentence "Tokyo is also part of the Greater Tokyo Area, which consists of Tokyo itself and the surrounding prefectures of Kanagawa, Saitama and Chiba." leads to the city but should lead to the prefecture. I don't know how to change links... May 9, 2004

---

Is it correct to be redirecting Tonkin to Tokyo? While I believe that "Tonkin" is etymologically derived from the same Chinese source words (eastern capital), I can't say I've ever heard Tokyo called "Tonkin" (at least, not in English, and not in my dabbling in Japanese), while the name "Tonkin" is well known to Americans as a place in Vietnam. (See Gulf of Tonkin Resolution) --Brion VIBBER 02:08 Aug 8, 2002 (PDT)

In response to the stunning silence, I've removed the recently added "also known as Tonkin" from the article, and have redirected Tonkin to Hanoi. --Brion VIBBER 22:43 Aug 8, 2002 (PDT)

An article on Vietnamese Tonkin has been created. --Menchi 12:40 29 May 2003 (UTC)

---

If "Tokyo" means "Eastern Capital", where were the other three capitals? --Menchi 00:51 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Not necessary to complete the four directions. Tokyo is the eastern capital compared to the traditional capital Kyoto. After moving the capital to Tokyo, Kyoto was temporarily called Saikyo (西京 Western Capital).--Nanshu 01:54 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

See Beijing, Nanjing :) Sekicho 22:43, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

---

Can't we have a more interesting-to-read introductory paragraph? As it stands right now, the first sentence does not even mention that Tokyo is capital and largest city of Japan as well as being at the center of one of the largest metropolitan areas in the world. I think that would be more interesting to know than the fact that Tokyo is 2186.9km² in area. Is something like the following acceptable? --seav 00:29, Nov 3, 2003 (UTC)

Tokyo (東京, literally: "eastern capital") is the capital and largest city of Japan. A little more than 12 million people live in the city while hundreds of thousands of others commute everyday from surrounding areas to work and do business in the city. Tokyo is the business center of the country as well as being the home of the Japanese emperor and the seat of the national government.

The city is well known for its highly modern skyscrapers, thousands of flashing neon signs, a bustling network of roads always filled with traffic, and a very extensive underground railway system. [expand some more]

Tokyo occupies the Tokyo prefecture (東京都; Tokyo-to, Tokyo prefecture), which is located in the Kanto region on Honshu island. The prefecture is sometimes referred to as the Tokyo Metropolitan Prefecture or Tokyo Metropolitan Area. This stems from the fact that the character used for prefecture for Tokyo differs from the character used for other prefectures.

Tokyo is often considered part of the Greater Tokyo Area, which consists of Tokyo prefecture itself and the surrounding prefectures of Kanagawa, Saitama and Chiba. The Greater Tokyo area is the largest metropolitan area in the world having a population of 33,418,366.

I like this. I just applied this to the article. The intro seems too long and too detailed--like mentions about fu, shi and should be made compact later. -- Taku 06:27, Nov 3, 2003 (UTC)

---

Tokyo isn't a prefecture or a city: it's a hybrid of the two. If you go to the Tocho's website, you'll notice that Tokyo is always referred to as "metropolis" and "metropolitan," never "city" or "prefecture."

AFAIK, it's also incorrect to call the islands "sub-prefectures," as they have no real political status and their "sub-prefectural" offices are merely representatives of the Metropolitan Government. The actual administration goes from the Tocho to the village governments. Anyway, since Tokyo isn't a prefecture to begin with, the term is misleading in itself.

I was wondering about these island "sub-prefectures" too. The refers to these as villages or towns--I can't find any mention there of "sub-prefecture." Is there any official or semi-official origin for this usage?

I tried to explain this in a previous edit, but it was reverted out: if I'm wrong, somebody please point out my error. It might be a pedantic distinction, but it's almost as erroneous as calling the District of Columbia a state of the United States. I could possibly understand calling Hokkaido a prefecture, since it basically is one... but Tokyo is a special administrative case and political scientists like me are probably interested in knowing about it. Sekicho 22:43, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

Technically I have reverted more of what you have reverted. It seems Takanoha edited the article so that it reads Tokyo is a prefecture and you modify it. I have just reverted everything you and he has done to the version as of feb 20 because it seems many things are deleted.

Tokyo is technically still prefecture since Japanese word to is translated into prefecture and the governor of Tokyo is just like those in other prefectures.

-- Taku 22:58, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

I don't know about that last point. As I said before, if you go to the Tocho's website, they never refer to Tokyo as a prefecture. In fact, I have yet to see the Japanese government refer to Tokyo as a "prefecture" in English periodicals. So "technically," Tokyo is not a prefecture, in language or in structure, even though it might look like a prefecture to the average person, and have a "governor" like a prefecture's. I would support using official terminology in this article.

Sorry for belaboring this point so much, but facts are facts... Sekicho 23:28, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

Umm, actually I disagree. To my knowldge, legally and administratively Tokyo is treated as a prefecture, thus I don't see what's wrong to regard it as prefecture as Osaka or Kyoto is a prefecture even though they are not ken but fu. -- Taku 23:39, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

Fu are, to the best of my knowledge not different at all from other prefectures... and the Japanese government calls them "prefectures" in English. The to is structurally different from other prefectures, and is not called a "prefecture" in English. Sekicho 23:55, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

What makes Tokyo structurally different from the rest of prefectures? Also, if Tokyo is not a prefecture, it would not belong to Prefectures of Japan article. Tokyo is given an ISO_3166-2:JP number. Isn't it because Tokyo is just one of prefectures? -- Taku 05:18, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)

Japan has four kinds of administrative districts: to/do/fu/ken. These are equal but not identical. Tokyo-to, for example, handles some municipal services (fire department, public works) like a city; the ken do not do this. English usage for the fu is ambiguous. Kyoto calls itself a prefecture; Osaka calls itself a city. Go figure. I agree with Sekicho that Tokyo is a special case. adamrice

---

Also, just for the record, I would advise anyone adding or moving photos on this page to test the layout at 1024x768 before saving. At that resolution, many editions of this article have had very bad overlaps.

The first Landsat photo may not belong, as it actually mostly depicts Urayasu, Chiba-ken and only a small portion of Tokyo itself. Also, does anyone have any idea what portion of Tokyo the second Landsat pic depicts? Sekicho 22:56, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

Tokyo Disney Land is not located at Tokyo prefecture, but I think it is no problem to discuss it in the context of Tokyo. Again informally that Disney land is in Tokyo. So is Landsat, I think.

But I think the photo is rather ugly and is it really relevant? I will support your removal of the landsat photo. -- Taku 23:01, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

Where should I place the 1st photo? Should I place it in the Chiba Prefecture article? And as for the 2nd Landsat, I will put it back in the place of the 1st. WhisperToMe 23:53, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Actually, if we could get a thumbnail of the whole picture (i.e. what you get when you click on the current picture), that depicts the entire center city of Tokyo. A much more useful picture for the article, IMO. Sekicho 23:55, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

I just made a thumbnail of the 2nd pic, and the 1st pic was moved to the Chiba Prefecture article. WhisperToMe 00:31, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Cool, but do you think you could get a thumbnail of the center frame instead of the top frame (on the original NASDA site)? That frame covers central Tokyo and has more landmarks in it... in this picture, I can't really see anything too interesting. Sekicho 03:49, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)

I replaced the old image. WhisperToMe 04:56, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Prefectuer or City

We need a disambiguation on this page, because even those who are familiar to japanese topics get confused. That Tokyo-to had double aspects as a prefecture and a city is the past thnig. If you do not believe this, please think about a concrete example how Tokyo differs from other prefectures aside from its name and subtle points in taxation policy. -- Takanoha 14:17, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I reverted your edit, Takanoha, because it was factually incorrect. First of all, you put Tokyo's metropolitan status in the past tense. This is wrong. Tokyo still has a metropolitan government. You went on to talk about a "Tokyo prefecture" and "Tokyo City," entities that do not exist. I don't care if you want to make things more understandable, but talking about a "prefecture" and "city" that don't exist is counter to our mission, which is expressing the facts. The difference may not mean much to an average person, but it is a difference and we have to note that. Sekicho 14:30, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)

Because the current article (and some author?) makes confusion between Prefecture and City, we have to say that Tokyo City does not exist. Tokyo-to government no longer has a city aspect. If you do not aware of this yet, in Japanese, an entity (eg. Tokyo-to) often changes its characteristics while retaining its name and most of its substracture. The same name does not mean the same thing. By the way, I never deprived the metropolitan status from Tokyo. -- Takanoha 15:34, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Unless I'm misunderstanding something, the current article says all this. Please read the "administration" section again. It says that Tokyo-to administers the 23 special wards as though it were a city government, and that it administers the other cities as though it were a prefectural government.

By the way, Tokyo is not a "prefecture." Even though it acts like a prefecture, it is not called a prefecture. The following Google survey proves this:

There is a reason that Tokyo's website is www.metro.tokyo.jp and not www.pref.tokyo.jp. -- Sekicho 23:21, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)

Consult for further study. -- Taku 06:11, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)

The fact is that Tokyo-to does not administer the 23 special wards as though it were a city government, as the current article reads. The to system was supplanted by the to-do-fu-ken system by the 1947 act. The function of the to as a city has been then gradually diminished. Admittedly, the to still offers some very limitted services as a city, it does not justify saying the to as a hybrid prefecture and city, as it were decades ago. -- Takanoha 10:46, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Capital

Interestingly, Tokyo is not a capital of Japan legally. Since the capital has not moved from Kyoto to Tokyo officially, few people argue that Kyoto is officail capital while Tokyo is a practically capital.

I know this sounds very odd. But I think I have heard this and in fact there are some people say Tokyo is not a capital of Japan legally. The accuracy is what we cannot ignore. The Japanese edition of Japan article says the same. We probably should clarify this in the history section, what actually happened when Edo became Tokyo. -- Taku 07:55, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)

The Japanese BambooWeb article on "Tokyo" says: 第二次大戦後は、日本国憲法によって主権が天皇ではなく国民に存すると宣言されたため、国権の最高機関である国会の所在地をもって東京を首都とみなすのが妥当であろうという考えが一般化するようになった。

Basically, although the "capital confusion" was true before the war, the recognition of the Diet as the seat of the government, rather than the Emperor, makes the Emperor's status not affect which city gets to be capital.

I think what you mean to say, Taku, is that the capital was never explicitly moved. This is true. There was never a law stating that "the capital of Japan is Tokyo." However, there ARE laws that call the greater Tokyo area 首都圏 (for example), so Japanese law DOES recognize Tokyo as the capital of Japan. It's just implicit, not explicit.

I think I have already stated the history in the history section. Please feel free to add whatever I have left out. Sekicho 08:14, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)

Isn't the emperor living in Tokyo nowadays? WhisperToMe 08:58, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Dang it, right when I thought I was going to go to sleep on time, I ran head-on into an intellectual debate! Oh well. I have created a new article, Capital of Japan debate, where we can collate more information on this question. (It gets more and more bizarre the more I read about it.)

By the way, WhisperToMe, the emperor does live in Tokyo most of the time, but the Imperial Palace in Kyoto is still there, and it's still owned by the imperial family. So technically speaking, the Emperor can be said to live in both Tokyo and Kyoto. Sekicho 10:56, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)

Okay, someone reverted my edit when I placed in some alternate spellings of Tokyo at the very top of the article.

They should be in someplace in the top, but how should I deal with this? WhisperToMe 03:14, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I reverted it because it seems rather irelevant. I know there exists some alternate spellings for Tokyo. But are they really such common--common enough to be mentioned? I am pretty sure there are dozens of Japanese slangs for Tokyo but they are not mentioned to note. The article doesn't have to include every tiny info. -- Taku 03:19, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't have to, but look at Kabul - I still think it should somewhere, since it technically *does* have alternate spellings. No, they aren't used too much in the US, but they are used in Japan. WhisperToMe 04:02, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

So you mean we have a responsbility to provide alternative spellings. I added a sentence at the end of the opening section. What do you think? I think a spelling other than Tokyo freaks out even Japanese readers as well as English speakers. -- Taku 04:07, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)

What you did is good. :) Thank you. I did unbold the stuff in the para that is not a "name", though it is still italicized. WhisperToMe 04:09, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and as I added stuff to the Japanese articles manual relation to romanization, I have a proposed new opening...

Tokyo (Japanese: 東京; lit. eastern capital, Hepburn: Tōkyō or Toukyou, Nippon-shiki/Kunrei: Tôkyô, JSL: Tookyoo),

See: BambooWeb:Manual_of_Style_for_Japan-related_articles

WhisperToMe 02:11, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

All I want to know is, why? The goofy romanizations don't need to be the first words in the article. Put them elsewhere if you think they're important: I don't think they're important at all. -- Sekicho 02:58, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)

Suburban companies

Companies based in the Tokyo suburbs should be noted as well as companies in the city limits; suburbs are often associated with the main city. For instance, look at the companies list of Dallas and Chicago. WhisperToMe 03:41, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Chiba is not a "suburb", it's a different city in a different prefecture (with its own city center, transportation system, suburbs; Kikkoman's Noda is if anything a suburb of Chiba, not Tokyo). It also lies outside the Tokyo metropolitan area (東京都), which is a very strictly defined legal term. Are companies headquartered in Newark, New Jersey listed under New York, New York? Jpatokal 05:58, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

1. Companies listed in Newark aren't in the "New York City" list because I don't know of any in Newark. If I did, they will be listed in New York. Technically, the prefecture is (partly) a suburb because people live in Chiba pref. and commute to Tokyo. Also, the Greater Tokyo Area includes the Chiba prefecture - AFAIK, prefectures are included on a whole prefecture basis, which means the cities go in too. 2. As for Chiba, it appears (I don't know for sure; I haven't seen demographics in Noda) to be in the same boat as Sugar Land in Texas. Sugar Land has many local jobs, esp. with Imperial Sugar. But is also acts as a Houston suburb; people live in Sugar Land and commute to Houston, and Sugar Land is part of the Houston MSA. WhisperToMe 06:17, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Let's get some terminology straight. Tokyo Metropolitan Area is 東京都 (Tokyo-to), ie. Tokyo Prefecture only. Comparison: New York, New York, consisting of the Five Boroughs but not (say) Westchester or Newark. You need to say Greater Tokyo Area if you want to refer to 東京圏 (Tokyo-ken), which includes the Chiba, Saitama and Kanagawa prefectures. Comparison: Tri-State Region (NY, NJ, PA), which also has an excellent little map illustrating the difference.

So a chemical factory in Elizabeth, New Jersey is not in New York, New York... and Kikkoman's soy factory in Noda, Chiba is not in Tokyo, Tokyo. Jpatokal 06:25, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I understand that (confusion was caused by differences between U.S. and Japanese usage of "metropolitan area" - I still think that Kikkoman should be mentioned by name in the Tokyo article. WhisperToMe 06:38, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

While it's tempting to lump Chiba in with Tokyo, it's not The Right Thing To Do. People from Chiba do not say they're from Tokyo, just as people from New Jersey do not say they're from New York, just as people from Fort Worth do not say they're from Dallas. When Nissan recently announced plans to move its HQ from Tokyo to Kanagawa, there was lots of hubbub because a large company was "leaving Tokyo," even though it was staying inside the metro area. So there is quite a contrast between Tokyo and greater Tokyo, just as there is between other distinct cities/counties/prefectures in other metropolitan areas. Sekicho 21:03, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

I see there. While a person from Seagoville, Texas may say he is from Dallas, a person from Fort Worth may not. The Fort Worth scenario must apply to Tokyo. WhisperToMe 21:36, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

While I am not sure about American examples, I support to mention companies that are located in Chiba but are generally considered in Tokyo. Many people from Chiba or Saitama say they are from Tokyo. There are many companies, shops and places that contain a name Tokyo but are not located in Tokyo-to like Narita Airport, whose official name is New Tokyo International Airport. -- Taku 02:03, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)

It's official name WAS New Tokyo International Airport - It changed to Narita International Airport on April 1, 2004. However, Tokyo Disneyland still supports your example. WhisperToMe 03:49, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Is that right? It makes everyone happy. Anyway, I also want to point out that the article is named Tokyo not Tokyo prefecture or any other. I think Tokyo is more of conceptual. This article is not limited to the administration of Tokyo, that is, Tokyo-to (Tokyo Metropolitan Government, I presume). Hence, we don't need to limit the scope of Tokyo here rigidly. -- Taku 00:11, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)

Would Kikkoman count as one? ( This text states that Kikkoman is in Tokyo when it is in Noda, Chiba) WhisperToMe 18:59, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Just for the record, I live in Saitama and I have never, ever heard anyone from here refer to themselves as coming from Tokyo. Exploding Boy 18:47, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

Do you mean people in Saitama (at least where you are in Saitama) never refer to themselves as being from Tokyo even while going abroad e.g. while in another country? WhisperToMe 18:59, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Many of them will say "Saitama, near Tokyo," or something similar, but usually not just "I'm from Tokyo," no. And when talking to other Japanese people they'd never say "I'm from Tokyo." Exploding Boy 19:05, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

Tokyo Tower image

I think the Tokyo Tower image should be above the prefectural table. Any other opinions on this? WhisperToMe 16:50, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It is standard for info boxes to be in the top-right hand corner of the page. Almost all pages use this layout, including all the city articles. ed g2s • talk 19:14, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think Tokyo should be an exception, esp. since it's often treated as a city when it is technically not a city. In city articles, the picture of the city's most recognizeable landmark comes first before any infoboxes. WhisperToMe 20:02, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A) A quick survey shows that picture/infobox rules are not consistently observed for cities or other administrative units; B) It's highly debatable what the most recognizable landmark in any city is (which is a good enough reason to prefer giving the infobox top billing)--in the case of Tokyo, the Imperial Palace, the Tocho, or Shibuya crossing would all be logical contenders; C) Tokyo Tower is an ugly-ass building that doesn't deserve that kind of prominence. adamrice 20:56, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Should the landmark pic become a part of the infobox? WhisperToMe 23:08, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Looking at several other city articles that include infoboxes, I haven't seen any other examples of landmark pictures in the infobox, and in most cases, the infobox comes before any photos. adamrice 23:48, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Which specific examples do this? WhisperToMe 23:54, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, I found Beijing and Ho Chi Minh City, but in terms of major ones like New York City, the infobox comes second. WhisperToMe 05:25, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Image Captions Revamp

I've revamped the captions for the images on this page following the guidelines of the Caption Writing WikiProject. I used to live in Tōkyō (2001–2002), but of course suggestions and corrections to the new captions are welcome. --Che Fox 06:49, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I like your caption much better than mine, but I did turn it around so that the order of the words matches the order of the buildings. Incidentally, the convention we're following for names like Tokyo, which are common in English, is not to use macrons. We put the macrons in once, following the kanji, in parentheses, but follow ordinary English conventions in the article. Names like Zōjōji are not as widely known in English, and we indicate pronunciation using the macrons. Thanks again, though, for improving on my caption! Fg2 07:32, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

Huh, that's an interesting standard for long vowels (common names get no macrons, uncommon names get macrons). I'll follow it from now on, thanks for the heads-up. Glad to be of help with the image captions! -- Che Fox 15:32, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree, it's "interesting." I wish I knew what to do. The discussion at Fg2 20:35, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)