Talk:Tokyo/Archive 6

Inter-language links to non-existent city
As you seem to settle (again) on this article being about Tōkyō-to (Tokyo "Metropolis"/prefecture) and not Tōkyō, could anyone who feels competent sort out the interlanguage links? Whenever I tried to correct the links in other language versions in the past the bots and en-WP reverted my changes. But as it is now once again clarified that this article is on the prefecture/to/"Metropolis", could you remove the links to articles that are not about Tōkyō-to such as cs:Tokio (as opposed to cs:Prefektura Tokio), Tokio (→de:Präfektur Tokio), fi:Tokio (→fi:Tokion prefektuuri), sv:Tokyo (→sv:Tokyo prefektur), many more languages of which I have not the slightest understanding and, most obviously, 東京→東京都 in (ja), (zh), (yue) and other hànzì/kanji/hanja/hántự-based languages? en:Tokyo is the most important "hub", and it seems reasonable to correct them here. Thanks in advance. Asakura Akira (talk) 15:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WikiProject Japan ! 21:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Environment
This section needs expansion, particularly on the historical perspective. Tokyo had a reputation as a polluted city, with traffic policemen wearing masks, and the fictional home of the Smog Monster. This page looks useful; any other suggestions, please? Spicemix (talk) 13:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

special wards and cities
I added a sentence explaining that the wards use city in their English name. I didn't think it was important to point out that this is a different usage to city as 市 as Shinjuku is Shinjuku District. 203.216.0.150 (talk) 05:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Seismicity
"Although the 2011 earthquake was more violent than the one in 1923, it did not cause as many deaths due to Japanese earthquake proof architecture"

This is a wrong assertion. The 2011 earthquake epicenter was ten times farther from Tokyo that the 1923 one. The actual magnitude in Tokyo (2011) was about 5.5 (while it was 9 at the epicenter).

No doubt that if a 1923-like earthquake would happen nowadays where it did at that time, the damage would be unfortunately much higher than during the recent March 11 one. Zenkutsu (talk) 15:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Fictitious Shinjuku Skyline
The composite picture of the Shinjuku Skyline with a prominent mount Fuji in the background is a pure fiction, and it seems very misleading to feature the picture in the article with no mention of the fictitious composition. Someone might actually try climbing the Bunkyo civic center and be disappointed when they find there's no mount Fuji there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.129.44.88 (talk) 06:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually it's not fiction, and there is no reason to believe the photo is a composite. If you do a Google search, you will find plenty of other similar photos taken from the same location. On a clear winter morning, anyone with a telephoto lens can take similar pictures from high vantage points in central Tokyo. --DAJF (talk) 06:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Anthem of Tokyo?
Tokyo has anthem? Bruno Ishiai (talk) 13:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, Tokyo does. Oda Mari (talk) 14:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Bruno Ishiai (talk) 01:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Article title and scope
I was reading the Swedish Wikipedia article on Tokyo and I was rather confused over the fact that there was no link to English Wikipedia. Then I realized that there is in fact no corresponding English article to that of sv:Tokyo. This article, Tokyo, seems to cover the administrative unit Tokyo Metropolis, while there is no article about the city area that is commonly known as Tokyo. I realize that this subject has been discussed before, but I think there are many good arguments for having a separate article about the administrative unit (the prefecture), and one article about the non-administrative city area, named Tokyo, similar to articles like Stockholm, Paris and Sydney.

Having two separate articles would make linking consistent to common language, such as in the following sentenece: :''The Bonin Islands are an archipelago some 1,000 kilometres directly south of Tokyo, Japan. Administratively, they are part of the prefecture Tokyo Metropolis.'' (Although the name "Tokyo Metropolis" is rather confusing here). --Kildor (talk) 08:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Ogasawara/Bonin Islands
Why are the Ogasawara Islands part of Tokyo, anyway? That sounds as rational as annexing St. Croix to New York City. 68.37.254.48 (talk) 05:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Or Providenciales to London. 68.37.254.48 (talk) 05:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Because that's they way they did it. There really isn't a better answer. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 07:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Possible explanations I've heard – I'm not saying either is true and can't back them up with references other than not citable forum quotes and the like; but each may have had some part in the reasoning that led to the decision to make the islands part of Tokyo:
 * 1. Colonial protection: By making the islands part of one of the richest prefecture (I'm not sure whether that was already true in the Empire, in any case: one of the richest prefectures) that also contains Tokyo city, the capital, they could be better protected against potential foreign territorial claims. (In 1880, sitting on the wrong side of the table in the imperialism game of great powers was still a fresh memory (unequal treaties); and there had been British and US expeditions to the islands)
 * 2. Trade (also applies to the Izu islands): While the ports of Shizuoka/Izu were closer and had traditionally served as trade gateways from the mainland to the islands, the ports of Tokyo and Yokohama grew in importance. As trade was now done with the capital, it would be logical to make the islands administratively part of Tokyo as well.
 * 3. Meiji oligarchy politics: Stuffing as many rural, conservative areas as possible into Tokyo prefecture ensured that potentially rebellious, liberal Tokyo city had less weight in prefectural politics – prefectural assemblies had been created two years before, and the three Western Tama counties were still part of Kanagawa. (While this sounds more like a conspiracy theory if taken as the explanation, the question why Tokyo city should share a government with villages in the Okutama mountains or Iwo Jima seems legitimate. And today, the islanders have the highest vote weight in elections for the Metropolitan Assembly. The weakness of this explanation is in my view that the Freedom and People's Rights Movement was not yet as "urbanized" as liberals later in the Empire or today – rural landowners and former samurai played an important role in the movement.)
 * --Asakura Akira (talk) 09:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * David Chapman: Inventing Subjects and Sovereignty: Early History of the First Settlers of the Bonin (Ogasawara) Islands helps a bit and supports explanation (1.): "...Furthering the process of governmentalization, the administration of the islands was placed under the jurisdiction of Tokyo Metropolitan Prefecture in 1880 and Obana was restored as Governor. Obana, the conduit of Meiji authority on the Islands, was now able to implement Japanese laws in dealings with the Bonin Islanders without concern for extraterritoriality rights." ("support explanation (1.)" was stronger wording than I had intended. Let's say: If you want to increase government control over the islands as the article explains it seems reasonable to choose Tokyo over less prominent prefectures) Also of help in further search may be these historical records and other resources in the Metropolitan Archives -- Asakura Akira (talk) (modified) 17:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

IPA for Japanese pronunciation
A dynamic IP editor has now twice changed the IPA representation for the Japanese pronunciation of Tokyo from "toːkjoː" to "toːkʲoː". I'm no language expert, but the Japanese phonology article and IPA for Japanese guidelines both seem to indicate that "toːkjoː" is correct here. Maybe someone else more knowledgeable can check and confirm this. Thanks. --DAJF (talk) 23:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This page says it's "toːkʲoː". But I cannot tell it's correct as I do not know about IPA. This is the home page of the site. Oda Mari (talk) 06:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The indicates co-articulation which, whilst likely to be strictly correct, isn't really an issue here since there is no phonemic distinction between  and .  The transcription is linked to the WP guidelines mentioned above which don't mention  at all.  If we're going to be using this, we should explain it on the help page, otherwise we're not giving very helpful info. J IM ptalk·cont 07:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Twins Cities
Tokyo is officially twinned with London and has partnership agreements with Paris & Rome. Paris & Rome are officially twinned, exclusively, with each other. I would like to point out that my several attempts to correct this false information of the "Tokyo" Wikipedia page have been denied. I'm a member of the London Assembly and am well aware of the Twin Cities of my city. Please, correct this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.175.122 (talk) 19:07, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The official Tokyo Government source dated 2010 says that Tokyo has a "partnership agreement" with London, differentiating it from other sister cities. Do you have a reliable source to back up your claims that this is incorrect? --DAJF (talk) 00:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Something is plain wrong with this far away island
I was reading: "Tokyo has numerous outlying islands, which extend as far as 1850 km from central Tokyo.". Next I tried to find which Island it is so far, I continued reading: "The islands in order from closest to Tokyo are Izu Ōshima, Toshima, Niijima, Shikinejima, Kozushima, Miyakejima, Mikurajima, Hachijojima, and Aogashima." Ok, farmost is Aogashima. Clicked on article about Aogashima and reading :"..Tokyo and located approximately 358 kilometres (222 mi) south of Tokyo". What?! Tõnu Samuel (talk) 04:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * See Minamitorishima. Oda Mari (talk) 09:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this information should be on main, not on talk page. Main page is confusing.Tõnu Samuel (talk) 06:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

wrong density?
Compare "Density	6,000/km2" with New York or Sao Paulo cities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.52.146.225 (talk) 01:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC) Compare it with New York or São Paulo (state) and it's actually extremely high. Prefectures are generally much smaller than US or Brazilian states, Tokyo is one of the smallest and contains only few remaining rural areas out in the west (+the islands) as suburbs now essentially extend to the foot of the Okutama mountains. For comparison with New York City or São Paulo: Population density in former Tokyo City (today the 23 wards) is >14,000/km². --Asakura Akira (talk) 10:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The figure in the article is approximately correct (c. 6,015/km² based on 2010 census (2011 press release in English), close to 6,040/km² if you use other more recent population statistics).

Alternative Languages
Many languages, such as spanish, cherokee, and zulu, appear to be in a different group of connected pages. That is, those languages, and probably all the languages on those pages' side bars, are not on the side bar even though they have pages on Tokyo, and in those languages, english, and probably all the languages on this pages' side bar, are not availiable on the side bar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.20.225.26 (talk • contribs)
 * The links to articles in other languages are complicated by the fact that "Tokyo" refers to both the city and to the prefecture. This article is about the official governmental entity called Tokyo (Tokyo-to, in Japanese, which includes the densely populated metropolitan area as well as the sparsely populated Izu and Ogasawara Islands), i.e. the prefecture, not the city.  Articles called "Tokyo" in other languages are sometimes about the metropolitan area informally still called "Tokyo", not the prefecture.  Although many people use "Tokyo" to refer to the "city", there has officially been no city of Tokyo since 1943 when the then city of Tokyo (Tokyo-shi) and prefecture of Tokyo (Tokyo-fu) merged into a single governmental entity with attributes of both large cities and other Japanese prefectures.  Perhaps the most directly corresponding article here to an article in another language's Wikipedia about the "city" of Tokyo would be Special wards of Tokyo.  -- Rick Block (talk) 01:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The article about the "Metropolis"/prefecture (>2.000 km², >13 mill inhabitants) is named 東京都/Tōkyō-to/Tokyo prefecture/etc. in Japanese, Chinese, German, Swedish and several other language versions.
 * The article about the city (yes, there is no such administrative unit anymore, but in all other aspects of a city, most people would say Tokyo is alive and well and – as a (geographical, cultural, economical, ...) city – does not encompass the upper Tama valley, Mt. Ōdake or Iwo Jima as the "Metropolis"/prefecture does) is named 東京/Tōkyō/etc. in those language versions (Of course Tokyo can refer to both, and to different degrees all "Tokyo" articles provide some kind of "extended disambiguation"; but any definition of Tokyo as a city begins with Tōkyō-23-ku (<650 km², >9 mill. inhabitants), that's "Tokyo" in a narrow sense to many people in any language).
 * Now, I do not want to reopen the debate about how en.wikipedia defines Tokyo; but I'd be grateful if someone from en.wp who is familiar with Wikidata could sort out the inter-language once and for all now that they are centrally handled by Wikidata – the en.wp editorial decision to have one and only one article for "Tokyo" from Mt. Kumotori to Marcus island seems to have been the root cause for many misleading interlanguage links. (see Talk:Tokyo/Archive 6 and preceding discussions)
 * By the way, you might want to clarify in this article that in some definitions, not all of "Tokyo Metropolis", not even all of the mainland/Honshū/main island part of it, is within the Tokyo metropolitan area, look at the University of Tokyo and some of the statistics bureau definitions in the linked article.
 * Thank you in advance, Asakura Akira (talk) 09:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps there is no problem -- not really. Is it not reasonable to expect that the article about Tokyo (東京) covers everything about Tokyo from 1457 through the present?


 * The relationship between the historic versions of Tokyo is not easy to simplify, but a few related articles have developed which are helpful. For example,
 * 1457-present: simple:Tokyo
 * compare en:Tokyo
 * 1457-1869: simple:Edo (江戸 Edō)
 * compare en:Edo


 * 1869-1943: simple:Tokyo Prefecture (東京府 Tokyo-fu), also known as Tōkei-fu
 * compare en:Tokyo-fu
 * 1889-1943: simple:Tokyo, Tokyo (東京市 Tokyo-shi), also known as "Tokyo City"
 * compare en:Tokyo City
 * 1943-present: simple:Tokyo Metropolis (東京都 Tokyo-to)
 * compare en:Tokyo Metropolis


 * Traditional Tokyo or the simple:Special wards of Tokyo are 23 cities occupying the place that was formerly the city of Tokyo
 * compare en:Special wards of Tokyo

As for the rest, I replied on Wikidata:Talk:Q7473516. --Asakura Akira (talk) 12:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The nested structure of related articles already exists. Is there a better way to parse this? --Ansei (talk) 12:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * As I said, I do not urge a change in the en.wp structure – though I obviously disagree and would suggest to reconsider, I've always tried to respect it in my edits (Even when it's sometimes hard to do so. How do you explain in that structure when the governor's office says that 東京 can still be considered the prefectural capital of 東京都 for geographical purposes? See the ref in Shinjuku, Tokyo. Do you then mark the "defunct City of Tokyo" on the map as capital of "Tokyo Metropolis"?) . But there is apparently a problem with the inter-language links. Otherwise, why do they now lead to ja:東京 instead of ja:東京都, to de:Tokio instead of de:Präfektur Tokio? As I haven't found the time yet to familiarize myself with many of Wikidata's features, I had asked on the Tokyo talk page in de.wp to clean it up. User:Mps, helpful as usual, created the dual 東京/東京都 Wikidata entries to represent the dual structure as it exists in several language versions. But I now regret that decision because the links seem to have fallen into disarray again – presumably as a consequence of the fact that the largest Wikipedia does not have that dual structure. What I ask for is that the inter-language links are rectified and point to the article about "Tōkyō-to"/"Tokyo Metropolis"/"Tokyo prefecture" in language versions where such a dual structure exists. --Asakura Akira (talk) 13:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * @Asakura Akira -- Please see Wikidata:Talk:Q7473516#Parsing this subject. Does this restate or capture the current state of articles in two wikis? in three wikis? Does this suggest a strategy for moving forward? --Ansei (talk) 15:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Just so others notice - Ansei has changed Tokyo Metropolis from a redirect to Tokyo to a stub article about the prefecture. This doesn't seem very productive to me since Tokyo (at least currently) encompasses the prefecture.  Is there any particular reason an interwiki link (e.g. from ja:東京都) can't lead to a redirect, in which case ja:東京 would lead to Tokyo and ja:東京都 would lead to Tokyo Metropolis (which would then redirect to Tokyo)?  -- Rick Block (talk) 17:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If the article Tokyo Metropolis stays it should be corrected. Tokyo prefecture's municipalities other than Tokyo city did not merge, they are still around today. Only the administration of Tokyo city merged with the prefectural administration of Tokyo. That's what the Tōkyō tosei that is mentioned in the reference was about: Getting rid of the Tokyo City council and mayor and tying the governor even closer to the central government. (At least in the way it was implemented in the war – the idea of eliminating one level of government and elevating the Tokyo City administration to the prefectural level had been around since the 19th century. This failed draft bill by Home Affairs Minister Nomura Yasushi (2nd Itō Cabinet) in 1895 was one early attempt. It would have split off Tokyo's other municipalities as a separate prefecture, only the area of Tokyo City would have remained part of "Tokyo Metropolis".)
 * Please see that Tokyo Metropolis and simple:Tokyo Metropolis are now changed in ways which were suggested by Asakura Akira. --Ansei (talk) 14:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there consensus that the article stays? As it stands Tokyo is still the English Wikipedia article about Tōkyō-to/"Tokyo Metropolis", one of Japan's 47 prefectures.
 * My poorly phrased and pointed summary should not be in the article space. My suggestions for a bit of context would be Kurt Steiner (1965): Local Government in Japan. and if you're looking for something available online Historical Development of Japanese Local Governance. But maybe experts (I'm not one. I only have some experience trying to explain "all the Tokyos" to unfamiliar readers) can suggest better material.
 * Maybe the simplest way to illustrate would be two tables:
 * {| class="wikitable"

! !  (until 1920s subordinate to counties/districts) (island municipalities subordinate to subprefectures) !
 * +Tokyo's administrative structure before 1943 (not different from Ōsaka, Kyōto)
 * -align="center"
 * colspan="3" | Tōkyō-fu ("Tokyo Prefecture")
 * -align="center"
 * Tōkyō-shi ("Tokyo City")
 * rowspan="2" | Other cities (shi)
 * rowspan="2" | towns (machi) and villages (mura)
 * -align="center"
 * Wards (ku)
 * }
 * {| class="wikitable"

! !  !
 * +Tokyo's administrative structure from 1943 to 1947 under the Tōkyō tosei
 * -align="center"
 * colspan="3" style="white-space:nowrap;" | Tōkyō-to ("Tokyo Metropolis")
 * -align="center"
 * style="border-top:hidden" |
 * rowspan="2" | Other cities (shi)
 * rowspan="2" | towns (machi) and villages (mura)
 * -align="center"
 * Wards (ku)
 * }
 * It becomes apparent "Tokyo City and Tokyo Prefecture merged to become Tokyo Metropolis" – as it is sometimes summarized – does not refer to a territorial change. And maybe that is sometimes a source of misunderstanding?
 * But first you should decide if you really need a separate article. If Tokyo Metropolis becomes the article about the prefecture, what is Tokyo supposed to be about? --Asakura Akira (talk) 15:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, I would expect Tokyo Metropolis to be mostly about official Tokyo (Tokyo-to) since 1943. At the same time, I would expect Tokyo to be about anything and everything to do with Tokyo since 1457 -- not excluding Tokyo-to, i.e., history, geography, culture, economy, government, etc.

In symbolic language, I perceive the two articles in this way:
 * B ⊆ A
 * Tokyo Metropolis ⊆ Tokyo

Does this point-of-view restate or capture a cross-wiki consensus opinion? I only make guesses about what others think.

Please give some thought to the newly added history sub-sections and headnote links.
 * Tokyo
 * Tokyo#History ... 1869-1943 sub-section
 * Tokyo#History ...1943-present sub-section
 * Tokyo#History ...1943-present sub-section

Is there a better or simpler way to parse this? As context, does it help to suggest considering the "see also" list added to the article about the Tokyo metropolis?--Ansei (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Then what is Tokyo in your definition? Until now it has been en:Tokyo=Tokyo Metropolis=ja:Tōkyō-to, therefore ja:Tōkyō in its narrowest sense, i.e. the city (settlement)=ja:kyū-Tōkyō-shi (the territory of the defunct city (administrative unit))=Tōkyō-23-ku⊂en:Tokyo (in addition ja:Tōkyō⊆Tokyo metropolitan area and depending on definition of the metropolitan area: en:Tokyo ⊆ or ∩ Tokyo metropolitan area). That en:Tokyo should describe the administrative unit, the prefecture "Tokyo Metropolis" was to my knowledge most recently debated and confirmed in Talk:Tokyo/Archive 5. If that should change now there needs to be a redefinition of en:Tokyo and a consensus among editors about it.
 * As for the cross-wiki consensus, I cannot speak for any language version and there are probably debates about how to parse the topic in all language versions beyond a certain critical size. All definitions of Tokyo were there long before I made my first Wikipedia edit; but de:Tokio and "Tokyo" articles in several other language versions are primarily defined as the city in its narrowest borders, i.e. the 23 wards because that's where the definition of Tōkyō as a city (as a settlement, toshi) begins, also in ja:Tōkyō or zh:Tōkyō. It also fits a negative administrative definition: If you are anywhere else in Japan (including anywhere else in en:Tokyo, i.e. the Tama area or the islands), then you are in a different city, town or village. After that you can expand that narrow definition either administratively which leads you to the prefecture Tōkyō-to=en:Tokyo or geographically/economically/culturally which leads you to the Tokyo metropolitan area (extends into prefectures other than Tokyo, but does not necessarily include all of it), the Kantō region and if you go even further (e.g. linguistically) Eastern Japan. --Asakura Akira (talk) 15:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll add one more example because it nicely illustrates why I think the narrow definition of "Tokyo" as primarily the 23 wards as it was done in de: best fits the actual perception of what Tokyo as a city is to many people: In the Japanese Wikipedia, the city history that covers only the area of the 23 wards/Tokyo City/Edo is collected in ja:Category:東京の歴史 (Tōkyō no rekishi, "History of Tokyo"). Forget the interwiki links, they are misleading. Because the history of en:Tokyo/Tōkyō-to/Tōkyō-fu, the prefecture/"Metropolis", is categorized in ja:Category:東京都の歴史 (Tōkyō-to no rekishi, "History of Tokyo Metropolis"). --Asakura Akira (talk) 16:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * @Asakura Akira -- Will you summarize the issue for discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan? I'm not sure I understand well enough. --Ansei (talk) 18:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I can summarize the original issue of inter-language links ; but I do not think that it needs to move to the WikiProject. If anywhere it should move to Wikidata so that editors from other language versions can participate; but there is already a link from there to this discussion and en is the largest Wikipedia. That issue still stands unless you change the definition of en:Tokyo. The links also affect the other, growing features of Wikidata, Q1490 contains a statement "instance of prefecture" – what en:Tokyo describes is, what de:Tokio or ja:東京 describe are not. Of course they are related – nobody would deny that New York City is an important, defining part of New York State; and compared to New York, the relation is even closer: in Japan only the capitals of Tokyo and Kyoto contain more than 50% of the prefectural population –, but they are clearly distinguishable, separate topics, regardless of whether the definition of the city is rather narrow as in de: or more flexible/blurry as in ja:. What I ask for is that the articles about the prefecture/"Metropolis" are correctly cross-linked, and the articles about Tokyo as a city (city/toshi, not city/shi) as far as they are compatible.
 * If the issue is to reorganize en:Tokyo as your intention seems to be by creating a separate article Tokyo Metropolis, I cannot summarize the issue because I do not know what you want "Tokyo" to be about. If you have a definition of Tokyo that differs from the current one given in en:Tokyo ("Tokyo is one of the 47 prefectures of Japan.") you have to phrase it.
 * I'll try to re-parse the topic in a way that can possibly help you to find the right questions (and please, this is only a suggestion based on how some other language versions do it: separate the geographical, cultural, historical, ... entity city from the administrative unit prefecture/"Metropolis". That doesn't mean this indicates the right way to go in the English Wikipedia. To me, the most populous city of Japan (List of Japanese cities by population) is not named "23 special wards", that's only an administrative definition of a city named Tokyo. But maybe en.wikipedia readers expect "Tokyo" to be only one thing that contains all the others. I personally wouldn't know how to define such a Tokyo without producing blatant contradictions.):


 * Tokyo1 (東京, Tōkyō) is the largest city and de facto capital of Japan as seat of the National Diet, central government ministries and agencies and the Emperor. It is situated in the Eastern part of Tokyo2, in the Kantō Plain between the mouths of the Tamagawa and Edogawa rivers into Tokyo Bay. [...] Dissolved as an administrative unit in 1943, it today consists of 23 special wards that have quasi-municipal status within Tokyo2. At more than 9 million inhabitants, Tokyo1 is the core of the Tokyo metropolitan area and part of the Pacific Belt megalopolis. [...] It is named Tokyo ("Eastern capital" or more precisely "Eastern Imperial residence") since the Meiji restoration when the Emperor moved his residence to the city previously known as Edo. It had already been the seat of government since 1603 when Edo became the seat of the Tokugawa shogunate. [...] In 1932, the city expanded to almost it its current area, at the time known as "Greater Tokyo" (大東京, Dai-Tōkyō), by annexing 82 towns and villages from five surrounding counties/districts, increasing the population from 2.1 to 5.4 million. [...] Technically Shinjuku ward is the capital of Tokyo2 since 1991 when the Metropolitan assembly and government moved there from Chiyoda ward; but the Geographical Survey Institute and government maps still designate Tokyo1 as a whole as prefectural capital.[...] In some areas the prefectural government of Tokyo2 assumes municipal responsibilities for Tokyo1. The 23 special ward governments, while no longer constituting one city government, cooperate in some limited areas such as recruiting public servants through joint institutions, most are headquartered in the Tōkyō kusei kaikan (~"Hall of Tokyo ward government") in Iidabashi, Chiyoda ward...
 * Tokyo2 (東京都, Tōkyō-to, officially translated as "Tokyo Metropolis") is one of the 47 prefectures of Japan. With more than 13 million inhabitants it is the most populous, at the same time the third smallest with 2,187 km². The majority of its territory lies on the main island of Honshū. It consists of 23 special wards that together form the densely populated core Tokyo1, Western suburbs of Tokyo1 in the Kanto plain, parts of the Okuchichibu Mountains and several remote islands. [...] The 30 cities, towns and villages to the West of Tokyo1 are together known as Tama area, the centre and largest city of the Tama area is Hachiōji with more than half a million inhabitants. The mountain forests of Okutama and the Tama valley are popular for hiking and fishing... The two island groups, organized in nine towns and villages, are the Izu and the isolated Ogasawara/Bonin islands. The latter include the eastern- and southernmost part of Japan's territory and have been declared a UNESCO World Natural Heritage. [...] Until 1943, the prefecture was named Tōkyō-fu; it became "Metropolis" (-to) when it merged with the Tokyo city government and assumed municipal authority in Tokyo1. Since 1947, the now "special" wards have quasi-municipal status; but the prefectural government retains some municipal authority and revenues. [...] It was established as Edo-fu in 1868 during the Boshin war after the capitulation of Edo, then renamed together with Tokyo1. The first governor was Karasumaru Mitsue, a court noble from Kyoto. Initially it only covered Tokyo1 which had been administrated by two bugyō under the Tokugawa, but expanded to surrounding counties/districts in 1871 when the feudal domains were abolished. In the 1870s to 1890s the islands and the Tama area were added to the prefecture extending it to its current area...


 * --Asakura Akira (talk) 10:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata link
I see that this page links to d:Q7473516 in Wikidata rather than to d:Q1490, which would seem the more obvious choice. And most of the other related pages from the disambiguation page don't have Wikidata links at all. What's the rationale here? I ask because I'm trying to figure out the correct link to use in la:Tokium. A. Mahoney (talk) 13:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a very good question. See Talk:Tokyo above. --Ansei (talk) 14:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * oops, sorry -- should have looked at that before asking. A. Mahoney (talk) 15:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The archived threads show that this subject has been the focus of thoughtful discussion for a long time. Maybe it makes sense to up-date a table which was created by Asakura Akira here in 2010:
 * {| class="wikitable"

! Japanese ! MetaData ! English ! Simple English ! German ! Latin ! comments
 * 東京
 * Q7473516
 * Tokyo
 * Tokyo
 * Tokio
 * 1457-present Does this answer the question well enough for now?
 * 東京都
 * Q1490
 * Tokyo Metropolis
 * Tokyo Metropolis
 * Präfektur Tokio
 * Tokyo-to, 1943-present
 * 東京府
 * Q1189121
 * Tokyo-fu
 * Tokyo Prefecture
 * Tokyo-fu, 1869-1943
 * 東京市
 * Q1207735
 * Tokyo City
 * Tokyo, Tokyo
 * Tokio (Stadt)
 * Tokyo-shi, 1869-1943
 * 東京都区部
 * Q308891
 * Special wards of Tokyo
 * Special wards of Tokyo
 * Bezirke Tokios
 * 1947-present; no problems
 * 特別区
 * Q5327704
 * 江戸
 * Q215646
 * Edo
 * Edo
 * Edo
 * 1457-1869; no problems
 * 首都圏
 * Q328121
 * Greater Tokyo Area
 * Metropolregion Tokio
 * no problems
 * 南関東
 * Q1775108
 * 関東地方
 * Q132480
 * Kantō region
 * Kantō region
 * Kantō
 * no problems
 * 広域関東圏
 * Q5358256
 * }
 * Is this an exercise in a kind of fuzzy logic? This table may not be good enough, but it's a small step forward. --Ansei (talk) 18:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You're proposing that la:Tokium be equivalent with :en:Tokyo (this page) rather than with en:Tokyo Metropolis as it is at the moment. This does answer my immediate question (and I think I'll adjust the Wikidata references accordingly);  thank you.  I'm still thinking about which pages we should have in Latin WP, for which the discussion above is useful.  A. Mahoney (talk) 18:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * PS: it would be useful if the various English pages mentioned here were linked through the relevant Wikidata items, as this would facilitate figuring out what goes with what.  A. Mahoney (talk) 18:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * [[Image:TooManyPigeons.jpg|thumb|right|120px|There are problems in [[pigeonholing]] the subject of Tokyo.]]The table only tries to show what currently exists, not what is best or better or easy-to-pigeonhole. If I understand well enough, Asakura Akira and others believe that my parsing is flawed. Perhaps we should invite comments from others at WikiProject Japan before you or I do anything more?  --Ansei (talk) 18:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * @Asakura Akira -- Will you summarize the issue for discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan? I'm not sure I understand well enough. --Ansei (talk) 18:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Q328121
 * Greater Tokyo Area
 * Metropolregion Tokio
 * no problems
 * 南関東
 * Q1775108
 * 関東地方
 * Q132480
 * Kantō region
 * Kantō region
 * Kantō
 * no problems
 * 広域関東圏
 * Q5358256
 * }
 * Is this an exercise in a kind of fuzzy logic? This table may not be good enough, but it's a small step forward. --Ansei (talk) 18:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You're proposing that la:Tokium be equivalent with :en:Tokyo (this page) rather than with en:Tokyo Metropolis as it is at the moment. This does answer my immediate question (and I think I'll adjust the Wikidata references accordingly);  thank you.  I'm still thinking about which pages we should have in Latin WP, for which the discussion above is useful.  A. Mahoney (talk) 18:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * PS: it would be useful if the various English pages mentioned here were linked through the relevant Wikidata items, as this would facilitate figuring out what goes with what.  A. Mahoney (talk) 18:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * [[Image:TooManyPigeons.jpg|thumb|right|120px|There are problems in [[pigeonholing]] the subject of Tokyo.]]The table only tries to show what currently exists, not what is best or better or easy-to-pigeonhole. If I understand well enough, Asakura Akira and others believe that my parsing is flawed. Perhaps we should invite comments from others at WikiProject Japan before you or I do anything more?  --Ansei (talk) 18:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * @Asakura Akira -- Will you summarize the issue for discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan? I'm not sure I understand well enough. --Ansei (talk) 18:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * no problems
 * 広域関東圏
 * Q5358256
 * }
 * Is this an exercise in a kind of fuzzy logic? This table may not be good enough, but it's a small step forward. --Ansei (talk) 18:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You're proposing that la:Tokium be equivalent with :en:Tokyo (this page) rather than with en:Tokyo Metropolis as it is at the moment. This does answer my immediate question (and I think I'll adjust the Wikidata references accordingly);  thank you.  I'm still thinking about which pages we should have in Latin WP, for which the discussion above is useful.  A. Mahoney (talk) 18:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * PS: it would be useful if the various English pages mentioned here were linked through the relevant Wikidata items, as this would facilitate figuring out what goes with what.  A. Mahoney (talk) 18:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * [[Image:TooManyPigeons.jpg|thumb|right|120px|There are problems in [[pigeonholing]] the subject of Tokyo.]]The table only tries to show what currently exists, not what is best or better or easy-to-pigeonhole. If I understand well enough, Asakura Akira and others believe that my parsing is flawed. Perhaps we should invite comments from others at WikiProject Japan before you or I do anything more?  --Ansei (talk) 18:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * @Asakura Akira -- Will you summarize the issue for discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan? I'm not sure I understand well enough. --Ansei (talk) 18:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * }
 * Is this an exercise in a kind of fuzzy logic? This table may not be good enough, but it's a small step forward. --Ansei (talk) 18:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You're proposing that la:Tokium be equivalent with :en:Tokyo (this page) rather than with en:Tokyo Metropolis as it is at the moment. This does answer my immediate question (and I think I'll adjust the Wikidata references accordingly);  thank you.  I'm still thinking about which pages we should have in Latin WP, for which the discussion above is useful.  A. Mahoney (talk) 18:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * PS: it would be useful if the various English pages mentioned here were linked through the relevant Wikidata items, as this would facilitate figuring out what goes with what.  A. Mahoney (talk) 18:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * [[Image:TooManyPigeons.jpg|thumb|right|120px|There are problems in [[pigeonholing]] the subject of Tokyo.]]The table only tries to show what currently exists, not what is best or better or easy-to-pigeonhole. If I understand well enough, Asakura Akira and others believe that my parsing is flawed. Perhaps we should invite comments from others at WikiProject Japan before you or I do anything more?  --Ansei (talk) 18:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * @Asakura Akira -- Will you summarize the issue for discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan? I'm not sure I understand well enough. --Ansei (talk) 18:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * @Asakura Akira -- Will you summarize the issue for discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan? I'm not sure I understand well enough. --Ansei (talk) 18:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Based on the titles, that could be a reasonable solution. But there is really a problem with "Tokyo" versus "Tokyo Metropolis". The current Tokyo article is explicitly about Tokyo Metropolis (and that is the same thing in many other languages). If you want to keep Tokoyo Metropolis, a good part of Tokyo needs to be rewritten, and many templates and internal links updated. --Superzoulou (talk) 16:55, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree on the redundancy. Only one thing: I hope interlanguage links aren't created "based on titles": Otherwise, a French article about a city in the U.S. would be linked to an English article about the U.S. state that city is located in and a German disambiguation page. Similarly, an article about a Japanese prefecture (en:Tokyo=en:Tokyo Metropolis) should not be linked to articles about a city in that prefecture (de:Tokio, in the narrowest, first definition ja:Tōkyō). --Asakura Akira (talk) 13:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Climate data for Tokyo (Ōtemachi, Chiyoda ward,[49] 1981-2010) is wrong
and not referring to Tokyo climate. Although it is said to be taken from The Weather Network (not sure how reliable is it), the original is different from what is on main wiki page. Main page information shows precipitation on winter more than in summer while it is exactly opposite, the smallest count of sunny days in winter than in summer (Tokyo winter is dry, summer has rainy seasons), which is also completely wrong (Tokyo winters are mostly sunny) and temperatures do not look like true as well. 180.43.8.153 (talk) 08:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I reverted an edit probably a vandalism. Please re-confirm the data. Thanks for the heads-up.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I fixed the climate data. It should be right as of now but double check it just in case I make a small error. It could be due to vandalism since the values such as sunshine hours and precipitation should never be rounded. The sunshine hours should be from the JMA, not The Weather Network (not that reliable since the data they used which is based on the WMO climate data for cities from 1961-1990 are rounded). Ssbbplayer (talk) 21:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

150-gigapixel panorama
This 360-degree panorama is supposedly the second largest photo ever made (150 billion pixels) and is really quite amazing. It could be added as an external link. Zerotalk 08:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Spelling variant
Please leave the spelling in the original variant, which is American English. That's what the Manual of Style indicates is the proper procedure. Let's follow it -- makes life easier. Thanks! Samuel Webster (talk) 04:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Amazon.com Sales Pages Removed
Four external links were routed to amazon.com sales pages. Some noted amazons "search" function, apparently as justification. The same search function is available from a number of non-sales sites. Further, these are not sources used for the article. If a sales page is the only link that can be provided, remove the entire book. Please take it to DMOZ if needed. Jay Dubya (talk) 19:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal
should be merged with Tokyo Metropolis, do not forget Tokyo (disambiguation)--Oursana (talk) 14:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - I fully support this measure, as both Tokyo and the Tokyo Metropolis are synonymous and a merger would just highlight the importance of the urban conglomeration in Wikipedia. Both articles have similar content, and residents from both "areas" would most likely refer themselves as residents of Tokyo to those not from the region. Redflorist (talk) 01:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think this would be a good idea, as it is quite confusing to have different articles about hte same thing floating all over the place. --Gimala (talk) 18:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC)Gimala
 * Comment - Although at face value the two articles appear reference the same topic, I believe that this is an attempt to split the Tokyo article into a Tokyo "city" (i.e. the 23 wards) article and a Tokyo "prefecture" article. Personally, I would advocate such a split since this article, whilst initially mentioning the dual "metropolitan prefecture" nature, is more focused on the city itself (e.g. there are sections on "cityscape"). I think using "Tokyo" to refer to a city and a prefecture with rural districts is confusing for the reader. Although I agree that the situation is different, all other prefectures with a city and prefecture of the same name (e.g. Saitama Prefecture, Saitama, Saitama) are seperate articles. I would agree with a merger if the current status-quo is kept, but advocate splitting the article into city and prefecture articles. JTST4RS (talk) 18:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your quick response. I think we agree completely. Formally Tokyo Metropolis could be for the prefecture, but this article Tokyo gives information about the city and better information about the prefecture as well, see e.g. Izu Islands and Ogasawara Islands and Tama region, whereas Tokyo Metropolis seems more like a stub. Furthermore as about City of Tokyo you have to consider, that there is also Special wards of Tokyo. In short like you I would support keeping up the split between city and prefecture if the split would be made clearer by naming and by the texts. With the status quo I would prefer a merger to one good article, than keeping one stub for formal reasons only. Perhaps you could work on this, it depends or the elaboration or at least the merger. I think the situation is different from other articles of cities/prefectures of the same name, because there exist really cities and prefectures side by side, while only Tokyo officially is no city. I came here via wikidata, because as you can imagine, the situation there is far more complicated. But this article is a key article, so I'd like to have this clear at least. The link in the IB Metropolis should be altered.
 * On wikidata the situation is even more complicated. There is Tokyo (prefecture), where this article is linked to, Tokyo, with no en article linked to, Special ward of Tokyo, Tokyo Metropolis, where only Tokyo Metropolis is linked to, see also d:User talk:Zolo: Präfektur Tokio (Q1490), Tokio Metropolis (Q11199581).--Oursana (talk) 15:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I would definitely say that the merger would be the easier, quick-fix solution. If this merger were to go ahead (and if I have understood the French correctly) I agree with what is written on d:User talk:Zolo in that this English Tokyo page should be linked to ja:東京都 as opposed to ja:東京. The "東京都" article's content is similar to the content of the English Tokyo page covering: the geography, economics, culture etc. of modern Tokyo (city and prefecture). The "東京" article on the other hand concerns Tokyo as a capital city, i.e. why Tokyo became the capital and the history surrounding its naming and merely contains links to the modern city/metropolis/prefecture of today.
 * I would argue, however, that the quick-fix solution is not the best solution. The Tokyo-related articles often overlap in places and sometimes contradict each other (e.g. the Special Wards of Tokyo page states that "all wards refer to themselves as city ... but only Tokyo as a whole would be referred to as a city" whereas this page states (in the lead) that all of the wards are run as cities, and that Tokyo is a metropolitan prefecture and not a city). Unfortunately, I believe a major overhaul of the Tokyo-related articles would be necessary. Since Tokyo is a particularly important topic, I believe that a very strong and clear consensus as to what should be included where would be required to achieve this. This is why, at the current level of participation in this discussion, I am reluctant to cut out huge chunks of the non-city parts of this article and rearrange them in the Tokyo Metropolis article so that it is no longer a stub. I would be willing to assist with such a process if significant consensus can be found. (I believe that opinions of the editors involved with WP:Japan would be greatly beneficial to this discussion, so I will add a post to their talk page).
 * I have given some thought to a possible Tokyo overhaul on the English Wikipedia, it is only an idea so is likely very flawed. This idea would entail making Tokyo a "city" article focused on the 23 wards and Tokyo Metropolis a "prefecture" article focussed on Tokyo as a prefecture and regions not covered by the 23 wards. The two articles would acknowledge each other in the lead with a sentence explaining the Tokyo situation followed by "this article focuses on Tokyo as ... for more information on Tokyo as ... see ...". The idea would change the "Special Wards of Tokyo" into a list article listing the special wards. The content currently in the "Special Wards of Tokyo" would be merged into the "Tokyo" (city) article. I hope this is useful, JTST4RS (talk) 19:30, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I can see keeping two separate articles, but I would oppose moving any content from Tokyo to Tokyo Metropolis. Mainly for the reason that English readers rarely need to know the details about why Tokyo is a prefecture (都), not a city (市). To most readers, Tokyo is a city, and I think that's OK. The main article explains what they need to know well enough.
 * There would also be practical difficulties in splitting up the "city" part from the "non-city" part. The urban area is huge, so it would be hard to say where to draw the line. For example, the city of Mitaka is right next to the 23 wards, and there is no break when you go from one to the other. For most purposes, it is part of urban Tokyo.
 * As for what to do with Tokyo Metropolis, I think it's OK as a stub. If we want, we can use to explain Tokyo's unique administrative status as a city, a prefecture, and the national capital. But in real life, the formal English name "Tokyo Metropolis" isn't used very often. The Tokyo Metropolitan Government refers to itself as that, or more usually TMG. But even in their own documents (some of which I've translated) they refer to Tokyo as just "Tokyo", not "Tokyo Metropolis".
 * One option, which is what I think I would recommend, would be to move Tokyo Metropolis to something like Administrative history of Tokyo Metropolis. Then convert Tokyo Metropolis to a redirect to Tokyo. That would solve the problem of people wanting to add content to Tokyo Metropolis instead of the main article. Also the problem of that arose in the Mitaka article, where they wanted to use the official name "Tokyo Metropolis" but link to the main article, and were forced to use a pipe: Tokyo Metropolis . We could keep the history tables, which will probably be of interest to somebody. And the language note, which is of interest to people like me, on the rare occasion when you actually do have to translate the "to" in "Tokyo-to". But keep it focused on post-Meiji administrative status, without trying to make it into a History of Tokyo or Geography of Tokyo type article.
 * I looked at your Zolo talk page and can see your problem. Would changing the name "Tokyo Metropolis" to a redirect to "Tokyo" solve it? I would recommend linking Tokyo (prefecture) to "Tokyo", but if someone did link to "Tokyo Metropolis" would they still end up at the right place, namely the main article "Tokyo"? --Margin1522 (talk) 17:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. I admit that the main reason for advocating a split was to ensure that the main article focuses on the city aspect to ensure that it is relevant to the majority of readers (who will therefore not be confused by the occasional "non-city" aspects). However, I am very appreciative of your point regarding areas such as Mitaka; I cannot see an obvious way around the practical difficulties of separating the two aspects without drawing some sort of "artificial line". If it is not possible to form such a split, I would admittedly prefer to see a merger: I think that the "history" section of Tokyo Metropolis could easily fit into the "1943–present" section of the Tokyo article (which I think, even for a summary, is lacking). I can see how the "language" aspect would struggle to fit into the "Tokyo" article but I am equally uncertain as to how it would fit into an "Administrative history of Tokyo Metropolis" article. Perhaps it would be more suitable to integrate it with Prefectures of Japan ? JTST4RS (talk) 12:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like a very sensible plan to me. If nobody objects, let's go ahead and do that. While we're at it, I found another article -- Tokyo City. That article already has a table that is very similar to the 2 tables in Tokyo Metropolis. I think it would benefit if we also dropped those 2 tables into that article. We wouldn't have to change a word in the existing text and it would complete the story. Also, moving the language paragraph to Prefectures of Japan is a great idea. I will volunteer to do that. Depending, it might even fit in a footnote. --Margin1522 (talk) 18:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Adding the tables to Tokyo City sounds sensible, in fact the second table is probably superfluous for this Tokyo article since it is covered by "Geography and administrative divisions" (on reflection, the sentences just above the second table in "Tokyo Metropolis" would fit better in this "Geography and administrative divisions" too). If nobody objects to the merger, I will be happy to assist, in particular with the merger of the two "History" sections. JTST4RS (talk) 14:51, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, if you can handle that I will do the language section and the cleanup afterwards. I read the guidelines on merging articles, and it says that we should leave the merge notices up for about a month before proceeding, so perhaps we could return to this around 20 September ? --Margin1522 (talk) 18:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for checking the specifics. I will check back periodically with the view of beginning the merge process if there is no change by 20 September. JTST4RS (talk) 21:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments, which I will try to summarize, comment and structure into subtitles and paragraphs, where necessary.

Consent on two articles about Tokyo and another for Tokyo prefecture/Metropolis
We agreed best would be to have one article about Tokyo and another for Tokyo prefecture, this is the main topic
 * Tokyo should be a "city" article focused on the 23 wards and Tokyo Metropolis a "prefecture" article focussed on Tokyo as a prefecture and regions not covered by the 23 wards; The two articles shall acknowledge each other in the lead with a sentence explaining the Tokyo situation followed by "this article focuses on Tokyo as … for more information on Tokyo as … see …".
 * Perhaps acknowledgements by wikilinks are sufficient and self-explaining; An example for vice versa acknowledgements are de:Tokio
 * Tokio (auch Tokyo, jap. 東京, Tōkyō anhören?/i) ist eine Weltstadt in der Kantō-Region im Osten der japanischen Hauptinsel Honshū. Sie umfasst die 23 Bezirke auf dem Gebiet der 1943 als Verwaltungseinheit abgeschafften Stadt Tokio und ist damit keine eigene Gebietskörperschaft mehr; stattdessen bilden die Bezirke zusammen mit den Städten und Gemeinden der westlich gelegenen Tama-Region und den südlichen Izu- und Ogasawara-Inseln die Präfektur Tokio.
 * and de:Präfektur Tokio.
 * I also like simple:Tokyo:
 * Tokyo Metropolis (東京都 Tōkyō-to?) is the official name for of the traditional city of Tokyo (東京市 Tōkyō-shi?) (1869-1943) and the associated municipalities of what was formerly Tokyo Prefecture (東京府 Tōkyō-fu?) (1869-1943).[2] It is the capital city and a prefecture of Japan on the island of Honshu.
 * whereas this article
 * S1=Tokyo (東京 Tōkyō?, "Eastern Capital") (Japanese: [toːkʲoː], English /ˈtoʊki.oʊ/, About this sound listen (help·info)), officially Tokyo Metropolis (東京都 Tōkyō-to?),[5] is one of the 47 prefectures of Japan.[6]
 * S2=Tokyo is the capital of Japan, the center of the Greater Tokyo Area, and the most populous metropolitan area in the world.[7]
 * S3=It is the seat of the Japanese government and the Imperial Palace, and the home of the Japanese Imperial Family.
 * S4=Tokyo is in the Kantō region on the southeastern side of the main island Honshu and includes the Izu Islands and Ogasawara Islands.[8]
 * S5=Tokyo Metropolis was formed in 1943 from the merger of the former Tokyo Prefecture (東京府 Tōkyō-fu?) and the city of Tokyo (東京市 Tōkyō-shi?).
 * S6=Tokyo is often referred to and thought of as a city, but is officially known and governed as a "metropolitan prefecture", which differs from and combines elements of both a city and a prefecture; a characteristic unique to Tokyo.
 * S7=The Tokyo metropolitan government administers the 23 Special Wards of Tokyo (each governed as an individual city), which cover the area that was formerly the City of Tokyo before it merged and became the subsequent metropolitan prefecture in 1943.
 * rough Suggestion:
 * S1/2=Tokyo (東京 Tōkyō?, "Eastern Capital") (Japanese: [toːkʲoː], English /ˈtoʊki.oʊ/, About this sound listen (help·info)) is the capital of Japan, the center of the Greater Tokyo Area, and the most populous metropolitan area in the world.[7]
 * S6=Tokyo is often referred to and thought of as a city, but officially (wl) Tokyo Metropolis (東京都 Tōkyō-to?),[5] is known and governed as a "metropolitan (wikilinkl) prefecture", which differs from and combines elements of both a city and a prefecture; a characteristic unique to Tokyo.
 * S7:The city consists out of 23 administrative units. These 23 (wikil) Special Wards of Tokyo are each governed as an individual city, which cover the area that was formerly the City of Tokyo before it merged and became the subsequent metropolitan prefecture in 1943.
 * S1.2/5=Officially is one of the 47 prefectures of Japan.[6] and was formed in 1943 from the merger of the former Tokyo Prefecture (東京府 Tōkyō-fu?) and the ++former++ city of Tokyo (東京市 Tōkyō-shi?).> (prefecture article) >
 * S4=Tokyo is in the Kantō region on the southeastern side of the main island Honshu and includes the Izu Islands and Ogasawara Islands.[8]
 * S3=Tokyo is the seat of the Japanese government and the Imperial Palace, and the home of the Japanese Imperial Family.
 * It was questioned to move huge chunks of the non-city parts of this article to the Tokyo Metropolis article so that it is no longer a stub, or not to move any content from Tokyo to Tokyo Metropolis. Mainly for the reason that English readers rarely need to know the details about why Tokyo is a prefecture.
 * Please see simple:Tokyo and simple:Tokyo Metropolis, where I made similar changes
 * Please see simple:Tokyo and simple:Tokyo Metropolis, where I made similar changes

Merge of most parts of Special wards of Tokyo into Tokyo(?)
Special wards of Tokyo are about the city of Tokyo with view on the special wards, while the first articles have to be thoroughly revised, I am not quite sure about the revision and relation of the 23 special wards; on wikidata and de:WP we have the three items. IMHO we should keep this article about Tokyo with the detailed view to the special wards pretty untouched. At least we should discuss it expressly here.

moving content from Tokyo to Tokyo Metropolis
this has be discussed in detail. contra: reason that English readers rarely need to know the details about why Tokyo is a prefecture (都), not a city (市). To most readers, Tokyo is a city, and I think that's OK. The main article explains what they need to know well enough. (will be continued as soon as possible)--Oursana (talk) 12:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * This would be easy if Tokyo was like Osaka. Osaka has a mayor, and Osaka Prefecture has a governor. Osaka "city" exists. But there is no "city" of Tokyo. There is no mayor and no city government. It's all Tokyo.
 * I can see why WikiData wants two articles to link to: one on the "city" of Tokyo, and one on the "prefecture" of Tokyo. 99% of the cities in the world are like that. But Tokyo is different. It's more like Singapore.
 * The Japanese Wikipedia has various articles on Tokyo, but the main one is 東京都 (Tokyo Metropolis). That's the article that corresponds to our article on Tokyo, which is named simply Tokyo because in English nobody ever says Tokyo Metropolis. Unless they have to :)
 * True, there are various problems with the organization of our article on Tokyo. The section on "Geography and administrative divisions" is really large, so the actual information about the city doesn't start until halfway through the article. I think we can do something about that -- e.g. move most of the administrative explanation to another article and get to the good stuff quicker.
 * But I think I oppose having 2 articles on Tokyo "city" and Tokyo Metropolis. There is no Tokyo "city", only Tokyo.
 * Sorry I'm really busy now and can't give this the response it deserves, but that's my basic thinking. --Margin1522 (talk) 07:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Personally, I see nothing wrong with having two separate articles even if there is no such thing as Tokyo "city"; I believe that if it is appropriate to have two separate articles there should be two separate articles, even if they are governed by the same entity. For instance, the UK has articles on its (present) ceremonial counties, even though these have no bearing on its administrative divisions - the articles exist since it is appropriate to have articles on them and I cannot see why the same should not apply here; there are clearly city and non-city aspects of Tokyo which could be made clearer in two separate articles. My issue lies in the practicality of defining such a split. The original idea of splitting the 23 wards (which would be named "Tokyo") from the rest of Tokyo (which would be named "Tokyo Metropolis") would exclude areas such as Mitaka and so "Tokyo Metropolis" would still end up being a half city, half non-city article which undermines the point of the split in the first place. I retain my view that if a practical split is possible then the articles should be split, but since there seems to be no obvious and practical split, to me a merger has become the more viable option. JTST4RS (talk) 09:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem I see there is that Tokyo Metropolis is the official name of Tokyo. In this case, the policy is to 1) mention the official name, bolded, in the first sentence of the article on Tokyo; and 2) create a redirect from the official name to the article. See Official_names.
 * Sorry, I need a bit more time to think about this. I am looking now at Tokyo (Q1490) (194 entries) and Imperial Tokyo (Q7473516) (15 entries) in WikiData. I want to check what the articles that link to these two items are actually about. I have no objection to moving part of the content of Tokyo to another article, if that would be useful. Also I want to look at Berlin and Hamburg, which are de:Stadtstaat? That is similar to Tokyo. I want to check what their WikiData is. --Margin1522 (talk) 16:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Splitting at this level makes sense, instead of merging Tokyo/Tokyo Metropolis. When somebody searches for Tokyo, they want information on the system of Tokyo (i.e. the mainland Tokyo of the 23 wards, Tama, and by extension the shutoken; how the mainland city part of 東京都 interacts with the rest of Japan and the world), not just the wards or just Tama, and definitely not the islands. I seriously doubt many people are looking specifically for prefectural-level information by typing in 'Tokyo'.
 * Googling tells me this division is called 東京都島嶼部 (Tōkyō-to Tōsho-bu, islands section) and 東京都本土 or 東京都本土部 (Tōkyō-to honto-bu, mainland section), but honto-bu seems to be used almost exclusively by biologists and Tokyo Metro and not a widely used term. --Prosperosity (talk) 12:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for highlighting the title issue, I would completely agree that if a suitable split/distinction between the two articles can be found the "Tokyo Metropolis" page would need to be moved to a more adequate name depending on the details of the split.
 * Thank you for raising the point about prefectural-level information. Would Margin1522's idea of creating a page entitled "Administrative history of Tokyo Metropolis" (or perhaps the more presently orientated "Administration/Administrative structure of Tokyo Metropolis", although this may become similar to politics of Tokyo) be a solution to this? I am not entirely certain that a distinct article for Tokyo's islands is necessary, I personally would have thought that the individual articles on the island groups were sufficient. JTST4RS (talk) 18:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That could work too. We don't really need distinct articles about Tokyo-fu and Tokyo-shi, and it feels inappropriate to arbitrarily break up the history of Tokyo at this level. Adding any historical data to the main Tokyo article, and putting any data on the changing administrative structure into a single article with a single narrative. --Prosperosity (talk) 02:25, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * After considering it, I think I would like to suggest renaming "Tokyo Metropolis" to "Tokyo Metropolitan Prefecture". Then convert "Tokyo Metropolis" to a redirect to "Tokyo", and use "Tokyo Metropolitan Prefecture" as a destination for things that people want to move out of "Tokyo".
 * "Tokyo Metropolitan Prefecture" allows us to distinguish Tokyo-to from "Tokyo Prefecture" = Tokyo-fu. It seems to be a popular term in the academic literature, and in general. We could use it to explain the details of the government and the various things that the government does -- sister cities, the islands, CO2 initiatives, etc. That would leave us free to concentrate in "Tokyo" on the more city-ish content. The two articles would be closely linked -- there would be pointers in "Tokyo" saying, "For details see Tokyo Metropolitan Prefecture". I think this might satisfy the desire in some other languages to handle the prefecture separately. But the main article would still be "Tokyo". --Margin1522 (talk) 20:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Looking at the Japanese articles, the main one is "Tokyo-to", which has basically the same structure as English "Tokyo". The article on the 23 wards is also basically the same. Then they have one called simply "Tokyo", which is kind of an odd article, about "Tokyoness". Most of it is content that is duplicated elsewhere, plus image galleries. To me the one memorable thing about it is the story of the name -- how Tokyo came to be called that instead of Edo. We have that in the Etymology section of Tokyo, but I'd like to move it somewhere else. To a history article maybe. It's not important enough for the prominent place we give it. --Margin1522 (talk) 20:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I think we need to keep separate articles on Tokyo-fu and Tokyo-shi. They are separate in other languages, and they are really separate topics. Tokyo-fu is a stub now, but it could be expanded from the Japanese version. There is a lot of material there, although it's pretty dry. --Margin1522 (talk) 20:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If we had an 'Administrative history of Tokyo Metropolis' page, these would just serve as information forks. Besides, having something exist on other Wikipedias isn't a good reason for doing anything (or not doing anything). What would the Tokyo-fu article be about, if its history is to be housed at the 'History of Tokyo' article and its administrative history at 'Administrative history of Tokyo Metropolis'? --Prosperosity (talk) 01:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * In en.wikipedia, I think "Tokyo" should be the main article encompassing all three of Tokyo-to, Tokyo-fu and Tokyo-shi. According to the article's current intro:
 * Tokyo (東京 Tōkyō?, "Eastern Capital") (Japanese: [toːkʲoː], English /ˈtoʊki.oʊ/, About this sound listen (help·info)), officially Tokyo Metropolis (東京都 Tōkyō-to?),[5] is one of the 47 prefectures of Japan.[6] Tokyo is the capital of Japan, the center of the Greater Tokyo Area, and the most populous metropolitan area in the world.[7] It is the seat of the Japanese government and the Imperial Palace, and the home of the Japanese Imperial Family. Tokyo is in the Kantō region on the southeastern side of the main island Honshu and includes the Izu Islands and Ogasawara Islands.[8] Tokyo Metropolis was formed in 1943 from the merger of the former Tokyo Prefecture (東京府 Tōkyō-fu?) and the city of Tokyo (東京市 Tōkyō-shi?).
 * The en.wikipedia article "Tokyo" therefor is (currently) about Tokyo-to but includes historical information (which may be split off into other pages) about Tokyo-shi and Tokyo-fu. We could perhaps clarify the last sentence along the lines of "The official government entity called Tokyo, Tokyo Metropolis (東京都), was formed in ..." -- Rick Block (talk) 04:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's true we should do what's best for the English Wikipedia, regardless. But there are advantages to harmonizing with WikiData. 1) If you do read articles in multiple languages (which is why we have interlanguage links) it's convenient to have the articles be on the same topic. 2) Wikidata handles the  interlanguage links automatically, so that now we don't have to place them in the text of the article, like we used to. So we want this to work well. --Margin1522 (talk) 12:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Two approaches
Looking at existing articles in various languages, there seem to be two main approaches:
 * ONE BIG ARTICLE -- Japanese, English, French, Spanish, etc. (194 entries in Q1490)
 * TWO BIG ARTICLES (city, prefecture ) -- Japanese--Oursana (talk) 09:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC), German, Chinese, Simple (15 entries in Q7473516)
 * 23 wards subarticle -- Japanese, English, German, French, Chinese, Simple (37 entries in Q308891)

To accommodate this, we have 3 /4 categories at Wikidata. *d:Q11199581 Tokyo Metropolis --Oursana (talk) 09:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * d:Q1490 Tokyo (capital of Japan with 13 million inhabitants, and one of 47 prefectures of Japan)
 * d:Q308891 special ward of Tokyo (special municipality that builds up the center of Tokyo)
 * d:Q7473516 Imperial Tokyo (the 23 wards in the Eastern part of Tokyo prefecture that used to form a single city)

Looking at the discussion at d:User talk:Zolo, it seems that (Q7473516) was intended to be about "Tokyo in general, without getting precise about its administrative status". In other words, it was created to accommodate the oddball article 東京 (d:Q7473516 Imperial Tokyo)--Oursana (talk) 09:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC) on the Japanese Wikidpedia. In my opinion, we should ignore that article. It is neither the ONE BIG ARTICLE or TWO BIG ARTICLES approach. It's a small, unusual article that other languages probably don't need to link to. If we are going to have 3 categories, I think one of should be for Tokyo Prefecture as prefecture. Note that some of the ONE BIG ARTICLE entries are entitled "Tokyo Prefecture" in the native language. That doesn't matter. What matters is that they are one big article, and should link to the one big article in other languages. But German and Chinese do have separate articles on Tokyo Prefecture as such. WikiData should have a "Tokyo Prefecture" category for that. And we could discuss whether we want to accomodate that approach on the English Wikipedia. The Chinese and German articles are nicely organized. I think they are worth looking at.

So I see 3 things we should discuss:
 * 1) Abolishing the "Tokyo Metrooplis" article. It's a stub, no languages or other articles link to it, and it's occupying a name that should be a redirect to "Tokyo".
 * 2) Whether to go with TWO BIG ARTICLES and establish a separate big article for the prefecture (Tokyo-to), as distinct from Tokyo. If we do that, I suggest the name "Tokyo Metropolitan Prefecture" for the prefecture article.
 * 3) Whether to keep ONE BIG ARTICLE. That way we could move content like the islands, history, etc. freely between Tokyo and other existing articles. --Margin1522 (talk) 12:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments. I am still in favor of solution two. I would suggest redirect from Tokyo Metropolis to "Tokyo Metropolitan Prefecture"--Oursana (talk) 22:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I think a redirect from Tokyo Metropolis to "Tokyo Metropolitan Prefecture" would be fine, provided there was something substantial there. We could move of the local government material there, and some of the history. We could do the administrative history there, and the history of the city (the earthquake, the fire bombing, the real estate bubble, etc.) in Tokyo. This would be quite a job, but it might be worth it. Maybe people could look at the pair of articles simple:Tokyo and simple:Tokyo Metropolis to see what they think. --Margin1522 (talk) 12:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Are there any official or major sources that refer to Tokyo-to as "Tokyo Metropolitan Prefecture", like the Japanese or US governments, World Fact Book, etc? A quick search didn't have any on the first page. Calling it that implies that it is some sort of wide spread official name in English, as opposed to one decided by people at Wikipedia (which Wikipedia editors don't really have the authority to do). I'm not happy with "Tokyo Metropolis" myself since it's quite vague, so if this were to happen a better title might be Tokyo Metropolis (prefecture). --Prosperosity (talk) 12:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * FWIW, "Tokyo Metropolitan Prefecture" gets 463K hits on Google, vs. 292K hits for "Tokyo Metropolis". Neither one is used very much on the .gov domain. Both are used in Google Books, rarely, with the edge going to "Tokyo Metropolis", no doubt because the Tokyo Metropolitan Government itself prefers "Tokyo Metropolis". Normally that would settle matters except.... it sounds strange and few people use it. Here is a link to a discussion group for professional translators. If you scroll down halfway, you can see people being very reluctant to use "Tokyo Metropolis" because it sounds like a Godzilla movie. My sentiments exactly. Plus, as you say, it's vague and readers won't understand that it means "prefecture" unless we explain it. That being the case, why not put it in the title? It does get all those hits on Google, so it's not like we're making it up. About "Tokyo Metropolis (prefecture)", we could do that. But my impression is that parentheses are usually used when the same word occurs in multiple titles, like Peter Robinson (journalist) and Peter Robinson (politician). But we are only going to use it once. That's my opinion anyway. I'm less worried about the title than whether we should have the article in the first place. --Margin1522 (talk) 17:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Though more time consuming, I think that the two big articles is the way forward. Personally, I think that the "Tokyo" and "Tokyo Metropolitan Prefecture" idea is great. I believe that it retains the main focus of keeping a split; the typical reader gets an article focused on what they want to see in "Tokyo" (the "city aspects", historically significant events for Tokyo, Tokyo as a world city, climate, population etc.) and the reader who wants to know how Tokyo functions on a local level and as a prefecture can benefit from a separate "Tokyo Metropolitan Prefecture" article. Equally, it avoids the practical difficulties of splitting "Tokyo" along a geographical boundary. Although some discussion may be needed to workout exactly what should go where (I think that the simple articles are a good starting point, there are a few grey areas though - without due caution, there is a risk that the two "history" sections could overlap), I think the idea in essence is a great one; the articles seem distinct enough for editors to know what should go where. I also hope it will help to resolve issues such as one I found here. As for the name, I think "Tokyo Metropolitan Prefecture" is fine. I agree with Margin1522's point that "Tokyo Metropolis (prefecture)" makes it look like there's something else that is entitled "Tokyo Metropolis". Though I would not object to "Tokyo Metropolis" redirecting to "Tokyo" (since it is its official name), I think that redirecting "Tokyo Metropolis" to "Tokyo Metropolitan Prefecture" would be marginally better since the only reason I can think of as to why someone would go to the effort of searching for "Tokyo Metropolis" instead of just "Tokyo" would be because they want to know more about the "prefecture" aspects of Tokyo, for which "Tokyo Metropolitan Prefecture" would be more suitable. JTST4RS (talk) 22:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, some of those references to "Tokyo Metropolitan Prefecture" on google (like this, this and this) are for 東京府, since 府 was the literal designation for any metropolitan prefecture/urban prefecture (like Hakodate-fu) back in the early Meiji, as opposed to the rural 県 prefectures. So "Tokyo Metropolis (prefecture)" would be disambiguating "Tokyo Metropolis (sprawling city system that we call Tokyo)" (東京), "Tokyo Metropolis (prefecture)" (東京都) and "Tokyo Metropolis (former prefecture)" (東京府). --Prosperosity (talk) 03:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This may be just a personal preference, but I really want to keep "Metropolis" out of article titles, because of Godzilla. "Metropolis" was also the home city of Superman and there's no way we can keep English readers from thinking of that. "Tokyo Metropolitan X" is OK, where X is anything, but not "Metropolis".
 * I didn't realize that Allinson uses "Tokyo Metropolitan Prefecture" for the 府. Apparently he uses it for both 府 and 都. I did check Google for simply "Tokyo Prefecture", and that seems to fall into two groups. Travel guides use it informally to refer to the current 都, and academic writers use it to refer to the historical 府. The latter seems quite well established, so I think "Tokyo Prefecture" = 府 is OK as is. --Margin1522 (talk) 08:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 one external links on Tokyo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110819194046/http://chottomatte.net:80/2011/04/01/tokyo-radiation-levels-daily-updates-april/ to http://chottomatte.net/2011/04/01/tokyo-radiation-levels-daily-updates-april/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081223114634/http://www.metro.tokyo.jp:80/ENGLISH/PROFILE/overview03.htm to http://www.metro.tokyo.jp/ENGLISH/PROFILE/overview03.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071221015721/http://today.reuters.com:80/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-01-31T113907Z_01_L312905_RTRUKOC_0_US-LIFE-CITIES.xml&archived=False to http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-01-31T113907Z_01_L312905_RTRUKOC_0_US-LIFE-CITIES.xml&archived=False
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100430020614/http://www.stock-market.in:80/2007/02/26/tokyo-stock-exchange/ to http://www.stock-market.in/2007/02/26/tokyo-stock-exchange/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120601103927/http://www.aroundtherings.com//articles/view.aspx?pv=xqv&id=37022 to http://www.aroundtherings.com//articles/view.aspx?pv=xqv&id=37022

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Outdated history of development
I marked the following as out of date:

"Tokyo still sees new urban developments on large lots of less profitable land. Recent projects include Ebisu Garden Place, Tennozu Isle, Shiodome, Roppongi Hills, Shinagawa (now also a Shinkansen station), and the Marunouchi side of Tokyo Station. Buildings of significance are demolished for more up-to-date shopping facilities such as Omotesando Hills."

This reflects information from 10-20 years ago - hardly recent in the context of Tokyo. The approximate dates on some of these developments are:


 * Ebisu Garden Place - 1994
 * Tennozu Isle - 1995
 * Shiodome - 2004
 * Roppongi Hills - 2003
 * Shinagawa (not really a development, but let's say the Shinkansen station and Intercity) - 2003
 * Marunouchi - ongoing for decades, and not restricted to just the Marunouchi area

The last statement about Omotesando Hills is really quite vague (what buildings of significance?) and should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.163.47.9 (talk) 21:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 one external links on Tokyo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071103052926/http://www.metro.tokyo.jp:80/ENGLISH/GOVERNOR/SPEECH/2003/0301/2.htm to http://www.metro.tokyo.jp/ENGLISH/GOVERNOR/SPEECH/2003/0301/2.htm
 * Added archive {newarchive} to http://70.86.96.100/pdfs/en/localg2006.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090104200639/http://www.wbcsd.org:80/plugins/DocSearch/details.asp?type=DocDet&ObjectId=MzAyNzQ to http://www.wbcsd.org/plugins/DocSearch/details.asp?type=DocDet&ObjectId=MzAyNzQ
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081202025203/http://www.topuniversities.com:80/university_rankings/results/2008/overall_rankings/fullrankings/ to http://www.topuniversities.com/university_rankings/results/2008/overall_rankings/fullrankings/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:46, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Tokyo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080923193559/http://70.86.96.100/pdfs/en/localg2006.pdf to http://70.86.96.100/pdfs/en/localg2006.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Paris and Rome are no twin cities
Paris and Rome have only one twin city, namely eac other. Of course, they have many other ralation, but no twin/sister city relations. You can easily find the sources for this on their articles, of course (Paris, Rome). --- ZH8000 (talk) 11:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


 * OK, the official Paris website describes the relationship with Tokyo as a "friendship agreement". Fair enough. I can't find an official source for Rome to elaborate on the exact relationship with Tokyo, though, so in that case we can rely on the official Tokyo website.
 * I either case, simply removing them entirely from the list when they clearly do have some form of partnership relationship is not at all constructive.
 * I would suggest we modify the wording as follows.

Twin towns, sister cities, sister states, and friendship agreements
, Tokyo has twinning and friendship agreements with the following twelve cities and states:


 * And in the case of Paris, write it as follows:


 * 🇫🇷 Paris, France ("Friendship and cooperation agreement",[Official Paris ref here] since July 1982)


 * Do you agree that this is more accurate? If not, please explain why here, and we can all try to work together to improve the wording further. Also, if you can dig up another source to elaborate on the exact nature of the relationship with Rome, please add it here. Thanks. --DAJF (talk) 12:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


 * You can do that. An other convention on most other city's article is to use two different subtitles, one for twin/sister cities (Twin and sister cities) and one for the rest (Other relationships). I would prefer this version.
 * The "Exclusive twinning with Rome" is reciprocal and very clear. You find additional sources on Rome's official site: – See Europe and first two PDFs.
 * At the very same page, there you find additional information about cooperations with other Asian cities. But none about Tokyo!
 * The exclusivness twinning with Paris is uncontradicted. So there is no doubt that Tokyo cannot be a twin/sister town of Tokyo. So I would expect a text such as "other cooperaion" with Rome! -- ZH8000 (talk) 13:20, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for replying. I have restored Paris and Rome to the list in the article using pretty much the same wording I suggested above (although I removed "Twin towns" since none of the entities appear to be towns). As the official Tokyo website groups all cities and states together as generic "Sister Cities (States)", I don't think it makes much sense at this stage to subdivide the list into separate "Sister cities/states" and "Other relationships". There is also the fact that Paris is still the only entity for which we have a verifiable source for its "Friendship and cooperation agreement" status. We cannot add any more specific comments for Rome in the absence of any reliable source to back these up. --DAJF (talk) 00:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


 * There is no doubt about the exclusiveness (means, there can't be any other) of the twin city relationships, from both cities, as sourced by the references. Therefore I added this information as well. Besides, as already mentioned, Rome's official site does not even mention Tokyo as a city with any kind of agreement at all! -- ZH8000 (talk) 10:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

As I have had the pleasure of encountering this issue elsewhere, and another closely related to it in Ontario, California (of all places!), I have taken the liberty to ping &  &  as the people involved to maybe hammer out some kind of a reasonable way to deal with it.

Personally I find forcing the "Paris + Rome = special besties 4 life <3" note unnecessary to say the least and, to be perfectly honest, bordering on pretty weird. I don't think it has a place outside the Paris & Rome articles. The list says twinning or sister or partnership agreements or something, the source lists Rome as one of those, there, that's it, no need for a note extolling the "special relationship" between Paris and Rome on the Tokyo page.

However, there's also another problem this issue has highlighted, that of sister cities in general. It has been mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities, and here there's also Rome, which apparently doesn't reciprocate Tokyo.


 * What if only one city lists a relationship? In Ontario, California I added, well, a note (yeah I know!).


 * Is every sister city a twin city? Are they different? Chicago explicitly mentions Paris as a sister city. How do we deal with that?

After going through a couple of the refs I am sort of convinced "sister city" is applied very loosely, to put it mildly. Personally I'd just get rid of the different sections and go with something along the lines of 'the city (says it) has relations, agreements, sister, brother, twin, partnership whatever agreements with these' or whatever, and just list them together. Maybe with a particular descriptor of the agreement if we have a source confirming the relationship on both ends. Because otherwise we will either have an edit-war-in-waiting kind of a mess, incomplete/wrong articles, or a whole boatload of notes, parentheses, explanations, exceptions and the like ("Chicago lists Paris as a sister city. Paris says they're friends only. Also Paris is totally a twin city with Rome only. Does that mean it cannot have sister cities? We don't know.") --CCCVCCCC (talk) 11:48, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * CCCVCCCC is correct; "Paris Heart Rome" is entirely irrelevant to the Tokyo article... and the Kyoto article... and the Seoul article... and the Jakarta article... and the multitude of other articles in which one user is stubbornly pursuing this line. There are solid, reliable sources that make it clear there is a sister-city relationship between these various cities and Paris and/or Rome. No asterisks or "buts" or page-long footnote explanations are required. I've given my reasons at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities, but that appears to be an inactive project. I won't repeat myself here. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm still totally bemused by the fact that three different reference sources (one of which points to the same URL as the second, and one of which is dead) have been added to the article purportedly to support the claimed "not a sister city" relationship with Rome despite the fact that not a single one of them actually even mentions Tokyo. Meanwhile, Tokyo's own official website, which happily lists Rome (and Paris) as a "sister city", is conveniently ignored. Isn't that WP:Synthesis? --DAJF (talk) 06:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I actually haven't looked at the Rome shenanigans here in detail until now. You are right on every point, so I went ahead and pruned it from the article.
 * Also I think that the issue of contradictory/non-complementary statements still sort of remains, as it seems logical to me that relationships like these ought to be a two-way street – except what if one side doesn't mention it at all? Include the relationship in just one of the two articles, the one making the "claim"? --CCCVCCCC (talk) 10:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh and in addition to the above, I was wondering what might be the best way to handle this in a... uhh.. in a more general way? As in not just limited to the Tokyo article. Because frankly it's a much more widespread issue. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities is dead but this whole P+R sister city business has been handled in about half a dozen different ways in the various articles, compare Kyoto and Berlin. --CCCVCCCC (talk) 11:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

The climate of distant bits of Tokyo
In this edit, User:Mahmudmasri removes info about the climate of peripheral Tokyo, with the comment "A totally unneeded description of an extremely farther place".

It may be extremely far from just about anywhere, but it's still Tokyo. The info may be better placed elsewhere, but if so I think there should be a brief reference to it, with a link. Personally I don't have any strong opinion on what's the best course, but I am sure that simple removal is not best. And that's why I reverted this edit.

Feel free to discuss. -- Hoary (talk) 07:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


 * It's not in Tokyo, nor it is in its vicinity. Yes, it's politically within Tokyo Metropolitan region, but geographically it's not. It's a very far disconnected island. The table and the detailed description of Chichijima are already in its article. At most, there shouldn't be any mention of it for more than a sentence. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 07:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


 * It's certainly not within what people normally think of as Tokyo, but it is within the area that's the subject of this article. Because the climate info is indeed within the article Chichijima, I think it would be OK in this article to summarize it and point to the Chichijima article for detail. -- Hoary (talk) 08:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I think the information should be included, but the second and third boxes should be in a collapsed state to reduce potential confusion. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 08:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Losses in 1944-1945 bombings
1944-1945: estimated to have killed between 75,000 and 200,000 civilians

March 9–10, 1945: 100,000 civilians were killed

in which case the number 75,000 for both years is far off the mark. 201.190.136.201 (talk) 02:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

English pronunciation
Why is the only English pronunciation /toʊ.kioʊ/? I've also heard it pronounced closer to the Japanese pronunciation, like /toʊ.kjoʊ/. Has anyone else heard it pronounced like this?71.174.243.174 (talk) 01:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Tokyo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110911011924/http://www.seikatubunka.metro.tokyo.jp/bunka/keishou/tokasika.htm to http://www.seikatubunka.metro.tokyo.jp/bunka/keishou/tokasika.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140419085331/http://www.chijihon.metro.tokyo.jp/sonota/syozaiti.htm to http://www.chijihon.metro.tokyo.jp/sonota/syozaiti.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150316233916/http://www.ukforex.co.uk/forex-tools/historical-rate-tools/yearly-average-rates to http://www.ukforex.co.uk/forex-tools/historical-rate-tools/yearly-average-rates
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130811121829/http://www.metro.tokyo.jp/ENGLISH/PROFILE/overview05.htm to http://www.metro.tokyo.jp/ENGLISH/PROFILE/overview05.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071012051150/http://www.metro.tokyo.jp/ENGLISH/PROFILE/overview01.htm to http://www.metro.tokyo.jp/ENGLISH/PROFILE/overview01.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jpc-sed.or.jp/eng/committee/committee06.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141208194646/http://www.metro.tokyo.jp/ENGLISH/PROFILE/overview06.htm to http://www.metro.tokyo.jp/ENGLISH/PROFILE/overview06.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081223114634/http://www.metro.tokyo.jp/ENGLISH/PROFILE/overview03.htm to http://www.metro.tokyo.jp/ENGLISH/PROFILE/overview03.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://weather-and-climate.com/average-monthly-Rainfall-Temperature-Sunshine%2CTokyo%2CJapan
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130116185706/http://www.metro.tokyo.jp/ENGLISH/PLAN/DATA/10yearplan_data_4.pdf to http://www.metro.tokyo.jp/ENGLISH/PLAN/DATA/10yearplan_data_4.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121209020051/http://www.metro.tokyo.jp/ENGLISH/PROFILE/policy03.htm to http://www.metro.tokyo.jp/ENGLISH/PROFILE/policy03.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.maff.go.jp/esokuhou/sei200305.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tokyo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080524000658/http://www2.kankyo.metro.tokyo.jp/sgw/English/heatisland.htm to http://www2.kankyo.metro.tokyo.jp/sgw/English/heatisland.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Record-holder for area covered?
I am unaware of any other urban jurisdiction on the planet that stretches as far as Tokyo's, given the fact the islands stretching 1,000 km to the south are considered part of the metropolis. Would it be correct to call it the most spread out urban area in the world, or is there actually a larger one? (I'm not talking in terms of actual square kilometres, of course, I mean physical "crow flies" distance from end to end or even from city centre to outskirts. 136.159.160.8 (talk) 20:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * But does the Tokyo defined in this article qualify as an urban jurisdiction? Formally, it is not a city, but a prefecture/"Metropolis" containing 62 special wards/"cities", cities, towns and villages; by area, it's one of the smallest prefectures. And practically, neither Mount Kumotori (on the border of the town of Okutama, Tokyo) nor Marcus Island (part of the village of Ogasawara, Tokyo) are very urban, they are remote rural places. An urban area would be either the Tokyo metropolitan area or in a narrow definition the 23 wards/-ku/"cities" section of Tokyo that covers former Tokyo City – and that is on the contrary rather remarkable for its small size/its high density, at least in its size category (not the record-holder by far, many of the densest cities seem to be a lot smaller though; but at least Delhi and Mumbai have more inhabitants on a smaller area according to the linked article; trans-Pacific comparison: the population density of Tokyo (23 wards/ex-city) is about 1.5 times the density of New York City with roughly comparable population and wealth/development level. The ratio of daytime/nighttime population, i.e. the number of people commuting into the 23 wards, is also remarkably high, at least nationally (about 140%, see Jp. gov., MIC statistics bureau (en), 2000, the value for Chiyoda ward/"City" was >2000%, that might possibly be a record for a municipality even internationally (?), the value for the whole Tokyo prefecture/"Metropolis" is about 120%), but I don't know if there are comparable statistics globally, and Tokyo (ex-city/23 wards) is certainly not the record-holder as Osaka City already had a slightly higher value in the linked 2000 stats. US cities have/had the most extreme mania for cars and "suburbia" for a long time, so I suppose they generally have higher commuting ratios.).
 * In terms of maximum inner extent – in the sense you outlined, i.e. the longest straight line you can draw with start and end point in the territory – Tokyo should be the largest among all 47 prefectures by the ≈1,000 km line you can draw between Mt. Kumotori and Marcus Island; but then, prefectures are extremely small compared to similar primary subdivisions (states, provinces, whatever) in other countries – think of the sheer size and vast empty spaces of Russia or Canada or even US, Brazil, etc. –, so I don't think there's any record there. --Asakura Akira (talk) 09:14, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with user Asakura!--Bolzanobozen (talk) 15:12, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Anthem: Tokyo Metropolitan Song (東京都歌 Tōkyō-to Ka)
Upload the anthem and abolish the Japanese Imperial System and Aristocracy. All Japanese must be equal and a Presidential System must be established! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:8203:BC00:750F:2BCC:E87F:2804 (talk) 12:49, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tokyo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://esa.un.org/wup2014/unup/index.asp?panel=2
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120121222042/http://population.mongabay.com/population/japan/1850147/tokyo to http://population.mongabay.com/population/japan/1850147/tokyo
 * Added tag to http://www.karisjapan.org/2014/05/pray-for-japan-chiyoda/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Coordinate error
The following coordinate fixes are needed for

—2605:E000:7E51:0:94A:515B:6B91:ED43 (talk) 15:43, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The coordinates for Tokyo seem to be expressed correctly, given WP:GEO. Deor (talk) 12:48, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

"Former city of Tokyo"?
The article includes a couple of references to the "former city of Tokyo". This is very confusing. For example, I was reading the climate section, and there it says "the former city of Tokyo", which sounds as if Tokyo did not exist anymore. Without reading the rest of the article, my guess that this "former" is a reference to the current vs. previous form of administration of Tokyo. However, to most people, Tokyo is still a city, and not a "former city", irrespectively how its administration is organized. Please somebody clarify the article.
 * But that's a completely different Tokyo not only administratively, but geographically:
 * The Tokyo described in this article is a prefecture/Metropolis containing 62 cities, special wards, towns and villages/formerly 150+ municipalities. (c. 2150 km², >13 mill. inhabitants, maximum inner extent >1000 km)
 * In contrast, "Former city of Tokyo" refers only to one former municipality/23 of today's municipalities. (c. 620 km², >9 mill. inhabitants, maximum inner extent <50 km)
 * The English-language Wikipedia has decided (see repeated discussions in the archive above) that there should not be a separate article on Tokyo as a city as it does no longer exist administratively as such, so if one wants to refer unambiguously to the 23 wards collectively, but without the other 39 cities, towns and villages in Tokyo – Tokyo's "upstate" part and the islands –, it has to be circumscribed as "wards section of Tokyo", "former Tokyo City", etc. because Tokyo already refers to all of Tokyo from the Tama Valley to Iwo Jima.
 * Tokyo City does no longer exist administratively. But, as a geographic object it still exists. Even on government maps (Example: GSI online atlas), and maps based on those, there are two different things labelled "Tokyo", one larger territory, that's the prefecture/Metropolis, and a dot for its prefectural capital, that's the [former] city – the dot dissolves into 23 labelled territories (the special wards) if you zoom in. I surmise: you read the article that describes the whole territory including the dot, but expected only the dot and therefore, you were confused by the convoluted description used to refer specifically to the dot without the rest. But since there is one article for both, there is little that can be done about it. --Asakura Akira (talk) 16:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


 * It was talking about Tokyo City, not Tokyo. startTerminal {haha wow talk page | startTerminal on irc} 23:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2020
Can you please change " Jingumae International Exchage School part into Shinagawa International School with the link http://sistokyo.jp/

Publicly run kindergartens, elementary schools (years 1 through 6), and primary schools (7 through 9) are operated by local wards or municipal offices. Public secondary schools in Tokyo are run by the Tokyo Metropolitan Government Board of Education and are called "Metropolitan High Schools". Tokyo also has many private schools from kindergarten through high school:

Aoba-Japan International School The British School in Tokyo Shinagawa International School K. International School Tokyo Tokyo International School Canadian International School Tokyo West International School St. Mary's International School New International School Abmshinagawa (talk) 04:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. If the schools are listed, they should of course be listed under the correct names. But I don't understand why any of them are listed. Unless there's some pressing reason for retaining them that eludes me, I think the list should go. They can still be found via Category:International schools in Tokyo. -- Hoary (talk) 05:46, 10 March 2020 (UTC) Further: Even if a list of international schools should be retained (which I question), then I don't think it should include any that don't have their own articles. -- Hoary (talk) 08:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The list has already been pared down to schools with their own articles. In broad articles such as this, coverage of specific items should be limited to only notable examples, as  says.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC)


 * And, I don't know how "international" schools are more significant than schools in general. I don't say they shouldn't have their own articles, but I'd remove any list of them from this article. -- Hoary (talk) 23:38, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Upon further reflection,, I agree. I've removed international lower grade schools because they are not any more notable than any other such school in Tokyo. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC) fix ping:  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Covid
Any particular reason why this page is locked up and unable to be edited by the 38 million people who live in the neighborhood just as a virus comes to town? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.11.224.42 (talk) 07:13, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

No answer at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.11.225.94 (talk) 00:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Infobox image
I wanted to start a discussion about the most appropriate infobox image for the article. The image on the left is the one we currently use, and I found the one on the right in use on the Spanish-language version of the page. My opinions: 1) from an aesthetic/color/resolution standpoint, the right image is superior. 2) from a standpoint of best illustrating the city: ① I like the use of Mount Fuji on the left, though it is not located in Tokyo Prefecture and may therefore be misleading ② I don't like that the left image depicts Tokyo Skytree twice ③ I think cityscape's sprawl is an important aspect of the city, so I like both the left skyscraper image and the "Tokyo Tower at night" image ④ I think that fully night-time images like on the left are unpleasant to look at ⑤ I don't like the cropping on the first "Shibuya Station" image ⑥ I think the street-level signage on the right is a nice visual touch.

Another possibility (beyond keeping or replacing) is creating an entirely new image combining the best elements of both. Opinions? — Goszei (talk) 02:06, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Short description
Right now the short description is
 * Tokyo: de facto capital of Japan

Proposal:
 * Tokyo: capital of Japan

Although technically correct, specifying "de facto" makes me think there is another "de jure" capital or "economic" capital--which there isn't. I think just leaving it at "capital of Japan" would be simpler and serviceable, since there is no other capital.

Cheers, Fredlesaltique (talk) 01:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree.
 * If you want to make a distinction at all, Tokyo, the capital prefecture/"Metropolis" (-to) described in this article, stretching from Mt. Kumotori to Iwo Jima and beyond, is, the de jure capital of Japan. (As defined in the law on the Capital area: Tokyo and surrounding prefectures as designated by executive order, namely Tokyo+Ibaraki+Tochigi+Gunma+Saitama+Chiba+Kanagawa+Yamanashi; see 首都圏整備法 shutoken-seibi-hō and associated executive order (首都圏整備法施行令, ~shikōrei)).
 * The common sense de facto capital would rather be a Tokyo that has no dedicated article in the English Wikipedia: the former city/current 23 special wards [or if you insist on lg.jp.Engrish: "cities"] of Tokyo (which, although no longer an administrative unit since WWII, some other language versions of Wikipedia or Japanese government maps still deal with under the plain title Tokyo while naming Tokyo, the prefecture, by full name as Tokyo prefecture/-to/"Metropolis") . Nobody (I presume) looks for the the Diet building or the foreign affairs ministry or the Supreme Court or the Imperial palace in Hachiōji, Tokyo, Musashi-Murayama, Tokyo, Hinohara, Tokyo or Ogasawara, Tokyo, even though they are clearly part of Tokyo as described on this page, let alone in Gunma or Yamanashi.
 * A related distinction also arises for the prefectural capital of Tokyo (as described here, i.e. Tōkyō-to): de jure, as specified by prefectural "by-law"/jōrei, the seat of the prefectural government of Tokyo was Chiyoda "City"/-ku/[special] Ward until the 1990s and Shinjuku "City"/-ku/[special] Ward since then. But de facto, although it doesn't exist in the English Wikipedia, "Tokyo" in the sense of a collective term for the 23 special wards/the former city is still, as a whole, regarded as the prefectural capital of Tokyo and also labeled as such on Japanese government maps. --Asakura Akira (talk) 06:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I suspect "de facto" is not needed in the opening sentence about the capital as well. Firstly, as the article's Etymology section says, "During the Meiji Restoration in 1868, the name of the city was changed to Tokyo ([...] from 東 tō "east", and 京 kyō "capital") when it became the new imperial capital, in line with the East Asian tradition of including the word capital [...] in the name of the capital city (for example, Kyoto)". And per Capital_of_Japan, "The Ministry of Education published a book called "History of the Restoration" in 1941. This book referred to "designating Tokyo as capital" (東京奠都, Tōkyō-tento)". Now neither the Japanese government website nor the World Factbook mention the de facto status. So Tokyo's status as a capital looks well-established without a law specifying it. The requirement about a relevant law or regulation for a nation's capital looks unfounded and potentially WP:ORish. The "de facto" makes sense in countries with multiple capitals, where one is de jure and one is de facto (which Japan is not). All in all, suggest dropping "de facto" from the opening sentence. Brandmeistertalk  18:45, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

"Toquio" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Toquio. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 8 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2021
Change Tokyo's Population to 36 Million DarthCero (talk) 22:13, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Please provide a reliable source for that number. The figures in the article are already reliably sourced so you would need a good reliable one to change them. Canterbury Tail talk 22:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Map Image in #Municipalities
in Tokyo the map image for Higashiyamato has a different style than all the others; if anyone has access to the matching one, could they please replace it? BhamBoi (talk) 04:42, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Linguistics in the Digital Age
— Assignment last updated by AzukiMochiBoy (talk) 20:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:55, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Tokyo-edohakub-ginza.jpg