I moved this page because it seems to be about Tokyo the city, not the greater Tokyo region.
It's also quite a stub! I've only been to Tokyo once or twice, so I don't have a good idea
of districts there. But we need to copy over the huge city article template and get
this puppy hoppin'! -- Evan 08:03, 8 Nov 2003 (PST)
I did my best to transfer the information to the huge city template. Tokyo is still a stub (now full of stubs), but I'm concerned I may have gone overboard on the districts. The 23 wards of Tokyo seem overwhelming. On the other hand, there isn't really any larger subset of the city that is recognized. I appended some well known destinations to each ward to try to make the wards themselves comprehensible. Using the destinations themselves would make for an even more unmanageable list of districts.
Some of the specifics like hotels still need to be moved out to their respective districts, but I thought I'd wait a bit and see how the districts themselves went over. The "Do" section needs more. Some of the information under safety could be moved out to Japan in general. This is just one more step. -- ted 15:23, 23 Feb 2004 (JST)
Ted, I agree with you that the 23 wards are pretty overwhelming. What about only highlighting wards that would be of interest to travellers-- or is that really all of them? I really think that long lists of administrative districts/wards/whatever are pretty daunting to people... so maybe less is more in this case? Majnoona 07:45, 24 Feb 2004 (EST)
Thanks for taking a look. Highlighting the wards that would interest travellers seems like a good idea. The only problem I had was defining interest and where to draw the line. Just off the top of my head I can come up with interesting things to see and do in almost all of those wards, and that really just reflects my own interests. Maybe wards of interest to most travellers would be a list of about 15-16. That would cover the main tourist sites. At 15-16, why not go for the whole shebang?
The next larger subset of Tokyo that is well-defined and means something to people is the split within/outside the 23 wards. There is no "downtown" to speak of, but several. Trying to list the multiple "downtowns" or neighborhoods gets you to a very long list as well. Where to assign the neighborhoods that fall between major centers would be totally arbitrary and meaningless to others. I had looked at Boston and seen the list of all the neighborhoods, so I followed that. I just checked out London, which groups all neighborhoods into chunks. That might work, but any such divisions would be pretty arbitrary and might lead to misunderstanding. That is, if a wikitraveller asked someone about a hypothetical "North Tokyo", only another wikitraveller would understand them.
One other solution would be to split regions by transport, rather than geography. This is what people tend to do here. Places are identified by station, then what line that station is on if the listener doesn't know. This is quite manageable, but presumes some background knowledge of the legendary Tokyo train system.
I think the division by ward is useful, as that is the basis of all addresses, there are English language official websites for each ward, and they are a complete division of the city. Perhaps the list could be moved off to a separate page to still provide the organizational structure without blasting people as soon as they hit the Tokyo main page? Would moving it out to a separate page be too much of a violation of consistency?
I was trying to plan ahead for when articles re: Tokyo started to reach the extent of the city itself. I envision pages for specific areas and destinations which might all be linked from the ward pages. Also, itineraries and checklists for people with specific interests might help to make things more accessible.
I think that we should perhaps make a more comprehensive map of the rail system in Tokyo. Currently, the Yurikamome and Rinkai Line seem to be absent from the map, and I think Odaiba should be considered a part of downtown Tokyo. I have enclosed a link the official map here, which is subject to copyright laws. Could I request that someone with the skills add the two lines in based on this map?
Nice quick whip-around. Consider linking with Tokyo Q at www.tokyoq.com for up-to-the-minute chatter. Rick Kennedy long-time resident
What does "Get your bags in before you do" mean? Before you do what? This was translated literally into French as something even more incomprehensible, then changed to something completely different. -phma 12:12, 3 Mar 2004 (EST)
"...before you get in". Thanks for the question about that- it made me look and clean up one or two other things there. Just out of curiosity, how did the translation sound in French? Amusing, I hope. Ted 14:01, 3 Mar 2004 (EST)
"Obtenez vos sacs dedans avant que vous" - "Obtain your sacks inside before that you". Baraguin. -phma 14:12, 3 Mar 2004 (EST)
Shouldn't understand:language go into a "Talk" section and understand/expenses into a "buy" section? Not trying to be a nitpicker. -- Nils 06:02, 16 Apr 2004 (EDT)
Lost in Translation
I'm a little apprehensive about introducing the visitor to Tokyo through Bill Murray. I think this is kind of unnecessary and I've replaced it with something else. Hope this is alright.
The section was removed alright, but no sign of a replacement? I've reverted the change for now (and personally I think LiT does give an excellent impression of how the average first-time visitor usually sees Tokyo). Jpatokal 22:36, 14 Jul 2005 (EDT)
I have to say it seems a little disjointed: the paragraph starts by saying that the city is featured quite heavily in the film, then goes on to say that actually it is mostly set in a hotel. The final sentence is good, but I fail to see the relevance of the remainder.
What's the basis for the "district" classification of wards on Image:Map_tokyo_districts.png? Is "Downtown" Shitamachi? If so I'm not sure Toshima-ku or Bunkyo-ku would count, though I think Koto and Sumida would. If it's "downtown" in an American sense, I don't think that concept can be applied to Tokyo. "Suburb" is a somewhat misleading, it gives the impression if low-density leafy residential areas which merge into open countryside once you cross the border to Saitama or Kanazawa ;-)
The base is the scientific process known as my gut feeling. I'm open to suggestions for improving it... Jpatokal 06:37, 2 Aug 2005 (EDT)
Description of Shinagawa
"Shinagawa, a major train hub" - Shinagawa Station locates in Minato Ward but Shinagawa Ward.
Uh... counsel, I'd like to know where you're going with this line of questioning. --Evan 17:09, 7 Nov 2005 (EST)
They'd like more Japones coins! Wouldn't we all? -- Ilkirk 17:17, 7 Nov 2005 (EST)
The "very expensive" sushi resturant with the best in town is quoted as being 3000 yen for a set dinner. Is this correct? 3000 yen is roughly US$25.00, which would be considered a downright steal in most American & European cities. -- Poodlemcmuffin 12:23, 17 Feb 2006 (EST)
The figure is correct and it's a downright steal in Tokyo too. As the Tokyo/Chuo article explains, the same meal would easily cost you ¥30,000 a few blocks down in the Ginza — but there you don't have to wake up at 5 AM to queue in a fish market! Jpatokal 05:41, 18 Feb 2006 (EST)
City vs prefecture split
In line with the Japanese version of the Tokyo article, I will hereby proceed to split off all 'peripheral' Tokyo (outside the 23 wards) into its own article. Jpatokal 00:41, 11 July 2006 (EDT)
The updated Tokyo district map's central/shitamachi/suburb split no longer corresponds to that in the listing, and I'm not sure it makes much sense to have a separate article for every single Tokyo ward.
So I'd propose that we...
drop the entire downtown/new town split, because even the Japanese can't agree on what's where
Lump together the northern 'burbs (Nerima, Itabashi, Kita, Nakano, Suginami) → Tokyo/North?
Lump together the eastern 'burbs across the Sumida (Adachi, Katsushika, Edogawa, Sumida, Koto, Arakawa) → Tokyo/East?
Sounds about right to me. I don't think any single one of those burbs has enough attractions to fill its own article. They are not particularly touristed areas of town as far as I know. Texugo 00:35, 13 June 2007 (EDT)
My opinion, based on having lived in Tokyo for a year and visited many more times on business, is that reducing the number of articles on suburbs is a good idea. My personal classification for Tokyo is by major stations on the Yamanote-sen: Shinjuku area, Ikebukuro area, Ueno area, etc. On and inside the Yamanote-sen there is a lot to describe and it probably justifies most of the articles already there. Also, I know from personal experience on another WT region that it can be a pain to move content from one article to another. Thus I suggest in the suburbs that you only consolidate existing district articles which have very little content. Hope these thoughts are helpful. JimDeLaHunt 02:26, 13 June 2007 (EDT)
OK, looks like we have a rough consensus. I've uploaded a map and added Arakawa to the eastern burbs, comments welcome. If we want to get really radical, we could also lump Shinagawa, Ota, Setagawa and Meguro into Tokyo/South...? Jpatokal 03:04, 13 June 2007 (EDT)
Jim's idea sounds fine. I simply feel that a ward such as Katsushika is a bit more than a "suburb" (Shibamata, Kameido, Kameari...). BTW, I was the one who updated the map, but I also moved the corresponding wards in the listing. Tensaibuta 06:35, 13 June 2007 (EDT)
There are other district articles that are more fine divisions than the map shows, e.g. Tokyo/Harajuku. I haven't looked to see how many of these exist. What do you want to do with those articles? Merge their content into others? Change them to be subdistricts of the new district split? Leave them as top-level districts? JimDeLaHunt 16:17, 13 June 2007 (EDT)
Where does Ikebukuro fit? Since it's a major railway station and travel destination, perhaps the Toshima district should be called Ikebukuro instead. That is, call it "Ikebukuro district", which is defined as the area covered by Toshima-ku. Similarly, how about calling the Bunkyo/Taito-ku area "Ueno district"? JimDeLaHunt 16:17, 13 June 2007 (EDT)
I would keep Harajuku and other famous ones as subdistricts of the new district split. Also I think you're right about calling Toshima district "Ikebukuro" and Bunkyo/Taito-ku "Ueno" (leave the "district" part out of the titles). These are the names by which travellers are most likely to refer to those areas, regardless of what the administrative divisions technically are. We can just slap in redirects for some of the lesser-known place names. Texugo 22:32, 13 June 2007 (EDT)
I'd like to produce a map of within-the-Yamanote Tokyo and sort out the subdistricts at that point, but let's get the bigger blocks sorted out first. I think calling Toshima Ikebukuro is sensible, but dubbing Bunkyo/Taito "Ueno" is more problematic because Asakusa, also a major tourist destination, is in the area. So either we make Asakusa a subdistrict of Ueno, which sounds a bit weird, or we raise it up to a district of its own...? Or we could call Bunkyo/Taito "Shitamachi" and make both Ueno and Asakusa its subdistricts, which is the case right now.
Also, any second opinions about the Shinagawa, Ota, Setagawa and Meguro → "South" idea? Jpatokal 05:09, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
FYI, the map has been updated with the Ikebukuro/Ueno renamings as proposed and the existing subdistricts (did I miss any?) penciled in. Shift-reload the image if it doesn't show up. Jpatokal 05:09, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
Very nice map!! One little personnal objection, however. I think we should keep to a classification by tourist areas only (i.e. not classifying by the underlying official wards and not using the wards as reference for the frontiers between each tourist areas). One example : Akihabara is part in Chiyoda, part in Taito. Furthermore, as you pointed out saying that Bunkyo "is in" Ueno seems strange. Tensaibuta 08:37, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
Vector version now here. I think we should try to follow the ward lines as boundaries, because they're the only lines we can all agree on easily. The only two districts I know that don't fit the wards nicely are Akihabara and Odaiba, and in practice they can just be considered parts of Chiyoda and Minato respectively.
Also, the gray ward names are in the map now so that we know what goes where. They should probably be cleaned out from the final version and just be listed in the descriptions. Jpatokal 09:13, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
Here is what I had in mind (done quite quickly... needs some improvment if we decide to keep it).
. I see your point, but I am stil not fully convinced by keeping the ward boudaries Tensaibuta 09:34, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
Thanks, everyone, for these good ideas. I'm responding to Jpatokal's updated "Image:TokyoSpecialWardsMap.png| Suggested split" at the top of this section. I have a hard time understanding either TokyoSpecialWardsMap.svg or "Image:tokyomapinterpretation.png| Tokyo districts". I like the use of train station names for Shibuya - Shinjuku - Ikebukuro - Ebisu - Ueno. (I think it will be fine to have "Asakusa" under "Ueno" just like "Harajuku" is under "Shibuya"). I like the "North" and "East" districts. I think a "South" district for Ota, Setagaya, Meguro, and Shinagawa-ku would work fine, but looking at those articles, I think all but Ota-ku have good content, so we'll want to keep all four of them as subdistricts. We should definitely extend our "Chiyoda" district to include all of Akihabara, and I don't know Odaiba well enough to have an opinion. Finally, this leaves us with three top-level districts named after "ku", namely Minato, Chiyoda, and Chuo-ku. That's fine, because these are "ku" names which travellers are actually likely to hear and learn. (Part of me is tempted to name the "Chuo-ku" district "Ginza", though.) Good work, everyone! JimDeLaHunt 16:01, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
I am still not convinced (at all) with the idea of mixing special wards with tourist destinations. Another example, I think this one is much more convincing than Akihabara: the whole of Yoyogi area (including NTT Docomo's tower, listed under the Shinjuku article, the Microsoft tower in the introduction as well as Takashimaya, also listed in Shinjuku), as well as South Shinjuku district, is NOT in Shinjuku ward, but in Shibuya Ward. The Shinjuku ward boundary is actually just in front of Shinjuku JR station. So using the wards as boundaries for districts is, imho, not the best choice... I'll try to rework my map a bit Tensaibuta 18:55, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
The more I think about this, the harder it gets. There are just too many neighborhoods in Tokyo, and they don't all deserve their own articles, but it's very difficult to create sensible boundaries or tie them together with anything other than the wards. But I'm not saying that we need to obsessively follow the ward boundaries -- for example, Nishi-Shinjuku is universally considered Shinjuku despite being in Shibuya ward, just like the area around Meguro station is considered Meguro even though the station itself is technically part of Shinagawa. I just think these should be exceptions, not rules.
Also, I don't want to tie wards together and then resplit unless we have to. If the southern wards of Tokyo can stand on their own, then we don't need an artificial "Tokyo/South" level.
Finally, maybe it's just because I studied at Todai, but for me "Shitamachi" -- that is, the touristy bit of it -- is very much the Bunkyo-Taito area: Yanaka, Sendagi, Nezu, Ueno, Asakusa. The average visitor to Tokyo just doesn't ever cross the Sumida, unless they're going to Ryogoku for sumo or the Edo-Tokyo Museum. Jpatokal 09:05, 15 June 2007 (EDT)
I will give another shot at the map, and we will see what comes out of it (and I know what you mean....) Tensaibuta 10:46, 15 June 2007 (EDT)
Here is a suggestion of a map+split. Please feel free to modify it, I am not a whiz with vector maps. Furthermore some characters (Koto for instance) got messed up during the svg->png export.
Help, I have uploaded a new version of the map above to Shared (same name), but the map displayed here is still the older version. If anyone knows how to change this, or delete the old version... Tensaibuta 21:58, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
I've deleted the file on /en/ which should clear the way for the file on /shared/ to come through instead. - Todd VerBeek 23:02, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
I've come around to kind of liking this last proposal. We'll need to delineate the boundaries pretty carefully, but it does make a lot more sense from the traveller's POV, because after all the only way to get around Tokyo in practice is the train.
Over on Talk:Tokyo/Minato, Sekicho proposed splitting up the useless megadistrict as follows:
Shirokane/Takanawa/Konan (perhaps in the "Shinagawa" article)
That seems like a lot to me, but I'm also hard-pressed to say where else they could go. Shirokane/Takanawa might squeeze into Tokyo/Meguro as well though, and I'm not sure Shiba/Mita/Hamamatsucho needs their own article (are they too big to combine into Shinbashi/Shiodome?). Jpatokal 03:35, 23 September 2007 (EDT)
It is indeed a lot :) Delimiting by train is indeed probably the best solution. As for Shiba/Mita/Hamamatsucho... Hum, I would suggest Shinagwa area ? Tensaibuta 10:59, 23 September 2007 (EDT)
I hereby REQUEST you to show all the editors of this article any evidence that my edit is MEANINGLESS or OPINIONATED WAFFLE. My edit bears LEAGAL FOUNDATION.
Do you know how many National Treasury Architectures the Education Minister of Japan has designated so far? and how many of them are located in 23 Tokyo Special Wards?
What about Special Historic Sites? Special Places of Scenic Beauty? or Special Natural Monuments?
Do not provide wrong information and PLEASE DO NOT LEAD A TOURIST TO AN ATTRACTION of NO cultural, architectural, or historical importance AT ALL.
If a site is culturally worthless, has no historic importance, is advertized not by a historical profession but by travel industry in order for them to make money, and is visited due only to the convenience of its location, we must provide the information!! --188.8.131.52 17:44, 26 November 2007 (EST)
I'm not too sure what "bears leagal foundation" means, but I'd agree that the paragraphs deleted constitute 1st degree waffle. Vague warnings about the fact that "some sites" are "far from the finest" are not useful for travelers, nor are they good writing. Ideally, I think, the "see" section should be introduced with a brief paragraph giving readers an idea of what the main sites are and how long they'll need to see them (links to itineraries would be nice too). We also try to avoid exhorting people to avoid attractions—it's best to simply give an objective description for each attraction listing, so that the traveler can decide on their own whether to visit. --PeterTalk 18:25, 26 November 2007 (EST)
hmmm... then what should we do with these "best of tokyo, but, almost worthless in whole Japan" attractions? anyway, I might write a new artcle about it. now Im busy traveling, will come back to Japan soon. the same person as above --184.108.40.206 08:53, 4 December 2007 (EST)
Perhaps it would be relevant to include the fact that Tokyo is the city with the most number of Michelin stars in the world - almost double that of Paris. This is because many potential visitors are into such things and there are always gourmets among tourists. Tango —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.127.116.11 (talk • contribs) 13:07, 2008 February 20