From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Older discussions[edit]

Copied from Project:10 June 2004 by (WT-en) Evan

There's a description of the Tokyo Tower in Tokyo/Minato. A Google search for "Tokyo Tower" finds a lot of similar text. Especially which includes the fragment

The Tokyo Tower has two observation galleries - a "main" one at 150 meters and a "special" one at 250 meters. On a fine - and relatively unpolluted - day


spectacular views of Mt. Fuji to the west, the Boso and Miura peninsulas (on either side of Tokyo Bay), the Hakone mountains and Mt. Tsukuba to the northeast.

Does this count as "too similar?" -- (WT-en) Colin 21:32, 10 Jun 2004 (EDT)

I think so. I'll blank the section, and let's copy this note to Talk:Tokyo/Minato. --(WT-en) Evan 23:59, 10 Jun 2004 (EDT)
Sorry about that. I pointed this student to Wikivoyage. Sometimes it is tough to catch plagiarism with some of the more skilled writers. I knew he had looked at Wikipedia about Tokyo Tower, but not the Metropolis page. I didn't Google for phrases as he is usually a good writer anyway. I'll ask him about it and try to keep a closer eye on things. Thanks. (WT-en) Ted 23:11, 15 Jun 2004 (EDT)

Organizing this article better[edit]

I really think that "Minato-ku" is not a particularly good subject for a travel article, since the ward is so big and many of its area are really best lumped in with others. Specifically, here's the breakdown I'm thinking of:

  • Akasaka/Kamiyacho
  • Aoyama/Omotesando
  • Roppongi/Azabu
  • Shinbashi/Shiodome
  • Shirokane/Takanawa/Konan (perhaps in the "Shinagawa" article)
  • Shiba/Mita/Hamamatsucho
  • Odaiba

This would make more sense with regard to "what can be seen in XX area," no? - (WT-en) Sekicho 01:31, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

I agree that the current districts are terribibable, and there's been a lot of talk about redoing the whole city on Talk:Tokyo. Chip in! (WT-en) Jpatokal

Districts of districts[edit]

Where is the discussion on making this district a huge city with its own districts. Just want to be clear this is the correct thing to do? --Traveler100 (talk) 16:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Sengaku-ji: duplicated in Minato and Shinagawa[edit]

User 隼鷹 copied this temple from Shinagawa to Minato, and now it is duplicated. I don't know which of them makes more sense: it is located in Minato (like Shinagawa station!), but it is not located near any other attraction of these two wards. — Fabimaru (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I think as a rule, attractions should be listed in the district where they're located, unless perhaps there's a compelling reason to do otherwise. Is there a compelling reason otherwise in this case, and if so, what would it be? Also, let's note that it's always possible to include text like this in Tokyo/Shinagawa, if it's accurate: "The famous Sangaku-ji, though associated with Shinagawa, is actually in Minato; see that article for its listing." Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I have seen it in the past, for example it Tokyo/Roppongi which lists some attractions from Akasaka with the following text: "Some of the attractions listed bellow are officially located in Akasaka, but it is more practical to include them in a visit on Roppongi.". I would prefer this approach but only when it makes sense (which should not be frequent). For example if a cluster of attractions is located near a group of another district but far from the rest of the attractions of its district. – Fabimaru (talk) 17:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
I believe this is an actual, not a proposed rule, but I don't think your points contradict mine. Did you note "unless perhaps there's a compelling reason to do otherwise"? What would the reason be, in this case? In any case, we absolutely should not have listings in two different destination articles. That's prohibited by the don't tout policy. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:25, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't know if it is an actual rule, I tried to search a bit in the help but did not find (maybe that is what the text around Wikivoyage:Geographical_hierarchy#Overlap means). I did notice "unless perhaps there's a compelling reason to do otherwise". Do you mean for this page, or in general? In this specific case, I don't know. In general, I gave an example of "compelling reason": "if a cluster of attractions…". Maybe I did not understand correctly your question…
Finally, concerning this specific case, as 隼鷹 did not answer in this page (I hoped to grab his/her attention by mentioning him/her), I will try in his/her discussion page. Maybe it was an oversight. Anyway, any insight is still welcome from anyone who knows the area. – Fabimaru (talk) 16:50, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
I looked in the history for this temple, it had been added in the first revision of Shinagawa in 2004, and later added in Minato in 2005 by Jpatokal. In 2015, it has been removed from Shinagawa by If nobody gives a reason after a few days, I propose to remove it from Shinagawa. — Fabimaru (talk) 17:16, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Sengakuji Primarily at Tokyo/Minato but near than Shinagawa St. The question is similar station name priority address?
I am the opinion address priority other things. --隼鷹 (talk) 02:10, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
That's been my view in regard to some debatable listings in Manhattan, too. Unless someone else gives a strong reason to delete the listing here and leave it in Tokyo/Shinagawa, we should delete the listing in Tokyo/Shinagawa. And in terms of the compelling reason to do otherwise, I was asking in regard to this case in particular, as putting a listing in the "wrong" district could be confusing and should never be the rule. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:20, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
So many exception the rule, Beginners difficult to understand or writing, and also confusion. Most clarity things, it use the address. But this case in the first place "wrong" Shinagawa St not at Shinagawa Ward, at Minato Ward. I think not clearly this page is Shinagawa St or Shinagawa Ward, Thus, I am not delted Sengakuji on Shinagawa. --隼鷹 (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
I think there's a very clear rule on the don't tout page forbidding attractions from being given full listings in more than one destination article. There's no problem with mentioning it in another article and pointing to the one that covers it, though. Does that make sense? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
OK, I do not challenge the rules, and not an intricate knot. I have to delte Sengakuji on Shinagawa. So Thank you to discuss with me. --隼鷹 (talk) 03:18, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Certainly. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

No point of having a separate article for Shinbashi?[edit]

Not too many listings in the article for Shinbashi so far. Maybe it would be better to remove this subdistrict again and add the information back to Minato? --Renek78 (talk) 13:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)