Talk:Kyoto

0 views

Timeline of Kyoto

[edit]

What is missing from the recently created city timeline article? Please add relevant content. Contributions welcome. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 16:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sister city

[edit]

ZH8000, I don't know what your obsession with the special bromance between Paris and Rome is, but it is irrelevant to other cities such as Tokyo and Kyoto. What I do know is that your edits are edit warring; once you are reverted once you can't keep hammering changes until you get your way. The sources make it clear that Kyoto and Paris are sister cities. Maybe not "super special exclusive twins since a long time ago", but they are sisters nonetheless. By way of analogy, my best friend has a twin sister and also has two other sisters. He might have a special relationship with his twin, but that does not reduce the "sister" status he shares with his other sisters. Surely you can see this analogy applies to sister cities also. So I invite you to put Paris back in the "sister city" list. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no "obsession" than the one to obey to the facts instead of unjustified interpretations. Your anolgy is useless and wrong. The official statements by the authorities of Paris (most current ones, see reference) and Rome are very clear and undisputable. Perhaps it is a lost-in-translation (every relation is called a sister city relation?)? Whatever, it does not change the facts that Paris and Rome do not have any other twin/sister cities relationships, until nowadays. Besides, all other city partners of Paris and Rome accept this fact – except for Tokyo and Kyoto? -- ZH8000 (talk) 10:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply] You say only Tokyo and Kyoto were "unjustified interpretations"? Well, the only reason you can say other cities "accept the fact" is because you've been busy removing mention of Paris and/or Rome from the articles on Seoul, Jakarta and Beijing. Did the editors of those articles have translation problems too? What was "lost in translation" about the London entry? It just so happens that I had the two Japanese cities watchlisted and noticed what you are up to. I see that you attempted putting some sort of clarification in the Berlin article also, but FinnishDriver undid that edit. So don't try to make this a problem about the Japanese government misunderstanding when you have been clearing out the articles on all the major cities in the world. I've now noticed this a wide-spread problem you've cause, so will have to find the appropriate place to start a wide discussion. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox montage

[edit]

Tsutaube has altered the montage on this page to his preferred version over ten times since February 2022, e.g. here, here, here, here in March, here in April, here in June. Edits to this montage are about 1/3 of all of his edits on Wikipedia. He is aware that multiple editors dispute his version (although the "not me" part of the edit summary does not fit with this evidence). After I came in as a third opinion with the view that the montage was too large, in early April, I asked him to please take this to talk rather than simply readding days later. In late April, I wrote that there is no evidence of editorial support for this version, and reasons for avoiding it have been suggested; again, please take to talk. And I asked him to take it to talk again recently, noting that no clear reason for a large montage has been presented, and readding the same montage almost 10 times despite objections from multiple editors can be construed as tendentious. However, Tsutaube simply reverted again today.

So here I am on talk. Why do we need all of the extra pictures? In my editorial opinion, adding photos like a close shot of lamps on a temple veranda does not help the reader of this article understand its topic, which is the city of Kyoto. The question is not how to advertise the city with a set of contrasting green- and red-hued photos of tourist spots. I believe it makes sense to have photos of the icons of the city—say, Kiyomizu Temple, Kinkakuji, and perhaps Ryoanji and the Arashiyama bamboo forest. Then it would also make sense to have one or two photos of the modern city itself (Kyoto Tower and a cityscape?). But the city does not consist only of temples and shrines, and adding more of them (particularly in close-up form) does not help the reader. I am not going to revert again now, but I believe it would be fully justified as the claims of seeking compromise have only resulted in reinstating the "Tsutaube version" later on. Tsutaube, please review WP:OWNBEHAVIOR and attempt to avoid the behaviors described there. Dekimasuよ! 12:11, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you misunderstand. This is the proof that Chipmunkdavis plugged my image skyline back in when an IP user was fighting to make his photo the primary image. The above is the main counting factor in my 10+ restorations. And I offered a compromise at your request [1], but unfortunately Nkon21 was not willing to compromise in any way on this matter. BTW, you have edited this page over 150 times... Frankly, it's so remarkable. OK, the image skyline back to my compromise proposal, I would like to hear a third opinion. I don't want this to be just an enumeration, some freedom of expression should be allowed. The rest is subject to third opinion. Tsutaube (talk) 09:45, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tsutaube's appoach is far too many images for an infobox. Worse, many of them are redundant images of the exact same architectural style, and just unencyclopedic images in the first place, like "artsy" but uninformative shots of red-painted wood. Something like this [2] is vastly preferable, other than it includes nothing modern and makes it seem like Kyoto is a folk-history park instead of a city. This version [3] addressed that problem but is too cramped, with images that are too small to be useful. Some compromise between the two approaches is needed. But Tsutaube's huge stack of images is not the right approach, especially not redundant and unencyclopedic ones.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply] My intention is to arrange the shrines, temples and imperial palaces that were built from the Middle Ages to the post-World War II period so that you can feel the harmony. This was a very difficult task. (Surprisingly, they were all built in different styles in Architectural history!) I believe the close-up shot of the torii gates are the most impressive part. If this was a wide angle shot, no one would care. I love the full version that was kept for a year, but if you think you need a compromise, I recommend the current version. What do you think of that? Tell me the comment. Tsutaube (talk) 06:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Kyoto, JP, KY" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Kyoto, JP, KY has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 30 § Kyoto, JP, KY until a consensus is reached. A1Cafel (talk) 11:29, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Architectural photos used in the article don't represent the city

[edit]

I have a general sense that in an article like this, the use of pictures ought to be limited to the bare minimum, only where you can find relevant images that help readers understand the subject more deeply. However, in the Modern period section, a seemingly irrelevant picture of the Paris Opera is used as a reference to just one individual building that was built in Kyoto during the period. Taking up this much space in the history section just to discuss individual examples of buildings from this period is already very questionable, and discussing the style of one of them using a picture of a building so far away cannot be justified.

I also get the sense that temples and shrines are over-represented in the infobox. Kyoto is not an outdoor museum built to display a collection of medieval and early modern buildings, but a modern city where nearly a million people live. I hope someone with a good understanding of the modern city as a whole can deal with those irrelevant pictures and the over-representation of historic buildings in the article.

VersedVoyager67 (talk) 15:18, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maps in infobox

[edit]

- show in its prefecture

- show in Japan

- show in Asia

- show on Earth

- show all

The last of these levels was quite disappointing. I was thinking we would zoom WAY out, to show Kyoto in relation to the entire universe. :) TooManyFingers (talk) 21:10, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Minor suggestion

[edit]

This article is practically flawless. I only have one minor suggestion. The map of the wards of Kyoto should have the caption corrected to replace "Kyoto ,Kyoto" with "Kyoto, Kyoto".

ICE77 (talk) 06:37, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Major suggestion

[edit]

This article's, compared with other major cities, section ordering and scope are inconsistent, and quite a few topics are underdeveloped or fragmented. I started updating a few minor things in the infobox, but a broader improvement is arguably needed. I would like to propose the following structure, broadly aligned with the cities guidance and the layouts used in other major city articles.

(Top)

Etymology <-(Renaming: Name)

History

  • Prehistory <-(Renaming: Origins)
  • Classical Period <-(New; Asuka until Heian)
  • Feudal Period
  • Early Modern Period
  • Modern Period <-(Meiji until end of WW2)
  • Late Modern and Contemporary <-(Renaming Contemporary; 1945-now)

Geography

  • Topography <-(Renaming: Terrain)
  • Climate
  • Natural Disasters <-(New)
    • Earthquakes <-(New)
    • Flooding <-(New)

Administration <-(Renaming: Government)

  • Local Government
    • Kyoto City Assembly
    • List of Mayors (or making category and a link to that)
    • Wards <-(Renaming & Moving: Administrative divisions)
    • Public Safety
  • Prefectural Government <-(New; paragraph on seat of pref. gov. & agencies)
  • International Relations (Moving)

Demographics

  • Age Structure and Average Age <-(New)
  • Immigration <-(New)
  • Dialects <-(New)

Economy

  • Tourism <-(New)
  • Manufacturing <-(New)
  • Agriculture and Forestry <-(New)

Transportation

  • Local Transport <-(New)
    • Subway
    • Tramways
    • Bus
  • Inter-city Transport <-(New)
    • High-Speed Railway
    • Conventional Lines
    • Inter-city Bus <-(New)
  • Roads <-(Renaming: Roads and waterways)

Culture

  • Museums
  • Temples and Shrines <-(New)
  • Gardens <-(New)
  • Cuisine <-(New)
  • Architecture <-(New; similar to Tokyo Article)
    • Heian Architecture <-(New)
    • Kamakura Period <-(New)
    • Muromachi Architecture <-(New)
    • Edo Architecture <-(New)
    • Modern <-(New)
    • Contemporary <-(New)
  • Arts Arts and Performing Arts <-(New)
  • Festivals
  • Sports

Education

  • Tertiary education
  • Primary and secondary education

Proposed approach

  • First reordering existing sections to roughly match this structure
  • Secondly expand or add new sections (also using other articles that cover parts, and the Japanese article)

Feedback on the proposed structure/idea/steps/content is more than welcome. If there is interest, work could be divided by chapters to make this manageable. Themodernherodotus (talk) 10:51, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a good way to make the article more in-depth and in line with other articles on major cities. Once you start working on it I'd be happy to help :) 🀰☯🀰Hexes54☯Talk to me🀰☯🀰 08:47, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Great to hear, I would wait for a few days more to see whether there are any more reactions or participation and then I guess get to it :). Themodernherodotus (talk) 13:43, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] I would suggest a few points of caution. First, increasing the number of subsections can simply reduce readability. For example, there are already too many sections in the "transportation" section now, and there is not enough content in the "economy" section to justify subsections. When short prose sections are already clear, new subsections are not necessary. (This is if the list above is explicitly intended to refer to sections, rather than simply where information should be located in the article.) Second, this article is about the contemporary city specifically. Expanding the classical history or Kamakura architecture sections, for example, probably belongs in Heian-kyō rather than here; we already have a link to that as a daughter (or sister) article, and don't need to overload this particular page. A short overall summary with fewer galleries and a link to that article would actually improve this one. Similarly the focus here is the city specifically and not the prefecture, so much of the information on things like regional transport, natural disasters, or forestry that does not specifically relate to the city would be better covered at Kyoto Prefecture. (I would argue that the Tokyo article doesn't need a subsection on "volcanic eruptions" either; there are no "volcanic eruptions" in Tokyo and there has never been one that affected the city since it stopped being Edo, which has its own article.) Best, Dekimasuよ! 03:57, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] A whole lot of points to unpack  :) I agree:
  • Readability: I agree that for readability one has to be cautious, since in many articles its either too little or too much. I am not completely sure though what the best thing would be in this case (linked to my Heian-kyō comment later on). For History (where i essentially just took what we have now) and Architecture an own page would be justified which I in both cases could certainly do. Should the remaining section be then one paragraph simply detailing a broad boundary and then have a link or should it be subsections for different periods like the London article has with multiple links.
  • Justify Subsections: I agree here as well. My intent is not to overload with pointless empty subsections but to obviously write them as well. I was looking at both the Japanese article where some of the sections already exist and at other Wiki entries that can be inserted as according links etc. . Now as for whether or not these actually are subsections the idea was to have say culture as a section so ==culture== then some intro text then f.e. ===museums=== in which there is a link to a list of all the museums of Kyoto and some text maybe noting things like the KNM etc. . And then similar for the others in some cases these have to be created like for the festivals. For food (===cuisine===) one could write an article in the future for now it could have a snapshot of the traditional cuisine like obanzai and links to for example List of Michelin-starred restaurants in Kyoto and Osaka. There are actually quite a few articles not linked here that cover certain aspects of Kyoto so that would the a way to bundle them. As for transportation, I would simply put showcase two things. The infrastructure with the according links on how to get around locally (which could be even be one subsection with links) but a subsection on how the city is connected to other major cities. Meaning Shinkansen, local trains, and the underrated long distance buses (which again we could all mash together in one subsection with links).
I disagree:
  • Kyoto Prefecture: You make a few points in one but let me just generally speaking say that I not completely sure how to address this one. The modern Kyoto City boundary means that ca. 70-80% of the city is not actually city but mountain forest, waterways, fields and essentially villages. Now we could focus solely on what the casual readers cares about, which would be the urban part but de jure there is a lot more to include, hence for example agriculture & forestry in the economy section. For the natural disasters I would contradict myself and probably focus on the urban part where flooding is actually a problem, and I dont really see how this would be tied to the prefecture. ( I agree though on the Tokyo bit).
  • Heian-kyō: As I previously mentioned we could create an article on the history of Kyoto city that covers it in-depth, same for architecture, yet still as an encyclopedic entry this covers not just anything contemporarily(?). Heian-kyō is the former name which evolved over time, that doesnt mean it is a different city. Not to overcomplicate things but the article on heian-kyō is rather misleading as it should be called History of Kyoto (city), yet its partially written as if it was an antique city that doesnt exist anymore.
Themodernherodotus (talk) 07:32, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Since there doesnt appear to be any further comment I will start with reordering and renaming the current sections. Then I guess Hexes54 you can see for what part you have knowledge/interest/time for. Then we can further structure the parts also based on Dekimasus feedback. Dekimasu if you would like to contribute or give feedback, still very welcome. Themodernherodotus (talk) 15:44, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article is sourced from Wikipedia. Content is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.