Talk:Yamanote and Shitamachi

Meaning of 山の手

Since there seems to be some argument about this (and Ryulong specifically says he can't find anything stating that 手 means anything other than "hand", how about this:

手 【て】 (n) (1) hand; arm; (2) (col) forepaw; foreleg; (3) handle; (4) hand; worker; help; (5) trouble; care; effort; (6) means; way; trick; move; technique; workmanship; (7) hand; handwriting; (8) kind; type; sort; (9) one's hands; one's possession; (10) ability to cope; (11) hand (of cards); (P); EP

That's from WWWJDIC. I could pull out my other Japanese Kanji dictionaries if you want, but that pretty much covers it. There are multiple non-"hand" meanings in there. When I look up 山の手 there, I get the following:

山の手 【やまのて】 (n) hilly (residential) section of a city; uptown; ED

So, rather than reverting the good faith efforts of other editors (referring to both of you involved in this dispute), please discuss the issue here, present evidence, and let consunsus reign. Thanks. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I found this edit is incorrect. The word 手 has many meanings. See the meaning of#11. It says 手 means toward. What do you think? Oda Mari (talk) 10:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that 手 in this context means 'fingers' and is used as a geographical term: hilly fingers formed by the bluffs of the Pleistocene terrace of the Musashino Plains as they overlook Tokyo Bay. We have the same concept in English. Glee 22:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ginaleeb (talk • contribs)

Meaning of 下町

Since these discussions are related, let's discuss this one here, too. Here's what I get from WWWJDIC:

下町 【したまち】 (n) Shitamachi; lower parts of town; (P); EP

I can find no evidence it is used for "downtown" other than "the part of the town that is down/below". As there are no inline refs for this claim in the article, I have no way to verify it (and neither does anyone else). I've tagged the article accordingly. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the article yet, but I saw that there was a link here from WPJ. Shitamachi does mean downtown, although I wouldn't say they're strictly equivalent. If you have an electronic dictionary, it will be in there. I could cite mine if I knew how to cite an electronic dictionary. Here's what it says: "したまち（下町）＞東京の下町 the old part of Tokyo; the old downtown Tokyo." It has an implication of being the older part of town, which in most cases means "central" and ends up being downtown. (It doesn't only apply to Tokyo.) Dekimasuよ! 03:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: hundreds of thousands of Google hits for "下町の大阪", tens of thousands more for "大阪の下町". I realize I'm not posting in the most up-to-date part of the talk page, but it would be a mistake to imply that 下町 only (even in an encyclopedic sense) refers to a part of Tokyo. Dekimasuよ! 03:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a good point - in the combined version I think there should be a section on uses in other cities. Most of the research I've found, however, talks about Tokyo, and I think it's fair to focus predominantly on Tokyo. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Kojien

Please consult a real dictionary, as I did with the Kojien, and not the WWWJDIC. Good as it is, it has its limits. I pasted in enough examples to prove my points. urashimataro (talk) 07:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

If you want people to help you, blasting them for using WWWJDIC is not going to help. Please repost your examples here (cut and paste is fine). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. Was about to do it anyway. He translates Yamanote as meaning literally "Hand of the mountain". The Daijisen and common sense say it means "in the direction of the mountains" or "towards the mountains". The Daijisen has (I copy and paste) 山のほう. 2. He again says the non literal meaning is "Hand of the mountain", but in effect the non-literal meaning is something like "plateau" or "high ground". Here some lines from the Kōjien.

やま‐の‐て【山の手】 ＃山に近い方。やまて。 ＃高台の土地。 [株式会社岩波書店 広辞苑第六版]

And this by the way is Shitamachi. した‐まち【下町】 低い所にある市街。商人・職人などの多く住んでいる町。 [株式会社岩波書店 広辞苑第六版]

This second error is also not so important, but should be fixed.

3) Most importantly, he says that Shitamachi corresponds to downtown and Yamanote to uptown. This is not correct. The two terms refer, in Tokyo and elsewhere, to the altitude of an area, and not necessarily to the culture one finds there. See the Kojien definitions above. Downtown and uptown do not. Japanologist Edward Seidensticker, who studied the problem, used the terms Low City and High City for a reason. I think it's essential to make clear that the resemblance between Shitamachi and Downtown is coincidental, explain the origin of the terms and their evolution, which I did in the parts he removed.urashimataro (talk) 07:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It's also important to remember that there is no reason at all why "downtown" and "uptown" should have exact equivalents in Japanese. It's actually American English; it's not even universally used among English speakers. It's a bit like translating 腹黒い as "black stomach" (which a student of mine did yesterday ;-) )VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Right, I've checked my own kojien Japanese - Japanese dictionary . Here's what it says for 山の手: (1) 山に近い方 - towards the mountain。(2)高台の土地。Plateau. I've left a message to this effect on ryulong's page. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

He's [picked up his ball and gone home]. I don't know how to revert back to before his changes. Can someone else do it? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Hold on there. Just because I no longer really care about these articles does not mean that all of my removals of flowery and trivial content should be outright undone. Before I made the changes to the articles, they read like an essay and not like a neutrally toned encyclopedia article. If anything, all you have to do is change translations and/or get rid of content referring to "uptown" and "downtown". Going back to this version of the article would be a really poor idea (particularly because the articles were identical and not properly formatted).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The most recent changes by Ryulong are sufficient as they remove the incorrect meanings. We do not want to go back to the previous wording. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 15:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for my vague wording - I was referring to the mistranslations, which were part of a mini-revert skirmish after the bigger content changes. I still think that it's shame the old content was taken out, rather than improved. I would urge urashimataro to give it another go, with more sourcing.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The old content was not necessary for knowledge of the subject, and Wikipedia would have had two identical articles, except for the lead paragraph. Such a historical definition of the subject matter is not helpful to the reader.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Overall, the edits removed information about the use of shitamachi in idiomatic Japanese, which seems to me to be encyclopaedic (it certainly illuminates the use of the term), and the history of the terms is clearly encyclopaedic. It's not such an open and shut case that you can delete material without seeking consensus on the talk page first. That's what they're for. ;-). And if the material is the same, propose a merge with redirects, rather than delete both sets of material, which is simply destructive. We don't need to economise on space, and it's not as if a properly sourced version of the text before was hideously overlong. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 23:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

That the articles needed a brushup is out of question. They were my very first articles, and I never revised them. But I think the material should have been improved, rather than removed. Why on earth remove a map that shows where the Shitamachi "ku" are? Why remove a section that explains the history of the terms? Why remove the part that explains that Shitamachi does not mean downtown, it it's correct? I would like to ask Ryulong why historical knowledge is out of place in an encyclopedia. Finally, the articles were written with identical wording deliberately, because, as I wrote in the article, the two terms must be studied together to be properly understood.urashimataro (talk) 00:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The historical information was not written in an encyclopedic tone, as was the same case for the idomatic usage that currently is incorporated into the stub version of the article. And just because "the two terms must be studied together to be properly undesrtood" does not mean that the articles should be identical, or that there should be two articles at all, particularly if you're just making extended dictionary definitions.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

If "The historical information was not written in an encyclopedic tone" then change the tone, rather than delete. It seems that you don't find the topic of interest. That's not a reason to delete stuff. I'd delete just about the whole of manga if wiki was like that.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 00:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Try to get consensus

I think we should ask other editors what they think - should there be an attempt to improve the original material, or limit it to what there is now? Should there be two separate articles or one? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 00:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to make a proposal to close this parenthesis of acrimony, which I am sure is unpleasant to all. I will take Vsevolod's brilliant idea to use redirects, write an article called "Shitamachi and Yamanote", then make the other two articles into redirects, but, after it's done, Ryulong must promise to discuss any substantial deletion before proceeding. Is this OK?urashimataro (talk) 00:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 00:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, the proper way would be to simply rename one article and merge the content of that one article into the other rather than ignoring the editing history of two pages (which is some sort of GFDL vio). I will not have a problem with the content of the new article if it is written in a neutral encyclopedic tone, which I still believe the identical content from the previous two articles were not.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Whichever way it's done (and no vio is clearly better), it's good we can move forward. user:Urashimataro does have a good history of contributing to Japanese articles. This clearly looks like one that needs improvement, not deletion. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 00:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I never suggested that these pages be deleted. All I did was remove information and content that I felt was superfluous and not encyclopedic.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I was clearly referring to the large amount of material you deleted from both pages. Thank you. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The large amount of material was superfluous and could not be salvaged, in my opinion.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Then it would make sense to let someone else who believes they can, and who has more knowledge in the area, to try salvage it. If you had discussed changes on the talkpage before making them, we all would have saved ourselves a great deal of time.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Another thought: if these are basically going to be discussions of the words themselves, and the etymology of the words, they should both likely be moved to Wiktionary. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It:s a thought, but I don't believe that yamanote (and certainly not shitamachi) are at all widely attested as words in English (and yamanote would be as per the subway line). They can also be seen as part of Edo and modern Japanese social history. The characterisation of these articles as extended dictionary definitions only holds for the edits that reduced them to such.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Wiktionary covers multiple languages, with (eventually) entries for every word in ever language, so feel free to tag them with {{Copy to Wiktionary}} and a bot will move everything (including history) to Wiktionary. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

At this point, any residual wish I had to work on the articles evaporated. Having someone with Ryulong's attitude looking over my shoulder wouldn't be fun. I will leave the task to someone else. Dixi.urashimataro (talk) 05:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

In that case, I'll do my best to make it better. I really don't think it's worth a move to wiktionary, as the articles could actually be about a part of Tokyo, and the associations these parts in the (Japanese) popular imagination. I don't have the resources that Urashimataro has, and I really hope he comes back after thinking about it. Ryulong has been unnecessarily uncivil, and shown little AGF or grace when dealing with other editors here It's certainly not healthy for wikipedia for editors to feel harassed.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I was being a bit blunt, but the articles were in terrible shape and all you've been doing on this page is tell me that my translation was wrong after proving me wrong without doing anything to change the article itself. And incivility only happens between people. Not when I'm referring to an article as being "bad".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Calling an article "bad bad bad" is actually very similar to examples of incivility given on the policy page [1]. Given that a couple of reverts had already happened, I suspect other people, like me, wanted to talk about it in a civil fashion first before changing, rather than descend into a revert war. You gave no chance to urashimataro to improve the material there (unlike you we're not all undergraduates with lots of time on our hands); instead you chose to snipe at the idea that this was possible. Given that you didn't even know the correct meaning of the terms used, let alone be familiar with the potential for a decent article on the topics, I find that more than a little arrogant, to be honest.

Now, as it happens, there is a certain amount of material out there available to everyone, for example here, not simply as a dictionary definition, but as a socio-historical phenomenon. I suggest you leave things be and let the stub grow again.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 08:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I commented on the content, not the content maker. And if there can be content in an encyclopedic tone that distinguishes these two regions as more than geographical terms, then by all means put it in the article(s). The only sources for these articles are a dictionary and a book that I don't have access to.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Reset

I've reset the clock, so to speak, by restoring the pre-Ryulong versions of both Yamanote and Shitamachi. This doesn't mean I think either is perfect, but I do agree with User:VsevolodKrolikov that there's plenty of interesting and relevant information in the originals and what's needed is sourcing and rewriting, not wholesale deletion. I would also support merging the two articles together, since they're effectively talking about flip sides of the same coin. Jpatokal (talk) 01:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Japatokal. It should be reset. I find no reason to remove the most of the content. Oda Mari (talk) 01:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The old content was not in an encyclopedic format, encyclopedic tone, or mutually distinct between Shitamachi and Yamanote. In the past fifteen minutes I've been trying to rework the older content of the articles to make these two pages distinct from each other and possibly good enough that they need not be merged. Undoing every single edit that I had performed on these pages to bring them more in line with policy and the manual of style is more harmful than helpful. The older articles were several times longer than their Japanese counterparts at ja:山の手 and ja:下町 (well, 下町 is longer but I'll have to take a look at it in more detail).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You can read ja:山の手 with your ja-1 skills? Impressive! Then I'm sure you noted the word is described as "いくつかの意味が重層的に重なった語である。" and that 東京においては, not only is it 下町と対をなす, but the reader is referred to ja:東京市街の変遷, where you'll find a nice long section called 東京市街の拡大と山の手・下町. Jpatokal (talk) 02:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

My language skills are of no importance here. I'm working as an editor to fix an English language article which had breezy unencyclopedic English language content and formatting not in line with WP:MOS-JA. I've been expanding both articles such that they are distinct, as they are at the Japanese project, and devoid of phrasing such as "The term Yamanote has a connotation of classiness, whereas Shitamachi has one of liveliness and human warmth" and are now written such that they appear to be as well formatted as any other article on the project. I can't find any place for the old History of the term Yamanote in the new articles, mostly because they are directly referenced to a dictionary or the Japanese Wikipedia. Now these articles have better sources, better formatting, and better neutral content (I added a slightly modified piece of distinct content at the older revision of the Shitamachi page, which had the word "glitzy" in it which was definitely not in a neutral point of view). I know I can't read Japanese like a fluent speaker or someone who's been studying it at a collegiate level. I get by with the words I do know and my ability to decipher online translation services when I am completely clueless. However, that does not mean the articles in the state they are now are worse than before I found them and edited them.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to disagree with pretty much all of that. First, if you're going to be editing an article about a Japanese term as nuanced and complex as 山の手, you really should have at least a basic understanding of what it means; see eg. your provably incorrect insistence above that 手 only means "hand". Second, the phrasing "The term Yamanote has a connotation of classiness, whereas Shitamachi has one of liveliness and human warmth" that you object to is, in fact, quite correct, and the Japanese article points out uses like 「山の手のお嬢さま」 ("Yamanote princess") and 「山の手のお屋敷」 ("Yamanote mansion") that reflect this. By removing things like this and making it drily factual, you are in fact making the article worse than before.

For comparison, take a look at The Bronx (as a rough analogue of Shitamachi) and Manhattan (standing in for Yamanote). Note phrases like "densely-settled, working-class, urban culture", "gritty urban life" and "symbolized violence, decay, and urban ruin" for the Bronx, while Manhattan is described as "more intellectual and creative", "old money and conservative values ... one of the wealthiest neighborhoods in the United States.", "A popular haven for art", etc. Do you find this unencyclopedic? Jpatokal (talk) 02:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand that I was mistaken on the translation at this point. And while the phrase is correct, the tone needs work. I've not reverted back to the shorter version of the article this time around but replaced the lead with the stub content and prepared it for a merge with Shitamachi which is probably what's going to happen.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I am currently working on modifying the special wards map to highlight the Yamanote and Shitamachi regions such that these pages can have a map on them, again, rather than having just a map of the special wards. I would like assistance in determining which should be labeled as which.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Ryulong. If you wish, I have already done the job for you, and you can use the file. If you think it's good enough, it's called Tokyo-Wards-Yamanote-Shitamachi.png -- urashimataro (talk) 02:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Along with urashimataro I am putting together a combined article (Yamanote and Shitamachi) based on what research is available on the internet. If people want to make suggestions before we put it up as an article, see here. Please note it is part of my user space and I reserve the right to control what's done to it before it's ready to put up (although I hope not to have to exercise that right, of course.). I don't know about the technicalities of merging beforehand; in any case I think it makes sense to plan what the end product should look like. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

At this point, Yamanote and Shitamachi could be feasibly merged into a singular article. If you want to know about merges, go to WP:MERGE.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I've put up Yamanote and Shitamachi as a merge. If there are no objections, I'll put redirects on Yamanote and Shitamachi. Please note that there will be more added later.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Bad idea. That would be a violation of the GFDL. If anything, the merge should have happened first on one of the already existing pages (Yamanote looks like the better target), and then the page moved to Yamanote and Shitamachi.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. Afterwards I might put a note to that effect on the merge help page; the licensing issue is not mentioned there, although it is at Help:Moving_a_page#Before_moving_a_page. I've never merged before, so forgive any mistakes.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Make an edit to the page and state in your edit summary that the content has been merged from Yamanote and Shitamachi.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I already did that to the destination article. Is it not possible to merge the two articles separately into the final one? Also, can only an admin perform a history merge? That's what it seems to say Here. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure on this.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Merging

So, do I need to go through a merger proposal process, or can I just go ahead and do it? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I re-read HELP:Merge and decided to go ahead, as there seems to be agreement. I have now merged the articles into Yamanote and Shitamachi. The talk history is saved at the original pages and linked to in the new talk page, so there are no license issues (wiki has to preserve records of authorship).VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that at least this page should be moved over. I've asked Nihonjoe to do this.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. I can do the others, too, if needed. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've merged the edit histories of all three articles and restored the correct version. Anything else? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Next time you want to merge two articles, let me know and I'll make sure it's done the right way (read: far less work than multiple deletions, restorations, and moving of articles in order to keep all the history). The way you did it caused all kinds of extra work. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, as part of what you did was at User:VsevolodKrolikov/Yamanote and Shitamachi, I've merged that history into this article as well. Please, please, in the future ask for help when doing something like this. It could have been done in far fewer steps had it been done properly. Thanks. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Noted - sorry. I was trying to be bold and ended up being a pain. My usertalk page sandbox was an attempt to get things in order before going public. Is it a license issue if I invite others to help on a page like that? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

No, happens all the time. However, what you did was basically a content fork, which is the wrong way to do things. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

New version

New version of this page is being prepared. Anyone interested in suggestions for the sandbox versions see here [[2]]. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Castes

Ryulong keeps making changes that in my opinion do not make sense and reveal his scarce understanding of the subject. I replaced plebeian and aristocratic with low caste and high caste. He prefers working class and ruling class. They were castes, not classes, there is a difference. Could it be he doesn't know Edo society was divided in castes, and that this is important to understanding the Shitamachi/Yamanote division? I wonder if rich merchants, an essential component of the Shitamachi, can be called working class. I was going to provide inline references for the article, but with him interfering I can't. It would make sources say things they don't say. Seidensticker certainly doesn't talk of working classes. I am getting tired of the game. I am getting tired of this tit for tat. Why do we have to fight like this for such futile reasons? I will let his nonsense stand. urashimataro (talk) 12:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the wording (more or less back) to upper and lower castes. Working class is definitely the wrong term; it should not be used for what was a pre-capitalist, pre-industrial society. That's still not very clear, and I will be adding ASAP a proper description of the social divisions. The nature of the divisions is important in understanding the shitamachi in popular culture.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 12:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I've changed it back again after Ryulong changed the word to class AGAIN, without discussing edits AGAIN.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't have this page watched anymore. I did not know that there were castes in Edo. I thought that "class" was the better word because "castes" are not prevalent in the modern age, where the lower and upper classes exist.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

And I am extremely tired of the ill will you two have been giving me over this page over the past few days. I'm sorry I'm not an expert in Japanese history and language and I found problems with this article when it was written in an extremely unencyclopedic tone and no formatting in line with any of our manuals of style.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with not being an expert in something. The only wrong thing is behaving as if you are (and indeed more expert than anyone else), even in the face of others trying to point out your mistakes. If you look how people originally raised their objections to your edits, every single one was perfectly polite. Not listening to other editors is what got you to this point, and what has caused the problems. Disrespect for others makes a person difficult to work with. I think it's a very good thing for you to go and edit some other pages instead. Someone else can take care of the formatting. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Check the edit summary. Right, shall we continue improving this article? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

file and caption

My edition was reverted. [3] I think the caption is not correct. Do you think correct? For example, headman of Sumida ward say appreciative statement about donation from Sumida ward citizens. The statement tile is I appreciate of shitamachi mind(下町の心意気に感謝します).Sumida ward gazette Feb 1,2007(Sumida ward official web site) So Sumida ward is shitamachi. The caption is not correct. Now I think this file is not correct also. File:Tokyo-Wards-Yamanote-Shitamachi.png--Bukubku (talk) 14:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Sumida should be included, and I think the colors are also confusing. I've asked User:Urashimataro to fix this. Jpatokal (talk) 15:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I apologize, but Sumida was not mentioned in the texts I have read. I will fix the problem today, if I can. If not, I guarantee the corrected map is on its way. urashimataro (talk) 23:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Urashimataro, your edtion is good faith, however you seem not to be familiar with Yamanote and Shitamachi. As far as I know there is not clear definition about Yamanote and Shitamachi. As I know so called shitamachi area, for example, there is Bunkyo(only Nezu, Sendagi blocks), ChuoChiyoda(not include Imperial Palace and government office quarte), Taito, Sumida, Koto, Adachi, Katsushika wards.. So we should not separate the area by wards boundary line. Urashimataro, if you read the books about Yamanote or Shitamachi, all books tell you different definition.

as reference Nezu and Sendagi shitamachi festival(根津・千駄木下町まつり) from Bunkyo ward official site.--Bukubku (talk) 07:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)I carry a correction, I change Chuo to Chiyoda--Bukubku (talk) 10:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

In that case the article should make it clear that the definition is not clear (with different versions) and label the picture as one of the versions. We need a map of sorts. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I know I am not an expert, so I followed the Kojien's definition.

した‐まち【下町】 低い所にある市街。商人・職人などの多く住んでいる町。東京では、台東区・千代田区・中央区から隅田川以東にわたる地域をいう。 [株式会社岩波書店 広辞苑第六版]

Seidensticker says the same. I will read the Shitamachi festival article ASAP. The

Let's talk it over. Today I specified in the article that the borders were always not clearly defined. Bukubku, what do you suggest? urashimataro (talk) 07:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

According to your dictionary, 低い所にある市街。商人・職人などの多く住んでいる町 is not include Imperial Palace and government office quarte. 隅田川以東にわたる地域をいう is include Sumida, Koto, Adachi, Katsushika. As far as I know these area is common and match your dictionary. However, Yamanote area is more difficult.. Because Yamanote is high class residential quarter, so many people want to think their living place is Yamanote.--Bukubku (talk) 08:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot Edogawa, shitamachi also include Edogawa.--Bukubku (talk) 08:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Add Arakawa, too.--Bukubku (talk) 10:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

We need sources for these. If there is disagreement between sources, that's interesting too.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

According to 隅田川以東にわたる地域 from 株式会社岩波書店 広辞苑第六版, At least, as east side of Sumida river, Arakawa,Sumida, Koto, Adachi, Katsushika,Edogawa are included.--Bukubku (talk) 10:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

New Image

Bukubku, for the time being, while we decide what to do, I replaced the map with an Ukiyo-e of Hiroshige depicting Nihonbashi and areas that are surely within Shitamachi. I have to go, but we can start again tomorrow. I also thought that the map should include the Sumidagawa because it's so important to Shitamachi. urashimataro (talk) 08:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That's good. Sumida river is very important.

In Chuo ward, merchants living place is out of Yamanote line.Chuo Navi this page is linked by Chuo ward official site. So shitamachi area is out of Yamanote line in Chuo. Government office quarte, headquarters of worldwide enterprises or Imperial Palace gather inner area of Yamanote line.--Bukubku (talk) 10:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)I carry a correction, I mixed Chuo and Chiyoda--Bukubku (talk) 10:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Shitamachi boom

I don't have much in the way of notable examples of shitamachi boom books, TV series, films etc. Can anyone else help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by VsevolodKrolikov (talk • contribs) 05:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

New map

Bukubku, I found references supporting what you say, made a map on that basis and added it to the article. The map itself contains the references. I believe it will do the job. I can easily make changes so, if anyone has objections (colors or anything else) I can make them in minutes.

VK, I corrected the article according to the references, while I translate the material from Japanese. urashimataro (talk) 05:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Urashimataro, you did good job. but...

Sorry, my former comment is bit wrong, I confused Chuo with Chiyoda.

Chiyoda is not shitamachi except for Kanda district. Kanda district is shitamachi, but other district is yamanote area or Imperial Palace, government office quarter or business area.

• 下町の雰囲気を活かし、活力ある新しい文化の感じられるまち from Chiyoda ward official site
• 千代田区の観光に関連する内的環境 from Chiyoda ward official sitep40(P16/48)区内を「中核業務ゾーン」(都市マスの大手町・丸の内・有楽町・永田町地域)、「山の手ゾーン」(都市マスの番町・富士見地域)、「下町ゾーン」(都市マスの神保町・神田公園・万世橋・和泉橋地域)の3つにわけ

--Bukubku (talk) 10:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

For those of us either not so familiar with Tokyo, or with poorer Japanese (I come into both areas), could you try to post translations/transliterations along with original Japanese information? It's in keeping with English wiki policy on use of foreign languages.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Divide Chiyoda ward into three, 「Central core business zone」(Otemachi, Marunouchi, Yurakucho, Nagatacho district), 「Yamanote zone」(Fujimi district), 「Shitamachi zone」(Jinbocho, Kandakoen, Manseibashi, Izumibashi district)　this omit Imperial Palace zone(Chiyoda district).--Bukubku (talk) 11:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It's good if we can keep things as open as possible to all. (I could have read the names with rikai-chan/pera-pera kun, but then realised not all editors will have these loaded up.)VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 11:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Look at the map. I divided the Chiyoda Ward label in two and colored each half in blue an d red, and added a line of explanation to the map's text (upper left). Now should be OK is we give explanations in the article. urashimataro (talk) 04:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It's very good now. I added "click to enlarge" to encourage people to look at it. (The thumbnail doesn't do it justice.)VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Map is Good. Detail is difficult to explain in this map. So we should explain detail in sentences.--Bukubku (talk) 08:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm being really picky, but: Street or Dori?

The only people I know who use "street" instead of "dori" when speaking English are Japanese who are overtranslating. Dori, much like rue and Strasse, isn't typically translated, at least not in guidebooks and official signage. Is Yamate-Dori really known as "Yamate Street"? (This is being picky, but it's a bugbear of mine.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I've seen maps, guidebooks, and such that do both, so I don't know that there is any one way which is more accepted than others. I think it might be good to use the {{nihongo}} template and include both. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I found this, which, although not binding, suggests a general preference for Dori, with a note that Dori means street. I'll change it. After that, this pedant can take a deep breath and relax;-).VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I think whichever not wrong. Parallel instance to this one, Iwojima(Iwoto), "jima" and "to" mean island. So Japanese don't call Iwojima island, they call Iwojima.--Bukubku (talk) 10:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

New Material

I have pasted in some material that comes from an article about Yamanote, but there's plenty about the etymology of both terms. VK, feel free to do anything you want with it. I didn't dedicate much time to matters of style, but the content is correct. urashimataro (talk) 08:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It's excellent stuff. I think the article needs a bit of editing in general so that information is not repeated and is in the right place. There are also a couple of sections I'd like to add/expand as seeds for more material. I'll be busy this weekend (I became a father yesterday for the first time (*^o^*) so I'm a little distracted). I'll see what I can do next week in lunch breaks etc. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 09:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Contratulations, but I thought you were older than that. I would email you a cigar, if I could. In any case, I will be busy translating the article on Shitamachi, so there is no rush. Wikipedia has to be fun. that's our reward. BTW, all the material comes directly from the source I mentioned, and is referenceable as such. urashimataro (talk) 11:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

IMHO the length of that quotation from Edogawa Jiten goes way beyond fair use -- you need to trim it down to a sentence or two, and use the rest as a reference. Jpatokal (talk) 00:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks, Urashimataro. I'm in my mid-thirties; I'm curious how old you thought I was! Anyway, Jpatokal is right about the material. I'll try and trim it later today. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've reorganised things. It will look shorter now, because I tried to take out some repetitions, and some parts of the block quote were superfluous. I will do my best to start work on the differences section again ASAP. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all the work. Well done. I thought you were my age (around 50). No valid reason, just your academic qualifications.

About your understandable concerns about fair use, Jpatokal, the material VK had was condensed by me from a much longer article (two full dictionary pages in Japanese), so I don't think the problem was really all that serious. What I wrote was far from being the whole article. And condensing is fair use, if you give credit where it's due. Reducing the material to one or two sentences seems to me excessive. urashimataro (talk) 00:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, urashimataro, but I reverted your move of material. I couldn't think of a better way to show you what I think should be done but to put it back and add more. There is material out there on specific differences, and it would be helpful for readers to have a more organised description. Also, your move was putting material about language into a section on Geography. btw, If you can get hold of the Waley article I cite, it's got a lot of good material in it. If not, I can mail a copy to you.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I didn't know what you wanted to do. I would like to have the Waley article, if possible. (I initially thought you meant Arthur Waley). Can you mail it to me using the link in my user page? BTW, you wrote almost single-handedly a really good article and referenced next to everything. Good work. I checked it and made very minor changes: two typos and one small addition (half a sentence). Urashima Tarō (talk) 23:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I've sent you the article. I don't agree with your "almost single-handedly" comment - I think you've contributed just as much (^o^).VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Article

Never got the article. Did it bounce back? UrashimaTarō (talk) 01:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I've sent you a test e-mail to see if I've got it correct. It may end up in your spam. Alternatively you can try me at VsevolodKrolikov at yahoo.co.jp. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

One last thing

VK, Shitamachi is always defined as "Downtown", but you just need to think of a place like Katsushika ward, which is Shitamachi but not downtown in any sense I can recognize, to see that the two terms are just false friends. It would be good to write something on the subject but, without citations, it would be original research. Do you have anything useful?Urashima Tarō (talk) 00:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Linking to other wikis which have separate articles

In two other languages listed here (German and Japanese wikis), Yamanote and Shitamachi are separate articles.

Does anyone know how to put a note next to the links to say which they link to?

I've had a look at H:ILL but it's not helpful. I can't work out how to keep the links on the left while adding visible tags.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Bunkyo also partly Shitamachi

Can someone confirm whether my understanding is correct? The Nezu and Sendagi neighborhoods in Bunkyo, part of Yanesen (Yanaka-Nezu-Sendagi), are the clearest examples of a Shitamachi area, right? Then shouldn't Bunkyo also be part Yamanote and part Shitamachi?82.59.158.38 (talk) 17:39, 15 March 2018 (UTC)