Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan/Prefectures task force/Archive 1

Archive 1

Apply format?

Can I apply this format now since no one seems to show any objection so far? I would like to put a list of districts and cities to each prefecture. -- Taku 00:14 Apr 5, 2003 (UTC)

Yeah I think its time to start :) --synthetik 00:34 Apr 5, 2003 (UTC)

Categories

I have started putting the prefectures in the Category scheme under Category:Prefectures of Japan. The Aichi prefecture is almost completed with the sections:

• Category:Aichi prefecture
  • Category:Cities in Aichi prefecture
  • Category:Districts in Aichi prefecture
  • Category:Towns in Aichi prefecture

All other topics (i.e. airports, mountains, etc..) are currently under the Category:Aichi prefecture, but this can change in the future if there are enough articles about mountains etc. I hope this scheme is appropriate. Let me know if you prefer a different categorization -- Chris 73 | Talk 14:18, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

Table format

The table format seemed to give trouble with the new Wiki software - - in the Area and Population bits, newline+
seemed to give double spacing (sometimes).
+newline gives consistent single spacing - indenting the HTML is being treated as fixed formatting, with visible dotted boxes and some tables came out very wide.

I am working through correcting these defects. --Keith Edkins 10:45, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

{{SampleWikiProject}}

Mistake moving articles...

I apologize for moving the some of the [[<foo> Prefecture]] articles to <foo> prefecture, but I didn't realize you had already standardized on uppercase. I was under the impression you were all going to standardize on that because Template:Japan is all lowercase still (bypassing the usefulness of the links in the first place...) -- EmperorBMA|話す 21:03, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

All fixed back to capital P... -- EmperorBMA|話す

template for the table

I've created a template for the table (based on the template used for US states) and have changed Aichi Prefecture and Akita Prefecture to use it. Before converting the rest of the prefecture articles I thought I'd solicit comments. Any objections or suggestions for improvements? -- Rick Block 17:08, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That looks fine. The table is clean and looks better than the previous one. One thought is you might to want to name the template "infobox_Japanese_prefecture" or something or don't use the template at all. -- Taku 18:08, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Do you not like templates? I view one reason to convert to a template is to make the article text more readable (the ugly table stuff goes in the template rather than right in the article). In addition, it makes it easy to change the format for all articles using the template. I don't much care what the name of the template is, I created it as template:Japanese prefecture to parallel template:US state. Are there other templates named "infobox xxx"? -- Rick Block 18:56, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, in general I don't like to see wikipeida becomes more programable and programmed. The use of templates makes things clear but I am not certain it is easy for newbies to understand what is going on. Anyway, this is my preference and I don't intend to push it.

In general, I'm in violent agreement with this. On the other hand, I suspect the whole notion of infoboxes and tables is likely to be not very clear for newbies to understand so in this case I don't think there's a huge difference (inline table is at least right there to look at, but I think there are so many templates in use at this point that anyone who is at all curious will figure out how they basically work). -- Rick Block 18:08, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If you don't mind, allow me to elaborate this further :) I think you are missing the point of wiki, that is, in my opinion, the users' little need for learning. I guess the ideal solution, in my opinion, is simply to have a built-in infobox feature like categories or templates. As a long-time contributor, I know the days we used to do those things by hand and the result wasn't pretty. The situation in tables seems analogous to me. The templates should be used to put shared contents among articles, like ones I am putting city articles (e.g., Akita, Akita) In some sense, creating a parametrized template is equivalent to inventing new language; for each template, you have to learn how the table would be rendered and how to fill parameters out correctly. With built-in infoboxs, the layout is up to systems (meaning the user preference, for example, can say about layouts) and you only need to know how to write an infobox in general, without knowing a name of the parametrized template and its syntax. Of course, maybe leaning about templates is not big deal. Again this is nothing more than my 2 cents. -- Taku 04:43, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

I absolutely agree the point of wiki is minimal learning. The problem as I see it is that formatting control (and I see the table-ness of infoboxes as fundamentally a formatting problem) is meta information that must be added to, and in some sense inherently distracts from, the content. This means to me that there is no perfect solution. I'd expect a newbie to be able to correct infobox content in an article using a parameterized template, but not be able to add a new entry to the infobox or create a new parameterized template for use in another set of articles. I think my expectations would be about the same regardless of how the infobox is created (raw html, "simplified" table markup, or even wysiwyg editor window). For me (and you may very well disagree) the ability to extract shared formatting information and to standardize the look and contents of infoboxes for a set of articles is well worth the inscrutability of parameterized templates. A built in infobox feature would probably be better, but I can't imagine a way this would provide the standardization aspects of templates. This is of course nothing more than my opinion, which if yours is worth 2 cents is perhaps worth only 1 cent. -- Rick Block 17:20, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Second, I saw names like template:infobox_Company so I was under an impression that it is a standard naming practice. But then I realized that there is template:Japan_infobox and a case in US state so we cannot be certain about naming, I suppose :) -- Taku 15:29, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

How about "Japanese prefecture infobox"? -- Rick Block 18:08, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That sounds fine too. Again, now I found that seemingly there is no standard naming. Any name is fine to me, anyway. -- Taku 04:43, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

I've converted a few more prefectures to use the template (BTW - I'd appreciate any comments, especially from Taku, about the template vs. no template discussion above - this edit will perhaps mask the edit that added the latest comment). Also note that the template version of the table now includes governor and website. I'm considering swapping the location of the map and prefectural symbol in the table, i.e. map at the top and symbol (perhaps made somewhat smaller) at the bottom with the flower/tree/bird. Is there any objection to this? -- Rick Block 01:00, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

At the top of the box, I'd like to see a photo of the prefecture instead of the pref. symbol or map. Can you make it so that we can add a photo at the top of the box above the pref. symbol? Photojpn.org 02:34, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Prefecture navoboxes

Taku and I have created templates for navoboxes for some of the prefectures. See for example, Template:Akita and Template:Hyogo. Before we go too far with these we'd like to reach a consensus regarding what the content should be. Taku's preference is to include only cities as per the Akita template. Mine is to include both cities and districts as per the Hyogo template. Taku's concern with including both is the potential size of the navobox for prefectures with many cities. I think including both is useful enough to be worth the extra space, and mirrors the situation for US states (most of which have navoboxes including cities and counties in the state, e.g. Colorado). Are there others who have opinions on these templates? Please chime in. I believe both Taku and I are quite interested in more feedback. Thanks. -- Rick Block 19:29, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I find the navoboxes useful. I favor putting all cities, districts, towns, and villages in the navobox. And put the navobox at the bottom of the page for all cities, wards, districts, towns, and villages in the prefecture. Photojpn.org 02:40, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Include towns and villages in the navboxes, too? I'm not necessariy opposed to this, but I'm concerned about how large the navboxes might need to be if this information is included. Potential alternatives (for Ehime Prefecture) below. If we do this, I think we should indicate the district for each town/village, which I think has the possibility of moving these navboxes into the category of the "massive eyesores"" Snowspinner rails against at Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and series boxes#Series boxes / navigational templates. Note that Ehime has relatively few towns/villages (I think more typical might be about 40). -- Rick Block 20:06, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

Curent navbox:

---

With towns and villages without indicating district (we'd presumably sort them):

---

With towns and villages, indicating district (one possibility):

I like the bottom one best. If you list only the cities and districts like in the top navobox, it will look like that's all there is in that prefecture. And the people who live in those left-out towns might feel offended. It also makes it harder to navigate to the different towns (who remembers which district the town is in?). If I could do it my way, I would convert the current, single-column list of municipalities under Geography into a compact navobox (the bottom one you made) and use that for both the Geography topic and the navobox. I don't understand why the current list of municipalities under Geography has to be in a single (or double) column. It only forces everyone to scroll down. Photojpn.org 23:13, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Vote bottom Cities, then district sorted towns is clean, clear, and fairly short.William McDuff 01:36, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vote Current. I like the current one, short, simple, and clean. Listing all the towns and villages in a prefecture would be like listing all the towns and villages in a US State; there's just far too many of them. Stick to major cities, and the districts. LordAmeth 20:24, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Vote top I just removed the towns that have already merged. I think the total number of towns is now manageable. If anything, I think we should have towns and villages but not districts, as districts are mostly meaningless in terms of "places to go," "where people live," etc. Amake 07:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Since this debate is old and there was no overwhelming preference for any single option, I went ahead and implemented the top alternate version. Amake 15:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Vote on picture placement and symbol/map placement in infobox

There are a couple of proposed changes that may be controversial and IMO are worth a community vote. Photojpn.org would like each prefecture article to include a photograph above the infobox (on the right), see for example Shiga Prefecture - an alternative is to include a photo in the infobox, see for example Tokyo. I think we should switch the symbol and map in the infobox. Photojpn.org would like to include towns and villages in the prefecture navigation templates (see above). Please indicate your preferences in the appropriate subsections below, by March 7. -- Rick Block 01:42, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Favor adding a photograph above or in the infobox

Please indicate in your vote whether you prefer above or in.

• Favor above the infobox. The photo doesn't have to represent an entire prefecture, although there are things that first come to mind when you think of a prefecture. (Aomori = apples/Nebuta; Kyoto = giesha/temples; Tokyo = Imperial Palace; etc.) It should be an image that would draw interest to the prefecture and entice people to scroll down and read the rest of the page. Photojpn.org 04:04, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oppose adding a photograph above or in the infobox

• Top-right placement of infobox is a nearly wikipedia-wide standard. I don't think a single photograph can adequately represent an entire prefecture, and is not "basic information" about a prefecture (so doesn't belong in the infobox). -- Rick Block 01:42, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Agree with Rick Block's assessment. William McDuff 01:39, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Favor switching prefecture symbol and map in infobox

• These are geography articles. Showing the location of the prefecture seems like the most important information to convey. -- Rick Block 01:42, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• In favor of this. Photojpn.org 04:04, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Agreed.William McDuff 01:40, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Favor adding towns and villages to navigational templates

Please indicate whether you prefer flat alphabetical list or some format (not necessarily the one shown above) indicating district as well.

• In favor of this in some compact format. The number of towns and districts will continue to decrease as they merge. I favor this only if there's someone willing do it. Photojpn.org 04:04, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Agree, and willing to do Miyagi, at least, if not more. William McDuff 01:42, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Favor leaving navigational templates as they are (with cities and districts)

• I think adding towns/villages will make many of the templates excessively large. -- Rick Block 01:42, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Not at the rate towns are merging nowaways.(Disagree)William McDuff 01:41, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I agree with Rick Block. LordAmeth 20:29, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Summary of votes

It is now at least March 8 everywhere in the world, so voting is closed. I guess the clear winner is officially apathy since only Photojpn.org and I voted ("tallies" below). I'll switch the map and symbol in the prefecture template (a unanimous decision!). As for prefecture photo placement and adding towns/villages to the prefecture navigational templates, since no one else voted I assume this means "do whatever you'd like". -- Rick Block 15:19, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Or it means "either way is fine." But I'll go with the status quo. Thanks for the time and effort Rick. Photojpn.org 07:46, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Add photo above infobox (like Shiga): 1/2
Add photo in infobox (like Tokyo): 0/2
Switch symbol and map: 2/2
Add towns/villages to navigational templates: 1/2
Leave navigational templates with cities/districts: 1/2
Make navigational templates only have cities: 0/2

Naming of subnational entities

uppercase Somename Prefecture, Somename District
lowercase Somename region
any objections to move regions from Somename region to Somename Region?
Tobias Conradi 22:18, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I don't object. It might be worth noting, however, that prefectures and districts are official governments and government-established entities, whereas regions are not. Fg2 01:44, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Cry for help from stub-sorting WikiProject

I'm hoping someone here might be able to relieve the pressure on the biggest of the geography stub categories a little. There are now almost 4000 articles in Category:Japan geography stubs. Any help in reducing this by enlarging some of the articles to non-stub status would be greatly appreciated! Grutness|^hello? 01:39, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Picture placement in Tokyo article

Hi. I do not mind the normal status quo in terms of picture placement. However, Tokyo, while technically not a city, is often thought of as a city by people in other parts of the world. In city articles, a picture of or containing the most famous monument or image is usually first in the city article.

A separate convention should be established for Tokyo because of its unique nature. WhisperToMe 03:00, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. If Tokyo can have an image at the top, then it should be allowed for all prefectures which is what I originally proposed, but no one voted for it. Photojpn.org 04:50, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't quite agree with having everything being uniform. It doesn't matter to me if other prefecture articles had pics at the top, but Tokyo is DIFFERENT than the other prefecture because it is thought of as a city by the general world population. Therefore, Tokyo would fall under Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities and therefore should have its own standards. WhisperToMe 22:13, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, why don't you conduct a poll? Photojpn.org 00:05, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Then I will do that :) WhisperToMe 03:48, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Re: Your poll.

I don't think you should go as far as to specify which picture to show at the top. Not many people like Tokyo Tower (it's not beautiful) and Zojiji is certainly not a temple which people associate with Tokyo. Sensoji is much more famous. So is the Imperial Palace. (Of course, if you were living here, you would probably know this.) Perhaps you should conduct a parallel poll asking what picture would be most appropriate to show at the top. (If anybody votes, that is. We did this before.) Photojpn.org 04:31, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As we expected, your poll won't go anywhere. I suggest that you instead start a widespread campaign among Wikipedians to allow an image to be placed at the top of the Infobox for all prefectures (don't forget to tell Jpatokal and Manuel Anastácio who both don't like the image at the top). Since more people know you than they know me, if you start it, I'll back you up. I still don't understand why it was decided that a top image is okay for cities/wards but not okay for prefectures/states. Photojpn.org 02:35, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps announcing this as a survey might be useful. According to Wikipedia:Survey_guidelines, this can't be done without first getting consensus about the nature of the survey. We could (should?) expand this to the general issue of "pictures at the top of perfecture/state" articles. Comments? -- Rick Block 03:58, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

When the prefectural symbol was at the top and the map was at the bottom, I was strongly in favor of putting an image at the top. It was pretty boring to see a B/W pref. symbol which was the first thing the eye looks at on the page. However, after the map was switched to the top (and symbol to the bottom), I no longer feel so strongly about putting an image at the top since seeing the map is more practical. So the status quo is fine with me. But if the Japanese version and more people favor having a symbolic image above the map, I would not oppose. But I see little chance of this happening right now. And making Tokyo an exception among the prefectures is not a good idea. Setting an example for the other prefectures is much more important than conforming with London, Paris, etc. Photojpn.org 02:01, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tokyo map?

The Tokyo article could use an up-to-date map showing the land portion of Tokyo-to. The one in the article is good, but excessive detail makes it hard to read, except at full scale. Also, a couple of place names are out of date, and some others (e.g. Takao-yama) disagree with article titles. There's no key to distinguish a city/ward (e.g. Shinjuku, Shibuya) from a place (e.g. Ginza, Ueno). The prefectural boundaries are there, but they're a devil to follow.

The map I have in mind would show city-town-village outlines, and if it makes sense at that scale, outlines of the 23 special wards. Prefectural boundaries and names of adjacent prefectures, Tokyo Bay, not much more. A bold, clear, uncluttered graphic. Does anyone know of such a map? Fg2 03:33, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

The Japanese version has a nice map of the municipal boundaries, but it's so small it's virtually useless. If someone can find out where the original came from and see if it's bigger, then great. The main map of Japan should also be changed because it does not show the Izu/Ogasawara Islands. I was planning to look into this, but if anybody else wants to do it, be my guest. Photojpn.org 04:55, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I must have seen it there. It is only about 175 pixels wide. Probably 250 or 300 would be good for the article, and the underlying file at 750 or 1000, would be best. Any opinions from anyone? Fg2 05:49, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Here's the Web page where you can generate maps of municipal boundaries for all the prefectures:

http://aoki2.si.gunma-u.ac.jp/map/map.html

You have to be able to read the kanji for the prefecture, then click on the "Chizu o kaku" button. A nice big (but blank) map appears. Most of the prefecture maps are probably outdated due to mergers. It also seems that this is where the map of Japan came from. Photojpn.org 16:23, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I drew a map using that link and posted it in Talk:Tokyo#Tokyo map, also asking for comments there. Thanks again for the link! Fg2 01:21, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Poll for image placement for Tokyo

Since the Tokyo metropolitan area is thought of as a city by many people around the world (even though it technically is not a city), I believe that an exception to the rule should be made and that the Tokyo Tower and Zozoji image or another famous image of Tokyo should be placed first (before the infobox or as the top part of an infobox)

The template currently used allows a picture to be in the infobox, see this version of the article. -- Rick Block 16:13, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Isn't it possible to have two pics in the infobox, with the map on the bottom? WhisperToMe 23:15, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not without changing the template. The alt text for the map is generated by the template as "Map of Japan with <name> highlighted", so providing any image other than a map would be somewhat confusing. The symbol image could be replaced with any image you'd like since its alt text and caption are explicit parameters to the template. The point I was making above is that "image first, within the infobox" is within the "normal" usage of the existing template. In fact, I went to some trouble to do this so that use of the template didn't really change the appearance of the article. Compare pre-template version with post-template version. As far as I can tell (from the prior poll, above) no one really cares whether there's a picture at the top of the infobox or not. In that poll, Photojpn.org wanted to add pictures to each prefecture. I'm somewhat suprised he's on the "image below infobox" side in this case (is it the specific image you're really objecting to?). As I've indicated before (at least in e-mail with Photojpn.org), I'm on the "image below" side but reasonably close to neutral on this. My concern is the "representativeness" of the image. I think I'll officially abstain from this poll. If the result requires any change to the template I'll be glad to help make any necessary changes. -- Rick Block 00:47, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As I stated below, I would be in favor of top placement only if it is allowed for ALL prefecture articles. There are still too many people who are against this (both in English and Japanese). Tokyo should not be an exception among the 47 prefectures. Photojpn.org 02:24, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Try and write another prefecture article and put the image at the top. Sooner or later someone will come along and push it down. It happened to me twice. They are not aware of this poll either. How about inserting the image within the map? There is space on the upper left corner for a small image. That is, if you can find a good image. But that map will have to be replaced. Photojpn.org 03:04, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here is a poll:

• In favor of placing an image (including but not limited to the Tokyo Tower/Zozoji image) before the infobox or as the top part of the infobox:
  • WhisperToMe 03:51, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) - I am trying to keep a city convention of having a picture of the most famous monument first (e.g. Eiffel Tower for Paris)

• In favor of placing the image below the infobox:
  • Photojpn.org 20:35, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) - I oppose top placement for the following reasons:
  1. As I stated in another note, that particular photo does not define nor symbolize Tokyo. Also, the caption says that the contrast between the old and new "defines Tokyo." It even refers to Tokyo Tower as "hypermodern." Well, it's almost 50 years old, making it one of the oldest major buildings built after the war. And the fact is, you can see this old vs. new contrast in most major cities and towns all over Japan. Most have temples or castles and modern buildings in co-existence. It is nothing unusual and certainly not peculiar to Tokyo. Whoever wrote the caption probably never went outside Tokyo (and last visited in 1958 or the 1960s).
  2. By not conforming to the other world cities, it will help more people realize that Tokyo is actually not a city. That it is not just an urban area. After all, the little islands way out in the Pacific Ocean can be called "Tokyo." A picture of people whale-watching off the Ogasawara Islands can be titled "Photographed in Tokyo." We want more people to understand what Tokyo really is, and to not spread popular misconceptions further. There's nothing wrong with calling Tokyo a "city," but Tokyo is not just the 23 wards. If you live in Japan, you would realize how so many overseas people (including the mass media) have mistaken ideas and perceptions of Japan. They tend to focus on the stereotypical and sensational aspects while ignoring the rest of the story and total picture. (Case in point: Look at the map of Japan that is being used in the prefecture articles. No Amami Islands, no Izu/Ogasawara Islands [bad for Tokyo], and no Northern Territories. And Okinawa is not just one island [that insert supposed to be Okinawa]. Any map of the USA does not show Hawaii as just one island. Of course, I understand how this Japan map came to be. But the person who originally made it should have at least drawn in those islands or used a more accurate map.)
  3. The Tokyo article should ultimately serve as the model article for the other prefecture articles (vast majority are still stubs). If we see a picture at the top for Tokyo but not for the other prefectures, it would be confusing (like it confused me at first). People might see and imitate the Tokyo article and put an image at the top in other prefecture articles (like I did) only for it to be moved down by someone who believes in conformity (which happened to me in both the English and Japanese versions). So unless there is widespread consensus for putting an image at the top for ALL prefectures, your proposal is not practical for the rest of us. Please look at the Japanese version of Tokyo. (No image on the top, and find Tokyo Tower/Zojiji way toward the bottom. And the caption simply reads, "Tokyo Tower and Zojiji.") I think conforming to the other 47 prefectures and making Tokyo the model article is more important than conforming to other world cities whose number is much fewer. There is also a stronger relevance between Tokyo and the other prefectures than between Tokyo and other major cities.
  4. Using your own words in your previous note: "I don't quite agree with having everything being uniform." That settles it then. The Tokyo article need not conform to the other world cities.
  • You know, this minor matter is not even worth arguing about (we talked about it before). But if you insist... Photojpn.org 20:35, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I changed the poll around so that any image may be placed at the top. WhisperToMe 23:13, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 15:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 20:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Tokyo task force started

I am hoping that this will someday became an all out WikiProject, but for now we have the Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan/Tokyo taskforce - This will focus on Tokyo Metropolis. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)