Talk:Tokyo Tower

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleTokyo Tower has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 30, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
April 4, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
October 5, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
November 16, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
January 22, 2009Good article nomineeListed
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on December 23, 2012, December 23, 2014, December 23, 2018, and December 23, 2022.
Current status: Good article

Video game appearance[edit]

The comment regarding the fact that the Tokyo Tower can be seen in a videogame appears appropriate in the context of the article; it appears that someone just wishes to mention their favorite videogame; would consider editing out. "The tower can also be seen in Tokyo Xtreme Racer: Zero when driving on the C1 route." Eastend 15:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from a passer-by[edit]

Regarding the cliche of Tokyo Tower being used in movies, manga, etc., perhaps an editor should add that it is the scene of the final battle in CLAMP's X animated movie. I assume that it is the scene of the final battle in the X:1999 manga and the animated series as well, but I cannot confirm that, as I've never seen or read them. -Mira Firefly

And maybe some one could note that Tokyo Tower is commonly destroyed in fiction, just using Digimon Series 2 and several series of Gundam as examples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.9.99 (talk) 23:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Illumination hours: dusk to midnight?[edit]

The article read "From dusk to 12 PM, the tower is brilliantly illuminated in orange." I assume this was meant to read "From dusk to 12 AM," i.e., from dusk to midnight, and have changed it accordingly. Could someone please confirm this? (Although, it makes no sense to illuminate the tower once the sun comes up.) HEL 03:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

There's a couple of nicer images on Commons. What do you think? -- Jungletiger 11:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Facilities[edit]

This part of the article indicated that the tower was an antenna, which it is not. It is a structure that supports antennas. I've made the appropriate change. -- hosikawafuzi 20:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC) Technical question: How are the two mediumwave programs transmitted by the tower? I can neither see nor notice anything that is seemingly a longwire antenna or similar to such. Does the top of the tower serve as a shortened antenna stub (maybe inductive shortening which of course consumes much of the original input power even if the waste energy is perhaps used for heating or producing warm water instead)? I also can not imagine that the whole tower is used as a grounded antenna at full length (as author hosikawafuzi described - and due to the fact that there are many people on and around the tower everyday since it is a touristic attraction of Tokyo)... Thanks for the explanation in the main article (technical section). B.P. Germany — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.65.73.214 (talk) 02:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Highest shrine in Tokyo?[edit]

The article presently states that the shrine in the tower is the highest in Tokyo. Is that correct? There is a shrine, Musashi Mitake Jinja, on Mount Mitake. I'm not sure just how high up the mountain it is, but the mountain (929 m) is quite a bit higher than the tower (333 m) so the shrine could be higher than Tokyo Tower's. The latitude and longitude of the shrine are given in the article in the Japanese Wikipedia at 武蔵御嶽神社. Anyone have a topographic map handy? Fg2 (talk) 21:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm though I'm not done sourcing that section yet, I got that bit of info from the official site. The exact quote is: "Located at the highest spot in all 23 wards of Tokyo, this Shinto shrine grant the faithful divine favors such as success in love, successful passing of academic examinations and traffic safety." Torsodog (talk) 08:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, mystery solved. They were precise in saying 23 wards, not in Tokyo. Thanks Fg2 (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

I have quick failed this article for several reasons. One, you should never send an article for GA when it is still undergoing peer review. The peer review for this article was started 4 days before this GA was sent. Until the peer review is done, the article should not be sent to GA or FA. Additional issues found have been noted below.

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    Some choppy, short sentences making parts the prose feel awkward and stilted. A copy editor could help with this.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    A section named introduction seems to violate the overall Wikipedia MOS. The lead should be an article's introduction. The content of the intro section should be incorporated into other relevant sections, such as history and maybe appearance or facilities. May also want to request some guideance from Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture to get an idea on the appropriate sections to include, or take a look at some FA level articles such as Michigan State Capitol. The list of events is not formatted in an easy to read way and needs tweaking.
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    Considering the fame of Tokyo Tower, both in terms of being a record breaking tower and its architectural aspects, the sourcing seems very limited and relies to heavily on the official web site. Few English language references are used when there should be plenty available.
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    C. It contains no original research:
    Multiple sentences appear to be completely unreferenced. Including almost all of the intro section.
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    Quite a bit of information appears to not be included. Its architecture and construction is reduced to only a brief mention of being based on the Eiffel Tower and a single paragraph in the Appearance section. Again recommend touching based with Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture for guidance on what an article on a structure should include. I also notice a complete lack of cultural information. While a list of every cultural appearance would, of course, be inappropriate, the tower is regularly seen in Japanese media such as films and television, so some note would seem to be worthy of inclusion.
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tokyo Tower/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Fail I do not believe that Tokyo Tower meets the Good Article Criteria for the following reasons:

  1. Not factually accurate and verifiable Per an unreferenced paragraph. Also, the article could use more in-text citations.
  2. Not broad enough in coverage Both the articles Appearance and Facilities sections are at least as long-if not longer-than its Construction and History section. I think that the Construction and History section should certainly be expanded before being assigned GA status.

However, I also think that the article meets the following Good Article Criterion:

  1. Well written The prose appears to be NPOV and generally free of jargon and other problems.
  2. Neutral Per first part of above and no disputes on the talk page.
  3. Stable No edits lately that aren't minor, uncontroversial changes.
  4. Illustrated Per pictures on the article.

ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 02:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, why didn't you give me a period of time to respond to your review in an attempt to rectify the problems your cited? --TorsodogTalk 13:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tokyo Tower/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

What exactly does "functions" (for the section heading) mean?

I was going for what the tower is used for. Its purpose or fuction. I couldn't really think of a more appropriate heading. Any suggestins? --TorsodogTalk
Actually, I think that the "FootTown" and "Observation decks" could go under their own section, maybe titled "Attractions" or similarly. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 11:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added an "attractions" subheading that encompasses both the foottown and observatory sections. --TorsodogTalk 15:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first area tourists must visit upon reaching the tower is FootTown, a 4-story building stationed directly under the tower. Here, visitors can eat, shop and visit several museums and galleries. Elevators that depart from the first floor of FootTown can be used to reach the first of two observations decks, the 2-story Main Observatory. For the price of another ticket, visitors can again board another set of elevators that depart from the second floor of the Main Observatory in order to reach the final observation deck—the Special Observatory.

This whole part here needs a ref.

Added some refs. --TorsodogTalk 19:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what makes this a reliable source?

I'm not really sure. I could maybe find some other refs. I found some stuff on TVtropes.com, would that be considered reliable? --TorsodogTalk 19:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
TVtropes.com is a search engine, and by itself is nothing; I'll have to see the individual refs. Also, current ref 14 has an error that should be fixed. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 11:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noble Story (talk • contributions) 07:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added 3 refs, and I believe all of them are reliable. Check them out! --TorsodogTalk 17:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One more ref: What makes this a reliable source? Is it needed? Maybe you could replace it with something else, or remove it? Noble Story (talk • contributions) 01:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really know much about anime or anime sites, but I poked around wikipedia and noticed that Anime News Network is used in some featured content such as List of Naruto characters, so I assumed it was considered reliable. Is this a safe assumption? --TorsodogTalk 15:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review Part 2[edit]

OK, WP:PLAGIARISM defines plagiarism as "the taking of someone else's work and passing it off as one's own, whether verbatim or with only minimal changes." (emphasis mine) I think several parts of this article are have "only minimal changes" from the original source. They need to be not just reworded, but their entire structure changed. These are (with the original beside it):

The need for a large broadcasting tower in the Kantō region occurred when NHK, Japan's public broadcasting station, started television broadcasting in 1953. After NHK built its own transmission tower and other privately run broadcasting companies started operations in the following months, the government believed that Tokyo would become cluttered with transmission towers.

"The need for such a lofty tower began with the establishment of Nippon Hoso Kyokai, Japan's national broadcasting station, in 1953. NHK had built its own transmission tower, and when other privately run broadcasting companies started operations in the months that followed, the government feared the metropolis would become cluttered with transmission towers."

The Takenaka Corporation first broke ground in June 1957, and hundreds of tobi, traditional Japanese high-rise construction workers, came to Tokyo from all over the country to work on the new tower. Each day more than 400 laborers worked on-site.

"Hundreds of tobi, Japan's traditional construction workers on high buildings, came to Tokyo from all over the country to work on the new landmark, and each day more than 400 laborers worked on site, said Yokoyama."

I reworded both of these section, I believe, sufficiently. Let me know what you think. --TorsodogTalk 15:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this apart needs a ref: Tokyo Tower has two observation decks—the Main Observatory and the Special Observatory; both offer a 360 degree view of Tokyo and, on clear days, Mount Fuji can be seen to the south. Unlike the Eiffel Tower, neither observation deck at Tokyo Tower is located near the absolute top of the structure.

I added a ref for the 360 and Mt Fuji facts, but removed the other portion as I decided it is relatively unnecessary. I figure readers can do the math pretty easily and do not need it pointed out to them. --TorsodogTalk 15:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And, according to the linkchecker, you have a dead link which needs to be replaced.

Replaced! --TorsodogTalk 15:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noble Story (talk • contributions) 01:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this article now looks OK. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 08:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.176.25.58 (talk) 03:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Height[edit]

Where is the info about the hight of 332,5 m from? The official site says 333 m [1].--Mycomp (talk) 12:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another pop culture appearance of the tower?[edit]

In the series Tokyo Magnitude 8.0 it is toppled by an earthquake and is shown on the cover. Should this be mentioned?--74.237.136.61 (talk) 17:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another pretty prominent use of Tokyo Tower is its constant appearance in Kamen Rider Kabuto. The main character points to the heavens, part of his whole shtick (see the article for context), often with the tower off in the background. I could swear it showed up every single episode. Just saying. --75.66.21.34 (talk) 12:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's more than enough stuff to fill a separate article, but the tower being damaged/destroyed is a running gag in Japanese popular culture and I don't think we need to list every single time that has happened. --188.195.136.220 (talk) 04:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another appearance[edit]

I added in a segment adding on a mention to Code Geass: Lelouch of the Rebellion, as it has made several cameos in the anime/manga, and has been used as locale on other occasions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.171.150.90 (talk) 17:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Location[edit]

Tower location is not in Shiba park, but in area called Shiba-koen, even if it's directly translated as Shiba park. --Rambalac (talk) 02:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. I've changed the lead accordingly. --DAJF (talk) 01:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Tokyo Tower. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AM-Broadcasting from Tokyo Tower?[edit]

Did ever use AM-transmitters Tokyo Tower for broadcasting? AM-transmitters usually use a tower or mast insulated against ground as antenna, but Tokyo Tower is grounded. However a wire-antenna fixed at the tower also works, but the pictures of the tower did not show such a device. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:DF:1F34:7B69:486F:C04A:509:99BC (talk) 01:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great catch. FCCdata's mirror of MIC info gives the coordinates 36 4' 9.80" N/139 37' 36.98" E. That looks much, much more like a medium wave transmission site. The transmitter section was way out of date, especially given that JOUD shut down in 2018 and J-WAVE also decamped to Skytree. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tokyo_Tower&oldid=1193714266"