Talk:Fukuoka

What is missing from the recently created city timeline article? Please add relevant content! Contributions welcome. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 12:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Fukuoka. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=804388863 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050216144206/http://web.archive.org/web/http%3A//www.airnext.ana-g.com/company/index.html to http://www.airnext.ana-g.com/company/index.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://harlequin-air.co.jp/menu/corporate/corporate_1.html
• Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://www.japantoday.com/category/lifestyle/view/cruise-ships-with-chinese-tourists-pour-into-japan
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160319173855/http://www.marine-world.co.jp/english/ to http://www.marine-world.co.jp/english/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120324073214/http://www.city.fukuoka.lg.jp/sisei/gaiyou/06.html to http://www.city.fukuoka.lg.jp/sisei/gaiyou/06.html

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

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

The Chinese article is gold-starred. The English page is C-class, and far from exemplary.

I cannot read Chinese, but I'd like to go through that version and use as many of the same references and content as possible. I see it uses 127 references vs just 46 on the English page.

I'm announcing this so anyone else who wants to improve this page has the same idea, especially those able to read Chinese.

Hakata80 (talk) 08:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

This either needs to be cited properly or revised to match the real status of Fukuoka, for example from official Japanese government sources. From a brief look: Tokyo, Yokohama, Osaka, and Kobe are larger by area and have significant ports as well.

Is the size determined by population of the city, area of the city, or area of the port itself? Either way, this is a conflicting statement with the claim on the Kobe article, which states, "Kobe is Japan's seventh-largest city and the third-largest port city after Tokyo and Yokohama." This appears to conflict with Fukuoka's claim. Neither of these articles' claims consider Osaka as a larger port city than their respective cities.

Also, the article for Yokohama states:

"Yokohama developed rapidly as Japan's prominent port city following the end of Japan's relative isolation in the mid-19th century and is today one of its major ports along with Kobe, Osaka, Nagoya, Fukuoka, Tokyo and Chiba."

Further stating, "Yokohama is the largest port city and high tech industrial hub in the Greater Tokyo Area and the Kantō region."

This does not relate to the Fukuoka article, but Tokyo is included in this comparison which may also require further qualification.

Considering these claims are in the opening paragraphs for these cities' articles, I believe it is pertinent to determine some consistency when making them. FortySeven90K (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2023 (UTC)