Talk:Largest cities in Japan by population by decade
 | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
There are several mistakes in this article. Total population counts based on revised koseki system has begun since 1872, and "Nihon chishi teiyo" (someone has translated as "Japanese Topographical Outline") is rather an irregular book to summarize the geography of Japan.Aurichalcum (talk) 09:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
I also suspect whether this article is necessary. Some comments on city populations are not objective.Aurichalcum (talk) 09:31, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
External links modified edit
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Largest cities in Japan by population by decade. 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110818160452/http://ir.lib.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/00001661 to http://ir.lib.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/00001661
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) 04:50, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
The list should be in descending order. edit
I'm a strong believer in that the most relevant information should be at the top of the page.
There are very few cases where 1873 census data would be more relevant than 2010+ census data.
I couldn't find any help articles from Wikipedia that writes about how lists should be sorted, nor could I find a precedent of how other list articles have done it.
If there are precedents or a good reason for why the list should be sorted oldest -> newest, please inform me.
Soffagrisen2 (talk) 14:03, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
After just having consulted this page, I had the same idea. For this kind of data it just does not make sense to have the oldest information on top. I know that certain other pages do it as well, but having to scroll down a 15-section page just to find the most up-to-date information is not efficient.