Talk:Okinotorishima

Merge discussion

I created an article called "Okinotori", not knowing that there was an "Okino Torishima" one. Somehow "Okinotori" now redirects here, but all of the work I did on that article is gone. The content and viewpoint of the two articles are very different, so I would like my content (that I mostly got from the BBC, etc.) restored.

In addition, I do not think the main article should be entitled "Okino Torishima", but rather "Okinotori". Perhaps "Okinotori-shima" would be alright, but "shima" means "island" in Japanese and the status of the coral reefs are in question. So, that might not be appropriate.--Sir Edgar 08:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Since Okino Torishima was created earlier, I suppose the content should be merged there, with Okinotori turned into a redirect. Okino Torishima can be moved to Okinotori or Okinotori-shima later, but the edit history of Okinotori should better be preserved. — Instantnood 17:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I am in favor of a merger, but I feel strongly about two issues:

1. The title of the article should be "Okinotori", not "Okino Torishima". "Shima" means "island" or "islands" in Japanese, so "tori" should not connect with shima. "Okinotori-shima" or "Okinotorishima" is also acceptable as long as it is clearly stated in the introduction about the ambiguous definition of the coral reefs and the term "islands" is stated in quotes.

2. Which brings me to the more important issue that the article should focus on the controversy over the status of Okinotori. Obviously, the Japanese are struggling to assert that Okinotori are islands, not rocks. To state that they are "Japan's southernmost islands" is dicey. That is why I have put this statement in quotes.

Thus, I propose moving the valuable information in this article to Okinotori and not vice-versa.--Sir Edgar 05:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's merge the materials first under the title where the article was created earlier. It helps keep the majority of the edit history at one place. We can move it after the merge. — Instantnood 22:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, but I think the article title should be the neutral "Okinotori" rather than "Okinotorishima" or "Okinotori-shima", and certainly not "Okino Torishima".--Sir Edgar 23:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. But that're two steps. First we merge all materials under the title with longer edit history. Second we rename it. — Instantnood 05:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I support merging Okinotorishima into Okinotori or Okinotori-shima. But since its status as an island is disputed, Okinotori sounds neutral. Deiaemeth 06:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

To repeat. I myself personally agree it should be titled Okinotori, and my second preference is Okinotori-shima. Yet the first thing we've to do is to merge the material to where most edit history is preserved. Renaming the title is the next step. — Instantnood 19:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Then we are in agreement as I also prefer Okinotori and then either Okinotorishima, or even Okinotori-shima, as the article's title. Who shall take on the job of doing the initial merge and edit?--Sir Edgar 05:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I prefer going with Okinotori as the title. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 17:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Why you all can discuss this term without correct knowledge of Japanese language? There is "Torishima" in the same archipelago. Then will you create an article under the name "Tori" ? Tori means bird in Japanese. Oki no Torishima means an island far more offshore (Oki) than Torishima. "no" is not precisely but approximately "of" in English. In Japanese, Okinotori doesn't mean the name of island at all, rather offshore bird. There are many example which use shima and Island at the same time, like Tsushima Island, Ohshima Island, Izu Ohshima Island, and so on. Please refer to naming of this island in US navy charts or somewhere. I don't have such reference at now. But it should be at least Okinotori Island, not simply Okinotori. Isorhiza 16:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

from brief search in Google Scholar, Okinotori hits 7 titles and Google suggests "Okino tori". "Okino tori" hits only 5 titles. "Okino torishima" hits 15 results. "Okinotori Island" hits only 1 article. Therefore, "Okino torishima" is the most widely accepted scientific name. any opposition ? Isorhiza 17:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

That's not exactly overwhelming evidence and most of those hits are related to the original "Okino Torishima" Wikipedia article which existed first. Coming first does not mean correct.--Sir Edgar 23:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The factual accuracy of above comment by Sir Edgar is disputed. Google Scholar does not contain link to Wikipedia. Anybody can feel free to search Google Scholar by Okino Torishima and will find all of 32 results are not related to Wikipedia's article. Of course all of 7 articles hit by Okinotori have no relation with Wikipedia. Isorhiza 02:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I did a Google search and got 13,400 results for "Okinotori" and 964 results for "Okino Torishima". That's 14 to 1.--Sir Edgar 23:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

okay I understand. But still, it should be "Okinotori Islands" or "Okinotori Islands (atoll)" because claim by government of Japan that the atoll is islands is not internationally turned down yet. Thus there is dispute in the condition of the rocks/islands, so both expression should be retained by the usual rule. Isorhiza 11:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I invistigated which name is more familliar in google search, "Okinotori coral reef" or "Okinotori island".

• results of google'd with"Okinotori coral reef" - "okinotori"

The total of visible page is just FOUR!

• google'd with "Okinotori island" - "okinotori"

The total of visible pages is 234 pages. so I recommend this page should go to "Okinotori island" --Carl Daniels 18:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thus, the article's title is simply "Okinotori" as was decided at the merger.

Anyhow, my search of "Okinotori coral reefs" turned 374 hits. You forgot to add the "s".--Sir Edgar 23:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Okino Torishima → Okinotori – per talk:Okinotori — Instantnood 18:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support. — Instantnood 18:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support, though it seems someone already changed Okino Torishima to a redirect. ˑˑˑ日本穣 ^{Talk to Nihonjoε} 22:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 09:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Support The status of Okinotori is in dispute. It does not meet the definition of an island. They are coral reefs--Sir Edgar 23:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support To call coral reefs an "island" is clearly violating the netural point of view of Wikipedia and we should strive to be neutral instead of promoting only one group's point of view. Tortfeasor 19:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Okinotori is nonsense as a name of island. see above discussion. Should be Okinotori Islands or Okinotori Islands (atoll) Isorhiza 17:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Too many bold words

The WP:MOS states that all of the names something is called should be listed near the beginning of the article, and all of them should be bold. There are only three names for these "islands", so I'm curious how that is "too many"? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

More specifically, Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Article titles says:

Also, try not to put other phrases in bold in the first sentence. An exception to this arises when an article has alternative titles, each of which an editor puts in bold; for example, Río de la Plata: (emphasis in previous sentence is mine)

The Río de la Plata (from Spanish: "River of Silver"), also known by the English name River Plate, as in the Battle of the River Plate, or sometimes [La] Plata River

So, why do you keep removing the bold on the other names of the islands/reefs? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it looks ugly. I do this with all articles I see. Anyhow, Parece Vela is not commonly used.--Sir Edgar 23:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of your personal preference on the matter, the MOS states that alternative titles should be bolded. It doesn't matter if it's commonly used anymore as it's an alternative title for which someone may search. Therefore, it should be bolded to make it easily seen on the page. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright, then I'll bold "Okinotori Islands", but I don't think we should bold "Parece Vela" as it is not commonly used.--Sir Edgar 01:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It's worth noting that it does appear to be used in certain contexts -- for example, "Parece Vela Basin" appears to be a standard name for the seabed in that region. Whether that's a wide enough usage to be boldable is another question.

Out of interest, should there really be quotes around 'Okinotori Islands' in the article? No doubt they're only there by accident, but they might be read as a claim that the Japanese name is somehow inaccurate or spurious. We should probably stick with bold text or quotation marks, to avoid any risk of being accused of holding a bias. — Haeleth Talk 13:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello everyone: I was wondering if some one could clear this up for me. Is "Okinotori" known as "Okinotori Island" because this is the official position of the Japanese government OR because it is called "Okinotorshima" (and its variants) that have "shima" in the Japanese name which I belive means "island" in Japanese which is why we call it Okinotori Island. Thanks for your help! Tortfeasor 03:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe it is both that it is called "Okinotorishima" by the Japanese government and translated as "Okinotori Islands" in English. The Japanese people commonly use these terms.--Sir Edgar 03:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

There has never been a Japanese word "okinotori"; what the content of this page intends is actually referred to in Japanese as "Okinotorishima". It is clear that whomever set up this page under "Okinotori" does not have control over Japanese. Simply, you should ask any Japanese what "Okinorori" means, and no one will give you the content described here. But if you ask what "Okinotorishima" means, most Japanese people will know what is intended. Looked up in Google?---So what? As long as there are pages like this, it is no wonder there are NON-JAPANESE-SPEAKING PEOPLE that might type "okinotori", mistakenly.

Since this is a proper noun, it does not make any sense to avoid the term "Okinotorishima" on the basis that "shima" means island, and that its status as an island is controversial. That is an independent issue.

Whomever is insisting to use "okinotiri" is also inconsistent. What don't you change "higashikojima" into "higashiko", and so on with the others. Go ahead, do it, and the page will surely look even more rediculous.

--Gion

It's translated as "Okinotori Islands" sometimes. This leads to the confusion User:Gion mentioned where people try to shortcut discussion of the reef by using Okinotori as an adjective. It is kind of goofy to leave it here, since it's kind of like shortening "the British Isles" to "the British." (I'm going to take a tour of Okinotori = I'm going to take a vacation to the British.) Even though this is a bad title, and I suspect it's politically motivated, the situation can still be made clear in the article. It might be debatable whether to leave it as "jima" or "island," but either or sounds better than chaing things like "Iwo Jima" to just plain "Iwo."

I also suggest that leaving the "shima" in the title might be a solution to the POV issue--it's not controversial that the Japanese refer to them as islands, the controversy is whether they actually are islands. No one cares about the name, and it doesn't matter internationally what it's actually called in this case. Komdori 18:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Only "Okinotori" is hard to recognize and I believe the title should be changed into others. Because of Japanese territory, as for its name, it is necessary to consider official English name called by Japanese government. This document was made by the Geodetic Department of Japanese gov. [1] This site is official bureau of Japanese gov. which administers the island. [2] According to the above site, I feel "Okinotori-shima", "Okinotori Islands" or "Okinotorishima Island" are better than "Okinotori". Sfxp11w 11:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I support moving this article to Okinotorishima. Looking Category:Islands of Japan, it seems common practice to transliterate -shima or -jima and translate -tō to Island. Whether or not it is technically an island, shima is a part of a proper name and omitting it looks strange. --Kusunose 16:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

There is the option of using "Okinotori coral reefs" which is more accurate and often used by the media. It also turned out more hits, according to a Google search comparison (374 for "Okinotori coral reefs" vs. 234 for "Okinotori island").--Sir Edgar 05:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

My results differs from yours: 29 (17) for "Okinotori coral reefs", 892 (216) for "Okinotori island" and 10500 (629) Okinotorishima (numbers in parens are results with "Search English pages"). --Kusunose 06:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

PS. You seems to forget quoting for Okinotori coral reefs, which return 378 (145) pages. --Kusunose 07:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Okinotori → Okinotorishima – Number of reasons for Okinotorishima:

• Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) and Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Identification of common names using external references
  • Google test: it is the most common name over Okinotori island and Okinotori coral reefs on Google search (see above).
  • Reference works: Encarta World Atlas uses "Okinotori-shima (island(s))" [3]
  • Geographic name servers: according to the NGIA GNS server, "Okino-tori-shima" is the BGN Standard.
• Japanese government also uses Okinotorishima. Okinotorishima gets 79 pages while Okinotori gets 17 pages and some of the latter are actually Okinotori-shima or Okinotori Shima.
• The previous discussion, which decided Okinotori, is based on a point of view that it should not be called Okinotorishima because its status as an island is disputed. However, it's agaisnt Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Proper nouns: Do not invent names as a means of compromising between opposing POVs. Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names.
• It meets common naming convention for Category:Islands of Japan to transliterate -shima and -jima and translate -tō to Island.

--Kusunose 16:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support as a nominator. --Kusunose 16:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support as per Kusunose and: Perhaps everybody misinterpreted the Japanese shima (島) to mean strictly "island" the last time, which is clearly wrong. This is because "atoll" translates into kanjō sango shima (環状サンゴ島) in Japanese, meaning a circular coral shima[4]. Shima is NPOV and means atoll in this context. Endroit 16:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support this almost always shows up with the "shima" on the end when talking about the actual islands/islets/rocks/whatever. Trimming it off the end of this is somewhat akin to making an article "Iwo" instead of "Iwo Jima" Komdori 17:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support as per Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Proper nouns. Do not invent names as a means of compromising between opposing POVs. Insistence on the use of the artifically created word Okinotori is in itself a POV, and also implies an incorrect understanding of the Japanese language. Should the city Mishima, Shizuoka be called "Mi" because it is not an island? Perhaps the article on Shimane Prefecture should be titled "ne Prefecture". The word "shima" in Japanese is used on occasion to refer to rocks, atolls, even sandbars. Okinotorishima is perfectly NPOV. MChew 17:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, like a Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo/Takeshima), the name of this article should be renamed as 'Parece Vela'.--Intershark (talk) 06:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. —Mets501 (talk) 04:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

New Satelite Image

The current satelite image is very low quality and while in some cases that may be all there is, there are better quality images, Google Earth for example has a very high quality image of the island, so I think that the current one definately needs an update.

-IkonicDeath —Preceding comment was added at 01:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Google Earth images are however not free Nil Einne (talk) 12:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

People's Republic of China

Currently the page has the People's Republic of China listed in the infobox, and has the place listed as a disputed territory. But, reading the article, it appears that the dispute is only over whether Okinotorishima should or should not have an EEZ, with no one questioning Japan's claim over the land itself. So I propose removing the disputed territory note as well as the PRC from the infobox. Ngchen (talk) 13:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Odd link in See also section

Why is Macclesfield Bank listed in the See Also section when there is no reference to the bank in the main article. -- RND  T  C  18:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Also in the tropics...

Is the Japanese possession of 'Marcus Island', which should perhaps also be mentioned, alongside Okinotorishima, as being Japanese territory within the tropical climate zone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.103.203.133 (talk) 12:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

9.44 sq m?

Really? Too small and too precise. "Two rocks", "three concrete encasings" - the text isn't clean. Is this 9.44 m2 area of the original rocks or artificial structures? The aerial photo shows 3 much larger structures, comparable with the platform size. 178.45.215.110 (talk) 20:08, 16 December 2019 (UTC)