Okinotorishima received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I invistigated which name is more familliar in google search, "Okinotori coral reef" or "Okinotori island".
The total of visible page is just FOUR!
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)
Okino Torishima → Okinotori – per talk:Okinotori — Insta ntnood 18:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
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 Nihon jo e 18:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
More specifically,
Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Article titles says:
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 Nihon jo e 17:12, 23 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)
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
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)
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)
Okinotori → Okinotorishima – Number of reasons for Okinotorishima:
-- Kusunose 16:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. — Mets501 ( talk) 04:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
Okinotorishima received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I invistigated which name is more familliar in google search, "Okinotori coral reef" or "Okinotori island".
The total of visible page is just FOUR!
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)
Okino Torishima → Okinotori – per talk:Okinotori — Insta ntnood 18:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
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 Nihon jo e 18:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
More specifically,
Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Article titles says:
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 Nihon jo e 17:12, 23 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)
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
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)
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)
Okinotori → Okinotorishima – Number of reasons for Okinotorishima:
-- Kusunose 16:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. — Mets501 ( talk) 04:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)