Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:06, 24 January 2012

Japan Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 04:38, December 26, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Japan to do list: edit history watch purge Peer review: None A-class review: None Featured content candidates –  Articles: None Pictures: None Lists: None Good article nominations: Vinland Saga (TV series), Godzilla Minus One Add requested images to articles that need them. Pages for Deletion: Participate in Japan-related deletion discussions. Improve and expand Japan-related stubs. Create some requested articles. Help translate an article from the Japanese Misplaced Pages into English. Assess unassessed articles

Ecoregions Unassessed

This article is supported by WikiProject Ecoregions, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of ecoregions. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on these topics. See WikiProject Ecoregions and Misplaced Pages:FAQ/Contributing.EcoregionsWikipedia:WikiProject EcoregionsTemplate:WikiProject EcoregionsEcoregions ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Volcanoes Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Volcanoes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VolcanoesWikipedia:WikiProject VolcanoesTemplate:WikiProject VolcanoesWikiProject Volcanoes Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Old discussions

Perhaps some of the content can be moved to History of Okinawa and Ryukyu Kingdom. --Tongpoo 00:50, 2003 Dec 5 (UTC)

I think Commodore Perry wrote the name as "Lew Chew"; is that worth noting? --165.121.147.225 00:35, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I believe Lūchū is the Okinawan name for Ryūkyū. - Gilgamesh 00:55, 2004 June 14 (UTC)

...no, no it is not. "luchu"/"lew chew"/"loo choo" is an English-language name. The Okinawan name is "ruuchuu", a word borrowed from Chinese, or "uruma", a native word. --Node ue 11:10, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've been told the islands are notable for the exceptionally high longevity of their inhabitants. Is anyone in a position to expand this section? I think at least a brief mention (with some links to explanatory references) would be of interest to many readers. --Breakpoint 1755PST31JUL2005

I've added some very basic info on Okinawan longevity and a link to the Okinawa Centenarian Program. Will ask someone from the team to provide more specifics when she's less busy. Or else I'll try to get Dr. Willcox to write something. :) Oenomel 10:17, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Forgot to mention: The Ryukyu flag is possibly incorrect. The yellow and blue colors need to be switched. As supporting evidence, here's a Japanese book about the flag and a link to the book cover image. Also, according to a comment on Flags of the World: "The flag has three Tomoes of red, yellow and blue from top clockwise in white field. Oue image on FOTW Japan which supposedly was taken from The Flag Book of the United States by Whitney Smith is wrong and yellow and blue should be switched." Now, I'm no flag expert, but I'm leaning heavily toward the Japanese book. After all, the Japanese author is more likely to have access to more accurate historical Japanese/Ryukyuan sources, right? Oenomel 10:43, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Or it may simply indicate that at the time the flag was used the relative position of the three colors was considered unimportant to those who flew it. It wasn't until the 20th century that the position of the stars in the blue canton of the United States flag became set in stone and some Revolutionary War U.S. flags had 7 white and 6 red stripes instead of the more common and now offical arrangement of 7 red and 6 white stripes. Caerwine 17:06, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Satsumu?

Ran across Satsuma Islands (a 1911 britannica stub) by random page, and can't quite tell how it fits into this page. Should it be redirected here? — Catherine\ 11:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems like "Satsuma Islands" may be an archaic term. Maybe it refers to what is also known as Satsunan Islands. I could find only 23 Google search results for the term. Or maybe it could be voted for deletion.—Tokek 16:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Update: I looked into the matter further and found out that "Satsuma Islands" is likely an archaic name for Koshikijima Islands. The Britannica-derived Misplaced Pages version of the article said it belongs to Ryukyu Islands, but that was incorrect speculation. Further explanation given at Talk:Satsuma Islands.—Tokek 10:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Flag

The flag looks rather unprofessional to me; does anybody have a more appropriate image?

Rdr0 20:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Rdr0, I was looking into replacing the image and I noticed the placement of the colors of the flag on the article are inconsistent with the that of this source and the Flag Book of the United States. I've switched the colors to match. If it was incorrect to do so, please notify me. I don't know much about this subject, but it seems this flag was only in use from 1875 through March 11 1879. So, I have replaced this flag, moved it to the history section, and added its predecessor which was used until 1875. Jecowa 23:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Supposed conflicts with Japan

Recently I've seen in this article claims of:

1. A series of massacres against the Okinawans perpetrated by the Japanese army that killed off major portions of the Ryukyuan population
2. "big voices for independence and autonomy in some islands"

Also, it's hard to grasp the size of said independence movement, and what percentage of the Ryukyuan population sympathises with this. Does anyone have sources? I am actually not aware of No. 1. I know the Japanese army assasinated opposing polititians in the early years of the Japanese takeover, but I have not heard of major portions of the Ryukyuan population being massacred by Japan in order to clear "the Ryukyans' strong Chinese roots, anti-Japan emotions". In recent years, the deadliest periods that I am aware of was during WWII when the Okinawans were caught in the crossfires, and pre-WWI when Okinawa suffered a famine during a horrible economy. —Tokek 11:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• "ryukyu massacre" - 0 hits
• "ryukyu kingdom massacre" - 0 hits
• "Okinawa massacre" - 1 hit (about a play)

So yeah, there you go. No. 1 looks very fishy, and also sounds like it was written by someone who had just a tad too much of Chinese brainwashing. No. 2 might be negligible for this Encyclopedia, since pretty much anyone anywhere on Earth can desire one's region to gain nationhood. The question is, so what? —Tokek 12:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I've posted a request for factual backup in this talk page, in the contributor's talk page (User_talk:72.136.191.136), and Misplaced Pages talk:Japan-related topics notice board. No references brought up. Because the alleged "fact" is very vaguely written and quite possibly false, I will be removing the last edit by 72.136.191.136 from the article. If it later turns out to be true, it can be re-added to the article by someone with better writing skills. —Tokek 12:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Update: Oops, I forgot to check the anonymous IP's talk page before I wrote the above. I thought that it would be unlikely s/he would have come back to post a reply, as the last contribution from that IP was in January. S/he says his/her source is a document in Chinese by an anonymous author, which is not online. S/he doesn't know where it is and will have to look for it, then upload it before others can see it. Unfortunately the reply raises more questions than it answers. —Tokek 12:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it has recently come to light that numerous massacres DID take place in Okinawa, at the hands of the Japanese military, before and during the 2nd world war times. In one account (which was actually covered on national Japanese TV network NHK and ASAHI newspaper, and based on declassified documents and eyewitness reports), a WHOLE village of Okinawans was killed because the men did not want to join the Imperial Army. The men were hung from trees, with wooden stakes driven though their KNEES (to represent the Hino Maru of the Japanese flag) while the women and children were tied together in groups and killed with grenades. Nothing to do with "Chinese brainwashing" or China at all. Sean-Jin--Sean-Jin 10:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, huge numbers of the Okinawan population were killed (up to 25%) during the Second World War (WWII).--Sean-Jin 10:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, a link to the IP's edits I was referring to. IIRC the latest death toll estimate from the Battle of Okinawa of World War II was between 25~30% of the Okinawan population. According to , 240,000 died, of which 150,000 were Okinawans, 76,000 from other Prefectures of Japan, 14,000 Americans, 400 Koreans, and smaller figures for other minorities. The Battle of Okinawa was far removed from the time of Japan's takeover (or whatever you want to call it) of Ryukyu Kingdom. The Allied powers were not conspiring with Japan to "clear the Ryukyans' strong Chinese roots, anti-Japan emotions, and common favors for China" when they went to battle with each other on Okinawa. You're right, nothing to do with China at all. Even with strong modern day Chinese ethnic pride, the idea of the Japanese military committing massacres in order to clear Okinawans of "strong anti-Japan emotions" makes no logical sense. History can be written better than this. I am not "opposed to history", I am not opposed to your opinions at all either. However I'm sure we can also agree that this particular IP address user's contribution's edit quality was shall we say not Pulitzer Prize winning material. I think your research skills will be much appreciated in the article itself as well. —Tokek 03:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, more detail should be added to Battle of Okinawa while Ryukyu Islands should provide a somewhat summarised version. —Tokek 03:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Article renamed

I've renamed this article from Ryukyu Islands to Ryūkyū Islands in accordance with the guidelines in the Manual of Style for Japanese articles. Bobo12345 11:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

English place names are generally preferred over local place names where one exists for article titles on English Misplaced Pages (WP:NC(GN)). For example, Venice, Italy, Japan, Bonin Islands, Iwo Jima, Ryukyu Islands are preferred as article titles over Venezia, Italia, Nippon, Ogasawara Shotō, Iōtō, Nansei Shotō. In this article's case, the English place name is not spelled with marcrons (if English place names ever did), hence Ryūkyū Islands should be moved back to Ryukyu Islands.

Originally there was misunderstanding that Ryukyu Islands was the Japanese place name and that Ryukyu Islands = Ryūkyū Shotō. However, the article actually deliberately avoids equating the two, and it is explained in the article that the definition of Ryūkyū Shotō only covers a subset of Ryukyu Islands, a.k.a. Nansei Shotō. —Tokek 23:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's nice. But as we've already discussed this issue to death at WP:MOS-JA, please follow the consensus policy. I have not spent hours and hours changing links to read "Ryūkyū" just for my health. "Ryukyu" (りゅきゅ) is not a word, and conveys no meaning, while Ryūkyū (琉球), just like piñata and Curaçao, is a word. It's just like the common English spelling, but not dumbed down for the masses, with little marks that indicate the proper pronunciation. LordAmeth 08:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course I am aware of WP:MOS-JP. To reiterate myself again, Ryukyu Islands is the English term. Nansei Shotō is the Japanese term romanised according to WP:MOS-JP. Ryūkyū Islands is nothing. Nobody uses it and no Misplaced Pages Policy recommends it. Again, *if* Ryukyu Islands were a Japanese term, then Ryūkyū Islands would have been valid according to policy, but that was only a misunderstanding. —Tokek 12:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Since there is confusion here, could you explain the meaning of each of the terms for us? Do I understand the following correctly?

• Nansei Shotō = all of the islands stretching between Kyūshū and Taiwan
• Ryūkyū Shotō = a subset of the Nansei Shotō including the Okinawa Islands, Kerama Islands, Daitō Islands, Sakishima Islands, Miyako Islands, Yaeyama Islands and the Senkaku Islands

Is that right? Bobo12345 12:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Basically, yes. Ryūkyū Shotō consists of Okinawa Islands and Sakishima Islands. Furthermore, Okinawa Islands consists of Kerama Islands and Daitō Islands, while Sakishima Islands consists of the other islands that you've mentioned.—Tokek 14:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

In that case, shouldn't this article actually be renamed "Nansei Islands", and "Ryūkyū Islands" can have its own separate article? What do you think LordAmeth? Bobo12345 22:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure. That would be fine with me. Of course, since "Nansei" simply means "South-west", it's not really the 'name' of the island chain, it's really just describing it. Whatever you want to do. LordAmeth 09:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't understand very well your claim that Nansei Islands is not a real name. However, Nansei Islands a.k.a. Ryukyu Islands do cover more territory than what was ever occupied by the Ryukyu Kingdom, which may be one of the reasons why it is not called as such in Japanese. —Tokek 11:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Since Ryūkyū Shotō is a subset of the collective term Nansei Shotō I will move this article to "Nansei Islands" and create a new page for "Ryūkyū Islands". I'll correct the pages linking to these pages too, including the Regions of Japan template. It looks like I will require Administrator assistance to do this though. Care to help, LordAmeth? :) Bobo12345 13:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. -- tariqabjotu 01:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested move (2006)

Ryūkyū Islands → Ryukyu — Restore common English name, revert User:LordAmeth's continual edit warring over this. Gene Nygaard 16:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Or, more accurately, as nominator thought he had requested it, a move back to Ryukyu Islands. If the "Islands" were dropped, it would probably be Ryukyus as on some of their postage stamps. Gene Nygaard 18:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. Gene Nygaard 17:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose "Ryūkyū Islands" is the most accurate, correctly spelt English name.--Húsönd 17:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

"Ryukyu Islands" is at least as accurate, correctly spelled, and the more common English spelling. Gene Nygaard 19:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Check your English dictionary; Ryukyu Islands (without macrons) is used universally in all other encyclopedias and dictionaries.--Endroit 13:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support — As explained in Ryukyuan History, Ryukyu was U.S. Territory for 27 years (from 1945 to 1972), during which the islands were called "Ryukyu" WITHOUT any macrons. Therefore Ryukyu should NOT use any macrons.--Endroit 20:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

For the record, my 1st choice is Ryukyu Islands, and my 2nd choice is Ryukyu (without macrons in either case).--Endroit 13:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Note Interestingly, Ryukyuan History redirects to History of Ryūkyū Islands.--Húsönd 21:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, that's because of page moves done last month. The article was called Ryukyuan History for the longest time, until people started applying the macrons.--Endroit 21:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose Bendono 21:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Line 10. in the Romanisation section of the WP:MOS-JP states "Island names should always include macrons." In the cases of prefectures and cities, only the most widely known outside of Japan (Tokyo, Osaka, Kyoto, and Kobe) have been excluded. These were voted on and consensus reached on the WP:MOS-JP Talk page. Ryūkyū is not well known in English speaking countries. If you're looking to demacron the name of an (arguably) well known island, try Hokkaidō. The argument between LordAmeth and Tokek on this issue was prompted by ambiguity in the terminology used for this set of islands (see above!). It was not an edit war. Bobo12345 22:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

As I pointed out below, Ryukyu is well known in English-speaking countries, because of the postage stamps it issued. Never a "Ryūkyū" to ever be found on even a single one of them. Gene Nygaard 03:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

So if a place has issued a stamp, you think that means it is well known? Bobo12345 06:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment The term "Ryukyu Islands" is in the same class as "Bonin Islands", "Iwo Jima" (by the way not macronised), and "Japan" (not "romanised" as "Japaan"). It is an English name that differs from the Japanese name. I think the policy you refer to is supposed to be interpreted in a cultural context, not based on superficial national borders. Loan words from Japan are not necessarily always Hepburn romanisations either (e.g. "soy" and "yen"). I believe that in the WP:MOS-JP policy it is assumed that we are talking about romanisation, and romanisation only seems to make sense for terms that are not already written in the English alphabet to begin with. —Tokek 12:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

"Iwojima" is a historical curiosity. The spelling is based on the historical Japanese spelling いわうじま. The pronunciation has been イオージマ for many centuries though. You can also find it spelled Iwôjima, Iôjima, Iwōjima, Iōjima. "Bonin" is widely known to be a mistranslation of 無人島 by Abel Remusat. The Japan <-> Japaan example is moot for two reasons: it is ジャパン, and more importantly it is translation of 日本. The English word "soy" is borrowed from Dutch, not Japanese. They borrowed it in the 17th century and it too reflects a historical spelling and pronunciation. "yen" also reflects a historical romanization. "Ryūkyū / Ryukyu" is different from all of these examples. It is an attempt to transliterate (not translate) 琉球 and has nothing to do with historical spellings or romanization systems.Bendono 00:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

One etymology theory that I've read suggests that the word soy originated from shōyu, the Japanese word for soy sauce, which eventually became the Dutch word for soy, then brought to English. —Tokek 11:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• • I disagree that WP:MOS-JP applies here for 2 reasons (although that's just my personal opinion).
    1. The word Ryukyu comes from Ryukyuan languages, not Japanese language.
    2. The word Ryukyu has NOT been picked up by the Japanese after U.S. occupation, although it is understood. It's called Nansei Shotō in Japanese, and Ryukyu Islands in English (WITHOUT macrons).

Also, the vote on Hokkaido was against macrons, although "no consensus" was declared.--Endroit 22:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support --Akhilleus (talk) 05:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support a restore to "Ryukyu Islands." Let me know if this is a proposal for a move to "Ryukyu" and not "Ryukyu Islands."—Tokek 12:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I do not favor macrons in English text. Shilkanni 04:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose'. LordAmeth 08:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per the arguments above. Valentinian 17:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Standard without macrons in English , ; also search for Ryukyu at Amazon. JJL 18:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Per common usage. Jecowa 19:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per the artguments above and WP:MOS(JP). —Nightstallion (?) 19:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support move to Ryukyu Islands as both Britannica and MSN Encarta use Ryukyu Islands. This would fall under the exception to the macronization due to being established in English. I personally prefer macrons be used when applicable, but I also understand there are some exceptions to the rules. I believe strongly that this is one of those exceptions. ···日本穣 23:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Per Endroit, the MOS:JP argument for the macronning is deeply flawed because we are not even dealing with Japanese. This washes out the basic premise of the move. However, editors working on pages that deal with the Okinawan language also employ macrons, including over the a, which has never been acceptable under MOS:JP (see, for example, bitter melon; also note that gōyaa is technically the correct pronunciation in Japanese, although gōya is common). Both of these points are overcome by the fact that the standard, macronless spelling is common usage in English. Once again I am frustrated because I am basically in favor of the macron, but I am against macron-pushing. Dekimasu 04:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. For those who are interested in the pronunciation of what appears to be essentially a Japanese word, consistent provision of macrons in the term "Ryūkyū" will be helpful. Those not interested are free to ignore them. Cf WP's provision of the diacritic in Tábor. "Luchu" is an English spelling that I learn from the article has more grounds than I'd assumed; I wouldn't be opposed to a renaming to Luchu islands. -- Hoary 11:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • You're wrong about that Hoary. "Ryukyu" is an English word with a modified pronunciation. Below is the entry for the word Ryukyu from Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (subscription required).--Endroit 15:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

    Main Entry: ryu·kyu

    Pronunciation: rēˈ(y)ü(ˌ)kyü, rɪˈ-

    Function: noun

    Usage: usually capitalized

    Etymology: from the Ryukyu islands, southwest of Japan

    : the language of the Ryukyuan people that is related to Japanese

• • Below is an entry for Ryukyu Islands from Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition / Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (subscription required).--Endroit 15:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

    Main Entry: Ryu·kyu Islands

    Pronunciation: rē-ˈ(y)ü-(ˌ)kyü, -(ˌ)kü

    Function: geographical name

    islands W Pacific extending between Kyushu, Japan, & Taiwan; belonged to Japan 1895-1945; occupied by United States 1945; returned to Japan in 1953 (N islands) and 1972 (S islands) area about 850 square miles (2202 square kilometers), population 1,222,458 -- see AMAMI, OKINAWA, OSUMI ISLANDS, SAKISHIMA ISLANDS, TOKARA ISLANDS

    - Ryu·kyu·an \-ˌkyü-ən, -ˌkü-\ adjective or noun

• • And here's the beginnings of the full-page entry for "Ryūkyū Islands" in the English version of Louis Frédéric's "Japan Encyclopedia". You'll notice that it's completely in English, with no kanji, and tailored to an intelligent but otherwise uninformed reader. In other words, it's scholarly and accurate, but not written in a particularly esoteric way for a niche kind of audience.
  • Ryūkyū Islands (Chin.: Luchu.) Archipelago between Kyushu and Taiwan, extending more than 1,200 km from north to south. ... According to legend, the kingdom of the Ryūkyū Islands was founded by the dynasty of the Tenson (Chin.: Tiansun) family (shi)...
  • I'm not sure what parts I ought to include or anything, but most of it is written like that - accurate macronization, except for super-common English words like "Kyushu" (I wish he hadn't done that, as it goes counter our standing policy on Kyūshū), and written in a very generalist, but not dumbed down, encyclopedic fashion. I'd be happy to include other portions if anyone wants me to, about how they represent other portions of the topic, or how they refer to the Ryūkyūs in other English-language texts I own. LordAmeth 23:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

"Japan Encyclopedia" seems like a Japan-centric encyclopedia, and NOT a general encyclopedia like ours (the English Misplaced Pages). Does anybody have any more macronned example(s) from any general encyclopedia or dictionary?--Endroit 01:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The World Book Encyclopedia (Q-R) says,

Ryukyu Islands, ree OO KYOO, are a group of more than 100 islands in the North Pacific Ocean that belong to Japan. … The Ryukyus can be divided into five groups from north to south … Ancestors of the Ryukyuans probably came from Japan and Taiwan, and possibly from the Philippines. …

Jecowa

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

User:LordAmeth also flouts the rules when he makes his repeated moves, never fixing the indexing sort keys when he does so. Gene Nygaard 16:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Gene, what relevance does that have to renaming this article? The wording of the comment itself borders on harassment. As others have told you, please try to be civil. If you are not interested in fixing them yourself, please leave a comment on the specific pages alerting others to the issue. Bendono 00:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it has a lot to do with naming of this article. What we have is a bunch of immature kids playing with a new toy, and nobody in the taking any responsibility whatsoever for its proper use. Gene Nygaard 03:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I just took responsibility for it here and have added sort keys for this article. It should not be an issue anymore. It is comments such as "immature kids" that I was referring to about being civil. We may disagree on some issues, but lets try to be a little more constructive here. Bendono 03:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Gene, it would be have been really helpful if you'd actually read this Talk page before requesting a move that was redundant. I'm about to move this article to "Nansei Islands", as we were discussing above. Bobo12345 22:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Gene, I'm tempted to just let that slide, but I can't. I am not an immature kid playing with some toy, and I do not regard any of you as children either. I happen to be a Master's student in Japanese history, and I do very much consider myself a scholar and historian. I may have been a little sloppy in my work the last week or so, but that is no reason to attack me personally, and it has no bearing whatsoever on what the correct romanization of 琉球 should be. I am deliberately sitting this one out, as my opinion has already been made, and because I'm in no mood for argument right now. Misplaced Pages should be a place for calm discussion, not for argument, and not for personal attacks. LordAmeth 01:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You had damn sure better get consensus for it before you try any such move. I for one will oppose it. Gene Nygaard 03:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you don't move this article to Nansei Islands, which is the Japanese name. This is NOT Japan-pedia. We don't Japanify everything and anything just because....

It's called Ryukyu Islands in English, as collaborated by:

• Encyclopædia Britannica
• The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition
• The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition]
• Merriam-Webster Online

--Endroit 22:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The Japanese name is 南西諸島. You could also argue Nansei Shotō. However, it is most certainly not Nansei Islands. "Ryukyu" is and abbreviation for Ryūkyū. By the same abbreviation logic, Nansei should become Nanse, which does not happen. Bendono 23:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

If you didn't understand me above, I said it's Nansei Shotō in Japanese and Ryukyu Islands (WITHOUT the macrons) in English. If you want to try any of the more obscure variations (I don't care whichever one you choose), go ahead and initiate the move, and I'll oppose you.--Endroit 23:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It is "Ryukyu Islands" in postage stamp catalogues. It is "RYUKYUS" on the general issue postage stamps that include Romanizations. Philately and postage stamps are, of course, one of the primary ways in which the Ryukyu Islands are known to English speakers. Gene Nygaard 03:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

In addition to postage stamps, don't forget that the Ryukyu Islands are the birthplace of Karate, and many martial artists will know them from there. Ryukyu Kempo is a system that is rising in popularity, for example. JJL 19:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Is this proposal to move the article to "Ryukyu" (as suggested above) or "Ryukyu Islands" (as suggested on the Requested Moves page? Bobo12345 06:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I was also wondering about the same thing.—Tokek 15:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

This was intended to be Ryūkyū Islands → Ryukyu Islands —, an undoing of LordAmeth's recent change. But it appears in the WP:RM listing as here, without the "Islands" in the target move, because I copied the template adding the one difference, "RMtalk" in place of "RM". Does anyone have any suggestions as to what to do about that? Gene Nygaard 18:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

In that case we have 3 support votes for Ryukyu Islands already, because User:Akhilleus is the only support vote who didn't mention Ryukyu Islands.

However, I think you should redo / initiate another move, with the intended WP:RM request, after withdrawing the current one. Also, we should individually notify everyone who already voted.--Endroit 18:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I support Ryukyu Islands (and note that the CIA factbook entry on Japan uses "Ryukyu Islands") but a new request may be a good idea. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I also noticed that the MOS-JP was quoted above, to wit, "10. Island names should always include macrons." This is in a section that relates to article text, not titles; the following section of the MOS-JP reads in part "Article titles should use macrons except in cases where the macronless spelling is in common usage in English-speaking countries", and I think the evidence provided in this discussion has shown that "Ryukyu Islands" is common English usage. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a question: if there is no consensus, is the article title supposed to be restored? In general, when there is no consensus there is no moving to a new name, and the current name is the new name.—Tokek 00:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Portions of WP:MOS-JP in support of the restore

I was re-skimming WP:MOS-JP to see if the page had more relevant things to say, and I found several, for example the very first section in that page:

English words of Japanese origin

The en:Misplaced Pages is an English language encyclopedia. An English loan word or place name with a Japanese origin should be used in its most commonly used English form in the body of an article, even if it is pronounced or spelled differently from the properly romanized Japanese: use Mount Fuji, Tokyo, jujutsu, shogi, instead of Fujisan, Tōkyō, jūjutsu, shōgi. Give the romanized Japanese form in the opening paragraph if it differs from the English form (see below).

See also: Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (use English)

Ryukyu Islands appears to fall under this category, because A. it is the most commonly used English form, and B. It is "pronounced and spelled differently" from Nansei Shotō.

A) All non-macron, and probably non-diacritical, forms are most common in English. It's more work to enter, and humans are lazy. That is not to say that the spelling Ryūkyū does not exist though.Bendono 05:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

B) You must admit that the spelling "Ryukyu" (and Ryūkyū) is an attempt to write 琉球, not just a coincidental spelling. Japanese also has the expression 琉球諸島. Semantically the two expressions now refer to slightly different things, but that does not mean that "Ryukyu" is not to be identified as 琉球.Bendono 05:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Other portions of the text show that precedence should be given to the English term:

That is the problem. It is difficult to identify "Ryukyu" as an "English term". A clear example is English "Japan" vs. Japanese "nihon". Compare that to English "Ryukyu" vs. Japanese "Ryūkyū".Bendono 05:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Give the romanization for any name or term written in kanji or kana when the Japanese pronunciation is different from the English pronunciation. Use the pattern:

English (Japanese characters rōmaji)

In this article's case it would look like:

Ryukyu Islands (南西諸島, Nansei Shotō)

Although not relevant, in the section regarding people's names, it says: "Use the form found in a dictionary entry from a generally-accepted English dictionary..." Yet again stressing the importance of using the most comonly found form in English dictionaires and encyclopedias.

There has been debate at other places on Misplaced Pages on when to use macronned hepburn romanization vs. when to use macronless hepburn romanization, but discussion of Japanese romanization can make sense only when there's an original Japanese term that is being directly romanized to begin with. In the case of Ryukyu Islands, there isn't, and you can't romanize a term that is already in alphabet (Ryukyu Islands). If you romanize the Japanese term for the same place, you get Nansei Islands which is already not preferred because it is not the most common English form. —Tokek 04:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to point out, in case anyone was not aware, that 南西諸島 (Nansei shotō) simply means "the islands to the south-west" or "The Southwest Islands", and is not necessarily a name. 琉球, pronounced Ryūkyū in Okinawan and Japanese, and as liuqiu in Chinese, and spelled as "Ryukyu" only by those too lazy, unscholarly, or unknowledgable to use macrons, is the original name. It's not a Portuguese or Dutch invention. It's not a bastardized Anglicization. It's the original word. LordAmeth 10:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• You keep on saying that Nansei Islands is not a name. This claim doesn't make sense to me.
• The article claims that "Luchu" is the Okinawan pronounciation, but if you know better, feel free to correct it.
• Saying that Ryukyu Islands is the lazy person's spelling of Ryūkyū Islands assumes that it is supposed to be spelled Ryūkyū Islands, begging the question.

—Tokek 16:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Is the "south of England" as official a name as Cornwall? Is Western Europe an official regional name in the same way and to the same extent as "Germany" or "France"? To call something "the islands to the south-west", is not to give it a name. LordAmeth 17:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the examples you give are not official names, but Nansei Island is de facto real and official Japanese name and I am not seeing any reason why this shouldn't be the case. I am arguing in favor of Ryukyu Islands over Nansei Islands anyway. —Tokek 00:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should stop talking about Nansei Shotō or Nansei Islands. It is clear that English and Japanese semantics of the terms are not exactly the same. It is also clear that English "Ryukyu Islands" is an attempt to write 琉球諸島, not 南西諸島 or even Luchu. It is not a freak coincidence. Bendono 01:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The name Ryukyu Islands without macrons, is based on the long U.S. occupation of Okinawa. Okinawa was a U.S. Territory for 27 years, and the island chains were called Ryukyu Islands (without macrons) as a whole and Nansei Shotō on the Japan-side (Kagoshima Prefecture). After Okinawa reverted back to Japanese possession, the entire island chain became Ryukyu Islands in English and Nansei Shotō in Japanese. Other prominent island naming (without diacritics), based on U.S. Territorial posession include Hawaii (instead of Hawaiʻi), Oahu (instead of Oʻahu), and Iwo Jima (instead of Iwōjima).--Endroit 01:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I am very aware of the history. I used to live in Okinawa. The term "Ryūkyū / Ryukyu Islands" existed prior to the US occupation. It is an attempt to write 琉球諸島, not 南西諸島. Semantically English and Japanese usage now differ. However, that does not change the expression itself. I see the spelling Hawaiʻi occasionally. I usually see Oʻahu instead of Oahu; even the Misplaced Pages article itself prefers Oʻahu. We have already discussed Iwojima. Bendono 03:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

If you're familiar with the occupation, you must also be aware of the spelling preferred by the U.S. Government, without macrons of course. It's always Ryukyu Islands and Hawaiian Islands. These are the most common forms used in English, regardless of any historical usage by the Japanese prior to the war.--Endroit 03:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Ryukyu is much more commonly used than Ryūkyū by very far. The naming conventions guideline says to "use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." In addition, the naming conventions (precision) page states that in the case of the existence of multiple forms of the same name (including differences in diacritics and capitalization) to follow the conventions of the Misplaced Pages naming conventions, which says, "Names of Misplaced Pages articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists." Also, the naming conventions guideline says, "When choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Misplaced Pages put into the search engine?" Do you honestly think that the majority of users even knows how to type macrons? Jecowa 19:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus

The request for move was (quote): "Ryūkyū Islands → Ryukyu". The result of the debate was (quote): no consensus. Please move the page back to Ryūkyū Islands until there is consensus. Bendono 02:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The article name was "Ryukyu Islands" WITHOUT macrons until people moved it without consensus (ie: 9-7 against macrons, as we know it now) in October. The article name ought to be "Ryukyu Islands", the name it was originally before the "moves without consensus" done in October.--Endroit 02:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

We will have to disagree. Nevertheless, the result of this move was no consensus. I encourage you to read this note: User talk:Tokek#Ryukyu Islands Move. Bendono 02:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

All interested parties, please continue your discussion at the WP:MOS-JP talk page, at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)#Ryukyu vs. Ryūkyū. Ryukyu Islands is just one of many "Ryukyu" related articles. The discussion at WP:MOS-JP has already headed towards de-macronning all articles with the word "Ryukyuan". Closing admin, please take note, and comment there as well.--Endroit 04:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The result of this discussion was no consensus. Restore title ASAP.--Húsönd 04:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is that the proper title to restore it to is Ryukyu Islands. Please discuss at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)#Ryukyu vs. Ryūkyū.--Endroit 04:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The move from Ryukyu Islands to Ryūkyū Islands was contested and the resulting discussion turned no consensus about moving it back. Everything followed the right procedure, whether or not the first move should have been proposed and discussed before being executed.--Húsönd 04:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Fine, but that technicallity only covers Ryūkyū Islands. People, you need to discuss the whole picture involving the word "Ryukyu". Don't be ignorant, what do you want to do about the other "Ryukyu" related articles. Please, please comment at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)#Ryukyu vs. Ryūkyū.--Endroit 04:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

That's to be decided in consensus, preferably following input by users with expertise in romaji transliteration. I agree that there should be only one form. Now please be WP:CIVIL. Thank you.--Húsönd 04:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a personal preference either way here, but since the the result was "No consensus", the article should be moved back, as supported by WP:STYLE:

If all else fails, consider following the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor (that is, not a stub) to the article.

Going back through the history of the article shows that the first version of it was non-stub, called Ryukyu Islands, and grew rather steadily after that.

Both sides here have reasonable arguments, but I'm somewhat concerned about "Ryūkyū" besing used for the Satsunan Islands, which are considered part of the Ryukyu Islands (in English) but not part of the Ryūkyū Shotō (in Japanese).--GunnarRene 17:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the move-lock

Locking admin, please keep this article move-locked until the discussion is over at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)#Ryukyu vs. Ryūkyū. And please respect the decision made there, if any. Thank you.--Endroit 16:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is there already another poll just a few days after this one just ended with no consensus? As is often done in other situations, it may be best to wait a few months before trying this again. We need to work out our differences and come to a consensus. It seems like you are trying to sneak another move poll in on another page. Even if WP:MOS-JA (a guideline) is changed, the prior poll concluded that there is no consensus to move this page, Ryūkyū Islands. Regardless of the decision at WP:MOS-JA, please do not move this page without requesting a move first. Bendono 00:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I have posted a notice above to continue discussions at the WP:MOS-JP talk page, at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)#Ryukyu vs. Ryūkyū. And a notice was put there exactly one week ago that a poll will be done to clarify WP:MOS-JP. And nobody objected. If you feel that procedures were breached, please ask an admin for help. Otherwise please DO continue discussions in WP:MOS-JP and vote there.--Endroit 00:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Page move

It appears that this discussion moved from here to MOS-JP on or around 22 November, and there's a subsequent survey on the topic at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)#Poll: "Ryūkyū" instead of "Ryukyu". Based on the arguments presented in that discussion, I'm going to move this article to Ryukyu Islands. I think it's safe to say that the macronless "Ryukyu" is a quite common English spelling of this name, and though we have conflicting guidelines, there seems to be more and better arguments against macrons, in this case. I hope this doesn't start another move-war; if so, we'll have to re-protect the page. I'm lifting protection for now, to test this solution. -GTBacchus 18:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Bendono informs me that I moved the page prematurely. I was basing my move on the timing of the request at WP:RM. I didn't realize that the allotted 2 weeks had not yet run their course. I apologize for my carelessness. I think we ought to leave the page alone for the next... 3 days is it?... and then we can move it back to Ryūkyū Islands if that turns out to be the conclusion of the discussion. I'm sorry for any inconvenience. -GTBacchus 02:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry. As quoted above, if in doubt: If all else fails, consider following the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor (that is, not a stub) to the article.--GunnarRene 13:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Origin of the "Ryūkyū" toponym

I believe there is a serious inaccuracy in the following sentence from the first paragraph of this article:

"The Ryukyu Islands, known as Nansei Islands (南西諸島, Nansei-shotō?) in Japanese meaning "southwest islands", pronounced "Luchu" in Okinawan..."

The major problem with this sentence is that a form "Luchu" does not natively exist in the Okinawan language. The Okinawans have historically never called their land "Luchu" or "Ryukyu" or anything of the sort as far as I know. It is neither an endonym nor an autonym; it is rather an exonym applied by the ancient Chinese to some mysterious island or islands in the ocean east of China whose people were often believed to be cannibals. Most modern historians believe that it is more likely that "Liúqiú" (流求 in Classical Chinese, 琉球 in Modern Chinese and Japanese), i.e. "Ryūkyū," was originally used as the Chinese name for ancient Taiwan or some similar island, perhaps closer to the Philippines than to Okinawa. The Okinawan name for their homeland is (and has always been, as far as we can know) "Uchinā," which is cognate with Japanese "Okinawa." The name "Okinawa" appears in phonetic transcriptions (actually, the "Oki" part transcribed phonetically with man'yogana and the "-nawa" part transcribed with the kun reading of the Chinese character for "rope," i.e. 繩) in the most ancient native Japanese and Okinawan (AKA Ryukyuan) writings about the islands. Even today, the so-called Ryukyuans refer to the era when they were governed by the so-called Ryukyuan Dynasty as Uchinā-yū (or Huchinā-yū in some parts of Northern Okinawa where they speak the Kunigami language), which would be cognate with a hypothetical mainland Japanese form of *Okinawa-yo (沖縄世). This word literally means the "Okinawa age/era/generation."

In all honesty, anyone who claims that the Ryukyuans call their homeland "Luchu" must be a complete ignoramus, at least when it comes to linguistics. If you knew anything about the Japanese or Ryukyuan languages, you would know that the phoneme /l/ does not even exist in any dialect of either of these languages, and the phoneme /r/ (actually an alveolar flap) is restricted to occurrence in non-initial position within a word; that is to say, according to the native Japanese and Ryukyuan phonology, it is impossible for an /r/ sound to occur at the beginning of a word. Any word in either of these languages that does begin with the /r/ phoneme is an undisputed loanword from the Chinese language.

In summary, it is likely that the Japanese call the islands Okinawa (which is also their native name) or Nansei Shotō (Southwest Islands) rather than Ryūkyū because they know that Ryūkyū is a misnomer and an exonym (mis-)applied by foreigners, in this case the Chinese. Claiming that the name "Luchu" (which is actually an early modern European rendition of Chinese "Liuqiu") is somehow a native Okinawan name and a basis for resistance against the "Japanese invaders" is a boatful of hogwash. It is rather like claiming that "West Indies" is the proper native name for the islands of the Caribbean when it is plainly clear to anyone with half a brain that "West Indies" is a misnomer mistakenly applied by European foreigners who thought that the native Cariban and Arawakan (Arawak, Taino, etc.) peoples were related to East Indians.

The most important thing to realize in all this is that the inhabitants of the various islands that are now grouped under the historically rather inaccurate label of "Ryukyu Islands" have always considered themselves and referred to themselves as the people of the particular island in which they originate, such as "Myāku" (Miyako Island), "Uchinā" (Okinawa Island), "Dunan" (Yonaguni Island), etc. Ebizur 02:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Nansei and Ryukyu are not the same

「南西諸島は、鹿児島県と沖縄県にまたがっているが、このうち鹿児島県側を薩南諸島、沖縄県側を琉球諸島と言」also, if you check out the 琉球諸島 article, it says 「琉球諸島（りゅうきゅうしょとう）は、南西諸島の中でも沖縄県に属する部分」. This should be mentioned in the article, should it not? Some people have been suggesting the word "Ryukyu" is not used in Japanese, which seems to be a misunderstanding stemming from the unfortunate wording of this article.Mackan 12:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Ryukyu Islands, Ryūkyū Shotō, and Ryūkyū Rettō are already distinguished in the English version:

• Ryukyu Islands: "The Ryukyu Islands, also known as Nansei Islands...stretch southwest from the island of Kyūshū to Taiwan."
• Ryukyu Islands: "The islands are administratively divided into Satsunan Islands to the north, belonging to Kagoshima Prefecture, and Ryūkyū Shotō to the south, belonging to Okinawa Prefecture"
• Ryūkyū Shotō:"...refers to all of the islands that comprise Okinawa Prefecture.."
• Ryūkyū Rettō: "Ryūkyū Rettō (琉球列島) refers to what was once the territory of the former kingdom..."

Nobody is thinking that "Ryukyu" is not used in Japanese. I don't know where you got that misunderstanding. Also, there has been discussion about the macron vs non-macron version, and the article has been moved several times already. People should catch up on that first if one is concerned about it. —Tokek

I can't find the quote, but I did see somebody suggesting that Ryukyu is not a Japanese term (arguing that they use Nansei instead) in connection to the debate over Ryukyu with or without macrons over at MOS:JP. At any rate, I don't think this article is too clear on the definitions. Shouldn't Nansei Islands have its own article? Or is the English definition of what is Nansei and what is Ryukyu different from Japanese? Mackan 13:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Which quote did you not find? Did you omit ellipses when you performed a search on the article? You can try searching shorter lengths like "stretch southwest from the island" or "refers to what was once". This is the Nansei Islands article. As noted above, Ryukyu Islands (in English), Ryūkyū Shotō (in Japanese), and Ryūkyū Rettō (in Japanese) all have different definitions, while Ryukyu Islands (in English) == Nansei Islands (in English) == Nansei Shotō (in Japanese), although Ryukyu Islands (in English) appears to be used more often than Nansei Islands (in English) . —Tokek 13:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

But Ryūkyū Shotō means Ryukyu islands! Also, why does Ryūkyū Shotō redirect to this page? Is Ryukyu islands really not just a translation of Ryūkyū Shotō which has mistakenly been used for the Nansei islands? Mackan 16:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Ryūkyū Shotō/Ryukyu Shoto should redirect to Ryūkyū proper/Ryukyu proper.--Endroit 16:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

But even the Ryukyu proper says the Japanese name is also Nansei Islands. Thoroughly confusing, don't you agree? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mackan (talk • contribs) 16:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

Here is a map of Nansei Shotō (南西諸島) from a Japanese government agency. This map (海図, kaizu) is provided by the Japanese Maritime Safety Agency publications (海上保安庁 刊行, kaijō hoanchō kankō). It doesn't mention the word Ryūkyū (琉球) at all.--Endroit 16:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't exactly make things clearer. Are you suggesting Ryukyu proper doesn't exist?Mackan 17:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm just saying that the word Ryūkyū (琉球) is passe in Japanese, and hardly ever used at all in recent times.--Endroit 17:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I contest that. The word is used plenty. Where do you mean it isn't used? In reference to the island? In reference to the culture? Are you suggesting that the current introduction is fine as it is? Mackan 17:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The word "Ryukyu" is used much, much more in English. And it is extremely passe in Japanese. When you translate from English to Japanese (and vice versa), you need to account for that fact. Ryukyu doesn't even show up in the Japanese map I showed you above.--Endroit 17:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

On what do you base that? I've come across the word several times in Japanese, so I feel confused. If it's so passe, how come that a quick google search shows that there are 4950 hits for 琉球, just on Okinawa Times online edition, while 南西 gives only 291 hits ? Surely you must be mistaken.Mackan 17:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you redo the search using specific terms Ryūkyū Shotō (琉球諸島) vs. Nansei Shotō (南西諸島). And then announce the results. Otherwise you're counting FC Ryukyu (which is a soccer team) and other irrelevant stuff. By the way, the word "Indian" is equally passe in English, as "Ryukyu" is in Japanese. There's political correctness involved (see Ebizur's comments above). That doesn't mean the word "Indian" cannot be used in English. Although "Stanford Indians" were renamed to Stanford Cardinal, Cleveland Indians still keep their name. Same thing with the word Ryūkyū (琉球) in Japanese.--Endroit 17:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I did do that search too, but you refused to be specific about in what sense the word is not used, so I figured you meant it's extinct (edit: sorry, not extinct, passe) in all uses. I agree that FC Ryukyu articles are irrelevant though. Either way, that search produced 124 hits for 琉球諸島 and only about half of that, 65, for 南西諸島. I bet you tried this out for yourself so why are you trumpeting it out as if you were proven right? Ryukyu seems to be used alot more often than Nansei, when it comes to the name for the islands, as well as for a whole lot of other uses (football teams, name of university, etc).Mackan 17:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Quoting Ebizur: "it is likely that the Japanese call the islands Okinawa (which is also their native name) or Nansei Shotō (Southwest Islands) rather than Ryūkyū because they know that Ryūkyū is a misnomer and an exonym (mis-)applied by foreigners", surely Okinawa Times wouldn't use the word to the extent it does if this were true. Surely the Ryukyu FC wouldn't go under their current name if this were true. Mackan 18:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Mackan, you seem to be missing the point. "Ryūkyū" is a dated exonym and misnomer derived from Chinese: this is an indisputable fact of historiography and linguistics. The word "Ryūkyū" (or one of its variants) continues to be used in some circles, however, as a means of indicating the historically independent kingdom, based on the island of Okinawa, that conquered and governed the rest of the Nansei Islands during the middle ages, as well as the unique culture that was developed and nurtured in the Okinawan kingdom during that era. China, and the governments of all the European nations that received their first knowledge of the kingdom of Okinawa through the Chinese, referred to the Okinawan kingdom as "Liuqiu," "Luchu," etc. until the kingdom was finally overthrown by Satsuma-han, and even after the Okinawan kingdom was incorporated into "Japan proper," the name "Luchu" or its Japonified version "Ryūkyū" continued to be used by speakers of various foreign languages. The problem is that the people of the Okinawan kingdom never actually referred to their islands or their kingdom as 琉球 ("Liuqiu," "Luchu," "Ryūkyū," or whatever) except in written communications conducted in Classical Chinese, such as with the Chinese or Manchu imperial court.

The only context in which it is proper to use the word Ryūkyū in modern times is when referring generally to the various ethnic characteristics (culture, language family, etc.) that the diverse peoples of the Nansei Islands share in common to a certain degree and which set them apart from the other regional cultures of inhabitants of the Japanese Archipelago, namely the Japanese and the Ainu. It is acceptable to use the word Ryūkyū or any of its derivatives (Ryūkyūan, etc.) in such an ethnographical context only because there is no other widely known word that can be taken to refer to all the peoples of the various Nansei Islands in a lump. These peoples have always considered themselves as the people of their own particular island or village, and if they ever spoke of themselves as members of some greater ethno-political entity, they spoke of nothing more than the dynasty to which they were nominally subjected, such as the dynasty of one of the kings of a subregion of Okinawa prior to its unification, or the dynasty of the king of the united Okinawa after its unification, or as the subjects of the Tang Dynasty or the Satsuma fiefdom or whatever. They never developed a native word that could be used to describe the various peoples of the different islands because they did not need one until they were forced into comparing themselves with people whose cultures were even more obviously "different" or "foreign," such as the Chinese or the Japanese, and instead of inventing an entirely new word to refer categorically to the peoples of all the Nansei Islands and their cultures, which are related to but distinct from those of the other islands of the Japanese Archipelago, people have been lazy and decided to adopt the word that has been used for hundreds of years in correspondence with foreign dynasties. Ebizur 19:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Wait... I think you're missing the point I'm trying to make. I'm not saying any of the stuff you seem to think I'm saying, I'm just protesting to the notion that the word Ryukyu is "extremely passe", "like the word Indian". The way Endroit made it sound as if the word was not used at all, which I think I've proved is not true. Which is not even what I'm talking about from the start, I'm just saying that Nansei Islands and Ryukyu Islands are not the same in Japanese, so I thought it was misleading that the introduction puts an equal sign between the two ("The Ryūkyū Islands, known as Nansei Islands"). Edit: OK, I wrote this while your message was still at the bottom, making me think that your comment was a general one on the discussion me and Endroit were having. Now that you moved it up I realize you are commenting on how I interpreted what you said, which I suppose means a different answer might have been more appropriate, but I'm too tired to re-write it all.Mackan 19:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing why I moved my comment up, Mackan! (^-^) I ran into a problem while trying to post my reply; I think it was because either you or Endroit had posted something during the time I was composing my reply. Ebizur 20:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm just gonna make one short comment before I go to sleep, which is not necessarily relevant but I think it's interesting: What makes "Ryukyu islands" any more of a misnomer than "Nansei islands"? If the claim that Ryukyu is a misnomer is supported by the fact that Ryukyuans themselves do not use the word, then by the same criteria, isn't Nansei also a misnomer? Mackan 19:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think you've raised an important issue, Mackan. It's true that the term "Nansei Shotoo" (Nansei Islands) is equally foreign to the native people of those islands, and it even makes the potentially inflammatory mistake of referring to them by their geographical position relative to Kyūshū or Honshū as if they were naturally subordinate to those northeasterly Japanese islands. The problem is, like I mentioned before, that there is no native term that refers to the modern concept of "Nansei Islands" or "Ryukyu Islands" as a single entity. The concept itself is a rather modern contrivance that did not have a place in the traditional societies that made their home in the islands that are now lumped together as "Nansei Islands" or "Ryukyu Islands."

However, I notice that my previous comments have been a bit too verbose and have failed to make my contention clear, so at this point I think I should just try to bring myself back to my original topic. I was really only trying to make the point that the sentence in the main article that claims that the Ryukyuans, native people of the Nansei Islands, or whatever you want to call them call their homeland by the name "Luchu" is inaccurate (or misleading at best), so I believe that that sentence should be rewritten. Ebizur 20:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, you need to make a distinction between the Japanese (called "Yamato Minzoku" by the Okinawans) and the Okinawans themselves. Nihon Keizai Shimbun, Sankei Shimbun, and Yomiuri Shimbun would be more representative of "Japanese" than Okinawa Times, and they appear to use Nansei Shotō (南西諸島) more often. Furthermore, political correctness would mean MANY alternate words will be used, such as (but not restricted to) Okinawa Shotō (沖縄諸島) and Amami Shotō (奄美諸島). Also, the government of Japan appears to completely avoid using Ryūkyū Shotō (琉球諸島) in their maps, as I have shown above. I will concede though that the word Ryūkyū (琉球) is NOT extremely passe in Japanese. They're only passe, just like the word "Indian" in English, that's all.--Endroit 18:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Mackan, when you wake up, I request a coherent explanation why the Japanese government excludes the word Ryūkyū (琉球) from their maps. As I remember correctly, during the U.S. occupation of Okinawa, the U.S. portion of the Ryukyu Islands were called Ryūkyū Shotō (琉球諸島) in Japanese, and the Japanese portion was called Nansei Shotō (南西諸島) in Japanese. After the U.S. returned Okinawa to Japan, the entire island chain were called Nansei Shotō (南西諸島) in Japanese, and Ryūkyū Shotō (琉球諸島) name became passe in Japanese.--Endroit 20:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, Endroit, I think the proper answer to the question of why the Japanese government never uses the name "Ryūkyū" in any official documents is because the name "Ryūkyū" has not had any official currency since post-centralization Meiji Japan's formal annexation of the Kingdom of Okinawa, which had been internationally known as "Luchu," "Liúqiú," etc. I surmise that people in the service of the Japanese government are better educated than the average person about the history of the region and its various toponyms, so they would purposely avoid using such a dubious term as "Ryūkyū," which the imperial court of China basically forced upon the medieval kingdom established by the people of Okinawa because of the Chinese court's ignorance about the precise location or historical identity of the islands of the Okinawan kingdom and the provenance (or should I say "ethnic relations"?) of their people. The Chinese did this very frequently throughout history, often considering themselves as the center of the universe and "granting" names that could be written in Chinese characters to various far-flung kingdoms for use in official correspondence. Ebizur 21:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, I concur with Mackan in regard to the matter of the strict distinction that is made between "Ryukyu Islands" (琉球諸島) and "Nansei Islands" (南西諸島) in present-day usage. As Mackan mentioned somewhere else on this talk page, "Nansei Islands" is the more inclusive term for all the islands in the arc stretching south and southwest from the southern coast of Kyūshū, including the Amami Islands that are politically part of Kagoshima Prefecture; "Nansei Islands" is thus essentially the political map's version of the geophysical map's "Ryukyu Archipelago." In contrast, the term "Ryukyu Islands," according to current prescription, is properly restricted to that part of the Nansei Islands that falls under the jurisdiction of Okinawa Prefecture. However, this distinction too is rather artificial; again, the name "Ryukyu" is native to no one's language, and the arbitrary excision of the Amami Islands from the "Ryukyu Islands" is difficult to rationalize ethnographically. Ebizur 20:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

As an aside, it should be noted that the natives of the Nansei Islands do have native names for the concept of various island groups, such as the Yaeyama Islands, which are called Yaima, Yēma, or Ēma and whose language is referred to as Yaima-guchi, Yēma-guchi, Ēma-guchi, etc. However, they do not have a native name that would encompass the whole of the Nansei Islands or the Ryukyu Islands. Ebizur 21:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Ebizur, I admire your knowledge of the Uchinanchu (Okinawan) people and culture. However....

Ebizur and Mackan: You both appear to be a bit confused. "Ryukyu Islands" (in English) and "Ryūkyū Shotō" (in Japanese) are 2 different things.

"Ryukyu Islands" (in English)

According to Merriam-Webster Online entry for "Ryukyu Islands":

• islands W Pacific extending between Kyushu, Japan, & Taiwan; belonged to Japan 1895-1945; occupied by United States 1945; returned to Japan in 1953 (N islands) and 1972 (S islands) area about 850 square miles (2202 square kilometers), population 1,222,458 -- see AMAMI, OKINAWA, OSUMI ISLANDS, SAKISHIMA ISLANDS, TOKARA ISLANDS

"Ryūkyū Shotō" (琉球諸島) (in Japanese)

According to Yahoo Japan dictionary entry for Ryūkyū Shotō (translated):

• The southern half of Nansei Shotō (南西諸島). Comprised of Okinawa Shotō (沖縄諸島), Miyako Shotō (宮古諸島), Yaeyama Shotō (八重山諸島) and belongs to Okinawa Prefecture.

"Nansei Shotō" (南西諸島) (in Japanese)

According to Yahoo Japan dictionary entry for Nansei Shotō (translated):

• Name for the archipelago stretching from the southern tip of Kyushu to Taiwan. Comprised of Ōsumi Shotō (大隅諸島), Tokara Shotō (吐喇諸島), and Amami Shotō (奄美諸島) of Kagoshima Prefecture, and Okinawa Shotō (沖縄諸島) and Sakishima Shotō (先島諸島) of Okinawa Prefecture. Splits the Pacific Ocean from East China Sea.

As I have just shown above, all the citations prove that "Ryukyu Islands" (in English) is equivalent to "Nansei Shotō" (南西諸島) (in Japanese), but NOT to "Ryūkyū Shotō" (琉球諸島) (in Japanese).--Endroit 02:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Man, you're really fighting wind mills, aren't you? Yes, I am a bit confused. Could you please read what I've previously written?? All I ever argued for (before you suggested the word Ryukyu is extremely passe) is that the introduction is confusing. If, in English, the Nansei Shoto indeed are called the Ryukyu islands, I think it should, in the introduction, mention that the Japanese definition of the Ryukyu islands is different from the English one. The sources you've presented show it is likely that the english Ryukyu is the same as the Japanese Nansei and not the Japanese Ryukyu. Well, let's explain that in the introduction then..! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mackan (talk • contribs) 10:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

Sure Mackan, we should clarify the intro like you say. But it's "Ryukyu Islands" WITHOUT macrons in English, and "Ryūkyū Shotō (琉球諸島)" WITH macrons in Japanese. And don't forget to mention the words "in Japanese" (or "in Japan"), so that people don't get confused.--Endroit 17:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, that's a good point, Endroit. I think your analysis is correct, but it still seems a bit unnatural to me to distinguish English "Ryukyu Islands" from Japanese "Ryūkyū Shotō," which is certainly the source of the English term. I suppose this might be one of those cases where the sense of a loanword has been broadened or narrowed (in this case, broadened) in the course of borrowing or subsequent to borrowing; however, it seems just as likely to me that "Ryūkyū Shotō" in Japanese might have been used for the entire arc of islands that is now called "Nansei Shotō" at some time in the past (say, before the Amami Islands were repatriated from the United States earlier than the rest of the Ryukyu Islands and glommed onto Kagoshima Prefecture), and the English term might have been borrowed from that older, broader usage of "Ryūkyū Shotō." Ebizur 05:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

And thank you for your compliment, Endroit, but I'm really no expert on Japanese and Ryukyuan issues! I'm just a student who has spent the last several years studying Japanese, Ryukyuan, and Korean dialects. Ebizur 05:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Ebizur, in this article, I believe we need to clearly distinguish the current Japanese definition of "Ryūkyū Shotō (琉球諸島)", from the English "Ryukyu Islands." After all, this is an English encyclopedia. And we don't want to confuse our readers.

Also, I'm pretty sure the U.S. government imposed the name "Ryukyu Islands" (without macrons) during their occupation of Japan (1945 to 1953) and Okinawa (1945 to 1972).

Until the 1800's, the island chain was internationally known by other romanization(s) of "Ryukyu". For example, I have a map of the 19th century Asia showing "Liu-Kiu Is." (and below it, it says "To Japan since 1879"). (p. 170, Historical Atlas, Eighth Edition, by William R. Shepherd, 1956 Barnes & Noble). Can somebody research what the Japanese name of the islands were between 1879 and 1945?

By the time the U.S. occupied Japan in 1945, the islands were internationally known as "Ryukyu Islands" (without macrons), the U.S. government used this name, and the Japanese government translated this into Japanese as "Ryūkyū Shotō (琉球諸島)". I'm pretty sure that "Ryūkyū Shotō (琉球諸島)" in Japanese was a translation from English into Japanese concurrent with the U.S. occupation (ignoring for a moment what the origins were). So I guess the Japanese called the entire island chain "Ryūkyū Shotō (琉球諸島)" between 1945 and 1953 (full occupation). And they called only the Okinawa Prefecture portion "Ryūkyū Shotō (琉球諸島)" between 1953 and 1972 (occupation of Okinawa). After the occupations ended (1972), the term "Ryūkyū Shotō (琉球諸島)" became passe in Japanese, but the latter definition still remains. (Sorry, I don't have a source for this though).

There are other Chinese (not necessarily Mandarin, perhaps Min Nan) words which were naturalized into English via Japanese (Kyushu or Okinawa): ginkgo and nunchaku. The point is, the word "Ryukyu Islands" was naturalized into the English language long ago without macrons. You wouldn't add back a macron to the word "ginkgo" just because it originally came from Japanese, would you? (Ginkgo is a mistransliteration of an archaic Japanese romanization ginkyō (銀杏, ginnan)).--Endroit 17:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Going back to my comment about the term "Ryūkyū Shotō (琉球諸島)" being passe in Japanese...

• The Japanese government currently uses "Nansei Shotō (南西諸島)" for the whole island chain, as shown in this map. "Ryūkyū (琉球)" is never used there.
• The Japanese travel industry uses variations of "Okinawa (沖縄)" and/or "Amami (奄美)" instead of "Ryūkyū (琉球)", dropping the word "Islands" (諸島, Shotō) altogether. For example my June 2002 copy of the JTB Timetables (JTB時刻表, JTB jikokuhyō) uses "Amami & Okinawa Region" (奄美・沖縄地方, Amami Okinawa Chihō), but the word "Ryūkyū (琉球)" is blatantly missing there as well.
• The most common substitute for the terms "Ryūkyū Shotō (琉球諸島)" and "Ryūkyū (琉球)" in Japanese, appears to be "Okinawa (沖縄)" in Japanese, or "Uchinaa" or "Uchinanchu" in Okinawan. Google results should be able to confirm this.
• After some observation, I conclude that the Japanese avoid the word "Ryūkyū (琉球)", and replace it wherever possible (for an unspecified reason).

--Endroit 18:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

You still have no source whatsoever to support your statements with. I too can tell of anecdotal evidence where I've seen the word Ryukyu, for example, I am pretty sure I saw it in a guidebook I bought at Itami airport before going there, but that doesn't really account for much. For a reason none of us know for sure, the name "Ryukyudoes not appear on that ONE government map you keep referring too. But nor is the word Nansei islands, not on the actual map. Maybe they chose Nansei over Ryukyu to describe the map because it actually shows all of the islands, i.e. according to the Japanese definition (from jawiki) shows what would be called Nansei islands. Furthermore, a quick google search shows that the word 琉球諸島 aswell as 琉球列島 IS used on Japanese government pages (琉球諸島 7350 hits, 琉球列島 9570 hits), in total, more often than Nansei islands (Nansei shotou gives 10300, rettou gives 3490). All of your conclusions are just based on assumptions. Show us some actual proof that you're right, show us a source which says "In Japanese, the word Ryukyu is hardly ever used", "the word Ryukyu is passe". If it's true I bet you it can't be hard to find. Mackan 10:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

As for the Japanese travel industry, I hardly think one copy of "June 2002 copy of the JTB Timetables" is gonna give us the whole picture. The word Nansei islands are not used either, but that doesn't mean that that word is passe, now does it.Mackan 10:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Mackan, are you even reading your own citations? Before we begin though, witness our own article Government of the Ryukyu Islands. This appears to be a translation from the Japanese article ja:琉球政府. The Government of the Ryukyu Islands (without macrons) was U.S. Territory, and existed from 1952 to 1972.

Now let's review your first 10 cited J-gov sources for Ryūkyū Shotō (琉球諸島).

1. 1873: Old maps from pre-Imperial Japanese government control
2. 1972: Related to the U.S. controlled Government of the Ryukyu Islands (琉球政府, Ryūkyū Seifu)
3. 1971: Related to the U.S. controlled Government of the Ryukyu Islands (琉球政府, Ryūkyū Seifu)
4. 1971: Related to the U.S. controlled Government of the Ryukyu Islands (琉球政府, Ryūkyū Seifu)
5. 2006: Related to UNESCO's World Heritage Site (世界自然遺産, Sekai Shizen Isan)
6. 1953: Related to the U.S. controlled Government of the Ryukyu Islands (琉球政府, Ryūkyū Seifu)
7. 2006: Related to UNESCO's World Heritage Site (世界自然遺産, Sekai Shizen Isan) 　
8. 1953: Related to the U.S. controlled Government of the Ryukyu Islands (琉球政府, Ryūkyū Seifu)
9. 1952, 1972: Related to the Treaty of San Francisco (サンフランシスコ平和条約, Sanfuranshisuko Heiwa-jōyaku) + another treaty between Japan & U.S.
10. 2005: Related to UNESCO's World Heritage Site (世界自然遺産, Sekai Shizen Isan)　

Without exception, the first 10 usages are either pre-1879 or translated from foreign usages of the term "Ryukyu Islands". And the majority (6 out of 10) appear to be related to the U.S. controlled Government of the Ryukyu Islands (琉球政府, Ryūkyū Seifu), between 1952 and 1972. Authentic Japanese usage appears to be pre-1879 only, proving that Ryūkyū Shotō (琉球諸島) is extremely passe in Japanese. Not only that, the meaning of Ryūkyū Shotō (琉球諸島) in Japanese is variable and unstable as shown in the above links.

You DO have a case for Ryūkyū Rettō (琉球列島) with 9570 hits, an equivalent for "Ryukyu Islands" in English, although it's not in the Japanese dictionaries. But you forgot to mention that Nansei Shotō (南西諸島) has 10,300 hits there as well, and Okinawa (沖縄) has 214,000 hits.

And Mackan, you haven't responded to my suggestion that most occurences of Ryūkyū (琉球) are replaced by Okinawa (沖縄) and/or Amami (奄美) in modern Japanese usage. Even Ryūkyū Rettō (琉球列島) is commonly replaced by Amami & Okinawa (奄美・沖縄), rendering the word Ryūkyū (琉球) passe.--Endroit 16:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

　Aren‘t the Ryukyu islands just part of the Nansei islands？

Like this：

Nansei-Islands：

• Satsunan-Inseln (Präfektur Kagoshima):
  • Ōsumi-Inseln: Tanegashima, Yakushima, Kuchinoerabushima, Mageshima
  • Tokara-Inseln: Kuchinoshima, Nakanoshima, Suwanosejima, Akusekijima, Tairajima, Kodakarajima, Takarajima
  • Amami-Inseln: Amami-Ōshima, Kikaigashima, Kakeromajima, Yoroshima, Ukeshima, Tokunoshima, Okinoerabujima, Yoronjima
• Ryūkyū-Inseln(Ryukyu - Shoto) (Präfektur Okinawa):
  • Okinawa-Inseln: Okinawa Hontō, Kumejima, Iheyajima, Izenajima, Agunijima, Iejima
    • Kerama-Inseln: Tokashikijima, Zamamijima, Akajima, Gerumajima
  • Daitō-Inseln: Kita-daitō, Mimami-daitō, Oki-daitō
  • Sakishima-Inseln:
    • Miyako-Inseln: Miyakojima, Ikemajima, Ogamijima, Irabujima, Shimojishima, Kurimajima, Minnajima, Taramajima
    • Yaeyama-Inseln: Iriomote, Ishigaki-jima, Taketomi, Kohama, Kuroshima, Aragusuku, Hatoma, Yubujima, Hateruma, Yonaguni
    • Senkaku-Inseln: Uotsurijima, Kubajima, Taishōjima

Historically only Amami counts for Ryukyu Retto too but since the Japanese invasion it was part of Kagoshima, as reflected in todays govermental borders --219.126.174.61 (talk) 03:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Sources requested for "Rkyukyu proper"

The article Ryūkyū proper does not have any references. I couldn't find any real world usage of this term outside of Misplaced Pages and mirrors. Sources are needed to verify that this is not a neologism. —Tokek 13:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Split-apart proposed to Ryūkyū proper

1. Ryūkyū proper already exists and provides a vehicle to synchronize our coverage of the English meaning of the term which incorporates both the prefactures as the Japanese people use the term Ryukyu Islands.
2. I would opine that two daughter articles (North and South Ryukyu Islands) would be the better way to organize the chain and geological data, letting the people stuff have their proper place in the North and South articles.
3. Even languages spoken in the various groups and between islands in the groups, so this cultural handling seems the best way to handle such. // FrankB 21:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all, "Ryukyu proper" is a neologism. Second of all, you should wait for Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ryūkyū proper to conclude. After that I could consider the merits of your arguments.—Tokek 23:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

New wording

I re-worded the opening of this article, as of the redirect from Ryukyu proper. These edits have been reverted twice by Japanese anon IP's. I'm fairly certain these users are just misguided stalkers (I have my own fanclub of 2channel meatpuppets) and that no editor of this article will have any problem with my re-wording. However, if I keep reverting it myself, the Japanese anon's will only continue, thinking they've found an "edit war" I'm involved with, canvassing it on 2channel, and turning this into a real conflict. Therefore, I'd like to ask anybody who's reading this, if they agree with my re-wording, to revert the last edit. Thanks in advance. Mackan 11:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Mackan, I strongly disagree with the part where you introduce a new neologism "Ryūkyū Islands", which you define differently from "Ryukyu Islands" in English. Your edit is verging on being nonsense. Don't use "Ryūkyū Islands" with macrons AT ALL, and just use "Ryūkyū Shotō" in Japanese (with macrons), because that makes more sense.--Endroit 12:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, the article doesn't have to use the term "Ryūkyū Islands", I'm happy with just Ryūkyū Shotō, I used "Ryūkyū Islands" more as a translation than as an actual fancipants term, but you don't have to call it "verging on being nonsense" to make me agree. But instead of just complaining, feel free to edit the article constructively. At any rate, you must agree my re-wording is better than the current one, with a footnote saying "see Ryukyu proper" which redirects here? I'm not suggesting my wording is perfect or that it's set in stone, only that it's an improvement over the current one, and could be a basis for further edits/improvements. Mackan 15:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

We already discussed this in "Talk:Ryukyu Islands#Nansei and Ryukyu are not the same." As long as your edits conform to that discussion, I'm fine. I thought that maybe, you totally ignored that discussion when you used "Ryūkyū Islands" (with macrons).--Endroit 16:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, if you agree with my edits (save the Ryūkyū islands part, which you're of course free to alter) could you revert the last edit made by an anonymous IP? As I explained above, if I do it again, I fear I'll just be reverted by my dear 2ch stalker. Mackan 18:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, but, first I'll have to reword it, and then add the sources (dictionary definitions mentioned before).--Endroit 13:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The previous article "Ryūkyū proper" was based on unsourced information, and was basically worthless. I have redefined "Ryukyu proper" to mean Okinawa Islands. I will have my sources ready for you in a few days. After I provide my sources, I will ask for everybody's opinion first, and then redirect "Ryūkyū proper" to Okinawa Islands instead.--Endroit 15:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I am toying with the idea of describing the usage of the word "Ryukyu" as including the entire Ryukyu Islands in the broadest sense, Okinawa Island (no "s") in the narrowest sense, and suggest that "Ryukyu proper" describes the Okinawa Islands (with "s"). This will go into the English portion of the new "Naming" section. I'll have to look for more sources though.--Endroit 18:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

What is wrong with "Ryūkyū Islands"? A deletion request failed and there was no consensus for a move to Ryūkyū Shotō. I have provided ample English language references for it as well. It was only redirected here for lack of information. I have been extremely busy lately, but when I have a little more time, I am planning on stopping by a library for references to create a proper Ryūkyū Islands article (properly defined and referenced from the beginning). Bendono 00:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Redirect Proposal Alsace-Lorraine Elsass-Lothringen

• I propose this article Merge/Redirect to Nansei Island(Japanese) or Okinawa Island(Japanese) or Uchina Islands(Uchina Guchi=Okinawa dialect)
• If German people do military expansion and seek to snatch Alsace-Lorraine　from France again, and Make Propaganda Page of "Elsass-Lothringen" on wikipedia English and start advertisement"Elsass-Lothringen is historically belongs to German but French Guys unreasonablly snatch the area"---then it is not only Bad Manner but also against wikipedia's Rule
• Chinese=Ryukyu and Ryukyuren(Ryukyuan) and Ryukyuyu(RyukyuDialect)
• Japanese=Okinawa and Okinawa Jin and Okinawa Ben
• Okinawan=Uchina and Uchinan Chu and Uchina Guchi
• I hope this article Merge/Redirect to Nansei Island(Japanese) or Okinawa Island(Japanese) but I can compromise at Uchina Island(UchinaGuchi) at Uchina Dialect, neautral from Japanese/Chinese.
• Yamato Dialect/Uchina Dialect Kuch>Guchi means "Mouth"
• And There are a lot of Name in Japanese "Nansei Islands""Okinawa Islands"
• It is obvious first writer's rude intention to select the only one imported word "Ryukyu"

• And also I hope to rewrite this article to dual view point CPOV ,and JPOV for avoid edit confriction. But any way If German Guys Set up "Elsass-Lothringen" article then the article will become Trouble.So This article will be cause of conflict, and I really annoy and Tired neighbor's such behavior.--Jack332 (talk) 20:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Poor Translation

Hello all, I've noticed that the main text of this article is poorly translated into English, and I am planning on fixing it. However, there seems to be a bit of contention over certain words and place names, so please let me know what I should leave alone. Badums (talk) 20:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Name in LEDE

Do we have the name/pronunication of the islands in the Ryukyuan languages? (refer to the lede in Ryukyuans) It would be great to obtain the name in Okinawan or a similar Ryukyuan language, since the subject of the article is of relevance to the Ryukyuan people. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Defense section?

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T101217005451.htm

Which section should the new defenses for the islands be noted under or shall there be a new defense section? Hcobb (talk) 21:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

IMO, be bold. Create a new section. If anyone construes the format change as questionable, problems may be resolved in a talk page thread. --Tenmei (talk) 21:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)-

Proposed Major Reorganization: Separation of geography and ethnography

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• Ryukyu Islands → Ryukyu (renaming)
• Ryukyu Islands → Nansei Shotō (splitting)
• Category:Ryukyu Islands → Category:Ryukyu (renaming)
• Category:Ryukyu Islands → Category:Nansei Shotō (splitting)

– Separation of geography and ethnography. Nanshu (talk) 12:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose that the geographic part be separated from the current article.

• Name the new geographic article Nansei Shotō. The name itself is less important than the proposed separation.
• I would also like to move the current article to Ryukyu, Ryūkyū or whatever (I am not interested in the macron debate). What is important is to strip "Islands" to indicate that this article is not about a geographic entity.
• Ryukyu Islands should be redirected to Ryukyu. Optionally, we may keep this article and let it focus on some confusion about the concept.
• Ryūkyū Shotō should remain a geographic article if we really need an article separate from Nansei Shotō.

What is definitely unacceptable in the current article is that the Ōsumi Islands, which clearly constitute mainland Japan in an ethnographic sense, are treated as a part of the Ryukyu Islands. Geographically speaking, the Ōsumi Islands are inarguably part of the Nansei Shotō (The tiny Tokara Islands are borderland. They were not conquered by the Ryūkyū Kingdom but suffered from American military occupation for several years.). That's why Ryukyu Islands cannot be an alias of Nansei Shotō. It is a shame that no one here (maybe except 219.126.174.61) seems aware of the important fact.

The current article mostly describes Ryūkyū as a cultural entity, which has no fixed boundaries. It is inherently ill-defined (in a geographic sense). By contrast, large geographic entities are clearly defined by authorities (To be precise, there remain some minor disagreements over the names and extents of the subgroups of the islands). The largest of all is the Nansei Shotō, which is much larger than Ryūkyū. The Ryūkyū Shotō (a geographic entity) do not contain the Amami Islands, which are considered to be part of cultural Ryūkyū (See Fig. 11 of ). So there is no way to keep geography and ethnography under a single article.

I checked English sources cited above and confirm that they are all inaccurate.

• Britannica claims that the Ryukyu Islands are also called Nansei Islands, Ryūkyū-Shotō or Nansei-Shotō in Japanese, and Okinawa in Ryukyuan. We cannot accept such an inconsistent "definition." Britannica suggests that Ryukyu Islands do not contain the Ōsumi or Tokara Islands. If so, the English name "Ryukyu Islands" corresponds to no standard entity in geography.
• MSN Encarta equates Ryukyu Islands with Nansei-Shoto but exclude the Ōsumi and Tokara Islands from Ryukyu Islands.
• The Collins English Dictionary is too inaccurate to be a reference.

We cannot follow them. The only solution is to reorganize geographic articles as defined by the standardization bodies and to put the rest under the vague title "Ryukyu." --Nanshu (talk) 03:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that the inaccuracy of English sources stems from systemic bias. Americans know much about the island of Okinawa, where they station even today. They know little about Amami to the north, where they gave up military occupation after facing fierce opposition from the people. They know nothing about Ōsumi Islands to the further north, which they did not occupy. They would naturally take an Okinawa-centric view in which Ōsumi Islands are seen as a "periphery" even if they happen to notice the islands. --Nanshu (talk) 06:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Survey

• Comment this doesn't make sense. You can't move an article to two locations, there's only one article. I think you're looking for {{split}}, not requested move. Further, categories are dealt with at WP:CFD with the {{cfr}} template. 65.94.77.11 (talk) 12:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
• Speedy procedural close -- not a move request, this is a split request, and categories are handled by CFD, not RM. 65.94.77.11 (talk) 12:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I know there are some technical problems as I propose several things at the same time. I added cfr2 to Category:Ryukyu Islands. I appreciate if someone fixes bureaucratic details. --Nanshu (talk) 13:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Your template at the category is the wrong one. Please use {{cfr}}. Then follow the instructions at WP:CFD to list it in the proper list (substing {{cfr2}} on the CFD listing). 65.94.77.11 (talk) 03:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
      • I added cfr. If Misplaced Pages's ever-changing policies make it difficult to discuss changes on the article and the corresponding category at the same place, it might better to postpone the category-related proposal. --Nanshu (talk) 06:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
        • These policies have been in place for atleast 5 years, so I can't say that these particular instructions are "ever-changing". CFR has been around for a long time, and has functioned that way for most of the time, and so as RM. 65.94.77.11 (talk) 08:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
      • It's OK to include split proposals along with a move proposal although it complicates things. Remember, the idea is to stimulate discussion and an RM request gets the word out. Having said that,...

• Oppose the proposed moves for two reasons. Although the nomination is impressive and I don't disagree with what is presented, English and historical usage (versus Japanese bureaucratic usage) favors a wide definition for Ryukyu/Ryukyu Islands. In addition, the amount of material is not that great so it's better that it be presented in its entirety in one place, including the various meanings of Ryukyu, for the reader to digest. It's fine that the meaning of "Ryukyu" is complicated. Just add the information researched for this nomination to the article. Having to bounce around to various articles with so little content is not that productive. —  AjaxSmack  01:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. I pointed out a problem (Ōsumi and Tokara Islands are incorrectly treated as part of Ryukyu Islands) and proposed a solution (Creating (by splitting) a new article (i.e. Nansei Shotō) that covers Ōsumi and Tokara Islands). If you "don't disagree" with the fact that there is a problem to be fixed, please provide an alternative solution to rescue Ōsumi and Tokara Islands.
    • The "problem", insofar as there is one, is that there are multiple meanings of "Ryukyu Islands"/"Ryukyu" in English (and this is English Misplaced Pages. The three meanings of Ryukyu should not be an excuse to split or duplicate the already paltry material. Instead, deal with the issue of the multiple meanings in one article as we do with Lakshadweep/Laccadive Islands or Bonin Islands/Ogasawara Islands/Ogasawara Archipelago. —  AjaxSmack  00:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • As for the second point of your argument, I afraid you do not notice that currently the materials are NOT presented in one place. We already have Ryūkyū Shotō, which is in the middle of the geographical hierarchy. It might be nice to merge Ryūkyū Shotō into the proposed umbrella article Nansei Shotō. That's the fourth point of my proposal though I admit it was not stated clearly. --Nanshu (talk) 06:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I agree that the current Ryūkyū Shotō article is a content fork and should be merged into the current Ryukyu Islands and/or Okinawa Prefecture articles. —  AjaxSmack  00:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
      • If we have multiple names for a single concept, the use-English policy can easily be applied. But as you see, we have multiple concepts to be explained, and the point of discussion is how to organize them. I agree with you that these concept should not scatter around many articles but should be placed in few articles. The only difference is that I believe we need two articles (Ryukyu and Nansei Shotō) while you try to merge everything into a single article.
      • The problem is that the current article "Ryukyu Islands" is NOT an umbrella term that covers all the concepts. Ōsumi and Tokara Islands are excluded. It is the concept "Nansei Shotō" that lies in the top of geographic hierarchy. Apparently "Nansei Shotō" has no English equivalent as English sources incorrectly equate Ryukyu Islands with Nansei Shotō. That's why the Japanese name is the sole candidate.
      • It's ironic that you use Ogasawara as an example. We do have Nanpō Islands, the top of geographic hierarchy. Due to the use-English policy, Ogasawara Islands are placed under the title of Bonin Islands, which I don't care about. Izu Islands are located to the north of Ogasawara Islands. Yes, they are parallel to our case. What you try to do is to kill Nanpō Islands (Nansei Shotō) and to make Bonin Islands (Ryukyu Islands) represent the whole island chain because Izu Islands (Ōsumi and Tokara Islands) are less known to English readers. --Nanshu (talk) 02:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Also, I don't understand what are "three meanings of Ryukyu" in your argument? In particular, what is the largest one? Does it include Ōsumi and Tokara Islands? --Nanshu (talk) 02:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose all Would cause confusion with Ryūkyū Kingdom and various other articles. Besides, I can't remember ever having seen a plain "Ryūkyū" without any "Islands", "Shotō", "Kingdom" or "Ōkoku" at the end. Thus fails WP:COMMONNAME. The term "Shotō" fails WP:UE since it is usually written as "Islands" in English. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Plan B

My proposal was not about choice of a name, but I admit it was complicated. I am even unsure if people here understand Ryūkyū Islands != Ryūkyū Shotō. There are at least three concepts involved.

• Japanese Nansei Shotō = (no English name? Nansei Islands?)

  = Satsunan Shotō (Ōsumi Guntō + Tokara Guntō + Amami Guntō) + Ryūkyū Shotō (Okinawa Guntō + Sakishima Guntō) + Daitō Shotō

  = Satsunan Shotō + Okinawa Prefecture

  ~= part of cultural mainland Japan + cultural Ryūkyū + frontier

• (no Japanese name) = English Ryukyu Islands

  = Amami Guntō + Okinawa Guntō + Sakishima Guntō

  = Amami Guntō + Ryūkyū Shotō

  = Nansei Shotō - Ōsumi Guntō - Tokara Guntō - Daitō Shotō

  ~= maximum extent of the Ryūkyū Kingdom ~= cultural Ryūkyū

• Japanese Ryūkyū Shotō = (no English name?)

  = Okinawa Guntō + Sakishima Guntō

  = Okinawa Prefecture - Daitō Shotō

  ~= cultural Ryūkyū - Amami

OK. I leave this article untouched for now. However, as I said repeatedly, non-Ryukyu part of the islands must be handled properly. Unless an alternative is offered, I will create Nansei Shotō as an umbrella article. --Nanshu (talk) 23:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The common English name of Japanese Nansei Shotō is Ryukyu Islands, while Japanese concept Ryūkyū Shotō should be directly transcribe to Ryūkyū Shotō here. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 13:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Plus, the overall native Ryukyuans have never accept nor deny the the Japanese concept "Nansei Shotō" and "Ryūkyū Shotō", that are based on Japanese language. So we should keep the common English usage, i.e., partially rollback to version "20:50, 17 November 2011‎ AnomieBOT", as I did in version "22:15, 25 December 2011‎". ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 13:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Isn't my argument above clear to you? I don't see why you still insist that Nansei Shotō = Ryukyu Islands. It would be nice if you provide some evidence to support that we can safely use "Ryukyu Islands" as an alias of "Nansei Shotō" by ignoring the cultural non-Ryūkyū. --Nanshu (talk) 15:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure if Tokara is a part of Ryukyus, but I insist that Amami must be included in Ryukyus. In a text (琉球入学见闻录) in Classical Chinese (,) it wrote:

So the status of Tokara is a bit unclear. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 12:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

What is the point of your argument? --Nanshu (talk) 03:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why you put it there, but "Ryūkyū Shotō" is the Japanese name of the Ryukyu Islands. The fact that you have some sort of weird confusion between what constitutes the Ryukyus from the rest of the Nansei chain is a bit ridiculous. We have an article on the Nansei Islands which is suitably separate from this one. Ryūkyū Shotō should not exist, and I am taking care of that now.—Ryulong (竜龙) 11:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Ryukyu Islands and Ryūkyū Shotō

Nanshu, Yu Hai, you two have done an unnecessary act by performing a content fork off to Ryūkyū Shotō. This article should be about the subject known as 琉球諸島 in Japan. That includes all aspects. The Ryukyus are part of the Nansei chain, and is not synonymous with it (the Nansei Islands are comprised of the Ryukyus and the Satsunans). I have restored the redirect at Ryūkyū Shotō, moved whatever information was actually about the Ryukyus to this page, and removed any and all information that solely regarded Okinawa Island. Your fringe views and ownership of this page end now. This page should refer to the geographic entity that comprises the former Ryūkyū Kingdom as well as modern day Okinawa Prefecture.—Ryulong (竜龙) 12:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

You are too bold to edit Misplaced Pages. That Ryūkyū Shotō != Ryukyu Islands seems a consensus. You are encouraged to follow the discussions here, at Talk:Ryūkyū proper and at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ryūkyū proper before you make a mess of things. ... It looks too late. We need to recover the original state first. --Nanshu (talk) 12:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Nanshu, the AFD on Ryūkyū proper is from 2007. It is now 2012. Things have changed and it seems the community decided to have just a page on the English term, as the Japanese term is no different. And WP:BOLD is one of our central tenets, so I am in no way "too bold to edit Misplaced Pages".—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

In the presence of a clear conflict of opinions, WP:BOLD can never be an excuse for neglecting consensus building. I pointed to older discussion just not to repeat the same argument. That we have a discussion in 2007 does not mean that we have no discussion now. Obviously we resumed discussion in November, 2010! --Nanshu (talk) 11:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I think I agree that the Ryukyus are part of the Nansei chain and not synonymous. I could be convinced otherwise with English WP:RS on the web. Student7 (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks like everyone except 虞海 (talk · contribs) considers that the Nansei Islands != Ryukyu Islands. So the remaining problem involves the Ryukyu Islands and the Ryūkyū Shotō.

The nonnegligible factor is the Amami Islands. They are a real headache for those who try to treat Ryūkyū as a monolithic entity. The English Ryukyu Islands is self-contradictory, but apparently they include the Amami Islands. The Japanese Ryūkyū Shotō are defined as a group of islands that excludes the Amami Islands. In my opinion, two separate concepts must be treated separately.

It is unfortunate that Ryulong (talk · contribs) is always uninterested in building consensus. It is not clear if he understands the underlying problem.

Another guy who seems to consider that the Ryukyu Islands are synonymous with the Ryūkyū Shotō is Tsuchiya Hikaru (talk · contribs). But he never joins discussion (due to language barrier?). --Nanshu (talk) 14:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Nanshu. "Ryūkyū Shotō" literally translates as "Ryukyu Islands". You had no right to make a terrible fork of this page. If the issue are the Amami's, simply do not include on this page. Recreating Ryūkyū Shotō is a violation of WP:CFORK—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

And just because the English definition of "Ryukyu Islands" includes what Japan defines as the Satsunan Islands and is sometimes synonymous with "Nansei Islands" does not mean that there needs to be a WP:CFORK of this page to the strict Japanese language definition of what the Ryukyus constitute.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Whether the current articles are content fork does not matter because both articles need drastic rewrite anyway.

As I noted above, we have two concepts to be explained

• Concept A: Ryukyu excluding Amami
• Concept B: broader and vaguer Ryukyu (sometimes including Amami)

My opinion is that these two distinct concepts should be treated clearly separately. As long as it is met, I do not really care which names these concepts are referred to by. You suggest that the Amami Islands be excluded on this page. This means that we name Concept A as "Ryukyu Islands." I am a bit surprised with your suggestion, as I thought it was not supported by English-speaking users. Actually I am happy this solution. This makes the island group consistent with other island groups, i.e., Nansei, Satsunan, Okinawa, Sakishima, Miyako, Yaeyama and Daitō. Are there any opinions from other Wikipedians?

The remaining problem is where to place Concept B. So many elements naively labeled Ryukyuan emerged only after Amami was politically separated, and some even turn out to be specific to (some portion of) Okinawa Island (e.g. Amami and Okinawan naming systems). Such elements can remain in the current article (Concept A). However, the older layers of Ryukyu including the Ryukyuan languages extend to the Amami Islands. Also, from the biogeographic point of view, Watase's Line separates southern tropical islands from mainland Japan. As the line roughly corresponds to the boundary between mainland Japan and broader Ryukyu, the southern area is conveniently called Ryukyu in some fields. They belong to Concept B. I would like to place Concept AB at Ryukyu, Ryūkyū or whatever (again, I am not interested in the macron debate), as I originally proposed in November. --Nanshu (talk) 11:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC) modified 07:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no need to have two articles at all, just because one definition sometimes includes another chain of islands. There should only be one article on what are considered the 琉球諸島 and that should be at this page because of WP:ENGLISH. So I will be clear on this because apparently I am the only one here at the moment who has any sort of knowledge on Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines.

• The Nansei Islands in their strictest definition are all of the islands that go southwest from Kyushu to Taiwan. Our article on this chain should discuss this aspect and nothing regarding the sometimes English synonym with the Ryukyus. If anything, there should be something on Nansei Islands that says "The term 'Nansei Islands' is sometimes used to refer to the Ryukyu Islands in English." but it should not determine the fact that we make another article on them.
• The Nanseis are divided into two groups: the Satsunan Islands and the Ryukyu Islands
• The Satsunans are the part of the Nanseis that are governed as part Kagoshima Prefecture. These include the Ōsumi Islands, the Tokara Islands, and the Amami Islands.
• The Ryukyus are the part of the Nanseis that are governed by Okinawa Prefecture. These include the Okinawa Islands, the Sakishima Islands, and the Daitō Islands. Our article should state something that says "the geographic definition of the Ryukyu Islands sometimes includes all of the Nansei Islands or just the Amami Islands due to the Amami chain having a Ryukyuan language and being part of the former Ryūkyū Kingdom."

There is no need to have any separate page for any alternate definition of "Ryukyu Islands/Ryūkyū-shōtō" just because of the flexibility of the term in English, because any other page is a content fork which is an entirely undesirable type of page on the English Misplaced Pages.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

You are still entrapped by the false assumption that symbols have strong associations with meanings. The current topic is not the case. Just consult some monographs on this topic (e.g., Takahashi's Kyōkaisei no jinrui-gaku (2006) and Yoshinari's Ryūkyū-ko (2007)). They devote considerable space to naming because they know there is no consensus on the names of concepts they want to explain. Yes, we have language-independent concepts first and label them in each language. That a word is used confusingly and inconsistently does not justify mixing up distinct concepts. That is why your reference to WP:ENGLISH is pointless. The correct way to handle multiple concepts is word sense disambiguation. You may not know, but Misplaced Pages has developed ways to resolve ambiguity.

You understand that the Ōsumi and Tokara Islands are nonnegligible. Whether to include them makes the picture very different. This is a great progress from the dark ages. We have reached a point where past discussions failed to reach. The next step is to accept the plain fact that Amami is also nonnegligible. Whether to include it makes the picture very different.

It is now clear that your proposal is unacceptable. You mix up two distinct concepts. You mark Concept A as dominant and marginalize Concept B. Hey, check what kind of pages currently link to this article. Biological articles generally use Concept B. We cannot and should not make such a judgment. They are simply different. --Nanshu (talk) 07:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation is not a solution. You are proposing that we have two articles on what are known in English as "Ryukyu Islands" and in Japanese as "琉球諸島" because of some misunderstanding that because there are slightly different definitions between the terms in each language. There are no "two distinct concepts" here. Just a wider enveloping definition in the English language and the fact that Uushima was part of the former Ruuchuukuku. Ryūkyū Shotō should not have existed on its own as it was a content fork that duplicated content from here and on Okinawa Prefecture. And I am not marginalizing anything. I am suggesting to simply not give the Amamis (and the Satsunan group as a whole) as much weight on this article, and make this article's main focus the Okinawas, the Sakishimas, and the Daitōs. I do not see why that is a problem.—Ryulong (竜龙) 08:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

You are just repeating defunct arguments (definitions, content fork). The only point new to us is that you believe that I attempt to give the Amamis too much weight. This is just out of ignorance. There is nonnegligible difference between two concepts that deserves a monograph (I pointed to the literature here and in some articles I expanded). You may want to remain naive. But once we become aware of color, we can no longer be colorless. We have to choose black or white. You have no right to obstruct Misplaced Pages's irreversible evolution.

Now that we become aware of the difference, the next thing to do is to iterate the following question. Does the statement hold true for Amami? Here is a quick survey.

• Linguistics: Yes.
• Administration: No.
• Geography: No. Geographic subgrouping generally follows the current administrative divisions.
• Anthropology: Probably no. A bunch of case studies. But anthropologists are puzzled by a great degree of internal diversity and fail to offer a nice overview.
• Ethnography: The same as anthropology in reality, but we can find naive narratives. No for narratives in which Okinawa is depicted as typical Ryukyuan. Yes for those who are aware of the Amami question. Takahashi Takayo's amazing monograph is the latter. Essentially we need two versions.
• Ethnology: Maybe yes. Ethnologists are generally interested in the older layers of Ryukyu. It was once widely believed that Ryukyu is a living relic of ancient Japan, but even the older layers are more like relatively new innovations with a flavor of Muromachi Japan.
• History: Yes and no. On one hand, an Okinawa-centric view of history has been created since 1970s. On the other hand, a line of research provides a drastically different view. The latter is boosted by archaeological findings in the Amami Islands from 1990s and still today. We cannot easily align two lines of research because we face a problem of framing. Keep them apart until someone outside Misplaced Pages manages to unify the two and makes it a mainstream view.
• Biology: Yes. Of course, the change is gradual, but Watase's Line is a relatively clear biogeographic boundary.
• Geology: Yes, but the larger Nansei Islands are the right place. Kikai Caldera, a landmark of the islands, is located outside of the Ryukyu Islands.

Even this quick survey makes it clear that what I am doing is clustering, not splitting. Each field largely independently devises concepts as need arises. Really violently trimming differences I cluster them into two, but I cannot go further because of nonnegligible difference. --Nanshu (talk) 14:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Wha is this "nonnegligible difference" you keep bringing up? And I cannot grasp any sort of information from your essays. Just keep things short and to the point, such as the following: Any information on any definition of the Ryukyu Islands as a whole should remain on this single page and not be moved off to any other page at any other title. Ryūkyū Shotō is not a valid article because it duplicated information (WP:CFORK) from here and other pages for no reason just because you want to make an article that excludes or includes the Amami Islands from the meaning of "琉球諸島". Even before I did any edits to the page, the Amami Islands were barely mentioned. The only time the Amamis were ever mentioned on this page was when Yu Hai came along and decided to change the internal definition. The article is back at its original form, with the Amami Islands excluded from the definition of 琉球諸島. So let's just move on.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The same old argument. But yet another misunderstanding comes to light. The past is not our main concern. I do not intend to criticize your past aggressive edits, and you do not need to justify them. Our primary interest is how the articles will be. In fact, my reorganization plan posted just above is based mostly on what has been publicized outside Misplaced Pages and awaits incorporation into Misplaced Pages (though as for natural science, I rely on Misplaced Pages's other articles). I have just started working on this topic. I would like to modernize articles by adding the findings of the last two decades. And I showed that they can be best presented if we have two separate articles, not one. --Nanshu (talk) 11:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

You must be kidding about having two separate articles (for the same topic). It is bad to make things black and white, or having two very different versions of the same thing; there is certainly some mid-point between the two extremes that is more natural, such as those found in more representative or authoritative works etc. We need to organize articles in a more general and less arbitrary-chosen way, such as just using the ones reflected in more representative sources etc (and without choosing the content according to their views by ourselves), instead of dividing between views of the "older" ones and the "findings" in more recent years by ourselves. It is certainly not really good for us to choose sources or works in this way for WP articles, which is in reality a black and white division. Thanks a lot. --Chinyin (talk) 04:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Chinyin, you misunderstand the analogy. With the analogy of color, I pointed to inherent asymmetry between those who are aware of a point/dimension/aspect of discussion (the colored) and those who are not (the colorless). The colorless cannot place the colored to a right position because the colored is based on color, which the colorless is unaware of. Only the colored can locate the colorless by assigning some colors to them (I love the analogy of color because although color is continuous, we make discrete choices anyway). The result is what the colored expect, but it is surprising to the colorless. They would probably resist the result, crying "We don't need it." That is what Ryulong does. The goal of the colorless can only be met if the colored are supressed. So we have no choice but to follow the colored.

Now color is the Amami question. Here I give a concrete example, the case of history (I might illustrate ethnography later). We have at least two distinct frameworks of historiography. One is Okinawa-centric (A) and the other is somewhat Amami-centric (B). We cannot easily align the two lines of research. We are in an unfortunate situation, which I call Amami-passing and Okinawa-passing. Framework A considers Okinawa Island as the permanent center of the region. It usually limits the scope of research to modern-day Okinawa Prefecture and ignores the Amami Islands (Amami-passing). Framework B considers that Amami (or Kikai-ga-shima as historians uses as a historiographic term) has been the center of the region before it was conquered by Ryukyu Kingdom on Okinawa. It combines Japanese historical sources and recent archaeological findings. An interesting fact is that Japanese sources rarely mention Okinawa Island even though the imperial court probably contacted the islanders of Ishigaki to the further south (That's one of the reasons why Framework A underestimates Japanese sources). As a result, Framework B basically remains silent on Okinawa (Okinawa-passing). In short, each framework ignores what the other considers as the center! We cannot mark either one primary or secondary. Of course, both A and B deal with some particular points of discussion. For example, to whom were shells of the Green Turban, important local products of the region, exported? Asato (Framework A) speculates that they were exported to both China and mainland Japan while Takanashi (Framework B) argues for mainland Japan only. So we can align them at, say, Turbo marmoratus. But we need separate overviews. There remain some critical mysteries. At this point, unifying two frameworks is original research. --Nanshu (talk) 10:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I may have seen your point regarding the analogy of the term colored and colorless, including the fact the latter is "unaware" of something etc. But in generally, we do not really need to become aware of them in WP and of course it is better not to stare at particularly point/dimension/aspect of the discussion, especially making such thing somehow seeming "persisting" or "standing" in that way. After all, such behavior is generally considered to be "abnormal" and "bad" in WP and vast majority of Wikipedians won't do that, and the correct direction is always to tell anyone who seems to be with such behavior or "awareness" to be more wiki-like, instead of going the opposite way (i.e. becoming somehow "colored" yourself too). Yes I have found it may be considered a problem for myself too in the past. No one should do that, really.

As for the next question. I see you made an example of dividing above. I have looked at it (and there is no need to illustrate other aspect). But it seemed that such a division did have been made in the past too. Such a sharp division of historiography is certainly not a good thing (and we should not base on any particular historiography in WP); indeed a unified one may or would be desirable. But no, we are not going to unify the two historiography manually by ourselves in WP of course (which is indeed original research). Instead, we use reliable academic sources as our references, but not the one(s) that are mainly based on particular historiography. In such cases (which is also the case for WP), two separate overviews (instead of one) should not be considered to be really necessary. --Chinyin (talk) 05:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

No. I used Ryulong as an example and I admit it was misleading. But my focus is on POVs that are presented by people outside Misplaced Pages. I do not discuss how to discuss nicely in Misplaced Pages's talk pages. I am only interested in how not to let a POV suppress another in presence of asymmetry.

And the same is true of the latter half. I do not intend to treat a POV as the absolute truth, of course. I just try to secure a place where a POV is presented as a POV. A sharp division of historiography is what really happens in academic circles. They frames problems differently. They have different scopes of interest. We should place each of them according to the scope one adopts. --Nanshu (talk) 13:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I see you are mainly talking about the POV stuff. Indeed we should not suppress POV by replacing with probably another POV, I realize that that I seemed to have done this in the past too after seeing someone else did so. But this is not the correct way; instead, I should have told him the better manner to handle articles, instead of following him to do the same thing etc. As for the academic sources, I think there are many of them, written by different authors, some are more relying on particular historiography while others may more represent (the authors') personal opinions etc. In a general sense I think it is also a continuous thing: some may be more towards the extremes (which represent the specific historiography themselves), but most of them still more towards the middle. The more representative English-language sources (such as those published by a university press) are generally around the middle, thus unbiased and also generally very creditable. Of course it is usually better to follow such sources, but in practice of course we are not able to always achieve that for various reasons. But still, we may try to suppress POV in articles by replacing them with more creditable (and also more unbiased) narratives from such sources, instead of trying to (especially knowingly) replacing them with another POV, or trying to place them in a scope that are adopted by ourselves. I may have tried to do the latter after seeing someone else seemed to have done so, but in indeed for nobody this is the desirable way of writing articles, and should always be avoided in favor of the former option (i.e. replacing with more creditable (and also more unbiased) narratives etc. Thanks! --Chinyin (talk) 23:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I hate to say this, since I think I voted the other way, above. But my tiny, but authoritative gazetteer shows "Ryukyu Islands" and, in parentheses underneath "(Nansei Shoto)". Ouch! Hammond Family Reference World Atlas, Doubleday & Company, Garden City, New York 1972, page 52, (inset). Student7 (talk) 01:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I've pointed this out above that English cartographers tend to use "Ryukyu Islands" to encompass everything between Kyushu and Taiwan, when the Japanese refer to the whole set as the Nansei Islands and the Ryukyus are just the southern half.—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

As I noted in November, authoritative Brittanica gives a cool definition of Ryukyu Islands: Ryukyu Islands == Nansei Islands == Ryūkyū Shotō (in Japanese) == Okinawa (in Ryukyuan). Virtually Okinawa Island (and some tiny islands around it) is the sole concentration of English speakers in the region (due to U.S. military bases). I would not be surprised if they know nothing about islands other than Okinawa.

Actually we have two issues to resolve. (1) How many articles do we need to represent raw materials? (2) Which unique English label do we give to each article? For Point 1, I argue for two articles. I demonstrate it by clustering raw materials into two sets. I am confident on this because it is language-independent. For Point 2, I would like to seek help from fellow native English speakers. But I bet reliable sources contribute little. --Nanshu (talk) 11:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

No. You do not get it at all, and I will prevent that crap from happening. We only need one article to discuss the Ryukyu Islands. It is not our fault that some English language encyclopedias include the entirety of the Nansei Islands in their definition. We can say that on this article, but this article should not be Anglocentric in its discussion of the Ryukyu Islands. There are plenty of Japanese and other language sources out there that show that the Ryukyus are just the southern half of the Nansei chain.—Ryulong (竜龙) 21:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Not sure that Anglocentric is not what we are looking for. For example, the English call Oestereich, "Austria," and have done so for so long, that it won't be changed. And while we are at it, "Japan" not "Nippon" which is accurate. Terrifically Anglocentric. We are (rather) trying to avoid US-Centric and ethno-centric positions. Anglo-centric is not only allowable, it is desired. We are not trying to correct common English misnomers. Student7 (talk) 17:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Translating the names of places from German and Japanese into English does not in itself encapsulate being Anglocentric, because those match our policies of WP:USEENGLISH and WP:COMMONNAME. However, the only thing we should not be doing on this page is splitting off content to another page because of the conflicting geographic meanings of the phrase "Ryukyu Islands". We should merely point out these inaccuracies on the articles, rather than making a new page to just focus on the Japanese definition of the islands in order to include the Amamis on this article.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Student7, we all agree that there are many-to-many mappings between surface words and senses. My solution is fairly simple: arrange raw materials by sense, not surface word. How many senses the set of words have is a difficult question, but here I determine it by extent of the corresponding physical entity. After arranging raw materials, we need to assign some unique label to each cluster. This is rather from Misplaced Pages's technical reasons. At this stage we can be Anglo-centric. In November I originally planned to give Ryūkyū Shotō to Concept A and "Ryukyu" to Concept B. After the poll, I changed as follows: Ryūkyū Shotō for Concept A and Ryukyu Islands for Concept B. But I always welcome your suggestions on better naming. --Nanshu (talk) 10:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Nanshu, you have to realize that you are in the minority here. It was pretty clear from the malformed requested move that there should not be more than one page on the topic of the Ryukyu Islands. Your opinion that there needs to be one page that discusses one version of the Ryukyu Islands that includes the Amami Islands (or all of the Nansei Islands) based on the English definition of the term and another page that discusses the Ryukyu Islands as just the islands within Okinawa Prefecture based on the Japanese definition of the term is not welcome on Misplaced Pages. Again, this article is on the geographic entity of the Ryukyu Islands. While the Amami Islands group may be contained within the Ryukyus history, ethnography, and language, it is not necessary to include them in the discussion of this geography article. If you want to, you can add all of the information concerning the history and ethnography of the Amami Islands to Amami Islands, because this article discusses the modern geographic entity of the islands and not any sort of historical prominence any one of the islands in the region had until the Ryukyu Kingdom came into prominence.—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Third article unwarranted; in fact, Nansei should probably merge here

I agree (re. the dispute above) that Nansei Islands currently covers the larger sense of the name, and that we hardly need a third article. However, the very map we use in this article uses the term "Ryukyu" for what we're calling Nansei. My DK World Atlas does the same: it calls the entire chain Nansei Shōtō (Ryukyu Islands), the first name being Japanese, the second its English translation. Other English-language atlases do the same. Given that, I think we might want to merge Nansei Islands into this article.

The Japanese article says 琉球諸島 is not well defined. Their main article is Nansei; 琉球諸島 is basically just a dictionary entry: it does not cover the islands themselves, but only discusses the various use of the name. In English, the common term is Ryukyu, whereas Nansei is practically unknown; I think the DK atlas is correct in giving English "Ryukyu" as the equivalent of Japanese Nansei.

For example, WP-ja reports that the 6th ed (2008) of 広辞苑 states that the 琉球弧 (Ryukyu Arc) stretche from the Osumi Islands to Taiwan, and that 地理用語集 (2007) says that 琉球列島 (Ryukyu Archipelago) and 南西諸島 (Nansei Islands) are synonymous. Biogeographically, the 琉球列島 (Ryukyu Archipelago) encompasses the entire chain. There is a biological division between the Osumi & Tokara Islands, with Osumi being part of the mainland biota zone, and Tokara and Amami part of the Ryukyu biota zone.

The use of "Ryukyu" as a bureaucratic term of convenience in Japanese for the islands of Okinawa Prefecture appears to have no parallel in English. Check Ngram for the relative frequency of 'Ryukyu Islands' and 'Nansei Islands'.

In the mean time, I added a hat note to this article, explaining that the normal English sense of "Ryukyu" is covered at Nansei, and added "Ryukyu" as the common English name for Nansei. — kwami (talk) 06:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that merging Nansei Islands to this page is not going to do much to ameliorate this dispute as at this time Nanshu, the primary proponent of creating a whole new article to fix what he perceives as faults in what this article encapsulates, believes that the Amami Islands should be included amongst what we discuss here. While "Ryukyu Islands" is generally what the English cartographers use to define what the Japanese refer to as 南西諸島, and our page on the Nanseis is kinda shit, it is still what the Japanese refer to all of the islands, while the Ryukyus are only half of the archipelago in their language (or more than half of the islands because of the Amamis membership in the old kingdom and also having a child language).

And on the map issue, perhaps we should just use or make a map that just focuses on Okinawa Prefecture, as the region under the prefectural governance is what is strictly considered as the "Ryukyu Islands" so we can avoid the English mistake of referring to the Amami archipelago and the other Satsunan Islands that most cartographers seem to be doing.

Also, out of all of the projects, everyone but ja seems to have plenty of content at the "Ryukyu" variation, but the "Nansei" page still exists (and their Nansei page is just a list of every single island and islet).—Ryulong (竜龙) 07:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't see how Nansu has a point, so whether this merge would placate him or not doesn't seem relevant. But it would include Amami in this page, which might make him happy.

We use English usage to define what to call our articles. If "English cartographers use to define what the Japanese refer to as 南西諸島", then per WP:UCN we should use "Ryukyu Islands" for the article which iw's to the Japanese article 南西諸島. What the Japanese call it isn't relevant, any more than the Chinese not calling their country "China" is relevant.

You say, "the Ryukyus are only half of the archipelago in their language". But in general that's not true. It's only true in one sense: the chain is divided into two prefectures, and there are bureaucratic names for the two halves. But those are not common terms in English. Although on WP-ja the name 琉球諸島 in the Nansei article is linked to a dedicated article on 琉球諸島, in the 琉球諸島 article they give that usage in the lead and then use the entire body of the article to give examples of how the name is not used that way. So it's simply not true to say that it means Nansei-Islands-in-Okinawa-prefecture in Japanese: in Japanese the name is quite ambiguous. It can mean just the Okinawa Islands, or those plus the Sakishima Ils, or those plus the Amami Ils, or those plus the Tokara Ils, or those plus the Osumi Ils (the entire archipelago). Not that this matters for English usage, of course.

Here's another: NatGeo also defines the Ryukyus as the islands between Kyushu and Taiwan (the entire archipelago). — kwami (talk) 07:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I thought that ja.wiki at least defined the Ryukyus as definitely Okinawa and the Sakishimas, and maybe the Amamis and Daitos (but not the Tokaras). So do we subsume any sort of differentiation of the terms in the English language, and eliminate our "article" on the Nanseis as a whole to say that the English term "Ryukyus" emcompasses all of these islands? Or do we retain a world (Chinese, Taiwanese, Japanese, Korean, etc.) view and limit this article to only focus on the monoprefectural organization (Okinawas, Daitos, Sakishimas) already in place? Or do we create a new definition that seems to match with the Japanese Misplaced Pages's standpoint that the Amami and Tokara groups are (ethnologically and biogeographically ) part of the Ryukyu chain? And in the end, does this really change what the article currently contains other than adding other islands to the list in the article?

I still stand by the fact that merging seems unnecessary just because we have what appear to be two terms that are synonymous half of the time, considering that we would have to have two different interwiki links (one for ja:南西諸島 and the other for ja:琉球諸島) if we were to follow through with this radical change.—Ryulong (竜龙) 09:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not biogeographic per me, but per WP-ja.

The COMMONNAME for the entire chain of islands in English is Ryukyu Islands. Therefore the article on that topic needs to be at Ryukyu Islands.

I don't see what world view there would be here, and the name is ambiguous in Japanese. We can certainly discuss how for political-bureaucratic purposes in Japanese, the name is restricted to the islands in Okinawa prefecture, but that would be little more than a note, and not enough IMO to justify a separate article. Even in Japanese the 琉球諸島 article is a stub, basically just a detailed dab. Just in case, I'm checking the other WPs: Chinese zh:琉球群岛 covers the entire archipelago; fr:Îles Ryūkyū covers the southern half, though clarifies this as the Ryukyus "in the strict sense"; Esperanto gives Nansei as a synonym; German covers the southern half; Dutch the whole (Satsunan is called the "Northern Ryukyu Islands"); Russian is a bit contradictory (they list the southern islands, but say the archipelago extends from Kyushu to Taiwan); Spanish, Italian, and Portuguese all list them all and say they are called Nansei-Shotō in Japanese; Indonesian, Malay, Arabic, Hindi, Urdu, and Shanghainese say they're AKA the Nanseis; etc.

We can certainly mention how the name has a specialized use in some topics in Japanese as half the archipelago, but that use is not consensus in Japanese and is not found in English.

Correct, apart from adding some islands to the list, there wouldn't be much change to this article. We'd want to correct the Japanese usage part, and maybe add some of the history of the northern islands to the history section, and change the iw to 南西諸島, but that's probably about it. As it is, the iw's do not match: some cover the entire archipelago, some just the southern half. (If we had an article for 琉球諸島, it would presumably be s.t. like "Ryukyu (word)" or "Ryukyu Islands (political)", but there wouldn't be enough for an article, and would repeat what we have here.) — kwami (talk) 10:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Kwamikagami, I suspect you never seriously consider expanding the articles. The set of words are used ambiguously as you know. If you try to determine an article title first and then search for appropriate descriptions for it, you are puzzled that way. We should collect a set of descriptions first and the give a unique name to it.

Suppose that we name the whole island chain "Ryukyu Islands" (hey, I don't think it is a big problem. As I said again and again, I am not really interested in naming). And suppose that we then assemble raw materials for the new article. I definitely oppose a plan to make it an article for Ryukyuan languages and culture. Instead we must put a rather artificial statement that can rarely be found outside Misplaced Pages: the Kagoshima dialect is spoken in the northern part and Ryukyuan languages are spoken in the central and southern parts. We must do that way for nearly all aspects of the physical entity (geology is an exception as I noted above). How can we ignore cultural non-Ryukyu?

A minor point for your informatoin: You mentioned Kōjien's 広辞苑 definition of Ryūkyū-ko 琉球弧. Ryūkyū-ko is a special term. It is occasionally used in humanities precisely because it does not carry many connotations since everyone is unfamiliar with this term. It is not synonymous with 琉球. 弧 is added to differentiate the term from 琉球. Kōjien defined 南西諸島, 琉球諸島 and others as defined by . --Nanshu (talk) 13:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Most of those maps do not bother with "Ryukyu", calling the entire chain "Nansei", and then labeling the individual groups (Osumi, Tokara, Amami, Okinawa, Sakishima). Where "Ryukyu" does appear, it's a minor label.

The important subject per WEIGHT is the Ryukyu/Nansei archipelago. That's what's found in Englang sources. The division of the chain into Okinawa and Kagoshima prefecture is a detail of the political geography and IMO should be covered as such, but I do not see much reason for separate articles. The normal English names for Ja. Satsunan/Ryukyu is AFAICT "Northern/Southern Ryukyu Islands". I suppose we could have an article "Ryukyu Islands (Okinawa Prefecture)" or "Southern Ryukyu Islands" or some such name to balance Satsunan Islands, but both would be stubs. I think the bits of history on the latter article should be covered here.

As for stating that Kagoshima dialect is spoken in the north, why wouldn't we? Since when do languages follow geographic boundaries? — kwami (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Nanshu, again, there is no need to create a separate article the geographic of this archipelago (or whatever WP:OR-based subdivision of the archipelago you are going to discuss) just based on the fact that there is a shared language and culture between 4 out of the 6 named island groups between Kyushu and Taiwan. Again, anything you make that consists of a new page will result in some sort of content fork, like Ryūkyū Shotō became. Also, the way you don't edit one section at a time makes it really hard to see where you are commenting.

And Kwami, I'm mainly having issues that we would be using two different native names to refer to the same location, which is mostly because it seems no one in the west has ever called everything between Taiwan and Kyushu "Nansei" but always as "Ryukyu".

I would be fine with eliminating an article per your proposal, but I still believe any sort of proposal by Nanshu to make a new separate article based on his own criteria as to what should be defined by whatever term he's going to call it is out of the question.—Ryulong (竜龙) 00:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Start-Class Japan-related articles
• Unknown-importance Japan-related articles
• WikiProject Japan articles
• Unassessed Ecoregions articles
• Unknown-importance Ecoregions articles
• WikiProject Ecoregions articles
• Start-Class WikiProject Volcanoes articles
• Mid-importance WikiProject Volcanoes articles
• All WikiProject Volcanoes pages