Talk:Ryūkyū proper

Article renamed

I've renamed this article from Ryukyu proper to Ryūkyū proper in accordance with the guidelines in the Manual of Style for Japanese articles. Bobo12345 12:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Sources needed

I've added the {{unreferenced}} tag because the article doesn't give sources that mention ther term "Ryukyu proper". Googling for "Ryūkyū proper" or "Ryukyu proper" revealed no sources other than Wikipedia mirrors. Without a source, the term cannot be accurately defined. —Tokek 08:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I also have not come across this term in any of my reading (I've been writing a series of papers on Ryukyu this year, and have read fairly extensively around the subject). However, as it does refer to a distinctly separate concept from Ryukyu Islands, Okinawa Prefecture, or Nansei Islands, what else are we to call them? LordAmeth 14:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "them"? Do you mean Ryūkyū Shotō? —Tokek 12:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. That works. LordAmeth 12:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

If it's worth having an article of its own, I think either Ryūkyū Shotō or Geography of Okinawa Prefecture works. If it's not worth an independent article, I think it could redirect to Okinawa Prefecture#Geography. —Tokek 00:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

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.

Ryūkyū proper → Ryūkyū Shotō — Let's get rid of the neologism, and align this with the Japanese name. Neier 07:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this is not a vote; comments must include reasons to carry weight.

Support

1. Support - NC on the AFD, so, while this article exists, we should name it properly. Neier 07:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
2. Support - It's either "Ryūkyū Shotō" in Japanese with the macrons, or "Ryukyu proper" in English without the macrons, if you follow WP:MOS-JA. Take a pick.--Endroit 02:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
3. Support, without redirect (or in worst case a soft redirect) - as a neologism coined on Wikipedia of all places. Merging to Ryukyu Islands is also an option. --GunnarRene 18:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
4. Support. I support rename to "Ryūkyū Shotō" or even "Geography of Okinawa Prefecture". I don't support "Ryūkyū Islands" —Tokek 23:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC) (update: fixed minor error. —Tokek 12:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC))

Oppose

1. Oppose per discussion below. I will fully support "Ryūkyū Islands", though. Bendono 14:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose as per Bendono. A brief discussion within the Ryukyu Islands article about the division between those islands which belong to Okinawa & Kagoshima Prefectures (i.e. those which belonged to Satsuma han vs. the Ryukyu Kingdom) should be sufficient, no? LordAmeth 17:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose per below discussion, though I would support "Ryūkyū Islands". ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

   I should note that I'd also favor the idea below regarding changing one of them to Nansei Shoto. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

I agree with a move in general. However, I do not agree with the proposed name. There are numerous English language sources for "Ryūkyū Islands". Here is a copy of a list that I gave before:

• Temporal and spatial variation in the culture history of the Ryūkyū Islands, Richard J Pearson
• Ryūkyū Islands (under United States administrations) : standard list of post offices, Melvin H Schoberlin
• Catalog of the Ryūkyū research collection. A special collection of books, articles and manuscripts in relevant languages dealing with the Ryūkyū Islands, as of May 1, 1964, Douglas Gilbert Haring
• Scientific investigations in the Ryūkyū Islands (SIRI) report, by National Research Council (U.S.). Pacific Science Board
• China's quasi-war with Japan : the dispute over the Ryūkyū (Liu-ch'iu) Islands, 1871-1881, Pak-Wah Leung
• Japan country map. area maps, Japan 1:2,000,000, Kansai district 1:200,000, Kantō area 1:750,000, Ryūkyū Islands 1:4,000,000 : city plans, central Tokyo 1:17,500, central Osaka 1:15,000, central Kyoto 1:15,000, Periplus Editions.
• Handbook and specialized catalogue of the postal issues of the Ryūkyū (Liu Chʻiu) Islands (issued under United States administrations), William C Lassister
• Specialized catalogue of the postal issues of the Ryūkyū (Liu Chʻiu) islands (issued under United States administrations), by Arthur Lee-Francis Askins

It seems odd to use the Japanese expression "Ryūkyū Shotō" (literally "Ryūkyū Islands") on English Wikipedia when there is evidence for an English expression. "Ryūkyū Shotō" may be useful as entry for Wiktionary (Japanese), but not for English Wikipedia in place of real English. Bendono 13:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I was hoping to avoid having separate articles named both Ryukyu Islands and Ryūkyū Islands. Ryūkyū Shotō is consistent with the opening paragraph of Ryukyu Islands, and, that paragraph would be confusing for someone who was reading it and did not understand the issue behind the macronization and the difference between Ryukyu and Ryūkyū. Bendono, do any of those sources apply the Ryūkyū term to the entire 南西諸島 chain (as an enlightened spelling of the US term for everything between　Kyūshū and Okinawa), or do they actually mean just the 琉球諸島 portion? Neier 21:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I do not recall. It was last fall when I went to several libraries looking for real sources. With work I am not able to make it to any libraries before they close during weekdays. This coming weekend Golden Week starts here in Japan, so I think the libraries will be closed. It will probably be at least two weeks before I can check again. Libraries in Japan do not (for obvious reasons) have a very large selection of English books. For those in other countries with some time on their hands, I suggest going to the library.

I do not have a problem with having both Ryukyu Islands and Ryūkyū Islands. We have already established that they are geographically different. A few words to that extent such suffice. A disambiguation page should exist regardless of what titles are chosen. Another option is to rename Ryukyu Islands to Nansei Islands. Then it would be Nansei Islands and Ryūkyū Islands. A quick web search revels non-Wikipedia pages referring to "Nansei Islands". In any case, the Ryukyu Islands (aka Nansei Islands) are a separate issue and have no relevance to the Ryūkyū Islands. Bendono 10:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Whatever we end up deciding to do, one option I am decidedly against is having two separate articles titled Ryukyu Islands and Ryūkyū Islands; the spelling is just too similar, and indicates a distinction which is completely not obvious from the names alone. I understand what you're trying to do - to acknowledge that the term in English means something different than it does in Japanese, but the distinction between macrons and no macrons is just too subtle. Make it Ryukyu Islands and Ryūkyū Shotō or Nansei Islands and Ryūkyū Islands or whatever, if we're going to maintain separate articles. (I still think we should merge them and just include some section of discussion as to the geographical/political distinctions and/or the naming.) LordAmeth 17:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I am noncomittal as to where this belongs, but I agree with LordAmeth that having Ryūkyū Islands and Ryukyu Islands as separate articles is unacceptable, particularly because of the difficulty in maintaining links from other articles. Dekimasuよ! 03:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggested changing Ryukyu Islands to Nansei Islands. However, as I also stated, such discussion is better done at the respective page: Ryukyu Islands, not this one. Bendono 04:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

While I think Ryūkyū Shotō is pretty non-ambiguous, if it was renamed to Ryūkyū Islands, people might not be sure if it is referring to Ryukyu Islands, Ryūkyū Shotō, Ryūkyū Rettō, or something similar to one of the above but slightly different. In the text of the Treaty of San Francisco (Wikisource), while the term Ryukyu Shoto is not used, "Shoto" is used ("Nansei Shoto", "Nanpo Shoto"). Two confusing aspects of the Treaty text is that macrons do not appear (at least for the version on Wikisource), and "Ryukyu Islands" is used to refer to a subgroup of what is described at Ryukyu Islands on Wikipedia, and probably does not include Daito Islands. I agree that, as researched, the term "Ryūkyū Islands" has been used in English before, but has it been used with a consistent definition, and is it the same as the definition for "Ryūkyū Shotō", or is it slightly different? —Tokek 00:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The same criticism can be made of "Ryukyu Islands". With the oh so popular macron dropping effect (MDE), it is extremely likely like that some, if not many, references to "Ryukyu Islands" may in fact be references to "Ryūkyū Islands". Yes, I am aware of definition given in several English dictionaries, but without very explicit context, it is difficult and often impossible to confirm whether writers are using the term as defined in the dictionary or just dropping the macrons. Probably every single link should be marked as needing confirmation. Getting that confirmation will be difficult. Regardless, for the Ryukyu Islands article, we (Wikipedia) decided to define the article to be what corresponds to the "Nansei Shotō" (=Nansei Islands). Similarly, we (Wikipedia) have decided to define this article to be what corresponds to the "Ryūkyū Shotō" (=Ryūkyū Islands). Sure, it's a mess in English. A lot of that mess could be cleared up by renaming Ryukyu Islands to Nansei Islands. Ryūkyū Islands, on the other hand, does not have an alternative English name. Bendono 13:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

There's quite a difference between Wikipedia settling on a common English definition of a term (Ryukyu Islands = Nansei Shotō) to inventing stuff like "Ryūkyū proper" ourselves. --GunnarRene 19:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I can not be sure without confirmation from the original creator, but have always thought that this article was meant to be interpreted as "Ryūkyū (proper)" which does not seem so bad to me. Note that it is not "Ryūkyū Proper".

With so much confusion, why not delete this "Ryūkyū proper" article, and treat this all in the Ryukyu Islands article? It's far from long enough to warrant a split along the lines Ryukyu / Ryūkyū, and whatever themes would be in common for only Okinawa Prefecture would fit better in there. And for other stuff, why not expand the articles about the island subgroups and individual islands? --GunnarRene 19:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Ryukyu Islands and Ryūkyū Islands are geographically different and can not merged. The confusion is in Ryukyu Islands (=Nansei Islands), not Ryūkyū Islands. There are no length requirements to satisfy. The article can and will be expanded. Bendono 21:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The only reason for not merging seems to me to be the ability to have interwiki language links that point to the same thing. Are there really so many topics that affect the South-west islands of Japan that don't affect the Satsunan Islands, and which can't be treated in the Okinawa Prefecture related articles?--129.241.126.121 23:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I actually agree with GunnarRene. I think the two articles should be merged, it seems the easiest way to avoid confusion, as long as you make it clear in the opening paragraph about the differences between the English and Japanese definitions of "Ryukyu". While they are geographically different, it's only to a very small extent (if I'm not wrong, the only difference between the two definitions is that the Satsunan Islands are included in Ryukyu and not in Ryukyu proper?). I don't think it would be a problem to introduce these differences in one article. Mackan 21:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Where would you merge them? The Ryukyu Islands article has been very specifically defined to be "Nansei Islands". It is specifically because Ryukyu Islands (=Nansei Islands) can be found in an English dictionary and is geographically different that Ryūkyū Islands that Ryukyu Islands (=Nansei Islands) lost the macrons. That is unacceptable for Ryūkyū Islands. If a neutral naming convention can be decided upon ("Geography of...", "Islands of..."), then deleting both Ryukyu Islands and Ryūkyū Islands may be acceptable. However, they are significantly different and I think they both deserve their own articles. Apparently others have thought so too, because we presently have two different articles about two different geographical regions. The more appropriate thing to do is simply renaming Ryukyu Islands to Nansei Islands and be done with it. Bendono 21:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Since the English spelling variant "Ryukyu" exists, I think it would be easier to redirect to that one. I am sure that "Ryukyu", without macrons, has been used to refer to the Japanese definition of that word too. Yes, there is a difference geographically between the definitions, but considering how small it is, I don't think it really is a big problem. Mackan 08:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, wait. Neither Ryukyu Islands nor Ryūkyū Islands should be deleted outright. Redirect is fine. What should be deleted is Ryūkyū proper. --129.241.126.121 23:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think "Ryūkyū Shotō" would be so out of place on Wikipedia...

• With only light research, I was able to find that the term "Shoto" has been used in English in a major historical document (Treaty of San Francisco).
• Consensus on WP:MOS-JA has been in favor of using macrons in place names for many (disclaimer: but not all) cases. (Hence "Ryūkyū Shotō" instead of "Ryukyu Shoto")
• Ryūkyū Shotō is a modern, commonly used, and clearly defined Japanese geographical term

I would also support:

• a rename to Geography of Okinawa Prefecture
• a merge to Ryukyu Islands. The Ryukyu Islands article already defines several geographical terms without a problem.

Re: "Ryūkyū Islands" vs. "Ryukyu Islands":
The criticisms for "Ryūkyū Islands" don't IMHO apply to "Ryukyu Islands" (although it might make more sense to instead to compare "Ryūkyū Shotō" (what is currently officially proposed) versus "Ryūkyū Islands" (your proposal)). Many modern sources are readily available that consistently give the same definition for the term "Ryukyu Islands". "Ryukyu Islands" is a more commonly used and better established term. I myself have yet to come across a source that uses the term "Ryūkyū Islands" in English, so I am not sure of its definition. On top of the rare usage issue, there is also a name conflic issue. "Ryūkyū Shotō" and "Ryūkyū Rettō" have different definitions but both can be translated as "Ryūkyū Islands". I can already see the many complaints / questions / discussion that will pop up on Talk:Ryūkyū Islands regarding the difference between the macroned vs unmacroned version. This is not a very practical option. —Tokek 13:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I hope people aren't pro- "Ryūkyū Islands" only to further their argument that "Ryukyu Islands" should be moved to "Nansei Islands / Nansei Shoto" -- in other words without considering the merits for this article. The article title for "Ryukyu Islands" has beend discussed quite extensively already as can be seen from its talk page. —Tokek 13:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Nansei Shoto idea

I would prefer "Nansei Islands" over "Nansei Shoto". Although there is precedence of using "Shoto" in English, Wikipedia has mostly standardised itself on translating Shoto to Islands. (The rare exception I would make is for Ryūkyū Shotō, of course, for reasons already stated.) I think Ryukyu Islands and Nansei Islands are both good article titles. There was one user who disagreed with "Nansei Islands" on Talk:Ryukyu Islands stating that it wasn't a real word. I'm not sure how popular this point of view is. I have previously guessed that more wikipedians would be in favor of "Ryukyu Islands", a well established term in English, but personally I've preferred "Nansei Islands".

Also, just to emphasize how confusing the terms "Ryukyu Islands" and "Ryūkyū Islands" are, the "Ryukyu Islands" article has been moved back and forth between the macronned and macronless versions already. This points to the fact the people thought ("Ryūkyū Islands" equals "Ryukyu Islands") instead of Bendono's result of research that claims ("Ryūkyū Islands" equals "Ryūkyū Shotō", a subset of "Ryukyu Islands"). —Tokek 04:20, 28 April 2007 (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.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. However, the article is very short, and contains no information not already covered at Ryukyu Islands, so I have redirected it there. --Stemonitis 08:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)