Talk:Bonin Islands

message: What about adding info on all the Earthquakes they have had today (Dec. 21 [2010]). They have had 29 in 1 day--71.226.205.8 (talk) 13:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earthquakes 

message: I stumbled upon this article and am wondering why there is no information about the economy of the islands.  YBG (talk) 06:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, there isn't one. — LlywelynII 15:33, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economy 

message: 1.  "the Battle of Iwo Jima in 1945, one of the fiercest battles of World War II, was fought on a garrison island in this region of the Pacific."
Does this mean that Iwo is one of the Bonin Islands or not?
What does "garrison island" mean?
2.  In the FICTION section, somebody should add the famous book by Hector Bywater, The Great Pacific War, of 1925, in which he details a U.S. counter-attack launched into the Bonins.  
... Starhistory22 (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 Comments from a Reader and Historian 

message: We need to draw a larger group of participants in order to establish a more robust consensus. In listing the page history here, I'm pinging all editors who have created or moved this article. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting how this article was originally called "Ogasawara Islands" on 24 November 2003. What's being confused is the "Ogasawara Archipelago" (小笠原群島 means Ogasawara Gunto) VS the administrative area "Ogasawara Islands" (小笠原諸島 means Ogasawara Shoto) of Ogasawara, Tokyo (小笠原村 Ogasawara-mura means Ogasawara Village). The Volcano Islands (火山列島 Kazanreto) + "Ogasawara Archipelago" are part of the administrative area "Ogasawara Islands". It is also explained here on the Japanese page :ja:小笠原諸島. A bigger all encompassing name is the Nanpo Islands (南方諸島 Nanpo Shoto means southern islands). The Nanpo islands don't have a standard official range it varies based on legal usage and e.g. Japan Coast Guard. (Artanisen (talk) 20:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title history 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Kyūtōmin. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 2#Kyūtōmin until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  signed, Rosguill talk 16:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Kyūtōmin" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: and the established fraud with the original story that pushed Japanese discovery of the islands before the European explorers, we really do need a source for the claim that "prehistoric tools" were found on the islands. It should also be clarified what sense of "prehistoric" is being used here. Generally, across most of Wikipedia, it's talking about things actually carbon dated to the neolithic or earlier, which Japan left by the end of the Jomon period. If this is just using it incredibly precisely to mean 'before anyone was around to write about it' and, untested, the finds might date from any time before 1850 or even 1950... well, we just need to be a lot clearer about that. It's incredibly likely that some unknown Japanese sailors found the islands long before anyone else but it does matter if there's proof and it matters what the sources for that proof are.
Once that's handled, though, the phrasing needs to be cleaned up. If there are tools and art, it's not an 'indication' that people 'might' have lived there. It's proof that they actually did... unless all the stone tools found so far float on seawater (?). — LlywelynII 16:11, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Given the political football involved

message: There's a bit of imperialist argument for thinking British English should apply to the islands what with the sign on the tree and everything butaside from the islands' much deeper ties to (and previous occupation by) the USthis edit established the usage of the page as American English. Kindly maintain it consistently until there's a consensus established to the contrary, even though that sometimes means fiddling with the  template parameters.
(If any locals wanted to the page up in Bonin's own dialect, that would certainly be interesting and deserved... but it might hurt comprehension and would need constant checking to maintain, given how bad the rest of would presumably be at using it.) — LlywelynII 16:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:ENGVAR]]

message: The following "sources" were listed in the Bibliography but completely unused by the current article. Kindly add them back only once they're actually used for at least one fact.
* .
* .
* .
* , originally published in , reprinted by London: Trafalgar Square, 2005, .
* .
* .
* .
* .
* , reprinted 1995 by R.R. Donnelly & Sons of Chicago, .
 — LlywelynII 12:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources for future article expansion