Talk:Okinotorishima

message: Okino Torishima → Okinotori – per talk:Okinotori — Instantnood 18:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support. — Instantnood 18:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Done. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 09:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support. — Instantnood 18:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 09:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Okinotori → Okinotorishima – Number of reasons for Okinotorishima:
* Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) and Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Identification of common names using external references
** Google test: it is the most common name over Okinotori island and Okinotori coral reefs on Google search (see above).
** Reference works: Encarta World Atlas uses "Okinotori-shima (island(s))" 
** Geographic name servers: according to the NGIA GNS server, "Okino-tori-shima" is the BGN Standard.
* Japanese government also uses Okinotorishima. Okinotorishima gets 79 pages while Okinotori gets 17 pages and some of the latter are actually Okinotori-shima or Okinotori Shima.
* The previous discussion, which decided Okinotori, is based on a point of view that it should not be called Okinotorishima because its status as an island is disputed.  However, it's agaisnt Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Proper nouns: Do not invent names as a means of compromising between opposing POVs. Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names.
* It meets common naming convention for :Category:Islands of Japan to transliterate -shima and -jima and translate -tō to Island.
--Kusunose 16:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
* Support as a nominator. --Kusunose 16:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

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

message: The current satelite image is very low quality and while in some cases that may be all there is, there are better quality images, Google Earth for example has  a very high quality image of the island, so I think that the current one definately needs an update.
:-IkonicDeath  —Preceding comment was added at 01:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Google Earth images are however not free Nil Einne (talk) 12:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: New Satelite Image

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

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

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

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