Talk:South Seas Mandate

message: The main point that needs verifying is the archeological find of the humans bones that were 3 meters in length. Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me, or at least an urban legend. --Kerowyn 09:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Verify

message: I noticed when looking at the map that the entire mandate (and later trust territory) lies north of the equator. So why is called the South Pacific mandate? Or does the South Pacific area extend north of the equator?72.27.91.26 02:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Japanese name for the mandate means "South seas". Cla68 (talk) 00:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And it was called this because the islands were in the seas to the far south of Japan. Whether they were north or south of the equator was not relevant to the naming. Perhaps the name should be changed to the more correct translation as User:Cla68 mentions?--MChew (talk) 08:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Is "South Pacific Mandate" the official and correct name?

message: Postage stamps of Australia were overprinted "N.W. Pacific Islands" from 1915-1922 for use in the former German possessions of Nauru and German New Guinea, including the Bismark Archipelago. Almost all postally used issues were used in New Britain. These issues were discontinued by the League of Nations decision to place former German territories south of the equator under Australian administration -- and have nothing to do with former German territories north of the equator under Japanese administration (i.e. the "South Pacific Mandate"). --MChew (talk) 12:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Northwest Pacific Islands

message: Nan'yō Prefecture (南洋庁 Nan'yō Chō) is listed as the Japanese name. However, 庁 (Chō) does NOT mean prefecture, which would be 県 (ken). A more accurate direct translation would be "South Seas Office" (or possibly replacing office with "government" or "administration"). Is there any evidence that the contemporary English language name used the word prefecture? This seems to me as if someone heard that Japan likes using the word prefecture and then decided to throw it around liberally in places where it isn't warranted. Rhialto (talk) 19:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Prefecture"? 

message: I have asked for a discussion to look at the possibility of moving the category :Category:Governors of Nanyo to :Category:Governors of the South Pacific Mandate. Would anyone here be interested in offering their opinion at the move discussion? - Polly Tunnel (talk) 11:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Governors of Nanyo listed at [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 May 25|Categories for discussion]] 

message: Per the numerous complaints about the incorrect article title in many of the above threads (2007-2008, 2014-2015), the title “South Pacific Mandate” is simply wrong. The official name was Mandate for the German Possessions in the Pacific Ocean lying North of the Equator. Zmflavius’s comment in 2014 was incorrect, and seemed to be mixing it up with the other Pacific mandates (see the new list at League of Nations mandate).
I have moved to a neutral name, reflecting comments in the discussions above.
Onceinawhile (talk) 12:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: as the primary author of this article (you have written more than half of it, turning into a very informative article), are you ok with this move? Onceinawhile (talk) 12:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not an expert in this subject, but given that the present name was affirmed twice in the RMs above, and the name "Japanese Pacific Mandate" wasn't proposed, I recommend that you start a WP:RM discussion to get feedback. I've reverted the bold move. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  BOLD move of this article