Talk:Bonin Islands

Poll notice: "Ogasawara Islands" instead of "Bonin Islands"
Please vote in Poll: "Ogasawara Islands" instead of "Bonin Islands", to resolve inconsistencies within WP:MOS-JA.

Proposal &mdash; Use "Ogasawara Islands" instead of the common English name "Bonin Islands", in body texts and in page names.

This poll is intended to resolve the conflict between the current page name Ogasawara Islands, and the English words of Japanese origin rule of WP:MOS-JA.
 * A "support" vote suggests a change in WP:MOS-JA to make an exception for "Ogasawara Islands".
 * An "oppose" vote suggests a page move from Ogasawara Islands → Bonin Islands.

Please see Poll: "Ogasawara Islands" instead of "Bonin Islands" for details, and vote there. This poll will end Dec. 13, so please hurry.--Endroit 18:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't the proposal have been: Proposal &mdash; Use the common English name "Ogasawara Islands" instead of "Bonin Islands", in body texts and in page names. OR, even better, an unbiased poll: Proposal &mdash; Use "Ogasawara Islands" instead of "Bonin Islands", in body texts and in page names. Let's have an unbiased poll. Ogasawara has been common usage for decades and Bonin is a historical artifact. All modern maps refer to the Ogasawara Islands, and 2.1 million references to Ogasawara on Google compared to 350K for Bonin. Haberstr (talk) 08:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Poll result
The result of this poll was "oppose", which means that this article needed to be moved from Ogasawara Islands → Bonin Islands. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)/Ogasawara Islands debate for details.--Endroit 09:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This poll is outdated because it's from 2007. In 2011 UNESCO officially inscribed these islands and uses the name Ogasawara Islands exclusively in official documentation. Reference: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1362 UNESCO uses the name "Ogasawara Islands" for all 7 international languages. (Artanisen (talk) 10:10, 27 July 2019 (UTC))
 * poll shmoll -- it was set up with the line "common English name Bonin Islands", which is not at all true! Ogasawara is the term used on all modern maps, pamphlets, etc., even in English.  "Bonin" is historical, a la "Peking", "Ceylon" or "Siam".  i vote "revert", if you ever want an English speaker to find this page!


 * anyway, the article states that "Bonin" itself is also a Japanese term (not Russian, as I had been thinking!). so was it abandoned by Japan on its own, a la Edo vs Tokyo?


 * more importantly, does anyone know the KANJI? i've tried googling around, but just can't find it. 64.136.26.14 (talk) 03:04, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Read the Japanese article; it says that "Bonin" is the Edo period reading of 無人島, which it says would now be read as buninjima. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * wow, that was amazingly fast! i was just about to edit back that one source claims it to be a corruption of buninjima indeed!  that kanji would now be read as muninjima, with an "M", btw....  (more commonly, as "mujintou", the generic world for "unoccupied island")


 * either way, thanks! 64.136.26.14 (talk) 03:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Mujintou would be the onyomi reading, and has the general meaning of 'unpopulated island'. This is a proper noun (more or less) and would probably have an kunyomi reading. The first kanji can absolutely be read as bu - for example, 無気味 (bukimi), 無器用 (buyouki), 無事 (buji). —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Longish story but the short version is that it isn't the correct Japanese anything. It's the result of a French scholar named Remusat trying to bluff his way through knowing Japanese for the 1817 equivalent of a podcast. It's still the name of the islands, but it has nothing to do with any form of valid reading. —  Llywelyn II   15:56, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure it is and no it's not. — Llywelyn II   15:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Extent of the Group
Regarding the recent edits, it is to be noted that the term Bonin Islands relates to Ogasawara Guntō, not Ogasawara Shotō. The former is a geographical term that does not include the Volcano Islands and remote islands. The latter is just a collective terms of all islands that belong to the municipality of Ogasawara.--Ratzer (talk) 05:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Please amplify the rationale which informs your interesting edit to this article. I would have thought your fine-tuning edit was not the best approach to this article at this stage of its development?  Alternately, I would have thought your edit would need explaining in the context of the text which remains? --Tenmei (talk) 14:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, an initial explanation I left here along with my edit. Administratively, the Volcano Islands, Nishinoshima (Rosario Island), Okinotorishima (Parece Vela) and Minamitorishima (Marcus Island) are part of Ogasawara municipality (let them be mentioned and listed in the municipality article), but geographically, they are not part of the Bonin Islands, which consist of the Mukojima, Chichijima and Hahajima subgroups only. If it is required, I shall produce ample evidence of the latter, but I hope it suffices to cite the standard work of Otis W. Freeman: Geography of the Pacific, 1951, which I had been able to acquire last year (pages 229 bis 235, with many sources, still available here), and the Britannica article Unfortunately, I cannot read Japanese sources, and online translations are of bad quality. Greetings, --Ratzer (talk) 17:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've tweaked the text using your words -- a step in a constructive direction; but I'm wondering if this isn't one of those cases in which fuzzy logic is a little better than precise language. I'm not arguing with you -- not at all.  At the same time, I'm not persuaded that the points you raise are resolved simply by citing Freeman's text.


 * My guess is that Freeman's mid-century perspective needs to be modified in our 21st-century Wikipedia, but until you or I or someone else presents a citation which expresses a slightly different taxonomic analysis, the Freeman standard is unassailable. What matters most is WP:V; or, in other words,
 * "[t]he threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."


 * Your fine-tuning is undeniably sound. The article is enhanced; however, for me, there are areas of plausible uncertainty which still remain open questions.  --Tenmei (talk) 21:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think any geographical work will limit the extent of the Bonin Islands/Ogasawara Gunto to Mukojima retto + Chichijima retto + Hahajima retto. At the most, Nishinoshima will be included occasionally, because of relative proximity, although this is geographically incorrect (separation by deep Ogasawara Trough). The notion of including Kazan retto, Minamitorishima and Okinotorishima, which is also found in official Japanese sources, comes from reference to the administrative unit (village, mura). Modern standard encyclopedias like Britannica and Encarta describe the Bonin Islands also in the geographical sense, and not the municipality in the administrative sense. In WP we can do both, because we have an article for the municipality (Ogasawara, Tokyo) and for the geographical objects it is composed of (Bonin Islands, Volcano Islands, Nishinoshima, Tokyo (article pending, see Nishinoshima (Tokio)), Minami Torishima and Okinotorishima).--Ratzer (talk) 10:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe that your proposed taxonomy is justified by mid-20th century English-language sources, and your approach to the factors which distinguish administrative and geographical groupings is reasonable. Reviewing the history section of the article, I speculate that Nathaniel Savory, Matthew C. Perry, Lionel Cholmondeley and George H.W. Bush would likely agree with your thinking, but I'm not convinced that this should be construed as definitive.  Instead, I'd like to suggest that we consider this more tentatively -- as only the best strategy we can devise in mid-2009?  --Tenmei (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Bonin Islands gallery
Hello Tenmei, what happened to the Bonin Islands gallery? The pictures related to the Volcano Islands (Kazan retto) I put there, but I didn't find where you put the remaining pictures.

--Ratzer (talk) 06:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * In the gallery, I am seeing no images, only empty boxes with captions. The placement of these gallery boxes remain unchanged, only hidden by an editing tool/device pending further investigation:


 * I also wondered about reversing the order in which the gallery photos are "read"? The more interesting questions you raised did distract my attention. I forgot to post a follow-up inquiry about these blank non-image boxes. This odd mystery is explained as nothing more than a mistake. --Tenmei15:33, 7 July 2009


 * now the images are sorted north-south.--Ratzer (talk) 17:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I see only blank boxes -- nothing but white in this gallery of 4 empty boxes? --Tenmei (talk) 18:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Earthquakes
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)

Economy
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)
 * Er, there isn't one. — Llywelyn II   15:33, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

2 Comments from a Reader and Historian
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)

Use Ogasawara Islands as the Standard Name

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. The longstanding practice of the English-language wikipedia is to use the common name in English. See Article titles. DrKay (talk) 16:45, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

The name Ogasawara Islands should be the standard name in this article, because that is the official name in Japanese and it is also the most commonly used name in other languages. UNESCO only uses the name "Ogasawara Islands" Source: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1362 including in all 6 other languages on the UNESCO website. "Bonin islands" is a foreign name and less popular and not used much in formal documentation. Google Maps also uses the name "Ogasawara". (Artanisen (Artanisen (talk) 09:43, 27 July 2019 (UTC))


 * Do you have any policy basis for a move? This is not UNESCOpedia and this Google ngram shows that Bonin is more common in English print sources.  Britannica also uses "Bonin".  (Plus, "Ogasawara" has the disadvantage of also referring to the whole Ogasawara Archipelago, not just the Bonin Islands.)   —  AjaxSmack  01:07, 28 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The point is Ogasawara is the more commonly used name internationally on the highest formal levels Ogasawara is used such as by the United Nations which is evident in for example the UNESCO page http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1362 that is in all 7 languages. UNESCO is formal proof that United Nations (the highest international level) sides with Ogasawara as the standard name. The ngram that shows a sharp decline in the use of "Bonin" from 43% in 1946 to 14% in 2007. The misuse of the name "Bonin" such as on this wiki page is what continues the disparity in the graph. Ngram doesn't reflect what's formally agreed upon as the standard name at the highest levels in the world (UNESCO and the United Nations). For example formal United Nations documentation such as this UN document of 2008 |United Nations Expert Group Meeting on Population Distribution, Urbanization, Internal Migration and Development. says "Greater Tokyo also includes 26 cities within Tokyo prefecture, the Tama area also known as Western Tokyo and the islands of Izu and Ogasawara."bonin" is not used! Britannica is bad example, because they're biased for being British. Wikipedia is not Britannica-pedia.

The majority of all wiki language articles use Ogasawara as the standard for example:
 * Asturianu uses Ogasawara
 * Беларуская uses Ogasawara
 * Català uses Ogasawara
 * Deutsch uses Ogasawara
 * Ελληνικά uses Ogasawara
 * Español uses Ogasawara
 * Esperanto uses Ogasawara
 * Euskara uses Ogasawara
 * فارسی uses Ogasawara
 * ქართული uses Ogasawara
 * Magyar uses Ogasawara
 * 日本語 (Japanese) uses Ogasawara
 * Norsk uses Ogasawara
 * Polski uses Ogasawara
 * Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски uses Ogasawawra
 * ไทย uses Ogasawara
 * Türkçe uses Ogasawara
 * Українська uses Ogasawara
 * Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese) uses Ogasawara
 * 中文 uses Ogasawara

Additionally the name "Bonin" originates from the Edo period Japanese name which means "uninhabited" or "no people" (which now reads as 無人 bunin or mujin). Japan doesn't use that name anymore since a long time. These islands are also not uninhabited. There is a total population of 3049 people in 2007.

(Artanisen (talk) 04:05, 28 July 2019 (UTC))


 * Your comments are interesting, but none are policy bases for moving an article counter to WP:COMMONNAMES and WP:UE.


 * 1) Appealing to what is "formally agreed upon as the standard name at the highest levels in the world" is counter to Wikipedia policy if such a name is not the most common English name (see WP:COMMONNAMES, WP:OFFICIALNAMES and WP:UE and cf. Ivory Coast and East Timor); use of a common but unofficial name at English Wikipedia does not constitute "misuse" (nb WP:NOTADVOCACY).
 * 2) I'm not sure where your percentages attached to the ngram are from, but linking here (I added the terms without "Islands"), I get results showing that "Bonin" is used at more than double the rate of Ogasawara.
 * 3) Saying "Britannica is bad example, because they're biased for being British" is irrelevant and incorrect; As far as I know, the UK is still an English-speaking country, and despite its name, Britannica is an American outfit with an international staff. Britannnica is specifically mentioned at WP:WIAN as a disinterested source to determine the "widely accepted name" of a place.
 * 4) That other language Wikipedias use another name is irrelevant, and even if it wasn't/weren't, I could point out that yet other major language Wikipedias from Russian to Indonesian to Dutch to Arabic do use "Bonin".
 * 5) The literal meaning of the name in Japanese is also irrelevant. Kyushu literally means "nine provinces" but this is clearly inaccurate today; should we rename that?
 * Instead try to make a case based on WP:PLACE. —  AjaxSmack 15:22, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Here are some counter arguments:


 * 1) Wikipedia also says: "Where an official name has changed we do give extra weight to secondary sources published after the change, see WP:NAMECHANGES." As explained 1. the ngram shows a sharp decline in the use of "Bonin" from 43% in 1946 to 14% in 2007. The misuse of the name "Bonin" such as on this wiki page is what continues the disparity in the graph.
 * 2) See point 1. the misuse of the informal name bonin such as on this wikipedia page and wrongly portraying "bonin" as the official name even though "Ogasawara" is the official name, is what continues the disparity.
 * 3) Britannica is a biased example that describes aspects of the world with an Anglophile perspective. One example is the name "bonin" which makes no sense when analyzing what the name truly means (no people, uninhabited). Yet this meaning is forgotten, because English-speakers don't understand the origin of the name, because is not English, but Japanese.
 * 4) The majority of foreign language wikis use Ogasawara, not Bonin. United Nations uses exclusively Ogasawara, UNESCO uses exclusively Ogasawara. So as for the most formal level is concerned and total use on other wiki languages Ogasawara is the standard name.
 * 5) it is not irrelevant. Japan, the original and home country of Kyushu, also uses the name Kyushu. So in this case English speaking outlets using the same name "Kyushu" is correct and that should also be the case with Ogasawara.
 * 6) Wikipedia says "For an article about a place whose name has changed over time, context is important. For articles discussing the present, use the modern English name (or local name, if there is no established English name), rather than an older one. Older names should be used in appropriate historical contexts when a substantial majority of reliable modern sources does the same;" So the United Nations, UNESCO, Japan, majority of foreign languages etc use "Ogasawara". Type in "Ogasawara" in Google Maps it has big text on the correct location that says "Ogasawara". The name "Bonin" is an informal historical name. The name "Ogasawara" is the official and present name.
 * 7) In Google search with search results in English type in "Ogasawara islands" = 332.000 results. "Bonin islands" = 262.000. "Ogasawara Island" = 46.900. "Bonin island = 44.100. So Google results shows "Ogasawara islands" is used more.
 * 8) Wikipedia says: "The title: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. This will often be a local name, or one of them; but not always. If the place does not exist anymore, or the article deals only with a place in a period when it held a different name, the widely accepted historical English name should be used. If neither of these English names exist, the modern official name (in articles dealing with the present) or the modern local historical name (in articles dealing with a specific period) should be used." Bonin is a Japanese name. 2. This article deals with the present so the modern official name should be used. The modern official name as proven on the highest international level, including for English speakers, is "Ogasawara". (Artanisen (talk) 02:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC))


 * Oppose a move per my comments above and lack of any other policy-relevant evidence provided for a move. —  AjaxSmack 01:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support a move as per my explained points with enough policy-relevant evidence which counter AjaxSmack's comments. (Artanisen (talk) 11:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC))


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

Use Ogasawara Islands as the Standard Name - Continuation due to lack of Consensus
Continuation of disagreement with AjaxSmack's opposition to rename the page to Ogasawara Islands. Because as per the discussion of "Use Ogasawara Islands as the Standard Name" enough points and policy-relevant evidence was given which counter AjaxSmack's comments. No consensus was reached yet. This page continues the wrongful use of the informal name "Bonin islands" which is wrongfully portrayed as the standard name. This wrongful portrayal continues the disparity in informal use. Also disagree with the premature and one-sided "result" DrKay said: "the result of the move request was: not moved. The longstanding practice of the English-language wikipedia is to use the common name in English." Completely disagree, because Ogasawara Islands is also sufficiently common enough to support a name change. For example when Bombay was renamed by the Indians to Mumbai, Bombay was still more commonly used, yet Mumbai was the official name and also used by English speakers so the page was renamed accordingly. They could've kept using the informal name Bombay, because it's more common, but it was changed to Mumbai. Same situation here. Ogasawara Islands is a less popular name than "Bonin" but it is also used significantly by English Speakers. The incorrect portrayal of the informal name "Bonin" on this page and elsewhere is what continues the gap between the use of Ogasawara. Furthermore, plenty of people in the past have argued in favor of renaming this page to Ogasawara Islands. This will continued to be advocated until this page is rightfully renamed to the correct "Ogasawara Islands". (Artanisen (talk) 14:35, 11 August 2019 (UTC))

Two different entries in Wikidata
There are two different "Ogasawara Islands" in Wikidata: I discovered this when I tried to link the French article to the English article.
 * Q243634 "Japanese archipelago. northern part of Ogasawara Archipelago (Ogasawara-shotō)." English article is here. Aliases: Ogasawara-guntō and Bonin Islands
 * Q13383295 "Japanese archipelago include the Bonin Islands, Volcano Islands and three remote islands." French article is here. Aliases: Ogasawara-shotō and Ogasawara Archipelago

Site link fr:Ogasawara (archipel) is already used by item Q13383295. Perhaps the items should be merged and one of them deleted? Request deletion of one of the items at d:Wikidata:Requests for deletions, or ask at d:Wikidata:Interwiki conflicts if you believe that they should not be merged.

So I suppose the Japanese know the difference beteen a guntō and a shotō but the distinction is lost in English because both Japanese words simply translate to "Islands" (hence two different Wikidata items with identical titles).

I've seen this before with the trouble in distinguishing between identically named cities and prefectures in English. Pehaps punting by using the more specific "Bonin Islands" better distinguishes this from the identically-named "shotō" that "includes the Bonin Islands", and thus has a wider scope. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:32, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Bonin Islands is an informal name. Ogasawara (archipel) as you mentioned is a correct name. So if it can be merged on Wikidata then it should be "Ogasawara islands" and also used by English speakers. There are more cases where English pages link to different Japanese pages. Such as in Japanese the term "Bushi" is used for "samurai". So there are 2 different pages in Japanese, but only 1 page in English (samurai). (Artanisen (talk) 21:08, 11 August 2019 (UTC))
 * We should be careful about terminology. An "informal" name is not necessarily an incorrect name. You should be aware of the distinction between "common" and "official" names. People often assume that, where an official name exists for the subject of a Wikipedia article, that name is ipso facto the correct title for the article, and that if the article is under another title then it should be moved. In many cases this is contrary to Wikipedia practice and policy. A misspelling would be an incorrect name. I think it's clear that Bonin and Ogasawara are correct, valid, alternative names. It's not unusual for an entity to have multiple valid names; a common example is nicknames for people. The objective here is to determine the "best alternative", using applicable policies and guidelines. There may be multiple applicable policies, that may give conflicting advice, so some judgement is needed to choose the best alternative.


 * I think the question pointed to by the two Wikidata items is whether the Volcano Islands are part of the Ogasawara Islands. The matter is further confused by the Ogasawara Subprefecture (Q1193787) whose territory appears to consist entirely of islands. What is the difference between the Ogasawara Subprefecture and the "French definition" of the "Ogasawara Islands" (Ogasawara-shotō)? Then there is the village of Ogasawara, Tokyo (Q1022925). It's unclear to me what the village boundaries are. Is it just located on a single island, or do the village limits extend over multiple islands? wbm1058 (talk) 22:39, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Ogasawara shotō (小笠原諸島 ~104 km²),, and , i.e. the village, are conterminous. See here  for info (scroll to the bottom).  The  proper, i.e. Ogasawara guntō (小笠原群島, ~73 km²), are a subset of this area. (The Volcano Islands (Kazan) et al. are outside of the Bonins proper, but are part of the shotō).  The UNESCO inscribed property map shows the difference clearly on the first page, although the usage of "islands" (for shotō) and "archipelago" (for guntō) is the reverse of that in the Wikipedia article.


 * The two Wikidata entries should definitely be kept. Bonin usually refers only to the Bonin Islands proper, whereas Ogasawara is ambiguous.  The  article attempts to cover both topics (like Ryukyu Islands covers both the Ryukyus and the Nansei Islands).  —  AjaxSmack  02:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ogasawara Islands is the official name, frequently used by English speakers as well and it is clearly defined by UNESCO (in 7 different languages), the United Nations and Japan. The informal "Bonin islands" is not necessary. (Artanisen (talk) 08:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC))
 * Artanisen, I understand and take your points, which you have just clearly and succinctly restated, but you haven't responded to the issue I just raised. I find the distinction between "guntō" and "shotō" to be vague and ambiguous, as evidenced by the two identically-named "Ogasawara Islands" items in Wikidata. I think one of these Japanese terms loosely means "islands" and the other means "archipelago". A grouping of geographically or geologically related islands is called an archipelago. The problem here is that both items are archipelagos. The so-called "Bonin Islands" are an archipelago; Ogasawara shotō (小笠原諸島 ~104 km²),, and are three ways of describing a bigger archipelago. And Japan itself is an even bigger archipelago.


 * My question for you is, how do you disambiguate, in English, between the island group that is informally called "Bonin islands" and the island group that is even more formally named, when both are called "Ogasawara Islands"? wbm1058 (talk) 11:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


 * What does UNESCO call the larger group of islands, or group of archipelagos, that the Japanese have organized into the Ogasawara Subprefecture? Or does UNESCO not recognize the subprefecture as a distinct archipelago? wbm1058 (talk) 13:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see: Ogasawara Islands surface area of 7,939 hectares == ~79 km², which is more than 73 km² but less than ~104 km². The "Location map of the nominated property" (a PDF linked above as the UNESCO inscribed property map) clearly includes two of the Kasan (Volcano) Islands, but omits the largest one (in the middle), Iwo Jima, which is ~21 km². 79 + 21 = 100 km², which gets us most of the way to ~104 km². They probably omit Iwo Jima because the whole island is a military base. wbm1058 (talk) 14:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Gunto means archipelago (群島). The "Ogasawara Archipelago" (小笠原群島 means Ogasawara Gunto). These are the Mukojima, Chichijima and Hahajima island groups (as described on the Bonin Islands page. So Bonin Islands = called "Ogasawara Archipelago" in Japanese). Shoto means islands (諸島). The "Ogasawara Islands" (小笠原諸島 means Ogasawara Shoto). This is the administrative zone of Ogasawara Village (小笠原村, Ogasawara-mura | mura means village) which is in Ogasawara Subprefecture of Tokyo Metropolis. So the administrative zone "Ogasawara Islands" officially includes the "Ogasawara Archipelago" (小笠原群島 Ogasawara Gunto) AND "Volcano Islands" (火山列島 Kazanreto) AND Nishinoshima AND Minami-Tori-shima AND Okinotorishima. Also see here 小笠原諸島. An all encompassing name for all the southern islands is the Nanpo Islands ((南方諸島 means Nanpō Shotō). (Artanisen (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC))

Title history
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)
 * created Ogasawara Islands on 24 November 2003. "The islands are also known as the Bonin Islands (ボニン諸島) and the Volcano Islands. Iwo Jima is also a part of the Ogasawara Islands." – but Iwo Jima is one of the Japanese Volcano Islands and lies south of the Bonin Islands. Clearly Iwo Jima cannot both be part of the Ogasawara Islands and also lie south of them. Ogasawara Islands was the article title for the first 3 years, 1 month of the article's existence.
 * On 10 January 2007 moved page Ogasawara Islands to Bonin Islands over redirect (Per WP:MOS-JA and the poll in November, 2006. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)/Ogasawara Islands debate.)
 * At 00:37, 12 July 2012 moved page Bonin Islands to Ogasawara-shoto
 * At 00:38, 12 July 2012 moved page Ogasawara-shoto to Bonin Islands over redirect (revert) – Discounting this one-minute temporary move, the article was stable at Bonin Islands for 12 years, 6 months, before the current debate started on July 27.
 * At 07:13, 27 July 2019‎ cut-paste moved page Bonin Islands to Ogasawara Islands (Renamed to "Ogasawara Islands", because that is the official name in Japanese and it is also the most commonly used name in other languages. UNESCO only uses the name "Ogasawara Islands" Source: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1362 including in all 6 other languages on the UNESCO website. "Bonin islands" is a foreign name and less popular and not used much in formal documentation. Google Maps also uses the name "Ogasawara") – this was quickly reverted
 * At 09:23, 27 July 2019 moved page Bonin Islands to Ogasawara Islands (UNESCO name)
 * At 00:52, 28 July 2019 moved page Ogasawara Islands to Bonin Islands over redirect (Undo undiscussed move; wait for WP:RM process to conclude)
 * 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))

Two names
I see there was a vote on that but still there is lack of compliance in the article. I think the official name argument cannot be used otherwise we should immediately rename Athens "Athina", which is the official name. --APG1984 (talk) 08:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Many reasons have been provided to restore the original name which was used for 3 years, 1 month. This page was first called Ogasawara islands on 24 November 2003. Related example the page Bombay was redirected to Mumbai despite being less popular at the time. The name Ogasawara is quite popular among English-speakers as well and used by UNESCO. Google search results: "Ogasawara islands" = 1.150.000. "Bonin islands" = 1.770.000. If you search "Bonin islands" on Google Maps it will correctly show the name "Ogasawara islands." -Artanisen (talk) 12:13, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There's nothing 'correct' about it. It's less common in English, including among the island's own English-speaking population. It's the name of the Japanese district in English and Japanese and it's the Japanese name of the Bonin Islands. This article is about the second one.


 * If it makes you feel any better about being completely wrong, the Japanese name preserves an obvious fraud attempting to get permission to grab some free land and the ability to smuggle during the isolation years. It wasn't even taken particularly seriously among the Japanese themselves until they needed to avoid an American or German base in the area. — Llywelyn II   15:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

"Kyūtōmin" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Kyūtōmin. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 2 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)

Given the political football involved
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 (?). — Llywelyn II   16:11, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR
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 but—aside from the islands' much deeper ties to (and previous occupation by) the US—this 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 convert 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.) — Llywelyn II   16:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Sources for future article expansion
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, ISBN 1-84588-026-9.
 * , reprinted 1995 by R.R. Donnelly & Sons of Chicago, ISBN 0-548-20912-X.
 * , originally published in, reprinted by London: Trafalgar Square, 2005, ISBN 1-84588-026-9.
 * , reprinted 1995 by R.R. Donnelly & Sons of Chicago, ISBN 0-548-20912-X.
 * , reprinted 1995 by R.R. Donnelly & Sons of Chicago, ISBN 0-548-20912-X.
 * , reprinted 1995 by R.R. Donnelly & Sons of Chicago, ISBN 0-548-20912-X.
 * , reprinted 1995 by R.R. Donnelly & Sons of Chicago, ISBN 0-548-20912-X.
 * , reprinted 1995 by R.R. Donnelly & Sons of Chicago, ISBN 0-548-20912-X.
 * , reprinted 1995 by R.R. Donnelly & Sons of Chicago, ISBN 0-548-20912-X.

— Llywelyn II   12:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)