Talk:South Seas Mandate

[Untitled]
Japanese archaeologists discovered giant human bones? femurs 3 meters long?

wow this article needs some editing... Or atleast give us a source of where the giant human bones came from.. lol a 3 meter long femur, would mean that these giants stood 35 to 40 feet tall... the tallest human in modern medical records stood 8 feet 11 inches... A far cry from 40 feet.

also--taiwan was not run by the japanese navy. a colony from 1895 to 1945, taiwan was administered by a combination of military and civilian governors-general

Verify
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. --K e rowyn 09:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Is "South Pacific Mandate" the official and correct name?
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)
 * The Japanese name for the mandate means "South seas". Cla68 (talk) 00:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)

Northwest Pacific Islands
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)

Requested move (2014)

 * The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved. EdJohnston (talk) 00:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

South Pacific Mandate → South Seas Mandate – The Japanese name, 南洋庁, translates more accurately as South Seas Mandate, rather than South Pacific Mandate (in fact, the entirety of the mandate lies north of the equator), and there is in fact a discussion from above which led to a name change in the article. However, the name change appeared to be only superficial, such that the page name itself was still South Pacific Mandate. Zmflavius (talk) 20:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment the article says this was a League of Nations mandate. As the LN did not have Japanese as an official language, and did have English (and Esperanto, French, Spanish) as an official language, we shouldn't need any Japanese translations, we should be able to find the English-language name for the mandate (or French, Spanish, Esperanto). -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment This is a good point, I've checked the LoN covenant, and it refers to those territories as the "islands in the South Pacific" in reference to islands both north and south of the Equator. However, I'm also finding that generally, the mandate is more often referred to as the South Pacific Mandate in sources, rather than South Seas Mandate, so it seems that the move is probably not necessary.Zmflavius (talk) 00:44, 8 July 2014 (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.

---

Requested move 19 October 2015

 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 06:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Nanyo (Japanese mandated territory) → South Pacific Mandate – The conversation above in 2014 the consensus was "not moved". In May 2015, User:Douglas the Comeback Kid stating in the edit summary that "'Nanyo' was the official name of the territory". This is contrary to the consensus above. I would also argue that it is contrary to both the evidence (see above: Japanese wasn't an official League of Nations Language) and to WP:CommonName. People do not call it "Nanyo" in English. How many English WP:Third party sources that refer to the South Pacific Mandate as "Nanyo"? Because it has been 5 months and no editor has reverted the WP:Bold move, a discussion is probably needed first. Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 03:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy revert per nom -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 04:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Revert undiscussed move for procedural reasons and affirmative support for the continued use of South Pacific Mandate for reasons provided in the sections above. —  AjaxSmack   00:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Revert For a start, the article currently only has half a name. The South Pacific might have coloquially been referred to as Nanyo, but the mandate was the Nanyō-chō, which would be the appropriate transliterated name. Regardless, there is nothing to support using a Japanese name for a mandate defined in English documents. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:40, 20 October 2015 (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.

"Prefecture"?
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)

Category:Governors of Nanyo listed at Categories for discussion
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)

BOLD move of this article
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)


 * 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)
 * 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 &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 21 January 2020

 * 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: moved to South Seas Mandate (closed by non-admin page mover) DannyS712 (talk) 18:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

South Pacific Mandate → Japanese Pacific Mandate – The current title is unsourced nonsense, and an accidental confusion with the Japanese name (these islands are south from Japan’s perspective, but they are in the North Pacific). In the discussions above, no-one came up with the formal name. I have been working on the League of Nations mandate article, and through that can confirm that the full name of the mandate was in fact: Mandate for the German Possessions in the Pacific Ocean lying North of the Equator (I have added a source in the article itself). A commenter in one of the previous RMs seems to have got confused with the Mandate for the German Possessions in the Pacific Ocean situated South of the Equator other than German Samoa and Nauru, which is a different mandate more commonly known as the Mandate of New Guinea. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "South Pacific Mandate" is attested at least as early as the 1930s, e.g. Pacific Affairs Vol. 6 (1933). A direct translation of the Japanese name is often used in English language scholarship to apply specifically to this entity. The article South Seas says "geographically, all areas to the south of 10° north latitude belong to the South Sea." This would include Palau, Yap, Chuuk, the Marshalls, etc. It may not fit certain definitions of "South Pacific" but this is a valid use of the term in widespread use. I can't recall seeing "Japanese Pacific Mandate" often; "Japanese Micronesia" doesn't really work either. Dekimasu よ! 15:37, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I tried an ngram for South Pacific Mandate - it says there is not enough data. I looked at the google books references to South Pacific Mandate - there are a handful which are simply referencing the unique 1933 article you refer to, and a couple of recent non-specialist works that look like they copied the Wikipedia title.
 * "Japanese Pacific Mandate" on google books has significantly more meaningful hits that the current name.
 * "South Seas Mandate", per your suggestion, shows even more significant usage.
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 18:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Move to South Seas Mandate, as the most logical, and likely most widely used, actual title. BD2412  T 04:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Move to South Seas Mandate per BD2412 &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:15, 11 February 2020 (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.