This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taiwan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Taiwan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TaiwanWikipedia:WikiProject TaiwanTemplate:WikiProject TaiwanTaiwan articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.East AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject East AsiaTemplate:WikiProject East AsiaEast Asia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslandsWikipedia:WikiProject IslandsTemplate:WikiProject IslandsIslands articles
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
should an e-mail address be in the article as a reference? Jjjsixsix 05:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No. I do think responding to this five years after it's asked is slightly silly, but the answer is still no. Sven ManguardTalk 05:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Much of the content is copied from http://vm.nthu.edu.tw. I'm too lazy to do anything about it, of course, but I'm posting that.
207.224.49.221 (talk) 15:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Both the administrating state (ROC) and the disputing state (PRC) agree that these islands are called the Dongsha Islands. Even before this romanization, they agreed to call it Tung-sha. So, why doesn't our article treat it as normal Chinese territory to which our WP:PINYIN naming conventions apply? A google search for both "Pratas islands"[1] and "Dongsha islands"[2] (even with the former getting a boost by including pre-pinyin sources for which the opposing name Tung sha is not counted) shows the latter is 4x more common. I was kind of confused when I came about this article, because it's talked about in the context of the South China Sea, where there are non-Chinese claimants who have non-Chinese names for the islands. The current title is misleading because it implies there is some non-Chinese claimant. I don't think a move to "Dongsha" would be controversial with the reasoning I presented above, so I don't think there's a need to file a formal move request. But, I will leave some time for people to respond and discuss before I move. Shrigley (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
People's Republic of China (PRC)'s claim to these islands are illegitimate[edit]
These are islands are both officially claimed and controlled as sovereign national territories of the Republic of China (Taiwan), the People's Republic of China's attempted claim is officially and legally illegitimate and not recognized by the United Nations or any other country in the world, especially since the P.R. of China officially and effectively lost their island claims in the United Nations Hague Tribunal ruling:
What's your point? (There's nothing in the article that disagrees with what you and your quoted sources say.) Pdfpdf (talk) 03:07, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"especially since the P.R. of China officially and effectively lost their island claims in the United Nations Hague Tribunal ruling" if you bother to read the ruling, the first paragraph explicitly said the ruling does not rule on nor have the power to rule on the question of sovereignty of said island. the Pratas was not even cover in that case. this is an unrelated island, it seem you are stupid. furthermore the UN does not recognize Taiwan as a country and so all Taiwan territory is considered PRC territory... you can thank the US for that since they back PRC in order to get PRC to help destabilized USSR in the 70s. 58.182.210.94 (talk) 20:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you drunk? The United Nations does not recognize Taiwan and Kosovo, they are considered a part of China and Serbia respectively. 2001:8003:913E:5D01:31BE:2887:901A:FE04 (talk) 07:22, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Pratas Islands → Pratas Island – It is gratingly Orwellian misuse of the English language to describe as plural that which is determinedly singular. "An island or isle is any piece of subcontinental land that is surrounded by water." (See Island). As far as I am aware, there is only one island in this area, despite there being nearby underwater banks and atolls etc that are associated with the island. I'm not saying those shouldn't be discussed on this page. This move is only an attempt to get Wikipedia's feet back on the ground, like I did when I requested a change in the infobox on James Shoal, which was using the "disputed island" template despite the fact that there is no island on James Shoal and never has been. HOWEVER, this potential name change for this article does not mean that an appropriately written "etymology" or "name" section should ignore the fact that Taiwan (ROC) refers to "the islands" in official English documents using the plural. Geographyinitiative (talk) 18:38, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Look up island in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
This may be a bad idea, but I think it needs to be fully threshed out. There is no Pratas Islands, except in some kind of bizarre legal fiction. There are sources that say "Pratas Island". Can the English language refer to sub-surface features as "islands"? A new definition of island needs to be added to Wiktionary if that's the case. The emperor has no clothes, and all Wikipedia needs to do is point out in an etymology or name section for this article that the Taiwan government official calls it "islands" even though it isn't- it's just "an island". That's true regardless of whether or not we discuss the nearby underwater banks and atolls on this page. All those secondary issues can be hashed out later. The core problem is: by definition, an island is not islands. Let me know what you think. Geographyinitiative (talk) 18:38, 31 October 2020 (UTC) (modified)[reply]
Pratas Atolls is probably the more technical description for the overall formation... But the overwhelming WP:COMMONNAME does appear to be Pratas Islands. Colloquial names often don’t match up with the truth, there are plenty of places with headland or head in their name out there which are just dunes for example. I agree its a fiction, but I’m not so sure its a legal fiction. Long story short I don’t think we should be second guessing common names, if the the common name for something is “The Smelly Marsh” but its actually a bog we can note that in the article but we aren’t going to rename the page “The Smelly Bog.” Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:01, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Horse Eye's Back: Thanks for your response. To follow your hypothetical, what if there was a significant following for the name "The Smelly Bog"? "Pratas Island" has 500 results on archive.org, whereas "Pratas Islands" has 211. Google gives me 67,100 results for "Pratas Island" and 40,200 results for "Pratas Islands". Google Scholar goes the other way with 926 results for "Pratas Islands" and 536 results for "Pratas Island" (singular). Does that move you at all? I'm just thinking that we ought to stick to the reality (the bog) when there are two alternative names (the marsh and the bog), but that of course doesn't mean we should ignore the fact that there's another name. I would say call the article "The Smelly Bog" and then include "The Smelly Marsh" in the name/etymology section (or maybe even the lede?). That's why I'm doing this discussion, because I can't determine what a legitimate encyclopedia would want to do in this situation or what Wikipedia's policies would lead to. "Taiwan Straits" is also a common turn of phrase "Taiwan Straits"- see archive.org for examples. Is there any other example on Wikipedia of a singular island being called islands when both alternatives exist in journalism and scholarship? If we discover any new island or ephemeral island in the process of this discussion, let's add it here: List of new islands. I see some sand banks that look like they are above the surface on Bing Maps and then totally non-existent on Google Maps. Geographyinitiative (talk) 19:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You may say "Oh, well there's two concepts: there's both a real bog and a kind-of-marsh around the bog" (there's both (1) a real Pratas Island as a concept that doesn't include the other atolls or banks and (2) the larger fictional political/legal concept of a "Pratas Islands" associated with the island and all the subsurface claims). Yeah, that could be true, but why not just deal with the real existing thing in the title of the article and then discuss the political concept and the associated underwater features in the article? That seems to be more encyclopedic, right? Or no? I'm looking for another Wikipedia or encyclopedia article with "Islands" in the name that's only one island in fact. Geographyinitiative (talk) 20:02, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's no "Pratas Islands" in the GEOnet database, but there is a "Pratas Island". Geographyinitiative (talk) 20:16, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just made an edit [3] where I changed the sentence:
Pratas Island is the only island and area above sea level.
into:
Pratas Island is the only island.
My rationale is that by definition, once you have said that Pratas Island is the only island, then you have already told the readers that it is the only area above sea level.
I think the term "Pratas Islands" attempts to wedge in subsurface features as islands, contrary to English language usage. Things like James Shoal are just not islands- James Shoal is a shoal. 'Shoal' means it's underwater by definition. Same for the underwater features near Pratas Island- they are not islands by definition. They can be discussed on this page since they are associated with this island, but their presence below the waves doesn't mean Pratas Island somehow becomes a group of islands. Geographyinitiative (talk) 20:19, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going through and learning about different ephemeral islands in history. I think we would know if there were other bona fide islands beside Pratas Island in this area, and my feeling is that any nearby ephemeral islets (that seemingly come and go?) don't count toward upping the "island count" from 1 to 2 or more. Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:04, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the naming of the article, it is a dangerous scientific and philosophical mistake to pretend a plural where none exists in the voice of Wikipedia. That doesn't mean we can't document the mistaken understanding, but it does mean we shouldn't abuse the English language and pretend more than one island exists when only one is proven. I have attempted to shift to singular forms and the requite verb forms in this edit: [4]Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:51, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Until this is hashed out, please don't go editing related articles that reference this island(s) (such as Japanese gunboat Hashidate). sbb (talk) 00:21, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One of the two sources on that page for that sentence says "Pratas Island". The other one I can't find online yet. Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:38, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Analysis of "Pratas Islands" as a Concept
1) The "only island" in "the islands": "東沙島為東沙群島唯一島嶼" (Google Translate: Dongsha Island is the only island in the Dongsha Islands). (Source: Lung Tsun-Ni 龍村倪 (1998). 東沙群島-東沙島紀事集錦 (in Chinese). Taipei: 臺灣綜合研究院. ISBN 957-98189-0-8. page 13, paragraph 2, sentence 1, reproduced in part here: [5] Also seen here: [6][7])
2) Definition of 群島 (islands, archipelago) "一群大小島嶼聚集分布在海面上" (Google Translate: A group of large and small islands gathered on the sea). [8]
3) Definition of 東沙群島 (Pratas Islands) "群島名。南海諸島中最北的群島，舊名「千里石塘」。位於臺灣、海南島及菲律賓呂宋島之間，由東沙島、南、北兩礁灘所組成。" (Google Translate: Islands name. The northernmost archipelago of the South China Sea Islands, formerly known as "Thousand Miles Stone Pond". Located between Taiwan, Hainan Island and Luzon Island in the Philippines, it is composed of Dongsha Island, South and North reef beaches.) [9]
4) Definition of 島 (island) "海中或湖中被水圍繞的小陸地。" (Google Translate: A small land surrounded by water in the sea or lake.)
5) Definition of 東沙島 (Pratas Island) "島名。位於南海北部，是構成東沙群島的主體，行政區劃歸高雄市旗津區，內政部在此設東沙環礁國家公園。島上有我國海巡署駐守，並設有氣象臺。" (Google Translate: The name of the island. Located in the northern part of the South China Sea, it is the main body of the Dongsha Islands. The administrative division is subordinated to the Qijin District of Kaohsiung City. The Ministry of the Interior has established the Dongsha Atoll National Park here. The island is stationed by my country's Maritime Patrol Agency and has a weather station.) [10]
Given that the Vereker Banks don't get closer than thirty-six feet below sea level, my conclusion here is that there is some kind of obscene language game going on with the definition of 島/island and that it is better to call this location by at least one name that we know reflects the reality of the situation on some level (Pratas Island) and then discuss the other names like Pratas Islands, Pratas Atoll, and similar variants in the etymology section. Never heard of an island group with one island my friends. Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:37, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have made some major changes on this page and throughout Wikipedia to bring us into conformity with the way that an island and its associated undersea features is normally covered on Wikipedia. I await counterexamples of course. I'd like to see examples of places that are one island being called multiple islands in the voice of Wikipedia. I dealt fairly (in my mind) with the pluralized name "Pratas Islands", &c. in the name section of the article. I plan to leave the issue alone for a while and come back later to see what new ideas grow up. But I have to say that I think the current version of this article is SO much less disingenuous than what this article has been like. The Vereker Banks are not and have never been islands by any stretch of the imagination, and no islands have been added to the List of new islands page in this area, so yeah- there's just this one island, Pratas Island (Tungsha/Dongsha) and then the undersea atoll with two nearby undersea banks. Returning to analogies- the emperor has no clothes and the deer is a deer, not a horse, but I also didn't ignore that the emperor said he had clothes on or that politics demands that the deer Zhao Gao rides be called a horse (指鹿为马). The Smelly Bog is the subject of the article, but The Smelly Marsh naming is also given treatment. Geographyinitiative (talk) 15:39, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Geographyinitiative: Here is the URL for the Google ngram of Pratas Island vs Pratas Islands[11]. In the case of Pratas, the ngram shows that while both names have been extant since 1800, Pratas Islands is only recently (post-1950ish) more common, thus the WP article name is more consistent with current practice. I do NOT, however, find WP policy a compelling argument in this or many other things.
In the period I concentrate on (1800+/- several decades) English spelling was undergoing a shift with names such as Harriet replacing Harriot, Reindeer replacing Rein Deer, Rifleman replacing Rifle Man, etc. This is even more the case with place names. English sea captains often gave place names that were free transliterations of local names, or names honouring their vessels, their vessel's owners, and the like. Many of these names have not lasted. (See List of ports of call of the British East India Company.) That makes the WP re common names somewhat anachronistic; the now common name may not be the then common name. I generally follow the practice of using the name in the source for the statement I use in the article I am writing. That way, someone searching has a better shot at finding my source or other sources. This means that in times of linguistic flux the article may have inconsistent spellings sprinkled about. I will continue to follow that practice, with redirects as necessary.Acad Ronin (talk) 18:08, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The ngram proves the need for a mention of the "Islands" name. But does it prove the need to make it the title here?
Apologies – Actually, I mentioned the ngram to point out that the singular is more appropriate name; the popularity of the plural is recent. Acad Ronin (talk) 02:23, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The scientific concept of Pratas Island and the political concept of "the Pratas Islands, ROC" (or PRC) are closely associated concepts. Mandarin Chinese Wikipedia actually attempts to make two pages- one for the island, and one for the political concept of the Pratas archipelago (as well as two pages for the undersea banks).
What we may want to do is make that division as well. But "Wikipedia:Should I fork?" says we shouldn't. It could be a page with links to the various components of the environs of Pratas Island. One problem I'm anticipating down that road is: do we have explicit confirmation that Cijin District in Kaohsiung has been vested with "authority" over the undersea North Vereker Bank and South Vereker Bank by the Taiwan ROC government? How does the Kaohsiung government see this?
If there is going to be but one English Wikipedia page, do we have any precedent on Wikipedia for using a name that includes a scientific or definition-level inaccuracy over using a name describing an undisputed consensus reality when both names are in use? I'm worried about uninformed people and children who will be led astray by a Wikipedia article title that says "islands". They will think that there is really more than one island under discussion. There are not islands- there is island. Geographyinitiative (talk) 18:54, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking over article title policy on Wikipedia, and I found this sentence: "Ambiguous[6] or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." (from WP:COMMONNAME). I guess I'm saying that this "Pratas Islands" name, whether or not it has the ngrams, is inaccurate and will seriously mislead a normal English language readership. Do we have any examples of this "inaccuracy" rule being put into practice on other pages with regard to the title of those pages? Geographyinitiative (talk) 19:14, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Whatever the result of this move discussion is, the article needs to maintain the existing title in the first sentence per MOS:FIRST and the scope should reflect the existing title until this move discussion is closed. This was the case (previous revision) until recently and those changes need to be undone. — MarkH21talk 01:22, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you are participating here. It is difficult for me to imagine the method to express in plain English what you are asking to be added in the lead section given that we have a scholarly source saying that there is no "group of islands" in question here. Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:35, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that the lead shouldn't reflect the proposed move before the move happens. The previous version of the lead used the current article title "Pratas Islands" with RS citations.Whether the article title should be changed and the lead should focus on the lone island instead of the three atolls as a group is the focus of this discussion; those changes shouldn't be enacted before this discussion is closed. — MarkH21talk 03:45, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the point MarkH21 is making in the above comments. We don't want to change the name of the subject of the article in the first sentence of the article before we change the name in the article title. The problem: what would the new first sentence MarkH21 wants right now look like? It's not as simple as a "revert" anymore now that (quoting my comment above) "we have a scholarly source saying that there is no "group of islands" in question here". With the new information, the old first sentence (previous revision) does not express in plain English wording that is supported by the sources in the body of the article. A revert of some kind would have to be modified to incorporate the new sources. (Furthermore, Wikipedia (and I) doesn't know what the status of North Vereker Bank and South Vereker Bank are vis-a-vis Cijin District, which was part of the assertions of the old version of the first sentence.) Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:03, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The problem I describe above was the exact reason that [12] was necessary. It is dangerous for me to repeat myself (I will be accused of bludgeoning), so I will just refer to the above comment (final modification of that comment). Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(1) It is not trivial to ask what the relationship between the Cijin District government and the Vereker Banks is. Claims based on tradition made to undersea features of the South China Sea are a facet of both Taiwan (ROC) and China (PRC) claims (see for instance, James Shoal, an undersea feature claimed by both parties). Cijin District's jurisdiction over the Vereker Banks vis-a-vis Taiwan law is not as simple as "it's close to it, so Cijin probably has jurisdiction". Cijin's involvement with the Vereker Banks is an unknown in the absence of a clarifying source. The Vereker Banks are closer to mainland China and an assertion of sovereignty by Taiwan to the waters above the Vereker Banks might meet resistance that it wouldn't meet on Pratas Island itself. (2) The scholarly critique (by Dieter Heinzig) of Pratas as an 群岛 (archipelago) does not suddenly get ignored just because we "have to" get "Pratas Islands" into the first sentence. GEOnet has no "Pratas Islands" entry, but it does have a "Pratas Island" entry. The more important priority than that the first sentence retain its old form is making sure the first sentence is sourced and reflective of the information in the article. Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:28, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The same ones that SCMP calls "islands". If SCMP deigns to call mostly submerged rocks or reefs islands, who are we to second guess that?--SalutV (talk) 04:35, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The SCMP article you reference does not tell us what islands are under discussion, so you did not answer my question. I would contend to you that sometimes, things get pluralized that aren't plural- like "Taiwan Straits". That doesn't mean we ignore those usages. It just means they might be inaccurate names despite being widely used in reliable sources. See above for WP:COMMONNAME- "inaccurate" titles aren't required on Wikipedia just because there's widespread usage. GEOnet and other sources with their feet on the ground can provide a light in the dark in those cases. Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:42, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another part of WP:COMMONNAME that may be relevant here- "When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others." Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - If there is only one island that emerges out of the water level, it is misleading to refer to it as "islands". Language is not always logical. So we can describe the common terminology (which confuses atolls for "islands") but the title should exhibit clarity and precision rather than shroud the subject in mystery. I would also like to point out that it is the geographers' terminology that should govern our choice of terminology not the common man's. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - When I started this request, I was already leaning towards using 'Pratas Island' instead of 'Pratas Islands' as the article title. Now I think I really support the move. In my view, that absolutely does not mean that we should totally eliminate all reference to the words "Pratas Islands", because those words are one of the three main translations of the idea of "东沙群岛" ("the Pratas Islands"). But the core issue is that (as stated in the sources) Pratas Island is the only island in "the Pratas Islands"/"东沙群岛". As the Heinzig stated, there is no "group of islands". The reason we see the use of the term "Pratas Islands"/"东沙群岛" seems to be related to the desire to create four "archipelagos" in the South China East- the 'West Sand', 'East Sand', 'Central Sand', and 'South Sand' Islands. As Heinzig pointed out though, only one of these four areas is a bona fide "group of islands"- the Paracels. Pratas is an island (says Heinzig and others). The Vereker Banks, North and South, are not islands, being deeply submerged (see the source on the page). Professional English language maps on this page use the wording "Pratas Island" (see the maps on the page). Hong Kong FIR literature quoted on the page says 'Tungsha (Pratas) Island'. Scientific literature about snails and other creatures on the island refer to the island as "Pratas Island" or similar (scattered on Wikipedia pages about those snails). I say just stick to the cold hard reality attested by GEOnet in the article title so that the readers know there is one island. An article title using Wikipedia's voice to make plural that which is firmly non-plural will lead readers astray in a way that my ideal form of a reliable encyclopedia article ought not to. As I said above, the readers will very certainly be led to believe that there is more than one island at this location if Wikipedia says "islands" in the article title. To me, that is so very dangerous for the credibility of Wikipedia that I have to come down in favor of supporting this move from an inaccurate (though common) name to an accurate name (that is also in use)- Pratas Island. I would also say that the Vereker Banks and etc can be covered here under the new article title as well (at least until there's a good reason to split) since those banks are closely associated with Pratas Island, the nearest land. Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:40, 3 November 2020 (UTC) (modified)[reply]
Further comment/example: In this report [13] the Coast Guard Administration (Taiwan) (CGA) writes, "23時10分專案艦艇於東沙島東北9浬處發現大陸漁船「琼海○○號」施放小舟於環礁上作業，". (Google Translate: At 23:10, the project ship discovered the mainland fishing boat "Qionghai ○○" at 9 mile northeast of Dongsha Island, launching a small boat on the atoll.) This is serious business by a serious, nautically proficient outfit. (Conversion: 9 nautical miles (17 km))
Later, an English language news report [14], which is based on the CGA report, writes: "At 11:10 p.m. on Friday, the Coast Guard successfully intercepted a Chinese fishing boat in waters nine nautical miles off the northeast coast of the Dongsha Islands."
東沙島 is the Traditional Chinese character term for Pratas (Tungsha/Dongsha) Island (singular) and is used in the original report from the CGA. The author of the English language article apparently thought that the term for the singular island ought to be translated to a plural term. My question to that translator/journalist: when do we refer to "the northeast coast" of "islands" (plural)? When you go back to the original (serious) CGA article that the English language article works off, you can see that the boat was caught just off Pratas Atoll, 17 km from Pratas Island (it's a big atoll). The underwater Vereker Banks are about 95 km northwest of that location.
Conclusion: irresponsible/reflexive use of the term 'islands' may be present in reporting about Pratas Island. Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:06, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to find analogies to this use of the word 'islands', but it is hard because the Pratas Island situation is so unusual- it's an island being called "islands" by including undersea banks in the count.
Clearly correct usage of "islands" on a small island group sometimes counted as one island The Maug Islands are a closely associated group of three main islands with what looks like some small rock islets (likely not ephemeral). It is justified to call this group "islands" despite clearly being parts of the same volcano because that is the usage on professional maps and there are really three separate islands. However, these three islands are sometimes counted as one island because of their close association. ("Maug is actually three islands, though is counted here as one." Bendure, G. & Friary, N. (1988). Micronesia:A travel survival kit. South Yarra, VIC: Lonely Planet. p. 185, second to last paragraph.) This would be an analogous case if there were any other islands near Pratas Island, or nearly undiscernible divisions between islands such that it seems like one island. But that's not the case with Pratas- there is actually only one recognized island.
Usage of "island" when there are clearly also small, named islets: Easter Island (Rapa Nui) has some small islets near it- Motu Kau Kau, Motu Iti and Motu Nui. But we don't say "Easter Islands" on professional maps [15] even despite the fact there are some minor islets. So even if any small islet around Pratas Island could be confirmed as more than ephemeral, it may still not be justified to use "islands" in this title.
Usage of "islet" despite there seemingly being some nearby rocksHuaping Islet and Mianhua Islet clearly have a main islet plus some even tinier nearby islets. Mianhua Islet may be more like the Easter Island case because there's a big islet and then tiny rocks nearby, at least one of which is named. With Huaping, the nearby rocks are probably a good percentage of the total area, but I don't have a name for those rocks.
What I'm really looking for is an example of something like Clearly correct usage of "islands" to describe something that is one island or Clearly correct usage of "islands" to describe one island plus surrounding underwater features, the ideas which are supposed by keeping the current article title. If there is no other situation like this on Wikipedia, "Pratas Islands" can be shown at very least to be an anomaly.
I think the case to change over to "Pratas Island" is good, but I am still working on finding evidence for or against this change. My guess is that people who have been to the island or have done studies about the island itself (not passing reference, but actual research about the island) will rarely call this place "Pratas Islands". This is the highest quality map I have ever seen that called this area "Pratas Islands" in Mandarin Chinese: (广东省国土资源厅 (30 June 2018). 城区地图 (Map). Department of Natural Resources of Guangdong Province 广东省自然资源厅 (in Simplified Chinese). Archived from the original on 7 July 2020 – via Internet Archive. 东沙群岛{...}北卫滩{...}南卫滩{...}东沙岛{...}东沙礁) Despite the professional mapmaking, there is no explanation on the map as to why this would be called "islands" and there is no indication of anything that is an island excepting the one island. The map was made by the PRC.
A mostly underwater bank sometimes counted as an islandZealandia Bank was counted as an island on the Northern Mariana Islands page (for the last 15 years) as the 15th island of NMI. In the case of Zealandia Bank, there is supposedly something or two somethings (rocks?) above sea level. But based on a reliable source that says there are only 14 islands in NMI, I determined that Wikipedia's handling was incorrect and I edited the page to present Zealandia Bank in the list of islands of NMI but without giving it a number in the chart.
[16] On page 102 of this paper, the scientists give a map showing Pratas Island's location in the ocean and a map of Pratas Island, including asterisks at the locations where they did sample collection. The Vereker Banks are not touched on in this paper, but Pratas Island is never called "Pratas Islands". These are people that seem to have been to the island and done serious work.
[17] In this paper, the authors really attempt to bite the bullet and say that the submerged sandbanks are islands. The specimens are taken "from deep water in the Pratas Islands (Dongsha Islands in Mandarin). These islands consist of one emergent and two submerged atolls in the northern South China Sea. They are under the control of the Republic of China(Taiwan)...". They later go on to say "All specimens collected between North Vereker Bank and Pratas Island...". It seems clear that the intent is to add an undersea bank to the total number of islands and thereby to reach the threshold necessary to make Pratas Island become plural. This is part of the inaccuracy issue that I brought up above- there is scholarly comment that says that "Pratas Islands" is not a group of islands, but then there's this thing where we add submerged banks to the total number of islands so we can get past "one".
Walters Shoals reaches 18 meters (59 ft) below sea level, whereas the highest point of North Vereker Bank is 11 meters (36 ft) below sea level
Empedocles (volcano) and Campi Flegrei Mar Sicilia are 7-8 meters from the surface (closer than North Vereker Bank's highest point) but are not called an island and were historically called an island only when part of this area actually did break the surface. (Later that area went back underwater.) Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:04, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of the Crocodile Islands, here's a professionally done map of that area [18]. The map writes "Crocodile Islands Group" and "Crocodile Island" for one of the islands.
Conclusion: it seems more and more likely that this page, Pratas Islands, is the only English Wikipedia article with an article title that uses a plural "Islands" when there is only a singular "Island" in fact. That uniqueness (extreme unusualness) needs to be taken into account in the writing of this article, no matter what decision is made about the article title. The first sentence of the article must find a way to tell the readers in plain English that there is no "islands", otherwise the readers will be mislead because all the other articles on English Wikipedia are talking about actual island groups when there is an "Islands" in the title. Geographyinitiative (talk) 18:06, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support dropping the S, I’ve read through everything thats been posted since the last time I commented and I find Geographyinitiative’s expanded argument compelling. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:03, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If "Islands" is the WP:COMMONNAME then why would we second-guess that? FOARP (talk) 22:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@FOARP: Thanks for your question- In direct response to your question "why second-guess"- I would say that we ought to second guess this article title when we realize there is no second island in "the Pratas Islands". That should sound an alarm in your moral conscience. To me, there is a kind of terrible obscenity worse than anything George Carlin could ever have said when we knowingly refer to two undersea features together with one island as a group of "islands". Everybody knows what an island group is, and every island group has more than one island. We are playing with fire to abuse English like this, because it pressures the Wikipedia readers into accepting a strong implication from the article title that is clearly false (that there is more than one island) as somehow being accurate. (That's the policy reason behind the rule that inaccurate names are not covered by common name policy on Wikipedia.) Once you have done that cognitive second guessing (or if you skip it), then you enter on the next step below.
Another map I found including Pratas Island I will lay out the case for switching to "Pratas Island" from "Pratas Islands" as I see it now in more concise form in direct response to your question. (There may be some overlap with what I have said above, and my response may lead to charges of 'bludgeoning' eventually, so I need to make it clear that I am repeating myself where I take that liberty, otherwise I may get in trouble.) As I quoted above: "Ambiguous[6] or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." (from WP:COMMONNAME). (1) (As I said above) A reliable source has determined that there is an inaccuracy in the naming (Heinzig) and numerous sources agree that there is only one island. (2) (As I implied above) There are plenty of sources using the naming "Pratas Island" [19][20][21][22]p.3[23]+the four maps on this Wikipedia page, and it would be hard to find a professional-level English language map that uses the words "Pratas Islands". (examples maps with "Pratas Islands" [24][25]https://moneymorning com/2017/02/14/the-u-s-navy-just-ramped-up-aggression-in-the-south-china-sea/ ) (3) (As I said above but now modify with new information) There is no precedent for naming something that is one island as multiple islands in English Wikipedia article titles that I can find- this article seems to be unique and inconsistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles, where the word "Island" or "Islands" clues in the reader on whether there is one or more than one island. Therefore, for the sake of consistency, we ought to strongly consider the move from "Pratas Islands" to "Pratas Island". ("Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles." WP:CRITERIA for article titles) (4) (As I said above)GEOnet calls it Pratas Island, not Pratas Islands. (5) (As I said above, but now write more concisely to respond to you) I am absolutely not saying we should remove any reference to the "Pratas Islands" wording- it should be noted on the page in the etymology section. But that naming has got to take a backseat to the real geographical concept because... (6) (As I said above) if it came down to a 50-50 choice, we just don't want to use the voice of Wikipedia to imply to readers that there is a plurality that there really isn't. No English language encyclopedia would do something like that to its readers. Such an encyclopedia would be branded as a purveyor of false information. Common name policy is about calling Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton by their common names, not about forcing an inaccurately worded geographical concept on the reader. The "Pratas Islands" article name is taking the reliability of Wikipedia hostage on the flimsy 'common name' grounds when 'common name' policy avoids inaccurate names. (7) Even if we don't care about any of that, there is no second island in the "Pratas Islands", and there are news articles, papers and maps using the wording "Pratas Island". (I may need to respond to you on another page if you want to discuss any points that I have already made above.)Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:22, 7 November 2020 (UTC) (modified)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The book [26] has an extensive list of locations in China including Huaping Islet (listed as Pinnacle Island) and other very minor islands, but seemingly does not include Pratas Island. What explains this? Islands were particularly important from an international trade perspective. Geographyinitiative (talk) 17:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@LVTW2: Page 26 of this PDF that's used as a reference for that statement specifically refers to the 海南特別行政區 (Hainan Special Administrative District). On page 49 of that same PDF, it mentions that 海南改制為特別行政區 (Hainan was restructured into a special administrative district). Therefore, I don't understand where you get your statement that "the content does not support your claims". Now, if your complaint is about "dormant", I'll agree that doesn't appear to be anywhere in there, but the rest is definitely there. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:14, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@LVTW2: Just making sure you see this since you've been editing but haven't replied or commented here. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I have reviewed the reference, in which the article only addressed that in the year of 1949: "A promulgation from the president in which the establishment of Hainan special administrative Area was proclaimed, and four South China sea islands were assigned to the division". Yes, I know, but acknowledge it as a historical event while the ROC still have effetive control on mainland China. I understand what you are trying to argue and the motivation, but that is nothing practical to address a no longer existing division in the current structure of administrative divisions of Taiwan in the heading article. I would rather put them in the historical section to explain the transition of governing authorities of those islands. It is different to the legal existence of Fujian province of the ROC as those outlying islands off Fujian shores were never transited to other administrative division, but the South China sea islands as a whole were first transited to the military administration due to the Chinese Civil War, and then inarguably assigned to the administration of Kaohsiung in 1990. You keep on addressing a nominal entity that was never fully implemented (Yes the so-called Hainan Special Administrative Area was never fully implemented, similar to the "nine provinces in Northeast China" planned by the Kuomingtang) would only cause much confusion and lead to creat another big controversy about whether to be put under the same designation for the inclusion of other South China Sea islands not just the Pratas alone, or whether the "Hainan SAR" is considered to be another "constitutional-defined province" that is still partly under the ROC's actual control to form a distinct administrative division in its own right? Besides, such political designation was based on the past ideology of Kuomingtang that they would commit to "retake mainland" that "once lost to the communist hand", the party thus asserted that all these on-paper pre-1949 divisions would one day be "restored" in order to assert their unrealistic political symbolism as "legitimate China". Everyone including Kuomingtang themselves know this is now becoming a political myth, and I am afraid I will not take it to be an ongoing political stance adopted by the ROC.
@LVTW2: I don't think you understand how Wikipedia works. There is no requirement to create a "Hainan Special Administrative Area" in order to mention it in another article. If someone wants to create one, great. If not, we don't need to create it to do anything here. Regardless of your personal views on the topic, the referenced article supports the inclusion of that information in this article, whether or not the "Hainan Special Administrative Area" is ever actually realized. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:22, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@LVTW2: Please stop demanding that another article be created before what is clearly in the referenced source can be included. I'm fine if it doesn't link to anything, but your insistence that another article be created is absolutely ridiculous. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:54, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
