This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 15:36, October 3, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related 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
None that I know of. A city named Ukejima would need to be just that (Ukejima City). But this is an island named Uke (Uke Island), which is how I've seen it recently.
And MOS-JA clearly supports "island": Islands should be named X Island(s) if common usage does not require appending -shima/jima/tō (島): Okinawa Island, Rebun Island, Ōnohara Islands. However, use the Japanese name complete with -shima/jima if the suffix forms an inseparable part of the name: Ōshima, Miyajima, Sakurajima. — kwami (talk) 18:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
By "proper" name, I meant "proper noun". My contention is that -jima is an inseparable part of the complete proper name of the island, and that there is no rationale for translating half the name to English. In terms of common usage I believe that there are many more examples of the usage of "Ukejima" (Uke-shima, Uke-jima, etc) in various books and references sources, including navigational maps and charts, than "Uke Island". --MChew (talk) 05:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
You've just proven my point: If it goes by "Uke Island", then the -jima is not inseparable. That is different than "Ōshima", which no-one would ever call *Ō Island. — kwami (talk) 17:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)Reply