Talk:Operation Kita

	Operation Kita is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 10, 2014.
Article milestones Date Process Result April 29, 2011 Good article nominee Listed June 2, 2011 WikiProject A-class review Approved August 4, 2011 Featured article candidate Promoted A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 31, 2011. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that during Operation Kita in February 1945, six Imperial Japanese Navy warships, sailing from Singapore to Japan, evaded the 26 Allied submarines which were positioned to attack them? Current status: Featured article

This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Maritime / Asian / British / European / Japanese / North America / United States / World War II / Operation Majestic Titan This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Associated task forces: /  Maritime warfare task force Asian military history task force British military history task force European military history task force Japanese military history task force North American military history task force United States military history task force World War II task force Operation Majestic Titan (Phase III) Additional information: /  This article has passed an A-Class review.

Doesn't this rank as a "successful naval operation" like the Channel Dash of Scharnhorst, Gneisenau and Prince Eugen rather than a "naval victory" (which implies a significant clash of forces with a victor)? --184.2.231.10 (talk) 12:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese Wikipedia, at least, refers to this as "Operation Hoku" (hoku being the on'yomi, or alternate reading, for the character 北). Brutannica (talk) 16:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Novice users like me cannot change it, while nowadays literally everyone in western-language communities are using the wrong name. The Japanese pronunciation is indeed "Hoku-Go Sakusen", as Brutannica mentioned above. Please, someone with the authority to change the title, please do so ASAP, before even more people get the wrong idea. Vcharng (talk) 15:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a Japanese and support the above name change. It's ridiculous to see a featured article having a wrong name. --218.229.170.114 (talk) 07:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and have made this change in accordance with this consensus. All Japanese sources (and ironically this very same article, in the first line) list the operation's name as: "Hoku-gō sakusen", not "Kita-gō sakusen"; with "Kita" being an obvious misspelling by westerners erroneously using the kun'yomi reading of the character "北", where the Japanese use the on'yomi reading. Such a gross translation error being used as the title of an article is unacceptable. BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 18:33, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the English language Wikipedia, so the names used in Japanese sources is irrelevant. We follow the terminology used in English language sources per

WP:COMMONNAME. Nick-D (talk) 09:05, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Four people have agreed that the name of this article is, from an objective standpoint, incorrect and based on an erroneous translation. This talk page subsection has been open for eight years, without a single word opposition being voiced. If you want to crawl out of the woodwork to oppose this change ex post facto, YOU may start a requested move. Consensus has already been reached over nearly a decade of discussion regarding this article's name. BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 19:42, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're hoping to achieve with personal abuse? There obviously isn't a consensus here given I'm disputing it (I developed the article to FA standard and am familiar with the sourcing, while you don't seem to have ever edited the article before starting move warring over its title), and you have been unable to provide any sources at all that demonstrate that 'Operation Hoku' is used in English language sources. None of the editors who have posted above have provided any such sources either. The article has been stable as 'Operation Kita' since 2011 and is a FA, so a RM is needed per

WP:BRD - you were bold, you were reverted, and you need to discuss. Please start a RM now, and please provide English language sources to support this proposal. Please also stop adding an unsourced claim that 'Operation Kita' is a miss-translation - this may very well be the case, but a source explicitly stating this is needed, as this is a FA. I will report you for edit warring if this conduct continues - again, please follow WP:BRD and start a RM. Nick-D (talk) 09:21, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Further, as noted above I'm unable to find English language sources that refer to this as 'Operation Hoku'. Sources that use 'Operation Kita' in addition to those currently cited include:

• The Naval Siege of Japan 1945: War Plan Orange Triumphant (a recent and comprehensive work on naval operations in this period of the war)
• Warship 2018 (a well regarded naval journal)

As noted above, 'Operation Kita' may very well be a miss translation. However, it appears to be the most commonly used name for this event in English language works so is the best title for the article per

WP:COMMONNAME. Operation Sportpalast, which I've also developed to FA is similar - it appears to have actually been called 'Operation Nordmeer' by the Germans, but English language sources call it 'Sportpalast' so that's the article title - it's technically wrong, but is the common name. Nick-D (talk) 00:13, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I have just modified 2 external links on Operation Kita. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606194947/http://www.history.navy.mil/DANFS/c11/colorado-iii.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/c11/colorado-iii.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130927112028/http://www.awm.gov.au/histories/second_world_war/volume.asp?levelID=67911 to http://www.awm.gov.au/histories/second_world_war/volume.asp?levelID=67911

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Operation Kita. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/m12/mississippi-iii.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110608123418/http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/p4/pennsylvania-ii.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/p4/pennsylvania-ii.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]