Talk:Cape Reinga

New Zealand Mid‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics 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.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Compare this page with the German one

de:Cape_Reinga. Has extra info. ~ Papeschr 23:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That may have been the case long past... now I do feel we are a lot better than that. And we have refs! Ingolfson (talk) 22:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rant against the new visitor centre

I've removed a recent rant, not encyclopaedic. Apart from the more wide-ranging question of whether a Maori sacred site should be a tourist site at all (a question which it is not Wikipedia's task to answer!), I note that the editor complained about what is basically a work in progress (earthworks do look pretty raw, especially before native revegatation - apparently they even stored the dug-up topsoil and plants) - and what he saw were, as far as I can see from the DOC website, simply portaloo installations (which, having to be there for a few years, obviously have to be a bit more solid). Nuff said. Ingolfson (talk) 22:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cape Reinga. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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) 14:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

I don't think the pronunciation is right. Rēinga is a Māori word and Māori never changes pronunciation of e-i to i-e. AFAIK it should be pronounced /ɾeːˈiŋɐ/ or something like that / --213.220.205.210 (talk) 16:23, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article Title

I have moved this page back from a "dual name" to its common name per Wikipedia policy and these recent, reliable sources that refer to "Cape Reinga": NZ Herald, Stuff. Please establish that a different name is in common (non-official) use before moving this page again. — HTGS (talk) 01:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to get into an edit war here but there is clearly many places that use the Te Rerenga Wairua name e.g. Radio New Zealand. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (New Zealand) states: "Dual names: If there are sources that indicate that a dual name has usage beyond mandatory official usage, put the article at the dual name, with redirects from each of the component names." ShakyIsles (talk) 10:50, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The dual name must have common usage, beyond its current name. RNZ uses the Māori name in their headline, and the English name in their broadcast. At no point are they using the dual name, and use of both names does not constitute a dual name. We don't title our article on the awards ceremony "Academy Awards / Oscars" just because both are being used by the same news orgs. The dual name must function as a single common name, not as two. If you want to make the case for moving the article to the Māori name, please do so, I am all for that (although I suspect it won't be supported by sources in this case). I find it incredibly unlikely that anybody at all is using the dual name in speech, and that written sources are not using it either means that a move to the dual name is against policy. Please stop this crusade in opposition to Wikipedia policy. — HTGS (talk) 21:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no crusade here. I'm just trying to do the right thing as set out in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (New Zealand). As you are aware there was recently a discussion about dual names at Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board. My take from that discussion and the examples was if the dual name has usage beyond official usage then the article should be at the dual name. This policy was for NZ place names and was reached through a consensus so that's what I've been following.

The example above has a form of the dual name in the opening sentence: "The Department of conservation is concerned about the presence of packs of wild dogs on Te Rerenga Wairua, Cape Reinga."

Another example in the NZ Herald "Te Rerenga Wairua/Cape Reinga will reopen to the public after a ceremony at noon today.

A simple google provide numerous other examples of the dual name. Given it has usage beyond official usage then I think it is pretty clear that it should be at the dual name. ShakyIsles (talk) 07:48, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 April 2021

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: No consensus. After over a month, there's no consensus for a move either in this RM or in the stale discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (New Zealand)#Dual names. No such user (talk) 13:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cape Reinga → Cape Reinga / Te Rerenga Wairua – Initiating a formal move request to resolve the recent dispute and the, in my opinion, erroneous recent reversion to the inaccurate single name. The official name of this feature (as per both New Zealand's official place name gazetteer and international sources is Cape Reinga / Te Rerenga Wairua, and has been since it was changed by an act of legislation 6 years ago. The dual name has usage in some form or another across media articles (including RNZ 1, 2, 3, and 4, Stuff.co.nz 1, 2, 3 and 4, the New Zealand Herald 1 and 2, and Newshub 1, 2, and 3) since before it was even made official, as well as in New Zealand Geographic, the AA magazine, TripAdvisor, Lonely Planet. It is used by local businesses and websites, local tourism pages, the National Library of New Zealand, government agencies, and has records of use dating back to 1961 which collectively prove that the name is in common usage.

Previous discussions in other move requests have established that the general usage of dual place names is for either of the names to be used interchangeably after initial references to the full name - especially so in instances such as titles where space may be an issue. Moving this page is consistent with local naming conventions for articles about features which have dual names (see WP:NZNC), such as Aoraki / Mount Cook, Whakaari / White Island, Milford Sound / Piopiotahi and several (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) earlier move requests which have been unanimous in their support. Moves to official dual names have previously been determined to be uncontroversial, however I've opted to make a formal request to get a clear consensus given the recent history of this page. Turnagra (talk) 06:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Thank you, Turnagra. You've raised a number of different arguments people use in favour of dual names, and I think it's important to address them. First, Wikipedia has guidance on official names, and I suggest you read through it even if only for a cursory glance. To put it briefly, we don't give preference to a name merely because it is offical; instead we use the common name. The guidance at WP:NCNZ does not override Wikipedia's official naming policy, but it does provide conventions for the official spelling of a place, where multiple spellings conflict, as well as conventions for listing disambiguated pages. In the case of dual names, if a dual name is in common use, but is sometimes written without spaces between the two names for instance, or maybe the two names are sometimes put in different order, NCNZ helps us by suggesting we use the government spelling and word-order via LINZ.

In the case of this article, you list sources to establish that the dual name is in fact the common name. On reading through the 13 media sources you provided, only one of them gives absolute preference to the dual name (Stuff 3), while only three others use the dual name at all (1, 4 and 1), and none of these three use it first, or use it more than other names. Not a single one of these sources use the dual name in a headline. Of your other sources, most of them don't use the dual name either, with the obvious exception of DOC, which is an official source, and should not be considered evidence of common use per WP:OFFICIAL. I think it's important here to point out that the alternating use of both the cape's two names does not constitute use of a dual name. Your 1961 does give preference to "Te Rerenga Wairua", but doesn't use a dual name. Use of the Māori name instead of, or as well as, the English name is not what we are discussing here, and opposition to the dual name is not an affront against Te Reo or NZ's multilingual nature. Many subjects have multiple names on Wikipedia, and a place article that isn't listed at the dual name does not preclude the use of both names throughout.

You also cite the precedence of consistency as a reason to prefer the dual name. I think in the specific case of dual names we should not lean too heavily on this idea to begin with. Most of the move discussions you reference, and indeed, most dual name moves have happened only in the last year or so, and the majority have had only a little input, and seem to be based on a misinterpretation of Wikipedia guidance. This isn't surprising, as most of these pages aren't big hotspots for most editors. To be frank though, even if consistency was strong and longstanding, I don't think we should be considering it as a major point in this sort of move discussion, as each page is a unique case. For instance, I wouldn't be surprised if Aoraki Mount Cook were the common name for the mountain, and while Whakaari / White Island is probably not the common name in a real sense, it has been referred to as such by a lot of media (mostly because the NZ Government asked media to use the official name during coverage of the eruption—personally, I interpret mandated use to be official use, but the page was also moved as a clearer disambiguation). — HTGS (talk) 01:47, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are some fundamental disagreements here which might be suited for a larger discussion around dual place names (such as that currently underway on the WPNZ noticeboard). But to address the points which you've raised:

• Preference for official name: I'll admit to being slightly confused on this one, since in the past you have opposed a move request where there had been sufficient evidence for the dual name as common, but the feature did not have any official name (and thus no official dual name). This seems like a bit of a double standard of placing emphasis on the official name when it suits, and ignoring it when it doesn't. The preference for common name cites four problems with official names: Obscurity (the dual name is not obscure, and is used in multiple places as I've demonstrated); Competing authorities (does not apply in this instance as the dual name is the only official name for the feature in any capacity); Changes to names (this has been the official name for several years now, and experience with other dual names is that they do not change at a whim or with the speed that the policy is concerned about); and propaganda (which also doesn't apply here). At any rate, WP:PLACE states that place names should use a widely accepted English name, which can be determined by the name's use in sources such as gazetteers, maps, and databases. These unanimously refer to the cape as Cape Reinga / Te Rerenga Wairua, not as just Cape Reinga.

• Contradiction between naming policy and WP:NZNC: I'm also a bit confused by your stance here, which seems to be contrary to the guidance around naming conventions. As mentioned in the wider discussion on the noticeboard, all the guidance I can see around naming conventions is that they take precedence over wikipedia-wide conventions when there's a disconnect, not vice-versa - see, for example, the guidelines for medicine or flora. I don't think this is particularly relevant as I would still argue that Cape Reinga / Te Rerenga Wairua is the common name, but my point here is more that there is still a case to move to the dual name even if we were to suppose that it wasn't.

• Sources used: I'm not sure if you somehow managed to get different articles from the ones that I posted, but every single one of them uses the dual name in some capacity. This doesn't need to be in the explicit format of "Cape Reinga / Te Rerenga Wairua", as there are multiple formats for dual names to be used - especially when the articles predate the dual name being given official status. Regardless of whether it's "Te Rerenga Wairua, Cape Reinga" (as in RNZ 1 and 4, Stuff 2), "Te Rerenga Wairua or Cape Reinga" or vice-versa (as in RNZ 2 and 3), "Cape Reinga / Te Rerenga Wairua" or vice versa (as in Stuff 1, 3 and 4, and Newshub 1), "Cape Reinga (Te Rerenga Wairua)" (as in NZ Herald 1 and 2, Newshub 2, NZ Geo, Lonely Planet and local businesses), or "Cape Reinga Te Rerenga Wairua" (as in the AA), these all represent the dual name being used in some capacity. On your claim that "alternating use of both the cape's two names does not constitute use of a dual name", you've previously agreed that the exact opposite is true, and in practice dual names are represented by interchangeable use of either name alongside the full name being used at some point. I'd argue that all of the sources I cited, despite them having different formatting of the full name, adhere to this - and thus by your own admission are representative of the dual name having common usage.

• On "opposition to the dual name is not an affront against Te Reo or NZ's multilingual nature": Whether intentional or not, it perpetuates approaches to Te Reo which are increasingly outdated as the use of dual names and macrons (as well as other te reo words) becomes more commonplace within NZ English. Many of these arguments were litigated and relitigated in last year's discussion on macron usage and so I won't bother repeating them, but the gist of it is that we should absolutely be reflecting dual names where they are official and have demonstrated usage.

• Consistency: I agree that the tāhuhu of the discussion should be the merits of the specific name - I usually include the consensus aspect just in case there are people looking at the discussion from the main move requests page without familiarity of dual place names. Being able to point to existing dual name articles immediately addresses concerns that people might have around dual names as a concept, and allows them to instead focus on the name itself for the request.

• Establishing usage for 'quiet' features: You touched on this a bit as well, so I figured I'd mention it as a discussion point even though it doesn't really apply here. Some features in NZ which have dual place names have barely anything written about them at all, let alone enough to discern usage of dual place names. How would you suggest this is established in these cases?Turnagra (talk) 23:14, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to point out that "Newshub 2" was published during Māori Language week, hence it's not a reliable indication of common use.Lcmortensen (mailbox) 10:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Pretty clear case for the move in my view hence I moved it back to the dual name. As I mentioned above the policy for NZ dual place names (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (New Zealand)) is clear. It states: "Dual names: If there are sources that indicate that a dual name has usage beyond mandatory official usage, put the article at the dual name, with redirects from each of the component names." User:Turnagra has provided a number of examples showing use of the dual name. They show clear usage beyond mandatory official usage therefore it should be changed to the dual name.ShakyIsles (talk) 02:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Per HTGS, particularly the evidence that the slashed named is not the common version - we generally don't slashificate names unless the common name is actually slashed. FOARP (talk) 19:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have created a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (New Zealand)#Dual names on two topics that are relevant to this requested move. Editors involved here may wish to contribute, and further, I advise we do not finalise debate here before that discussion has formed consensus. — HTGS (talk) 01:42, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[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.