Talk:Mount Grey

Mountains Low‑importance

	Mountains portal This article is part of WikiProject Mountains, a project to systematically present information on mountains. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Contributing FAQ for more information), or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MountainsWikipedia:WikiProject MountainsTemplate:WikiProject MountainsMountain
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

New Zealand Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that an image or photograph of Mount Grey be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

On 29 June 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from Mount Grey / Maukatere to Mount Grey. The result of the discussion was moved.

Requested move 29 June 2022

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. As common name. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 07:11, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Grey / Maukatere → Mount Grey – Per WP:COMMONNAME, MOS:SLASH, and WP:CONCISE. Reliable and independent sources overwhelmingly prefer the proposed title; since the official change four scholarly articles have mentioned both names, while 133 use only Mount Grey - not all of the latter are relevant, but most are. The difference in the results from Google News is less significant, but it still exists; eight articles mention both names, while sixteen relevant articles use only Mount Grey. BilledMammal (talk) 06:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC) BilledMammal (talk) 07:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nominator. "Mount Grey" already redirects here and there is no reason not to use the shorter name. --Spekkios (talk) 07:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Common name in English-language sources. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:19, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - first of all, MOS:SLASH is irrelevant as use in this sort of case is expressly allowed in the examples. Secondly, we don't use shorter names just because they're more concise - otherwise we may as well rename Christchurch to CHCH or New York City to NYC. In terms of the sources cited by nom, the numbers aren't anywhere near what are claimed. Many of the results for both the news sources and the scholarly articles don't actually refer to the mountain at all, but rather to other things in the area – Mount Grey Downs Ltd, Mt Grey Olives, Mt Grey Cheese, a horse named "Grey Lord", the Mount Grey Fault, and so on. Several of the news results don't actually mention the phrases "Mount Grey" or "Mt Grey" at all, so I have no idea why they've shown up in the results. When you factor these in, as well as the regional differences in spelling of k/ng for the Māori portion and other non-reliable sources / duplicates, you're actually only left with 8/9 news sources, or roughly the same as which uses the dual name and nowhere near enough rationale to move. Of the scholarly articles I could access, the vast majority weren't actually relevant as they were talking about the fault system, not the mountain itself.

Further to this and as is the case elsewhere, place names are an inherently political part of New Zealand society. Dual names have developed as a concept expressly to be neutral and recognise both Māori and Pākehā traditions - pushing a name which moves away from this strikes me as violating WP:NPOV and causing wikipedia to inadvertently take sides in the ongoing debate within NZ. Given this, given the range of sources previously identified, and given the sources under WP:WIAN which all use the dual name, I can't see any benefit to moving away from the dual name on this page. Turnagra (talk) 02:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia, quite rightly, has no role in "recognising" Maori or Pakeha "traditions", whatever that means. --Spekkios (talk) 02:50, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that it does - I'm saying that there are competing views over whether to use the Māori name or the Pākehā name, with the dual name being developed as a middle, neutral ground to recognise both of those. We're not using the dual name to recognise both of those, we're using the dual name because it's the WP:NPOV. Turnagra (talk) 08:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I am aware there are no signifigant "competing views" over the name of the mountain. Even if there are, if the common name of a location can be identified, the WP:WEIGHT applies. --Spekkios (talk) 08:47, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In response to the sources presented in that diff, I noted that only the last five are from reliable, independent sources. They are also included in the eight news results I mention above - although one is an opinion article, and only one actually uses the dual name. The rest are a mix of blogs, tourism guides, self published websites, and one official government website that is required to use the official name - they are clearly not the reliable and independent sources we are permitted to consider. BilledMammal (talk) 04:45, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not going to revisit old arguments here again. Somej (talk) 10:16, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Time to move on and get with the times. — HTGS (talk) 11:37, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like an argument far more in favour of dual names? Turnagra (talk) 19:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not here to revisit old arguments. Dual name is not common name. — HTGS (talk) 20:07, 13 July 2022 (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.