Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (New Zealand)/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (New Zealand). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive note

Just a heads up that I've archived the contents of the page, since the recent dual place name discussions and RfC more than doubled the size and made it briefly one of the longest pages. Cheers. Turnagra (talk) 08:59, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Applying WP:COMMONNAME to New Zealand geographical articles

As part of the discussions over dual naming, I have re-read WP:COMMONNAME, and I've found something interesting. WP:COMMONNAME states:

For cases where usage differs among English-speaking countries, see also National varieties of English, below.

I believe that dual names potentially have different usage within New Zealand than outside --- single name usage of New Zealand geography may very well be more common in, e.g., the US or UK. Consulting the national varieties of English guideline, I see:

If a topic has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation, the title of its article should use that nation's variety of English (for example, compare Australian Defence Force with United States Secretary of Defense)

I think it's clear that NZ geographical articles have a strong tie to New Zealand. My conclusion here is that WP:COMMONNAME should be interpreted for these articles as commonly used in New Zealand. BilledMammal has helpfully used Google Ngrams to determine common usage. However, Google Ngrams provides global usage information, not local usage information. I would suggest that this global usage information does not follow the guidelines.

Returning the WP:COMMONNAME, I see it recommends a search engine test:

A search engine may help to collect this data; when using a search engine, restrict the results to pages written in English, and exclude the word "Wikipedia". When using Google, generally a search of Google Books and News Archive should be defaulted to before a web search, as they concentrate reliable sources (exclude works from Books, LLC when searching Google Books[7]).

Unfortunately, Google News no longer returns counts of pages. I think we'll need to use http://news.bing.com, with a restriction of "site:.nz" WP:COMMONNAME also recommends a number of reliable sources:

In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies, and notable scientific journals.

I would recommend restricting these sources to New Zealand sources, not global English-language sources.

Comments? Thoughts? — hike395 (talk) 02:26, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME indeed prioritises local varrieties of English. Regardless, it still has to be proven that the name of the article or the proposed name is indeed the common name. All Wikipedia policy and guidelines have to be read together, so something like WP:CRITERIA always has to be read with WP:UCRN. --Spekkios (talk) 05:06, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
In titles, I believe that typically refers to spelling differences; the example of "defence" vs "defense" is provided, and another would be "Māori" vs "Maori". Some do hold that it applies to names, but it isn't a common position; see the various move discussions at Bangalore where the move has been rejected many times over the years despite Bengaluru being preferred in Indian English language sources. Personally, I would be very opposed to applying it to New Zealand titles when we don't apply it to Indian titles; it would be a textbook case of WP:SYSTEMATICBIAS. If editors do support changing this, then that is a discussion for a much broader forum.

I would also note that search counts have to be used with caution; when they return a low number they are typically accurate, but larger numbers are normally approximations, and very inaccurate ones at that. BilledMammal (talk) 05:11, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

In cases where the Americans have a different name for Taiari / Chalky Inlet than New Zealander's, I believe the New Zealand version should prevail. I don't think however that any one site will do, I sometimes use one (Stuff) because other editors have typically grabbed the good ones. But as long as you are not trying to make a rule (we don't do rules here) and if bing is where the cool kids are at, you can give it a go in the individual discussions. (Conflict edit:the Bengaluru argument above is better than my glib statement.) Dushan Jugum (talk) 05:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I have found WIAN within the wider NCGN guideline to be useful and in some parts directly relevant to this NZ discussion. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, Roger. It's interesting that neither WP:NCGN nor WP:WIAN has a potential WP:TITLEVAR "escape hatch". In fact, the General Guidelines in WP:NCGN seem to explicitly go against using local terminology:

especially when local usage is itself divided, we do not always follow a mere plurality of local English usage against the rest of the English-speaking world: Ganges, not Ganga.

This appears to be consistent with the multiple failed RMs at Bangalore, per BilledMammal. It seems that my analysis, above, contradicts WP:NCGN, so looking at global English-language sources from WP:WIAN (like Google Ngrams) is probably a good thing to do. Thanks everyone for the insightful discussion. — hike395 (talk) 19:55, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Independent sources

Following the revelation that the list of entities required to use the official name extends beyond government publications, and that the NZGB actively pursues compliance with this requirement, I have created a draft informational supplement to help editors determine which sources are independent and which aren't. It is unclear in some circumstances, but that is due to a limitations of what my research revealed.

It can be found at Wikipedia:NZGB Independent Sources, and I would welcome interested editors to review and comment on it, and their own research on how it applies to "information for tourists" in particular would be very welcome. BilledMammal (talk) 02:53, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you BilledMammal for that excellent work. I think NZ place names are only part of a wider picture and there is other legislation that also covers their use, and the wider Maori language, within NZ. We could do worse than read the opinions of Russell McVeagh on this. As lawyers their view of the law is probably as good as we are going to get at this stage. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Beware of well intended agenda pushing

Off-topic discussion

I think most of us would benefit from a reality check when it comes to NZ placenames and the wider use of Maori withing NZ English. Section 9 of WP:OWB phrases it well: "Single-topic editors are rarely, if ever, interested in or capable of NPOV. Additionally, if you look closely you will often find a conflict of interest." Turnagra, I assume good faith but your record shows only around a thousand edits, the overwhelming majority of which are about Maori placenames and te reo usage. There may be other editors with a similar one topic approach but I have not checked. This form of positive discrimination has no place in any encyclopedia, including Wikipedia. This approach, by others, began a while ago and it is only recently beginning to be questioned more thoroughly. I think what will happen is that artificial use of Maori in many articles will increasingly be chipped away at until we reach an acceptable position where Maori is used in NZ English articles more than it used to be but only in a fairly limited way and will certainly not smother articles with its artificial use, which is what many editors are trying to do. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

If you'd like to accuse me of something then please just come out and say it instead of doing it as a thinly-veiled general statement. It's true that many of my recent edits have been on this topic - I have only a limited amount of time for Wikipedia, and this subject has gotten far bigger than I'd guess any of us would've expected when we first engaged in it, meaning that I have less time for what else I'd like to do on here. Many of my other edits, which I assume you're referencing, haven't been done with some sort of hidden agenda that you're insinuating - they have been updating internal links which have been made out of date by page name shifts over the years. I did these in keeping with the remaining guidelines on here - for example, I still used the old name when updating the links to Aoraki / Mount Cook on articles about early 20th century mountaineers (eg. [[Aoraki / Mount Cook|Mount Cook]]). Other updates have been done in the context of substantial updates to page material (as on Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana, Lyttelton Harbour / Whakaraupō, Lake Matheson, Canterbury Bight and the creation of Taiari / Chalky Inlet, among others.) If you had checked my history properly, you would have also seen substantial work on various suburb pages around Christchurch, complete overhauls of the List of dual place names in New Zealand and Glaciers of New Zealand articles, engagement on several move requests outside of New Zealand topics, and various other minor janitorial edits across Wikipedia. As with "I'm not racist, but...", stating that you're assuming good faith doesn't absolve you from proceeding to do the complete opposite - especially when it's done in the wrong area and follows similar aspersions being cast on other users during the recent RfC.

I suspect that we move in very different circles, and our experiences with New Zealand English likely differ greatly. For example, I routinely hear and use several loan words from te reo Māori (eg. tautoko, aroha mai, whakaaro, pātai and so on) and many people I know will interchangeably use Māori names with English for places such as Ōtautahi and Tāmaki Makaurau. I'm well aware that such names aren't the common names for these places (yet), but my point with this is that the level of te reo usage in a place being more than what you might be used to doesn't automatically mean that said usage is artificial. I'm happy to continue this kōrero if you're going to do so without doubting my intentions, else we'd best end this here. Turnagra (talk) 04:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Entirely unrelated note that I hope you will find helpful; when you want to type Mount Cook for a wikilink to Aoraki / Mount Cook, you only need to put "Mount Cook" in the brackets because it is a redirect to Aoraki / Mount Cook, and per MOS:NOPIPE it's actually recommended not to use piping in these cases. Should make creating the wikilinks easier for you, and it makes reading the wikicode easier for others. BilledMammal (talk) 05:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

That's useful, thank you - the past links pointed to Mount Cook (New Zealand) and so already had the piping in place, and I wasn't aware of that guideline. But given the above response I get to such edits, I don't feel all that inclined to continue trying to improve Wikipedia... Turnagra (talk) 05:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Without commenting on the above post, I feel the same way, though my experiences come from different areas than yours. My plan is to tie up loose ends on things I was previously involved in (like this broad topic of dual names) before diving into creating articles to see if I can enjoy editing again - and if I can't, my plan is to leave. Perhaps it is worth trying a similar process yourself? BilledMammal (talk) 05:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Turnagra, I am not suprised to receive the accusations you throw at me, totally wrong though they are, with the possible exception that we move in different circles. Tell me please, when I say I assume good faith, how does that really mean I do not assume good faith? Aren't you just confirming what the section in the link I quoted says, that your contributions are almost entirely on te reo usage in NZ wiki articles? That is not necessarily wrong, and I never said it was: it simply relates to what the quoted essay says. Having an agenda does not necessarily mean someone is intentionally up to no good, as you assume. We all have levels of agenda pushing, often without realising it. I sometimes find myself looking for sources that confirm my opinion, rather than reading the source and reporting what it says (whether I agree with it or not) - that is a mild form of agenda pushing by me. Now please, consider what you have just written: I'm well aware that such names aren't the common names for these places (yet), but my point with this is that the level of te reo usage in a place being more than what you might be used to doesn't automatically mean that said usage is artificial. You are confirming that these new dual names are not the common names! Well then, why are you trying to use them as if they are the common names? Next, the level to which I, or you, or the PM, or any kiwi uses Maori words in everyday conversation is utterly and totally irrelevant. What is relevant is the way reliable secondary sources use use language. That is why the section below about the possible unreliability, on the topic of te reo usage, of so many of our usually reliable sources is so important. Another important point touched on elsewhere by another editor is, IMO, also very relevant - is a place name part of a language, in other words is "Auckland|Tāmaki Makaurau" part of NZ English or is it simply the official name that any English speaker could use if they chose to, but most of those who do so choose, or are told to choose, actually live in NZ. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Your entire message came across as though you weren't assuming good faith - happy to be proven wrong, but that was how it came across. This is especially true given that you singled me out and combed my post history to make the insinuations, while other users (such as Spekkios) have the same number of edits but are almost exclusively on reverting dual place names and were completely ignored by your post. On your comment that I am confirming that these new dual names are not the common names, you've misunderstood me - I was referring specifically to how I usually hear Christchurch referred to as Ōtautahi and Auckland as Tāmaki Makaurau, not dual names themselves. I'm not using these names as the common names because I'm aware that they're not, and a move request to move Christchurch to Ōtautahi would rightly be shot down. I do also love the argument that common usage doesn't matter for the name, which is essentially what the latter part of your point boils down to - can we honestly say with a straight face that overseas academics and book publishers are going to be the best to determine common usage in New Zealand? At any rate, I'm sorry if I was a bit pre-emptively confrontational. I'm sure you can understand, given how heated some of these dual name discussions have been, if I'm a bit more prickly than usual, and how your message would come across. Turnagra (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any "agenda pushing" apart from User:Spekkios pushing a campaign to erase all double-naming schemes and the Maori heritage that is reflected in it. The government has issued double-names, some of them for decades, and it is time for certain users to accept that as well instead of being tone deaf and insisting on some colonial-era single names. I would recommend you to cut this Gordian knot and accept the official names instead of some complicated multiple-tier system. At some point in future many places will probably be restored back to completely Maori names only. Gryffindor (talk) 08:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Gryffindor, there is no campaign to erase all double-naming schemes. You might want to scroll up a bit. You might also want to read WP:OFFICIALNAMES, WP:CRITERIA, WP:UCRN, WP:CRYSTALBALL, and WP:NOTADVOCACY. --Spekkios (talk) 17:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Gryffindor: It's worth remembering that this isn't a binary debate. I have no ideological opposition to dual names, and I'm perfectly happy to accept a dual name. My main reason for opposing the use of most of them is the fact that most of them aren't the WP:COMMONNAME (yet), and so it would (to me) be against WP:OFFICIALNAME to use them. I encourage the use of Māori in everyday situations (and in naming), but Wikipedia should reflect how it is, not how it should be. YttriumShrew (talk) 22:40, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Spekkios this is not how your actions are coming across unfortunately. It is also out of order how User:Turnagra is being targeted here. Gryffindor (talk) 23:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion User:Gryffindor. --Spekkios (talk) 23:59, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Gryffindor, Turnagra is not being targetted, he is being held to account which is something we should all do. He was chosen by me because he is currently the most prominant practioner of this over use of Maori words, and because he appears to be intelligent enough to hold his own in a reasoned debate. I don't see why I should waste much time discussing the issue with someone who thinks an encyclopedia should write what the government wants it to write. I could repeat the term "common usage" a thousand times but that would be pointless, wouldn't it, because some people just don't like it. I am happy to have a discussion on this but not with someone whose only counter arguement is to accuse editors of being locked into colonial-era thinking. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:22, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Roger 8 Roger, for the record, I thought your original post in this thread is so out of line that you should apologise for it. Schwede 66 17:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

If I'm honest, this whole section probably fails WP:NPA anyway. YttriumShrew (talk) 18:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your post Schwede66. I have looked at it again and can see how I could have made my point differently. The heading is confrontational and I should not have directed my comments directly at Turnagra in the way I did. For that reason, Turnagra, I apologise. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 18:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Move requests

Editors may wish to know that in the few days since the recent change to this guideline, dozens of pages have been moved or nominated for moving. The most prominent is probably the reversion of Aoraki / Mount Cook to Mt Cook.

If anyone has the patience to create a complete list of requests to remove the Māori parts of all the dual names, i'd be very grateful to you. Somej (talk) 09:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I have been using Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board, but am not convinced they are all there. Dushan Jugum (talk) 09:53, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

(cross-edit) If you mean just current requests, see Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/Article alerts, also embedded at Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board#Article alerts. Or maybe you already know about that and want something different?? Nurg (talk) 09:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Any request that I initiated is there, but I don't know of any others. --Spekkios (talk) 21:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

@Somej: I looked through WP:RM; there are currently move requests at:

which also covers:

Talk:Port Pegasus / Pikihatiti

which also covers:

Talk:Fox Glacier / Te Moeka o Tuawe

which also covers:

There's also a different request at Talk:Matiu / Somes Island.

I hope this helps. YttriumShrew (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

@Somej: I've found the following (which in the space of writing this up, YttriumShrew helpfully also found!):

In addition, the following have had their dual names removed without any discussion:

List recent unilateral non-discussed moves.

Ashley River / Rakahuri - now requires disambiguation
Aua / King Billy Island
Awaroa / Godley Head
Baring Head / Ōrua-pouanui
Blumine Island / Oruawairua
Cam River / Ruataniwha - now requires disambiguation
Campbell Island / Motu Ihupuku - now requires disambiguation
Codfish Island / Whenua Hou
Colac Bay / Ōraka
Cook River / Weheka - now requires disambiguation
Franz Josef / Waiau - now requires disambiguation
Goat Island / Rakiriri - Reverted to Māori name instead
Golden Bay / Mohua
Grey River / Māwheranui
Haast Pass / Tioripatea
Hollyford River / Whakatipu Kā Tuka
Jackson Bay / Okahu
Kaikiekie / Bradshaw Sound
Lake Alabaster / Wāwāhi Waka
Lake Grassmere / Kapara Te Hau
Lake Ianthe / Matahi
Motukōkako Island / Piercy Island - now requires disambiguation
Motumānawa / Pollen Island
Motutere / Castle Rock - now requires disambiguation
Mount Anglem / Hananui
Mount Earnslaw / Pikirakatahi
Mount Herbert / Te Ahu Pātiki - now requires disambiguation
Musick Point / Te Naupata
Ōrongomai / Cass Peak
Ōtāhuhu / Mount Richmond
Ōtamahua / Quail Island - now requires disambiguation
Pelorus Sound / Te Hoiere
Pig Island / Mātau - now requires disambiguation
Pigeon Island / Wāwāhi Waka - now requires disambiguation
Pourangahau / Mount Robert
Pukeamoamo / Mitre - now requires disambiguation
Queen Charlotte Sound / Tōtaranui - now requires disambiguation
Rākauroa / Torrent Bay
Rotokura / Cable Bay
Sinclair Head / Te Rimurapa
Taiporoporo / Charles Sound
Taitetimu / Caswell Sound
Tamatea / Dusky Sound
Tasman Bay / Te Tai-o-Aorere
Te Aumiti / French Pass - now requires disambiguation
Te Awa Kairangi / Hutt River - now requires disambiguation
Te Awa-o-Tū / Thompson Sound - now requires disambiguation
Te Hāpua / Sutherland Sound
Te Hāwere-a-Maki / Goat Island - now requires disambiguation
Te Heru o Kahukura / Sugarloaf - now requires disambiguation
Te Hoiere / Pelorus River
Te Houhou / George Sound
Te Koko-o-Kupe / Cloudy Bay
Te Onepoto / Taylors Mistake
Te Puaitaha / Breaksea Sound
Te Rā / Dagg Sound
Tokangawhā / Split Apple Rock
Tory Channel / Kura Te Au
Tūranganui-a-Kiwa / Poverty Bay
Waiau Toa / Clarence River - now requires disambiguation
Wairēinga / Bridal Veil Falls - now requires disambiguation

There may be more that I missed, but this is what I've picked up on where it hasn't been reverted. Turnagra (talk) 18:32, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! That's a really helpful list. Somej (talk) 19:36, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks YttriumShrew and Turnagra. ShakyIsles (talk) 20:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

There's also a list of dual names at Wikipedia:Articles with slashes in title#Dual place names in New Zealand. I don't know if it's up to date, though. YttriumShrew (talk) 00:02, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you both. If anyone feels the need to revert some of those moved, can you mention it here so that those of us who might support a move can open a RM if appropriate? I've also produced a list of names currently a dual names; it may miss some, and it may contain duplicates. Titles currently under a RM are marked with (RM).

I would also ask that no one unilaterally moves these titles; instead, I would like to propose a process for this, below.

List of requested pages to not move without discussion.

There are also three currently at single names that I think might need to be moved to the dual name or the other single name:

Maungarei / Mount Wellington; currently at Maungarei but uses the dual name in prose, so I looked into it, and while seldom mentioned when it is the dual name is used
Wharekahika / Hicks Bay; currently at "Wharekahika", but uses Hicks Bay in prose, so I looked into it, and when it is mentioned "Hicks Bay" seems to be preferred

Hicks Bay - 1 2 3 4 5
Wharekahika - 1 2 (quote, not prose)3
Dual Name - 1 2

Would anyone object to these two moves, or is a RM required? BilledMammal (talk) 23:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposed Process

Rather than unilaterally moving titles, or going straight to RM's, I would like to propose an alternative process for managing this, but first we need to agree to be reasonable here; we don't propose moves that are highly likely to fail a RM, and we don't oppose moves that are highly likely to pass a RM. If we can agree to this, then the process will be to list the moves here, with a brief overview of our reason for move. If the move is objected to, we put it aside to take to a RM, and decide how we will undertake that when we see how many need to be processed through a RM. Hopefully, this will allow us to handle most of the uncontroversial cases without taking up a lot of valuable time.

Is this acceptable to everyone? BilledMammal (talk) 23:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. YttriumShrew (talk) 23:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

All good. Dushan Jugum (talk) 00:34, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Good idea, I am curious to see if any of these are actually uncontroversial! TreeReader (talk) 03:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, sounds good. ShakyIsles (talk) 20:15, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I like the idea of this, but the events of the last week or so have left me pretty hesitant to be amenable or trust some users to act in good faith. If you've got ideas on how it could work I'd be willing to entertain that - I'm also not sure as to whether there will be any instances either way where it would be uncontroversial for all involved. Turnagra (talk) 21:50, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

The idea is that we are all willing to be reasonable, and agree that there are articles at a dual name that under wikipedia guidelines belong at a dual name, and articles that don't belong at a dual name - regardless of our personal preference.

Perhaps the best way to start is to work backwards; those who generally support dual names provide the articles that they believe should belong at single names, and those who generally support single names provide the articles that they believe should belong at dual names. If we're all willing to be reasonable, it should shorten the list of articles we need to work on and show good faith on both sides. I've started the list of "remain" articles below, though I still have many articles to review. BilledMammal (talk) 10:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Can we also change the headings to reflect that articles currently at single names should be in scope for both? We should be able to discuss reverting some of the dozens of dual name removals that were done recently as well, or others which are at single names but could use attention too.

As a side note, this would be so much easier if we had clear guidelines (say, naming conventions?) on when and how to use dual names... Turnagra (talk) 18:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think you would want the editors who got rid of the old rule, making the new one.Dushan Jugum (talk) 20:05, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Turnagra: it would be better to have a compact new rule before anyone performs a mass rename. The articles may need to be renamed twice. Please consider pausing renames. — hike395 (talk) 21:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Dushan Jugum Very good point. Turnagra (talk) 21:58, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Added headings for articles to move to dual names/articles to keep at single names. Note that "Articles to keep at single names" is limited to articles with official dual names only, to prevent ourselves from broadening our scope to an extent that makes this problem impossible to address.

I don't think there is support for new guidelines; the RfC had the option of "Keep with alterations", and that was declined, while most "remove" supporters argued in such a way that suggested they didn't want any country-specific guidelines on this matter.

Lets try applying the broader site rules to this and see how they go; if they work for Switzerland, they can work for New Zealand. If, after trying this, we find ourselves encountering issues we can write guidelines to address those issues, rather than writing guidelines to address hypothetical issues - I note WP:CREEP was one reason cited by several "remove" supporters for removing much of the guideline. BilledMammal (talk) 22:34, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I think WP:OFFICIALNAME suffices for now, at least as a guideline. YttriumShrew (talk) 23:14, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I would agree, alongside WP:CRITERIA and WP:COMMONNAME. BilledMammal (talk) 23:22, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the 'official names only' bit from the single names section as there are quite a few unofficial names which have also been the subject of discussion in the past (eg. Motukorea) Turnagra (talk) 08:39, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, but I've re-added it. There are far too many NZ place names without an official dual title at a single name to expand the scope that way, and should we need to discuss articles that are currently at a single name, should stay at a single name, and don't have an official dual name, we can do so elsewhere.

Spekkios, I've also noted in your edit summary you said "I don't enough to support a move at this stage"; does this mean you don't actually dispute the listed moves, you just don't support them at the present time? BilledMammal (talk) 08:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

For clarity, I'm not talking about all place names in New Zealand - just those with a dual place name as per the Gazetteer, whether or not that name is official. For example, Browns Island / Motukorea and Lake Taupō / Taupōmoana are both listed as unofficial dual names. For memory, there were only about ~150 of these compared to ~450 official dual place names, so it doesn't add much more in the scheme of things and I don't expect this process to cover all place names anyway. They're also all helpfully included in a separate section on List of dual place names in New Zealand - of the list, very few even have articles from what I can see. Turnagra (talk) 08:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

That makes sense; I've altered it to reflect that. BilledMammal (talk) 09:24, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I've looked quickly for sources etc and I haven't found enough evidence that the article name should be at the dual name for those two. Obviously if it is the common name it needs to stay there. Can I ask what the relevence of listing people under what they supposedly generally support is? From initially looking at it I don't think it's productive to have lists of people like that. --Spekkios (talk) 09:51, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Agree that the editor list is a bit machiavellian, it feels like we are playing 4 dimensional chess before we even start. Given how refreshingly honest many editors have been it is hard to see how it adds anything and it may take away much. Dushan Jugum (talk) 10:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

The idea is that it appears there are those who generally support single titles, and those who generally support dual titles. If the first group happens to support a dual title, or the second group happens to support a single title, then that strongly suggests that using a dual title/single title at that location is uncontroversial. But if you think I am overthinking this, then by all means merge the groups together, though I may rearrange the tables in that case. BilledMammal (talk) 10:13, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to gauge thoughts on reverting some of the moves which resulted in disambiguation - in many of these cases the dual name is shorter and more precise than the single name, which is having to rely on unnecessary disambiguation. Examples include Ōtamahua / Quail Island, Pig Island / Mātau, and Waiau Toa / Clarence River, but there are more. Turnagra (talk) 17:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I would oppose many of them; we should be disambiguating the common name, and while we may be able to do this with the official name in cases where the common name leads, in cases where the common name comes second we cannot. I would be willing to explore alternatives possibilities to disambiguate, but only so far as they do disambiguate rather than replace.

I note your recent edit summary when opposing three more proposed moves of "I suspect this process is quickly going to become farcical". Are there any moves from a dual name to a single name that you would support under Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, even if you might personally prefer the dual name? BilledMammal (talk) 05:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not strictly fussed as to which name comes first - ideally we'd be in line with the rest of the usage for that name (eg. it would be weird for us to have "Mount Cook / Aoraki" and everywhere else to have "Aoraki / Mount Cook") but I still think that's better than having cumbersome disambiguations.

In terms of pages that should be reverted, I think it's a bit of a misnomer (that's not the right word but I'm blanking as to what is) because if there was a place which I didn't think should be at the dual name I wouldn't have moved it. NZNC may have served as primary justification for many of the moves, but contrary to some opinions I wasn't doing so with blatant disregard for Wikipedia's other guidelines (as many of the full move requests I carried out can attest). Places that I would oppose being at the dual name (as below, or such as Great Barrier Island (Aotea Island)) never got to the point of being dual place names in the first place, so I can't support them being reverted. I'd be willing to consider Fox and Franz, but this entire process overall has made me very hesitant to give any ground because I'm not seeing that from the other side, as it were. Turnagra (talk) 05:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Many of the move requests only referenced the guideline as the reason for the move, and did not discuss how the move aligned to other wikipedia policies; I think the closest they tended to come was occasional mentions of consistency, but that's rarely a strong reason for a move in the absence of other arguments. Perhaps we can provide an example? Below, you opposed moving Cape Kidnappers / Te Kauwae-a-Māui back to Cape Kidnappers. Personally, I find that an overwhelming majority of sources use Cape Kidnappers; Ngrams, where the use of Te Kauwae-a-Māui is so low that the possibility the dual name is being used in other forms doesn't come into it. This is similar to the results in Google News, where Te Kauwae-a-Māui produces just twelve results, several of which are not about the location, while Cape Kidnappers produces many. Can I ask, based on policy, why you oppose moving it back? BilledMammal (talk) 05:31, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Gryffindor, based on your response to various move requests, I would like to ask you the same questions I've asked Turnagra above; are there any dual names you would support moving to single names, and if you would oppose the Cape Kidnappers example above, can you explain why, based on policy, you would do so? BilledMammal (talk) 08:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear I'm not avoiding this, just didn't have a chance to respond this morning - will try after work... Turnagra (talk) 18:42, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Okay, so having had a look I still stand by my comments in the move request that there would have been sufficient usage to merit it under the old guidelines, it definitely has a tougher case for using the dual name under the current guidelines. At a fundamental level, I still can't understand why dual names elicit such fervent opposition and would be keen to revisit new naming conventions at a later date - especially given that naming conventions are allowed to differ from the common name if it produces clear benefits outweighing the use of common names, which I think dual names do (though I do stand by the claim that many dual names are the common name). That said, that's absolutely a conversation for another time and in all honesty not one which I have any interest in holding without a significant break (and a different cast). I also reiterate my comment that this process feels as though it will devolve very quickly, given some frankly absurd calls (opposition to Whakaari / White Island, Aoraki / Mount Cook, and Stewart Island / Rakiura to name a few), the bizarre pushes to discredit nearly every form of source we can use, and the constant reliance on ngrams despite repeated attempts to point out the issues with that in this instance. So, to answer your question, I could probably concede that the current guidelines don't support Cape Kidnappers / Te Kauwae-a-Māui as a name - but that this is a problem with the guidelines, not the name, and that those opposed to them are getting far too worked up about nothing at all. Turnagra (talk) 06:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if you consider me to be in "fervent opposition", but my opinion is based on my general support of common name, and I follow wherever that position takes me.

To address the rest, much of this is a difference of opinion. Some of it is based in policy, such as discounting non-independent sources, while other are based in personal preference, such as the belief that we can address the issues you have raised with using ngrams. Meanwhile, I don't believe the examples you have raised, particularly White Island and Stewart Island, are quite as clear as you believe - take a look at recent news results.

Finally, for the cases where you agree that the current guidelines don't support a dual name, in order to allow us to move forward with the process and focus on the articles whose titles are actually difficult to decide, would you be willing to support moves (or at least not object to them) until such a time as the guidelines change again? BilledMammal (talk) 06:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "this is a problem with the guidelines, not the name". If the name is the common name, wouldn't that meet the guidelines? --Spekkios (talk) 08:59, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Evidently there can be difficulties with proving things when people systematically rule out all of the various sources you can use. Turnagra (talk) 09:26, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Can I ask why you believe that non-independent sources can help us determine which name is the common name? I notice on the Chalky Inlet RM you argued against using certain sources because you were worried that the fact they were on the same topic would result in them copying each other and using the same name, making them not independent and providing undue weight to the name used in the first article on that topic; don't you have the same concern about mandatory usage? BilledMammal (talk) 09:37, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with the premise of your question, in that I think you're significantly overestimating the degree to which the NZGB Act applies (or is adhered to). I suspect that the only source that will routinely be explicitly using dual names as a matter of law would be LINZ themselves and the maps they produce (as well as legislation, but outside of the Acts actually establishing the names I don't know how often there would be legislation using any place names). DOC doesn't universally use official names (as a legal obligation would suggest they would), nor do other government sources. Any information produced for tourists absolutely doesn't universally use official names, which again you're suggesting it does. Ultimately, all this does is artificially limit the number of sources which can be used to determine the most suitable name for these places to sit at.

As for the Taiari / Chalky Inlet thing, that's a different scenario altogether and I'm not entirely sure why you've brought it up here. My argument on those was based on not having read them enough, but basically boils down to whether you'd count the same article on five different websites as being one source or five? Turnagra (talk) 02:15, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I wondered about that as well, but I found a source that states that the NZGB actively pursues compliance with the act, and that they consider its applicability to be so broad that they believe it applies to Google Maps, though in that case they have had issues in ensuring compliance due to Google being based offshore. Of course, I would expect you can find a few examples where the common name is used erroneously (though I note your example of Lake Ōkataina provided previously is not one of them, as while it wasn't using the official name for the lake, it was using the official name for the surrounding area) but errors often pop up in documents - I recently found one by the UN that referred to "Australia" as "Austria" - and we shouldn't interpret errors as meaning that the law is ignored, particularly when we have sources telling us it is not.

In regards to documents for tourists, it is very ambiguous, and I was careful to leave it as that in the supplement I wrote, stating what sources we can use rather than what sources we can't, but if you can find sources that would clear that up I would be very grateful.

As for Taiari / Chalky Inlet, I don't believe it is a different scenario; if we want independent "non-official" sources, shouldn't we also want independent "official" sources? BilledMammal (talk) 03:09, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I mean, I know of a fair few areas that "actively pursue compliance" and still don't get any. I'd be interested to see what that source is too if you have it handy? I'd also be keen to explore where you draw the line, as in when does it shift from erroneous use to the law being ignored? And if that were to be the case, would you be happy for these sources to be used as part of justification for article titles, or would you still dispute them?

Taiari / Chalky Inlet is a different scenario, because we're talking about different interpretations of independence. In this instance, you're talking about sources being told which name to use. In the argument over on Taiari / Chalky Inlet, I'm talking about different sources just copying the same information without the choice of name factoring into it. It's like the example I gave above - if you had the same press release posted on five different websites, would you could that as one source? This is a different case to what you're talking about, which would be if there was no press release but the sources were independently told that they must handle things in a set way. The latter would definitely count as different sources (reliability aside) but I argue that the former would only count as a single source.

And finally, on the UN point, I've heard that Mozart's birthplace is one of Sydney's top attractions... Turnagra (talk) 08:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Here; note that it's a pdf. In general, the best evidence would be the NZGB saying they don't bother or fail at, enforcement in a certain area. An example of this would be the source above, where they say they try but fail to enforce compliance among offshore open-source endeavours. Absent that, I can see three scenarios for enforcement, with the level of enforcement differing by area (for instance, they are probably more interested in ensuring maps and scientific articles on geology comply with the law than they are on ensuring scientific articles on astronomy comply with it). The first scenario is that there is no functional enforcement of the law, and the second is there is complete functional enforcement of the law. The third scenario is a little more complicated; functional enforcement in cases where there is a reasonable level of use of the official name in non-official documents, with the NZGB not bothering in cases where there is such low levels of use of the name that enforcing its use will not help in its mandate of "promoting the use of te reo Māori". I'm not sure how we would go about proving this, but some sort of statistical analysis, comparing use in a certain type of "official document" to use in "unofficial documents" would be the way to go.

I'm not entirely certain what you are asking, so I will answer both possibilities. If it was an error, and we still weren't accepting the source general, then I would oppose its use - just as using the source generally would provide undue weight towards the official name, using the source only when it doesn't use the official name would provide undue weight towards alternative names. If we can establish that the entities are not in compliance with the law, and that any usage of the official name is because they independently choose to use the official name, then of course I would have no issue with using the source - and of course I would update the supplement with this information and supporting evidence.

Regarding Chalky Inlet, that makes sense; I misunderstood how you interpreted them, as I didn't see any immediate evidence of "copy and pasting" when I read them. In that case, I would agree that there is a difference between the two scenarios.

Huh, I didn't know Mozart was born in the Sydney Opera House! Makes sense though, would explain why he was such an excellent composer. BilledMammal (talk) 10:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

In belated response to your question (sorry for the delay), I won't oppose instances where I think a dual name isn't suitable. I would, however, expect the same in kind for articles that clearly should be at a dual name. Turnagra (talk) 06:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

User:TreeReader, can I ask why, based on policy, you would oppose moving to Cape Kidnappers, and given that you oppose moving to Cape Kidnappers in what cases you would support moving? BilledMammal (talk) 04:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, sorry I haven't been looking at this very often. Broadly, I support Turnagra's point that "At a fundamental level, I still can't understand why dual names elicit such fervent opposition and would be keen to revisit new naming conventions at a later date - especially given that naming conventions are allowed to differ from the common name if it produces clear benefits outweighing the use of common names, which I think dual names do (though I do stand by the claim that many dual names are the common name). "

Honestly I like the NZ names all matching and formal-looking with their dual names, but that's not exactly policy!

Policy-wise then, WP:COMMONNAME (which has been referred to the most in this discussion) is about recognisability. The dual name Cape Kidnappers / Te Kauwae-a-Māui is recognisable.

As regards to WP:CONCISE - two chunks of info feels concise to me. If one of those chunks is more than three words (like lakes Rotoiti and Ōkataina's official names) I would prefer a more concise name. Those examples also go against WP:COMMONNAME due to being too long to be used in regular conversation.

Apart from those, I don't think there's many I prefer as a single name. I don't mind that Auckland/Wellington/Christchurch are all single names (as they currently are), but I also like using dual names consistently for NZ placenames. TreeReader (talk) 07:11, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Spekkios, based on your edit summary I've pulled them out of the lists and moved them to a new one "articles to hold an RM on" - hope you don't mind. BilledMammal (talk) 09:37, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Articles to remain at dual names
Number	Article	Supported by	Disputed by
1	Lake Ellesmere / Te Waihora	BilledMammal Dushan Jugum Turnagra Chocmilk03 InsertName	Spekkios Roger 8 Roger
2	Korowai / Torlesse Tussocklands Park	BilledMammal Dushan Jugum Turnagra Chocmilk03 TreeReader InsertName	InsertName
3	Kārewa / Gannet Island	BilledMammal Dushan Jugum Turnagra TreeReader InsertName	Spekkios InsertName
4	JM Barker (Hapupu) Historic Reserve	BilledMammal Spekkios Dushan Jugum Turnagra InsertName	InsertName
5	Aoraki / Mount Cook National Park	Turnagra Spekkios YttriumShrew Chocmilk03 TreeReader InsertName	InsertName
6	Westland Tai Poutini National Park	Turnagra BilledMammal Spekkios YttriumShrew Chocmilk03 TreeReader InsertName	InsertName
7	Matiu / Somes Island	YttriumShrew Turnagra BilledMammal Chocmilk03 TreeReader InsertName	InsertName
8	Aoraki / Mount Cook	Turnagra Hike395 Chocmilk03 TreeReader Spekkios InsertName	InsertName
9	Name / Name	InsertName	InsertName

Articles to move to dual names
Number	Article	Supported by	Disputed by
1	Maungarei	BilledMammal Dushan Jugum Turnagra Gryffindor Chocmilk03 TreeReader InsertName	Spekkios Roger 8 Roger
2	Lake Rotoroa (Hamilton, New Zealand)	Dushan Jugum Turnagra Gryffindor Chocmilk03 InsertName	Spekkios BilledMammal Roger 8 Roger
3	The Pyramid (Chatham Islands)	Turnagra Gryffindor InsertName	Spekkios BilledMammal Roger 8 Roger
4	Lake Tikitapu	BilledMammal Dushan Jugum Turnagra Gryffindor Chocmilk03 TreeReader InsertName	Spekkios Roge 8 Roger
5	Name	InsertName	InsertName

Articles to move to single names
Number	Article	Supported by	Disputed by
1	Mount Watkin / Hikaroroa	BilledMammal Spekkios Roger 8 Roger InsertName	Turnagra Gryffindor Chocmilk03 TreeReader InsertName
2	Mount Grey / Maukatere	BilledMammal Spekkios Roger 8 Roger InsertName	Turnagra Gryffindor Chocmilk03 TreeReader InsertName
3	Lake McKerrow / Whakatipu Waitai	BilledMammal Spekkios Roger 8 Roger Chocmilk03 InsertName	Turnagra Gryffindor TreeReader InsertName
4	Cape Kidnappers / Te Kauwae-a-Māui	BilledMammal Spekkios Chocmilk03 Roger 8 Roger InsertName	Turnagra Gryffindor TreeReader InsertName
5	Browning Pass / Nōti Raureka	BilledMammal Spekkios Roger 8 Roger InsertName	Turnagra Gryffindor TreeReader InsertName
6	Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana	BilledMammal Spekkios Roger 8 Roger Chocmilk03 InsertName	Turnagra Gryffindor InsertName
7	Meretoto / Ship Cove	BilledMammal Spekkios InsertName	Turnagra InsertName
8	Shag River / Waihemo	BilledMammal Spekkios InsertName	Chocmilk03 Turnagra InsertName
9	Name / Name	InsertName	InsertName

Articles to keep at single names (Articles with dual names listed in the Gazetteer only)
Number	Article	Supported by	Disputed by
1	Lake Taupō / Taupōmoana	Turnagra Spekkios Dushan Jugum Chocmilk03 Roger 8 Roger TreeReader	InsertName
2	Lake Ōkataina / Te Moana i kataina ā Te Rangitakaroro	Turnagra Spekkios Dushan Jugum Roger 8 Roger TreeReader	InsertName
3	Lake Rotoiti / Te Roto kite ā Ihenga i ariki ai Kahu	Turnagra Spekkios Dushan Jugum Chocmilk03 Roger 8 Roger TreeReader	InsertName
4	Goat Island / Rakiriri	BilledMammal Roger 8 Roger	TreeReader InsertName
5	Name	InsertName	InsertName

Articles to hold a RM on
Number	Article
1	Stewart Island / Rakiura
2	Whakaari / White Island
3	2019 Whakaari / White Island eruption

Implementing moves

At the moment, we have three proposed moves that appear to have enough support that an RM would be a "sure thing". These are Maungarei → Maungarei / Mount Wellington, Lake Tikitapu → Tikitapu/Blue Lake and Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana → Hauraki Gulf.

As this process is intended to allow moves to be made without RM's and thus save everyone time and effort from debating such "sure things", I would like to propose that we move them now. However, per policy a single opposition is enough to force a RM, and so before moving I would like to confirm that those in opposition to these moves are not interested in doing so in cases such as these.

I intent to leave this question open for three days; silence in the presence of activity elsewhere on Wikipedia during this period will be interpreted as silent affirmation. It might also be worth having a brief discussion on whether Tikitapu/Blue Lake (in line with the official name) or Tikitapu / Blue Lake (consistent with other Wikipedia articles) is preferred; I have no strong preference. BilledMammal (talk) 22:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

We have previously had agreement on always using a spaced forward slash even if the official name is unspaced. That was mainly to avoid confusion with the article potentially being a sub-page. Schwede 66 23:48, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I still haven't formed a position on Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana - I think I could be okay with it being at the single name so long as the dual name is still used prominently in the article (such as the infobox title, the lede and so on) as a potential compromise. Happy with the others though, with the caveat of having the spaces per Schwede66 and the remaining NZNC guidelines on dual names. We agreed on this as a consistent format to deal with the inconsistencies provided by the various dual name conventions offered by the NZGB. Turnagra (talk) 08:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Of course; that is standard practice in all articles whose official name is different from the common name. Regarding the dual name convention, no objection from me, and see the Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (New Zealand)#Infobox naming section for codifying it. BilledMammal (talk) 10:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

The official name is important enough to be included in the article. I don't see any issue with the infobox using a format other than this example. --Spekkios (talk) 08:40, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, can you clarify what you mean by the second bit of that? I'd prefer a different format obviously, but I'm not sure what's so egregious about that example that you'd expressly say to do something different? Turnagra (talk) 09:04, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I meant that we should be using that format (or this). Sorry for the confusion. --Spekkios (talk) 20:33, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not really a fan of using that format for dual names - I'm meaning more along the lines of how it currently looks on the Clutha River / Mata-Au page, or the Aoraki / Mount Cook one. I think the style you proposed wouldn't highlight that it's a dual name at all, and functionally wouldn't be any different from instances where dual names aren't in use (eg. Christchurch), or when they're two alternate names (as with the North Island). Turnagra (talk) 19:07, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Any official name can be discussed in the article or lead. The dual name being the official name doesn't mean that the English or Maori names have actually changed in common usage. --Spekkios (talk) 21:45, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

This feels as though it's going to devolve back into another one of the standard arguments about dual name usage so I'm not going to bother with that aspect of it. My point is being made independently of whether or not a dual name is seen as common usage; I'm trying to propose a compromise in which I would accept some places being at dual place names to have their title at the old name, but I'm happy to continue to fight those if you'd rather. Turnagra (talk) 22:43, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Well yeah of course it is. You're proposing a format that would "highlight that it's a dual name" regardless of the name used in English or Maori, which can just be portrayed in this format. The official name can be stated in the article. You are more than welcome to "continue to fight" whatever you want, as article names are determined by general consensus. --Spekkios (talk) 00:04, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

No, because fundamentally there's no difference in that format between a place that doesn't have a dual name and one that does, which renders the whole thing irrelevant. I'm amazed that you're able to say article names are determined by general consensus with a straight face after your recent actions - if we want to look at general consensus, how about every single one of your proposed moves failing thus far?

At any rate, thanks for the idea of trying to do a process to avoid copious move requests BilledMammal but based on the above I don't think there's enough willingness across the board to come to a compromise solution and so I highly doubt that it will ultimately work. Turnagra (talk) 01:51, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Fundamentally there is zero difference between a location that has a dual name and one that does not; they both need to follow Wikipedia format. We have a standard format for when there are things with different names in different languages. See WP:OFFICIALNAMES.

I have no idea what move requests have to do with this, nor why my RM's are relevent to this. You'll note that a number of the RM's I started I withdrew because the consensus was obviously in favour of keeping the current names, so I really have no idea what you are talking about. Could you please expand?--Spekkios (talk) 06:00, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you still manage to fundamentally misunderstand what dual names are. We're not talking about alternate names, where they're completely separate and distinct names, we're talking about something where they both form part of the name - just the same as how "New Zealand" is one name, not separate names of "New" and "Zealand". Your proposal essentially pretends that dual names don't exist, which try as you might doesn't align with reality.

As far as the move requests, they show that your decision to revert dozens of names goes against the general consensus of these move requests - as does your wholesale opposition to dual names generally. Turnagra (talk) 23:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you still manage to fundamentally misunderstand WP:OFFICIALNAME. Wikipedia does not care about official names. Wikipedia deals with WP:COMMONNAME. Dual names might be official but that does not mean they are used widely in English or Maori. The infoboxes should tell a reader what the subject is refered to in English and Maori. It is no more complicated than that.

As for those RM's you are being dishonest about the reasons for closure. I closed two because the consensus was to keep the names. Another two were closed due to procudural opposition, not because of consensus to keep the names. Regardless, the reasons for not moving those articles do not mean that other articles should remain at their current names like this recent move. Furthermore, I do not have a "wholesale opposition to dual names" as I've explained to you previously (which you conveniently decided to just ignore) and which is shown by my support of dual names on this very page. --Spekkios (talk) 02:35, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Based on your claim that Wikipedia does not care about official names I suspect it's you who is misunderstanding WP:OFFICIALNAME. That page has an entire section dedicated to valid use of the official name, says that while common names are generally preferred over official names as article titles, there are some valid exceptions, and that in many cases, the official name will be the best choice to fit these criteria - to say that wikipedia doesn't care about the official name is blatantly untrue. At any rate, dual names have widespread and significant usage, and to essentially pretend they don't exist is only going to serve to make Wikipedia look laughably obsolete.

The point still stands that you can't really claim that the general consensus of wikipedia is to remove all dual place names, given that so far only one move request to my knowledge in that direction has succeeded in recent times, compared to the dozens which have opted for the dual name. I'm pleased to see that you've supported a grand total of one geographic dual name, but in comparison to the ~50 you've reverted or opposed (especially instances where the evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of it being the common name) I'm not sure what I'm supposed to believe with regards to your views on dual place names. Turnagra (talk) 09:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

There are always exceptions to everything on Wikipedia, but exceptions should not be assumed. It needs to be shown that an exception needs to be made, which in this case, has not.

If it is the case that dual names have widespread and significant usage and it can be shown that the dual name is the WP:COMMONNAME then the article should be moved. It's that simple. Making Wikipedia "look laughably obsolete" is simply your opinion, and your opinion does not override policy and guidelines.

More to the point, you are misinterpreting my statements. I have not stated that "the general consensus of wikipedia is to remove all dual place names". I did state that article names are determined by general consensus. I haven't even been arguing for my personal views on dual names, as that is entirely irrelevant; Wikipedia has naming policy and guidelines, and they need to be adhered to. That is the entirety of my argument, as that is the only metric that actually matters. --Spekkios (talk) 19:36, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Two sides with different starting blocks. The official name, amended to accomodate common usage; the commonly used name amended to accomodate official status. If this is in fact what is happening then isn't it inevitable that finding a solution to this problem is taking so long? Should we not be unambiguously in the same set position before the starter pulls her trigger? Otherwise any solution we come up with is surely bound to fail at some point in the future by being the source of endless edit wars. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:57, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

This particular discussion is focusing on instances where the article is for somewhere that has a dual name but the title is different - totally agree that the broader issue is more varied, but I think it's not as much of an issue in this instance as we already have that clear parameter? Turnagra (talk) 23:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Moving towards RMs

Agreed to hold off on RM's for the immediate future; additional discussions can be started if the reasons for holding off no longer apply

Based on specific replies, and specific cases where participants have declined to reply, I unfortunately don't believe the process attempted above is going to help move us forwards as some editors are unwilling to shift their position, whether it is for "dual names" or "single names", even in cases where policy clearly differs. As such, the next step is to move forwards with RM's.

I believe we should do these slowly, no more than one or two a day. To start, I am going to list "Cape Kidnappers" as a relatively uncontroversial move, and we can move forward from there, starting with the least controversial cases and finishing with the most. If anyone has basis to believe it is worth continuing to attempt the method I proposed above, let me know. BilledMammal (talk) 00:14, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I think that starting up RMs again at this point risks this whole thing flaring up again which wouldn't necessarily be a good idea. I didn't have a chance to respond to you because I was too busy being accused of acting in bad faith - I'll go and respond now. As soon as RMs start up it'll be a mess of moves flying in either direction and high tensions, which I don't think anyone needs right now. In my view it'd be better to hold off for things to calm down, let the current ones run their course and then give everybody a break.

As an aside, perhaps you could ping users who said above that they would be willing to engage in that process but haven't yet done so to try and boost it a bit? Turnagra (talk) 01:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for replying to the second question, but I was actually referring to the other question left open up there (and there is also a second user who I was hoping will respond to help us determine whether we can proceed with that process, but I feel they are not interested in doing so). Of course, I'm happy to hold of on listing new RM's for now, though I'll leave Cape Kidnappers open.

In regards to pinging, I think everyone is already aware of the process, and I don't want to pressure people into participating while they are not willing to do so, either for specific articles or in general. BilledMammal (talk) 03:18, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Which other question? I must have missed it. And yeah, I totally get that on the pinging, my only thought was for the people who had expressly said they'd be willing to engage and may not be aware that it's started. Turnagra (talk) 04:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

This question. As for pinging, I'm pretty sure most of those have commented here since the process began, even if they haven't contributed to the process? BilledMammal (talk) 04:31, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

RMs allow for netural users to comment as they are listed on the RM page --Spekkios (talk) 07:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Spekkios, I understand how RMs work. Turnagra (talk) 08:18, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

My point was that 'giving everyone a break' and waiting until things 'calm down' isn't really relevent when talking about these proposed RMs --Spekkios (talk) 20:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Given the general absence of engagement, I'm going to proceed with another RM, this time Mount Watkins. I think this slower pace, one every few days, might be an appropriate compromise between leaving them entirely and doing them all once? BilledMammal (talk) 01:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

My opposition to move requests was that I think everyone needs a break, not that they should be slower. But if you insist on continuing to do move requests, I'm all too happy for that to kick off and will get started on reverting some of the undiscussed moves above. Turnagra (talk) 05:59, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I would rather we continue the conversation above (see the linked question - perhaps you missed it?) and hopefully avoid a significant number of RMs. Again, I'll hold off starting any more for the moment. BilledMammal (talk) 06:28, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Forgive me for not holding much stock in your word on that given you've launched another move request less than three days after saying you'd hold off last time. Turnagra (talk) 09:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you are implying? BilledMammal (talk) 09:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not implying anything - I'm stating that I'm finding it difficult to take your word on that given you previously said you'd stop move requests and then went back into it after less than three days. Turnagra (talk) 17:00, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I said I would hold off for now, having started because of "specific replies, and specific cases where participants have declined to reply" that caused me to believe the process above wouldn't work. You then said you would reply, so I agreed to hold off to give you time to do so, but when you didn't after three days I came to the conclusion, perhaps incorrectly, that you didn't want to respond to that specific question and so moved back to RM's.

Was I incorrect? BilledMammal (talk) 22:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, I thought I had responded. Have done so now. For what it's worth, your original message about holding off made no reference to this being conditional or time sensitive. Turnagra (talk) 06:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, I thought that was implied with the "for now". Thank you for replying; given the Cape Kidnappers example, would you be willing to review your responses to the items on that list? I believe there are some others that are as uncontroversial as Cape Kidnappers. BilledMammal (talk) 02:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I'll go through and have another look, but from my quick glance at the above I suspect that some of them will be running into the issue I talked about at some point or another around places which get such little coverage that it's nigh-on impossible to determine a common name. And as we've seen across this whole polava, it seems there are a fair few different ideas of what's uncontroversial... Turnagra (talk) 02:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you; while you're doing that, perhaps consider Shag River / Waihemo? Shag River appears to be the common name for that river, and also the primary; we could move it to Shag River and delete the disambiguation page under WP:TWODAB. BilledMammal (talk) 02:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Waihemo / Shag River is a bit of a weird case - until recently it was listed as Shag River (Waihemo) and only recently changed to Waihemo / Shag River, so there are a few different variants floating around (moreso than usual). Having not looked into it yet, my gut tells me that it'll be another case of very few sources. I'm also even more opposed when reverting to an outdated name means that we need an unnecessary disambiguation, as the case would be here. Turnagra (talk) 04:47, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Seeing Talk:Ashley River (New Zealand); I thought we had agreed to give these a break for the moment? BilledMammal (talk) 08:18, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I had nothing to do with that starting up - I engaged once it had, as you did. Turnagra (talk) 08:14, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Infobox naming

Scanning through the policy, I was surprised by the line "In the infobox of a geographical article, if the common name contains a macron, show only the common name."

It would seem to me that there are cases where the common name uses a macron, but there exists names without a macron that are worth mentioning; would anyone object to me removing that line? Removing it would better align the guidelines with existing practice, where articles such as Whangārei and Lake Rotokākahi include other names in the infobox. BilledMammal (talk) 01:52, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Rereading the macron discussion I think it is suppose to mean don't show the non-macron name e.g. in the case of Whangārei don't put Whangarei as an alternative name. It's more an alternative/historical spelling rather than an alternative name. Something along those lines could be worth keeping in. It similar to the case of Whanganui that includes notes in article about Wanganui spelling but that name is not included in infobox. ShakyIsles (talk) 03:17, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I might actually be wrong about the impact of this wording; it seems that the common name for both Whangārei and Lake Rotokākahi is without the macron (slightly odd that we use it in that case, but nevermind) and so listing the alternative names/spellings appears to be in compliance with the guideline. This would also mean that we can list the alternative name/spelling in the infobox of articles like Pātea Dam and Ōpōtiki, as it seems that the macron is not common in either of those cases - I tried to find an example where we couldn't do so, and though I am sure such examples exist I am struggling to find them.

I'm not sure that doing so is in line with the intent of the sentence, but as it doesn't appear to achieve that intent under its current wording, and it could cause issues in the few cases where using the macron is common, perhaps we should just remove it for now and discuss whether a more focused and better worded alternative should be added (something along the lines of "In the infobox of a geographical article, if the article title consists of words of Māori language origin with an official spelling, show only the official spelling" - but we can discuss further if this is suitable and desired)? BilledMammal (talk) 03:37, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm happy to change it to allow the listing of other names if there are different names altogether, but I'm opposed to this meaning that we'd list the same name without a macron on there. We don't have an alternate spelling of "Cadiz" for Cádiz, "Leon" for León or Saint-Etienne for Saint-Étienne, so I don't know why macron usage should be any different. Turnagra (talk) 04:47, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure about those examples, as searches for the locations primarily return English-language results about the sports teams, so it is difficult to ascertain the prevalence of the place name in English-language sources without the diacritic. Looking at examples like Zürich however suggests that general practice is against including alternative spellings where the only difference is diacritics, and this is reinforced by the current situation in New Zealand articles where locations such as Pātea Dam could have "Patea Dam" in the infobox but don't.

In other words, it seems that the intended guidance is unnecessary, and as the current guidance does not meet that intent and can cause issues it would seem that the simplest solution would be to remove it entirely and avoid WP:CREEP. BilledMammal (talk) 05:15, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I like the suggested alternative wording of "In the infobox of a geographical article, if the article title consists of words of Māori language origin with an official spelling, show only the official spelling", for what it's worth. Even if this is common practice in other articles, like Zürich, it's still helpful to have a specific statement in the NZ context and avoids future arguments down the track, IMO. This page is quite succinct, so I don't think we're in great danger of instruction creep. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 08:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Boldly implemented. If anyone objects, please revert and we can discuss further. BilledMammal (talk) 11:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

While we are discussing the guidance, would anyone object to removing the section "Changed place names"? I believe it is unnecessary WP:CREEP, as it duplicates the policy documented at WP:NAMECHANGES. BilledMammal (talk) 05:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, my issue with removing it is that I think that the point about the Geographic Board having changed the name of a place without creating a dual or alternative name is a useful one to make, as otherwise the previous section implies that the only name changes have been to create dual or alternative names. However, rather than duplicate the wording of the normal policy, perhaps the section could simply say that the normal policy at WP:NAMECHANGES applies? Chocmilk03 (talk) 08:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps we could reword the previous section to make it clear that those aren't the only changes made by the NZGB? I would actually like to propose modifying that section as well, to re-introduce the convention where NZ dual names that are used as dual names (rather than disambiguation, which if desired needs to be discussed separately as an alteration to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (New Zealand)#Disambiguation of New Zealand place names) should be separated by a spaced forward slash, regardless of the official format, for the various reasons mentioned by Schwede and Turnagra in the section on proposed moves.

I would also like to discuss "Convention for alternative names", but I'll leave that for later. BilledMammal (talk) 10:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

...to re-introduce the convention where NZ dual names that are used as dual names [...] should be separated by a spaced forward slash Isn't that guidance already in there still? under the remaining dual name section of the guidance it says Dual names consist of an English name and a Māori name separated by a spaced slash, which I suppose could be a bit ambiguous as to whether it's referring to our conventions or NZGB practice.

I also think that, given dual names as a concept, we still need something in here about alternative names. As we've seen in the past with places like Taranaki Maunga being erroneously listed as the dual name of "Mount Taranaki/Egmont" (and many instances of people thinking that dual names are actually two alternative names), we definitely need something specific here to explain and distinguish the difference.

Would also be in favour of reform to the disambig guidelines to support using dual names as part of disambiguation where relevant. Turnagra (talk) 18:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I read that as explaining how (slightly inaccurately, as some dual names use an un-spaced forward slash, among other formats) dual names are officially recorded, not how we should use them on Wikipedia, and so I feel an explicit instruction might be useful.

I'll present my thoughts about the alternative name section later, so that we can finish this discussion before getting caught up in another. As for reforming the disambiguation guidelines, I might be able to support such reforms, but I would have to see the specifics first. BilledMammal (talk) 23:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I totally agree that that's how it reads (and how I'd interpret it coming into the issue cold), but knowing that up until recently spaced slashes have at best been one of at least three different dual name formats I think that the original intent would have been an attempt to standardise it in place name articles. Happy to write up an example for the disambig guidelines, but it'd be something along the lines of supporting natural disambiguation through dual name usage where it is practical to do so. Turnagra (talk) 09:07, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Archiving

As this page seems to be filling out relatively rapidly, I've added an archiving bot so that we don't need to keep archiving manually - I hope nobody minds? If they do, this bot won't start working for a few days at the very minimum, so we can easily remove it. BilledMammal (talk) 04:36, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

How does this work? I totally agree that something like that could be worthwhile, but I'm conscious that many of the sections are ongoing discussions that it'd be weird to archive in the middle of. Turnagra (talk) 04:47, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

If a section has not been edited in 30 days it will be archived, so long as it creates an archive page with at least two sections, and it leaves at least four sections on this page. For instance, it will archive "Applying WP:COMMONNAME to New Zealand geographical articles" and "Archive note" in a few weeks, while leaving "Move requests" here. BilledMammal (talk) 04:53, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: seems the first archive just happened, but it doesn't list them in the archives box. I tried to add it manually but it doesn't seem like that's possible. Any ideas? Turnagra (talk) 17:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Fixed There are two different archiving conventions, depending on bot. BilledMammal tried to switch between them, but that broke things. I moved the new archive to the old system and switched the bot to the one that used the old system. Everything should be OK now. — hike395 (talk) 18:31, 8 December 2021 (UTC)