Talk:Dart River / Te Awa Whakatipu

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Requested move 25 July 2020

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. Kraose (talk) 04:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand place names
, and make the river easily identifiable better than adding the Otago suffix.

References

  1. ^ "Dart River/Te Awa Whakatipu - NZGB Gazetteer". gazetteer.linz.govt.nz. Land Information New Zealand. Retrieved 25 July 2020.
  2. ^ "Dart River/Te Awa Whakatipu". National Library of New Zealand. National Library of New Zealand. Retrieved 25 July 2020.
  3. ^ Tyerman, Justine (4 February 2016). "At the source of history: Dart River, Aspiring National Park". Stuff. Stuff. Retrieved 25 July 2020.
  4. ^ "Rees-Dart Track Brochure" (PDF). Department of Conservation. Department of Conservation. Retrieved 25 July 2020.

–

© Tbhotch™ (en-3). 04:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Support. Would be consistent with
WP:NCNZ. Somej (talk) 23:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Support as it's in line with policy (NCNZ) and practice. Schwede66 06:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on

Talk:Port Pegasus / Pikihatiti which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Infobox

@Somej @HTGS figured this was easier than going back and forth in a borderline edit war, in the hope we can get some sort of agreement here. Personally, in this instance I think it's overkill having all of the names at the top when the dual name is there (mainly because the dual name already has both names in it). Different story altogether when it's something that doesn't have a dual name (such as with the Shotover River having Kimiākau up top), but in this instance they're all there already. Between that and the native name parameter (questionability of that term aside) I think it's a better approach to remove the individual names from the top and just have the dual name there. Thoughts? Turnagra (talk) 08:44, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi @Turnagra, @HTGS. some slightly unstructured thoughts for discussion ... because it's an infobox, I assume it's a bit like wikidata and allows for semi-automated queries. I'd prefer to list all main names in that second row, and drop the "native name" - which is a term that doesn't really make sense in a bilingual country. So for example, for the Clutha / Mata-au, it makes sense to list all three names that have been used: Mata-au, Molyneux, Clutha. And are there maybe other cases where the Maori name is different again from what it is included in an official dual name? Somej (talk) 09:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think names which aren't covered in the dual name are a different kettle of fish - so with the Clutha / Mata-au, you could include Molyneux (and maybe Matau, as the apparent accurate spelling of Mata-au), but there's no point in listing Clutha and Mata-au there twice as they'd already be covered in the dual name. Turnagra (talk) 18:46, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
👍 — HTGS (talk) 18:28, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would also be very happy to go to the template talk page to discuss changing “native”. Maybe something like “other languages”? Better to discuss globally of course. — HTGS (talk) 18:31, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah agree that the native name parameter would need to be changed globally, not entirely sure what to though as it's a bit more specific than other languages. Maybe "indigenous" or something, but then I suppose that gets into trouble where the local name isn't really an indigenous one (I'm thinking Europe, mostly). Turnagra (talk) 18:33, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 October 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: no consensus. Lack of consensus is usual in discussions about NZ dual names; I do not think a relist will be productive. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:44, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

natural alternative both due to there being a prescribed format and due to how obscure it is; six scholarly articles have used both names, compared to approximately one hundred that only use Dart River. Similar results can be seen for Google News, with five articles using both names, compared to hundreds using just Dart River. BilledMammal (talk) 06:25, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Oppose I honestly thought you'd finally gotten over this crusade of yours - what a shame. I've outlined my argument in the unanimous move request above and so won't bother repeating that, but I would point out that quite a few of the results you're citing for "Dart River" are referring to business names (Dart River Adventure, Dart River Jet Safaris etc) or other features (Dart River Valley, Rees-Dart River Delta) and so the data is murky at best. Turnagra (talk) 07:15, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Update) I figure I should actually expand my reasoning rather than just pointing above in exasperation. Dual names are a far better form of disambiguation where needed than parenthetical disambiguation. By their very nature, dual names ensure that there's visibility of the other names the feature is known by. It doesn't matter whether you know this river as the Dart River, Te Awa Whakatipu, or as the dual name - you're able to see the dual name and recognise that this is the right river. This is something which was intentional when dual names first began to be used, and the features which are now known by dual names (most famously
WP:NZNC explicitly calls for the use of a spaced slash for dual names for consistency purposes, and as other users have already pointed out it deals primarily with prose and not titles. Turnagra (talk) 05:28, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Please comment on content, not on the contributor.
I would point out that quite a few of the results you're citing for "Dart River" are referring to business names I provided approximate, rather than exact, figures to address that; the point is that the single name is used many times more than both names. BilledMammal (talk) 07:40, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My opposition was based on the proposal, not on who was proposing it. Turnagra (talk) 07:44, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The request to comment on content, not on the contributor was in reference to your first sentence. This isn't the first time I've needed to ask you to avoid such comments. BilledMammal (talk) 07:46, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You constantly refer to move requests by this user as a fantasy "crusade", so your continued description of move requests would suggest otherwise, at least in part. --
Spekkios (talk) 02:24, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
As mentioned, I would have opposed the move regardless of who suggested it. I'm able to be annoyed that someone continues to push a particular goal while also being opposed to the merits of the move independent of that. Turnagra (talk) 05:28, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you are disparaging the use of local business names. These seem like a perfect way to figure out how a place is commonly named/spelled. In contrast, scholarly journals and local government web sites - while better sources for citation - are more likely to use a formal or official version of a place name that might be less commonly used by the general public. (As for the proposal itself: I don't have a strong opinion either way.) PatricKiwi (talk) 14:55, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Local business names aren't necessarily useful, since – for reasons of brand recognition – they often retain the same name even when common usage changes. For instance, the "Dart River Adventures" business mentioned above states that it has been operating for "over 30 years", meaning that the business was named before the river received its rename in 1998. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nominator. Clear common name. --
Spekkios (talk) 02:24, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment
WP:CONCISE also suggests the proposed title is preferable to the current title. BilledMammal (talk) 08:10, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
MOS:AMP, for instance, which does explicitly permit normally discouraged punctuation to be used when part of the "legitimate style of a proper noun".) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 17:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
The main question at play here is whether to use an official name when it is not the common name and disambugation is required. --
Spekkios (talk) 07:25, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
It being an official name has nothing to do with it, and flips around the argument. The question is whether we should be using parenthetical disambiguation over the existing unique title. Turnagra (talk) 05:28, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per common name.
Avilich (talk) 00:14, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Support. As usual my metric is whether people know the dual name. Compare
United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland
. I just asked two of my (Otago-based) colleagues if they knew the Dart River: resounding yes. One of them has hiked the track up there a couple of times. However when I ask them for the full name, or any other names they might know for it, I get all but a blank look. I asked if they knew “Te Awa Whakatipu” and the hiker says that that would make sense as it’s up by “Wakatipu”. “Yeah, that would be the Māori name for it!”
Obviously this is all anecdotal, but people just don’t know the dual name. We would be lengthening it for no helpful reason. If it was likely that there were a significant population who only knew ‘Te Awa Whakatipu’ then this dual name would make sense. If there were a plurality using the dual name with regularity I would actively support the dual name. These are just not the case. — HTGS (talk) 06:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Using Dart River / Te Awa Whakatipu is the very definition of
WP:NATURAL
Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title.
Dart River may be the common name but the full name Dart River / Te Awa Whakatipu is widely used and is unambiguous. It is used in a number of reliable sources inclduing authoritative reference works mentioned at
WP:WIAN. ShakyIsles (talk) 09:31, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Oppose. This has basically become an edit war. It's not long (in Wikipedia terms) since consensus was reached on this name. Somej (talk) 21:21, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For all the same reasons as on every other Dual Name discussion in this prolonged debate. Also, it was last moved barely 2 years ago and the same people were in the discussion. TreeReader (talk) 06:31, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can see no good reason to overturn the July 2020 move decision. Schwede66 18:18, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The July 2020 move decision was based on a part of NZNC that a November 2021 RFC found a consensus against. BilledMammal (talk) 10:46, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I disagree with the assertion that the
WP:COMMONNAME are irrelevant here, as both the current title and proposed title are disambiguated forms of the "Dart River" common name. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:55, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Additionally, I encourage the closer to note that arguments based solely on
MOS:SLASH makes them relevant, as the slash makes the name ambiguous and reduces recognizability when the dual name is obscure as it is in this case. BilledMammal (talk) 21:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
As I mentioned in an earlier thread in this discussion,
MOS:SLASH only pertains to usage of slashes in prose, not to slashes that form part of a preexisting title. That guideline is no more relevant here than it would be for Face/Off. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 23:53, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:COMMONNAME. That reason doesn't apply here, where the current title is an obscure name for Dart River. BilledMammal (talk) 23:56, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:NATURAL, and so still holds true regardless. Turnagra (talk) 05:28, 2 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dart_River_/_Te_Awa_Whakatipu&oldid=1201364406"