Jump to content

Talk:Ōwairaka / Mount Albert

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

Redirect to suburb

[edit]

Note: It is possible that we may someday want to split Mount Albert, New Zealand into separate articles about the volcanic peak and the surrounding suburb. If so, the material on the volcano should be moved to here. dramatic (talk) 01:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the process of doing exactly that. Schwede66 02:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrectly sourced and written info

[edit]

During 2020, various users have added info to this article that have been incorrectly referenced or sourced, so I have undone the revisions. On 25 Nov a series of edits were made by three users, some correctly sourced, others not. In the process, correctly sourced info was deleted. Many of the edits are not encyclopaedic. Due to the nature of the edits, and some of the earlier sources, it seems these users are from the protest group Honour the Maunga. Should these edits simply be undone? E James Bowman (talk) 21:23, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are partisan edits, with the changes made by the first IP being contrary to the existing source at waateanews, and the claim of "increasing support" appearing to be promotional. There was sufficient coverage of the protest already. I would support undoing the recent edits.-gadfium 22:13, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If edits are outside consensus, the issue is ongoing, and the trouble caused by IP editors, we can restrict editing to registered editors only. Schwede66 00:51, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks gadfium and Schwede66, I've undone everything from that day, and will let you know if IP editors persist. E James Bowman (talk) 05:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Schwede66, I've just undone similar edits again. It would be good to restrict editing as you described. E James Bowman (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 July 2022

[edit]
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. The discussion has generated consensus to move, as "(New Zealand)" fails to specify which NZ Mount Albert and provides no useful distinction from "Mount Albert, New Zealand". None of the alternate proposals ["(mountain)", "(volcano)", etc.] has garnered consensus. (non-admin closure) Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 04:03, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Albert (New Zealand) → Ōwairaka / Mount Albert – following the precedent of using a slash for the official names of New Zealand features, such as Aoraki / Mount Cook and Whakaari / White Island, other Tūpuna Maunga are now known by dual names, like Maungakiekie / One Tree Hill and Maungawhau / Mount Eden. Ōwairaka / Mount Albert reflects the Auckland Council's (reserve managers) and Tūpuna Maunga Authority's (administrators) multiple websites, brochures, signage and maps that the public use to access the maunga. Council and TMA often use three names (Ōwairaka / Te Ahi-kā-a-Rakataura / Mount Albert), but media sources most commonly use two (Ōwairaka / Mount Albert), as can be seen in many of the article's references, including from New Zealand Herald, Radio New Zealand and Stuff.

As per WP article title criteria, this move improves recognisability by using the dual names that are commonly used online and offline, consistency with the other Tūpuna Maunga article names, and precision by moving away from the name shared with the Mt Albert suburb and Mt Albert electorate. As established in previous moves, dual names often provide naturalness and concision in New Zealand. E James Bowman (talk) 06:39, 20 July 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:07, 27 July 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. This violates MOS:SLASH and reduces recognizability, as readers are more likely to recognize the location of "Mount Albert (New Zealand)" than "Ōwairaka / Mount Albert". In addition, these names aren't used commonly; getting an exact number of uses of "Mount Albert" is difficult due to the other entities that use that name, but it was trivial to find several references doing so; CNN, Scoop, Stuff, and the NZ Herald. In terms of consistency, the nominator has previously pointed out that less than half of the Tūpuna Maunga articles use the dual name; as such, consistency better supports the current title. The proposed name is technically more concise. However, it is just three characters shorter, so I don't believe that argument is relevant.
The format of the name and similarity to the suburb is due to New Zealand naming conventions, that require this format for disambiguation. I don't believe this causes a precision issue, as it can easily be addressed with a two-dab hatnote, but if the nominator disagrees they are welcome to propose a change to the guideline.
Note that immediately prior to opening this discussion the nominator pinged several editors that they expected would support the nomination, in an accidental violation of WP:CANVASS; if those editors contribute, the closer will need to take this into account. BilledMammal (talk) 06:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of the four sources you provided, one refers to a Mount Albert in Wānaka, one refers to a Mount Albert in Wellington, and one is a real estate listing. I think this proves the point that the current title is far too ambiguous. As for your canvass accusations, nothing about their ping alerted me to this move request, nor is there anything in that discussion actually linking to this one. As with the dozens of other moves related to dual names, I found this pretty quickly of my own accord. Turnagra (talk) 10:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What that discussion does include is an editor telling editors who they expect to support this move that they are opening a move request at this article, with a link to the article. It doesn't need to include a link to the talk page to be canvassing.
If you believe this title is ambiguous, I am willing to consider alternatives and a change to WP:NZNC. However, of the two current options, I still believe the current title, using "New Zealand" is more recognizable (and incidentally more common) than the proposed title, for the reason I provided above. BilledMammal (talk) 11:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CONCISE states The goal of concision is to balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the general subject area. As you say, the proposed title is slightly briefer. Tick. It also identifies which Mount Albert in New Zealand the article is about, which your sources show is an issue. Tick. In terms of consistency, seven of the 14 Tūpuna Maunga article titles have been changed, merged or created to include their Māori names. I made / was making bold moves to change the other seven (which are Pākehā only titles) to be consistent with the reserve websites, brochures, signage, maps and media sources, as well as the other seven article titles, but you reverted them. E James Bowman (talk) 00:09, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't consider three characters as a convincing argument for concise. In addition, the use of a disambiguation leading the common name is likely to cause confusion; I note that this confusion is sufficient for the NZGB to put the Maori name last in some names when there are safety considerations, despite generally preferring to put it first.
If you believe there is an issue with recognizability then I am happy to consider alternative titles, but of the two currently under consideration the first is more recognizable. BilledMammal (talk) 00:44, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Clear common name in English-language sources and per WP:SLASH. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the current title is clearly confusing, despite other editor's assertions, as your average reader is going to have no idea that parenthetical disambiguation means a specific thing which is different to disambiguation with a comma. If there is a better option, as there is here, that's what we should use. Use of a slash is supported by WP:NZNC and the particular use case is actually fine under MOS:SLASH, so I'm not sure why it's being brought up. I'd also note that recent sources pretty heavily favour the dual name. Turnagra (talk) 10:04, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As an expansion to my previous comment, I also feel like it's worth pointing out the sources I identified below, where I went through the first ten pages of results for "Mount Albert" (with no mention of Ōwairaka in the search). Of the results, most were for the suburb – highlighting the confusion which the current title will cause. But of the ten relevant results, nine of them used the dual name in some form. The tenth, while it didn't use a dual name per se, used Mt Albert and Ōwairaka four times each individually, interchangeably through the article. I think this is pretty clear evidence that recent usage is heavily in favour of the proposed title. Turnagra (talk) 10:13, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This Stuff article about the 2012 Treaty Settlement deed Māori name restoration says Mount Albert will be recognised officially by its already widely used name, Owairaka. The name will have become even more widely used since then, with its adoption in council and TMA comms, including the reserve signage that can be seen in the WP article. E James Bowman (talk) 05:20, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose based on the nominators reasoning, primarily:
  • Of the 14 mountains, 11 of them are not at a dual name, meaning the current title is more consistent with the other article titles,
  • The proposed title is no more recognisable than the current, as an English-speaker is unlikely to know that the name "Ōwairaka" refers to the Auckland mountain. The most recognisable name is "Mount Albert, Auckland",
  • The proposed title is not natural for an English-speaker, even one in New Zealand,
  • "concision in New Zealand" doesn't mean anything. A Wikipedia title isn't more or less concise because of the country the article the landmark is located in. --Spekkios (talk) 11:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of the 14 Tūpuna Maunga article titles, 7 have/include their Māori names, the remaining 7 should as well,
  • "Mount Albert, Auckland" could refer to the maunga, the suburb or the electorate,
  • The proposed title is natural in New Zealand, as hundreds of maunga and other places use dual Māori and Pākehā names,
  • "concision in New Zealand" means the title has sufficient information to identify the topic within the New Zealand context of hundreds of dual place names, and Auckland, a city of 53 volcanoes, two thirds of which have dual place names. E James Bowman (talk) 22:43, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Maori name isn't what is being discussed, the dual name is. The language of the name doesn't matter, and wasn't even mentioned in the request.
    • "Ōwairaka" doesn't do anything to alleviate that confusion for the average reader.
    • I very much doubt that any English speaker will naturally refer to the mountain as "Ōwairaka / Mount Albert". They are far more likely to just use "Mount Albert". That list also contains many features that are referred to by a single name only on Wikipedia, such as Fox Glacier and Franz Josef Glacier, which are referred to using a dual name in that list.
    • Just because the volcano has an official dual (or triple) name, doesn't mean we use it on Wikipedia. That list also contains names which are not used in Wikipedia page titles, such as listing this very page as "Ōwairaka / Te Ahi-kā-a-Rakataura / Mount Albert". --Spekkios (talk) 00:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While I’m sure it isn’t an intentional political move, the proposed move would appear to diminish Te Kawerau ā Maki’s link to the mountain, relegating Te Ahi-kā-a-Rakataura to the background. It also introduces confusion with Owairaka, and is likely to be read by some as a union or intersection of the two suburbs. — HTGS (talk) 11:41, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The rationale for just using Ōwairaka (which, as an aside, isn't an issue with the suburb per WP:SMALLDETAILS) has been explained above, but I'm sure if you'd rather go with all three names that would be possible. Turnagra (talk) 19:43, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As you know, I do think single names are generally preferable to dual (and triple) names, but for reasons given above I don’t think that would be a sensible move for this article. We have the English option, and this is the English encyclopaedia. — HTGS (talk) 23:08, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This page uses New Zealand English, which includes many words of Māori origin, and reflects language in New Zealand. Stating that only one rather purist version of (The Queen's?) English be used appears to contravene WP:NPOV Somej (talk) 02:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Note MOS:COMMONALITY; even when a Maori word is more common in New Zealand than its English equivalent (and I note that in almost all cases, including this case, the opposite is true), we generally prefer the English equivalent. This is because the equivalent is still part of New Zealand English but has the benefit of allowing non-New Zealanders to also understand what the article is discussing; for example, we prefer "glasses" to "eyeglasses" or "spectacles" even on articles that use American English or British English. BilledMammal (talk) 02:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't remotely a case of commonality though – Other countries don't have their own versions of Ōwairaka / Mount Albert floating around which they know by different names. There is one mountain by that name, and it's in New Zealand. Further to that, MOS:COMMONALITY doesn't trump MOS:TIES, they're literally next to each other. As an aside, I do find this persistent focus on so-called commonality problematic, as I've expressed in the past, but that's a conversation for another day. Turnagra (talk) 19:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    COMMONALITY doesn't override TIES, it works with it. It requires us to take opportunities for commonality; if there is a word (like "glasses") that is part of the local English variety, and is used more broadly than the alternatives, then we are required to use it even if an alternative (like "eyeglasses") is generally preferred in that English variety. BilledMammal (talk) 23:07, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool - that's not relevant here then. The article for Dairy (store) doesn't use the common "Convenience store" because it's expressly about something in NZ. This is the same thing. Turnagra (talk) 01:32, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Somej, you are hearing things that I didn’t say. New Zealand English is the English I was referring to. Please watch your assertions about my POV. — HTGS (talk) 01:50, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @HTGS, apologies if you took that comment personally. My comment was more general - the idea that Māori words are not part of NZ English has been raised many times during this 'great New Zealand naming debate', and I wouldn't like the (neutral) article closers to think that it is unanimously supported. Hopefully you can agree with this revision: for WPCOMMON to be consistent with WP:NPOV, wikipedia should be open to whatever names that people are using. Somej (talk) 03:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Appreciate it Somej. Let's be honest though: most people are not asserting that Māori words are never part of English. I grew up spending time in Whakatane, Ohope, Rotorua, Taupo, Whangarei... I don't pretend that those words aren't the English names. There's just a higher threshold for a “new” Māori name to become the common English name over and above the name people already use for a place. I'm 100% ready to support Ōwairaka once it becomes the most common name, but let's not pretend it's absolutely clearer and less ambiguous to use Ōwairaka or a combo-name right now. Those both introduce as much issue as they allay while still not being more common. So what would the move be for then? Political correctness? Righting great wrongs?
    Maybe I should clarify, “English name” was just my shorthand to suggest the name that is already the clearest English candidate that also doesn't carry the POV issues of favouring one Māori name over the other… and also happens to be the name with English origin. That it has English origin is not the only (or even primary) reason to use it. — HTGS (talk) 04:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Principally per WP:PRECISE. I find it hard to justify having Mount Albert (New Zealand) and Mount Albert, New Zealand refer to separate subjects. "Ōwairaka / Mount Albert", meanwhile, serves as effective natural disambiguation and has sufficient usage to meet WP:WIAN. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 17:21, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition to the issues with leading with the less recognizable name, and not using disambiguation terms that the reader will find useful, HTGS makes a good point about Owairaka; if moved, the article will not sufficiently distinguish between this volcano and that suburb. As an alternative, what would you think of Mount Albert (volcano); it is more recognizable than the proposed title, more natural, better conforms to MOS:SLASH, and better confirms to WP:NZNC's rules on disambiguation. In addition, for those that care about very small numbers of characters, is two characters more WP:CONCISE than the proposed title. BilledMammal (talk) 23:07, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Above you said that you don't consider three characters as a convincing argument for concise, so why are you arguing for something only two characters more concise here? Further to this, I totally agree that having this article at "Owairaka" wouldn't be sufficient – thankfully, not only do we have a macron (which is sufficient per WP:SMALLDETAILS), but we're also using a dual name. It's pretty clear that "Ōwairaka / Mount Albert" is referring to something different than both Mount Albert, New Zealand and Owairaka. Finally, it's been made pretty clear that MOS:SLASH is irrelevant here, so please stop trying to use that in your arguments. Turnagra (talk) 23:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought I made that clear in my response; while I don't consider it a convincing argument, some editors do care about very small numbers of characters, and it may be convincing to them.
    Macron's are not sufficient per WP:SMALLDETAILS, because many readers will glaze over them; even the Auckland Council sometimes forgets to use the macron. In addition, the dual name isn't sufficient, because slashes can be confusing to readers as, per MOS:SLASH, they suggest a relationship without specifying how. For example, a reasonable interpretation of the proposed title is that it is combining coverage of two neighbouring suburbs, Owairaka and Mount Albert, into one article. Another reasonable interpretation would be to simply ignore everything after the slash as generally confusing. As such, I disagree that it is clear it is referring to something different, and it certainly isn't clear that it is referring to the volcano commonly known as Mount Albert.
    However, what might be an improvement is my suggestion to disambiguate with (volcano); what do you think of that? BilledMammal (talk) 23:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:SMALLDETAILS makes a distinction between Ice Cube and Ice cube, which is far less of a difference than a macron. Until the policy clearly states that diacritics are not sufficient, then I don't see an issue.
    I also don't agree with the premise that the mountain is commonly known as Mount Albert – that may have formerly been the case, but there is a wide degree of usage of the dual name and Ōwairaka now. Per WP:MPN we should be following the modern usage, not what it was fifty years ago. And given that modern usage is split between all three names, the dual name is the only one which is most recognisable to all looking for the mountain.
    I don't think that (volcano) is a more suitable disambiguation, as the dual name is a more natural alternative and its use means we don't need to worry about any unnecessary parentheticals. Turnagra (talk) 23:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would disagree that is far less of a difference; readers are generally familiar with capitalization, so don't ignore it. The same isn't true of macrons. BilledMammal (talk) 00:10, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How is "Ōwairaka / Mount Albert" more natural than "Mount Albert volcano"? Naturalness is the "title that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English." Do you think it's more likely that someone who wants the volcano will type in Google "Ōwairaka / Mount Albert" or "Mount Albert volcano"? It's obviously going to be the later. --Spekkios (talk) 01:15, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A quick check of the 20 article sources from the last ten years shows the word 'volcanic' used only once when describing this maunga. By far the most common (so I would argue 'natural' to a person familiar with the general subject area) is the dual name Ōwairaka / Mount Albert. Then either Ōwairaka, Mount Albert, Tūpuna Maunga or maunga. E James Bowman (talk) 02:04, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Naturalness doesn't mention anything about "to a person familiar with the general subject area", it just states the "title that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English". I find it incredibly unlikely that someone wanting information on the "Mount Albert volcano" would search for anything else other than "Mount Albert volcano" or "Mount Albert mountain", making the proposed title not natural in the slightest. --Spekkios (talk) 02:25, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My bad, that's quoted from 'concision'. I think the most commonly used 'Ōwairaka / Mount Albert' is a far more 'natural' term to search with than a word used once in the last ten years. Obviously the editors of the sources would think the same way, given the importance of search to them. E James Bowman (talk) 02:42, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how it's realistic to expect the average person to search for 'Ōwairaka / Mount Albert' instead of "Mount Albert volcano" or "Mount Albert mountain" --Spekkios (talk) 02:47, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You're making an awful lot of assertions about other people's searching habits here. Given that a wide range of sources use the Māori name or the dual name, it seems more reasonable to assume that people could be searching for any of the three - making the dual name the easiest to find across the board. Turnagra (talk) 04:00, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    People don't use slashes much, because as Spekkios points out they are unnatural. For example, Stewart Island, where the dual name is considerably better known than here. There are extremely few searches for either Stewart Island / Rakiura or Rakiura / Stewart Island, and "Stewart Island New Zealand", despite the unnecessary disambiguation, is searched considerably more than any of the other possible dual name formats. BilledMammal (talk) 04:11, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if what you were saying is true (which I dispute, but setting that aside for a moment) I highly doubt that literally nobody would search for "Stewart Island / Rakiura" (or even only very few people). I suspect that, as with ngrams, there are some technical difficulties being caused by the slash.
    With that said, if your entire issue is with the slash (which would make your support of the NZNC guidelines calling for the use of a slash suspect, but again setting that aside) then perhaps there's another form of dual name you'd prefer? Turnagra (talk) 04:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Slashes work fine; the issue is that people very rarely search for dual names, and search for dual names with a slash even less.
    My issue is with the slash, with leading with the disambiguation, and using a disambiguation that readers struggle to recognize. When the dual name is genuinely the common name, I don't have an issue with the slash, but in all other cases it is problematic. BilledMammal (talk) 04:40, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I am making an assertion. The most likely term an English speaker is going to use when searching for the mountain is "Mt Albert volcano" or "Mount Albert mountain", as that is what the mountain is most commonly known as in the English language. In other words, if I went to the area and asked 100 people what that mountain is called, it's extremely likely that most, if not all, will reply with "Mount Albert". --Spekkios (talk) 05:16, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    as that is what the mountain is most commonly known as in the English language - Have you got any proof of this? I see a lot of shouting about this, but the only sources I've seen provided have either used the dual name or been about the wrong mountain. Turnagra (talk) 05:25, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you think most English speakers use Ōwairaka? --Spekkios (talk) 05:49, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that the vast majority of sources which we've seen so far, especially recent ones, use the dual name. Having manually gone through the first ten pages of a news search for "Mount Albert", there were only ten results which referenced the hill (the rest were mostly for the suburb, with a smattering of results for the grammar school or unrelated international uses). Of these, 9 (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9) used a variation of the dual name, while only one (1) used the name "Mt Albert" on its own - though even this one ends up using the name Ōwairaka more than Mt Albert in the body. Based on these media sources, it seems pretty conclusive that people do, indeed, use the dual name most frequently. Turnagra (talk) 06:17, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So if you walked up to 100 people on the street and asked them what the name was, you would expect most of them to reply "Ōwairaka / Mount Albert" ? --Spekkios (talk) 06:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Several of those are uses by government agencies (which are not independent) and the rest are in relation to one event, specifically one event closely related to Maori history with the hill. I don't believe they tell us anything about what the WP:COMMONNAME is. BilledMammal (talk) 23:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with your premise that the sources aren't independent, but that's an aside. They were every reference to the mountain across ten pages of news results, so I think that's a pretty clear indicator of how the mountain is known. Plus, at least they refer to the right place - unlike your sources.
    I'd also note that the mountain doesn't have an official name. So, even if all of your claims around the independence of government sources were true (which they're not, but for argument's sake) then it's completely irrelevant here, as there's no official name which they would have to use. Turnagra (talk) 00:32, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The Auckland Council isn't a independent, reliable English-language source, and thus isn't useful for determining the common name of the location.
    I had a look at the first ten pages of results for Mount Albert between January and June 2019, immediately prior to the dispute over the trees began which is the sole topic of your sources. I found three sources; one using "Mount Albert", one using "Ōwairaka/Mt Albert", and one using four names; "Ōwairaka", "Te Ahi-kā-a-Rakataura", "Mt Albert", "Ōwairaka/Te Ahi-kā-a-Rakataura/Mt Albert".
    These cover a wide variety of subjects and so don't have the WP:RECENTISM issues your source do, and they establish that the proposed dual name is not the WP:COMMONNAME and thus per MOS:SLASH and multiple local names should be avoided. I recognize the issues with the current disambiguation, but a slashed name is not the solution; I am happy to discuss alternatives. BilledMammal (talk) 02:28, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, I'd like to suggest that you stop citing MOS:SLASH - you supported the change to WP:NZNC which required the use of a spaced slash for consistency in dual names, and it seems like bad faith to support the implementation of something which you then try to use against articles which use it.
    Secondly, in terms of your sources, the first one uses both Ōwairaka and Mount Albert (Samuel Marsden is thought to have been the first Pākehā to have climbed Ōwairaka, in 1820 with Ngāti Whātua chief Apihai te Kawau.) I'm not sure that three sources, none of which exclusively use the name you're in favour of, is the best grounds to make a decision on. I'm also confused as to what grounds you're claiming that Auckland Council isn't a reliable source in this case, given that government sources are cited quite heavily on WP:WIAN and there's no official name, which is usually your line of attack regarding government sources re. dual names. But regardless, your sources don't fundamentally change anything - it's pretty clear that the dual name is still overwhelmingly favoured and is common enough to fit the requirements of WP:NATURAL as well as being the common name of its own accord. Turnagra (talk) 05:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I supported it for when the dual name is actually the common name and I am not convinced it is the common name here. I would also note that I have been reconsidering its use even when the dual name is the common name, as given the reasons for MOS:SLASH I have been wondering if we should always use the common format, but that is a discussion for a different time.
    The first one only uses Ōwairaka in the context of historical events; it clearly prefers Mount Albert as the current name. As for why the Auckland Council isn't a reliable source, that is because it's a council website, not an actual news organization; we never consider those reliable sources for anything beyond what WP:SPS would support. BilledMammal (talk) 06:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're not convinced that the dual name is common here then I think you've got the bar set impossibly high (which, given you tried to move Aoraki / Mount Cook, is probably true). But setting that aside, there's also no good reason to go after spaced slash use unless you're trying to get rid of dual names altogether. Turnagra (talk) 06:36, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not convinced because every reliable source you have cited is related to a single event, the removal of exotic trees on the mountain in the context of Maori ownership. This raises some rather obvious issues about how representative your sources are, and the issue of WP:RECENTISM.
    As for the spaced slash, you appear to be saying that I am not allowed to disagree with that convention, while also saying that if I agree with it I am not allowed to raise the MOS:SLASH issue. Neither of these positions are correct, and I would suggest in the future focus on the MOS:SLASH argument itself, rather than the editor making it. BilledMammal (talk) 07:06, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Provide actual sources showing that reliable publications use the desired term, your justifications as they are are based on personal opinion, not following secondary sources as closely as possible, which is wiki policy. 2601:405:4400:9420:50B5:BD47:2846:F0B (talk) 22:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kia ora - I have, several of them. Please see my edit above. Recent sources which refer to the mountain seem to nearly exclusively use the dual name. Turnagra (talk) 07:48, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A quick look at the article's list of references (referred to in the move request) shows eight source titles use variations of the dual name. Or see @Turnagra's nine sources posted at 06:17, 23 July 2022, replying to the previous response. E James Bowman (talk) 23:36, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist comment So far is a summary of arguments.
    • There is a general concern on how to disambiguate this Mount Albert with various other Mount Alberts in the country.
      • Supporters say that it does distinguish this Mount Albert from the other Mount Alberts as no other Mt. Albert has this combination of names.
      • Opposers fear confusion with Owairaka the suburb, and not finding the Maori name natural or recognizable.
    • Opposers seem to be against using Maori placenames in titles in general as "too uncommon" or "unnatural", despite evidence provided by supporters that using Maori forms in this case especially has decent levels of recognition (with one source explicitly labelling the Maori name "already widely used".)

Hope relisting one more time and writing this allows participants and third parties more time to review the arguments presented so far. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject New Zealand has been notified of this discussion. Turnagra (talk) 01:41, 6 August 2022 (UTC) [reply]
I have to take exception to your comment that Opposers seem to be against using Maori placenames in titles in general. There is legitimate discussion to be had over some of the New Zealand names and that generalisation does not stand up. What we are seeing here are generally the edge cases where an official name change has been made, but has not yet been established as the common name. It will most likely happen, but we follow not lead these changes. Aircorn (talk) 05:52, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's fair to say there seems to be a degree of opposition to Māori names, when there are comments like We have the English option, and this is the English encyclopaedia and even when a Maori word is more common in New Zealand than its English equivalent [...] we generally prefer the English equivalent, both of which are being made despite clear evidence that recent sources (in English) overwhelmingly prefer the use of the dual name or Ōwairaka exclusively. This also matches the views presented in other similar move requests, where WP:USEENGLISH often ends up getting cited despite clear evidence that the name in question is used in English despite being Māori in origin. Turnagra (talk) 08:45, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: The article references show that "Ōwairaka / Mount Albert" is now the commonly used form in government sources and most importantly in the media (both stuff and the Herald). Concerns about slashes are trumped by this common use and, anyway, are now common in NZ articles. I'm not convinced that the change improves concision, fixes the disambiguation issue ("precision"), or increases consistency (that seems to depend on whether you are looking at consistency among all Auckland volcanoes or among the 'main' ones). But I think all of those are red herrings, anyway.Furius (talk) 18:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: It's the clearest title to disambiguate between the maunga and the two suburbs adjacent to it. Both names are in common usage, to a degree that Te Ahi-kā-a-Rakataura isn't. If this changes in the future, we can always revisit it. --Prosperosity (talk) 02:50, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Ōwairaka / Mount Albert seems like the simpliest way to disambiguate between Mount Albert, New Zealand and Mount Albert (New Zealand) for now. I understand this case is a bit more confusing with the suburb of Owairaka and sopme recent use of the dual name for the suburb. Still the proposed solution is a natural disabigutation and meets WP:WIAN. ShakyIsles (talk) 20:22, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. MOS:SLASH is not categorical but allows for qualification, this appears to be one of them. Ideally with these name changes, there would be a outright choice like became the case with Denali, but as WP:RS sources, government and media, appear to favour the combination of the two, this cold merit the use of slash here. Sleath56 (talk) 00:38, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support.
Disambiguates with New Zealand's other "Mt Alberts" in Wellington[1][2], Ross Dependancy, [3] Nelson district, [4] and Otago [5], and the other five matches on LINZ
Common use well established as cited by others above
The hill has no official name; three names are listed by LINZ has having equal, unofficial status
The idea that Auckland Council (or any government agency) cannot be a reliable source is a conspiracy theory that has no place on Wikipedia. Somej (talk) 05:01, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "NZGB Gazetteer | linz.govt.nz". gazetteer.linz.govt.nz.
  2. ^ "Mt Albert". Wellington City Council.
  3. ^ "NZGB Gazetteer | linz.govt.nz". gazetteer.linz.govt.nz.
  4. ^ "Mt Albert, NZGB Gazetteer". gazetteer.linz.govt.nz.
  5. ^ "NZGB Gazetteer | linz.govt.nz". gazetteer.linz.govt.nz. Retrieved 20 August 2022.
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:Ōwairaka_/_Mount_Albert&oldid=1204484942"