Talk:Bulli Point

New Zealand Low‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move 10 February 2023

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. (non-admin closure) ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 06:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Te Pōporo / Bulli Point → Bulli Point – Per WP:COMMONNAME, MOS:SLASH, and WP:CONCISE. The proposed title sees overwhelming use compared to the current title; ngrams shows no use of the current title and considerable use of the proposed title, Google News shows 8 results using both names (and only three using the current title) compared to 43 results for the proposed title, Google Scholar shows no results for the current title compared to 44 results for the proposed title. The proposed title is also shorter and better complies with MOS:SLASH which recommends against joining two words with a slash because it suggests they are related without explaining how. BilledMammal (talk) 07:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose given the name of this point was changed in 2018, a source such as ngrams which only goes up to 2019 probably isn't the most solid argument. The nominator also clearly hasn't done their homework properly, as the vast majority of those supposed scholar results refer to a Bulli Point in Australia - suggesting that the proposed title isn't WP:PRECISE enough for the nominator and that the current title would be a much better option. But setting that aside, and filtering to sources which have been published since the name change, there are actually only two sources on google scholar which refer to this place - one of which are minutes from Waikato Regional Council. It's a similar story with the news, where all eight of the sources using both names are still relevant while only 12 of the results for "Bulli Point" are. Of those, however, 4 are about an anecdotal story from Lorde, and so I'm not sure how reliable that is. This leaves eight (which, as an aside, is less than the 12 articles about Bulli Point in Australia), the same amount as the dual name. As such, there's no evidence that the proposed title is the common name, while the current title is clearly more precise and recognisable given the confusion that the nominator seems to be having with their sources. Add to that the fact that the nominator supported the WP:NZNC guidelines which require the use of a spaced slash for dual names and that the current name is used by the sort of sources WP:WIAN requires and there frankly isn't a leg to stand on here. Turnagra (talk) 08:40, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a similar story with the news, where all eight of the sources using both names are still relevant while only 12 of the results for "Bulli Point" are. I believe you miscounted; you are correct that there are some stories related to other Bulli Points that I overlooked, but 32, not 12, are related to this Bulli Point ([1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32]). Your count of scholarly results also appears to have the same issues.

Add to that the fact that the nominator supported the WP:NZNC guidelines which require the use of a spaced slash for dual names When the dual name is the appropriate title, due to being the clear WP:COMMONNAME, I believe the slash is appropriate as that is the format typically used. Outside of those cases, the MOS tells us not to use the slash - if you want to propose an alternative format for dual names, please do so. BilledMammal (talk) 09:13, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per my comment, I filtered the results to only those since the name change took place, to give a more accurate representation of which of the names is more commonly used. Of course sources from before a name was adopted aren't going to use said name. Turnagra (talk) 09:19, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~I think you forgot to mention in your post that you filtered the results~~, and forgot to apply the same standard to articles using both names; two of the eight are from before the name changed in late 2018. However, your count is still inaccurate; there are fourteen articles since the name changed in late 2018, not twelve. Even considering only the articles published since the name change, the proposed title is used over twice as much as the current title.

You also appear to have miscounted the number of sources using the name for places elsewhere; there are ten total, including those from before the official name change, not twelve since after the official name change.

However, we shouldn't be only considering articles published since the name change; WP:NAMECHANGES tells us to give extra weight to independent, reliable English-language sources ("reliable sources") written after the name change, not to give no weight to sources published before it. BilledMammal (talk) 09:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly stated as such in my post when I said and filtering to sources which have been published since the name change - for the record, I did do the same thing for the dual name articles and it still showed as 8, but on checking it again I see you're right that two dual name sources predate the name change. As for the count of articles, I'm only seeing ten for the name Bulli Point since the name change (excluding the four which are Lorde retelling a story and not as reliable) - fundamentally though, it's pretty clear that Bulli Point isn't anywhere near WP:PRECISE enough and that Bulli Point should actually be a DAB page. Turnagra (talk) 07:55, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't interpret that as in relation to the news results, but I can see how you intended it to be read that way; I've struck my comment.

However, I disagree that the articles related to Lorde are less reliable; there doesn't appear to be a policy-based reason for that position. I also disagree that Bulli Point isn't the primary topic, as 32 results to 10 is very persuasive, but even if disambiguation is required the current title isn't the correct one - per WP:NZNC#Disambiguation of New Zealand place names it should be Bulli Point (New Zealand). BilledMammal (talk) 08:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Dual article titles are generally discouraged. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Rreagan007. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:29, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Current name is the actual name that it is reffered to as. Is on road signs, it is on maps, it meets all the requirements of WP:WIAN. ShakyIsles (talk) 03:05, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WIAN doesn't have requirements, it provides a list of sources that may be helpful in establishing a widely accepted name. They aren't always helpful - they need to be independent, neutral, and reliable - but they can be. Maps are one of these sources, as are Google news, Google ngrams, and many others, but road signs are not, as they are almost never independent.

In New Zealand, maps lack independence due to a law requiring the use of the official name, and even for international services like Google maps that tend not to comply with the law they often directly copy place names from government sources, resulting in unclear independence - see WP:NZGB. While this issue suggests we shouldn't use the maps, even when it is clear they haven't copied the place name from government sources due to not using the official name, I will note that in this case Google maps uses Bulli Point (while users have added a second label stating that a business called Te Poporo / Bulli Point exists there, per WP:UGC this is unreliable and cannot be used). BilledMammal (talk) 05:42, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support: "Bulli Point" appears on the Internet significantly more often than "Te Pōporo" - even for recent sources. (Of course, the page should note that the official name is "Te Pōporo / Bulli Point".) PatricKiwi (talk) 08:23, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What are you defining as "appears on the internet more"? At any rate, of course it will - there's one in Australia which seems to be causing a lot of confusion as to what the primary topic is. Either component name of a dual name is also always going to show up more than the dual name as a whole, even when the dual name is overwhelmingly the most common of the three. For instance, let's say that "Bulli Point" was used 3 times, "Te Pōporo" once and "Te Pōporo / Bulli Point" 6 times. Despite only being half as common as the dual name, Bulli Point would still show up as being used 90% of the time. Turnagra (talk) 07:12, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom.--Spekkios (talk) 19:43, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Very clear common name per proposal. — HTGS (talk) 05:06, 20 February 2023 (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.