Jump to content

Talk:Cam River (Canterbury)

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

Untitled

[edit]

Note that Google maps erroneously names the Kaiapoi River as the Waimakariri, and barely shows the Cam. dramatic (talk) 22:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 March 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 section.

Result:
No consensus. See no agreement below to make these changes. For now these articles will keep their present titles. However it does seem that some of the proposals may have merit, so there is no prejudice if the nom or other editors read the rationales carefully and at any time open a new move request(s) for one or more of those proposals on the appropriate talk page(s). Thanks and kudos to editors for your input; good health to all! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 17:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

– In December last year, a move request saw several articles relating to New Zealand places which have dual names move to said dual name as a form of natural disambiguation. Following that move, this request proposes moving other articles for which the dual name would be a more natural and preferable form of disambiguation. All of the proposed moves:

  1. have a dual name as recorded in the NZGB Gazetteer, but their article is not at the dual place name
  2. have a current title which requires disambiguation, and are not the primary topic for that title
  3. would have a title of equal or shorter length by using the dual name, per WP:CONCISE.

I believe that, given the above criteria, the proposed moves make for a much better form of disambiguation and for clearer names overall. Some of the above names have further cases for use of the dual name (such as consistency with linked places, as with Pigeon Island / Wāwāhi Waka being at a dual name with the neighbouring Pig Island / Mātau), but I believe each of the above stands on their own merit even aside from these cases. Turnagra (talk) 04:54, 22 March 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 00:14, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: "Diamond Harbour, New Zealand" was removed from this request on 23/3 as the article relates to the town, but the dual name applies only to the bay and not the town Turnagra (talk) 05:10, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Johnragla (talk) 07:51, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: For each place is the dual name more common in usage than the alternative name? — HTGS (talk) 09:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't checked all of them, but of the two I have checked (Pigeon Island and Diamond Harbour) the single name is much more common. BilledMammal (talk) 09:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      To be clear, by alternative name I mean the other name, which is typically the Māori name (excepting Lake Rotoroa). — HTGS (talk) 09:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Possibly Otututu; a search for Otututu returns slightly more results than a search for "Rough River" New Zealand, but we are likely missing some for Rough River due to the need to specify "New Zealand". The rest don't appear to be more common. BilledMammal (talk) 10:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I admittedly haven't checked all of them, but I don't believe so - in some cases, the other part of the dual name would still need disambiguation as well (eg. Aotea, Hamilton Lake, Ari). The dual name provides the best of both worlds and a natural way to ensure both names are easily accessible. Turnagra (talk) 17:51, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Natural disambiguation's are required to not be obscure, and many of these names are obscure - for example, Pigeon Island / Wāwāhi Waka has no hits on ngrams, and only one hit on Google News. The same is true of Te Waipapa / Diamond Harbour; Google News and Ngrams. I also note that Diamond Harbour is already naturally disambiguated, with a far less obscure format; I would support applying that format to the other articles. Finally, it appears that some of these, such as Stephens Island, may be the primary topic for that name. BilledMammal (talk) 09:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many of these places are obscure - I'm not surprised that Pigeon Island / Wāwāhi got so few hits, because the island itself doesn't get much coverage. I tried to search for anything relating to just "Pigeon Island" but all results were either international or referring to an island in Tamatea / Dusky Sound. In terms of Stephens Island / Takapourewa being the primary, that doesn't seem the case to me given that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC states that primaries need to be much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined - which is not the case here based on these numbers. Turnagra (talk) 17:51, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • When I refine the search, I find about a hundred results for this Pigeon Island; enough to say that one result is too obscure to use. Regarding Stephens Island, It receives about twice as many views as the second most, and about 60% of the the total views; I believe it meets the test.
      • Note that I've struck my proposal to disambiguate the other titles similar to how Diamond Harbour is disambiguated; I've realized that all the current titles are disambiguated to the format required by WP:NZNC. The exception to this is Lake Rotoroa (Hamilton, New Zealand), which should be moved to Lake Rotoroa (Hamilton). HTGS, thoughts? BilledMammal (talk) 22:47, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cam River / Ruataniwha - Weak oppose. The two options are (oddly) exactly the same number of letters (and even characters), but the switch between two languages and the slash in the middle is always going to make a less natural title. My litmus test for most dual names is “do people say it?” nd this just doesn’t pass. The dual name is in written use though, so although it’s no more concise and no more natural—as natural disambiguation is supposed to achieve—it is a valid option. — HTGS (talk) 11:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Te Waipapa / Diamond Harbour - Oppose. As a town, it’s generally less likely that the dual name will be the common name, and Te Waipapa / Diamond Harbour just isn’t in use. See news results for Diamond harbour, and for both names; all results that include Waipapa only mention Waipapa Ave. For natural disambiguation to be ideal the name should really be in common use. — HTGS (talk) 11:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: I have removed Te Waipapa / Diamond Harbour from the move request - perhaps it's worth striking that bit of your reply for clarity? Turnagra (talk) 05:10, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lake Rotoroa / Hamilton Lake - Weak support. I’m going from memory here, but last time I checked, both Lake Rotoroa and Hamilton Lake were in use, but with Rotoroa vastly more common. The dual name was (oddly) not in use. Correct me if I’m wrong. However, both the alternative common names would require disambiguation. Theoretically Hamilton Lake (New Zealand) would be more concise, but it would avoid mention of the most common name, and still require a disambiguation. At least with the structure of the dual name (including the word Hamilton) it is a sort-of satisfying way of shortening the page title a little. Shrug. — HTGS (talk) 11:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Per BilledMammal, the page should presently be at Lake Rotoroa (Hamilton), and move should be considered against this name. I no longer support this move, but I don't particularly oppose it either. If the present discussion does not result in a move to the dual name, this page should be moved to the briefer disambiguation. — HTGS (talk) 08:51, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pukeamoamo / Mitre - Oppose. Again, not in common use, and not natural enough that this makes a lot of sense. See news for Mitre and Pukeamoamo where the latter doesn’t show any results. — HTGS (talk) 11:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    HTGS - I wonder if it's worth bolding the specific articles as well in the above four, to make it clearer what you're referring to with each one?
    In terms of your articles about Pukeamoamo / Mitre, many of them are either describing historical usage before the dual name, talking about Mitre Flat, or talking about Mitre 10 (despite you excluding that, which is weird that it's still showing up). On further looking into Te Waipapa / Diamond Harbour, it seems that the dual name only applies to the bay and not the town anyway, so I'd be happy to take that one out of the move request and have a similar situation to Tauhinukorokio / Mount Pleasant and Mount Pleasant, New Zealand if that'd be preferable? I also dispute that a slash is less natural, but that's an aside. Turnagra (talk) 17:51, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @HTGS: re. your recent edit note, I believe ShakyIsles' revision was more to clarify that they were one user voting for different outcomes based on different pages, not necessarily that the pages should be first. Your revision still has that clarity issue - I also reiterate my above comment that Diamond Harbour has been removed from this request, so that bit is irrelevant. Turnagra (talk) 10:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all. The proposed titles are all improvements along WP:CONCISE, and carry other benefits as well. For example, WP:TITLEDAB recommends using parenthetical disambiguation when none of the other solutions lead to an optimal article title, suggesting that the proposed natural-disambiguation titles are preferable. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:43, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @ModernDayTrilobite: I would note that WP:TITLEDAB continues, stating Do not, however, use obscure or made-up names in regards to natural disambiguation. Comma disambiguation would be an option, but the reason we use parenthetical disambiguation (over natural disambiguation or comma disambiguation) is that for non-populated places, WP:NZNC requires parenthetical disambiguation. BilledMammal (talk) 22:47, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I wouldn't consider the dual names to be "obscure or made-up", personally. Even if they're not the most common name for a given feature, I think the dual names are still recognizable enough not to be considered obscure – and they're clearly not made-up, given that they're used by a national government. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 00:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      They are not made up, but at least some of them are obscure; for instance, the dual name for Pigeon Island is only used once in a Google News search, while others such as Aotea / Shelly Beach and North Cape / Otou are not used at all. Of course, that isn't true for all of them, and I wonder if it would be better to have separate move requests for each title - although I believe NZNC would need to be changed, per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, first. BilledMammal (talk) 00:36, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support. This is mainly fine as proposed with the exception of Diamond Harbour, New Zealand, which I don't support. I've added to that article and explained the difference between the settlement and the bay; as noted above, the dual name refers to the bay only. For the remaining articles, WP:CONCISE does apply and to me, using the dual name is much preferable over the current disambiguation for each case. I've looked at every article and their related Gazetteer entry and offer the following comments and thoughts on individual articles:
    • Cam River, Mount Alfred and Pigeon Island have the old form of dual-naming based on an unspaced forward slash. WP:NCNZ could be more specific that we have consensus within the New Zealand WikiProject that we use the spaced slash even if the official name shows the unspaced version.
    • For Forsyth Island, North Cape, and Stephens Island, I note that the dual name is not official. Disambiguation is still required and to use the dual name is preferable over the current disambiguation as per WP:CONCISE. I note that whilee LINZ (which run the Gazetteer) have the WP equivalents of redirects, where a name component redirects to their preferred or chosen entry, there are no redirects in place for Forsyth Island (the only entry is for Forsyth Island / Te Paruparu) and for Stephens Island (the only entry is for Stephens Island / Takapourewa).
    • The Pyramid and The Sisters have official names based on parenthetical disambiguation at The Pyramid (Tarakoikoia) and The Sisters (Rangitatahi), respectively. This is an old form of naming that LINZ is slowly phasing out; they are going through the list and slowly updating the names to the current convention of using a spaced forward slash. I support the use of a spaced forward slash, as per LINZ's current practice and as proposed here, over the (current) official name.
    • The remaining titles are all official names and match the proposed article titles. Schwede66 20:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for your point on Diamond Harbour the town vs. Te Waipapa / Diamond Harbour. Given that the dual name applies to the bay and not the town, I've removed it from this move request. Might be worth a separate article at some point! Turnagra (talk) 05:10, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all but Diamond Harbour per Schwede66. --SHB2000 (talk) 12:59, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose mass move request – Each of these articles presents its own specific situation. In some cases, dual naming is reasonably common, in other cases, it is not. WP:NATURAL requires names used for natural disambiguation to be nearly as a common as the undisambiguated name would be, and it is impossible to make that determination in each case here in a mass move request. This request should be closed, and a specific case for moving each specific article, with data on the commonality of the proposed name, should be presented at each article's talk page. RGloucester — ☎ 13:51, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I don't see this as an example of natural disambiguation like some who have opposed this move. It's more a request in line with WP:SMALLDETAILS in using an alternative spelling as a way to disambiguate topics sufficiently. As suggested in the original request, they are all topics that require disambiguation from a different primary title. Between the two relevant aspects of disambiguation in WP:DAB, the dual names are unique and allow someone searching for these to get to the page quickly. On the second point, I don't believe having a dual name title will impede someone searching for the NZ place and whether the Maori name or the dual is used commonly is less important to consider. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 02:40, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • |Support Lake Rotoroa / Hamilton Lake, Support BilledMamals proposal for Lake Rotoroa (Hamilton), oppose all others: Disambiguation still needs to meet WP:NATURAL. Lake Rotoroa / Hamilton Lake seems to be reasonably common per HTGS, and the proposed name seems to better reflect names being used. All others would require evidence that the proposed names are used frequently enough to be an article title. I also prefer Lake Rotoroa (Hamilton) over the current proposed name, but I can support either. --Spekkios (talk) 23:45, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all except Diamond Harbour for reasons other have noted. For all these other place it is a simple and sensible way to disambiguate inline with WP:SMALLDETAILS. ShakyIsles (talk) 23:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment: I'm giving this discussion a relist in hopes that it ends up appearing like less of a WP:TRAINWRECK than it currently does. Steel1943 (talk) 00:14, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Curious as to how this appears to be a WP:TRAINWRECK? There is clear rationale for including all of these moves together, and with the exception of two users there seems to be a clear consensus in favour of the moves (with the exception of Diamond Harbour, which I have struck from the move. Turnagra (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree Turnagra. I have cleaned up the formating to indicate each users position more clearly. ShakyIsles (talk) 01:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you have miscounted. There are four editors broadly against the proposal, including User:HTGS who has given specific replies to four of the move requests which adds to the notion that this is a trainwreck that should have individual move requests opened. Further, those editors have stronger arguments; WP:NATURAL requires that the proposed titles not be obscure. BilledMammal (talk) 01:33, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Granted re. the numbers (the formatting threw me off), but regardless there are nearly twice that number who disagree about it being a trainwreck. As above, I have clearly outlined my rationale for including these together and explained why they make sense as a cohesive unit - they are also far more cohesive than other move requests which you've had no issue going ahead in the past, so it does seem a tad hypocritical to propose that these need individual requests when you've not had an issue with this previously.
    And as an aside, arguments aren't stronger just because you like them more. Turnagra (talk) 01:46, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly, we disagree on how cohesive certain move requests are - though I'm not certain which move request you are referring to, as I can only find this one which might be applicable, and you will see that I opposed two of the proposed moves on the grounds that they should be considered individually - and that move request had the advantage of only considering four titles, rather than the fifteen considered here.
    And the arguments are stronger because policy requires that the proposed title not be obscure, and per the evidence presented above at least some of these titles are obscure. BilledMammal (talk) 02:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm referring to this one - which yes, is only eight titles, but which have nothing in common with their circumstances other than being dual names (and was rightly shut down as a train wreck).
    Arguments in favour of the move have repeatedly cited policies which support the move - your argument relies on the assertion that the dual names do not have sufficient usage to fulfil that requirement under WP:NATURAL, which other users have disagreed with. Your "evidence" isn't as compelling as you think it is, given the amount of other uses which get caught up in it - hell, Pigeon Island / Wāwāhi Waka isn't even the only Pigeon Island in that corner of NZ. Turnagra (talk) 02:49, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think those are more cohesive than this discussion, and I think the explanation that we have different views of the cohesiveness of a move request is a better explanation that believing that we are both being hypocritical. However, that is off topic.
    As for how compelling my evidence is, that is why we need separate discussions so that we can consider the evidence in detail. BilledMammal (talk) 02:58, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Whatever the politically correct stance of an individual country, we are meant to WP:USEENGLISH and not generate a host of unintelligible names or dabs. We don't spell Chinese cities in Chinese. Bermicourt (talk) 05:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps I wasn't clear - these are the names in English, and are consistent with many articles of New Zealand places already using their dual name. See, for example, Aoraki / Mount Cook, Whakaari / White Island, or Milford Sound / Piopiotahi. Turnagra (talk) 08:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is disingenuous to say that these are the English names. They are official names. For many of them their dual names function as two separate (but equal) names under the law. For some others—like Aoraki / Mt Cook—they are treated by NZ English speakers as whole English names, but this is the exception and not the norm. — HTGS (talk) 06:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support If the New Zealand government uses it, I don't see why Wikipedia wouldn't follow suit. Especially if these places are not well known to people outside of New Zealand to begin with & it helps with concision — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blumenblatt (talk • contribs) 09:33, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Blumenblatt, we have clear conventions that explain why we don't just follow government WP:OFFICIAL names, but instead prefer the more common and natural names. In this circumstance, most of these names aren't in use, and don't provide for a more natural article title. — HTGS (talk) 06:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I wouldn't change Mitre per the argument above, but all the other changes are very sensible. SportingFlyer T·C 10:46, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. These are not the common names in English-language sources. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all except Diamond Harbour for reasons others have noted. For all these other places it is a simple and sensible way to disambiguate inline with WP:SMALLDETAILS. Opposition citing WP:USEENGLISH is misleading - these are pages in New Zealand English, which has its own place-naming system Somej (talk) 09:27, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:SMALLDETAILS refer to "near-identical expressions"; it isn't relevant to this discussion, as the names are not near-identical.
    New Zealand English is based on what is used in English language sources in New Zealand; while the Maori aspect of the name could be considered part of New Zealand English if it is not obscure (although we would still prefer the WP:COMMONNAME/WP:MPN), the fact that some of these names are not used at all in independent English language sources means that the Maori aspect is not part of New Zealand English and WP:UE applies. BilledMammal (talk) 09:40, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I was going to simply respond that I stand by my arguments; but on reflection, both your counter-arguments are clearly false. Somej (talk) 09:58, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Explanation of why they are false would be more useful for the closer in assessing the weight of your argument. BilledMammal (talk) 10:07, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I fail to see how the "use English" argument is incorrect. The names need to be commonly used in the English language, and no evidence has been provided that they actually are. --Spekkios (talk) 08:45, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Clearly an irretrievable trainwreck, as indicated by the many divergent views on different items on the list. Also oppose movements to slashed titles without clear evidence that the slashed title is the common-name. FOARP (talk) 12:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support - There was already consensus for these moves and they were moved back without consensus. WP:MODERNPLACENAME supports moving articles when reliable sources have begun to use the new name. The nominator has demonstrated that. WP:USEENGLISH does not mean we cannot use foreign language words in article titles. We use plenty of "non-English" words in other countries as well. (ie. Amarillo, Texas instead of Yellow, Las Vegas, Nevada instead of "The Meadows") The dual name is the official name and the one used by reliable sources. That is sufficient evidence of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:MODERNPLACENAME. Desertambition (talk) 01:43, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you're a little confused here, Desertambition; there are plenty of examples of places in NZ that have names that are Māori in origin—in fact there are so many that listing examples seems silly, but let's say you could count them from Ātiamuri to Whangarei. I can vouch for those opposed to this mass move to say that they are entirely fine with these Māori names. The issue here is whether to use the listed bilingual names as a disambiguation, rather than the parenthetical disambiguations already in place. Turnagra made clear at the start of discussion that the Māori names are not in common use above either of the alternatives, but asserts only that the dual names serve as a potentially useful disambiguator. — HTGS (talk) 03:06, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to be a little confused as well. I haven't made any comment on what the common name is for any of these. What I've said is that none of these articles are the primary topic for their current title, hence the need for disambiguation, and per WP:NATURAL the dual names are a perfectly viable and preferable option. Turnagra (talk) 08:07, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems everyone is a little confused; earlier in response to HTGS asking For each place is the dual name more common in usage than the alternative name?, you responded I admittedly haven't checked all of them, but I don't believe so.
    I haven't checked them all either, but of the ones I have checked the proposed name is not the WP:COMMONNAME or WP:MPN, and I don't believe any evidence has been presented supporting them being so. Desertambition, if evidence was presented and I have missed it can you point me towards it? BilledMammal (talk) 08:24, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I took the comment I was replying to in that instance to be asking about the other part of the dual name - for example, talking about whether "Ruataniwha" would be a more suitable alternative than "Cam River / Ruataniwha". I had assumed that was evident by the second part of the comment, where I mention that disambiguation would still be required in some cases with that. Turnagra (talk) 09:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If the dual name is, as you said, less common in usage than the alternative name, then the dual name is not the common name. Whether the alternative name or the current name is the WP:COMMONNAME is a different discussion, and if in some cases the alternative name is more common (as I noted it might be for Otututu) then we should have a discussion about moving the article to that name as the WP:COMMONNAME, rather than the dual name. BilledMammal (talk) 09:48, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just realised I'd been misreading the question the whole time - I had been responding to the exact opposite of what was asked, ie. whether the alternative name was more common than the dual name. My apologies. For clarity, I don't think the Māori name is more common than the dual name in these cases, meaning the dual name is still the most suitable title. Turnagra (talk) 10:00, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes sense. I think that in some cases the Maori name is more common than the dual name; Otututu shows nine uses in Google News results, compared to two uses that might be the dual name (Rough River (Otututu River) Bridge and Rough (Otututu) River - the format proposed is not used at all). It is also possible that Otututu is more common than Rough River, but that needs further investigation and discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 05:52, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd note that most of the articles which use the name Otututu River all relate to a single event, which may limit its effectiveness at determining a broader picture. Turnagra (talk) 06:17, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That’s a good point. It might be time to reassess Whakaari / White Island’s dual name, especially given that media were instructed by the government to use the dual name when reporting on the eruption. — HTGS (talk) 01:52, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @HTGS: Could you give your source for the government instruction, please.-gadfium 02:29, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I only have the fact that a journalist friend who attended the press conferences told me so. Not the most helpful for these sorts of things, I’m afraid. — HTGS (talk) 03:26, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure it really matters. If it has entered the media and is now in common usage then it is the common name. If it starts reverting to White Island then maybe, but that is not likely to happen. It could be good info to add to another article though. Aircorn (talk) 19:09, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been consider a move request for that article for some time; I note that it is the primary topic for White Island, so disambiguation is not required. BilledMammal (talk) 02:05, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support All except Lake Rotoroa. Arguments to move these are stronger than most other dual name moves as it provides a natural disambiguation. Don't support Rotoroa as it is the Primary topic for the Lake so should be at Lake Rotoroa.[1] The Maori name is the common name. Aircorn (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    On a similar note I would prefer to use the single Maori name if usage is high, but not clearly the more common one than the dual name, as the disambiguator where possible. Aircorn (talk) 19:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The proposed titles don't appear to be the common names, and we removed the requirement to use dual names for NZ geographical features.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll note that the common name is irrelevant here, as these are being proposed as a means of natural disambiguation. Turnagra (talk) 19:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How common the name is is relevant here, as WP:NCDAB requires that the proposed natural disambiguation is commonly used in English - these names do not appear to be. BilledMammal (talk) 00:55, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    They weren't talking about how common the name is though, they were talking about whether the names are the common name - which is irrelevant. Turnagra (talk) 01:47, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I might have misread what they said, but even if I did then their comment is still relevant per WP:TITLEDAB, which states When deciding on which disambiguation method(s) to use, all article titling criteria are weighed in, which includes WP:NATURALNESS. It is appropriate for editors to believe that the proposed disambiguated title should align closely with the common name for a location, and the proposed titles here do not. BilledMammal (talk) 03:56, 28 May 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:Cam_River_(Canterbury)&oldid=1200291236"