Talk:Lords River

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.

Rivers Low‑importance

	Geography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rivers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rivers 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.RiversWikipedia:WikiProject RiversTemplate:WikiProject RiversRiver articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that an image or photograph of Lords River be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Requested move 15 September 2021

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.

There are 4 editors supporting the move per WP:NZNC and WP:NCGN and 3 editors opposing per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE. Those are all policy based positions. Per WP:NHC it is not for me as closer to say which policy is preferred, and I judge that roughly equal numbers of responsible Wikipedians support each position, so there is no consensus. The arguments (which were not supported by evidence) that the proposed title is the common name failed to convince the opposing editors and took the discussion no nearer to consensus. It has been over 2 weeks since the last activity, so there is no real prospect that keeping the discussion open would allow consensus to be reached.

See also this similar RM for further discussion of the interaction between the policies. Again, I note there is a current RfC to address these guidelines, and it may be that this proposal can be revisited if a clearer community consensus emerges as to the broader issue.(non-admin closure) Havelock Jones (talk) 11:15, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lords River → Lords River / Tūtaekawetoweto – official name since 1998[1], it's time to update this. See Avon River / Ōtākaro for reference. Gryffindor (talk) 08:29, 15 September 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:07, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Wikipedia does not give preference to official names over common names. (For clarity, consider the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland or North Korea.) Please provide evidence that “Lords River / Tūtaekawetoweto” is the predominant name outside of official usage. — HTGS (talk) 00:42, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support As per naming conventions. There are not a lot of references to the river. The majority in the last 10 years use the dual name official name. This change also avoids any possible confusion with Lord River (New Zealand). — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShakyIsles (talk • contribs)

There are plenty of mentions of the river in reliable sources, and none of the recent mentions in the Herald, RNZ or Stuff refer to the river by the dual name. Please at least do your due diligence before making claims like this. — HTGS (talk) 02:34, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support per NZNC and the guidelines set out in WP:NCGN - Gazetteers, both domestic and international, use the dual name, as do atlases and maps of Stewart Island / Rakiura dating back over 20 years. Should be an uncontroversial move. Turnagra (talk) 04:52, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The official name of the article has no bearing on the name of a Wikipedia article. Further, I can find very little reference to anything using the name suggested. Spekkios (talk) 05:04, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also see WP:CONCISE, WP:UCRN, and here Spekkios (talk) 06:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per the links given by HTGS; it does not appear that the official name has yet become the common name. Should it be possible to provide a weight of evidence showing reliable sources using the dual name, I will happily change my !vote - please ping me. BilledMammal (talk) 01:29, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per dual / bi lingual use in New Zealand English. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:38, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It might be worth noting these ongoing discussions:

There may be some question of whether the relevant aspect of NZ naming conventions actually reflect[s] the consensus of the community. BilledMammal (talk) 05:06, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is a current RfC proposal draft on the guidelines for dual names. Spekkios (talk) 23:50, 25 September 2021 (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.