Talk:Mount Auckland

Lede

Per MOS:PLACE, we should use the title of the article in the article. As for WP:NZNC, I disagree that there is a consensus there - both through a reading of the discussion, and because an informal discussion on an obscure page cannot decide to ignore project wide consensus, per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. BilledMammal (talk) 09:16, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

You can disagree with a consensus all you want, that doesn't stop it from existing. There are plenty of geographic articles where the lead or infobox names differ from the title - see for example articles such as the United Kingdom, Derry, Iguazu Falls, and Serbia - and there are enough caveats that I think it's perfectly fine in this instance. Especially as there is still overlap between the article title and name in the lede (eg. "Mount Auckland" is still contained entirely within "Atuanui / Mount Auckland") so I doubt that people would get confused. Turnagra (talk) 09:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Your argument that it exists is based on your WP:INVOLVED assessment of an informal, local discussion. I disagree with that assessment, and with the notion that an informal discussion at an obscure location can override project-wide consensus. At the moment the only guideline we can refer to on this is MOS:PLACE.

As for your examples, while they demonstrate that exceptions can be made, they don't demonstrate that they should be made here, particularly since none are equivalent - United Kingdom and Serbia are countries, Derry is a unique compromise, and Iguazu Falls should be moved to Iguazú Falls. BilledMammal (talk) 10:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

You're equally involved, and last I checked neither of us were admins so I'm not sure why you think the guideline you linked to applies. I maintain that if the discussion had gone the other way you would be fervently in favour of citing it, with claims about local consensus nowhere in sight.

I'm not sure why it matters as to the exact equivalency - you've claimed that all place names must be at their article title, I've provided at least four examples that differ from this. And ultimately at the end of the day, WP:IGNORE is a thing. There is a consensus to do this despite what you think, there was consensus in the RfC you started that Wikiprojects can decide this for their respective articles, and the changes demonstrably improve Wikipedia, and so I'm going to continue to act in line with said consensus. Turnagra (talk) 10:12, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

See WP:NACINV. BilledMammal (talk) 10:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand what your point is here and I just don't - by your logic, no discussion would ever be able to be closed without someone uninvolved coming in, which is obviously impractical. I'd also point out the disclaimer at the top about that not being policy or guidelines, even if it were relevant. As I've mentioned before, there was a clear enough consensus that it's pointless to require formal closure, and I'm going to act accordingly. Turnagra (talk) 19:07, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I disagree that there is a clear enough consensus, both because an informal discussion cannot overrule policy, and because I don't think based on strength of arguments there is a consensus in that discussion to overrule policy. If you disagree, then please seek formal closure. BilledMammal (talk) 01:04, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

There is a third option, Mount Auckland (Māori: Atuanui) is a hill. This address the issue of redundancy, while providing more information to the reader than the proposed lede. I'm still in favour of the current lede, as I believe it is relevant to inform the reader of the official name, but this would be an acceptable compromise as it still avoids surprising or confusing the reader by using an unexplained and unusually formatted name. BilledMammal (talk) 10:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

That's not really an option or a compromise though is it, given it's completely contrary to what was decided by the WPNZ community for NZ articles with dual names. I also have more faith in readers than you clearly do, especially given that there would be explanation of the dual name within the article. Turnagra (talk) 19:08, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope, and we already discussed how we have different interpretations of that discussion.

I would also point out another issue; your preferred format provides WP:UNDUE weight to the official name. BilledMammal (talk) 01:00, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Since you've brought up WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV, which is a more neutral point of view? The approach which reflects the mountain's full history in a balanced manner, or the approach which is in line with attempts to diminish the significance of Māori names and Māori history of places? Given the ongoing revitalisation of te reo names and the language as a whole, it would seem that a steadfast refusal to outdated names under the false pretence of neutrality is actually anything but. Turnagra (talk) 10:14, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

The approach that fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.

If the dual name is more prominent in reliable sources, then the dual name should be more prominent in our article. If the English name is more prominent in reliable sources, then the English name should be more prominent in our article. If the Maori name is more prominent in reliable sources, then the Maori name should be more prominent in our article. BilledMammal (talk) 10:24, 11 May 2022 (UTC)