Jump to content

Talk:Port Pegasus

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

Requested move 15 September 2021

[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. per discussion consensus and WP:NCNZ. There may be an ongoing discussion about changing that convention, but for now, the current guideline is how we adjudicate and close discussions. When/if that guideline changes to not support dual names here, this can be revisited. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 12:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Port Pegasus → Port Pegasus / Pikihatiti – official name since 1998[1], it's time to update this. Gryffindor (talk) 08:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 “Port Pegasus / Pikihatiti” is the predominant name outside of official usage. Consider that “Pikihatiti” alone may be more common than “Port Pegasus” and “Port Pegasus / Pikihatiti”. — HTGS (talk) 00:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Matches the strong precedent of dual place names when said names are official. Recent sources talking about the area use the dual name, making the move uncontroversial. Turnagra (talk) 05:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There may be some question of whether the relevant aspect of NZ naming conventions actually reflect[s] the consensus of the community. While these discussions are ongoing, I decline to present my own opinion on this proposed move. BilledMammal (talk) 07:13, 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.

Requested move 2 November 2021

[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: Withdrawn: This RM has been withdrawn to enable discussion on the individual talk pages. (non-admin closure) Spekkios (talk) 03:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

– All of the above articles have had their names changed primarily due to a WP:NCNZ guideline that no longer exists due to a recent RfC [2]. No or very few sources were provided for each move request. None of the above had their articles changed to reflect WP:UCRN; the primary guideline was the now defunct dual name guideline at WP:NCNZ. The proposed names would be concise and natural as per WP:CRITERIA. Spekkios (talk) 01:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose all - these should be separate move requests, but all of the examples have clear demonstration of dual name usage across a variety of sources. The nomination's claim that "no or very few sources were provided" is blatantly untrue, as each move provided a variety of evidence (including far more than they have provided here). This appears to be driven by a dislike for dual names more than a desire to have the most suitable article title. Turnagra (talk) 09:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Óppose - If they are to be considered they should be separate move requests.
  • Support - These are all uncontroversial moves, and would waste everyone's time to do these individually. Those who oppose should specify which they oppose, providing reason for it, and those can be split off. See table below for justification of move:
Caption text
Current Target Ngrams Notes Previous move type and justification
Lyttelton Harbour / Whakaraupō Lyttelton Harbour link Clear common name, based on Ngrams and google news. Article was moved after a September 2021 RM argued and closed on the basis of the now depreciated section of WP:NZNC
Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Hauraki Gulf link Clear common name, based on Ngrams and google news. Article was moved after a September 2021 RM argued and closed on the basis of the now depreciated section of WP:NZNC
Clutha River / Mata-Au Clutha River link Clear common name, use of names other than Clutha River appear to be very rare. Article was moved after a September 2021 RM argued and closed on the basis of the now depreciated section of WP:NZNC
Dart River / Te Awa Whakatipu Dart River link While slightly complicated by the fact that it appears "Whakatipu" appears to have been recently renamed from "Wakatipu", Ngrams shows no significant use for any term other than "Dart River". Dart River is tainted by the existance of other rivers by that name, but a Google News search shows that most articles under that name are in reference to the river in Otago, and given the lack of articles using the alternatives I feel this is a clear cut case. This Dart River appears to be the primary, so no need to disambiguate with (Otaga). Article was moved after a September 2021 RM argued and closed on the basis of the now depreciated section of WP:NZNC
Port Pegasus / Pikihatiti Port Pegasus Link Clear common name, use of names other than Port Pegasus appear to be very rare. Article was moved after a September 2021 RM argued and closed on the basis of the now depreciated section of WP:NZNC
Paterson Inlet / Whaka a Te Wera Paterson Inlet Link Clear common name, use of names other than Paterson Inlet appear to be very rare. Article was moved after a September 2021 RM argued and closed on the basis of the now depreciated section of WP:NZNC
Snares Islands / Tini Heke Snares Islands link Clear common name, use of names other than Snares Islands appear to be very rare. Article was moved after a July 2010 RM argued and closed on the basis of the now depreciated section of WP:NZNC
Manawatāwhi / Three Kings Islands Three Kings Islands link Clear common name, use of names other than Three Kings Islands appear to be rare. Article was not moved to the proposed title after a April 2021 RM argued and closed on the basis of the now depreciated section of WP:NZNC

BilledMammal (talk) 23:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I presume by "depreciated" (old, but still useful and applicable), you mean deprecated - "(computing) Said of a function or feature planned to be phased out, but still available for use". Deprecated is not a synonym for "forbidden", and the small change to WP:NZNC does not justify these rushed wholesale and disruptive changes to Wikipedia. Somej (talk) 08:19, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Really neither is fully accurate. If you want a computing term, the particular guideline is obsolete. But on Wikipedia we don’t use such designations, so it’s better to just say that the rationale for the move is no longer supported by policy. If there are other policies or guidelines that suggest these pages should stay where they are, please reference those, rather than something that no longer has support (consensus) for how to treat this issue. — HTGS (talk) 21:32, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A guideline has been modified by removal of one clause. It is not obsolete, and it was never a policy. I agree that re-building consensus will be a good way forward. This format, covering 8 unrelated pages in one move request, is not the best way to start. Somej (talk)
  • Oppose Anyone who wants any of these names changed should open a move request on the relevant talk page, so that interested users can properly debate the merits of each change.
The removal of one section of a guideline was to enable a new, improved guideline to be created. Instead, we have users trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS with mass moves, and waste time by using a format which does not support focussed debate. I would be more inclined to assume wp:agf if each proposed move was done in a way that allows and encourages appropriate discussion.
And yes, Dart River / Te Awa Whakatipu is a very clear case of an elegant way to solve the disambiguation problem by using the official dual name.
Finally, for this particular page Port Pegasus / Pikihatiti, the closure statement is the result of the move request was: moved. per discussion consensus and WP:NCNZ. (my emphasis). In other words, to request to overturn that move is to go against that consensus, which was just as much part of the decision as was the guideline referred to.
Somej (talk) 07:43, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"The removal of one section of a guideline was to enable a new, improved guideline to be created" I would like some evidence of that, as I don't believe it is true. WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is not applicable here as these moves are relating to Wikipedia policy and guidelines. In my opinion, it would waste more time having multiple move requests on talk pages when all of the requested moves were originally moved for similar reasons. While the closer for many of the articles cited "discussion consensus" I actually fail to see evidence that was a primary factor in closing the discussion, and it seems that the old guideline was the primary factor. Going through each of the pages:
Given that the move reasons are all extremely similar I don't see an issue with combining these into one move request. Discussion consensus does not appear to be a primary factor in closing. --Spekkios (talk) 21:33, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, in the RfC discussion, the following editors proposed either Keeping with revisions or Removing with recommendation to rewrite: Turnagra, Aircorn, SomeJ, Hike395, Schwede66. — hike395 (talk) 00:59, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given that one of the responses on Talk:Dart_River_/_Te_Awa_Whakatipu was mine, I'm happy to comment on that one. That Requested Move gave two main grounds: the NZNC guideline as it then stood, and "the move would also serve to better disambiguate the river from other Dart Rivers worldwide". I was happy to support it on both grounds; hence i said "support", rather than "partial support" or "qualified support".
As to the comment that "Discussion consensus does not appear to be a primary factor in closing.", well if this were a Wikipedia page I'd add [citation needed].
Merging these move requests into one omnibus request is blocking constructive discussion and consensus-building as we reconsider first principles after the change to WP:NZNC. Again, I ask that you withdraw this move request, and open new individual move requests that will enable a better discussion.
Somej (talk) 01:05, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If Dart River was to be struck from this request, would you have any objection to proceeding with the other seven still bundled? BilledMammal (talk) 02:11, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Afraid so, yes I have several objections:
  • The various pages were not all moved in the same year or for the same reasons (contra the wording of this Requested Move)
  • As the WP:NZNC guideline is only partial, each newly-proposed move has to be discussed on its merits, taking account of any previous move discussion, and on the balance of principles in other Policies and guidelines. Different pages may reach different conclusions.
  • This discussion is becoming almost impossible to follow. Something like 100 pages have been moved or proposed for moves as part of this dispute, of which these 8 appear to be a randomly selected batch. I suggest we need a process that lets us all find points of agreement and build up some useful precedents. A good place to start would be for this request to be withdrawn. Somej (talk) 03:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    These aren't 8 random pages, these are 8 pages that have had past RMs. None of the others had RM discussions. --Spekkios (talk) 03:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My citation for my discussion statement is the above RMs were I see no evidence that there was any consensus in the discussion, and therefore the primary factor in closing the RM appears to be the old guideline. In any case, I thought these move requests would be uncontroversial but that does not appear to be the case, so I will withdraw this specific request and split them between the individual pages as it does appear that further discussion is warranted. --Spekkios (talk) 03:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's barely two months since this discussion was closed with consensus reached. Why not leave it be for six months and if there are still arguments that these names go against common usage then we can resume the debate. TreeReader (talk) 20:19, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The consensus reached was based on a guideline that 1) no longer exists, and 2) was immediately the topic of discussion, and then changed because of these move requests. The moves here were all closed by a single user who ignored the fact that the guideline used to support the moves was under an RfC… and then went on to vote in that RFC in support of keeping it.
    Either way, if nothing had changed with regards to article title rationale, your suggestion would make sense, but time is not really a good enough reason to justify leaving these pages in the “wrong” place, when they’re no longer supported by policy. If anything, that these pages have been in their current titles for a short time is more reason to suggest moving them back. — HTGS (talk) 21:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your accusation against the closing editor is incorrect. Some of these pages have been at their current title for years. For example, Talk:Snares Islands / Tini Heke was updated in 2010, well before the WP:NZNC guidelines. Please withdraw or modify your comment. Somej (talk) 01:17, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • HTGS Not only is your accusation incorrect, but in the RFC discussion it was you who said "If you’ve noted this discussion on the relevant pages, any potential RM closer can decide for themselves whether any decision needs to be held off till the RFC is closed." It is not good faith to now say that the editor's closure should be overturned because s/he did exactly what you advised. Somej (talk) 01:25, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair point about timing HTGS, in that case here's my opinions: I think we need to treat each page separately because they all have different contexts. Dart River has the most arguments for this above, and I would also like to argue that the Mata-Au/Clutha river merits its own discussion. @BilledMammal's table is an easy-to-read breakdown, but their conclusion of the Māori names being 'very rare' is based on recent books and articles. I suspect it's more frequent in spoken language than written, and all of the Māori names here are older and have been used with consistency throughout their lifetimes. For example, the Clutha river was named by Cook as the Molyneux, and is called by such is several sources. I also disagree with the initial comment of this proposal that "the proposed names would be concise and natural." The dual names are still fairly concise, and 'natural' is a subjective perspective. TreeReader (talk) 03:20, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all per previous consensus. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:13, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Previous consensus was based on a policy that no longer exists. Do you have a current policy-based argument for or against moving? BilledMammal (talk) 23:15, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Policy-based arguments will vary from page to page, in absence of an agreed guideline. I appreciate your attempt to summarise reasons in your table, BilledMammal, but it is not a format that makes discussion easy. Individual move requests would support more constructive discussions. An update to the wp:NZNC guideline would be even more efficient. Somej (talk) 01:08, 5 November 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.

Requested move 11 May 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: move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 04:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Port Pegasus / Pikihatiti → Port Pegasus – Per WP:COMMONNAME. Ngrams shows that Port Pegasus is overwhelmingly used compared to Pikihatiti , which means that it is overwhelmingly used compared to any format of the dual name as all formats will include Pikihatiti. Google News shows the same thing, with 23 results for Port Pegasus, compared to 1 result for Pikihatiti. BilledMammal (talk) 04:03, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose We've gone through two move requests since September 2021 and I see absolutely no reason to relitigate this once more. Schwede66 08:34, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first was closed with the note When/if that guideline changes to not support dual names here, this can be revisited, in reference to WP:NZNC. NZNC was changed to not support dual names. The second was closed as Withdrawn: This RM has been withdrawn to enable discussion on the individual talk pages. This is the individual move request.
Both closes support a new discussion; do you have any objections aside from procedural to the move? BilledMammal (talk) 08:48, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a tad misleading. NZNC wasn't changed to not support dual names, it was changed to not comment on them either way except for formatting. That seems like a fairly important distinction in the context. Turnagra (talk) 05:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As is pointed out above this misses a lot of context regarding New Zealands dual naming history on Wikipedia. This needs relitigating because quite a lot has changed. Aircorn (talk) 00:03, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not to pile on here, but the Sept 2021 RM—along with others started at the same time—was the trigger for the changes made to NZNC (see discussion beginning at this section). The only reason they weren’t changed back sooner is because discussion at the NZNC talk page led to the compromise that dust needed to settle (see here; I am unclear on the exact reason that moves were halted, though I didn’t participate in that particular discussion). I agree with the implication behind this RM: six months is long enough. — HTGS (talk) 03:08, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There's clearly something wrong with your ngrams - again - given it seems to not be finding anything for "Pikihatiti", despite the first two results when you look at books in the relevant period both using the dual name. Per WP:MPN we should be using the current name of the location, so all of those results it's pulling from before 1998 are largely irrelevant. For the modern place name, should we look at local businesses, tourism guides, or conservation plans for the inlet? What about the gazetteer, the US government's BGN, various maps or encyclopedias - all of which WP:NCGN tells us we should use when determining names for geographic articles, while also treating search result counts with extreme caution. What about its use by locals, or in UN-backed research? There's a clear mandate for the dual name, as the previous outcomes have shown, and I see no point in having this discussion again. Turnagra (talk) 10:04, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ngrams showing no results doesn't mean the name is not used, just that it is used too rarely to be included in the database. As for the sources you provided, WP:COMMONNAME requires independent, reliable English-language sources, and as far as I can tell none of your sources are both independent from the government and reliable - BGN appears to be directly extracted from LINZ, and the research paper was published in the New Zealand Journal of Zoology, which is required by the NZGB Act 2008 to use the official name, while the rest are clearly not independent or not reliable.
As for use by locals, WP:MPN requires global usage, but regardless the best source we have for this is Google Trends, which tells us that in New Zealand Port Pegasus is overwhelming preferred. BilledMammal (talk) 10:21, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Port Pegasus / Pikihatiti is a small harbour at the bottom end of the far corner of the Pacific, how much global usage are you expecting it to get? At any rate, you can't just try and discredit reliable sources through WP:OR. These are the exact sort of sources which WP:WIAN states that we should use, and they all point to use of the dual name. Turnagra (talk) 19:10, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Turnagra A personal Flickr account is not a reliable source. Please stop trying to muddy the waters. — HTGS (talk) 19:42, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how that muddies the waters any more than attempting to use sources from as far back as the 1840s to justify the move, as the nominator has done. Turnagra (talk) 05:11, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the ngrams; it is now only shows results from after the official name change, which is the period that I was using to justify the move. I don't see an issue with it showing the entire timeline - editors are not going to be basing their position on the results from 1840, or even 1940 - but I hope that change addresses your concerns. BilledMammal (talk) 05:24, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, for an ngram to appear in the dataset it must appear in at least 40 different books. This is documented in the ngram viewer FAQ here. Colin M (talk) 17:28, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The last paragraph of modern place names (which is cited quite often in these move discussions) has Per Wikipedia's naming policy, our choice of name does not automatically follow the official or local form, but depends on that change having become predominant in common global usage. So I guess the question is has this become predominant in global usage. Certainly not in news media and academic publications. Other encyclopedias and atlases is tricky given no easy way to survey the literature and the tendency to cherry pick (TEARA tends to use the dual names - although it is a tied to the government and possibly required to use official names - while Britannica still uses the singular name [17][18]. It is interesting that Britannica uses the dual name for other features so they are obviously not opposed to using them. I can't find many maps that don't use the dual name[19] so there is that. I have no doubt that it will eventually have predominant global usage, but it is not quite there yet. Aircorn (talk) 05:08, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is a pretty clear cut case of the official name not being in common use, so WP:COMMONNAME (and WP:OFFICIALNAMES) are most relevant. There’s also this notable example of a Southland Times piece that discusses the very subject of names for the island not even referencing “Pikihatiti” when mentioning Port Pegasus. I think as dual names go, this one has very little popular use.
Now that contradictory guidelines are gone and dust has settled it’s time to put the page back in line with standard Wikipedia policy. We generally avoid slashes in titles (per Uluru / Ayers Rock), and we generally avoid lengthy official names (per The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland). — HTGS (talk) 10:06, 11 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:Port_Pegasus&oldid=1200740357"