Jump to content

Talk:Southern Alps/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Accuracy problems

There are more than 3100 glaciers in NZ over 1 hectare in size, I believe the 360 figure is from an old estimate in the 60's. I don't have time to find a good citation for that figure though.

I've also found several sources claiming that the Australian plate is being subducted, not the Pacific, in the South Island. The two plates interact differently in different areas of the country. Graphia (talk) 09:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Care to share those several sources? I believe neither plate is subducting under the other in the central South Island, although subduction is occurring offshore to the northeast and perhaps the southwest. I agree the article is inaccurate, at least. I'll delete that bit from the article. -- Avenue (talk) 02:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I've tracked down a source for the number of glaciers, and added that to the article. I'll try to find something more definitive about the plate boundary. -- Avenue (talk) 03:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Southern Alps?

Can we have a section that discusses why it's called the Southern Alps? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bumblebritches57 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

New Zealand Southern Alps

This page was boldly changed to "New Zealand Southern Alps" which as a name neither exists officially or colloquially and as such the article's title is now absolutely wrong. There is perhaps some justification in qualifying the name to Southern Alps (New Zealand) as there do appear to be other "Southern Alps" in the world although not that Google really knows about. Andrewgprout (talk) 19:10, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution Andrewgprout. I agree with you, maybe "Southern Alps (New Zealand)" would be better. However: there are of course the Southern Alps of the (European) Alps, those of the Australian Alps and also the Japanese Southern Alps (among others). There are so many other ranges called after the European Alps and obviously most of them have a southern part. Whether Google finds those names or not mostly depends on the user I think. The term "New Zealand Southern Alps", for instance, is also used in the geoscientific literature, even by scholars from New Zealand (e.g. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/BF03353336 ). Anyway, I consider it a very good idea to rename the page to "Southern Alps (New Zealand). Best, --oc 19:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by OCpro (talk • contribs)

Requested move 29 November 2015

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Technical close. I have closed this RM, because I have move the page article back to Southern Alps. I have done this for several reasons. The first was that it was a move without consensus and can be moved back under WP:RMUM. The second is that the initial move was a clear breach of WP:TITLEVAR and also the creation of a new dab page with text copied from Southern Alps (disambiguation) was a copyright infringement (see WP:CWW). It may be that there is a consensus to move the page, and to ascertain that those who wish to move the page may immediately initiate an RM to do so. However given the support already expressed for moving the page back in this rm, those making such a move request ought to consider if such a request would be disruptive. PBS (talk) 11:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

– The Southern Alps of New Zealand are the primary topic. The following data table supports this conclusion. Considering all of this data, the term term "Southern Alps" is overwhelmingly about the mountain range in New Zealand. According to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, we should move this article to Southern Alps and move Southern Alps to Southern Alps (disambiguation) —hike395 (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Supporting data

New Zealand Europe
Search term used "Southern Alps" "New Zealand" -Europe -Italy -France "Southern Alps" (Europe OR Italy OR France) -"New Zealand"
Google Books results 43,300 24,400
Google News results 2,820 315
Dab links I just resolved 24 5
Last 60 days of WP traffic 4,455 150

After including data for Japan (per comment, below):

New Zealand Europe Japan
Search term used "Southern Alps" "New Zealand" -Europe -Italy -France -Japan "Southern Alps" (Europe OR Italy OR France) -"New Zealand" -Japan "Southern Alps" Japan -"New Zealand" -Europe -Italy -France
Google Books results 41,500 23,300 1,660
Google News results 1,980 240 29
Dab links I just resolved 24 5 0
Last 60 days of WP traffic 4,455 150 1,043 (all Akaishi Mountains traffic)

Discussion

Hmm, September 2015, recent but looks like a reasonable WP:MOVE. In any case it would have been better if RM had started from the baseline - this way WikiProject NewZealand will be receiving alerts and WikiProject Japan, France, Italy, Switzerland, Austria won't receive alerts. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
@In ictu oculi: I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by "no absolute majority". I re-did the queries with Japan (and proper exclusions, above). Google Books seems like the weakest in support, and it's 62% of the mentions. Did you want to see it higher?
What I see in the statistics: we're making a large number of readers (~2200/month) from around the world go through an unnecessary dab step to get to the information they need. I think having Southern Alps (New Zealand) be the primary topic would be a substantial net benefit for our readers. —hike395 (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I got about 50% in Google Books - the point is we'd need something like 70 or 80% to justify bamboozling European or Japan based readers. I also hope that there's no over-weighting of Southern Hemisphere !votes in this RM due to alerts and watched pages. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:42, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. This article was at Southern Alps until a user unilaterally moved it to New Zealand Southern Alps and then it was moved to Southern Alps (New Zealand). So really, unless there is a consensus that the move was a good idea, it should be moved back. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per In ictu oculi. Film Fan 21:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support because in my (British) experience it is the common name. Contrary to what has been suggested above, Wikipedia users in Europe (well, Britain anyway!) will benefit because the term "Southern Alps" is used to refer to the mountains in New Zealand and not those in the southern part of the Alps. However, I have no strong objection to "Southern Alps (New Zealand)" except to suggest "Southern Alps, New Zealand" is maybe more in line with WP:NATURALDIS. Thincat (talk) 23:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Good Ol'factory, if there was no reason to move it, then it should be restored and a new RM should be instigated, if necessary. As far as I'm concerned, reliable sources point to the Southern Alps being those in New Zealand, and other results are secondary. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Well-reasoned argument from nom, with strong evidence. The previous status quo is more helpful to our readers and editors. Dohn joe (talk) 01:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, as it's the primary topic as already outlined by other editors. Procedurally and with the benefit of hindsight, an admin should have moved all the articles back to where they were before this unilateral action, and if we then want to discuss whether there is change needed, well, that should have started after the previous status quo was restored. Schwede66 02:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, as per nom and other arguments given above. Clearly the primary topic. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, the European name is a very specialised geological term and I think is totally unimportant to this discussion, The Japanese alps I have more sympathy with but are an alternative English name for a mountain range with another local name. In the searches above we need to be careful not to be counting general mentions of the word "southern" with "alps" as opposed to "The Southern Alps" which is the name of a whole Mountain range. Andrewgprout (talk) 06:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – yes, sufficiently the primary topic, with long-term significance. sst✈(discuss) 09:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, per nom and other excellent arguments above. Paora (talk) 10:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 30 November 2015

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. In closing, I considered both this RM and the previous one. Taking account of the original move in September, it's somewhat difficult to shake out, but it's clear that the consensus is that this is the primary topic of the term "Southern Alps". The majority of !votes in the two discussions favored this outcome, backed up by convincing arguments and evidence. Cúchullain t/c 17:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


– There is no clear primary topic, since the Southern Alps of Europe are just as notable as those of New Zealand; so "Southern Alps" should be the disambiguation page. The above decision was reached in record time and was a "technical close", which has not allowed for a full discussion or a worldwide view. Even if we accept the fairly basic statistics above, the result is insufficient to claim the New Zealand range is the primary topic over the Southern Alps of Europe. However, I have re-run the stats myself and found that they are quite unreliable. Moreover, the fact that the sources frequently use the term "New Zealand's Southern Alps" or "Southern Alps of New Zealand" indicates that disambiguation is needed. Bermicourt (talk) 21:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@Bermicourt: Could you share your statistics (if you are getting different answers)? I started out with no opinion about the name, until I found that ~80% of my disambiguations were for New Zealand, then I checked Google's statistics and was convinced of the primary topic. —hike395 (talk) 03:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Later: Britannica's article on "Southern Alps" refers to the mountain range in New Zealand [1], as does the Columbia Encyclopedia [2] and Merriam-Webster [3]. —hike395 (talk) 04:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Can you guys please read the article Southern Alps (Europe) and actually understand that apart from this very specialised geological meaning of limited usage there is no mountain range called the Southern Alps in Europe.Andrewgprout (talk) 08:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Actually if you read the sources, that's not true. The Southern Alps are a range of mountains (covering an area of 500 km by 50-150km) as well as a geological unit, just like the Northern Limestone Alps or Western Carpathians. And then there's the generic use of the term for the southern part of the Alps. So the article needs improving to reflect that. --Bermicourt (talk) 09:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I've done better than read the article - there are numerous sources that support the Southern Alps of Europe as being a mountain range/distinct region. Otherwise it would be southern or south Alps.[4][5][6][7][8][9] —МандичкаYO 😜 10:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I think that the NZ range is in fact a relatively clear primary topic. The other encyclopedias info presented by hike395 is quite persuasive, IMO. The other meanings of Southern Alps are pretty peripheral, I think. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As per Good Ol’factory, as well as the compelling statistics and arguments presented in support of the reverse requested move of 29 November. Paora (talk) 10:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. There's enough cultural imperialism from the Yanks and the Aussies without the Kiwis getting in on the act too. (Clearly the Brits are blameless in this matter ....) Wikipedia is there, in the first instance, for it's readers, not as a vanity project for those of us who contribute to it. The (even) more serious point is that if wikipedia aspires to be used internationally, then the safest route here is to avoid "favo(u)ring" either the New Zealand or the European version. Be aware that English (a version of it) is fluently used by millions of folks who've never been near England or New Zealand nor even North America. That's a blessing and a curse for those of us who reckon we "own it" as our mother tongue. But your audience when you contribute to wikipedia is a whole lot larger that people who grew up in current and / or former territories of the British Empire. And if anyone has time and sources to improve either or both of these entries, please do it! Right now if you want to know about the climate and the glaciers of the NZ Southern Alps from wikpedia, then it helps if you like to read German. Regards Charles01 (talk) 15:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, for same reasons as yesterday.... Dohn joe (talk) 15:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, Any Southern Alp in Europe is a sub unit of the Alps proper a searcher looking for the Alps will search or start from this page. Southern Alps does not have that luxury. It has not been demonstrated that an entity called the southern alps exists in Europe apart from the narrow sense of the existing page. Lots of words but no actual evidence. Andrewgprout (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment Sorry, you clearly don't understand (or want to understand) the geography. There is no such thing as "a Southern Alp"; but there is a huge mountain range in Europe called the "Southern Alps"; the fact that it's also part of the Alps is neither here nor there. And to deny they exist and there are no sources flies in the face of the stats above and suggests you haven't even bothered to google it. Why not just be honest and say that, as a New Zealander, your POV is that the Southern Alps of New Zealand are the primary topic.
Meanwhile here are a couple of the 20,000+ sources: The Western Alps by de Graciansky, Roberts and Tricart, has a map showing the approximate extent of the (500 x 150 km) Southern Alps on p. 32, the International Sedimentary Petrographical Series by Moritz and Schürmann has chapters on the "Areal Definition and Significance of the Southern Alps" and "Stratigraphy of the Southern Alps" Bermicourt (talk) 19:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
exactly - in the unopposed limited geological sense as described in the current article - and please do not question my neutral point of view - pots and kettles maybe.Andrewgprout Andrewgprout (talk) 19:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Although I do not agree with you regarding the "exclusively geological understanding" of the name Southern Alps in Europe, would such a "limited" geological use (and the "limited" Japanese and so on) not justify a disambuigation page "Southern Alps"? From my non-NZ point of view I would say yes, but of course I do not consider my opinion to be the only right one. OCpro (talk)oc 17:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I did a very casual google search for "Southern Alps", removing any Wikipedia results ("Southern Alps" -Wikipedia). Every single one of the hits on the first 20 results pages used the term in reference to the NZ range. I stopped looking for other uses after going through 20 pages (ie, the first 200 hits). It seems pretty primary to me. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as per Charles01 because Southern Alps (New Zealand) gives immediate clarity, and will easily be returned by a search just on 'Southern Alps'. I believe that the majority of people of the world - perhaps with the exception of many in New Zealand - think of the European Alps when they hear the word 'The Alps'. But let's follow that logic along: the rest of the world are then just as likely to assume that the 'Southern Alps' are the southern part of The Alps in Europe, so Southern Alps (New Zealand) seems a logical name to apply to that article. Maybe it somehow hurts national pride to have brackets after a Wikipedia title, but common sense should be to help the user, not anyone's feelings of pride.
Are Wikipedia users expected to understand a subject before they look it up, or are we actually trying to help people find stuff here? I go with the latter approach and urge clarity and common sense, and avoid bowing to those who not unreasonably have pride in a regional name and some damned fine mountains that I'd personally love to climb. If we use the term 'Southern Alps', it begs the question "southern to what?" So let's tell people. I'd be quite happy to support Alps being changed to Alps (Europe) if that helps, too - and for precisely the same reasons I have outlined. Parkywiki (talk) 22:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
This approach kind of flies in the face of the very concept of WP:PRIMARYUSAGE. Yes, we could disambiguate Southern Alps, and Alps, and everything else on Wikipedia, and it would indeed make things "clearer", but that's not the way consensus has concluded we should go. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm. Why not Be Bold and just go with common sense, clarity and helping users. Or do rules rule? Parkywiki (talk) 03:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
They're not really rules, they're guidelines based on consensus. And presumably, the previous consensus is based upon collective "common sense". Of course, one person's common sense is another person's absurdity, so one user's idea of what constitutes common sense is probably not a very good standard to use in isolation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – I would suppose the southern alps were in Europe and I had no idea until today that there were any alps in New Zealand. So IMO the title is highly ambiguous without a qualifier. Oculi (talk) 23:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose move as proposed. I haven't (yet) seen new evidence or hard data that changes my mind from the previous move discussion. —hike395 (talk) 05:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, per WP:COMMONNAME and per reasoning from Andrewgprout. The mountains in Europe are the Alps; the mountains in New Zealand are the Southern Alps.Daveosaurus (talk) 06:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – Thanks for this interesting discussion. I did not expect such a debate. I think the question is whether this article is considered an article for New Zealand readers, or one for an international readership. Regarding the number of google results it is of course no surprise that there are more results related to NZ (given that English is not spoken in the Alps of Europe). If we compare scientific results (where English is the common language also in the European Alps), then we find 14000 results for '"Southern Alps" AND "Europe"', and 15000 results for '"Southern Alps" AND "New Zealand"' on http://scholar.google.com (which I consider a good source of information). To be clear: I am not at all against a "Southern Alps" article that directs to the New Zealand range's article, but knowing the situation from other countries which also use this term for "their" range I thought it would be a good idea to direct to a disambiguation page. Anyway, thanks for the discussion.OCpro (talk) 17:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – Once again a bit of a travesty by people who don't know the guidelines for objectively establishing primary topics. It doesn't suffice to shout out primarytopic, it has to be underpinned by data such as page visits, incoming links, occurences in other sources, and the likes. And those do not designate a clear primary topic. It will even be geographically biased as most Europeans will never have heard of the NZ Alps. PS: even if there is no clear consensus, then the article will have to be moved, as no consensus means: no consensus for having a primary topic. --Midas02 (talk) 06:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    • A careful read will reveal that users have been doing more than shouting primarytopic. In this and the discussion above (which happened just days ago), it has been pointed out that other encyclopedias have the topic of the NZ range under the undisambiguated "Southern Alps". This is an example of occurrances in other sources. Also above, I mentioned that at least the first 200-hits in a Google search are hits that refer to the NZ range. This discussion is about whether to move the article: no consensus results in no move. It does not result in a move, because the discussion is not proposing a primary topic. Looks like you might want to brush up on some of the technical guidelines regarding move proposals and lack of consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Neutral - I would not dispute that the range in New Zealand is a reasonable primary topic only considering the term "Southern Alps" alone and supportive data has been provided for that in the previous RM. However, given that the term "Alps" almost exclusively refers to the range in Europe, it is potentially confusing to use "Southern Alps" for any unrelated topic and that should be put in the balance too. So, just blindly applying Wikipedia:Primary topic is questionable in this case. I'm not sure what the best solution is but if this page is left undisambiguated, I suggest having a note on the top like : Not to be confused with the southern section of the Alps. For other uses, see Southern Alps (disambiguation). ZachG (Talk) 17:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
@ZachG: Although I've !voted differently below I think your remarks are thoughtful and helpful. Just to remark (because I have just learned this) the "Southern Alps (Europe)" are not where the "southern section of the Alps" is! There can be a three-way confusion. Thincat (talk) 11:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. Everything seems to be potentially confusing. Being bold, I added hatnotes where I thought they were necessary. Feel free to change them. ZachG (Talk) 13:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, as the New Zealand mountain range is the primary topic. I like Good Ol’factory's simple test that shows this. Schwede66 18:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A major mountain range (the premier mountains of a not-insignificant English-speaking country) is more significant than a portion of another mountain range. We aren't required to follow the decisions of other encyclopedias, but being guided by them is almost always a good idea, and I don't see why we should reject the titles of the pages that Hike395 has found. Moreover, Andrewgprout makes a solid point: our current article about the European mountains refers to a geological topic, not merely the southern region of the European mountain range. Lots of readers will be surprised to see that the Southern Alps in Europe are nowhere near Barcelonnette and Grenoble. I see no reason to remove this article from its current primary location because of an article that's not talking about the region that most readers might expect. Nyttend (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  • PS, on my final point — how many of those <"Southern Alps" and Europe> search results are talking about the region near Barcelonnette and Grenoble? How many of those results are using the term exclusively for a region that extends only from Maribor to the eastern edge of Switzerland? Nyttend (talk) 23:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Southern Alps in a European context has more than one meaning. One of the biggest stories of the year was an Airbus crash in the "southern Alps", and it wasn't in NZ. --Midas02 (talk) 01:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
There is as said above a big difference between the "Southern Alps" A mountain range named after the European Alps in much the same way as "New York" was named after the real "York" and the simply descriptive southern Alps as you mention. Incidentally the plane did not crash anywhere near the definition of the Southern Alps (Europe) page which this discussion is mostly about. Just about every place mentioned in this Encyclopedia has a southern portion and almost all of them do not have a page for this southern portion or the need to disambiguate such non existent pages.
I think Geography of the Alps would be a good basis check our thinking - this long existing and uneventful page lists subdivisions of the alps. None of these subdivisions are called the "Southern Alps" Andrewgprout (talk) 02:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand why there are distinct articles on the Southern Limestone Alps and Southern Alps (Europe). The articles use the same maps, and don't explain why they are different. Isn't this an example of a content fork? Shouldn't these be merged? —hike395 (talk) 04:59, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
You are right, the difference seems to be that not all parts of the Southern Alps of Europe are formed by limestone. In general, I don't really understand why wikipedians use rather superficial Wikipedia articles to support their arguments. According to scientific literature (source can be found on google scholar or google books), the Southern Alps of Europe are—in the narrow sense—both a geographical and a geolocial subdivision of the Eastern European Alps (both disciplines show a similar, although not the same definition). It's also no surprise that, in the broader sense, non-scientific articles consider any part south of the main ridge as "southern Alps." And once again: language clearly biases the google results cited above. In the case of New York and York, there is IMO no doubt about the primary topic (if New York were still called New Amsterdam this could be very different ...); especially because a "new" part of York is not really known I think (there is no widely known New York in Britain). Contrary to the Southern Alps in Japan, Europe and elsewhere. If no consensus can be found, why don't we follow Zacharie Grossen's neutral opinion? OCpro (talk) 13:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per nom and OCpro. Film Fan 10:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose but if I'm required to provide statistically significant evidence then I can't. At the last discussion I googled "Southern Alps" and manually ignored hits with lower case s and upper case S in book titles and starts of sentences. For about a couple of dozen all but one were for New Zealand but one was an advertisement for holidays in Europe. For me, in Britain, the capitalised proper name is of the mountains in New Zealand. If someone referred to "Southern Alps" in Europe I would have to ask where they meant because my mental image is of a long and thin chain going east–west. I can understand a wish for titles to be unambiguous but our policy is to be brief for primary topics[10] and I happen to agree with this. For me this is an absolutely clear case for applying the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guideline. Thincat (talk) 11:15, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose It is a name not a location. Eddaido (talk) 12:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Talk:Southern Alps (New Zealand) RM just closed. No evidence has been presented that Users in Europe think of New Zealand, and Google Books shows no case for applying WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, since the results in books are evenly split. Having the New Zealand Southern Alps on the baseline will continue to collect mislinks to Southern Alps (Europe) and Southern Alps (Japan). In ictu oculi (talk) 13:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  • In ictu oculi What do you mean by "No evidence has been presented that Users in Europe think of New Zealand" do you mean those who's primary language is English (UK and Ireland), or all "users" in Europe? I do not understand what you mean by "Google Books shows no case for applying WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, since the results in books are evenly split" are you commenting on the statistics presented by user:Hike395 with this edit (22:24, 29 November 2015) or some other Google Books survey? -- PBS (talk) 15:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
I am repeating my observations from the first RM. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Dear colleagues, if we exclusively consider results on the UK's google website the following ratio results: 467,000 hits for "Southern Alps" vs. 360,000 hits for "Southern Alps" -"New Zealand". This means that about 75% of the UK results of "Southern Alps" don't have a NZ context. Just for giving some concrete facts on the use of "Southern Alps" in a major part of English-speaking Europe. OCpro (talk) 17:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello, OC. You have to be careful when you do this sort of search. First, you have to turn off personalization by adding "&pws=0" at the end. Second, it's better to require the geography that you want, and forbid the geography that you don't want. The following searches provide the results. I tried on both UK and US, and got the same results, so I don't think Google gives you nation-specific results.
Query to Google Number of results
"Southern Alps" +"New Zealand" -Japan -Europe -Italy -France -Austria -Slovenia -Switzerland 381,000
"Southern Alps" -"New Zealand" -Japan (Europe OR Italy OR France OR Austria OR Slovenia OR Switzerland) 176,000
"Southern Alps" +Japan -"New Zealand" -Europe -Italy -France -Austria -Slovenia -Switzerland 7
Again, it's about 68%. And, as you say above, it's terribly unclear whether the people who query Google for Southern Alps want Wikipedia's technically narrow Southern Alps (Europe) article. I think that the technical narrowness of the article is reflected in the traffic statistics, where our readers prefer the New Zealand article 30:1, which to me is overwhelming.
So, I think I will stick with my Oppose !vote. —hike395 (talk) 04:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
If you add to the end of the search "site:uk", then the results returned will be for UK registered domains, which can be used a rough approximation for national usage. However since 2008, when the policy WP:AT was altered to use WP:V and its definition of reliable sources, searches of unreliable sources are not usually considered useful (unless the subject is something from popular culture where there is a dearth of reliable sources, and even then the sources returned need to be further filtered by eye to pick out the more reliable from the dross) -- which is why editors tend to use other types of surveys such as: what other encyclopaedias use, and searches of Google Books and Google Scholar. -- PBS (talk) 10:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I think you are right hike395, but do (language-biased) 68% represent a sufficient high number? Personally, I am not sure. Further, as PBS notes, other sources such as Google Scholar in particular (here I got almost a 50/50 ratio, as mentioned above), could be taken into account. In scientific literature the language bias seems (IMO) to be lowest as English is the lingua franca. Moreover, using your search terms (those in the table) in combination with "site:uk" I also get 50/50 ratio between NZ and EU Southern Alps (about 9000 hits each); with an Australian "site:au" I get 11000 NZ hits and 9000 EU hits, and with a Canadian "site:ca" even a 2000 NZ vs. 8000 EU hits ratio results on my screen. Anyway, I personally think a primary topic case clearly does not exist outside NZ, best, OCpro (talk) oc 16:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Southern Alps. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:09, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

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 5 editors supporting the move and 4 editors opposing. There seems to be a broad consensus that (a) the dual name has some usage beyond official sources but (b) the current name remains most common in English language RSs (see for instance Aircorn's comment). The difficulty arises from an apparent conflict between WP:NCNZ and WP:COMMONNAME. To simplify, WP:NCNZ says that (a) implies the article should move whereas WP:COMMONNAME says that (b) implies the article should stay where it is. It is suggested that the latter is bound to take precedence because it is part of WP:NC, which is a policy, whereas WP:NCNZ is a guideline, but per WP:PGE this does not necessarily follow. WP:MOSAT indicates that in rare cases a specific convention may recommend a name which is not strictly the common name. WP:TITLEVAR may also apply. Per WP:NHC "If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not personally select which is the better policy." I judge that roughly equal numbers of responsible Wikipedians support each position and therefore find no consensus.

It has been nearly 2 weeks since the last activity, so there is no real prospect that keeping the discussion open would allow consensus to be reached.

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) 08:54, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Southern Alps → Southern Alps / Kā Tiritiri o te Moana – official name since 1998 [11], time to move along now and update this, see also Aoraki / Mount Cook for reference. Would also solve this valid disambiguation confusion. Gryffindor (talk) 08:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:04, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

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 “Southern Alps / Kā Tiritiri o te Moana” is the predominant name outside of official usage. — HTGS (talk) 02:44, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 Comment: The relevant local guideline states
If there are sources that indicate that a dual name has usage beyond mandatory official usage, put the article at the dual name, with redirects from each of the component names.
I don't know how to find sources that would indicate such usage, but perhaps our Kiwi friends may? — hike395 (talk) 03:42, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Support - the dual name is increasingly common in sources talking about the region, including multiple academic and non-academic sources. Follows a precedent of moving NZ features to their dual place names when such a name is official, as is the case here. Would also address the issues raised in previous name discussions highlighted above. Turnagra (talk) 08:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps I misunderstood WP:NCNZ --- I thought we needed to find sources about the dual-name usage, not source that used the dual names. Some sort of analysis of dual-name usage? — hike395 (talk) 08:54, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Oh nah, it's establishing that the dual name is used by sources, not analysis about the use of it! We've been talking on-and-off about updating that, so I'll add it to the list of what to clarify. Turnagra (talk) 09:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose The guidelines are very clear that the official name of a place is not sufficient to change the title of a Wikipedia article. As per WP:NCGN, WP:RECENTISM, and WP:COMMONNAME, there is not sufficient evidence to show that the requested name is commonly used to the point were an article name change is required. Furthermore, the "long precedent" of doing so involves for the most part a couple of users supporting each move and does not represent a consensus, and it is dishonest to claim as such. Users not understanding naming conventions and changing article names should not be seen as a precedent, and if it is, the only precedent that has been established is a precedent of ignoring guidelines for WP:ADVOCACY Spekkios (talk) 09:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Comment let's take a look at those. WP:NCGN states that articles should use the widely accepted name (WP:WIAN), and that sources which can be used include:
  • Major English language encyclopedias - Encyclopedia Britannica uses the dual name
  • widely used atlases - I can't find digital versions of these
  • gazetteers - the NZGB Gazetteer uses the dual place name
  • databases - both the above gazetteer and the US Board of Geographic Names database use the dual name, only referring to the current title as an old form of the name.
  • Maps - topo maps of the area use the dual name
  • Government agencies to standardise place names - the NZGB is responsible for this, and recognise the dual name as the official name as above in the gazetteer. The US BGN above is also cited by this row as a source to use
  • Modern country names - not relevant in this instance
  • Spelling of place names - the example cited is out of date, and other sources above are consistent on their spelling.
Further down in the guidelines, WP:MPN says to use the modern name for the feature, which in this instance is the dual name. As to WP:RECENTISM, this explicitly states that it's not wikipedia policy or part of the guidelines. A better, actual policy in this case would be WP:NAMECHANGES, which states that extra weight is given to sources used after the name change. At any rate, given that this change happened over 20 years ago, I'm curious as to how long your criteria for recent changes is.
Finally, I'd like to remind you that WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH is a thing. I'm more than happy to go back and tally up the users involved on both sides in past move requests / discussions on dual place names as it is only two/three users at most that consistently oppose the shifts compared to a much wider group in favour of dual names, but that doesn't seem like a productive use of time. Wikipedia has enough policies and guidelines that don't necessarily work in alignment that both sides are able to try and cite justification for their views, which is why move requests like this are important to establish consensus and track record. Turnagra (talk) 20:12, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment If we require more guidelines we can look at things such as WP:CONCISE to determine that changing the article name is inappropriate in this case as the current article title is concise, and the proposed name shift really isn't as it's far too long. We can also look at other conventions that are relevant for this topic.
As for your examples; I am unfamiliar with Encyclopedia Britannica's editing policies or who determines what the article titles of their encyclopedia are. In any case a quick look at the edit history shows an extremely recent edit by supposedly one person. Again, I do not know what the editing policies of Encyclopedia Britannica are but I am skeptical of the change being for the reasons of "common usage".
Topomaps is a good resource, but it's not sufficient by itself.
Further, I feel like I have to repeat that the official name is not used as support for common use. The fact the the official name changed 20 years ago isn't at all relevant. Spekkios (talk) 02:42, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
The age of the change is relevant to your claim that WP:RECENTISM applies, as it shows that it's not a recent shift. As to Britannica's edit, I'll admit that I didn't check when the change was made, but it seems to be that the person behind it is employed by the encyclopedia and is in charge of their geography articles, so him using the dual name is a fairly reputable instance of it having usage beyond official mandatory sources as per WP:NZNC.
As to the "Use English" and "Multiple local names" guidelines, I'd reiterate that - despite their name - dual names are a single official name in English for all intents and purposes. It's not saying "These mountains are called either the 'Southern Alps' in English or 'Kā Tiritiri o te Moana' in te reo Māori", it's saying "These mountains are called the 'Southern Alps / Kā Tiritiri o te Moana' in English" - the same way that we have many other place names that have their origins in Māori. Turnagra (talk) 10:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
I will also reiterate that dual name is absolutely not the English name; the English name is included in the official name as well as the Maori name. They are two separate names. One in English, the other in Maori. If you really want a convention for this see WP:NZNC as it very clearly describes the dual names as using two separate names together.
Also, if we make the assumption that the English name is the entire dual name (which it isn't) then the article name change must be declined simply because of WP:CONCISE. "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" is the English name of the country we call the "United Kingdom" in it's Wikipedia article. The name has been shortened down to be concise. Assuming your argument is correct the same must apply here; i.e a shortening of the "full English name" down to it's short English name: Southern Alps. Spekkios (talk) 04:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Turnagra, saying that these dual names are the English names sets a very high bar. Bear in mind the location of the Wikipedia article doesn’t have to be the official English name, it has to be the English name that is used. Not used by official sources, but by the people who are looking for the article in English. I don’t think the bar is met, suggesting that most (any) English speaking people think of these mountains as “Southern Alps / Kā Tiritiri o te Moana”.
I also don’t believe anyone here thinks you’re arguing in bad faith. You’re being advised against advocacy because you’re letting your goal—moving Wikipedia pages to their official names—blind you to what is best for the encyclopedia, rather than what you believe is best. That’s not a bad personality trait, but it’s made you dogmatic in this fight to the point that you’re no longer considering these guidelines objectively. You seem like you’re trying to read them to simply find a way to “win” at this point. That’s not bad faith, but it’s also not helpful. I really do appreciate that you care so much about Wikipedia like this—there’s nothing this project needs more than people to put in the hours—but I feel like you might need to take a step back and reconsider what you’re fighting for. — HTGS (talk) 06:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I think. It's a bit difficult to respond to your comment, since I'm not sure how to make the case that dual names are in Wikipedia's best interest without falling into the second part of your point. I think it'd be good to try and have another discussion between us on dual name use outside of the move request context, since I think we could resolve the disagreement and come up with clearer wording for WP:NZNC that would alleviate the issues which we often run into in these discussions. Turnagra (talk) 03:01, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - There are three factors that influence my decision. (1) Commonness - while I still see the "Southern Alps" name on its own with some frequency, I see the dual name fairly often as well. I don't think either name has the unambiguous "significant majority" that WP:COMMONNAME calls for, so I think it's necessary to take other factors into consideration as well. (2) Clarity - using the dual name allows us to unambiguously emphasize that this article pertains to the Southern Alps in New Zealand, not the ones in Europe, and it does so without requiring a parenthetical. (3) Official status - because both names are common, I think it becomes useful to consider which one is official: in this case, the dual name. In sum: while I don't think any of these factors is a slam dunk on its own, I think the combined effect of them makes for a solid case for the dual name. ModernDayTrilobite (talk) 21:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Just to add on to this - the disambiguation page does appear to be quite clear as it refers to the Southern Alps as the mountain range in New Zealand and Southern Alps (Europe) as a region of the Alps. Also, I think I should reiterate that official names have no bearing on Wikipedia article titles. Spekkios (talk) 04:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
After receiving this reply, I went back and reread WP:OFFICIAL, and sure enough it doesn't seem to support the initial argument I made. However, I then went and gave another look to WP:NCNZ as well, and was struck by the dual name convention outlined there: NCNZ just calls for usage of the dual name when it has "usage beyond mandatory official usage." This reads to me like a somewhat lower burden of proof than is required by the broader WP:OFFICIAL, and under the NCNZ definition, I think the dual name is definitely prevalent enough to merit inclusion. So overall - while I'll concede the weakness of my original argument, I'm nevertheless sticking with my Support vote, since the more specific NCNZ guidelines should supersede the broader WP:OFFICIAL ones. ModernDayTrilobite (talk) 14:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Hey ModernDayTrilobite, just thought I’d point out that Wikipedia:LOCALCONSENSUS probably the best help on this, and seems to suggest that the global guideline supersedes the local naming convention. These local conventions are really only supposed to clarify how the rules apply in the specific case of (eg) New Zealand places. They aren’t supposed to contradict the global rules by and large. — HTGS (talk) 09:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Ah, that's good to know; I appreciate the heads-up. Though NCNZ is itself a guideline, NC is a policy, so it does indeed seem like NC should win out. (For my own part - I do believe that the dual name is still more suitable under NC, though it's definitely more of a grey area than if NCNZ were the superseding guideline.) ModernDayTrilobite (talk) 14:21, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (New Zealand), the relevant and official wikipedia naming convention, reads in part Dual names. If there are sources that indicate that a dual name has usage beyond mandatory official usage, put the article at the dual name, with redirects from each of the component names... If sources do not support use of the dual name, the English name will almost certainly be the one in common usage. Andrewa (talk) 08:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 Comment: This is where I found WP:NCNZ confusing. Is it any usage? i.e., do we have to show at least one RS that uses the dual name that wasn't forced by law? Or is it dominant usage? Or something else? I don't know how to interpret the guideline, so I can't really engage in the discussion. — hike395 (talk) 10:55, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Comment It's common usage, meaning that the article title has common usage in the English language. It's also worth pointing out that WP:NCNZ is supplementary to Wikipedia general conventions and guidelines and doesn't override them. Spekkios (talk) 23:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Comment the WP:NCNZ guidelines state "usage beyond mandatory official usage" - specific naming conventions like NCNZ can have different criteria for name changes and don't need to follow the common name - see the conventions for flora or medicine-related articles. The question was what the requirement for NCNZ is, and the answer to that is beyond official usage, not common. Turnagra (talk) 03:01, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Comment I think it also bears mention that the lede of WP:NCNZ states that NCNZ "describes those cases where New Zealand practice differs from universal Wikipedia conventions"; i.e., I think it's actually most appropriate to read it as overriding the general guidelines. ModernDayTrilobite (talk) 04:57, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Comment' WP:NCNZ is simply supplementary to WP:NC Spekkios (talk) 06:14, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
This isn't how it's currently stated on NCNZ, and isn't how the policy is described. If you want it to be interpreted like that, perhaps it's worth a RfC separate to this? Turnagra (talk) 09:52, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
WP:NC states that any additional guidelines are only supplementary to the main conventions. To quote: "It is supplemented by other more specific guidelines (see the box to the right), which should be interpreted in conjunction with other policies...". As such, WP:NCNZ is only supplementary to WP:NC conventions, including WP:CONCISE and this. Spekkios (talk) 00:27, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While ngrams seems useless (an attempt to search for Kā Tiritiri o te Moana returns no results, as do searches for apropriately similar phrases, though this could be due to my inexperience with the system) a review of recent news articles strongly suggests that "Southern Alps" remains the common name, with the Kā Tiritiri o te Moana being used only infrequently, and even then it is sometimes used in the form "known to the Maori as" rather than in the official dual format. BilledMammal (talk) 02:55, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
  1. Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (New Zealand)#Dual names
  2. Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (New Zealand)#Does a consensus for the section "Dual and alternative place names" exist?
There may be some question of whether the relevant aspect of NZ naming conventions actually reflect[s] the consensus of the community. BilledMammal (talk) 05:05, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. There is a current RfC proposal draft on the guidelines for dual names. Spekkios (talk) 23:51, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Above an editor says that it is used academically. That is true one paper in pubmed uses Kā Tiritiri o te Moana. But 47 papers use Southern Alps without mentioning Kā Tiritiri o te Moana.[12] Of those 8 have used it in the same year or later than the one mention it has academically. This is not a trend to using the duel name, certainly not enough to justify changing the title to a name name that so obviously fails conciseness and naturalness. Aircorn (talk) 22:52, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
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:Southern_Alps/Archive_1&oldid=1146811090"