Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (New Zealand)

For the macron discussion, please see Archive 2.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5: 120 days

This talkpage has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Eleanor Ainge Roy (27 January 2020). "Wikipedia urged to add accents to Māori placenames amid resurgence in te reo". The Guardian. Retrieved 27 January 2020. Wilke is proposing to change Wikipedia's naming conventions and update hundreds of place names on the website.
"Christchurch man proposes Wikipedia change to include macrons". The New Zealand Herald. 29 January 2020. Retrieved 31 January 2020. If the proposal is adopted, nearly 300 place names on Wikipedia would thus be changed to show the macron in the page title and throughout the text.
Mike Dickison (30 January 2020). "Why changing Māori place names on one of the world's biggest websites isn't so simple". Noted.co.nz. Retrieved 30 January 2020. If, following discussion, this change is approved, it will bring Wikipedia into line with the way New Zealand English has changed.
"Battle of the macrons: Debate about Māori words on Wikipedia ends". Newstalk ZB. 23 March 2020. Retrieved 23 March 2020. A Christchurch man's campaign for Wikipedia to officially adopt the use of macrons in Māori words has been a success.
"Battle of the macrons: Debate about Māori words on Wikipedia ends". The New Zealand Herald. 23 March 2020. Retrieved 24 March 2020. In the end, 33 editors voted for the adoption of the new guideline, with five against.
Alex Braae (25 March 2020). "The Bulletin: Message to NZers overseas changes – seek shelter, not passage home". The Spinoff. Retrieved 25 March 2020. For a feature today, a buzzy news article entirely unrelated to the pandemic, about getting change through a vitally important but all-volunteer organisation. The NZ Herald has reported on the addition of macrons to Māori words on Wikipedia – a change that you might expect would be quite simple to make. Unfortunately, that wasn't the case until very recently.
Axel Wilke (24 April 2020). "Wikipedia Macron Battle". Scoop (website). Retrieved 24 April 2020. Great news. As of 22 April 2020, Wikipedia is a reliable source on whether or not a populated place is spelled with a macron.

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 120 days may be automatically archived by when more than 2 sections are present.

What is the position of literal translations? (unofficial and uncommon)

I've noticed a lot of articles recently that list unofficial, uncommon and literal Maori translations of places in New Zealand. Examples include Cambridge, Oxford, and Featherston (the last one's asserted Maori name is so uncommon, NZGB made Featherston an official english-only name).

Personally, i don't think this is appropriate. I think we should have a clear rule where a name (English or Maori) is only added as an primary/alternative name on wikipedia if either:

1. It is an NZGB official name; or

2. It is demonstrably a common name (and not just a literal or dictionary name).

If it fits neither, then the default is either the name is not notable enough for wikipedia, or does not comply with WP:EN. Lluq (talk) 10:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's totally fine having a Māori name in the lede even if it's uncommon, as it doesn't take up a huge amount of space and represents that Māori is also an official language of New Zealand. But I don't think this is the best place for this discussion, as this is specifically about the conventions for titles - which are irrelevant here. I'd suggest maybe reposting this over at the Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board. Turnagra (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The official language of the English-language Wikipedia is English though.

Even if we should include uncommon Maori names for the mere sake of them being Maori), a literal translation is not a new name. It's just a translation that isn't used by anyone.

It would also open up the question why not include uncommon and unofficial place names for everywhere in New Zealand? Surely you can see the problem if the question is (as you suggest) "is the suggested place name written in an official language in New Zealand, irrespective of its relevance, use, and meaning?". Lluq (talk) 07:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The official language of the English-language Wikipedia is English though.

Even if we should include uncommon Maori names for the mere sake of them being Maori, a literal translation is not a new name. It's just a translation.

It would also open up the question why not include uncommon and unofficial place names for everywhere in New Zealand? Surely you can see the problem if the question is (as you suggest) "is the suggested place name written in an official language in New Zealand, irrespective of its relevance, use, and meaning?".

EDIT: corrected errors from comment above. Lluq (talk) 07:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The official languages of New Zealand, which is what WP:LEADLANG talks about, include Māori. And I'm not sure that a transliteration is any less of a Māori word than an English word, but I'm definitely sure that none of us are the person who gets to make that call. If there are reliable sources, such as the Māori dictionary, stating that as the name, then it doesn't matter where it came from. I'd also note that plenty of commonly used Māori (and English) terms are transliterations or adaptations from other languages - take for example ngā pirihimana. I can honestly say that I don't see any issue here, nor do I think this is something worth any of our time to be talking about. Turnagra (talk) 08:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject NZ would be the wrong place to discuss this, per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. BilledMammal (talk) 07:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any reading of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that disqualifies WP:NZ also disqualifies this page. For the record, I think your reading of that is flawed and not in line with longstanding practice on Wikipedia. Turnagra (talk) 08:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we don’t have a reliable source telling us "this is the Māori name for this place" then we shouldn’t be including it in the article. If we have just a couple, it’s probably undue for the lede, but it’s less clear cut - and I think all your examples are in the first category? BilledMammal (talk) 07:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, we have reliable sources for all three of them - see Kemureti, Ōkiwhata, and Paetūmōkai. But, at any rate, surely we don't need something explicitly saying "x is the Māori name for y", as a source that says something like this one where it uses both names and makes clear that there is such a link would also suffice. Turnagra (talk) 08:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not clear to me that any of these are referring to the specific locations, but I may have missed something - can you clarify why you think they are referring to them? BilledMammal (talk) 08:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generally the bit that says "(location)" is a good indication that it's referring to a location. Turnagra (talk) 08:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first two say (place), but as far as I can tell the third doesn’t say anything. However, that wasn’t my question - I was asking how you know that they are referring to these specific locations? BilledMammal (talk) 08:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll grant you that it seems the Oxford name was referring to the UK location (and I've since found an updated name which seems more accurate), but if you look at the example in the Cambridge one then it's pretty clear it's referring to the location in the Waikato. As for Featherston, could you please point out any other location with that name which it might be getting confused with? Turnagra (talk) 09:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1: Any reliably sourced Māori name for a New Zealand place should be included in the article. It doesn’t matter how that name came to be, there will be people who are looking for that information, and we are the place they should be able to find it. With that, they should also be able to trust the name’s veracity of course. 2: I don’t personally think that all Māori names for NZ places will have lead-level importance, but I do think it would be worth including them in the infobox (forgive me if that sounds a little contradictory). — HTGS (talk) 21:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aoraki/Mount Cook

This is the official name, why add extra white space? 222.153.176.212 (talk) 11:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's stylized and usually spaced (see this). Alexeyevitch^(talk) 12:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See this https://gazetteer.linz.govt.nz/place/7297 153.111.226.200 (talk) 12:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aoraki/Mount Cook

This is an official name 153.111.226.200 (talk) 12:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dual names consist of an English name and a Māori name, usually separated by a spaced slash, e.g. Mayor Island / Tūhua this is standardized to a spaced slash form. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 12:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So is the New Zealand Geographic Board Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa wrong? 153.111.226.200 (talk) 13:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The New Zealand Geographic Board Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa has standardised the formating for dual names to now include a space either side of the forward slash when renaming places with a dual name. Aoraki / Mount Cook was offically named Aoraki/Mount Cook in 1998 before this standised format was used. Wikipedia (and the majority of media in NZ) have opted to always include spaces around the slash when using dual names. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (New Zealand)#Dual and alternative place names. ShakyIsles (talk) 19:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aoraki / Mount Cook was offically named Aoraki/Mount Cook in 1998 153.111.226.200 (talk) 07:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Common name is standardized with the space. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 07:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The common name actually has the two names without any ornament whatsoever. I wonder whether our craving for standardisation is wrongly placed, when the article uses neither the official nor common name. — HTGS (talk) 21:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]