Talk:Shag Point

Shag Point, New Zealand

There is also a Shag Point on the east coast of the South Island of New Zealand, along State Highway 1. It is about 7-10km NE of Palmerston and about the same from Hampden. It is about 45 minutes from Dunedin by car. The main east coast rail line passes through the area too

45 minutes if you're a fucking slow driver! --222.155.37.36 (talk) 11:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

...where "fucking slow" means "drives safely and legally", I guess.

Shag Point, New Zealand, is of significance archaeologically and geologically. I hereby signal my intention at some point in the future to make a page for it (I've been gradually making pages for places on the coast of Otago), at which time I will remove this redirect and put in a "For the feature in South Georgia..." header.

—VeryRarelyStable (talk) 09:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

(except Grutness has got there before me. Thanks!) —VeryRarelyStable 01:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

No prob :) - it's just a stub though, with no details about its archaeology (and currently no references... whoops!), so anything you might care to add would be appreciated! Grutness...wha? 01:34, 10 March 2020 (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: moved.

This RM is similar to (and was proposed by the same editor about the same time) as this and this, and raises some similar issues as to the interaction between WP:NZNC and WP:COMMONNAME. However, the cases are not the same: see BilledMammal's comment below as to why they are neutral on this proposal although they opposed the other two. There are here 4 editors supporting the move against 2 opposing, so applying WP:NHC I find the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians consider WP:NZNC to be the controlling policy in this instance and I also find consensus that that policy supports the move.

The discussion as to WP:POVNAMING did not really add much, but for completeness WP:COMMONNAME explicitly states that neutrality is considered, and states "When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others."

Accordingly, I find a consensus to move.(non-admin closure) Havelock Jones (talk) 11:37, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

---

Shag Point → Shag Point / Matakaea – official name since 1998[1], overdue to update this. Gryffindor (talk) 08:24, 15 September 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:06, 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 “Shag Point / Matakaea” is the predominant name outside of official usage. Consider that “Matakaea” alone may be more common than “Shag Point” and “Shag Point / Matakaea”. — HTGS (talk) 00:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose see WP:CONCISE, WP:UCRN, USEENG, etc. Spekkios (talk) 06:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Support WP:NZNC states that articles should use a dual place name when the dual place name has "usage beyond mandatory official usage" - which is clearly demonstrated for Shag Point / Matakaea through media articles, nearby tourist attractions, heritage organisations, art galleries and even social media. The name is recognised by sources described by WP:WIAN to such an extent that the dual name clearly meets the requirements for moving this page. Turnagra (talk) 10:03, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Comment: I am uncertain on this one; [2] suggests that "Shag Point" is used approximately five times as frequently as "Matakaea", but this does demonstrate that Matakaea has a level of use that might be sufficient to satisfy the particular requirements of New Zealand naming policy. (I will not that the official name shows no use; I suspect this is due to formatting errors on my part, and if someone with more ngrams experience can correct that formatting I would appreciate it.) BilledMammal (talk) 03:04, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support as per NZ naming conventions. There is usage beyond mandatory official usage therefore it should be moved. ShakyIsles (talk) 04:40, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: It might be worth noting these ongoing discussions:

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: Māori place names are currently a live political issue in New Zealand (particularly the use of "Aotearoa" for the country, but there are petitions going around to revert to Māori place names for everything). To use the English name by default is to side with one party to that political issue, not to maintain NPOV. I don't have local knowledge about "Shag Point" vs "Matakaea", but I do know the use of "Ōtepoti" for my home town is becoming more common. —VeryRarelyStable 03:16, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. There is no question that the common name is Shag Point, when comparing searches for both names on a reliable news site like Stuff (“Shag Point” and “Matakaea”) and you get a 500 to 0 result in favour of the current name (technically 652:1, but the 1 is not for the place, and presumably not all of the 652 are either).

VeryRarelyStable: yes, to make sure we are WP:NPOV, the standard procedure is WP:COMMONNAME. It’s not our job to be prescriptive, but descriptive. We don’t decide what people should call a place, we simply record what they do call it. — HTGS (talk) 09:46, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

And because WP:COMMONNAME is usually WP:NPOV, that is usually the right thing to do. When NPOV and COMMONNAME conflict, as they do in some instances of New Zealand place names, NPOV takes precedence. Whareakeake is one of those instances, which is why Whareakeake is the main article and Murdering Beach the redirect instead of the other way around. I do not know whether Shag Point / Matakaea is another instance, but we should make sure rather than assume. —VeryRarelyStable 23:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Not sure I agree with NPOV taking precedent as per WP:POVNAMING Spekkios (talk) 23:59, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is one of the three core policies of Wikipedia along with WP:RS and WP:NOR. That's more central to Wikipedia than WP:COMMONNAME. WP:POVNAMING applies when the thing or place being named is widely known and frequently referred to by a particular name, which is not the case with Shag Point (witness the fact that, a couple of years ago, the primary target of "Shag Point" was the one in South Georgia). —VeryRarelyStable 00:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I think you’re misunderstanding the policies and guidelines. NPOV does not strictly trump common name, and common name acts in service of NPOV. If you want a truly political example of how these policies are applied, go have a read of the discussions over Myanmar (there’s a list at the top of the talk page); the most recent decision was based almost entirely on its common name.

That and you clearly just didn’t read POVNAMING, which gives specific and decisive examples of common name trumping NPOV.

Shag Point is also the only name used for the place by multiple media outlets, as well as the majority of the English speaking population. Just because the majority of the world doesn’t know Shag Point doesn’t mean it isn’t the common name (Apple and apple both have the same common name—capitalisation aside). — HTGS (talk) 18:29, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I presume you're referring to the part of WP:POVNAMING that says

Article titles that combine alternative names are discouraged. For example, "Derry/Londonderry", "Aluminium/Aluminum" or "Flat Earth (Round Earth)" should not be used.

And certainly if the official name of this feature were simply "Matakaea" I would oppose a move to "Shag Point / Matakaea", as it would be in breach of this policy. Similarly, I wouldn't want to see Whareakeake moved to "Whareakeake / Murdering Beach". In that instance the English name has not been officially retained.

However, in fact "Shag Point / Matakaea" is the official name, singular, not a combination of the common name and the official name. "Shag Point / Matakaea" as a title would not be a combination of two alternative names. It would simply be using the official name.

If you scroll up from the POVNAMING paragraph to the top of the WP:NPOV page, you will find it says

NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies; the other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles, and, because they work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. Editors are strongly encouraged to familiarize themselves with all three. This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.

You will find no such injunction at the head of WP:COMMONNAME. Nothing trumps NPOV.

Māori place names, and their correct usage and spelling, are a live issue in New Zealand cultural politics. At Naturism in New Zealand two or three editors have come along just to remove the macron from "Waihī"; no-one at all has concerned themselves with the acute accent on "pétanque".

Hence, if Shag Point / Matakaea is one of those New Zealand place names where there is contention over whether to use the Māori name or not, which I do not have sufficient local knowledge to assess, then the combined name is the appropriate title for the Wikipedia article. Is there such contention? That is the question that matters.

—VeryRarelyStable 04:56, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity. If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased. For example, the widely used names "Boston Massacre", "Teapot Dome scandal", and "Jack the Ripper" are legitimate ways of referring to the subjects in question, even though they may appear to pass judgment. — HTGS (talk) 08:33, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Widely used and therefore likely to be well recognised by readers. Not really applicable, then, to a page which until a couple of years ago had a completely different target referring to an Antarctic island. I would bet that only locals, geologists, and archaeologists have even heard of Shag Point, and the archaeologists at least would certainly not object to calling it Matakaea. If you are on one side of the New Zealand political issue already referred to, which your enthusiasm for the subject is beginning to make plausible, you need to recognise that your standpoint is not NPOV. And – it bears repeating – nothing trumps NPOV. —VeryRarelyStable 09:48, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Be careful how quickly you accuse people of not being neutral, for your own biases may become apparent. I’m too used to people accusing others of being political when things don’t go as they want them to (when their favourite media starts to include women, for example). Don’t you start too. It’s telling how quickly you discount local knowledge of the place. Picking and choosing guidelines and policy as you see fit is not a discussion in good faith.

But if the place is not well known, perhaps you’re suggesting it isn’t notable, and the whole discussion is moot. — HTGS (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't wish to seem to disparage local knowledge; I merely point out it's not a particularly high-traffic area. I do know for a fact that it has considerable significance in the study of South Island geology and palaeontology, and it's also the location of an important Archaic Māori archaeological site. But those points, as I say, are mostly known to specialists in those respective fields. —VeryRarelyStable 23:36, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support

Matakaea is on Facebook - definitely evidence of common usage beyond "mandatory official usage", so meets requirement of WP:NCNZ https://www.facebook.com/MatakaeaShagpoint/ Somej (talk) 09:20, 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.

Requested move 1 July 2022

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. There is a numerical majority in favour of moving back to the prior title, and also demonstration that the proposed name is the WP:COMMONNAME. Note too, that WP:NCNZ has been amended by RfC since the time of the last RM, so the premise about using dual names which was was one of the reasons it was effected is no longer in place.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:28, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

---

Shag Point / Matakaea → Shag Point – Per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE, and MOS:SLASH. The proposed name is considerably more common than the current name; per ngrams as well as Google News (6 results for the current title vs 83 for the proposed title) and Google Scholar (6 results for the current title since 2018 vs 57 for the proposed title). BilledMammal (talk) 14:34, 1 July 2022 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:56, 10 July 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 06:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support per nominator. --Spekkios (talk) 00:50, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I'll write up my actual input later, but it seems to me that we should be notifying the people who engaged on the move request not even a year ago - Gryffindor, HTGS, ShakyIsles, VeryRarelyStable, Somej. Turnagra (talk) 02:09, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per previous discussion. To reiterate that argument: the use or non-use of Māori place-names is a live political issue in New Zealand. That raises potential WP:NPOV issues, and WP:NPOV is a Wikipedia core policy which trumps WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE, and the Manual of Style. In cases where NPOV and the others give rise to conflicting recommendations, NPOV wins. See WP:NCNZ:

  Where the commonly used name is of Māori origin, use the spelling as defined in the New Zealand Gazetteer if the entry is labelled "official"...

  If an article title uses a location's dual name, it should use the spaced slash format... For example, Aoraki / Mount Cook and not Aoraki/Mount Cook or Aoraki (Mount Cook).

The official name of the feature, per the New Zealand Gazetteer, is Shag Point/Matakaea. Therefore, per WP:NCNZ, the proper usage on Wikipedia is Shag Point / Matakaea.

—VeryRarelyStable 03:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

The issue is that the dual name also has POV issues; just as one POV prefers Shag Point, another prefers Shag Point / Matakaea. Its use doesn't resolve the issue.

Since neither option is perfectly compliant with WP:NPOV, we need to determine which is more compliant, and to do this we need to consider due weight. This tells us that we should 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. In the case of place names, this means that we should use the name most commonly used by reliable sources; to use a different one gives undue prominence to the point of view that prefers that name. In this case that name is Shag Point, and thus it is the title that best complies with NPOV.

This aligns with WP:POVNAMING, which tells us to avoid using dual names to address POV issues, as well as telling us that it is acceptable to use the common name even when more neutral alternatives are available - and in this case, the most neutral option is Shag Point.

As for NCNZ, there was a consensus last year to remove its preference for dual names. BilledMammal (talk) 04:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

So I see. It would appear that there is now no guideline on whether and when to use dual names – only on using the spaced-slash convention when one does. Let me take a mental walk through the consequences.

Dual names are used as a compromise when Māori wish to have some official recognition of a place's cultural significance, but the colonial name is so recognisable that dropping it altogether would cause problems.

That is to say, dual names only exist when the common name is the colonial name.

If, in the absence of a guideline on when to use dual names, we adopt the policy of "always use the common name", we will always use the colonial name. Wikipedia would be taking the colonial-name side of the political question by default. That would be a breach of WP:NPOV and unacceptable.

If, on the other hand, we return to the policy of "use the dual name when it is an official name according to the Gazetteer", we may or may not be balancing both sides appropriately, but at least we will not be picking one over the other as a matter of policy. In this case, that would mean retaining "Shag Point / Matakaea".

I was not party to the discussion at NCNZ. I would ask those who were to consider producing a new guideline as to when to use dual names in article titles. Until such an agreement is reached, I recommend keeping this article the way it is.

—VeryRarelyStable 06:48, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

That line of reasoning would lead to the renaming of a huge number of articles, not only in New Zealand, but other countries with multiple languages spoken in them. If the common name is the "colonial name", then that is the common name. WP:POVNAMING even states very clearly that Article titles that combine alternative names are discouraged.

The consensus at NCNZ was that current guidelines are sufficient without adding unnecessary extra guidelines. There is not a new guideline being considered. When considering an article title, we look at WP:CRITERIA. --Spekkios (talk) 06:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Only if, in those other countries, there is a live political debate between people wanting to restore pre-colonial names and people wanting to maintain the colonial status quo, and that political debate then aligns approximately with the major political divide in the country, with the colonial-name-retainers being aligned with the conservative parties and the indigenous-name-restorers with the progressive parties. That is New Zealand's situation. I don't see where anyone raised that point in the debate at NCNZ.

—VeryRarelyStable 07:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

As someone living in New Zealand and is very up-to-date with political party policy, I haven't heard of this "live political debate" nor can I find any media sources about said debate. Can you please show me some evidence of this political debate occuring? --Spekkios (talk) 07:04, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Here are a couple:

"New Zealand Māori party launches petition to change country's name to Aotearoa". Retrieved 2 July 2022. Article focuses on the country's name, but the petition it discusses also proposed restoring the Māori names of New Zealand places all over the country.

"Is it time to restore all of New Zealand's Māori place names?". Retrieved 2 July 2022.

As someone also living in New Zealand I have heard both sides of the cultural argument fairly often. I have had people pointedly correct me from "Mt Taranaki" to "Mt Egmont". I have heard of bus drivers refusing to take passengers to Waikouaiti unless they used the mispronunciation "Wackawite". I have heard older people agreeing that oh my god these Māoris are just getting so pushy about pushing their agenda to have their language everywhere and next thing you know it's going to be a crime to be white.

I have also heard the other side, that the insistence on Pākehā names, and Pākehā mispronunciations, sends a very clear message to Māori about who is valued in New Zealand and whose history is considered to be "proper" New Zealand history. Living as I do in a fairly Pākehā city in a largely Pākehā social group, I mostly hear this from Māori university lecturers where I work; but I am satisfied with the evidence they provide for their position.

—VeryRarelyStable 07:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

The first article is about a minor political party proposing launching a pention while the second is an opinion article. It hardly seems like a "live political debate" if the most recent political article was 9 months ago, and about a party with less than 2% of the seats in the House of Representatives proposing a petition. That seems like a very niche political issue at the very best, which is hardly a "major political divide".

The remainder of your comment has no relevence to Wikipedia naming policy, as it is not the concern of Wikipedia what is valued, pronounced, or considered history by individuals. Wikipedia summarises history according to experts, and writes articles using the common English name for a location. This is per WP:CRITERIA. --Spekkios (talk) 07:47, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Some more relevant resources:

Belshaw, K. J. (December 2005). "Decolonising the Land" (PDF).

"More than a name: the stories behind Marlborough's rivers and mountains". 4 May 2017.

"Wanganui District to have 'h' added to name - Government". 17 November 2015.

"Iwi on mission to restore mana to mangled Marlborough place names". 13 September 2021.

I realize that, if I were writing an article on the subject, synthesizing these would be OR. But I'm not writing, or proposing, an article; I'm commenting on title policy. Their common theme demonstrates that this issue has been around for years and arises repeatedly in different contexts. In New Zealand place names, WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOV are at odds.

I don't believe this was adequately represented in the NCNZ debate. At the very least it indicates that some specific policy on when to use dual names, beyond merely assuming that COMMONNAME covers all, is required.

—VeryRarelyStable 08:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:NPOV specifically tells us that Although multiple terms may be in common usage, a single name should be chosen as the article title, in line with the article titling policy (and relevant guidelines such as on geographical names). One of those titling policies is WP:COMMONNAME. WP:POVNAME in the article titling policy page covers this too. --Spekkios (talk) 18:21, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Dual names are still treated as a single name - we're not making a new name up out of thin air. Turnagra (talk) 19:34, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

It's unreasonable to assume that most people are going to think that way. The majority of people are going to look at a dual name and see two names in two different languages and not a single name. Regardless, WP:NPOV specifies that the name chosen is to be in common usage and in line with article titling policy such as WP:CRITERIA, WP:CONCISE, WP:COMMONNAME, etc. The idea that a dual name is a single name is essentially irrelevant. --Spekkios (talk) 20:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I believe your assessment is wrong on two points. First, the dual name can be the common name, and in fact the goal of the NZGB is to make it so as a stage in a long term strategy of transitioning to using only the Maori name.

Second, while the status quo does not result in us picking one side over the other as a matter of policy, we would be doing so if we required articles to always use the dual name; we would be picking the side that supports the use of dual names. BilledMammal (talk) 07:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I would like to see evidence of this being a long-term goal of the NZGB, please.

And if it is the case, then the dual name is the compromise, not the opposite side. The opposite side would be to use the Māori name only.

—VeryRarelyStable 07:29, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Frameworks of the New Zealand Geographic Board Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa, pages 46-48, Maori Language Plan for Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa New Zealand Geographic Board, pages 4-5, and New Zealand Geographic Board Strategy 2020-2025, page 2. As for dual names as a neutral compromise between two alternative names, policy discourages that, and in this case dual names are not a neutral compromise - it is both a third POV, and as a transitory stage towards the use of only the Maori name part of that POV. BilledMammal (talk) 09:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

and as a transitory stage towards the use of only the Maori name part of that POV.

This is my second request for evidence for that statement.

—VeryRarelyStable 09:42, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

For only that part of my comment, just Frameworks of the New Zealand Geographic Board Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa, pages 46-48. BilledMammal (talk) 09:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

So at "Frameworks of the New Zealand Geographic Board Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa".

(For the benefit of other editors: you have to download the PDF. But it's there.)

Relevant excerpts:

• Principle

• Dual and alternative naming recognises the equal and special significance for the community of both original Māori and non-Māori names. This significance may be historical or cultural.
• With the passing of time the original Māori name might gain everyday acceptance and use and eventually replace the non-Māori name.

• Long term strategy to transition from dual names to the original Māori name

• Dual naming could be a stepping-stone to the feature finally becoming known only by its original Māori name.
• Long dual names can be transitioned out through this process.
• Transitioning to the original Māori name may take time, reflecting generational change, natural progression, changed usage and increased acceptance.

It is clear that the NZ Geographic Board hopes that the Māori name will in time replace the colonial name. However, it is also clear that the process by which this is to be realized is "everyday acceptance and use", "generational change, natural progression, changed usage and increased acceptance". That is to say, they are not planning to foist such names on an unwilling public; they are hoping that the public will, over time, cease to be unwilling.

I should note that the N in "NPOV" stands for "neutral", not "no". Any position at all is someone's point of view. A third point of view which stands as the middle ground between two opposing points of view is a neutral point of view. The purpose of dual names is to provide a middle ground.

—VeryRarelyStable 10:22, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

They go further than hoping they will replace the English name; they have a Long term strategy to transition from dual names to the original Māori name.

As for the use of dual names as a neutral compromise position, there are three issues with that. First, policy instructs us not to use dual names in such a way.

Second, your position is based on notion that dual name is a neutral position; it isn't, both because it is a non-neutral third position on its own, and because it is aligned with the position that supports the Maori name, due to it being a stage in the long term strategy to transition to those names.

Third, policy requires proportionality between positions; we treat each position with a weight proportional to its treatment in suitable sources. This doesn't always result in the neutral position being at the center of two positions and it isn't in this case; search of news sources and scholarly sources show that none use only Matakaea. BilledMammal (talk) 11:04, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Policy instructs us not to construct our own combination names for that purpose, but that's not what's happening here. The dual name already exists in its own right as a name, so that portion is irrelevant. Turnagra (talk) 19:46, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I did quote the relevant paragraphs from that strategy. Again:

Transitioning to the original Māori name may take time, reflecting generational change, natural progression, changed usage and increased acceptance.

That is to say, they are not planning to foist such names on an unwilling public; they are hoping that the public will, over time, cease to be unwilling.

I should note that this is the New Zealand Geographic Board we're talking about – the public body charged with defining the official names for New Zealand places. That doesn't of course mean that we have to follow their usage, but it does mean that their strategy to restore Māori names over the long term cannot be considered a "niche" or "fringe" interest, as Spekkios was arguing. It's part of the political framework of this country.

—VeryRarelyStable 02:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not arguing about the NZGB, I'm aruging that the "political framework" you are talking about is a niche and fringe intrest, and therefore should have no effect on the common name and Wikipedia article title, as in WP:POVNAME. I do not see how this issue can be considered a major part of the political framework of this country when neither the general public, nor major political parties, view this as a major political issue. --Spekkios (talk) 02:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

The issue is that the dual name also has POV issues; just as one POV prefers Shag Point, another prefers Shag Point / Matakaea. Its use doesn't resolve the issue. I think you'd find that, in the contemporary political debate, one side prefers Shag Point and one prefers Matakaea. The dual name is the middle ground. Turnagra (talk) 08:42, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

That line from WP:NCNZ is in reference to when the commonly used name is of Māori origin. The commonly used name, "Shag Point", is not of Maori origin. --Spekkios (talk) 06:48, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Dual names are not an answer to NPOV (as is clearly addressed at WP:POVNAMING). Dual names are being used by a minority, and we do not default to a minority viewpoint in cases of disagreement, as VeryRarelyStable is trying to suggest. Imagine if a majority of people were using feminine pronouns for a transgender woman (‘she’, ‘her’, ‘hers’) but a minority were calling her ‘he-she’ or ‘she-he’. We certainly wouldn’t just say: “ah well, it’s NPOV, so we should use the minority’s nomenclature as a middle ground.”

NB, we can use a minority viewpoint if both of the other options are clearly undesirable (see Wikipedia:Bartender's closing). This is not the case here.

Regarding NCNZ, I hope VeryRarelyStable’s inability (or refusal) to read has been sufficiently addressed by other users, but you can still count me among the unimpressed. — HTGS (talk) 01:01, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not feeling an assumption of good faith in that last sentence.

I quoted the policy on using official spellings where the Māori name is the common name because, at present – that is to say, since the same people arguing here changed the policy they're now trying to treat as definitive – there is no guideline on what to do when that is not the case. In the absence of such a guideline, "use the official name" seems as neutral a principle as any.

The N in "NPOV" doesn't stand for "majority" either. It stands for "neutral". Defaulting to colonial names is not neutral in present-day New Zealand politics, as I believe I have already demonstrated.

—VeryRarelyStable 02:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPOVTITLE so that we don’t have to relitigate what has already been agreed upon as best implementation of policy. I also recommend reading Wikipedia:Wikilawyering, to understand why your comments might be giving the impression of bad faith. — HTGS (talk) 04:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

There are policies and guidelines, such as WP:CRITERIA and WP:COMMONNAME. --04:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC) Spekkios (talk) 04:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

"use the official name" seems as neutral a principle as any - this principle is against the consensus of the community, as demonstrated by the RfC that decided to remove it from WP:NCNZ. Per WP:LOCALCON, we cannot reject that consensus here, and at a certain point arguing for us to do that becomes disruptive. In addition, as Spekkios points out, there are policies and guidelines that we use to decide which title to use.

As for WP:NPOV, neutral is reflecting what reliable and independent sources say; we are not permitted to decide that the sources are wrong and right great wrongs. In this case, the sources are telling us that the name for this location is Shag Point, and thus that is the NPOV-compliant name - to use the dual name, or just Matakaea, would be an NPOV violation. BilledMammal (talk) 05:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not clear what makes the NZ Geographic Board not a reliable source. Even if there is some kind of theory on the table that an official body has been taken over by biased political interests, that takeover itself is sufficient to demonstrate that there is support for restoring Māori names from some sectors of New Zealand society.

As to the point that the use of Māori names is being promoted by a party with only two representatives in Parliament, one poll found that renaming New Zealand to Aotearoa has the support of 32% of the country: "Poll shows 1 in 3 support renaming New Zealand Aotearoa". 10 October 2020. Retrieved 7 July 2022.

And on the subject of "righting great wrongs" – which party to this dispute is going around changing articles, and which side is leaving them alone?

I can see which way the majority is going to go here, and I'm not going to fight forever on just one place name. I believe the past RfC got it wrong, and I can think of more than one other New Zealand-based Wikipedia editor besides myself and Turnagra who were not notified of that RfC and would have had perspectives to add that were not considered.

If there is indeed a general movement to move New Zealand articles to their colonial names, I believe that that RfC needs to be revisited.

—VeryRarelyStable 11:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@VeryRarelyStable I think the term “colonial names” is unhelpful. I assume you use it to mean the English language names that were created during the colonisation of New Zealand. Those of us who want to apply the standard of “common name” or “widely accepted name” are only looking for the name used by most English speakers. In situations where the English name is a Māori name—Whakatane, for example—we still use the name standard. Those place names are still “colonial names”, in that the colonisers used them and so we, but I’m guessing that you wouldn’t be so opposed to them. The common-English-name standard gives us Munich rather than München, and North Korea, rather than Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, but is a good way of avoiding the politicisation that’s introduced by ideas like colonialism.

As for which party to this dispute is going around changing articles, and which side is leaving them alone, it’s worth noting that a lot of pages were moved to their dual names in 2020 and 2021 by the “other side” (including this very page). Not that we should be content at just using the name of whichever “side” got there first, or which name has been used longest… — HTGS (talk) 23:45, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Colonization is a historical fact. I use the word "colonial" because it's truthful.

I'm guessing you wouldn't object if I were to describe the name "Leningrad" as "the communist name for St Petersburg". I know quite a few socialists who for political reasons would really rather prefer to disavow the human rights abuses under communism, but communism remains a historical fact. So does colonization.

English-speakers referring to München as "Munich" does not prevent Germans from calling it München or from being understood when they call it München. English-speakers talking about "North Korea" does not prevent Koreans from calling it Chosŏn Minjujuŭi Inmin Konghwaguk and being understood. This is because neither Germany nor North Korea has a history of being colonized by English-speakers.

That is why "Munich" and "North Korea" are neutral names to use in English media.

—VeryRarelyStable 03:08, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I am bewildered that you don’t take the same step here: English-speakers talking about "Shag Point" does not prevent Māori from calling it Matakaea and being understood. Also, for the record, I do not dispute that colonisation happened… though I suspect that either I made a point that you missed, or you made a point that I have missed. — HTGS (talk) 03:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

That's just it. English-speakers talking about "Shag Point", and putting "Shag Point" (alone) on maps and signs, and being in control of which maps and signs are considered official, does prevent Māori from calling it Matakaea and being understood, in the one country in the world in which a conversation about the history or geography of Matakaea might be practical and relevant. That is the effect of colonization.

—VeryRarelyStable 04:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Common name in English-language sources. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose I share the same NPOV concerns as explained above, and think that the persistence with which some users seem intent to eliminate dual names from wikipedia should give us pause given the ongoing debate about the use of Pākehā vs. Māori names in New Zealand, especially given that dual names have developed within New Zealand (not by us) to act as a neutral middle ground. The dual name has significant usage by sources which WP:WIAN tells us to look at, while the sources used by the nominator don't actually paint as clear a picture as they'd have you believe. Many are either from before the name change, refer to historical use before the name change, or don't even refer to the point in NZ at all. Hell, until a couple years ago this page itself referred to a Shag Point in the South Sandwich Islands, which hardly paints a great picture of this being the best use of the Shag Point name. Turnagra (talk) 19:37, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Many are either from before the name change, refer to historical use before the name change, or don't even refer to the point in NZ at all. First, none of the results are from before the change. Second, for Google News, only three results were in reference to historic events, and eight weren't relevant due to not being in English. For Google Scholar, five were in reference to historic events, and six weren't relevant for various reasons - in addition, eleven were citations, one that should have counted as a use of a dual name, and three I was unable to access.

  In comparison, two of the news results for the dual name should count as uses of Shag Point (they are in the form Shag Point, also known by its Maori name Matakaea, and aside from this mention of the Maori name show a clear preference for Shag Point and no use of the dual name), and of the scholarly results two were in reference to historic events, and two were citations.

  I don't know where you got the impression that the sources used by the nominator don't actually paint as clear a picture as they'd have you believe, but it is clearly incorrect; with this manual review, news results continue to show a clear preference for the proposed title (74 results to 4), as do scholarly results (33 results to 3).

  I will also add that in general alleging that an editor has deliberately attempted to mislead other editors, as you did above, is WP:UNCIVIL, and I would ask that you don't do so again in the future.

  As for NPOV, your position rests on the claim that the dual name is naturally neutral; it is not, and its uses is connected with two points of view as described above. Instead, per WP:DUE the most neutral of the three options under consideration is the proposed title, which is indisputably preferred by reliable and independent sources. BilledMammal (talk) 05:45, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  I was largely referring to the ngrams which you cited, dating all the way back to the Treaty of Waitangi itself. When you look at the examples of books - even those from after the name change - many instances are referring to historical cases. But at any rate and just to be clear (since you've left WP:AGF behind in relation to me long ago), I wasn't insinuating that you were deliberately misleading people – just that you were wrong in your interpretation.

  With that said, I'm not sure how you can claim that the wholesale removal of Māori names from an article when there is still widespread usage of them can be considered neutral, let alone when set in the context of the same removal taking place across dozens of articles. Turnagra (talk) 05:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  Then I apologize for misunderstanding your statement; by writing as they'd have you believe rather than as they believe, it suggested to me that you believed I attempted to mislead other editors, rather than that I was mistaken.

  For ngrams, I don't see your point. No editor is going to rely on the oldest values to inform their decision, and looking only at the values since the name change shows the same clear preference for the proposed name.

  NPOV means reflecting, without editorial bias, what reliable and independent sources have to say on a subject. In this case, reliable and independent sources overwhelmingly say that the name of this location is Shag Point and while our personal preferences or desire to right past wrongs might disagree with them we are forbidden from reflecting that disagreement in our choice of title. BilledMammal (talk) 11:32, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  The way you word that makes it seem that someone is forcing your hand and making you carry out the move requests, which we both know isn't true. This isn't a case of writing great wrongs – if it were, I'm sure many editors would be pushing to use the Māori names on their own or to rename Hamilton as Kirikiriroa – which, again, obviously isn't happening. If anything, the persistent campaign by a small group of dedicated editors to remove any form of dual name from wikipedia seems far more consistent with an attempt to write a perceived great wrong, especially when some of those editors have said as much. You can cite all the policy you want about this, but it doesn't escape the fact that moving away from the dual name and removing almost all use of it is inherently a non-neutral action. Turnagra (talk) 21:35, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  As opposed to the persistent campaign by a small group of dedicated editors to impose any form of dual name on Wikipedia, which is an inherently non-neutral action? --Spekkios (talk) 02:12, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  Dual names resolve neutrality issues, not cause them. There's also no such campaign, but that's an aside. Turnagra (talk) 02:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  You really can’t just say that dual names resolve neutrality issues. What’s to stop Spekkios from saying the same about common names? This NPOV idea is one you should not pick up. It’s a bad habit, and one that’s clearly refuted by policy.

  And “There’s no such campaign”?? Turnagra, you have pushed for the dual name on probably more than 50 different articles (I haven’t bothered counting them). Whether you’re in the right or in the wrong, this is a campaign. You have moved pages, created pages, argued for and against respective RMs, proposed RMs yourself, argued about whether places should be called by their dual names in body and leads. You probably wouldn’t be wrong to make a counter-accusation, but you can’t deny doing what you’re doing! — HTGS (talk) 02:38, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  There is a political movement to restore the Māori names of New Zealand places; the Māori Party may be the ones actively campaigning for it, but if you follow Green Party events and publicity you'll find them casually using "Ōtepoti" and "Ōtautahi" instead of "Dunedin" and "Christchurch", for example.

  (As noted above, at least one poll has shown 32% support for renaming "New Zealand" to "Aotearoa", and it's hard to imagine that people who support that would not also support restoring local Māori place-names.)

  There is a political reaction to this movement which basically consists of refusing to do the same and insisting on using colonial names; you'll find this mainly in NZ First and the National Party.

  There is no political movement in any part of New Zealand politics to use dual names instead of either. Dual names are therefore, at the very least, nonpartisan.

  The statement that commonly-used names are by definition neutral has been assumed many times in this discussion and asserted several times; what has not happened once yet is for this statement to be defended.

  Why is the common name by definition the neutral choice, even given a situation where the common name is a partisan name?

  —VeryRarelyStable 02:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  I believe that has already been addressed. Common names are NPOV because they are the names that are actually used amoung English-speakers, therefore being free of any political attachment. That is why WP:POVNAME is a policy. --Spekkios (talk) 03:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  Common names are NPOV because they are the names that are actually used... therefore being free of any political attachment.

  This is an example of the logical fallacy called "begging the question". Whether a name can be assumed to be "free of any political attachment" solely because it is "actually used" is precisely the proposition under scrutiny here. It cannot be defended by reference to itself. If there is an argument which can be used to defend this proposition, it's time to bring it out.

  —VeryRarelyStable 03:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  Unless you want to argue that using the English language is an expression of political ideology, then I do not find that your request for defense is resonable. The argument for using WP:COMMONNAME is because that is the name that is naturally used when referring to the subject.

  For example, if I was to go up to an English-speaker who knew the name of this glacier, and asked them what the name of the glacier is, then the speaker will give a response. It is reasonable to expect that when discussing this glacier, English speakers will all refer to the location using the same name. There is no political attachment when English speakers are using the English name for a location. English speakers aren't thinking about anything political when using the English name for the locaiton anymore than an English speaker using the name "apple" to describe a certain fruit.

  Now, you might make the argument that the mere fact that English speakers use "Fox Glacier" instead of "Te Moeka o Tuawe" to describe this location is inherently political due to colonisation. However, that is exactly why WP:TITLES specifically discusses WP:POVNAME. Looking at an example given, Alexander the Great, makes the reason for this policy obvious. Specifically, what is "great", exactly, about leading massive amounts of people across the Near and Middle East for the sole reason of destruction and murder? One could make the argument that title for the article breaks NPOV because using the title "great" implies that the wholesale massacre of Persians is "great", which would of course not be NPOV.

  Now, that argument might hold some weight if it was applied to any other person of historical notability, so why does Wikipedia include "great" in the title? Because that is what English-speaking persons refer to him as. The community has come to the consensus that the aforementioned argument doesn't matter when the common name of an object is being discussed. That is why WP:POVNAME applies.

  Sure, the article title might not be a neutral title, but if it's the common name then it doesn't matter. So even if you can successfully argue that the name "Fox Glacier" or "Shag Point" is not a neutral name, it doesn't matter because those names are the common name for English-speaking peoples. The community has already had enless arguments of this nature across the entire lifespan of the project. We have collectively developed WP:POVNAME for specifically these cases, were the common name might be NPOV. It avoids enless tedious pedantry across countless articles by making the entire issue completely moot. --Spekkios (talk) 04:58, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you; that is the coherent defence of the policy that I was looking for.

  In response I must point out that Shag Point / Matakaea is not generally known as anything in the English-speaking world, because (unlike Alexander the Great) it is not generally known in the English-speaking world. It is known mainly to locals and to experts on New Zealand archaeology and geology.

  In such a case I would think there would be another consideration to take into account. Take Whareakeake as an example. It is still, 24 years after the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act, better known to locals and surfing aficionados by its colonial name of "Murdering Beach". But a newcomer to the area will search in vain for "Murdering Beach" on Google Maps or on local signage, because those all use the official name, Whareakeake.

  I think in a geographical article, that's an important consideration. Especially an article on a relatively unknown place, which people are less likely to have heard of in conversation or general culture, and more likely to have found through tourist marketing, local government websites, or Google Maps.

  There is certainly no shortage of geographical articles on Wikipedia which favour the indigenous name over the common English one, although admittedly it's not consistent. Kalaallit Nunaat redirects to Greenland, but Bombay, Calcutta and Ayers Rock redirect to Mumbai, Kolkata, and Uluru respectively.

  —VeryRarelyStable 02:48, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

  Dual names resolve neutrality issues, not cause them - asserting this does not make it true, particularly since evidence has been provided that it is not true; the use of dual names are both non-neutral on their own and align to another non-neutral POV, the one pushing solely for the use of Maori names. Given this, we need to consider WP:DUE which tells us that the most neutral name for this location is the one that reliable and independent sources choose to call this location. BilledMammal (talk) 05:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not disputing that I'm pushing for dual name use, that much is clear. My point is that there isn't a gang of us running around, nominating pages and supporting each other in the same way that there are for those who oppose dual names. There are editors who favour dual names (more than those who oppose, for the record) but as far as I've seen they're far less organised and dedicated to it. I'm the only one who consistently comments on move requests, and even I have given up proposing move requests to move to dual names because I know that the anti-dual name gang will show up quickly and put an end to it. Turnagra (talk) 02:59, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  It's not a vote, but for the record more editors favour using the common name than consistently using the dual name; fourteen editors supported removing the requirement to use the dual name from NZNC, seven opposed removing it. BilledMammal (talk) 05:46, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  I'm talking in regard to the actual move requests, not that RfC. Turnagra (talk) 06:40, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  The reason it's not a vote is that, if it were a vote, we would have to make sure that all interested editors were party to it. I certainly wasn't notified of that RfC, and I can think of others – Grutness (talk · contribs), Moriori (talk · contribs), Aubernas (talk · contribs) spring to mind – who might have had different perspectives to offer.

  —VeryRarelyStable 02:24, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

  As far as I'm concerned, there are three possible titles: Shag Point, Matakaea, and Shag Point / Matakaea, and as long as the article is at one and the other two are redirects it doesn't worry me much which is which. Both official name (with the oblique) and common name (Shag Point) should be taken into consideration, of course, but so should consistency across New Zealand articles. Grutness...wha? 03:45, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose Page uses New Zealand English Somej (talk) 10:13, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

The proposed name is New Zealand English. Spekkios (talk) 11:15, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME (and WP:CONCISE, and WP:MOSSLASH, and WP:CONSISTENT). We do not "stack" multiple names in titles like this, either after a slash or in parentheses. Alternative names are redirects.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:36, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

  Per your comment on the other move request (and my reply to it), this isn't "stacking" names, it's a name in its own right - the same way that "Budapest" isn't stacking names. We've previously established that MOS:SLASH is irrelevant as WP:NZNC calls for spaced slashes to be used for articles at their dual name, and I fail to see how WP:CONSISTENT is relevant here either. Turnagra (talk) 09:46, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE. The alternative name should be in the first paragraph of the lead, but there is no reason to drag the alternate name on the title level throughout Wikipedia.Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 18:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  Why "drag"? That word suggests something unwieldy and unwelcome in its own sake that is, at best, tolerated. What's unwelcome about it? —VeryRarelyStable 00:36, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:17, 8 August 2022 (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.