Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (New Zealand)/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

One-eyed

... Eddaido (talk) 09:37, 26 March 2022 (UTC) I have removed the personal attack. Schwede66 03:49, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh boy, more ad hominem. As with last time, I'd like to remind users that both WP:AGF and WP:NPA are things, and that this isn't my talk page. If you've got an issue with me feel free to take up over there. As for when I got more active, it's almost as if there was some sort of event which meant I suddenly had more free time for indoors activities. I can assure you that you're barking up the wrong tree, but feel free to make a fool of yourself if you insist. Turnagra (talk) 09:54, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Turnagra, where is my personal attack? Where is my failure to assume good faith? Where is my racist attack? If you cannot get your point across using reasoned debate then drop it and do not fall back on invention. It is you who are making things up to suit your personal preference. My point is entirely about the use of the English language in these WP English language articles. All I see is an attempt to rearrange the English language artificially to fit into the way the NZ govt and many NZers think it should be arranged in order to comply with Treaty settlement decisions and the personal preferences of many people. That is what I see happening and what I am saying is that WP is above all of that, it is not party to the Treaty, it is not a solely NZ encyclopedia and it follows its own rules. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:15, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Roger, I was referring to the comment I directly replied to in terms of personal attacks, not your recent comments (which on the whole I have no issue with the civility of, despite not agreeing with them and thinking that we're still talking past each other somehow). That said, in terms of the reference to last time, I was referring to back in November when you decided to start a new section on this page to attack me and question my motives. I'm sure you can understand why Eddaido's comment here brought back memories of that. []

In terms of the questions you've raised in you response, it's one of the core policies of wikipedia to use the variation of English which aligns to the topic - British English for Big Ben, Australian English for INXS, American English for NASA and so on. New Zealand English uses macrons, which is something that has been established time and time again. You don't get to decide the conventions of NZ English any more than I do, it's something that organically develops in NZ as a whole. Turnagra (talk) 22:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

One of the ways people attempt to re-arrange the English language to fit a preferred position is to pretend that NZ English is somehow significantly different from the English used around the world, in that it regularly uses foreign language words rather than the available integrated English word of foreign origin. Hence, why bother using the English word Taupo when we can use the Maori word Taupō? Oh, and that this uniquely NZ quirk only began in earnest twenty of so years ago! The reason this is happening is because the powers that be have chosen to interpret the shared land/living together part of the treaty in a particular way, where shared means interconnected rather than equal and separate. If you go to Wales, for example, there is a lesser stress on mixing up the two languages - both Welsh and English interact but they are on the whole kept separate. A very simple example that illustrates this point is in te papa. Descriptions next to exhibits are in both languages but both texts are in the same colour and font, making it difficult to distinguish the two languages. Go to a similar museum in Wales, or plenty of other places, and the different languages are clearly kept apart. A much worse attempt to intermix the languages is on TVNZ and RNZ where place names and words are regularly mixed up in the same sentence. What is wrong with having an English language news programme and a Maori language News programme? I am going off course a bit here, but I notice that the way treaty obligations are being interpreted has begun to creep into current political discourse (ie ACT). That is only the start of it I think. Back to my point about NZ English. No, NZ English does not include the regular use of Maori language words in common usage, spoken or written. The sources we have currently are in this respect, not reliable, so we should not use them, because they are forced to use an excessive number of Maori language words and phrases. That WP policy of using local variants relates to such minor things as spelling (colour/color), style (The President said (on) Tuesday that...), and vocabulary (plot/section) and very rarely grammar (past simple/past perfect). English is a remarkably uniform language around the world. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:55, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not going to bother continuing to engage with you on this, as we clearly have fundamental differences in how we understand language and our interpretation of what constitutes New Zealand English. That said, I do agree that the differences in local variants of English (and by extension the WP policy) relates to such minor things as spelling (eg. macrons), style (use of dual names), and vocabulary (such as words like kia ora or kai). Not everything is a conspiracy, Roger, and this isn't the place for you to try and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS by 'exposing' it. Turnagra (talk) 01:37, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I will just note Turnagra that when the going gets a bit tough you back off: I am open to being proved wrong! Now, I accept that if I am not careful I will be seen as trying to ram home a personal view with increasingly poorly explained text. Therefore, I will ask everyone to look at this article [1] from Uncensored, specifically from about half way down where the topic of language and agenda pushing starts. It explains much of what I have tried to say but in more detail and in a different style. Please read it and consider that here we are not bound by any policy directive of the NZ govt or NZ institutions. Whether the article is good enough to be used as a RSS here is not relevant - it is not a blog and is published. It puts a lot of what is happening around the country, and here in NZ wiki articles, into perspective. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I back off because at a certain point it becomes clear that the conversation isn't going to be a productive one, and someone has to end it.

In terms of your argument, I don't think linking Uncensored is helping your case (or explaining what you're trying to say) all that much. I think I understand what you're trying to say, but I'd reiterate my earlier point: there's no grand conspiracy here. This isn't a case of the PM hauling all of the media companies into a room and demanding they use macrons - it's a natural progression within the wider NZ public that people are more interested in ensuring that their words reflect Māori pronunciation and not necessarily how they were first transcribed. This is similar to how we don't still call Sudan "the Soudan". English is not a static thing - words, spelling, and pronunciation change over time, and the manner this has changed for NZ English is to include macrons and incorporate more te reo Māori. Again, just as it has incorporated words from nearly every other language on earth in the past.

I do accept the point which Uncensored makes in terms of regional dialects of Māori, but I don't think that's an issue in our context. We already have some regional recognition in articles (Aoraki uses the Ngāi Tahu / Kai Tahu shift of ng- to k-, Mount Taranaki references "Taranaki Mounga" as the local name instead of the wider Maunga, and any references to the "kiingitanga" would likely use the Waikato-Tainui tendency to use double letters instead of macrons for long vowels.

I know that we're not bound by policy directives of the NZ govt - but we use New Zealand English on New Zealand articles. And NZ English pretty clearly uses macrons where they are needed on words with Māori origins. At any rate, this probably isn't the best location for this discussion, is it? Turnagra (talk) 22:51, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

My issue which is the excessive and at times artificial "Maori-isation" of English, falls into two categories: first it is primarily a result of legislation and govt policy rather than a natural change, making it difficult to decide what "common usage" actually is; and second, the changes do not align with the well established natural development of any language when using borrowed words from another language, which means once again the changes are artificial. This Uncensored opinion based article deals well with the official policy part, but does not deal in any detail with the linguistic part. I am still puzzled at what appears to be a blind spot in your response to the artical. You appear to agree with it but then say 'it doesn't matter and I will ignore it and repeat my own un-referenced opinion' or put another way, "Yes, I agree that everyone has to Maorify as much of NZ society as they can, because that is policy backed by the law, but everything would be Maorified naturally anyway, even without the legislation and policies, so it does not really matter." Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Government-led language change after the Norman invasion gave the language words like legislation which you appear to have no problem using. How is this government led change different? Maybe its to do with skin colour? Stuartyeates (talk) 21:08, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

The Norman conquest of England cannot be used as a comparison, the differences are far too great. To suggest otherwise is ignorance. About for last remark, which loses you any credibility you might have had, you need to be very careful in what you write. It could be seen as a personal attack. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

The Norman conquest of England can be used as a comparison and in fact has just been used as a comparison. I invite you to list the pertinent differences which are 'far too great' so they can be discussed and evaluated; I'm mainly seeing the skin colour one personally. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:09, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Roger is arguing that a language change is not a natural language evolution, which makes it hard to ascern what the actual common usage is. The language changes that occured after the Norman conquest of England that you are refering to took place over an extended period of time and resulted in a natural blurring of French and Old English. The example that you have used isn't very applicable to the argument Roger is making, being the argument he is making is that the very process in which you are referring to isn't happening. --Spekkios (talk) 09:04, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I would argue that the process (a change in language(s) spoken at the level sovereign level of government and a resulting porosity between the languages) is exactly what's happening. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:18, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Sure, that's your argument. Roger's is the opposite. That doesn't mean Roger's is racist, which is what you were implying before. --Spekkios (talk) 23:53, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I'd suggest that nobody who is capable of making comments such as https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(New_Zealand)&diff=prev&oldid=1080548146 or citing utter garbage sources such as "Uncensored" - a loopy conspiracy theory magazine of the "aliens are real" variety and whose publishers have also branched out into Covid disinformation and denial - should cast aspersions upon anyone else's credibility.

As for macrons on loan-words - these are expressly part of NZ English. See AS/NZS 4819:2011 sections 3.5.6 and 4.7.7. Daveosaurus (talk) 00:22, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

English/European

This relates to an edit change today. The English name for a place is written in the English language, self evidently. Its origin is not the issue. The closest link to a foreign language being used in English is when English copies a foreign word with a few changes as possible, eg if we used Köln, which we do not. When that direct copy of a foreign word is done the word goes through assimilation to become 'more English', weakening the foreign language connection even more. That assimilation might even have been skipped so a foreign word was adapted to fit into English from the start. Many of the place names in NZ have a foreign language origin but they have become assimilated and are now English language words. It is therefore incorrect to describe these place names as European. "Since the 1980s, the New Zealand Geographic Board has changed the names of a number of New Zealand places to include the original Māori name of the place as well as the European name used for the last 100–200 years." Places such as Dargaville have got their name from a loose assortment of European languages but adapted to be fit into the English language. That means the word Dargaville is an English language word, not a European name used for the last 200 years. This failure to grasp this fact is the root cause of nearly all problems we are having with Maori words and place names. Turnagra, I reverted your change because it is factually incorrect. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:14, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I totally get what you're saying - my point with preferring the use of European over English is precisely because there are so many names from Māori which have been adopted into English, and that the "English name" is something which keeps evolving. For argument's sake, look at something like Matiu / Somes Island - these names are used interchangeably in everyday English, as well as the dual name as a whole. So what's the island's name in English? What about somewhere like Aoraki / Mount Cook, where Aoraki is arguably more common in English than Mount Cook in terms of individual names (though the dual name is more common than both). Given that English is an evolving language, and what constitutes the English name is always up for debate and changing, it's much clearer in this context to talk about the name which has its origins in te reo Māori and the name which has its origins in European settlement. Turnagra (talk) 19:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Taken from the Bryndwr article, this is correct - "Bryndwr, meaning 'hillside by water' (from Bryn "hillside" + dŵr "by water"), and probably named for the slopes beside the Wairarapa and Waimairi streams which run through the suburb, is one of the few places in New Zealand with a name of Welsh origin." - a place name of Welsh origin, not a Welsh language word. (Note the dropping of the circumflex which is not used in English. If we followed the reason of some editors here who want Maori language names used, including with macrons, then we should also change the spelling of Bryndwr to Bryndŵr because we are using a Welsh language word). Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:45, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

First, I'd like to remind you of WP:AGF again given some of the slights and misrepresentations you made in your comment. Secondly, macrons are completely irrelevant in this conversation and have been settled long ago - WP:DROPTHESTICK. Thirdly, you're completely missing the point. Many of the places we're talking about with this have ongoing debate about what the English name is, or are having the English name change. Given the ambiguity around what constitutes the English name, referring to it as the European name - ie. the name given to it by Pākehā settlers / explorers - is much clearer and not subject to the same ambiguity. Turnagra (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

It might be time for you to WP:DROPTHESTICK, Turnagra. A dual name is made up of an English name (what we call(ed) the place in English), and a Māori name (the additional name the Crown and relevant iwi come to agreement on). The origins of the English name often aren’t European (see: Cape Reinga) and calling them European introduces ambiguity, as most people aren’t going to understand the word as a stand-in for ‘white’ the way you are using it here. (I also don’t think we should distinguish by race, especially when language is available as the line to draw.)

I am aware that you would like to emphasise that the dual name is English, but the English-ness of the dual name can still be up for debate while acknowledging that one component of the official name is English. It is possible for a place to have multiple English names after all. — HTGS (talk) 02:03, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Once again, you've misconstrued my argument and attempted to use it in reverse. My earlier comment in regard to WP:DROPTHESTICK was in relation to the macron argument, which was settled long ago (and far more amicably). I'm also not sure what you mean with your claim that I'm using European as a stand-in for white, could you please elaborate?

In thinking about it, though, perhaps we need a more general definition than even what you're proposing - I note that there are multiple instances of dual names where both names are English, some where both names have Māori origins, and at least one where one of the dual names is a dual name itself (Port Levy (Potiriwi)/Koukourarata).

Regardless, this is a minor point in the scheme of things and I'm not willing to die on this hill. If you and Roger are going to continue to be obtuse about it then we may as well end it here instead of continuing to go around circles. Turnagra (talk) 05:00, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I’d rather not be called obtuse because you can’t discern what I’m saying from whatever Roger is trying to say. We are saying two different things, after all.

The ambiguity around how you’re using the word ‘European’ is exactly the point though. Whether you mean it as ‘white’, or ‘governed by a Western power’, or ‘a word with origins in European languages’, the word isn’t clear. ‘English’, on the other hand, is at least clear in that it is a language, and the name was/is the English name for the place (origins be damned). — HTGS (talk) 21:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Your last point is extremely important. It doesn't matter what language a word originated in. Croissant and Taranaki are both English words despite their language origins. --Spekkios (talk) 09:06, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

That's kinda my point though - Aoraki and Mount Cook are both used to an extent that you'd say they're English words, so wouldn't it be confusing to say that the dual name of Aoraki / Mount Cook is one English and one Māori name? Turnagra (talk) 09:28, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

@Turnagra In that case (and the very few others like it, where the Māori name is used in English) we can still talk about the names as they relate to the dual name. One component is drawn from English, and one from Māori. — HTGS (talk) 04:20, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Context also matters. Aoraki / Mount Cook might be used in English, but it was created by combining the word used in Maori and the one in English, which are still how they are primarily referred to by speakers of those languages. --Spekkios (talk) 23:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

This page is in New Zealand English. "Pākehā" is right here and maybe we should consider using that rather than 'European' ? Stuartyeates (talk) 00:39, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Leaving aside the spelling issue, I think you have a point: the word is one that has gained widespread acceptance and usage in NZ English as a borrowed word. I think the question to answer is whether or not it has gained enough acceptance in more formal encyclopedia level NZ English. Without doing any checking, my hunch is that it is borderline but probably not quite there yet. Whatever, this is really a bit irrelevant because the word English in this context is unambiguously clear NZ English. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:51, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Has it gained enough acceptance in more formal encyclopedia level NZ English ? Lets just say it's widely used in the titles and abstracts of university theses: https://openaccess.wgtn.ac.nz/search?q=P%C4%81keh%C4%81, So that's an emphatic yes. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

These are all unpublished theses. Incidentally, I have heard, on good authority, that Vic is a breeding ground for a certain radical Maori-promo clique. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Unpublished how? They meet the legislated definition of published: https://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1994/0143/latest/whole.html Stuartyeates (talk) 22:52, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

@Stuartyeates: WP:SCHOLARSHIP gives, I imagine, the briefest explanation of what Roger 8 Roger means by “published”. We don’t usually lean on dissertations on Wikipedia, whether or not they count as “published” under NZ copyright law. — HTGS (talk) 04:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

What does count then, in that case? The use of Pākehā by nearly every single media outlet? Its frequent use in books? Its use by official sources? Turnagra (talk) 04:45, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh I’m not taking Roger 8 Roger’s “side” here, just pointing out that student dissertations are—by Wikipedia’s standards—unpublished.

FWIW, I prefer ‘pākehā’ to ‘European’ in this context, but I still think ‘English’ makes the most sense by far. — HTGS (talk) 19:20, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

"Dual names consist of a non-Māori name and a Māori name" would address all these concerns. BilledMammal (talk) 04:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I'd be happy enough with this - it doesn't necessarily catch all the edge cases (like "Wellington Harbour (Port Nicholson)", or "Arrow Rock (Fifeshire Rock)"), but I think with the addition of something like "typically" it'd work well enough for our purposes. Turnagra (talk) 04:47, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Addition of natural disambiguation to guidelines

Some users seem to be confused by the omission of WP:NATURAL in our guideline instructions. As such, and to avoid any ambiguity around it, I'm wondering if it's worth amending the disambiguation guidelines to clarify that natural disambiguation - if possible - is the preferred option? Not sure whether this would sit under section 1 of the disambiguation (No disambiguation necessary) or whether it's better being its own row. Turnagra (talk) 07:21, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

At what level of usage of the naturally disambiguated name, relative to the common name, are you proposing that natural disambiguation becomes preferred at? BilledMammal (talk) 08:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for the late reply - I don't have a set level of usage in mind, as that inevitably leads to setting an arbitrary level of usage rather than recognising that a place is still known by that name. In many cases, natural disambiguation still includes other names anyway (eg. how Māori people still includes "Māori", or Waiau Toa / Clarence River still includes both "Waiau Toa" and "Clarence River".

I also think some of the other wording should be tidied up for disambiguation, to clarify the distinction between parenthetical and comma disambiguation and what happens when there are multiple features with the same name (such as when we've had "Mount Pleasant (New Zealand)" and "Mount Pleasant, New Zealand"). I think most of this is already in the disambiguation guidelines, but given there's some confusion it should just be a case of tidying it up for clarity's sake. Turnagra (talk) 22:59, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: as you've evidently remembered about dual names and these guidelines, perhaps you'd like to weigh in on this again? Turnagra (talk) 08:25, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

If we are to include natural disambiguation we need to make sure it aligns with WP:NATDAB; I would suggest that if the naturally disambiguated name is used at least three quarters of the time the common name is then it would be appropriate.

I agree that some of the other aspects need to be tidied up; "Mount Pleasant (New Zealand)" and "Mount Pleasant, New Zealand" are not suitably disambiguated. BilledMammal (talk) 05:11, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to put a specific figure on it, because I can absolutely see cases where some editors will launch move requests where it's "the dual name has 7 mentions and the other one has 10, therefore it's not 3/4 and should be moved".

With regards to your example, thankfully we already have Tauhinukorokio / Mount Pleasant so that's not an issue. But regardless, I think point 5 captures that example anyway - see Lake Tekapo and Lake Tekapo (town), or Fox Glacier and Fox Glacier (town). Turnagra (talk) 05:21, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

The opposite concern, of editors using infrequent or non-independent uses to oppose move requests or open new ones also exists. I think we need a figure to prevent that, but if you believe 3/4 is too high we can lower it.

Good, I'm glad that one has been resolved. BilledMammal (talk) 05:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Dual names

Based on many reversals of moves I've seen from a few years ago it appears that dual names went against the convention. This seems to have been removed since, but there's now no mention of whether they should be used or not, but instead how they should be formatted. Can we add whatever consensus was made to WP:NCNZ? It seems to be "use whatever", but I'm not sure. Panamitsu (talk) 11:28, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

The several reversals were made immediately after the dual name guidance got removed, as previously the bar was set pretty low (see the old version) - though those reversals themselves were also hugely controversial and absolutely not the right call in all cases. The general consensus of the discussion was that the old guidelines were flawed and we should either base the use of dual names off other guidance or replace the guidance we had with better guidance, the latter of which obviously hasn't happened.

I think at the very least we need to resolve the disambiguation issue above (editing the disambiguation guidelines to state that WP:NATURAL disambiguation is fine) and it'd be good to have some guidance (whether it's part of NZNC or a supporting essay) dispelling some of the myths that crop up all the time in the move discussions. There's been a bit of a quiet period recently, as everyone involved backed off a bit due to the toll the discussions took. Turnagra (talk) 18:31, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Very clear place-name guidelines

The guidelines must be simple, dead simple.

• 1 We use as the primary name the one commonly used before the NZGB act.
• 2 The new dual-name is added in bold in the lead sentence as an also know as, noting its official status.
• 3 Use of the dual-name as the primary name is decided on a case by case basis, which will happen very infrequently if at all.

To do this we first do the following -

• a We decide that for the purpose of place-names all govt related sources, including all contemporary maps, are not reliable (thus avoiding WP RSS policy).
• b We confirm that all names pre-dual name act were written and spelled in English (thus avoiding the macronauts).

This is a serious suggestion. Part (b) might need further discussion for those who simply don't get it. This plan will work because it is simple and because it avoids taking a position on what is right and what is wrong. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

It isn't a serious suggestion, because you're still under the assumption that the entire thing is a hidden government agenda and that's what your suggestion is evidently based on. Turnagra (talk) 01:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposed changes to clarify disambiguation

Following on from the above conversation and given that there's been no further input in nearly 9 months, I'm proposing some changes to the disambiguation guidelines to clarify that natural disambiguation is allowed, as well as also clarifying the use of other forms when there are multiple places. As that was quickly reverted without any follow up, I'm posting here to give people the chance to provide input should they wish. My proposed change to the disambiguation guidelines is as follows:

1. No disambiguation required – If the common name of a New Zealand place is unique (or likely to be unique) in the world, then it alone is used as the article's title – (for example, Ōtorohanga). This form is also used if the New Zealand place is the primary topic for the non-unique name (for example, Dunedin). Confusion has to be likely, not merely possible: for example, Wellington, the capital, is known all over the world, whereas the other 30 or so places with the same name have fairly local significance only.
2. Disambiguation required, but natural options exist - If a place requires disambiguation, precedence should be given to natural forms of disambiguation if they exist for the place. These do not need to be the common name, but must still be used by sources and recognisable as the place in question (for example, Mount Cook Village, Wellington Region, or Franz Josef / Waiau)
3. Disambiguation required for populated place – For populated places where confusion is likely with places outside New Zealand (including suburbs), then the format "Placename, New Zealand" is used (for example, Amberley, New Zealand).
4. Disambiguation required for non-populated place – For geographic features, if confusion is likely with places outside New Zealand, then the format "Placename (New Zealand)" is used, irrespective of the type of location (for example, Mount Hopkins (New Zealand)).
5. Disambiguation required for features within populated places – If the places are features of specific cities or towns, such as parks, buildings, schools, or streets, the name of the town or city is used (for example, Stuart Street, Dunedin).
   • As mentioned above, this does not apply to suburbs (unless there is more than one place in New Zealand of the same name, in which case the city name is used).
   • If the feature is named for the city or town itself and disambiguation is required with overseas features, then "Feature, New Zealand" is used (e.g. Stratford High School, New Zealand).
6. Disambiguation required for more than one NZ place name – If disambiguation is required due to multiple places in New Zealand having the same name, the following rules are used:
   • If both places are the same type of place (e.g., both towns), the official regional names are used (for example, Wairoa River (Northland) and Wairoa River (Hawke's Bay)). In rare instances where two places within the same region need disambiguating, then territorial authorities can also be used (e.g. Poerua River (Grey District) and Poerua River (Westland District)).
   • If one or more of the places are in the New Zealand outlying islands, the island (or island group) name is used (e.g., Waitangi, Chatham Islands)
   • If one or more of the places are suburbs, the name of the city or town is used for disambiguation, e.g. Lansdowne, Masterton.
   • If the two places are different types of place, then parentheses are used to disambiguate (for example, "Lake Tekapo" and "Lake Tekapo (town)"). (This convention is not formalised, but is general usage on NZ articles.)

Please let me know if you have any thoughts or input on this, or else whether you would be happy for this to be put in place. Turnagra (talk) 05:55, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Also pinging BilledMammal as the user who took objection to the edit, as I expect you'll want to weigh in. Turnagra (talk) 06:09, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

To clarify, as the proposed change is unclear: Turnagra is suggesting we add the following as the first choice after "no disambiguation":

# Disambiguation required, but natural options exist - If a place requires disambiguation, precedence should be given to natural forms of disambiguation if they exist for the place. These do not need to be the common name, but must still be used by sources and recognisable as the place in question (for example, Mount Cook Village, Wellington Region, or Franz Josef / Waiau)

BilledMammal (talk) 06:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm also proposing changes under sections 3, 5, and 6 as well, to clarify a range of issues. See the diff for a clearer picture. Turnagra (talk) 06:16, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for making the confusion more clearly confusing. I suggest waiting a few months to see how much of this agenda based government mess gets unwound and then look at it again. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:22, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

The agenda based government mess is so new that the ink's barely dry on the coalition agreement. Maybe hang fire until any of its bright ideas manage not to get laughed out of Select Committee before making any precipitous changes. Daveosaurus (talk) 09:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I've restored the other changes; I don't believe they are controversial, and if they are they should be discussed separately in order to avoid derailing this discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 06:28, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with this change, for a few reasons.

First, WP:NATURAL says Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title, is sometimes preferred. However, do not use obscure or made-up names. The proposed text doesn't make any requirement that the natural disambiguation be common or not obscure; it merely requires that it be used by sources.

Second, we should clarify that we should only assess the commonality of alternative names based on their usage in independent and secondary sources, to avoid providing undue emphasis on an official name that is obscure outside of required usage.

Third, Placename, New Zealand is a form of natural disambiguation; any change needs to account for that and ensure that we are not inhibiting the use of that of that form. Indeed, I would suggest leaning towards it if international sources that report on the location prefer that form to the alternative option, as such a preference suggests that this form of disambiguation is more recognizable than the alternative. BilledMammal (talk) 06:28, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

To respond to your points in order:

1. The proposed text links to WP:NATURAL and is not intended to replace that - merely to prevent people from incorrectly claiming or assuming that natural disambiguation isn't allowed under this.
2. That feels like WP:CREEP to me, and I'm not comfortable with such wording given your extremely unorthodox and broad interpretation of what isn't an independent source in this context. The sort of sources which are used for this sort of thing and for other referencing are discussed extensively elsewhere.
3. In the context of the NZ Naming Conventions that's not natural disambiguation, that's signifying a populated place. I'm happy to have some wording which excludes the use of a comma from natural disambiguation to prevent it from being confused with the later form for populated places if you genuinely think that is necessary.

In my view, this change isn't anywhere near as controversial as you're making it out to be (and I'd wager you would have anywhere near as much of an issue if it were anyone other than me proposing it). This is simply about clarifying the role of WP:NATURAL in relation to these guidelines, which has been a source of confusion before, and ensuring that we can still use common-sense natural disambiguation for New Zealand-based articles. Otherwise we'd need to move Mount Cook Village to Aoraki / Mount Cook (village) and West Coast Region to West Coast (region), which I'm sure you would agree is pointless. Turnagra (talk) 08:09, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

1. It links to NATURAL, but the proposed text doesn't align with the proposed text there - and the likely result is that some editors will argue that the standard set in your text of "any use" is sufficient, while others will argue that the higher standard set by NATURAL applies. It is better to clarify this now; above, I made a suggestion to set a use ratio that would be required for natural disambiguation to be appropriate and I still believe that is the case.
2. Adding such a line won't determine whether a source is independent or secondary; that can and should be determined at the RM. Instead, it makes it clear that sources must be independent and secondary and in the process will ensure the guideline remains aligned with the rest of our policies and guidelines on this topic.
3. In general, it's a form of natural disambiguation, and one often used by sources.

I'd wager you would have anywhere near as much of an issue if it were anyone other than me proposing it - I would. In the past we have had issues with overly enthusiastic uses of dual names even when they are obscure or unused; as proposed your text would bring back those issues. BilledMammal (talk) 08:19, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

1. Any set ratio doesn't provide significant ability to deal with common sense moves, especially when dealing with obscure places. Based on my past experience, it would be used by aspiring WP:WIKILAWYERs to cause a fuss which nobody else wants to deal with until they outlast everybody else involved and get their way.

2. As stated, that line isn't necessary due to other wikipedia guidelines and is a clear example of WP:CREEP, something you should be equally opposed to.

3. Maybe in general, but clearly not in the context of these guidelines. Turnagra (talk) 00:00, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

A move is only common sense if the alternative name is also widely used; if it's not widely used then it's not common sense. I don't see the issue. BilledMammal (talk) 01:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Which name to use when it is unclear which name is preferred by reliable sources

In circumstances where it is unclear whether sources prefer the dual name or the single name - ie, they see approximately the same level of use - I suggest we enshrine the following preference:

• If disambiguation is not required, use the single name as the most WP:CONCISE option
• If disambiguation is required, use the dual name as a form of WP:NATURAL disambiguation

I think this would be a reasonable compromise for this edge case? BilledMammal (talk) 02:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessarily a compromise - in such cases as the second bullet, the dual name should already be used per WP:NATURAL. I also think that is placing a disproportionately large preference on concision over other guidelines, such as WP:RECOGNISABLE. As I see it, there are three names that someone might know a place by:

• the name given to it by Pākehā settlers,
• the Māori name, and
• the dual name.

As I'm sure you would agree, all three of those names will be used for any place to some degree (the extent of the usage is where all of the disputes arise, but I think we can all agree that all of the names will be used to some extent). The dual name is the only one of the three that would be unambiguously recognisable to everyone, regardless of what name they know a place by, and as such I believe that ease of use outweighs the benefits of a more concise name. As such, I feel like in instances such as what you're describing, we should be deferring to the dual name as it would capture all of those who know it by the old Pākehā name as well as those who would know it by the dual or Māori names. Turnagra (talk) 04:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessarily a compromise - in such cases as the second bullet, the dual name should already be used per WP:NATURAL. - Not under the current text of this guideline.

While it might be more recognizable for the people who use the other single name, I think you neglect the complexities of a dual name; MOS:SLASH speaks to them and how they can confuse the reader - one I saw recently on Wikipedia was Police temporarily suspended their search due to high water levels in the Halswell River and Lake Ellesmere / Te Waihora. Even those who are generally aware of dual names in New Zealand might find this wording confusing, and those who are not aware of dual names certainly will.

However, if the location is commonly called by the second single name in reliable and independent sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title, then then I do think you have a point; we'll perhaps have 40% using name A, 20% using name B, and 40% using both; a reasonable compromise in those circumstances would be to go with both.

How is this for an alternative compromise:

• If disambiguation is required, use the dual name as a form of WP:NATURAL disambiguation
• If disambiguation is not required:
  • If the location is commonly called by the alternative single name in reliable and independent sources, albeit not as commonly as the primary single name or the dual name, use the dual name as the most WP:RECOGNIZABLE option.
  • Otherwise, use the primary single name as the most WP:CONCISE option.

BilledMammal (talk) 04:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Forget about RSSs, they are causing all the confusion. We can easily make a guideline to sort this name problem out that doesn't contradict any policies, it just adapts them to suit the NZ situation. That is what they have done in the UK with the Derry v Londonderry dilemma. I think we should use the single name that everybody knows, in NZ and overseas, but add the dual name in the first sentence in bold as the official name. I earlier suggested we decide that all sources with placenames on them are unreliable, but I'm now thinking we don't have to do that. We are just making a compromise rule that incorporates both names but in a very practical workable way. I think the only people that would object to that are those with an agenda to push. Any exceptions would be minimal and could be dealt with case by case. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate that it could be confusing in some situations, but I think you're overstating the extent of that, particularly as the place would be linked and the article would clearly show it to be the name of the place as a single thing (with the dual name explanation).

With that said, I'd be open to considering something along the lines of what you're proposing, however I think the wording at the moment is insufficient. For example, under the wording of that proposal, if the dual name was unambiguously and overwhelmingly the common name but one of the names was not often used (eg. a 70/25/5 split in favour of the dual name), then those guidelines would necessitate the use of the primary single name. Another situation could be if the dual name isn't quite as common as one of the names, but the other name also has a sizable portion of usage (eg. a 40/30/30 in favour of one of the single names).

A line along the lines of "If the location is most commonly referred to with the dual name, use that as the article name" would address the first, but I think the second would still be ambiguous. Turnagra (talk) 07:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

To clarify: The intent here is that this would only apply where the dual name and an alternative name had roughly equal usage. I would suggest the wording to make that clear be In circumstances where it is unclear whether sources prefer the dual name or the single name or similar. BilledMammal (talk) 00:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

(eg. a 40/30/30 in favour of one of the single names)..(eg. a 70/25/5 split)..(In circumstances where it is unclear) It has not, does not and will not work. Remove personal opinion from the equation. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:28, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

In some cases we should just recognise that there aren't common names. No one commonly writes about them and the few who do often have no knowledge of location names. They just copy what was on an older map or other record. To say that is more important than the study and consultation done by the Geographic Board makes no sense to me. If there is no clear evidence of a common name we should use the official name. If there is no official name we should use what is on the latest map. Johnragla (talk) 04:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

The issue with the NZ Geographic Board is that they aren't trying to determine what a place is called, but what they believe it should be called. I would be very hesitant to assign WP:UNDUE weight to their beliefs.

In any case, can you give some examples where there are enough sources to warrant an article but not enough to establish a WP:COMMONNAME? I doubt there are many where the subject is sufficiently notable to warrant an article, but insufficiently notable to have sufficient coverage to determine the common name - I know you said something along those lines at Talk:Hinemoatū / Howard River#Requested move 25 November 2023, but there I believe there are sufficient sources; we have a few dozen sources, and while most are from before the official name change there are several from after, and per WP:NAMECHANGES we should consider those older sources albeit with less weight than more recent sources. BilledMammal (talk) 05:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

In any case, can you give some examples where there are enough sources to warrant an article but not enough to establish a WP:COMMONNAME? I think if you're excluding government sources from your name determination, that can happen quite a bit. Particularly for more obscure places, a lot of the information will come from NIWA, DOC, or local government (occasionally iwi too, such as the incredible Kā Huru Manu), so you could easily have enough information on a place to satisfy notability criteria and create a reasonably comprehensive article but nothing which you would use to determine the name. Turnagra (talk) 05:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

That brings us back to this discussion that I tried to open with you; while including "official documents" will introduce bias towards the official name, it is sometimes necessary. BilledMammal (talk) 05:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm aware of your message there - it's hard to engage everywhere when you insist on continuing to open move requests to further your attempts of removing dual names. To the point at hand though, isn't that fundamentally the same as Johnragla's point, that in the absence of any coverage we include official sources?

At any rate, I would be willing to consider something along these lines as previously stated, but I don't believe that any good faith progress would be made while you continue to attempt to remove dual names everywhere as I suspect whatever is put in place would also be twisted to that end. As you've stated previously, local guidelines don't trump policy per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and so WP:NATURAL should still apply. Turnagra (talk) 08:28, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

To the point at hand though, isn't that fundamentally the same as Johnragla's point, that in the absence of any coverage we include official sources? I don't believe so; I think their point is that we should use the official name, while my point is that we should use some "official documents", preferencing those that are more independent - though unfortunately not fully independent - than those that are less, to minimize the bias towards the official name.

As you've stated previously, local guidelines don't trump policy per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and so WP:NATURAL should still apply. As someone - I believe it was you, but I am not certain - pointed at, Wikipedia:Article titles, the policy that WP:NATURAL is part of, says It is supplemented by other more specific guidelines (see the box to the right), which should be interpreted in conjunction with other policies, particularly the three core content policies: Verifiability, No original research, and Neutral point of view.

I probably don't need to tell you this, but that aspect is why you were able to move so many articles to their dual names under the former wording of this guideline despite WP:COMMONNAME, and why I typically didn't oppose those moves until this guideline was changed to re-establish the primacy of COMMONNAME. BilledMammal (talk) 08:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

what they believe it should be called - don't each of us have a belief of what a name should be and why is our process of arriving at it better than that of a board with the professional resources to do the job? Johnragla (talk) 15:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

We don’t try to determine what it should be called but what it is called. BilledMammal (talk) 23:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

We're doing the same as the board - "assign, approve, alter, or discontinue". The only difference is they have legal powers to do it and, more importantly, a professional staff to advise them. Where there are lots of local people using a name all the time, the task is relatively simple. When hardly anyone lives there and the few who write about it come from elsewhere, it's not. In those latter cases we should be taking advantage of the work done by the board, rather than writing screeds on talk pages, with little evidence either way. Johnragla (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Using the official dual name when "no widely accepted name"

@Johnragla: I'm opening a new section for this, as it's a separate topic to whether LINZ is disinterested:

Furthermore, the guidance is about 'widely accepted names'. Geographic features in remote locations often have no widely accepted name; most are largely unknown and only rarely written about. The first most readers will see of them is on a map, or DoC guide, which will use the official name. Using the official name also has the merit of being much simpler than disputing the quantity and validity of other sources.

I opened a separate discussion on how to address articles where there are insufficient fully independent sources to establish a WP:COMMONNAME, and I think this is closely related to that.

However, you seem to go a little beyond that; how many sources do you believe are necessary, setting aside the question of independent for the moment, to determine whether there is a widely accepted name? BilledMammal (talk) 07:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

That's the problem with trying to define what is meant by common, or widely accepted and probably why questions about it haven't been answered. It's unlikely we'll agree on a number, but I'd suggest (without any evidence) an average of at least one a week would show wide and common use. Johnragla (talk) 08:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

One a week would be a huge number of sources; implementing that as a limit would result in places where we have 400 sources over ten years using a non-official name, but us still using the official name despite it being obvious that the official name is widely rejected. BilledMammal (talk) 08:17, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any more evidence than me about what constitutes common, or are we both making guesses? Johnragla (talk) 08:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Only what WP:COMMONNAME says, which defines most commonly used as that which is prevalent in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources - it makes no distinction between a majority of 9 out of 10 sources or 9000 out of 10000. BilledMammal (talk) 08:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

As these arguments so often do, we're going round in circles, which is a major reason for preferring the official name. A WP policy isn't evidence of what is widely and commonly used. In any case, as I've said before, the guidance is written with the assumption that there will be lots of references, rather than that the name is uncommonly used. Otherwise it wouldn't use the word common. It also says, "generally", which allows for uncommon circumstances and is a reason to use the guidance saying, "Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources. In many cases, the official name will be the best choice to fit these criteria." Hinemoatū / Howard River started this particular round of circles and is recognisable because it appears on maps and Department of Conservation guides, which are the most likely other sources readers will look at. It's unambiguous because it's clearly not Australian. The only other usage is possibly 2 articles in a decade. It's reliable because the Geographic Board researched and consulted about the name. Johnragla (talk) 19:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

John, you are going round in circles; please stop asking for the definition of “common”. Everyone knows what common means, and everyone else knows what it means for X to be “more common” than Y. If you insist on wasting more people’s time, go ask at WT:AT. Not that I want anyone’s time wasted, but I suspect you will get a quick resolution from uninvolved editors.

If you want a simpler, more natural reading of COMMONNAME, consider asking: “What do people actually call the place?” It’s the same reason we have United Kingdom and North Korea with those article titles, after all. — HTGS (talk) 02:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources because "what do people actually call it" [which people?] is not a question that can be answered, in most cases, without original research. That question is not even relevant for many places that are not in English speaking areas. I don't see any policy based reason to discount reliable sources published by the government any differently from other RS when it comes to determining article titles. (t · c) buidhe 02:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I think “What do people call the place?” is a useful, human question that in 99% of cases can be answered easily, and is largely equal to “what is the common name?” In this case, I use it to illustrate the difference, and to hint at why we might prefer the name used in standard New Zealand English. Personally I feel that the common name is often different from the dual (official) name because the dual name is designed intentionally to reflect two different languages. While some people interpret an official name as the name, others see it as just a composite name that gives recognition to both the Māori and Pakeha histories of a place. This gives rise to the frustrating endeavour of deciding which viewpoint has won out for any given place. From my point of view, the dual names are rarely used as the common name (the example that comes to mind quickest is Aoraki / Mount Cook, although it’s almost never written out with a spaced slash in the real world).

For clarity, I don’t share the view that official names are “biased” or “not independent”, but I do see them as frequently misleading towards what the common name used in English might be, just based on their bilingual nature.

Back on topic: In the case of places that are not known or never discussed in reliable, non-map (non-official) sources, the dual name is fine to use, but of course I also think most articles of that level of sourcing don’t need a standalone article, per WP:NGEO. Honestly if the only thing that is written about the geographic feature is its location and when it had its name changed in a settlement agreement, we really can just merge that article up into a bigger article. — HTGS (talk) 02:23, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

An idea that might answer the question at the start, is that we have no option but to use maps, atlases and newspaper articles to determine a common name. I agree that the commonly used name by people talking about it is not what wikipedia means by a common name, which is what is used in RSSs. However, we could decide only to use maps etc published before 2000 or another date to be determined. That would avoid being forced to use the latest swathe of new official names that are printed in maps and used in the media, because older published RSSs would be using the common name that is still used by people in the street talking. That approach would be very simple, would result in use of the spoken common name and still use the only real sources we have, even though we are choosing to put a date limit on them. Don't forget, WP editors do discount RSSs because they are too old so all we are doing is the same but for sources that are too new. There are changes being made daily at the moment to reverse a lot of the maori language promotion that has happened in the last few years so it is all fluid. We do not know how these changes will affect placenames but change/reversal is possible - which is another reason to use slightly older sources. The current official names could be mentioned in bold in the first sentence but that is all. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Why would we discount newer, more accurate sources? This isn't about catering to your own biases about Māori names, it's about using the best name for the place. Turnagra (talk) 21:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

It would make more sense to only use atlases, maps or gazetteers published AFTER 2000 (or any other date which may be decided upon) because they're more likely to be accurate and up to date. See WP:OLDSOURCES. Daveosaurus (talk) 22:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

As I've said previously, I'm not a huge fan of explicit quotas in this sort of thing as I feel like that just leads to pointless nitpicking rather than assessing the general vibe of the sources. I think this discussion is on a similar line to several that have been opened recently, where a place has very little coverage but still has enough for an article. Honestly though, I also think that in light of the discussion in the above section it's irrelevant, as there will almost always be enough sources including governmental ones to determine what the name of a place is and therefore where its article should be.Turnagra (talk) 21:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

@Turnagra. It isn't about using the best name for the place. It's about using the name used by a significant majority of reliable secondary sources, which is not necessarily the same. That means we focus on the sources. What is a better or a worse name doesn't matter. The problem is that the reliability of sources we have, in the last few years that is, is being questioned. They are being questioned because they are changeable depending on the whim/opinion of a govt and/or a crown entitity. It saddens me that you and most others here still think this problem is somehow about a pro or anti Maori preference. Until that is sorted out and the real problem is addressed we won't going anywhere. My suggestion above was a way of overcoming the problem that as far as I can see does not contradict any WP policies or guidelines.@Daveosaurus, I don't think that is true. The reason the sources are being questioned is because they are changeable. Based on the current direction of the new govt it is possible something might change again regarding use of the dual names. Also, using current map names would make more sense if the earlier name were completely different, but it isn't. Like Myannmar instead of Burma. Nobody does not understand what is meant by the pre-dual name, but confusion is possible when using a post-dual name. The very nature of dual names and the way they can be 'officially' used compounds the problem of understand-ability. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:28, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Frankly, Roger, I find it difficult to believe that you genuinely want the name used by a significant majority of reliable secondary sources when all of your posts are about accusing sources of being beholden to the government if they use a dual name (or any vaguely Māori words), and have repeatedly voiced opposition to other similar issues such as the use of tohutō. You've previously cited actual conspiracy magazines as justification for this, and at the same time as complaining about what you see as a government direction have suggested that we should follow the new government's lead of removing te reo from names. So while I'm sure that you're trying to engage with this in good faith, I don't think it's going to be possible to have a productive discussion while you're making such accusations or likening New Zealand's use of Māori to North Korean propaganda, as you did above. Turnagra (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I quite frankly find it difficult to believe that you have consistently failed to see the point I have been making. Let us look at what you have just written. I am saying current maps and govt sources are not properly independent (neither is any source from any govt but especially when those govt sources must follow the law which compels them to promote Maori names/culture) and they are not reliable either because they are open to change by the govt and/or bureaucrats. That means I am indeed saying we must rely on RSSs, but the current sources we have used in the past are now not RSSs. I cannot see what is so difficult about that to understand. In case it isn't clear, by govt sources I mean all sources that are open to influence or control in any way by the government or by the law. That includes LINZ, all Crown Entities, TVNZ, RNZ, local govt authorities and all maps, because the Surveyor-general who controls maps is govt appointed via his/her relevant act of parliament. Don't be fooled by the often stated phrase that these entities are 'independent' of the govt. That might be the case in some matters such as the day to day running of the entity, but ultimately they are govt controlled. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:38, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

If you think the New Zealand Geographic Board is not a reliable source for New Zealand place names, the reliable sources experts here might have some thoughts on the matter. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:59, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Finally, you are starting to look in the right direction. However, as usual, you provide no substance so I cannot comment, except that those people you refer to are not reliable source experts, they are wikipedia editors. Some might have an elevated sense of self-importance, but most won't have. I searched 'maori' and got three discussions. None of them seemed relevant to this discussion, not even the one you were involved with, about 'claudia'. The issues on reliability or otherwise of the source mentioned there is different from place name reliability here. Now, I urge you to explain why NZGB is reliable, is independent, and is secondary. Turnagra, if you want to disagree with me I think a useful counter to my concerns would be to say "yes, all technically correct, but it doesn't matter because...". Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC)