Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (New Zealand)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

RfC: Proposal to add macrons to New Zealand naming conventions

The following discussion 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.

---

Should the New Zealand naming conventions be amended to allow the use of macrons for articles written in New Zealand English? Schwede66 22:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Background

Taupō sign (with macron)

A request for comment is the appropriate avenue to resolve this issue as there have been numerous informal proposals that never resulted in a resolution. This background reading isn't compulsory (note that the Q&A section below deals with the issues that have been discussed previously) and is here to show that we are dealing with a long-standing issue. If you want to read it, set aside a serious amount of time.

A notice in 2006 didn't cause controversy. A discussion in 2007 was lengthy and had to be broken into two parts. There may have been further discussions in the interim (I haven't checked) but in 2018, a great debate broke out about the appropriate name for Paekākāriki / Paekakariki; there are 13 subsections to this item and The New Zealand Herald (our largest newspaper by circulation) wrote an article about Wikipedia's "battle of the macrons". Later in 2018, the discussion was revived but no clear consensus became evident.

It is now time to restart the discussion, as over the last two years, usage of macrons in New Zealand has changed significantly.

Wider context

The use of macrons in New Zealand English is reasonably new. Unsurprisingly, the Māori Language Commission has had guidance for Māori language orthography for many years. Their 2009 guidelines were last updated in 2012.

In 2007, Kōkiri Place in Masterton is believed to have been the first street name in New Zealand that used a macron. When The New Zealand Herald reported on it, they had to describe where the macron was to be put as "(the stress mark above the "O")" as they didn't have the technical ability to display it. And it was only in 2010 that macrons were added to the New Zealand registry of Internet addresses. While the use of loan words from the Māori language (or "te reo") has a long tradition, the understanding by non-Māori speakers of the importance of macrons is much more recent. When Weta Workshop was named in 1993, the Wellington company proudly named itself after the group of large endemic insects, the weta. It is only in recent years that their strategic mistake of omitting the macrons has become more common knowledge, as it is the version with macrons (i.e. "wētā") that refers to the giant insects. Without the macrons, the word "weta" unfortunately means "excrement", and the world-famous company is getting mocked for it. Kākā Crescent in Tokoroa is another case in point. Surrounded by other streets named for native birds, kaka without the macrons means "shit", and the South Waikato District Council changed the street sign sometime in the late 2000s.

While Māori has been an official language in New Zealand since 1987, it has only been since the mid-2010s that the language has made a revival. The use by native speakers is increasing. Non-native speakers increasingly learn the language. Over the last few years, it has become one of the pillars of New Zealand society. "Māori has gone mainstream", as England's The Guardian observed in 2018. New Zealand media have almost all adopted a policy of using macrons where they belong. Stuff started in September 2017, North & South in January 2018, The New Zealand Herald's parent company New Zealand Media and Entertainment had adopted it by 2018, and the Otago Daily Times—based on observed macron use—adopted macron usage in late 2017. In other media, RNZ started using macrons in 2015 and Newshub by at least 2017, and TVNZ officially adopted them in 2018. The 2018 New Zealand Law Style Guide (3rd ed.), issued by the NZ Law Foundation, says macrons must be used for all words of Māori origin in legal documents.

Most of NZ's highest-circulation magazines use macrons

Magazine	Macrons?
AA Directions	Yes
Home NZ	Yes
Kia Ora	Yes
Metro	Yes
North & South	Yes
NZ House & Garden	Yes
NZ Listener	Yes
NZ Geographic	Yes
NZ Women's Weekly	Yes
Taste	Yes
Women's Day (NZ)	No

A macron is more than a politically correct gimmick, but is a pronunciation help as it identifies those vowels that require a long sound. And those longer vowel sounds often change the meaning of a word, as outlined above.

It was the mayor of Taupo, Rick Cooper, who in 2010 set off a campaign for government organisations to start using macrons. Cooper kept a tape of reflective material in his car and added the missing macron to signs owned by the NZ Transport Agency. The New Zealand Geographic Board (NZGB) decides on dual names and/or the use of macrons in New Zealand. The Transport Agency has added the use of macrons to its guidance on road signs, stating that "all Maori names must be checked with the NZGB for correct presentation", although they were still reluctant to do so in 2017. By 2020, the Transport Agency has become more accommodating and will take a "proactive approach" once the NZGB has changed a name. Indeed, this aligns with the New Zealand government's style guide, where it says to "use macrons for te reo Māori". It doesn't even specify in the style guide that this applies to place names with a Māori origin; this is assumed to be self-evident.

In June 2019, the New Zealand Geographic Board reported that 824 Māori place names had been made official, and about 300 place names now include a macron. The NZGB notice from June 2019 lists the 824 Māori place names, including Taupō.

In September 2018, there were five territorial authorities in New Zealand that could have used a macron in their name but were not doing so: Manawatū District Council, Ōtorohanga District Council, Rangitīkei District Council, Waipā District Council, and Whangārei District Council. Five districts were using the macron at that time: Ōpōtiki District Council, Taupō District Council, Kaikōura District Council, Whakatāne District Council, and Kāpiti Coast District Council.

By January 2020, Manawatū District had started to use the macron on its website (not everywhere) but not updated their logo yet. There is limited use of the macron on the Ōtorohanga District website; it is, for example, used by the mayor. Rangitīkei District by way of resolution 19/RDC/104 in May 2019 now uses the macron and has updated its logo accordingly. Waipā District announced on 17 January 2020 that they have "adopted the macron" and they have already updated their logo. Whangārei District makes some use of the macron on its website. They considered including the macron when they last rebranded in 2018/19, but decided against it. To summarise, there has been significant change over just 16 months by those councils that could make some change.

There are currently 64 general and 7 Māori electorates. Of those, 11 have a macron in their official name, and all articles are named as per their official title. Some of the spellings were adjusted a long time ago, e.g. the Māngere electorate has had its macron since 1997. The Ōhāriu electorate is a special case as it was renamed twice. For the 2008 general election, the macron was added to the leading letter to have "Ōhariu". For the 2014 general election, the second macron was added to have "Ōhāriu", as that would "help with pronouncing the name correctly". This points at the inconsistency at Wikipedia, as we are using macrons for electorates when their name points to a geographic feature, but the geographic feature itself would not have the same macron in its title.

In September 2019, the Companies Office amended its policy to allow macrons on the request of the E tū trade union.

In summary, the use of macrons in New Zealand English is mostly a reasonably recent phenomenon. It has become more common since the mid-2010s, and the uptake has become dominant since circa 2018. Macrons are now commonplace as they are an important pronunciation help, as well as clarifying the meaning of many words. Central government and its agencies are on board, and so is local government. The news media have adopted the use of macrons. Since at least 2018, macrons for place names now represent the common name. The arbiter for the use of macrons is the New Zealand Geographic Board.

Q&A

Question

Aren't macrons an optional pronunciation guide, not a spelling difference, unlike French where a cedilla is part of the alphabet?

Answer

Long and short vowels change the meaning of words, so should be treated as different letters of the alphabet (as some Māori dictionary lists do; and an interesting case is the Māori name for the Inland Revenue Department (IRD)); therefore macrons are changing the spelling.

Question

But the English Wikipedia is in English, isn't it? English doesn't have macrons; Te Reo has its own Wikipedia.

Answer

Macrons have become standard usage in the majority of NZ English reliable sources in the last few years, so articles written in NZ English are required to reflect this as per WP:COMMONNAME. The standard in English Wikipedia is for loanwords from other languages to be spelled with their accents, when those have become common usage (see éclair, even though English doesn't have acutes).

Question

Aren't you talking about "correct" and "incorrect" spelling? Aren't you using Wikipedia to advance an agenda, along the lines of Wikipedia:RIGHTGREATWRONGS?

Answer

We are merely reflecting the current prevailing usage in verifiable reliable sources, as it is encouraged by MOS:DIACRITICS.

Question

Google shows the un-macronned name is more common, so why propose the change?

Answer

Google results are being overwhelmed by 160 years of historical usage of the un-macronned name, and will be for a long time to come. Search results should be weighted towards the last few years, as we would also do for a name change. Google Ngrams are also not reliable for this purpose, as many words published with diacritics get transcribed into Google's database without them (see Talk:Éclair).

Question

Aren't macrons there only because of positive discrimination / a Government mandate / political correctness / lobby groups?

Answer

It doesn't matter why macrons have become standard in NZ English, in both government and independent media. All that matters is WP:COMMONNAME.

Question

Won't readers for whom English is a second language find macrons confusing?

Answer

Looking up a word without a macron in a dictionary and getting the wrong meaning will also be confusing. We need to be consistent with current usage in the sources being cited.

Specific case: Taupō

I have chosen Taupō / Taupo for a specific case. Let's look at television first. Newshub uses macrons with their weather forecast while the 1 News forecast does not use macrons. All news media use the town's version with a macron for their reporting, mostly even for their headlines. Below are media items from 2020 that have Taupō in the headline and only the Dunedin-based Otago Daily Times does not use a macron in the headline (but uses it in the body). The list represents all major Zealand news outlets:

• "Police seek information after series of arson in Taupō". Rotorua Daily Post. The New Zealand Herald. 17 January 2020. Retrieved 21 January 2020.
• Marshall, Chris (20 January 2020). "Debate heats up on proposal to drop Taupō's Waihaha ski lane". Stuff. Retrieved 21 January 2020.
• "Two cheat death in helicopter crash near Taupo". Otago Daily Times. The New Zealand Herald. 13 January 2020. Retrieved 21 January 2020.
• Andelane, Lana (15 January 2020). "G-string tog debate divides Taupō as local mums call for return to modest bathers". Newshub. Retrieved 21 January 2020.
• "Investigation underway after series of arsons at Lake Taupō properties". 1 News. 17 January 2020. Retrieved 21 January 2020.
• "Taupō settlements 'shocked' over fire lit while family slept". Radio New Zealand. 17 January 2020. Retrieved 21 January 2020.

The macron is now on official road signs (see photo). Taupō District is now using the version with the macron, as determined by the New Zealand Geographic Board, on all their branding, communication and website. Taupō's logo is a stylised "o" with a macron.

The naming conventions for geographic names state that "if a native name is more often used in English sources than a corresponding traditional English name, then use the native name". I suggest that this criterion is now fulfilled.

Proposed policy addition

Should the New Zealand naming conventions be amended to allow the use of macrons for articles written in New Zealand English?

Current wording	Proposed wording
This guideline applies to named populated places (cities, towns, suburbs, settlements, farms), natural landscape features (including but not limited to lakes, rivers, streams, glaciers, wetlands, headlands, mountains, hills, ranges, plains) and man-made features (dams, roads, railways, parks, mines).	This guideline applies to named populated places (cities, towns, suburbs, settlements, farms), natural landscape features (including but not limited to lakes, rivers, streams, glaciers, wetlands, headlands, mountains, hills, ranges, plains) and man-made features (dams, roads, railways, parks, mines). For geographic features with macrons, please see below.
Rules of Māori place names are still under discussion, but at present no consensus has been forthcoming. Where the usual name is English but there is also a Māori name, macrons are used in the Māori name. Thus Whakatane is simply Whakatane, but Christchurch is also listed within the article as Ōtautahi.	Where the usual name is English but there is also a Māori name, list the Māori name in the article, including macrons if used by the local iwi. For example, Christchurch is listed within the article as Ōtautahi. Where a Māori name is used for a geographic feature, use spelling and macrons as gazetted by the New Zealand Geographic Board (NZGB). If the gazetted name includes a macron, list the un-macronned name in the text. Thus, Taupō is the article name, and the article would explain that the town was previously known as Taupo. Timaru is gazetted without a macron, but as the local iwi has requested a macron, list the macronned name in the text. 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". Do not take guidance from the New Zealand Gazetteer if the entry is labelled "unofficial". Where the "official" name includes a macron, include the un-macronned name in the text – thus for example, Taupō is the article name, and the article would could explain that the town is often known as Taupo. Where the commonly used name is of English origin but there is also a name in Māori, list the italicised Māori name in the article, including macrons. For example, the Christchurch article mentions the Māori name Ōtautahi.
In the infobox of a geographical article, the usual name is given first, followed by the Māori name as follows: English Name Māori Name (Māori)	In the infobox of a geographical article, if the common name contains a macron, show only the common name. If the common and Māori names are different, show them as follows: English name Māori name (Māori)
When adding a Māori language name to an infobox, use the Māori Language Commission spellings of Māori names where possible. An extensive discussion about this is at the Wikipedians notice board(with older discussion here).	When adding a Māori language name to an infobox, use the spelling as per the Land Information New Zealand (LINZ, the parent organisation for NZGB) database.

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.

Notes

References

Editor input

Support

1. I think we have reached the point where macrons are almost always used in formal writing in New Zealand. New Zealanders are now used to seeing macrons in names. Mostly because they're inconvenient to type, they're less often used in everyday writing. Wikipedia is formal writing, and we should use macrons on names of Māori origin in articles written in New Zealand English. Wikipedia has long used a macron in the word "Māori", and there has been little opposition to this. I strongly support this proposal, but I would add that there should always be a redirect from the title without macrons to an article title with them.-gadfium 00:11, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
2. I suppose I should formally support this, too. As per the rules, the RfC question itself is supposed to be neutral. I hope I've made a compelling enough case for the proposal to be adopted. Schwede66 00:24, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
3. NZ English has changed rapidly in the last decade, and now macrons are standard and expected in most communications. Wikipedia should have made the switch a while ago. -- haminoon (talk) 01:11, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
4. Agree. Johnragla (talk) 02:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
5. I'm glad this is being formally proposed for discussion in the right forum. Note that this specifically addresses the exception that stops macrons from being used on geographical features; macrons are widely used in Wikipedia, including in article titles, and it's always seemed odd to me that placenames alone had a different status. Especially now when both the official and most-commonly-used name in reliable sources often, and increasingly frequently it looks like, has a macron. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 02:40, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
6. Strong support to the proposal per gadfium and others above. Thanks a lot to Schwede66 for putting his time and energy into this proposal. Podzemnik (talk) 21:53, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
7. Many thanks to Schwede for all the time and effort that's gone into this proposal. I strongly support the proposal because macrons are in common usage in New Zealand English and Wikipedia ought to reflect this. I have a small query about the wording of one clause of the proposal, which I'll put in the "discussion" section below. MurielMary (talk) 07:25, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
8. I also want to offer *strong support* to this proposal. I agree with many comments above, and Schwede66 has done a fantastic job of outlining all the key issues and details of implementation. Amongst many other reasons, it's a better way to write Māori placenames, which honours their existence as words in verbal te reo Māori by making the correct pronunciation much easier to get right (based on the spelling with or without macrons as appropriate). Utunga (talk)
9. I support this proposal. Pakoire (talk) 18:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
10. Many thanks for such a clear summary of the issues and the earlier discussions. I strongly support this well phrased proposal. Somej (talk) 06:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
11. I strongly support this proposal. AMoteOfDust (talk) 06:40, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
12. Strong support. Very tired of being unsure how to pronounce unfamiliar place names because of an absence of macrons, and of seeing familiar place names spelt incorrectly. Let's get our spelling right. (To the objection that this is a "fad", if future generations really are happy to confuse excrement and an insect, they can change the Wikipedia policy.) Axver (talk) 08:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
13. Support Ratso56 (talk) 08:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
14. Support – given the widespread media and government shift on this, it would be nonsensical for Wikipedia to ignore both the official and now widely-used names. Canley (talk) 12:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
15. Support The macron has clearly entered and settled in New Zealand English. Timrollpickering (Talk) 14:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
16. I strongly support the proposal and thank Schwede66 for his work on this. Ambrosia10 (talk) 17:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
17. Support, and thanks Schwede66. —Hugh (talk) 00:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
18. Strong support for the proposal. Macrons have become standard in NZ English on appropriate Māori derived words including place names, there is much to be gained in pronunciation and meaning help in having appropriately described vowels. Andrewgprout (talk) 06:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
19. Strong support. Reasons as per gadfium and others. Street and business signage as permanent fixtures will lag behind common usage so can't be used as a good guide. --Onco p53 (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
20. Support. The rationale expressed by editors in this section is compelling. Thanks Schwede66 for a well presented proposal. Moriori (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
21. Support per gadfium. Overdue. Gamaliel (talk) 23:32, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
22. Support - obviously correct, and fully in keeping with English Wikipedia's existing practices with regard to borrowed words. We do really well on accents and so forth, and there is no reason not to continue - David Gerard (talk) 23:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
23. Support. Thanks for putting this effort together! +mt 00:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
24. Strongly Support - a logical and compelling argument. Thanks Schwede66 for taking this on. My own NZ government organisation uses Macron's in its name. NealeFamily (talk) 01:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
25. Strongly support: macrons in placenames are now clearly settled in official and media usage, and I consider the case has been made for conformity with relevant Wikipedia policies Smd49 (talk) 07:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
26. Support --Reosarevok (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
27. Strong support per the arguments in the proposal. Ijon (talk) 23:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
28. Strongly support. Case clearly made. Mainstream New Zealand English usage has changed considerably in recent years, and this proposal reflects that change. Paora (talk) 11:40, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
29. Support. It is clearly time for this issue to be resolved, and this proposal is a logical and well-considered resolution which aligns with Wikipedia's policies. Tomiĉo (talk) 23:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
30. Support. New Zealand articles should be in New Zealand English and New Zealand English clearly uses macrons and has for at least a decade. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:50, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
31. Support - macrons are standard in formal writing and Wikipedia should reflect this. (I'd even like to extend the convention beyond placenames to flora and fauna but usage may not quite be there yet to support that - give it 5-10 years though... :-) ) --Zeborah (talk) 22:40, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
32. Support - Fits in with the direction the country is moving on names, and also respects the language. Elguaponz (talk) 00:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
33. Support - Eager to see greater recognition of the country's place names. Thanks to Schwede66 for the hard work. TimClicks (talk) 21:21, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
34. Conditional support:
    • Scope – This is only about geographic names. Other usages are a whole different kettle of worms. Or is that "can of fish"? Either way, more discussion (oh, no!) would be required.
    • Strongly support – using italics for Maori place names where they are significantly different from the English names. The "names derived from Maōri" wording conveys the distinction well.
    • NZGB – Whilst I take note of opposing arguments that the guv'mint doesn't necessarily represent the will of the people, I think we should give consideration to the documented "official" position. This cuts both ways though: there will be cases where the official name is unaccented and righters of great wrongs would prefer a different spelling.
      • Either way, the point of an encyclopedia is to inform, so naming issues should be described in the body of the article, fairly and with due weight. If usage on the street is mostly unaccented then we should mention this. If a group is advocating for a spelling change, but it hasn't been officially adopted, we should mention that. To me, that's more important than what spelling the article sits under. But this proposal addresses a different scope and probably doesn't need to go reminding people about NPOV and WEIGHT?
    • Oppose – carving out parochial subsets of Wikipedia under the excuse of WP:ENGVAR. (I don't see the current proposal doing that, but am wary of "but ENGVAR!" arguments leading to a slippery slope.)
    • Note – that in treating words from other scripts, such as arabic and devanagari (where distinguishing long vowels is important, as is representing consonants that don't occur in English), the consensus has been to avoid diacritics in body text after first use. (I don't always agree, part of me preferes correctness over readability. But the discussion has often come down in favour avoiding diacritics to mske the text more approachable, and I can respect the arguments in favour of that, too.) Not sure about Japanese. But then Japan doesn't have an Official Romaji Names Board.
    • Agree with the new wording as currently listed – congrats to those who hashed it out! – except I'd prefer the Taupō example to say "often spelled Taupo" rather than "often called Taupo".

    Pelagic (talk) 18:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

35. Strongly Support. There's a lot to unpack here. For a looooong time, we have had our place names butchered by Pakeha, with tow-poe instead of Taupō, para pah ram instead of Paraparaumu and oh-tacky instead of Ōtaki. Macrons help with pronunciation, and delineate English place-names from Māori ones. It's not difficult, and aversion to the macron speaks more about a reader or editor's internal bias more than anything else. Despite all the hand-wringing, Wikipedia is a deeply political platform. If we decide not to use macrons, we are making a clear judgement to readers that Te Ao Māori is not visible in modern New Zealand. And that's simply not true. Socrates420 (talk) 03:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong oppose. Maybe a nice idea but I think it is very possibly a temporary fad (maybe for a generation, the youth of tomorrow will see it all as just another imposition by old fogies). It is creating the potential for an amazing number of new "spelling mistakes". Even the French seem to be regarding theirs as superfluous. Eddaido (talk) 02:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

   There is a definate and growing trend towards the use of macron's in NZ english usage of Māori words. It is in common usage throughout official documents and major publiscations. I would suggest the young NZder's are now more familier with such usage than the old fogies you refer to. NealeFamily (talk) 02:07, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

   The old fogies I refer to are currently "the young NZder's" of today. Eddaido (talk) 04:51, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

   I think you'll find, comrade, that you are tempoary, and the wairua of te reo will outlive you. 02:55, 4 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Socrates420 (talk • contribs)

   Thanks, my friends NealeFamily, particularly, and Socrates. I think I can see at least six spelling mistakes in the first comment though just the one in the second. Where will you put your diacritics when they become run of the mill? Where they belong? ;-)) And I doubt any of us will be alive to see these diacritics dropped by the general NZ public as I predict but, yeah, I could be wrong. It might be sooner than I think. Eddaido (talk) 04:37, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

2. Oppose. We have a policy (not a guideline, or example of best practice, but a policy) WP:TRANSLITERATE. - SchroCat (talk) 13:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

   I would suggest that MOS:ENGVAR allows Macron's for NZ English. NealeFamily (talk) 02:07, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

3. Oppose, for now. For populated places, caution is needed.

   Kia ora. For Wikipedia articles about populated places (cities/towns/suburbs), we need to be careful. Don't forget that these are not just abstract entities reported in news articles (and listed in government publications). These are real places, where real people live and work. If Wikipedia is to be seen as a credible encyclopedia, it needs to reflect reality, and also consider actual usage in these places. In most cases (with one notable exception, "Taupō", noted below), the macronised spellings are only rarely used on signage (businesses as well as roads) within the towns themselves. For example, driving around Whangarei, I haven't seen a single sign there that says "Whangārei" - not even on the local DOC office (which is one place where you might expect it). Of the many businesses there that have "Whangarei" in their name, I have yet to seen one that uses the macron. For another more pointed example, consider the south Auckland suburb of Otara. This is arguably Auckland's 'brownest' suburb; a major centre of Māori and Pasifika culture. It's one place where you'd expect to see its macron displayed proudly. But having driven around there recently, again, I didn't see a single macron on "Otara". Not one. (And when you see no macrons on this sign [1] - where you'd really expect to see one (actually, two), easily added using a ladder and paintbrush - you have to wonder how strong of a desire there really is to add them?) So we need to be cautious about names of cities/towns/suburbs. (Perhaps less so for other geographic features (e.g., hills, streams).) WP:COMMONNAME has to be the place's actual common name - which is not always going to be the name that the NZGB has gazetted. (I think some of the supporters of this proposal are in denial about what "common name" means; it doesn't mean "the name that I've decided it should be".)

   The one (for now) possible exception: Taupo/Taupō. Most of us have seen the reflective tape stuck on road signs there. And I've seen some businesses there that use the macron in their signage. (There are still a lot of "Taupo"s there, though.) But there's enough usage of "Taupō" now that one might argue that this is now the town's "common name". (However, to be accurate, the article should acknowledge that both spellings are being used.) Rangatira80 (talk) 13:45, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

4. Oppose. As previously outlined in the long noticeboard discussion on to revert the revert that changed Paekākāriki back to Paekakariki, and/or to clarify rules around Māori place names, my concern is that adding macrons to words in the English Wikipedia will make it more difficult for non-Zealanders to find the articles ... especially when they are using quotes in the search. IMHO, there is a worldwide expectation by users of English on how a word is to be spelt and most users would not think to use letters with macrons (and even if they did, very few users are able to create a letter with a macron for a search anyway). The argument for using the English alphabet for article in the English Wikipedia was well outlined in comments from Ross Finlayson in the above discussion including the following:

   ... we're talking here about policies for the *English-language Wikipedia* ("en.wikipedia.org"), not the Maori-language Wikipedia (that's "mi.wikipedia.org"), nor a 'mixed-language' Wikipedia (because there's no such thing). We really are discussing here how these place names are spelled *in English*. There's a long history of place names with an origin in one language being spelled differently in another. A classic example is the Canadian city of Montreal, whose name comes from the French language (where it's spelled "Montréal"). Comparable to New Zealand, Canada has two official languages, and is *very* sensitive about the status and importance of the French language there. But in English the city is almost always spelled "Montreal"; that's not considered disrespectful or 'incorrect' - just a different spelling in a different language - and the English-language Wikipedia page for Montreal reflects this.

   I believe that using macrons as the titles of some New Zealand place will make these articles harder to find for many users across the world which sort of defeats the purpose of the whole thing. I would, of course, support and welcome having the Maori version of all New Zealand place names highlighted at the top of every article, just as the French official name is highlighted at the top of the English article on Montreal, but not in the article title itself. Bigglesjames (talk) 09:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

   I think it's already been mentioned here that there would be a redirect from the name without macrons to the name with, which should solve the findability problem. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 10:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

   Yup, you can still search Bombay or Peking if you prefer. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

   I'm sorry but I don't understand the searching argument - if I search for "waitemata harbour", a name for which the result already has a built in macron, the Wikipedia search engine and all other search engines I know of do a wonderful and quite usual job of normalising the diacritics from searches - any searching issues tend to be when you want to search specifically for macrons (or other diacritic marks) but that is a different issue than here. Andrewgprout (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

   This is called unicode normalisation, and it almost always 'just works' in modern systems. The technical details of this for wikimedia can be found at [2] and the standard at [3]. There are a few instances where this doesn't work in practice (mainly Bengali language and Biblical Hebrew), but these are completely unrelated to any of the issues mentioned here. There are some antiquated systems which are non-UTF8 (primarily ones which are ASCII-only), but these have been legacy for decades. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

5. Oppose I began by abstaining but reading the comments around this proposal has convinced me otherwise. I cannot see how anybody could say that adopting this proposal is an improvement. Queries for clarification and minor squabbles have already begun here. When we get votes based on personal preferences, not objective reasoning, like this remark by TimClicks: Eager to see greater recognition of the country's place names, then I have to question the motive of very many of the editors who have voted. I am also concerned at the role played in this wiki debate by NZGB. It is biased, it has to be, because the law tells it to be. Any senior member of the board giving out any advice that is objectively neutral or not promoting the official name changes is possibly acting unlawfully and needs to be very careful what they are doing. for that reason it should be self-evident that in this case NZGB and all other government sources linked to it should not be used as reliable secondary sources. It is constantly asserted that ABC is the 'official' and 'correct' name of a place and that anything contrary to what NZGB says is the 'wrong' name with the 'wrong' spelling. Those official names with the accompanying macrons are not official in the usual sense of the word. They mean that those new spellings are to be used by all government bodies, that is all: it amounts to nothing more than bureaucratic convenience. It does not mean that Jonny Smith who writes an article about, say, Kaikoura without a macron, is spelling it wrong. If the use of macrons were embedded in a constitution then that spelling would be official. So, by its very statute, NZGB is confirming that it is not saying that Kaikoura is wrong when used in any capacity other than government bodies. See relevant statute and NZGB's own publications.. How many times, if this proposal goes through, will we see an editor 'correct' another editor for spelling a name 'wrong'? And what will that do for the reputation of this encyclopedia? Finally, why not make it a guideline, or policy, that both spellings of a word are acceptable here as both are used in RSSs? That would avoid so many problems and more importantly it would be closer to reality. There would be a few petty editors who will edit war, but no more so than if this proposal goes through. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

   I find it remarkable that to oppose this proposal one has to decide that the New Zealand Government's own list of official place names is not a reliable source. Especially when that list is being used as a reference by the wide variety of reliable sources (magazines, newspapers, TV, etc) discussed above. This leads reductio ad absurdum to the conclusion that magazines, newspapers, and TV are not reliable sources either. (And if we're concerned about the "reputation of this encyclopedia", we should be getting into line with prevailing usage; Wikipedia now sticks out like a sore thumb.) --Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 22:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

6. Oppose. This is not an easy decision for me. I have been undecided throughout this discussion and thought I might remain undecided. However just in the last 24 hours I have decided that I do not support it. I might have written a full (possibly lengthy) explanation in the next week or so, and others may have come back with counter-arguments that may have changed my mind. But now that closure of the RFC has been requested we don't have time. That doesn't matter in that support far outweighs opposition, so I presume that the proposal will pass. That's why I have tried to help get the best wording for the proposed guideline (though I think there is more work to do on that), and there will be no sour grapes from me about the proposal passing. All I have time for now is to give my view in a nutshell. In the 2005 discussion about macrons I did not support their use. Since then many of the NZ news media and popular magazines have adopted macrons. I don't know if that has extended much into scholarly publishing, monograph publishing or non-NZ publishing though. I wondered if the adoption by NZ news media would change my 2005 view. If this was the New Zealand Wikipedia or the New Zealand English Wikipedia, I would support the use of macrons. However, it is the English Wikipedia, the global English Wikipedia. Most sources around the globe are not (as far as I know) writing with macrons. I wish to see articles on NZ topics as accessible as possible to English readers all around the world. Despite the arguments that exist in favour of macrons, on balance I think we should use globally familiar orthography – that is, no macrons in English. Nurg (talk) 11:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Nurg. Looking at the RfC closure request page, I note that there are 38 open requests and they have been open an average 14 days. Chances are this won't be closed anytime soon. If you have further feedback, please let us have it. Your suggestions thus far have been good so keep them coming. Schwede66 18:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I just wanted to chime in here with respect to the scholarly publishing point. I am an academic historian, and I publish often on New Zealand topics in non-NZ journals; macrons are now absolutely standard in my field. Axver (talk) 02:40, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Just had an interesting incident - the Karori page has just had a spelling correction from "cafe" to "café". I just find it curious when I look up this word in the Oxford English dictionary it has a macron (although I note that it allows either option. So the argument that English does not have (or this case use) macrons for words borrowed from other languages seems inaccurate. NealeFamily (talk) 09:18, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

The mark over the 'e' in "café" is an acute accent, not a macron. Nurg (talk) 11:07, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Wgt airport displays Taupo without a macron as does AIR NZ and Sounds Air. Plenty more examples of non macron use if we look around. Macdonalds has also jumped on the bandwagon, with bilingual signs for the exit, toilets and so on. English loan words do use diacritics in limited cases to avoid ambiguity, eg resume/resumé when either word is used out of context. Foreign words used in English usually do use diacritics, because they are foreign words. Using café as a foreign word, or cafe as a loan/assimilated word are both possible, depending on context (and the mood of the user). Both are possible and there is no issue with that, as the OED confirms. Te Ara confirms the same, that various spellings of te reo words are used in the English language. Which is preferable or 'correct' depends, I presume, on that magic phrase - "it depends..." Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I like your thinking - maybe the correct use would depend on whether or not an article is in NZ English or some other English - there is a very strong and growing change going on with the way we are approaching the use of macrons in loan words (sorry Nurg for calling an acute accent a macron) in New Zealand. What may happen in the future, who knows, but it is what is happening now in reliable sources that counts. NealeFamily (talk) 09:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

I prefer to abstain, noting my current position as neutral with a slight leaning towards support, with a couple of caveats. Common usage of NZ English as backed by RSS's has now reached the point where macron use is commoner than non-use. Even if we disregard all government related sources, there are now enough other RSS's to give sufficient weight to that claim. The adoption of macrons by mainstream newspapers may have been the tipping point. As this debate has gone on for so long, the argument that macron use is too recent an occurrence has also now begun to wear a bit thin. My first caveat is that this only applies to articles with a clear NZ leaning, that justifies the use of NZ English. There are many articles where NZ words are used but the article is written in another form of English, usually US or UK. I think macrons are only justified there if they meet the same common usage criteria as applies to that specific version of English. Some editors seem to have gone through articles adding macrons wherever they see a Maori word. These words are spelled with a macron in NZ English, not always in US or UK English. This use in non-NZE articles is justified because the official spelling should be second to common usage. My second caveat follows from that last point and relates especially to place names. Very many duel place names will still be referred to by their English name in RSS's, so that should be the name used for the article title, with the dual or Maori name noted somewhere in the lead. This should be viewed on a case by case basis. Discussion on this point has taken place at the Stewart Island article. I look forward to moving on from this debate and thank Schwede66 for all the work involved in creating this page. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:11, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks; good points. Just to clarify, the scope if for geographic names only, and it does not cover dual names (we already have a naming policy for those and whether the dual name is the common name will have to be established on a case-by-case basis, but if the answer is yes, then the Māori part of the name would be subject to the macron policy as proposed). I suppose I should have made that clearer, hence I thank you for raising this. Schwede66 04:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I have pondered over this yet again and think I should add to my remarks above. Although I still wish to abstain, I have shifted away from a slight preference towards 'support' to the centre ground, if not a slight but increasingly firm leaning back to 'oppose'. I do not want to drag up old discussions yet again, so I will stick to a couple of simply points. One doubt that is not addressed is that we are talking about two languages, not one. By that I mean that, for example, Maori is an English word, spelled correctly in English; Māori is a Maori word spelled correctly in Maori. NZ English increasingly uses the Maori language word, hence the spelling with a macron. Most other forms of English use the English word for Maori, hence the spelling without a macron. This distinction of two separate languages is more easily grasped when dealing with place names. NZGB's laboured rules make that distinction quite clear. An enormous amount of confusion derives from this, where countless people keep talking about the 'correct' or 'incorrect' spelling of a word. If NZGB says the correct name of a place has macrons then it is saying the official name is the Maori language name, not that the English name is spelled wrong. (NZGB does, very often, say that place can be spelled in the English language or the Maori language - with a macron or without, or with a Wh- or just a W-. And because in NZ English it is now common to use that "foreign" (only in the sense of a language) word instead of the English word that is what NZE does. Another area of confusion here is that very often the English word and the Maori word are spelled the same, except for a macron. It would be a lot simpler if the words were totally different. Nobody would ever say that Christchurch is being misspelled, because the correct spelling is Ōtautahi. But that is what people do say for places like Taupo and Kaikoura. (I am intentionally not delving into the detail of NZGB rules, and may be skipping a point or two). My second point is that I still have a niggling but indefinable doubt about all of this. Something just does not feel right. I am not sure how this proposal, if accepted, will be handled by wikipedia: I think we will may be opening a can of worms that will cause enormous confusion and possibly countless edit wars. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:24, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I see it differently. I don't think NZGB or the NZ publishers that use macrons are switching from loanwords of Māori origin to actual Māori language ("foreign" or non-English) words. (If they were, they should write them in italics.) I think it is just a change in writing (orthography) rather than a change to non-English words. The newer, emerging English orthography is the same as the Māori orthography, but that doesn't mean the words are actual Māori words rather than loans. There are now two English orthographies. The question is whether WP stays with place names in the established, historical orthography or switches to the newer orthography. Nurg (talk) 21:42, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Use of "gazetted"

The essence of the proposal is clear enough but there are a number of issues with the proposed wording. A significant problem is with the word "gazetted". The verb gazette means to publish in a gazette (e.g. the New Zealand Gazette, where the NZGB publishes official names). The proposed wording seems to be using the verb in a unusual way to mean published in a gazetteer (i.e. the New Zealand Gazetteer). What is intended for names that are in the NZ Gazetteer but are unofficial, in particular, cases where the NZ Gazetteer omits macrons, e.g. for Tangiterōria? I will hold back on the lesser issues for now. Nurg (talk) 05:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that up, Nurg. Would you want to suggest some alternative wording that overcomes those issues? Schwede66 18:04, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Here is a rewrite of the entire 2nd row of the proposed wording:

Where the commonly used name is of Māori origin, use macrons for long vowels (unless a double vowel is more common, as in Lake Waahi). Use reliable sources to determine what vowels should have macrons, giving particular weight to official names in the New Zealand Gazetteer. Bear in mind that the Gazetteer also contains unofficial names and that the New Zealand Geographic Board (NZGB) is still in the process of officially adding macrons to names (as of 2020). Secondarily, give weight to recent sources and to Māori sources. Where the name includes a macron, list include the un-macronned name in the text – thus, Taupō is the article name, and the article would explain that the town was previously known as Taupo.

Where the commonly used name is of English origin but there is also a name in Māori, list the italicised Māori name in the article, including macrons. For example, the Christchurch article mentions the Māori name Ōtautahi.

This rewording addresses a number of issues: it uses "name ... of Māori origin" rather than the ambiguous "Māori name"; italicisation of name in Māori (as opposed to loanword in English); it mentions long vowels; "commonly used name" instead of "usual name". I have dropped the sentence about Timaru. I am inclined to also drop the sentence about Taupō as being unduly prescriptive too. Nurg (talk) 04:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by one sentence in this proposed rewrite: "Secondarily, give weight to recent sources and to Māori sources". What do you mean by "Māori sources"? If you meant Māori-language sources, then this seems inappropriate, as we are defining rules for an English-language encyclopedia. But if you meant sources written by Māori (people), then that also seems problematic, as favouring one ethnic group over another would likely run afoul of Wikipedia's world-wide policies. I'd rather see that sentence removed altogether. Rangatira80 (talk) 08:17, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

That was intended as a replacement for the earlier reference to usage or requests from "the local iwi", and means sources written by Māori people. That is not a matter of "favouring" an ethnic group, but recognising that the ultimate authorities on pronunciation are expert Māori-language speakers, most of whom are Māori. Maybe there is a better way of putting it or maybe it should be dropped as you suggest – I don't have a firm opinion right now. Nurg (talk) 08:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

What about "reliable contemporary Māori spelling guides, such as Aka Māori Dictionary"? Yes, we're talking about English Wikipedia, but if we're wanting to know whether a vowel is long or not in the original Māori word these are useful. Some older Māori word lists might not use macrons. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 08:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Nurg. That certainly resolves some issues. But it also introduces one new issue. I would like us to achieve a bit more certainty from the proposed change and the question may simply boil down to how we describe what the NZGB does / how they work. The NZGB has lists of place names and some of them are official, and others are unofficial. I'm not familiar with how exactly they work and what exactly each of the statuses means, but I have extracted the following statuses from their list:

• Official Adopted
• Official Altered
• Official Approved
• Official Assigned
• Unofficial Collected
• Unofficial Recorded

Would I be right in assuming that the first four are "official" in the sense that it is the NZGB's finding that the listed name is to be used by all government departments that take guidance from them? And the remaining two are names that still have to go through the vetting process before the eventual outcome also becomes "official" (that is, for the time being, there is no recommendation by them)? If these assumptions are right, then I would think that all those agencies that look at the NZGB for guidance will simply adopt the official names (there may be the odd temporal exception, but I would think that's extremely rare; Whanganui possibly fell into that category). If my thinking is still correct, I conclude that we can much simplify your rewrite by concentrating on the "official" guidance coming from NZGB and the benefit of doing so is that we can avoid a lot of discussion on a case-by-case basis whether the other criteria suggested by you are also met. I invite everyone's comment on those issues, in particular on how exactly the NZGB works. If what I'm saying here is more or less right, I'd be happy to have a crack at further amending your suggested amendments, Nurg. This is what I had previously worded as "gazetted" but that is obviously not the way to phrase it, so thanks for raising your concerns. Schwede66 07:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

NZGB standard proposal process

The secretary of the NZGB has been in touch and she's sent us a pamphlet outlining how they work. I've clipped the standard naming process chart from that and reproduce it here for everyone's benefit. It turns out that final decisions do get gazetted (step 7). Schwede66 02:45, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I've now talked to the secretary of the New Zealand Geographic Board (NZGB). On behalf of the board, she expressed their gratitude for us trying to resolve the macron issue. I've already posted the process chart that they follow but it's of course useful to talk issues through; it helped clarify for me what we ought to do in terms of keeping our naming guidelines as simple as possible. I was told that the NZGB is responsible for naming everything within New Zealand's jurisdiction (i.e. including parts of Antarctica), but that they only issue adopted names in the New Zealand Gazette if they fall within the New Zealand territorial zone (i.e. within 12 nautical miles of the coast; this does not include Antarctica and may miss undersea features). Everything that they decide will be published through their New Zealand Gazetteer. Therefore, she recommended that we should use the New Zealand Gazetteer as the authoritative source as that will be complete. Everything that they have ever decided is available through both their New Zealand Gazetteer as well as a spreadsheet that one can download as a CSV file. Periodically, they issue new official names and they maintain a distribution list to draw attention to that. Mike and I have been added to that list. Each New Zealand Gazetteer entry has a unique ID number and we could use that for tracking things in Wikidata, and develop a citation template.

The secretary further stressed that we should restrict our naming guidance to those names that are "official". There are three categories for "unofficial" and they will eventually all be made official, but that will take a long time. There is, in fact, a hierarchy to the unofficial names ("recorded", then "replaced", then "collected") and I'm just documenting this here for the sake of it.

Taking all this into consideration, here's an attempt of further improving on Nurg's suggested reword:

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". Do not take guidance from the New Zealand Gazetteer if the entry is labelled "unofficial". Where the "official" name includes a macron, include the un-macronned name in the text – thus, Taupō is the article name, and the article would explain that the town was previously is often known as Taupo.

Where the commonly used name is of English origin but there is also a name in Māori, list the italicised Māori name in the article, including macrons. For example, the Christchurch article mentions the Māori name Ōtautahi.

What do you think? Schwede66 05:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Schwede. Your suggested revised wording is silent about the unofficial place names that include long vowels. I repeat my earlier question: "What is intended for names that are in the NZ Gazetteer but are unofficial, in particular, cases where the NZ Gazetteer omits macrons, e.g. for Tangiterōria?" Nurg (talk) 20:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Nurg – hope you had a good holiday. The revised wording says: "Do not take guidance from the New Zealand Gazetteer if the entry is labelled "unofficial"." I suggest that should do the trick. As per the discussion elsewhere, if it's unofficial it needs to be ignored as no agreement has been reached yet; the status quo applies. Schwede66 23:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

So are you suggesting that in the example I gave Tangiteroria would remain the name of the article even though pronunciation of the 'o' is long? Nurg (talk) 23:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

The gazetteer tells me for Tangiteroria that "this name is not official". Therefore, we should not sort out the naming of this place via the proposed naming conventions. That should not stop anybody from requesting a name change and providing the supporting evidence via the normal Wikipedia processes. Schwede66 23:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

It has now emerged that macrons were omitted from some names that were made official in the more distant past. In those cases it is not appropriate to follow the official name. Does someone else want to propose new wording or shall I? Nurg (talk) 09:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I have been doing a lot of work in the last few weeks on the New Zealand Gazetteer Mix'n'Match linking IDs to their Wikidata items—unfortunately the Mix'n'Match import mangled the macrons! The CSV file NZGB mentioned is here, I can concentrate on applying the IDs for these items so they can be used to track Wikidata items for this process. As mentioned below I have started moving the place name articles on the Māori Wikipedia to the name with the macron. --Canley (talk) 06:02, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I'd have a big problem with wording like "the town was previously known as Taupo". This is at best misleading; at worst, inaccurate. The phrase "previously known as" should be used for names like Peking (now Beijing) or Ceylon (now Sri Lanka), where there's no longer any significant contemporary usage of the other name. As long as both spellings ("Taupo" and "Taupō") remain in widespread use, it would be much better to say "(also spelled Taupo)". Rangatira80 (talk) 16:45, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I think we need to mention that this is a common spelling of the name, without implying it is an alternative spelling – only one of those spellings is the official name, which is an important distinction. So what about "(often spelled Taupo)", which over the years we can change to "(sometimes spelled Taupo)" and finally "(previously spelled Taupo)" as prevailing RS usage changes. In the future there will no doubt be better tools available to determine the relative frequency of contemporary usage. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

It would perhaps be better to avoid being prescriptive about this kind of detail. Maybe the sentence in question should just end with "... un-macronned name in the text", omitting the example starting "thus ...". Rather than making too much of a straitjacket for editors at this stage, better to stick to the substantive parts of the question before us and add detailed advice later, and only if the need for it became apparent. Nurg (talk) 01:47, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

So you suggest that the following be omitted from the proposed guideline (just to be clear): "– thus, Taupō is the article name, and the article would explain that the town is often known as Taupo" Correct? I could live with that. What do others think? Schwede66 02:37, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I think it's good to give an example of usage, rather than just say "include the un-macronned name in the text": so perhaps change "thus, Taupō is the article name, and the article would explain that the town is often known as Taupo" to "for example, Taupō is the article name, and the article could explain that the town is often known as Taupo" which is not prescriptive. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 08:46, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I've adopted "for example" and "could" as substitutions in the proposed wording. Schwede66 18:53, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I'd prefer "for example, Taupō is the article name, and the article could explain that the name is often spelled as Taupo". Or maybe "… often written as Taupo". Weta and wētā might mean different things in Maori, but most Anglophones wouldn't see the difference unless it's explained to them. With café / cafe, naïve / naive, and coöperate / co-operate / cooperate, the diacritic is a pronunciation aid, but the un-accented variant still signifies the same thing. We do have a minimal pair in "Noel" (the man's name) versus "Noël" (Christmas), but I struggle to think of any others. Pelagic (talk) 12:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Wording of one clause

One part of the proposal reads "If the gazetted name includes a macron, list the un-macronned name in the text." Does this mean "list" as in "put into a list" or does it really mean "include in the article" i.e. make sure that the article mentions that there was also a time when the place had an un-macronned name? I think probably the latter is intended, therefore a slight change in wording is warranted. MurielMary (talk) 07:27, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Nurg has captured that; we'll work that improvement in. Schwede66 07:47, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Mass ping

I've gone through the 2018 great debate item and identified every instance of User:. What I've found is that over close to 200 posts, 25 editors engaged in the discussion. Some of those have already commented on this page. All the remaining editors (the list of pings is complete) are hereby invited and encouraged to once again express their views on this proposal. User:Akld guy, User:Ambrosia10, User:Berean Hunter, User:Bigglesjames, User:DerbyCountyinNZ, User:Eddaido, User:Elguaponz, User:Gconz, User:Hl, User:Insertcleverphrasehere, User:Lcmortensen, User:MurielMary, User:NealeFamily, User:Nick-D, User:Paora, User:Pelagic, User:Ready.eddy, User:Rsfinlayson, User:Tayste, User:Utunga Your input would be much appreciated; we want to get this right and everyone needs to be heard. Schwede66 20:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Schwede66. Sorry I've been neglecting my notification list lately and didn't come here earlier. I'll try to collect my thoughts and add something to the discussion. Pelagic (talk) 12:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Building signage

Just to note that the signs on businesses, being expensive to replace (and not always amenable to a "paintbrush and a bit of tape") will be the last vestiges of macron-free usage, long after these have been adopted in media, publishing, and by the businesses themselves. So they're not a good guide to common usage. I've not been to Whāngarei for years, but a quick Google Image search will show you the art museum there has started using a macron on its name, but hasn't replaced their street sign yet. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 19:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

(I moved the following comment from the Support/Oppose section to this section of the Discussion; it seemed more appropriate here. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 21:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC))

Yes, of course physical signage typical trails behind online usage (not "common usage"; signage is a major part of common usage), but it is reality. Isn't Wikipedia supposed to describe the real world? When and if a town's signage gets festooned with macrons, then (and only then) would it make sense to change its page. The fact remains that you don't see a single macron in Whangarei (the actual physical place) and many many other New Zealand towns, and Ngati Otara apparently don't consider macrons important at all.

I remain concerned that this proposal will give many Kiwis a negative opinion of Wikipedia. Think about how a long-time resident of a NZ town might start thinking about Wikipedia if they wake up one morning to find that their town's Wikipedia page now uses a spelling that almost nobody living or working there has ever used? There are still lot of somewhat conservative-minded people in New Zealand, and we should hope that they will continue to view Wikipedia as being a reliable, non-partisan resource for learning about important local issues such as 1080 and kauri dieback (and important global issues such as climate change). In short, what I'm saying here is: Please be careful; treat populated places differently from hills/streams. Rangatira80 (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Since the proposal is for Wikipedia to be brought into line with the current prevailing usage, what you're saying is those Kiwis must currently have a problem with all government departments, most magazines (including their AA magazine, all major newspapers, radio, and television, which have all been using macrons for placenames, some of them for years. If it turned out that Whangārei was not currently the spelling used in all those sources, then there would be a good case for retaining the macron-less spelling in Wikipedia of course. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 21:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, maybe those Kiwis already have a problem with government, and with newspapers (if they even read newspapers anymore). I just hope they won't also have a problem with Wikipedia :-) Rangatira80 (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

If Wikipedia is to be non-partisan, then it can't be overly guided by fear of what conservative-minded people might think - at least not without a balancing regard for what liberal-minded people already do think! :-) --Zeborah (talk) 22:32, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Maōri Wikipedia

This discussion is about the policy on the English Wikipedia, but as a side note there may need to be some work done on the Maōri Wikipedia, where there appear to be numerous (apparently bot-created in 2007?) articles about localities (such as mi:Taupo Bay which use the non-macron place name (presumably derived from a data source which did not have them). I'm happy to do this if there are no objections or someone more versed in te reo than I! --Canley (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome to do this. If you need admin assistence there, let me know.-gadfium 03:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

RfC closure

Note that I have requested RfC closure. Schwede66 01:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I note that Ross Finlayson (User:Rsfinlayson) last edited Wikipedia a few days before the RfC started. Maybe he is on holiday or something. That's a bit unfortunate because he was a major contributor to the discussion at Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 25#Appeal to revert the revert that changed Paekākāriki back to Paekakariki, and/or to clarify rules around Māori place names. Nurg (talk) 11:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed that. I contacted every contributor to the 2018 discussion. When he didn't show up, I looked him up on social media and contacted him via direct message. I've also sent him Wikimail (he has email enabled). So unless he's gone bush, he is at least aware that this discussion is being had. Schwede66 18:13, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I came across this site again today, and I edited the NZ section that GLB had inserted a while ago. I think it illustrates the sort of problem we will encounter if/when this proposal is accepted. I found it difficult not to see a slight agenda being pushed in what was there, although I accept totally that this was not in any way intentional. The MLC source was confusing in that it opened on to the main page (in te reo) and the relevant text was not easily found, if it is in fact there. I also have concerns about the MLC anyway. The Te Awa source was more interesting though. What it said and what was written in the article were not exactly the same. Te Awa says long vowels is represented in English in three ways, (or four if we including two versions of the macron option). If this sort of subtle inaccuracy is allowed to continue then we are asking for future problems around this macron issue. Incidentally, I do not know about others, but I think closing this debate now is premature. There is IMO no clear consensus to accept the proposal, meaning further debate and changes are needed. A majority vote is, as we all know, not the deciding factor. When you have at least six opposers, all well argued from different angles by established editors, then that IMO is enough to block the proposal as it stands. I am most definitely not against some policy/guideline changes, just not these as they currently stand. I have seen it elsewhere, where policies were put in place years ago, led by the mood of the moment and some enthusiastic promoters, but where those policies have caused endless problems because they were not better enacted at the start. I would hate to see that happen here. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:51, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Potential scope

I've gone through the "NZGB notices – June 2019" referred to above to have a look at the "altered, approved, and amended geographic names" as they were at that point. I've extracted those with a macron and they were split over two lists as per the below. The wikilinks show the macronned version; I have no idea whether red links indicate that there isn't an existing article or whether we don't have an article a redirect. This exercise produced two links to dab pages (in both cases for "Ōtaki") that I have manually disambiguated. As an aside, the following macrons are not included in that list: Ē, ē, Ī, and Ū.

If anybody wants my spreadsheet for further work, e.g. to add these names to Wikidata, please be in touch. Schwede66 21:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I have a query on scope, assuming this does go ahead. There are 1010 mainspace pages that have the word 'waitakere', some of these will be obvious such as Waitākere Ranges (listed below, and every time this is mentioned in a page). But what about Waitakere_City (a former populated place), Waitakere River, and Waitakere Tramline. Harder will be Waitakere United football club which will be without the macron, but based in Waitākere City (with the macron). This will no doubt confuse some people, we will need clear guidelines to point to. --Onco p53 (talk) 03:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Replying to my own comment after reading the rules more clearly. I understand the scope, but wow it is very inconsistent according to the Gazetter Waitākere Stream has a macron but Waitakere River does not. My point about confusion still stands. --Onco p53 (talk) 03:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, thankfully we do have a register of official names, which is clear and consistent with its individual names even if the list contains logical contradictions. Many of those names were made official long before macrons were in common use, and will be replaced eventually by NZGB with the macronned version. We'll also have the situation where the un-macronned name was used in print for many years before being updated, so we can't just do a blanket replacement of the old spelling with the new wherever it occurs. But these aren't new problems for Wikipedia, even for New Zealand (see Wanganui/Whanganui). —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 09:37, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh! Waitakere River (without the macron) is an official name (gazetted decades ago). So for fidelity to Māori, the official name would have to be ignored, and the proposed policy wording changed. Nurg (talk) 10:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Really, for fidelity to Māori, the official name needs to be changed. That's not our job. My feeling is we say that we're just using the official name; go take it up with the NZGB. But I could see a situation in the future where widespread use of macrons in a placename in reliable sources outpaces the NZGB, in which case the usual rules would apply I guess. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 17:49, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Populated places

Ahikōuka, Ākura, Āwhitu, Āwhitu Central, Colac Bay/Ōraka, Hāmama, Hāwea Flat, Hāwera, Hūkerenui, Kaikōura, Kōpuaranga, Kūaotunu, Kumeū, Lake Hāwea, Māhina Bay, Mākara, Mākara Beach, Mākareao, Mangarākau, Mangatāwhai, Māngere, Māngere Bridge, Māngere East, Māpua, Mārahau, Māriri, Mātaikōtare, Matatā, Mōkau, Mōrere, Ngāhape, Ngāhinapōuri, Ngāruawāhia, Ngātīmoti, Ngongotahā, Ngongotahā Valley, Ōakura (Northland), Ōakura (Taranaki), Ōhaeawai, Ōhakune, Ōhau, Ōhope, Ōkaihau, Ōkārito, Ōkiwi Bay, Ōmiha, Ōnoke, Ōpaheke, Ōpaki, Ōpārara, Ōpārau, Ōpōtiki, Ōpou, Ōpunake, Ōrere, Ōrere Point, Ōtāhuhu, Ōtaki, Ōtaki Beach, Ōtaki Forks, Ōtara (Bay of Plenty), Ōtara (Auckland), Ōtaua, Otūmoetai, Ōwhata (Northland), Ōwhata (Bay of Plenty), Ōwhiro, Ōwhiro Bay, Paekākāriki, Paekākāriki Hill, Pākawau, Pākuratahi, Pangatōtara, Papakōwhai, Pārae Karetu, Pāuatahanui, Pōhara, Pōkeno, Pōrangahau, Port Ōhope, Port Pūponga, Port Whangārei, Pūerua, Pūkio, Pūkorokoro / Miranda, Pūkorokoro / Miranda Hot Springs, Pūponga, Pūrākaunui, Puramāhoi, Putāruru, Rākau, Rāngaiika, Rangitūmau, Rānui, Ruakākā, Ruakōkoputuna, Tāhunanui, Taitā, Takapūwāhia, Tāneatua, Taupō, Taupō Bay, Tāwharanui, Te Ākau, Te Ākau South, Te Atatū Peninsula, Te Atatū South, Te Hāpua, Te Kōpuru, Te Mārua, Tīnui, Tīrau, Tītahi Bay, Tōrere, Tōtaranui, Tōtara Park, Tūī Glen, Tūrangi, Umukurī, Waimārama, Whakamārama (Bay of Plenty), Whakatāne, Whakatīwai, Whāngaimoana, Whangākea / Pandora, Whangamatā, Whangaparāoa (Auckland), Whangaparāoa (Bay of Plenty), Whangārei, Whangārei Heads, Wharepūhunga

Geographic features

Hāpuatuna Bay, Hāpuka Rock, Hāpuku River, Hāwera (North Hokianga), Hāwera (Waima, Northland), Hāwera (Kaikohe district), Hāwera Stream, Hāwera Stream, Hōkurī Creek, Kā Mauka-tokoweka, Kā Poupou-a-Rakihouia, Kaikōura (Bay of Plenty), Kaikōura Creek, Kaikōura Stream, Kūaotunu Beach, Kūaotunu River, Kumeū River, Lake Ōhau, Lake Ōkaihau, Lake Rāhui, Lake Te Hāpua, Lake Wānaka, Māhoenui, Mākara (Aorangi Range), Mākara Hill, Mākara River, Mākara Stream, Mākara Stream, Mākara Stream, Mākara Stream, Mākara Stream, Mākara Stream, Mākara Stream, Mākara Stream, Mākara Stream, Mākara Stream, Mākara Stream, Māngere Falls, Māngere River, Māngere Stream, Moana Pūtakitaki Lagoon, Mōkau Bay, Mōkau Falls, Mōkau Inlet, Mōkau Stream, Mōkau Stream, Mōkau Stream, Mōkihinui River, Mōrere Hill, Mōrere Stream, Mount Tūtoko, Ngāhinapōuri Island, Ngākawau River, Ngongotahā, Ngongotahā Stream, North Mākara Stream, North Ōhau River, Ōakura Bay, Ōakura Stream, Ōamaru Bay, Ōamaru Bay, Ōamaru River, Ōamaru Stream, Ōhau Bay, Ōhau Channel, Ōhau Gorge, Ōhau Hill, Ōhau Point, Ōhau Point, Ōhau Point, Ōhau River, Ōhau River, Ōhau Stream, Ōhau Stream, Ōhau Stream, Ōhau Stream, Ōhau Stream, Ōhikaiti River, Ōhikanui River, Ōhinetahi, Ōhope Beach, Ōkaihau, Ōkaihau Stream, Ōkapua Creek, Ōkari Lagoon, Ōkari River, Ōketeupoko, Ōkiwi Bay, Ōkūkū River, Ōmanu Creek, Ōmarama, Ōmihi, Ōmoeroa River, Ōmotumotu Creek, Ōnuku, Ōpaheke, Ōpārau River, Ōpihi River, Ōpoho Creek, Ōpōkihi, Ōpōtiki (Ruapehu District), Ōpōtiki Stream, Ōpuku Cliff, Ōpukutahi, Ōpunake Stream, Ōrakipaoa Creek, Ōrere River, Ōrere Stream, Ōrereti Stream, Ōrewa Beach, Ōrewa Hill, Ōrewa River, Ōtāhuhu Creek, Ōtāhuhu Point, Ōtaki, Ōtaki Creek, Ōtaki River, Ōtara (Bay of Plenty), Ōtara Bay, Ōtara Bay, Ōtara Creek, Ōtara Head, Ōtara Point, Ōtara Point, Ōtara Point, Ōtara Point, Ōtara River, Ōtara Stream, Ōtara Stream, Ōtara Stream, Ōtara Stream, Ōtara Stream, Ōtaua River, Ōtaua Stream, Ōtautau Stream, Ōtira River, Ōtoko River, Ōtokotoko, Ōtūherekio, Ōtūtohukai, Ōwaka River, Ōwhata Stream, Ōwhiro Stream, Ōwhiro Stream, Ōwhiro Stream, Pātītī Point, Peketā, Poho Tārewa, Pōpōtai Island, Pōrangahau River, Pōrangahau Stream, Pūkaroro Rock, Pūrākaunui Bay, Rākaunui Stream, Ruakākā Bay, Ruakākā River, Ruakākā Stream, Ruakākā Stream, South Ōhau River, Tāhunatōrea, Takapūneke, Take Kārara, Tāmihau Island, Tāneatua Stream, Taumatawhakatangihangakōauauotamateapōkaiwhenuakitānatahu, Taupō Stream, Taupō Stream, Taupō Swamp, Te Ākau Point, Te Ākau Point, Te Ākau Point, Te Ākau Stream, Te Ākau Stream, Te Hāpua Bay, Te Iringa-patu-pāraoa-o-Te-Rangitaurewa, Te Kōpuru Point, Te Kōwhai, Te Kurī, Te Mata Hāpuka, Te Whakatakanga-o-te-ngārehu-o-te-ahi-a-Tamatea, Te Whanga-a-Te-Kōkō, Tīmaru Redoubt, Tīmaru River, Tīmaru Stream, Tīmaru Stream, Tīrau, Tīrau Bay, Toitū, Tōrea Rocks, Tōrere River, Tōtara River, Tōtara River, Tūhua, Tūtaekurī River, Tūtaepāwhati Bay, Tūtakahikura, Waihī River, Waikōau River, Waikūkūpa River, Waipahī River, Waipātiki, Waipōhatu Stream, Waitāhuna River, Waitākere Ranges, Waitākere Reservoir, Waitākere Stream, Whakatāne River, Whakatāne Stream, Whakatīwai Stream, Whangamatā Harbour, Whangaparāoa Bay, Whangaparāoa Head, Whangaparāoa Passage, Whangaparāoa River, Whangārei Falls, Whangārei Harbour, Wharepūhunga, Whitiaka-te-rā

Wikidata query

Wikidata query of New Zealand place names where English label contains macrons (with corresponding Wikipedia article and NZ Gazetteer ID if applicable)

WP:TRANSLITERATE

@SchroCat: Just checking you got as far as reading the Q&A section above? Because the issue raised by you is discussed as the second Q&A and it points to WP:COMMONNAME, which also happens to be a policy. Yes, there is some judgement necessary; if we have conflicting policies, which one do we choose to take precedence? Schwede66 07:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I did. The fact there are counter arguments to each of your Q&A "answers" doesn't negate the fact that I've judged my decision one way. - SchroCat (talk) 08:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that; it's much appreciated. Schwede66 08:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Moving pages

Before you move a page, make sure that there is an official name. Often, there is an item in Wikidata already under 'New Zealand Gazetteer place ID' (property P5104). If not, search for it on the gazetteer. Once you have found it and confirmed that there is an official name with a macron, I suggest the following edit summary for moving the item (replace "xxxxx" with the place ID):

as per WP:NCNZ and https://gazetteer.linz.govt.nz/place/xxxxx

You may encounter cases where the redirect has an edit history and you can't move the page. List those cases here and somebody who has the rights to delete that redirect will deal with it.

Lake Hāwea already exists as a redirect page, so I was unable to move Lake Hawea. Who has rights to delete redirects? Somej (talk) 09:04, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I've moved both the lake and the town but haven't done any further tidy up. Schwede66 09:30, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

If you do tidy up work using AWB, be careful to not be anachronistic, change titles of published works, or change titles of file names. Schwede66 21:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Once you have moved a page, check whether the place is listed on one of the New Zealand population data templates. The templates don't work and need the exact spelling. There are two of these templates:

• Template:NZ population data 1992
• Template:NZ population data 2018

The safest thing is to duplicate the relevant entry (one without macrons; one with macrons) and that way, each transclusion will work. Schwede66 19:11, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Also note that some places do not have official names yet: for example, Lake Taupo (Taupomoana) is not an official name, but Taupō is. There are also some inconsistencies with older official names: the Waitākere Stream is in the Waitākere Ranges, but so is the Waitakere River – all official names, but the last one dates back to 1948. No doubt NZ Geographic Board will resolve and update these, and we'll continue to update Wikipedia as they do.

For the Waitākere example above my strategy is to search every wikipedia page for "waitakere" then have very specific find and replace criteria set up for example "Waitakere Ranges" --> "Waitākere Ranges" (not just a blanket change of Waitakere --> Waitākere), then manually check each one to ensure it is not in a title of a published works or file name etc. --Onco p53 (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Also I assume it is OK to change Waitakere Central Library --> Waitākere Central Library if that is the official name used by that organisation? (mindful of the rules above around published works etc.) or is this out of scope. --Onco p53 (talk) 23:04, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

This was fine even before the above naming conventions were changed, as it's the name of an organisation, not a place. See Manawatū-Whanganui, which with the macron became the official name of the region, and thus the title of the article, back in 2019. The exception, now resolved, has always been in placenames and geographical features. Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 08:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

As suggested above, always link to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(New_Zealand) in your edit comment, as some editors may not be aware this RfC has been resolved. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 21:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I'd also like to highly discourage being creative with blending official names with common names. For instance Taumatawhakatangihangakoauauotamateaturipukakapikimaungahoronukupokaiwhenuakitanatahu is a 85-character common name represented without macrons on the sign and entered in various world records. The less-known official name "Taumatawhakatangihangakōauauotamateapōkaiwhenuakitānatahu" has macrons. There are no sources suggesting the common name has macrons, so don't pretend they exist by blending the two names (see WP:OR). (However, if it is shown that, e.g., the sign were modified to use macrons, then there would be a basis to discuss and move.) When in doubt, start a discussion on the Talk page. +mt 09:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

That was me, I moved the name to the official NZGB one, then realised it was shorter and the longer record-holding name should be the title, so I copied the name from the lede and moved it again (but this seems to have macrons inserted, I didn't do that). Anyway, I've moved it back to "Taumatawhakatangihangakoauauotamateaturipukakapikimaungahoronukupokaiwhenuakitanatahu". --Canley (talk) 09:52, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

The macrons were my mistake, I didn't notice the article title was so different from the official name! This is probably one of the odder cases affected by this change in naming conventions... We'll have to wait for Hawkes Bay Regional Council to update the sign I guess, or update their website. Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

All good. We'll wait and see if this common name changes. +mt 21:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Work list

As the above should not be edited, I've copied the work list to here as edits may well be necessary. The above should not be edited. New items need to be added (they have resolved other cases since the above list was posted). Schwede66 00:41, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Populated places

Ahikōuka, Ākura, Āwhitu, Āwhitu Central, Colac Bay/Ōraka, Hāmama, Hāwea Flat, Hāwera, Hūkerenui, Kaikōura, Kōpuaranga, Kūaotunu, Kumeū, Lake Hāwea, Māhina Bay, Mākara, Mākara Beach, Mākareao, Mangarākau, Mangatāwhai, Māngere, Māngere Bridge, Māngere East, Māpua, Mārahau, Māriri, Mātaikōtare, Matatā, Mōkau, Mōrere, Ngāhape, Ngāhinapōuri, Ngāruawāhia, Ngātīmoti, Ngongotahā, Ngongotahā Valley, Ōakura (Northland), Ōakura (Taranaki), Ōhaeawai, Ōhakune, Ōhau, Ōhope, Ōkaihau, Ōkārito, Ōkiwi Bay, Ōmiha, Ōnoke, Ōpaheke, Ōpaki, Ōpārara, Ōpārau, Ōpōtiki, Ōpou, Ōpunake, Ōrere, Ōrere Point, Ōtāhuhu, Ōtaki, Ōtaki Beach, Ōtaki Forks, Ōtara (Bay of Plenty), Ōtara (Auckland), Ōtaua, Otūmoetai, Ōwhata (Northland), Ōwhata (Bay of Plenty), Ōwhiro, Ōwhiro Bay, Paekākāriki, Paekākāriki Hill, Pākawau, Pākuratahi, Pangatōtara, Papakōwhai, Pārae Karetu, Pāuatahanui, Pōhara, Pōkeno, Pōrangahau, Port Ōhope, Port Pūponga, Port Whangārei, Pūerua, Pūkio, Pūkorokoro / Miranda, Pūkorokoro / Miranda Hot Springs, Pūponga, Pūrākaunui, Puramāhoi, Putāruru, Rākau, Rāngaiika, Rangitūmau, Rānui, Ruakākā, Ruakōkoputuna, Tāhunanui, Taitā, Takapūwāhia, Tāneatua, Taupō, Taupō Bay, Tāwharanui, Te Ākau, Te Ākau South, Te Atatū Peninsula, Te Atatū South, Te Hāpua, Te Kōpuru, Te Mārua, Tīnui, Tīrau, Tītahi Bay, Tōrere, Tōtaranui, Tōtara Park, Tūī Glen, Tūrangi, Umukurī, Waimārama, Whakamārama (Bay of Plenty), Whakatāne, Whakatīwai, Whāngaimoana, Whangākea / Pandora, Whangamatā, Whangaparāoa (Auckland), Whangaparāoa (Bay of Plenty), Whangārei, Whangārei Heads, Wharepūhunga

Geographic features

Hāpuatuna Bay, Hāpuka Rock, Hāpuku River, Hāwera (North Hokianga), Hāwera (Waima, Northland), Hāwera (Kaikohe district), Hāwera Stream, Hāwera Stream, Hōkurī Creek, Kā Mauka-tokoweka, Kā Poupou-a-Rakihouia, Kaikōura (Bay of Plenty), Kaikōura Creek, Kaikōura Stream, Kūaotunu Beach, Kūaotunu River, Kumeū River, Lake Ōhau, Lake Ōkaihau, Lake Rāhui, Lake Te Hāpua, Lake Wānaka, Māhoenui, Mākara (Aorangi Range), Mākara Hill, Mākara River, Mākara Stream, Mākara Stream, Mākara Stream, Mākara Stream, Mākara Stream, Mākara Stream, Mākara Stream, Mākara Stream, Mākara Stream, Mākara Stream, Mākara Stream, Manawatū River, Māngere Falls, Māngere River, Māngere Stream, Moana Pūtakitaki Lagoon, Mōkau Bay, Mōkau Falls, Mōkau Inlet, Mōkau Stream, Mōkau Stream, Mōkau Stream, Mōkihinui River, Mōrere Hill, Mōrere Stream, Mount Tūtoko, Ngāhinapōuri Island, Ngākawau River, Ngongotahā, Ngongotahā Stream, North Mākara Stream, North Ōhau River, Ōakura Bay, Ōakura Stream, Ōamaru Bay, Ōamaru Bay, Ōamaru River, Ōamaru Stream, Ōhau Bay, Ōhau Channel, Ōhau Gorge, Ōhau Hill, Ōhau Point, Ōhau Point, Ōhau Point, Ōhau River, Ōhau River (Wellington), Ōhau River (Canterbury), Ōhau Stream, Ōhau Stream, Ōhau Stream, Ōhau Stream, Ōhau Stream, Ōhikaiti River, Ōhikanui River, Ōhinetahi, Ōhope Beach, Ōkaihau, Ōkaihau Stream, Ōkapua Creek, Ōkari Lagoon, Ōkari River, Ōketeupoko, Ōkiwi Bay, Ōkūkū River, Ōmanu Creek, Ōmarama, Ōmihi, Ōmoeroa River, Ōmotumotu Creek, Ōnuku, Ōpaheke, Ōpārau River, Ōpihi River, Ōpoho Creek, Ōpōkihi, Ōpōtiki (Ruapehu District), Ōpōtiki Stream, Ōpuku Cliff, Ōpukutahi, Ōpunake Stream, Ōrakipaoa Creek, Ōrere River, Ōrere Stream, Ōrereti Stream, Ōrewa Beach, Ōrewa Hill, Ōrewa River, Ōtāhuhu Creek, Ōtāhuhu Point, Ōtaki, Ōtaki Creek, Ōtaki River, Ōtara (Bay of Plenty), Ōtara Bay, Ōtara Bay, Ōtara Creek, Ōtara Head, Ōtara Point, Ōtara Point, Ōtara Point, Ōtara Point, Ōtara River, Ōtara Stream, Ōtara Stream, Ōtara Stream, Ōtara Stream, Ōtara Stream, Ōtaua River, Ōtaua Stream, Ōtautau Stream, Ōtira River, Ōtoko River, Ōtokotoko, Ōtūherekio, Ōtūtohukai, Ōwaka River, Ōwhata Stream, Ōwhiro Stream, Ōwhiro Stream, Ōwhiro Stream, Pātītī Point, Peketā, Poho Tārewa, Pōpōtai Island, Pōrangahau River, Pōrangahau Stream, Pūkaroro Rock, Pūrākaunui Bay, Rākaunui Stream, Ruakākā Bay, Ruakākā River, Ruakākā Stream, Ruakākā Stream, South Ōhau River, Tāhunatōrea, Takapūneke, Take Kārara, Tāmihau Island, Tāneatua Stream, Taumatawhakatangihangakōauauotamateapōkaiwhenuakitānatahu (leave as longer signposted name), Taupō Stream, Taupō Stream, Taupō Swamp, Te Ākau Point, Te Ākau Point, Te Ākau Point, Te Ākau Stream, Te Ākau Stream, Te Hāpua Bay, Te Iringa-patu-pāraoa-o-Te-Rangitaurewa, Te Kōpuru Point, Te Kōwhai, Te Kurī, Te Mata Hāpuka, Te Whakatakanga-o-te-ngārehu-o-te-ahi-a-Tamatea, Te Whanga-a-Te-Kōkō, Tīmaru Redoubt, Tīmaru River, Tīmaru Stream, Tīmaru Stream, Tīrau, Tīrau Bay, Toitū, Tōrea Rocks, Tōrere River, Tōtara River, Tōtara River, Tūhua, Tūtaekurī River, Tūtaepāwhati Bay, Tūtakahikura, Waihī River, Waikōau River, Waikūkūpa River, Waipahī River, Waipātiki, Waipōhatu Stream, Waitāhuna River, Waitākere Ranges, Waitākere Reservoir, Waitākere Stream, Whakatāne River, Whakatāne Stream, Whakatīwai Stream, Whangamatā Harbour, Whangaparāoa Bay, Whangaparāoa Head, Whangaparāoa Passage, Whangaparāoa River, Whangārei Falls, Whangārei Harbour, Wharepūhunga, Whitiaka-te-rā

Completed Full text replacements

Below are the place names that have been changed in a full text search of all en main space pages --Onco p53 (talk) 05:53, 28 March 2020 (UTC): Waitākere Ranges,Waitākere Reservoir, Waitākere Stream, Ngongotahā, Te Atatū, Te Atatū Peninsula, Te Atatū South

Roll backs

Some pages are being reverted to the macron-free versions. For example, Lake Wānaka. Can anyone suggest some standard text to use when undoing these changes? Somej (talk) 00:03, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• Users noticed so far are Barney110 (talk · contribs) fuddle (talk · contribs), and anonymous

If it keeps happening, I'll semi-protect the page. Schwede66 00:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@Schwede66: Please do; just had another couple of anonymous edits to Lake Wānaka. Ironically, in the section talking about its Māori history... Somej (talk) 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@Somej: Well, that ping didn't work (check out H:PING: "But for the pings to go through successfully, you must sign the comment using four tildes.") but I eventually saw this on my watchlist (which I've somewhat neglected this weekend; big project keeping my otherwise occupied). I've semi-protected Lake Wānaka. Schwede66 07:56, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

How to update categories?

Would appreciate your collective guidance on how to update categories, such as Category:Taupō District Thanks Somej (talk) 00:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

You move it. But only if you are happy to then also re-categorise everything that is in that category, which is most easily done via HotCat. If you don't want to do so (for example because there's too much work in it), then I'd say just leave it. It's much less important than getting the public-facing things adjusted. Schwede66 01:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Dual names

Is there a policy yet on on dual names?

For example, should we move the Clutha River? Somej (talk) 01:06, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there is. You are on the talk page of the naming conventions and they deal with dual names. No, you would not move the Clutha River article. You have to demonstrate that the dual name is the common name, that will almost always be controversial, and therefore each and every one of them will have to go through a formal move request. Schwede66 02:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

there is a new request to move the Dart River to its dual name. You all may want to express your opinion there ... Somej (talk) 08:33, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

There is quite some discussion going on about dual names in the subsections below. What we, as an editing community, need to weigh up, is how language in New Zealand changes and how that links in with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. There are clearly divergent views on the issues and it does not appear that the back-and-forth will resolve things any time soon. Maybe what we'd need to consider is to start a formal WP:RfC just as we did with macron usage. Any thoughts on that thought? Schwede66 23:59, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea - I had been considering writing up a formal RfC for some time, but had never gotten around to it. I wonder if it's worth having someone less involved in it write the bulk of the request, so that it doesn't potentially lean one way or the other? Turnagra (talk) 04:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm totally fine with an RfC, and I'd been considering it myself from the moment I'd posted these threads. But I was under the impression that Turnagra—the only editor opposed at this point—was fine with the change as of this comment? I don't imagine we need to seek outsiders for neutrality, so I'm happy to write up an RfC as something neutral along the lines of:

Should we change wording from "dual name has usage beyond…" to "dual name has common usage beyond…"?

(Expanded somewhat for the actual writeup, obviously.)

Then we could have a brief pro and contra section, ideally with contra points written by you, Turnagra? If you are happy to write those up, I'm happy to put it all together. — HTGS (talk) 07:52, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

As I understand it, Schwede66 was talking about a wider conversation regarding the use of dual names, not the specific wording of the guidelines as they currently stand, in which case it would be a much wider discussion and potentially worth getting someone not involved thus far to contribute the guts of it. Could be wrong though. Turnagra (talk) 08:23, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh… ok, fair enough. So, just to be clear, are you cool with adding "common" back in at least for now? That way the RfC can be a whole big renovation, but at least we can move on from this really specific part of it. — HTGS (talk) 08:31, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Nah, not really - I'm happy with making changes to that area, but I think "common" is going to cause just as many issues and would prefer either something somewhere in the middle or something more prescribed. Turnagra (talk) 08:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

On article titles conforming to Common Name guidance

There is apparently disagreement over whether dual names should conform to standard Wikipedia policy on common names (see Turnagra’s recent reversion of my edit). I assume that the simple addition of the word “common” is the issue, and that the other edits to the copy and phrasing will be uncontroversial.

It is my understanding that dual names should only be used as article titles where they are also the common name for a place. I propose we clarify the guidance to support dual names only when they are also the common name. I admit I made my initial change based on 1) basic conformity with standard Wikipedia policy, which prefers common names and does not give preference to official names, 2) other conversations around this type of renaming elsewhere which seemed to follow this convention implicitly, even though the guidance does not support it, 3) Schwede66’s seemingly uncontroversial comment above and 4) that if the guidance is left as is, it implies the weird consequence that any public use of the official dual name whatsoever is enough to move a page (which basically requires we follow official names, again, against typical guidelines). I personally don’t see any reason a dual name should be treated any differently to other official names (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea or United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), but we should clearly discuss at this point. — HTGS (talk) 01:38, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

WP policy on common usage comes first: WPNZ guidelines come second - we should not waste time debating that point. What amounts to common usage is determined by RSS's. That creates a problem because there are very few around of the type we need to determine common usage. Most that are around are government related which for this debate makes them questionable RSS's (because they have to use the official name by law, whether it is commonly used or not). We should also give some consideration to the wp:recentism, especially in light of relatively new legislation and official name changes. Hard as it might be, we should try to ignore to a large extent the plethera of ingenious official names used in various ways by TVNZ presenters (TVNZ is publicly/govt owned - see its charter). To help fit the newly created official names into WP we have stressed the importance of 'NZ English' being the language varient we should use in NZ related articles (which is correct), and, it is often claimed, NZ English commonly uses these newly created official names, including newly changed spellings. How it is determined that NZ English commonly uses these new names and spellings should be determined by common used backed by RSS's, not by consensus, unless that consensus is backed on RSS's. Unfortunately, consensus is often reached by no more than what 'feels good' to a few editors. I think this is the background to the swathe of dual name changes throughout WP that you refer to. I think our NZ guidelines are well researched and generally sound in complying with WP policy but they are not perfect. What the solution to this problem is, I don't know. I am trying not to get drawn in to this debate yet again, but it sometimes is not easy. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:40, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• Okay, so I feel like I should clarify where I'm coming from with this. I'm not saying we just chuck WP:COMMONNAME out the window, I'm saying that we need to actually have a discussion around it as there are several issues which it brings up in turn.

1. Guidance for naming conventions explicitly says that they don't need to be bound by common name. Past move discussions have sought to also prove that dual names are also the common name, but strictly speaking there's no reason for this if we so choose. I outlined this earlier in the discussion on the WPNZ notice board, but briefly speaking the guidance on this says that naming conventions which do not use the common name "should not be adopted unless it produces clear benefits outweighing the use of common names; when it is, the article titles adopted should follow a neutral and common convention specific to that subject domain, and otherwise adhere to the general principles for titling articles on Wikipedia". I think that what's being proposed here isn't nearly as much of a departure as some of the conventions they're referring to, and the addition of a dual place name does fit the criteria of "clear benefits outweighing the use of the common name" - especially when, if we follow the assumption that the common name is one portion of the dual name (for the sake of this hypothetical), the article would still be clearly recognisable as that feature (eg. I doubt that anyone would think that Cape Reinga / Te Rerenga Wairua wasn't the right article if they were looking for Cape Reinga.)

2. NZ does not have a very high rate of coverage for these places on their own in most instances. Roger touched on this above, but even with some of the major features of New Zealand they're usually not mentioned enough to sufficiently establish common name, let alone minor features which seldom get mentioned outside of DOC tramping guides. For instance, with the move request on Cape Reinga / Te Rerenga Wairua they were most of the news articles I could find about the Cape full stop, and they dated back nearly a decade. While it's definitely possible to have enough sources for common name on something in a city (eg. Avon River / Ōtākaro), for more rural or less visited features that's almost impossible, and a requirement that there are sufficient sources to establish a common name would render it impossible to move these articles in most cases.

3. Most sources which do cover these places will be govt-affiliated in some sense. Building on point 2, in many cases the few sources which do mention a remote feature will almost always be government or otherwise official sources, such as DOC or GNS. This is made even worse if we follow the argument above that we should be excluding TVNZ (and by that logic, RNZ), since NZ also has so few media outlets. For the record, I think the two news sources should not be counted as official as, although they are government owned, they have sufficient independence and are not required to use official names - I don't think anyone would suggest that the BBC would count as an official source for these purposes despite being publicly owned. With regard to other sources, I'm not sure that these should be completely discounted. WP:PLACE#Widely accepted name has a wide range of sources which can be used to establish the use of a name, which includes government agencies. Our equivalent of the ones they mention is the NZGB Gazetteer, which routinely establishes the dual names and supports the case for them to be the article title.

4. Dual place names have become much more commonplace recently, and establishing this trend helps to support common name. Given the difficulty to find sources for many of the rural place names and the growing preference for use of the dual place names over older forms of the name in recent years, I think that establishing the trend of preference for dual place names should also apply. This is a similar rationale to the macron discussion above, where we didn't need to prove for every instance that the common name of every place used macrons, but rather that common usage had macrons. If we're able to establish that a hypothetical article about any given place is going to (or more likely to) use the dual name over older names then I think that should be sufficient for future shifts instead of having to litigate every single one.

Ultimately, I think that the challenges of NZ's environment and what the dual names represent mean that it'd be nigh-on impossible to actually prove common usage if we require such a high bar and exclude the only sources that are likely to mention a place. I think that dual names are either becoming or are already commonplace in NZ English and that this should be represented, but I also note that even if this isn't seen as the case by others that such a verdict does not actually preclude NZNC from still preferring a consistent approach to dual names given a set of criteria. Turnagra (talk) 01:04, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Frankly Turnagra, per your point 2, it reads like your only opposition to the explicit preference for common names is that it would make it harder to move some pages. This sounds like you're arguing with an agenda, and I strongly urge you to ensure you're working for the good of Wikipedia, and not just to push dual names even when they would be unhelpful and against the most basic Wikipedia policy (below). (Along these lines, whether we can prove which name is common is really not the point here.)

To the point of longstanding guidance, WP:CRITERIA has five different basic checks for naming an article, which help us form policy. Dual names always fail Naturalness and Conciseness and often fail, or at least do not often help with Recognizability and debatably fail Consistency (I imagine you might disagree on that point; and obviously dual names always improve Precision.)

The change I am recommending here is small: only the mere addition of the word "common", which you seem to agree(?) we already act on in most cases. This change would merely clarify for some editors that NCNZ still complies with WP:COMMONNAME, without need for lengthy arguments in move proposals. I honestly can't find any arguments in your above screed against this specific change; you seem most intent on proving that we could omit "common", but no reasons why we should. This reads to me like your rationale against this change is that you just like dual names more. — HTGS (talk) 06:38, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you took that from my point, and I feel like this is a good time to point out WP:AGF. My point is more that sources on many of the features with dual place names are going to be hard to come by at the best of times, and there would likely be instances where the feature does have common usage of the dual name without necessarily having sufficient sources to back that up if we set a requirement that's too high (or one which people assume requires a higher burden of proof).

With regard to your point about the criteria, I'd firstly point to the first sentence immediately below them: "These should be seen as goals, not as rules." Secondly, you're right in that I'd contest your view of consistency, as "similar articles" in this instance would be other NZ geographic features which would also have dual place names where that was appropriate. I'd also argue that dual names also help to meet both recognisability and naturalness, especially when places are increasingly being referred to in NZ by either their dual name or their Māori names only. The coverage of the 2019 eruption at Whakaari / White Island almost exlusively used either the dual name or Whakaari only, with White Island the option which is least likely to meet naturalness and also the least recognisable name. I'll concede that dual names fail conciseness in most cases, although there are some where this isn't much of an issue as the addition of the dual name isn't that much more, or is more concise than the old name (eg. Aoraki / Mount Cook, or "Estuary of the Heathcote and Avon Rivers / Ihutai"). With regards to conciseness, I think this is an instance where common sense could be applied - I'm not proposing that we change the Franz Josef Glacier article to "Franz Josef Glacier / Kā Roimata o Hine Hukatere".

As far as your accusation that I'm doing this just because I like dual place names, I'd like to point to when you opposed a move request because you're "just one of those people who doesn't like [dual names] to begin with". That aside, I genuinely think there is significant benefit for Wikipedia to make a shift towards dual place names, and that moving to such names would improve the accuracy and quality of the articles and those they connect with on the whole. I also note that you didn't actually address any of my points, rather made a strawman to attack instead and then talked about unrelated matters. Turnagra (talk) 09:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I do wish we could talk in person, as this is getting tedious. Yes, I do prefer Māori or English names over names with slashes in them. I also have valid reasons to back up that preference in the context of Wikipedia (see criteria above).

I'm not proposing that we change the Franz Josef Glacier article to "Franz Josef Glacier / Kā Roimata o Hine Hukatere".

Which leaves us to assume that we should move “Cape Reinga” to “Cape Reinga / Te Rerenga Wairua” based on… what? Turnagra’s authoritative preferences?

And I struggle to understand your conciseness argument whatsoever. What article titles are made shorter by the use of a slashed name?

To address your points seriously (though I’m pretty sure I wasn’t strawmanning):

1. No, we don’t have to use common names, but we should have good reasons not to. You don’t provide these reasons in point 1.

2. Yes, some places’ common names would be hard to establish based solely on written sources. This simply isn’t reason enough to drop the standard alone. Making a place hard to move isn’t a bad thing unless you have a personal preference for dual names.

3. More detail on the implementation of common names. I don’t feel that this is terribly consequential, but more worth considering once a common name standard is in place.

4. This honestly reads like an argument pro common names, except for the weird idea of “hypothetical articles”, which would frankly be impossible to resolve. (All my hypothetical articles never use dual names, while all of yours do.) Instead, maybe in these (exceedingly rare) cases we should use common sense, and avoid dual names which—I think you agree—are almost never used by real people in daily speech. — HTGS (talk) 23:15, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, this feels like we're talking past each other and would probably be on the same page if we were actually able to get past the disconnect. I think that with arguing the various points flying around, the overall discussion has just gotten muddled. I think ultimately the amount of guidance and policy around means that you can make a case either way and have it sufficiently backed up, and I don't think I'm going to convince you that dual place names are consistent with WP policy any more than you're likely to convince me they're not.

For clarity, my point with conciseness is that some dual place names make this worse than others. The addition of "Aoraki / " or "Rakiura / " to those respective articles still has their whole title coming in as shorter than Avon-Heathcote Estuary.

At any rate, I think fundamentally what this boils down to is the wording we use in the naming conventions. I feel like moving to common risks kicking the can down the road with future move requests, as we'll still be having the exact same long arguments as to whether the sources provided constitute common usage. I'm more than happy for the current wording to change as I agree that it's far too easy to meet at present. Perhaps if you agree we could try and reach a more productive compromise there? Turnagra (talk) 03:10, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@Turnagra: your points number 2 and 3 above are about cases where it's difficult to determine the common name because of a lack of (secondary/non-government) RS coverage. I wonder whether you and HTGS could at least agree that if there is sufficient coverage to determine a common name, then the dual name should be used only if it is the common name? Colin M (talk) 17:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

That was sort of what I was trying to get at above - if we're able to determine that a dual name is common then awesome, but common name shouldn't be a reason to not go for a dual name, especially when there's not much coverage of the topic. Turnagra (talk) 05:26, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear, would you also agree that if we're able to determine that the common name is something other than the dual name, then the article should go under that title, rather than the dual name? Colin M (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I think that's something we need to cover in the RFC. My personal view is that if we were to determine that the common name was part of the dual name (eg. if we decided that the common name of the Clutha River / Mata-Au was just the Clutha River, or the common name of Maungawhau / Mt Eden was just Maungawhau) then we should still consider the dual name as it's still recognisably that (eg. as opposed to something like Paul Hewson vs. Bono) if there are other benefits to doing so. If the name is completely different (ie. we decide the common name isn't part of the dual name at all) then it'd probably stay with the common name, yeah. Turnagra (talk) 10:21, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

On your first point, the only benefit of using dual place names is to avoid confusion with other articles, and there are other ways of doing that anyway. Regardless, just because "the article would still be clearly recognisable as that feature" isn't a reason in and of itself to change the name of an article.

On your second and third points, there needs to be evidence for the dual name to be in common usage outside of official sources. If there isn't enough evidence then the change doesn't occur as per WP:NCGN. Yes, this means that for rural or less visited areas it will be next to impossible to change the names. That's fine, because the goal of the guidelines is not to make it easy to change article names. Wikipedia defaults to the English name when it can't be proven another name is in common usage, so if there is insignificant documentation that does not mean the guidelines need to change, it means that the name of the article does not change.

The problem with using news articles as sources is that they basically use dual names regardless. It's not an example of common usage if they change to using the dual name right after the official name changes, or if they use the dual name because it's official policy.

Just because dual names have become more commonplace or there is a trend to use them more does not mean the article title changes. Wikipedia does not reflect trends towards what might become common usage in the future, it reflects what is common usage right now. WP:RECENTISM is relevant here.

Finally, comments like "establishing this trend helps to support common name" and "dual names are either becoming or are already commonplace in NZ English and that this should be represented" is covered by WP:NOTADVOCACY. Wikipedia is not a means of promoting dual names. Our opinions on the usage of dual names are irrelevant; what matters is proving common usage. If that means that it's nigh-on impossible to change the name of an article then that's fine, because that's basically the point of all the guidelines like WP:NOTADVOCACY. Spekkios (talk) 23:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Newspapers, radio, and magazines are reliable sources for determining common usage. They don't "basically use dual names"; they tend to lag behind official usage, sometimes years behind, and a few haven't changed at all. If "official sources" don't count as reliable, and the independent media don't count as reliable, what reliable sources are we left with to determine common usage? —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 01:14, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

What I was trying to say wasn't that they aren't reliable sources, but that they shouldn't automatically be an example of common use unless they have been using the dual name for a long time. A newspaper suddenly switching to a dual name doesn't show common usage. Spekkios (talk) 23:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Say that the newspaper announces that it will now consistently use dual names. That's happened for quite a few outlets with regards to macron use; they said they'd do it from now on and that's what they've done ever since. Hence, suddenly switching can show common use. Schwede66 00:37, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how a newspaper announcing they will use dual names shows common use. If anything, the need to make an anouncement about what names to use shows that the dual name isn't in common use because if it was commonly used, there wouldn't be any need to announce it. It could show that the dual name might be common use in the future, but that is in the future and not the present. Spekkios (talk) 02:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Just as an aside, dual names are the English name - they're a single name, it's not a case of recognising something's official name in English and its official name in Te Reo, it's changing the English name to include the original Māori name as part of it. So if we default to the English name, then that should be a mark in favour of changing to the dual name.

As to your other points, having spent a decent amount of time looking at dual place name usage in the media I can confirm that they absolutely do not use dual names across the board as a matter of course, nor do they blindly follow official name usage - a simple look at the number of references to the Beehive as opposed to the Executive Wing should highlight that. You've mentioned WP:RECENTISM, but I feel like WP:NAMECHANGES is more pertinent - if the name of something changes then sources after that change refer to the new name instead, then those are given extra weight. So your example of a newspaper switching to a dual name after such a change is made would actually be an excellent way to demonstrate that the common name has changed and that WP should also change the name of the article. Turnagra (talk) 10:12, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

As I've realised I never responded to this: in response to your aside, dual names are not the English name - it's a dual name, as in, dual English and Maori name. Which, given this is an English-language encyclopedia, has an obvious conclusion attached to that fact.

Further, the newspaper example doesn't show common use. While recent sources are given more weight there is still some time that needs to pass until we can reliably state that the name used in that paper is actually commonly used. Spekkios (talk) 04:21, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Newspapers, radio and other media can be used as RSS's. However, if their independence is tarnished by having to follow a legal or govt directive then they are not independent enough and should therefore not be used as RSS's. In our case that removes very many otherwise reliable sources, including, I suggest, local council run or funded museums. That leaves us with sources such as Fairfax and other companies that use a name. However, I would treat those sources also with care because their use of a given name or word is bound primarily with what is in the best interest of the company's shareholders, not by what is common usage. To give a trivial example, the doorrs to the toilets in Macdonalds restaurants very often show the Maori name for male or female plus a body image. No right minded person would say the Maori word for Ladies/Women is in any way common usage: it is simply a marketing ploy. Therefore, common sense says we disregard that as a RSS. Fairfax and others will not be a blatantly obvious as Macdonalds but the point is still that we should handle with care. What then are we left with as RSS's? Good old academic publications and some other clearly independent quality publications. Yes, that does leave us with the problem of not being able to double name very many places in NZ, especially smaller or more rural places. Well, so be it! I will however say that if a name change has occurred, such as single names becoming double, we should give additional weight to RSS's published after that name change - see [4]. The other factor we need to take into account is commonsense and I feel that has often been overlooked by us. There looks to have been armies of busy bees going around changing every place name and spelling they come across that does not follow to the letter some sort of recent official change, or worse still any hint of ambiguity raised by any official body. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:40, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I would like to understand this proposal better. It appears that it says that "common usage" is unreliable, as it may be:

• biased by mainstream media who follow government directives
• biased by corporates who follow the best interests of their shareholders
• biased by companies using "marketing ploys"
• biased by people whose choice of words are influenced by "some sort of official change"

Presumably these biases mean that Google trends of word usage in mainstream media are no longer a reliable measure of common usage. To compensate for the bias in published texts, it is proposed that Wikipedia edits should now rely on the concept of "common sense".

If this is a correct summary of the proposal - and please comment if it is not - to which Wikipedia policy can editors refer that explains when and how common sense should be given priority over common usage as previously measured? Somej (talk) 08:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

The term 'biased' is yours, repeated several times. That word or anything similar was not mentioned by me. You would be well advised to read, and understand, what people write before lunging into a blinkered rant that comes very close to a personal attack, but most certainly is a failure to assume good faith.

• Companies (including Fairfax=mainstream media) - treat with care, I wrote. Yes, as every editor should do with every source anywhere and about anything. Owing to the way newspaper articles are written it is particularly easy to misuse what is written, something which has nothing to do with the quality of that media source itself.
• Corporates=companies, who act in the best interests of their shareholders. Yes, they do. This should be a consideration when using what is written by a company as a source, just as we should give due consideration to any source.
• Companies using marketing ploys=techniques - Yes, they do. Any company not doing so won't last long and in some cases the directors may be liable under the Companies Act, Securities Act or other legislation. If you do not understand the importance placed by parliament on the obligations of companies to act in the best interests of their shareholders and within the law, have a word with Sir Doug Graham. Marketing techniques have nothing to do with common usage, unless any given marketing technique amounts to common usage. Whether independent newspaper spellings are marketing ploys or genuine reflections of common usage is irrelevant: by their widespread use in society they can be regarded as evidence of common usage unless there is evidence to question their independence, hence their reliablity as RSSs. This is no different from how wikipedia wants editors to view any source.
• That official names are not necessarily evidence of common usage is well established in Wikipedia: I won't waste time elaborating further. Any source that is obliged to give an official name cannot be viewed as truly independent regarding any specific name, making its use as an independent RSS questionable, with regard to that common name. However, if there is enough circulation of that official spelling then it creates weight of its own, much like with newspaper spellings. It is also important to add weight to recently changed names, as I pointed out by linking to [this, which you seem to have overlooked.
• I will quote (bolding is mine) from the link I supplied: "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We do not know what terms or names will be used in the future, but only what is and has been in use, and is therefore familiar to our readers. However, common sense can be applied – if the subject of an article has a name change, it is reasonable to consider the usage following the change in reliable, English-language sources." That, a WP policy, is where I got the term from. Why not criticise WP policies rather than editors who repeat them?

So, was your post a true summary of what I wrote? In a word, no. You have invented words, veered tangentially off topic, not read, or worse still not understood, what was written, and have not provided any constructive opinion on the points I actually did raise (and others have not infrequently over time also raised). This topic deserves a better quality of debate. I hope we can get back on course. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:22, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

(quick side note here: I've updated some of the indenting since it changed half way through your message, but haven't altered any of the content - hope that's okay!) Turnagra (talk) 10:12, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

The term "bias" was used in the sense of Sampling bias - as it appears that your argument is that sampling from various sources is not a true measure of "common usage". If that is not the case - and you say that my paraphrase is not a true summary of what you wrote - then yes, I am struggling to assume good faith. I think you lost me when you said that MacDonalds' use of te reo was a marketing ploy. Somej (talk) 00:19, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure I fully follow the "marketing ploy" reasoning either. Is the suggestion that news organisations like Fairfax and NZME may be using dual names because the use of te reo may sell more papers? Apologies if I am being dim here and missing the point, but wouldn't that be an indication that their readers are using the dual names? The use of te reo in marketing is unlikely to be worthwhile unless the target audience has some familiarity with or interest in te reo.

Therefore, if articles from different independent media organisations are regularly using a dual name, doesn't that demonstrate common usage of the dual name...? Chocmilk03 (talk) 01:04, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Realistically, a paper may well speak to a readership that isn’t the average person, and use names that aren’t in common use. (Remember that the NYTimes has a readership with an average income of 191K USD.) It is entirely possible for a reliable news org to not use the same language as most of the people from the place. In saying that, I really don’t like much of Roger 8 Roger’s line of reasoning here. That a reliable news org might be using Te Reo to be “hip”, or “PC”, is not evidence that they are no longer a RSS, for instance.

But I think there is a point about whether the true common name, as used by the people who commonly talk about a place, necessarily correlates to the name used by news and written media. It’s even easier for written media to call it Cape Reinga / Te Rerenga Wairua when they’re not saying it out loud in conversation every day. Unfortunately, I don’t see a great way around this, because the rest of the time this problem comes up, elsewhere on Wikipedia, we just use common sense and the name stays as most people understand it , but as Roger points out, a small group of editors (two or three) have taken it upon themselves to move these articles, ignoring the guidance at Wikipedia:Official names. Thus here we are.

Personally, I dislike that we have been determining common names solely on usage by the media, but I really don’t think there’s any great alternative, so I tend to just go with it. It’s also the case that if every paper is using X name, that that’s support for X’s recognisability, for readers who are curious about a topic they’re reading in the news. — HTGS (talk) 21:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I get your point about how media may not necessarily represent usage "on the ground" as it were - first thing that came to mind is how UK media will refer to Myanmar despite most in the UK calling it Burma, which isn't really a proper comparison but oh well. I also feel like NZ's propensity to shorten things could risk causing issues (eg. you could probably try and argue that the Waimakariri River's common name is "the Waimak" if going by local usage). Like you, I'm also not a fan of the reliance on the media in determining it, which is partially what I wanted to try and address earlier in the year - though this is where we run into the lack of sufficient alternate sources if we keep striking off things to use, which defeats the entire purpose.

On another note, I'm not a fan of the repeated mischaracterisations of those in favour of dual place names - if anything, it's a small group opposed to the moves and the majority of editors have been in favour of them. I'm more than happy to try and have a proper discussion around the use of dual place names on wikipedia, but only if it's done in good faith and with the willingness to actually budge on things should that be the outcome. Other arguments in this recent discussion have seemed to be the opposite of this, and instead of seeking a common view have gone further apart and sought to exclude even more sources, basically attempting to rule everything out of consideration in the process - something which would just make the whole process a farce. Turnagra (talk) 10:12, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for not checking the exact policy/guideline wording, but I think the common usage rule is 'common usage as determined by RSSs,' which would remove the problem of common usage as determined by the man in the street. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:23, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I think it is worth adding a subclause to the dual name guidelines containing an exception to the naming rules for when the dual name is the common name, such as with Matiu/Somes Island, where I've proposed moving the page. I'd welcome people to voice their specific opinions there, but I think it wise to have a general guideline. I'd propose changing the text to something along the lines of this:

Dual names consist of an English name and a Māori name separated by a slash, e.g. Mayor Island / Tuhua. The dual form must be used in official documents, but otherwise people are free to use the English name, the Māori name or the dual form. Dual names are seldom, if ever, used in speech, but their use in written communication is gaining acceptance. The slash should be spaced, unless the dual name itself is the WP:COMMONNAME. Note that some early dual names used an English (Māori) River format. Many, but not all, of these have since been renamed to the slash format. Article titles that include a slash should be listed at Wikipedia:Articles with slashes in title#Dual place names in New Zealand to help distinguish them from subpages.

Thanks for your time. YttriumShrew (talk) 22:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Whoops, I probably should have looked at the recently-closed RfC. Anyway, I do think it necessary to include an exception for place names like Matiu/Somes, where the dual name is the common name. Hardly anyone refers to "the Clutha River/Mata-Au", whereas most people would refer to "Matiu/Somes Island". YttriumShrew (talk) 23:07, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

What constitutes a dual name

When making decisions about whether a dual name is in common use, there is also some disagreement about what constitutes a dual name (see discussion at Cape Reinga). I personally don’t think that articles which alternate between the two names (including examples like “Cape Reinga, or Te Rerenga Wairua”), or use a comma or parentheses are realistically using the dual name, but I am open to the argument that forms that use a slash without spaces, a hyphen (or dash), or a slash with reversed order are examples of a dual name.

Again, Turnagra and I clearly disagree on this point, which is why I raise the issue here, so that if we can come to a consensus, NCNZ guidance will reflect best practice, and we can avoid lengthy discussion on any given name change proposal. — HTGS (talk) 01:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• No dual names unless the dual name is a common name - Many places in the world, and indeed many things (e.g., aubergine v eggplant) are known under different names. Typically the different names depend on a particular POV (e.g., Londonderry v Derry). Slashificating names because there is another name that is less commonly used than the prime name is simply opening a massive can of worms regarding POV, confusing the reader, making names less concise etc. etc. etc. FOARP (talk) 09:11, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

You seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding what a dual name is. This isn't an instance of both names being acceptable (eg. both Milford Sound and Piopiotahi being official names), but rather the official name being the full dual name (eg. Milford Sound / Piopiotahi). In practice it may manifest itself as either name being used interchangeably, but it's completely different as a concept to both of the examples you mention. Turnagra (talk) 10:33, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Like I said, if the slashed name is the common name, then use it, but if isn’t then don’t. I am merely explaining why we don’t used slashed names simply because there are two variants of a name. FOARP (talk) 09:20, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

This isn't an instance of them being two variants though, as I've said. We're not saying "this feature is known as either Aoraki on its own or Mount Cook on its own", we're saying "this feature is known as 'Aoraki / Mount Cook'". It's one full name on its own, with later references potentially shortening it to one or the other in the same way that articles for people will shorten it to one of their names (eg. how Bill Clinton is referred to as "Clinton" in his article after the subject is established). Turnagra (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

You can keep repeating this as though I don't understand it, but I totally do: I just don't think think it trumps our well-establish common-name policy. You still have to show that the slashed name/parenthesised name is the common name that people actually use to describe the subject. If actually the majority of sources don't bother with it (or simply mention it in passing as an official name before continuing with the un-slashed name) then there's no reason why we should use it here. FOARP (talk) 09:20, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay, that's all good - the examples you were giving made me think that you were seeing this as though I was trying to name the article "Londonderry / Derry". Obviously I disagree on the common name thing being strictly necessary (though absolutely a good thing to have where possible) but at least we're on the same page now! Turnagra (talk) 10:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

• On the question of what constitutes a dual name, I think the first thing that's worth mentioning is that a lot of dual place names use parentheses in the official name (see, for example, Lake Ellesmere (Te Waihora), Great Mercury Island (Ahuahu) or Blumine Island (Oruawairua).) Generally in these cases we'll have the respective article use a slash with a space for consistency (eg. Lake Ellesmere / Te Waihora), but sources tend to refer to it with the formatting of the official name. This was the original orthography for dual names before the slash was adopted in around the 1990s, and so there's still a bit of inconsistency - especially in cases where a source predates an official name. There are some cases where a feature had a place name using parentheses before being given the current official name, such as Cape Reinga (Te Rerengawairua) prior to Cape Reinga / Te Rerenga Wairua. As such, I think that there's no question on whether parentheses should be included as a dual name.

I do get where you're coming from where there is a word divider (eg. "Cape Reinga, or Te Rerenga Wairua") - I think instances which use something like this can support the commonality of a dual name, but they can't be justification on their own. Just using commas is a bit more ambiguous in my view - I can see why you would exclude them, but I think in most instances it's still being used in a manner which would treat the whole thing as a dual name and should be counted - or, at the very least, comma use should be contextual.

I think a table might be best to sum up my take:

Should it be considered a dual name?

Divider	Example	Verdict
Slash w/ spaces	Milford Sound / Piopiotahi	Absolutely
Slash w/o spaces	Aoraki/Mount Cook	Absolutely
Parentheses	Lake Ellesmere (Te Waihora)	Absolutely
Dash	Cape Reinga - Te Rerenga Wairua	Absolutely
Comma	Rakiura, Stewart Island	Depends on Context, but usually
Words	Avon River, or Ōtākaro	Can support, but not on its own

I've run out of time to comment on the first part tonight, but I'll try to follow up with that over the weekend. Turnagra (talk) 10:33, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Turnagra, do you agree that what is or is not the official name of a place, whether it's dual or not, is almost irrelevant to what we should use on wikipedia? I ask this somewhat rhetorical question because you are quite clearly ignoring the 'common usage' policy. Why not visit the Uruguay article and get that country's name changed wherever it occurs from Uruguay to Oriental Republic of Uruguay because that, after all, is its official name? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 13:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

First of all, I don't appreciate the vaguely personal attack or the strawman you've used here. Secondly, I don't agree that, as the relevance of the official name has been stated quite a few times in move discussions - for arguments on both sides. The move request for Browns Island (Motukorea) was opposed, despite proving common usage of the name, because the island didn't officially have a dual name (sidenote: Browns Island (Motukorea) is the only name listed for the island, and it is one of the many features that has no official name at all.) Clearly the official name has some bearing. Turnagra (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I was not part of the Browns Island debate and would prefer to let that be. No personal attack intended and I am sorry if that is how my post appears or was taken by you. You have not really answered the question about the primacy of wiki policy (eg common name) over wiki guidelines. Yes, I know that names are being changed everywhere in NZ articles, often after considerable debate, but that is not the point. Online debates, consensus and so on do not surpass wiki policy. As a brief aside, relating to common usage, and based on what you said on the Browns Island talkpage, I am a little bemused at why you think Christchurch should be refered to in wiki articles as Otautahi? In my view, that is the sort of thing that..., well, I'll leave it there. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks - I had answered the second part first as it was late and that was the easier bit to address, I've added my response to the first bit now. As far as my point about Ōtautahi goes, that was more a thing around preference than anything - I don't actually think that Christchurch should be referred to as Ōtautahi on Wikipedia outside of the standard usage of Māori names for cities, I was just responding to the comment around how the other user said they just didn't like dual names, which I argued shouldn't come into it with the point that if we can base these decisions on what we like more then we might as well be able to use Ōtautahi by the same logic. Turnagra (talk) 01:04, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

As an aside, I think it is worth notifying the participants in the previous discussion on the WPNZ Noticeboard in case they wish to contribute (User:Spekkios, User:Chocmilk03, User:Somej, User:Stuartyeates, User:NZFC, User:Lcmortensen, User:Giantflightlessbirds, and User:ShakyIsles. Turnagra (talk) 01:20, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I would recommend that you are at least consistent with the double naming as stipulated in the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998. These places have received their names since 1998, it's time to move along and close at least those discussions. Gryffindor (talk) 09:01, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

The settlement act does not govern Wikipedia policy. Official names, as per the above discussion, are not sufficient to change an article name. There is nothing to "move on" from or to; that is not how this site works. Spekkios (talk) 09:41, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Does a consensus for the section "Dual and alternative place names" exist?

I've come across a couple of RM's recently that proposed introducing a dual name for a New Zealand place. Sometimes this is based on the standard COMMONNAME policy, but there have been other arguments stating that any use outside official sources is sufficient, per a reading of this naming convention.

This naming convention seemed a little odd to me; it is a little ambiguous, and under the reading that some editors ascribe to it, it deviates significantly from all other naming policy, both in its preference towards the use of dual names and away from the use of commonname. As such, I looked into the history of that aspect of the convention; it was added in February 2011 following a brief discussion between two editors in November 2010.

To me, two editors does not seem sufficient for the entry to reflect the consensus of the community; was there a discussion on this that I have been unable to find, or should we open a broader RFC now in order to determine whether this aspect of the guideline is in line with consensus? I notice that there has been a discussion above about opening a new RFC, but here I am seeking to determine if this was added with or without consensus. BilledMammal (talk) 04:59, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

• Dual place names and the NZ naming conventions have definitely been the subject of a fair bit of discussion of late - see also this discussion as well as the one above. I think the issue we've had is that there are a couple of passionate people on both sides (myself one of them) who cause any discussion to quickly balloon, dissuading less invested users from weighing in and causing the discussion to get out of control and quickly stagnate. With that said, I think that - from a read of those discussions - there have been more users in favour of dual name use than opposed - which, along with the track record of successful move requests to dual place names and the variety of different users in support of these moves, is enough to indicate that there's a rough consensus within WPNZ in favour of dual place name use and aligning with the conventions.

I'll absolutely concede that the wording in this aspect of the conventions isn't great, and has probably led to a lot of the disputes that have arisen. I've been keen to try and write up an RfC on the dual name policy for a while (in a similar vein to the macron discussion above), but I haven't found myself with the time to do so yet. I think the bit causing the most grief is determining what constitutes "usage beyond mandatory official usage" as this is pretty vague. There are secondary questions as well, such as whether official sources should be excluded at all, given that they're all that will exist in some instances - especially for features in the back country. But the prevalence of where the bar is set has meant that we haven't even been able to touch those yet.

All up, I think that even if the original addition was limited in scope, actions since have demonstrated a reasonably wide consensus within most of WPNZ for dual place names - but the wording could absolutely be amended to clear things up and make it smoother. Turnagra (talk) 05:48, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for providing that notice board discussion, but even there is seems that people are relying on the assumption that this policy was generated through consensus, rather than actually establishing consensus for it (eg, Consensus is also a Wikipedia policy and through consensus, Wiki Project NZ came up with NCNZ to use as a guideline for NZ related articles and the use of certain names over the use of the site wide Commom name.). This leads me to your third paragraph; while the actions might have followed the text of the guideline, I don't believe this establishes a consensus for the guideline - we tend to follow guidelines and policies that we would not otherwise support, on the basis that we believe there is a consensus for them and that consensus overrules our personal opinion (I for one believe we should use the preferred local date format for all articles, rather than just Anglo-sphere articles). I will also note that I don't believe, based on the depreciation of various subject-specific notability guidelines, that a Wikipedia project can establish policy or guideline without broad consultation.

Overall, given that it seems there was no formal discussion on whether this aspect of the policy should exist, I believe any such RFC should both cover whether that section of the guideline should exist, and what its wording should be. Given your time constraints, I will come up with a draft RFC to this end that we can then discuss, along with any other interested editors, before formally posting it. BilledMammal (talk) 06:18, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

• Again, Turnagra, you’re being disingenuous. In the discussion above, you were the only editor explicitly opposed to clarifying/adding the common name requirement, while at least three (maybe four) of us were explicitly supportive of the change. I was hardly the only editor trying to work with you to find a solution, but you have been dogmatic. In theory, the discussion could have been closed with consensus long ago, but I was trying to be politick. It’s probably most telling that while the rest of us want to find a clear policy, you are still talking in terms of who is “in favour of dual name use” as though it’s as simple as we use dual names or we don’t. — HTGS (talk) 10:41, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

• I'm sorry if it comes across that way, I'm not intending to be disingenuous at all. There were other users which expressed concerns about the proposal in that specific discussion, and looking at a single discussion instead of the various which have taken place doesn't really paint the whole picture. As I've said previously, I'm absolutely open to changing the wording of the convention, but some of the proposals which have been made seem to be intent on setting the bar so high that it would be impossible to ever change an article (eg. not being able to use media or anything that receives govt funding as a source?).

As far as your comment that I describe it as whether we should use the dual names or not, I appreciate that it's more nuanced than that but based on the current policy I don't know whether it would end up different. You've previously said that you'd prefer we didn't use dual names at all and I've yet to see any evidence that you'd be in favour of supporting a dual name even if it was clearly the common name.

I think my issues with these discussions in the past - and indeed this one to some extent - is that they always end up coming in in the middle of move requests and inevitably derail that process. The undiscussed addition of 'common' which prompted the last discussion felt like an attempt to shift the goalposts in the middle of the move request for Cape Reinga / Te Rerenga Wairua, and now that the current move requests have gained support in recent days this feels as though it too is intended to stop those from proceeding. I totally get that this is in all likelihood completely unintentional, and I'm trying my best to adhere to WP:AGF, but hope this gives context to why I'm perhaps more defensive given the timing of such proposals. As mentioned before, I'd be keen to try and have a chat with you at some point to work through the specific issues and try to get on the same page about it, since I feel like a lot of these have resulted in us talking past each other. Turnagra (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I've split this section in two to be clearer about the discussion on consensus and the RfC proposal. Spekkios (talk) 11:08, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Dual name draft RfC proposal

RFC Draft Proposal; collapsed for readability

Proposed RFC: Should the guideline page Wikipedia:Naming conventions (New Zealand) include the guidance on the use of dual names beyond Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Multiple local names and if so, what form should the guidance take? Specific options are provided below. 06:55, 25 September 2021 (UTC) A: Dual names. If there are sources that indicate that a dual name has usage beyond mandatory official usage, put the article at the dual name, with redirects from each of the component names. The redirects may require disambiguation, but it is highly unlikely that the dual name will be ambiguous. The date of renaming should be noted and sourced in the article. Links to the article need not use the dual name unless it is appropriate, and the dual name should not be used where historically inaccurate (e.g. a historical reference before the renaming). If sources do not support use of the dual name, the English name will almost certainly be the one in common usage. B: Dual names. If there are sources that indicate that a dual name has common usage beyond mandatory official usage, put the article at the dual name, with redirects from each of the component names. The redirects may require disambiguation, but it is highly unlikely that the dual name will be ambiguous. The date of renaming should be noted and sourced in the article. Links to the article need not use the dual name unless it is appropriate, and the dual name should not be used where historically inaccurate (e.g. a historical reference before the renaming). If sources do not support use of the dual name, the English name will almost certainly be the one in common usage. C: Dual names. Dual names should follow the guidance at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Multiple local names. Links to the article need not use the dual name unless it is appropriate, and the dual name should not be used where historically inaccurate (e.g. a historical reference before the renaming). D: Specific guidance for New Zealand dual names is not required. Additional information: A currently exists in the article, but it is unclear whether there is an existing consensus for it; it was added in February 2011 to the guideline after a discussion between two editors in November 2010. Since then, it has mostly passed without notice, but earlier this year it sparked discussion, and following the nomination of a number of RM's under this section of the guideline is has expanded beyond WikiProject NZ, with two discussions on the talk page of the guidelines; one and two. B adds the qualifier "common" to usage, while otherwise remaining the same as A. C directs users to the broader guidelines on these topics, while providing some guidance on the use of the dual name in other articles. D suggests no guidance is required, and that editors should defer to broader guidelines where appropriate. It should also be noted that the other paragraphs within "Dual and alternative place names" lack formal consensus, but for the purpose of simplifying the RfC, and because the other paragraphs have little to no impact on decisions, they are not under consideration here. 06:55, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Above is the proposed RfC; I have no real attachment to B and C as options; B is based on the above discussion, while C is a logical step between B and D. I do believe that A, as the current version, and D, as the standard starting point for the addition of guidelines or policies, should be included. Please comment if you believe any of the options should be changed, or if you believe any of the broader text should be changed. BilledMammal (talk) 06:55, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I think any RfC must be kept short and sweet so its meaning and intent are easily understood straightaway. Unless that happens editors will turn off, misinterpret, or both. We have a problem in that the relevant legislation and its implementation is not as succinct as we might want it to be, but that is a hurdle we will just have to overcome somehow. I think the current worldwide wiki guidelines that cover multiple names, [[5]], are pretty good and we could do worse than to follow them. I think they can be applied to the New Zealand situation with very few, if any, adaptions. I feel we are making this out to be more of a problem than it really is. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:44, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

You make a good point about conciseness; to that end, I am thinking we should replace B and C with E as proposed by User:Spekkios? Incidentally, I would agree that current RM's should be paused while this is under discussion, though I am not aware of any process by which this could happen. BilledMammal (talk) 10:30, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

As I briefly mentioned above, I think the current move requests should continue under the current guidelines for now. It will be easy enough to re-address them at a later stage if need be, and it would be much more work to go through the exact same discussions again in the future in the event that the guidelines stay largely similar. Turnagra (talk) 10:40, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I think B and C are fine options, but including only the first sentence of A and B would cut down on a lot of length. The question is presumably still the simple one that I suggested earlier in the year.

As an outsider to any topic, I far prefer when an RFC’s dispute or discussion is clearly framed and concisely written. — HTGS (talk) 10:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

PS, BilledMammal: If you’ve noted this discussion on the relevant pages, any potential RM closer can decide for themselves whether any decision needs to be held off till the RFC is closed. — HTGS (talk) 10:53, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree that we're making it out to be more of an issue than it is, and I'd be keen to sit down with anyone to try and talk over the dual name use to find out and address concerns etc. - especially since opposition to dual names is largely limited to a few people. I also still maintain that "Multiple local names" is a bit of a red herring, since that guideline seems to deal more with instances where there are two separate and standalone names that are competing, often with political connotations (eg. Londonderry vs Derry) which isn't the case with dual names. Turnagra (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Proposed addition to the RfC options:

I'll preface this by saying that I wrote most of this in response to the original comment by @BilledMammal:. I've edited it to better reflect the title of my post but keep it mind that I started writing it before the additional responses.

Here are the current move requests for reference.

It is my opinion that there is a very strong overuse of WP:NCNZ while ignoring other conventions, such as WP:NC which WP:NCNZ is supplementary to. WP:NCNZ does not override any other convention or guidelines (as is true for anything on Wikipedia). Because of that, there are other guidelines, conventions, and other material that is simply ignored such as:

• WP:OFFICIALNAMES: Wikipedia does not use the official name of something unless the official name is the common name. Therefore, an article title should not be changed simply because it is the official name.
• WP:COMMONNAME: The article title must be the common name amongst a significant majority of English language sources, which leads to:
• WP:ENGLISH: Use the English name over another language name, even if the English name is not official or never used in that language. See Germany over Deutschland, Rome over Roma and many other examples besides. Note that WP:UEIA is extremely relevant here.
• Keeping in mind the above, especially use English, we can look at WP:CRITERIA to find five policies on article names, which are:

• Recognisability
• Consistency
• Precision

The final two are in my opinion two policies that are extremely important in these cases, with emphasis placed on critical components.

• Naturalness: The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English. If we use some of the current move requests as examples, I highly doubt an English speaker would actually look or search for Southern Alps / Kā Tiritiri o te Moana over just Southern Alps, or Franz Josef Glacier / Kā Roimata o Hine Hukatere over Franz Josef Glacier, or Fox Glacier / Te Moeka o Tuawe over Fox Glacier. The link to those talk pages is at the top of my comment if someone wishes to add to the discussion on those or any other name changes.
• Concision: The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. WP:CONCISE gives us names like United Kingdom over United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Germany over Federal Republic of Germany, and Uruguay over Oriental Republic of Uruguay. I won't copy and paste what I said for Naturalness; I think it's quite clear my opinion on how that policy would apply, and this isn't the talk page for those move requests and I don't want to turn this into a discussion about them.

Moving on from the above, we finally have:

• Multiple local names which gives the convention on when multiple local names exist: use the English name.

In addition, there are multiple other policies that need to be kept in mind especially for moving New Zealand article titles. I don't think they have been relevant recently, but they are still relevant for move requests and voicing support or opposition. They are:

• WP:NOTADVOCACY: Wikipedia is not a venue for raising the visibility of an issue or agenda.
• WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS: We can record the righting of great wrongs, but we can't ride the crest of the wave.

With the above in mind, and to avoid confusion and future debate, I really do think that if we are going to have it, we need to be specific with the dual name guideline, meaning I think we should include links to some of the above policies and guidelines. I therefore propose another option which I will call E for now. E would be something similar to, or as the following:

E: Dual names: If there are a majority of sources that indicate that a dual name has common usage beyond mandatory official usage, put the article at the dual name, with redirects from each of the component names. The redirects may require disambiguation, but it is highly unlikely that the dual name will be ambiguous. The date of renaming should be noted and sourced in the article. Links to the article need not use the dual name unless it is appropriate, and the dual name should not be used where historically inaccurate (e.g. a historical reference before the renaming). If sources do not support use of the dual name, the English name will almost certainly be the one in common usage.

Please note: This guideline supplements and is to be used in conjunction with other Wikipedia policies and guidelines, which include, but are not limited to: WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CRITERIA, and WP:ENGLISH. For further information, please see WP:NC. There is also a te reo Māori Wikipedia, which may be more appropriate for the Māori portion of the dual name.

All that being said, I do think that the dual name guidelines aren't needed per se, as current policies are guidelines are enough. The only reason we would need one is to clear up confusion, be specific, and stop pointless debates that are against policies and guidelines before they start.

As I final note, I recommend that we pause all article changes until this RfC has been closed. Spekkios (talk) 08:45, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not going to respond to the points that you raised generally (since that risks preemptively getting into the argument at hand), but on the subject of the article changes I think that the current batch should continue through the current process under the current guidelines and then, if need be, we can re-examine them should the guidelines change. This process could take a while, and pausing them all now just means that we'd need to go through the whole process again at a later date, wasting everyone's time.

Also, on an unrelated note, I wonder if it would make better sense to move your section below the proposed RfC for readability purposes? Turnagra (talk) 10:40, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I think it would be best to pause as there is clearly disagreement on the guidelines.

On your second point I do agree with you; I'll go further and split the two discussions to be clear on the discussion about consensus and the RfC draft. That should keep everything clean. Spekkios (talk) 11:10, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Comment on RfC proposal I think we'll need to have some form of guidance in the convention regardless of how strong we want to be on dual names (for lack of a better phrase), simply because of dual names consisting of a slash that goes against typical Wikipedia article guidance. In instances where there is no question at all around the use of the dual name (eg. Aoraki / Mount Cook or Whakaari / White Island), the lack of there being guidance would mean that these would need to move to a less specific name that's out of step with usage everywhere else. Obviously not all dual names are at the same level as these examples in terms of widespread use, so the question would be more in terms of what we'd want the guidance around these to be.

I think the proposed options still contain a few issues which have been behind the recent discussions - if we're looking at taking another pass at the guidelines, it could be good to resolve these at the same time and incorporate new wording into the guidelines. Mainly, these are:

• What constitutes "usage beyond mandatory official usage"? As it currently reads, one source should be sufficient to change it, which obviously isn't sufficient to move a place name. I think it would be good to at the very least have an additional paragraph which outlines what sort of bar this should be, noting that flexibility would be needed given the different level of attention to places (the Clutha River / Mata-Au has quite a few more sources, say, than Browning Pass / Nōti Raureka.)
• Should official sources be excluded? This goes contrary to other wikipedia guidelines (such as WP:WIAN) and makes finding sources to support any name for some features extremely difficult. I think ideally it would be a case where they can be considered but they shouldn't form the entire basis for the decision.
• Preference to the English name in absence of a dual name - this is the last sentence of the dual name convention and could probably stand to be removed altogether. Many places have Māori names by default instead of English names, and some articles (especially the volcanoes of Auckland) use the Māori name over the English name or a dual name (eg. Motukorea and Maungawhau).

As mentioned above, I think the link to the 'multiple local names' convention is a red herring since that tends to deal more with multiple competing names instead of names being updated, as we have here. I think WP:MPN and WP:NAMECHANGES are better guides in this instance.

It's getting late so I'll leave it there for now - will potentially add more thoughts in the morning if I have any, but I think it's a good start. Could probably stand to include some extra background / context as well, like the macron discussion did, since international users may be unfamiliar with the dual name concept. Turnagra (talk) 10:40, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Based on the preceding discussion about reasonable RfC options, I think we are going to struggle to agree on them, particularly if we want to keep it concise. I am starting to think we should simply ask if we should remove the relevant paragraph from the article, and depending on the result of that discussion remove it, leave it as is, or open a second RfC about what we should change it to. Draft for doing so could be as follows:

Second Draft RFC, extremely concise

In 2011, following a discussion between two editors, the following paragraph was added to the the New Zealand-specific naming convention guidelines. Is there a consensus to keep it or remove it? Dual names. If there are sources that indicate that a dual name has usage beyond mandatory official usage, put the article at the dual name, with redirects from each of the component names. The redirects may require disambiguation, but it is highly unlikely that the dual name will be ambiguous. The date of renaming should be noted and sourced in the article. Links to the article need not use the dual name unless it is appropriate, and the dual name should not be used where historically inaccurate (e.g. a historical reference before the renaming). If sources do not support use of the dual name, the English name will almost certainly be the one in common usage. Should there be no consensus, or a consensus to keep with alterations, a second RfC will be held to determine what alterations are necessary. 11:32, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

This level of conciseness should help us come to a consensus, even if all it does is end up removing the option of "keep as is" and "remove entirely" from the second RfC. Further, this aligns with many of the proposals to alter the text, which tend to align it to broader policy and thus have no significant functional effect, while also keeping WP:INSTRUCTIONCREEP in mind. BilledMammal (talk) 11:32, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

• I think this is a great idea. (Though the first sentence could be argued to be prejudicial toward the "remove" option. It's certainly relevant to the question at hand, but it could be set aside for the discussion rather than the opening statement. Not something I feel particularly strongly about though.) Colin M (talk) 17:17, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

• It could be, but I think we need to establish that the past consensus for this inclusion is unclear (added with minimal discussion, but stable for over a decade) and I feel that this is the best way to do it; it is both concise, and allows uninvolved editors to draw their own conclusions rather than us giving them conclusions. With that said, if alterations are preferred, I don't mind. BilledMammal (talk) 23:36, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

• I'm happy with the scope being refined down to this, but I wonder if it's worth having an option of "Keep with revisions" instead of just the keep / remove as described? The current proposal seems to rely on a 'no consensus' ruling to look at changes, but there are likely going to be people who would be more inclined to alter it than keep it as is or remove it entirely, and having just those two could risk losing some of that nuance? Turnagra (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

• I've mentioned "keep with alterations" in the final paragraph; I think it is best to keep it out of the first line; it keeps the options concise, and since Wikipaedian's have never been shy about ordering off menu it shouldn't be an issue in my opinion.

I'll keep this discussion open for the next 24 hours or so, to give time to clean up the wording further if needed, and then post the RfC as there seems to be general agreement for this to be the initial scope. BilledMammal (talk) 23:36, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

• Yeah I think that looks good. The only thing I'm wondering now is whether we need to include the whole dual and alternate name section, but I think this paragraph is the crux of it so it should be fine as is. Turnagra (talk) 00:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• I stand by what I said earlier about including a disclaimer at the end. This proposal is too similar to the current guideline. People will continue to use this guideline and ignore others. Sorry I just realised I missed the paragraph before the proposal. If this RfC will be about keeping the current and editing/removing it (in a later RfC) then I can agree. Spekkios (talk) 23:24, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

• Does the revision of including wording around "keep with revisions" help in this regard? Turnagra (talk) 00:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• I believe so Spekkios (talk) 00:28, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• I find this version a little strange. The question we have had trouble with is essentially: How should the NZ naming conventions interact with generic Wikipedia guidelines on common names? The issue we have is not directly instruction creep, but I do acknowledge it isn’t unreasonable to consider it from that angle.

If we’re requesting comment from outsiders, should it not include some indication that that’s the issue we need help with? Otherwise they have to peruse the prior discussions, or guess at what is wrong with the current wording. Wikipedia is work—I’ve already put off working on other pages to keep an eye on the current discussions. It is always appreciated when an RfC is clear in its goal and doesn’t require digging to find out the real question.

I may as well say, I did write up an RfC earlier this week, with the intent of posting it this weekend. The wording I had planned is as follows: User:HTGS/Dual Names RfC. I have no issue with others taking the lead in this though. — HTGS (talk) 02:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• I believe the intention is to first establish that there's consensus to have some form of dual place name conventions for NZNC, and then once that's sorted we can focus more on what those should be. I think the main RfC we'd been thinking of will be the second one, but it's probably good to get the consensus established on there being dual place name conventions of some description first.

As far as your proposal goes, as I've mentioned elsewhere I feel like there are broader issues which could stand to be addressed if we're looking at it anyway. But that can probably hold off until we have this first one out of the way. Turnagra (talk) 03:51, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• I think you raise a good point. We at the very least need an introduction to explain what exactly the background to this issue is, as there will be far more than just people familiar with the topic engaging with the RfC. Spekkios (talk) 08:16, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• I think we will struggle to find a way to present the background while keeping the proposal neutral; I think that it would be appropriate for some of those who support some level of guidance to provide the background in their argument. I will also note that the guideline as a whole needs "comment from outsiders", not just specific issues that Wikiproject NZ cannot come to an internal consensus on, per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS.

To respond to HTGS' question of why this RfC is so limited, it is because it appears difficult to agree on a sufficiently limited number of options. Even if this RfC doesn't resolve the matter, it will remove two options we would otherwise have had to include, while also providing guidance on what sort of options we should focus on. BilledMammal (talk) 08:34, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• I'm happy to take a stab at writing up a bit of background around dual names generally, will try and keep it as neutral as possible and drop it in here for review. I think it's possible to give people a brief bit of info on the concept without that being controversial or leading any argument. Turnagra (talk) 09:04, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• If you think you can produce a neutral and brief one, it is definitely worth a try. BilledMammal (talk) 09:13, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

  Per my own drafted RFC:

  Some place names in New Zealand have been changed in recent decades to include both their historical name as used in English, as well as their Māori name. For example, since 2013 Cape Reinga is now officially Cape Reinga / Te Rerenga Wairua. Unlike other name changes, this change bears no requirement on the public to use one, the other, or both names, but does require that the government use the full "dual name" in the same manner as any other official name. Some editors believe that Wikipedia articles for such places should be at their official name, while others believe that a name change should happen when or if the dual name is the common name. The current wording of these naming conventions is ambiguous, and has been used to support both points of view.

  — HTGS (talk) 01:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

That reads fine. A couple of minor changes perhaps are: '...require that the government and government related or owned bodies such as crown entities...', and '...current wording of these naming conventions create ambiguities when considering NZ dual names..' My wording is not perfect but I think the points I am raising are clear enough. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

It reads fine to me, though I believe we should remove the later two lines; the second will be a little confusing in the changed context of this first RfC, while based on discussions here I believe that the beliefs about this extend beyond the two presented in the first, and thus it would be best to avoid mentioning current beliefs lest we taint the discussion. In line with this, I've added your first proposed change, but not the second.

Given that there is, unusually, a form of deadline here, in that RM's continue to be processed based on the current text and thus it would be best to come to an actual consensus as soon as possible, I plan to post the following RfC in the next couple of hours, unless other editors believe further changes are required:

Final (?) Draft RfC

In 2011, following a discussion between two editors, the following paragraph was added to the New Zealand-specific naming convention guidelines. Is there a consensus to keep it or remove it? Dual names. If there are sources that indicate that a dual name has usage beyond mandatory official usage, put the article at the dual name, with redirects from each of the component names. The redirects may require disambiguation, but it is highly unlikely that the dual name will be ambiguous. The date of renaming should be noted and sourced in the article. Links to the article need not use the dual name unless it is appropriate, and the dual name should not be used where historically inaccurate (e.g. a historical reference before the renaming). If sources do not support use of the dual name, the English name will almost certainly be the one in common usage. The background to this is that in recent decades place names in New Zealand have been changed by official sources to include both their English and Māori names. For example, since 2013 Cape Reinga is now officially Cape Reinga / Te Rerenga Wairua. Unlike other name changes, this change bears no requirement on the public to use one, the other, or both names, but does require that the government and government related or owned bodies such as Crown entities use the full "dual name" in the same manner as any other official name. Should there be no consensus, or a consensus to keep with alterations, a second RfC will be held to determine what alterations are necessary. 11:32, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

BilledMammal (talk) 03:09, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• I would say "...place names in New Zealand have been officially changed.." or "...place names in New Zealand have been changed by official sources..." to make it clear that changes are by official sources. Spekkios (talk) 03:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• I've edited the above draft to include that, thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 03:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• @BilledMammal: I hope you don't mind, I've made a couple of minor proofing changes to the RfC (sorry, meant to add this comment at the same time but neglected to do so!). I appreciate the need to put the RfC up soon but would hope that Turnagra has an opportunity to review, since they might've been working on their own draft RfC? Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 03:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for considering me! Was literally in the middle of writing up proposed background for it when the recent changes came through! Turnagra (talk) 03:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Sorry, I was in the middle of writing a proposed background to cover a bit more of the dual name concept generally and didn't see these edits! Here's what I came up with:

In New Zealand, many place names officially have a dual name, consisting of names derived from both European and Māori origins - for example, Aoraki / Mount Cook or Whakaari / White Island. These are unique in that they are not two separate and interchangeable names (for example, the North Island of New Zealand also has the official name of Te Ika-a-Māui, but this is not a dual name as these are two distinct names), but rather one name consisting of the two components. Dual name use dates back to at least the 1930s, where the Māori name was usually in brackets (such as with Lake Ellesmere (Te Waihora)), but in recent years this has been standardised to be separated with a forward slash, as in the earlier examples. In most instances, dual names originate as a result of a Treaty of Waitangi settlement, in which the New Zealand government reverts the name of geographic features of significance to an Iwi (tribe) as part of compensation for not adhering to the Treaty in the past. For example, a 1998 settlement with Ngāi Tahu saw 90 place names altered, in many cases to dual names.

There are currently 546 dual place names recorded by the New Zealand Geographic Board using the Name1 / Name2 format, of which 370 are official names and 176 are unofficial names for features which have no official name. A small number of further dual names use the Name1 (Name2) format, however the NZGB has recently voted to standardise the formatting of dual names in this format to the more widely used approach. To avoid confusion with disambiguations, Wikipedia articles using dual place names are currently standardised to use a slash even if the name uses parentheses.

In response to the above RfC, I think it looks mostly fine but I worry that the background lacks a fair bit of context around dual place names which I've tried to better cover, including that it's a single name instead of alternates and that the slash format comes from official sources. I also set up my background to line up nicely with the lead in of the RfC (ie. going from the standardisation bit to the origins of the conventions.) Turnagra (talk) 03:55, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm now remembering why its a bad idea to ever name something "final" or similar. Returning to the actual topic, I have attempted to merge the two texts; in the process I have removed a lot of the content from the first paragraph; while I find it fascinating and worthy content for article-space, I feel it goes into a little too much detail as the reason for the official name change isn't relevant to our decision making process. I have also removed the final two line of the second paragraph; because Wikipedia is already standardized to the slash form, and NZGB is standardizing to the slash form, I don't believe the alternative format will have any real impact on the discussion and so is best removed to keep the proposal concise. Does this look good to you? BilledMammal (talk) 04:09, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Fourth Draft RfC

In 2011, following a discussion between two editors, the following paragraph was added to the New Zealand-specific naming convention guidelines. Is there a consensus to keep it or remove it? Dual names. If there are sources that indicate that a dual name has usage beyond mandatory official usage, put the article at the dual name, with redirects from each of the component names. The redirects may require disambiguation, but it is highly unlikely that the dual name will be ambiguous. The date of renaming should be noted and sourced in the article. Links to the article need not use the dual name unless it is appropriate, and the dual name should not be used where historically inaccurate (e.g. a historical reference before the renaming). If sources do not support use of the dual name, the English name will almost certainly be the one in common usage. The background to this is that in New Zealand many place names (currently 425) officially have a dual name consisting of names derived from both European and Māori origins; for example, since 2013 "Cape Reinga" is now officially "Cape Reinga / Te Rerenga Wairua". This change does require that the government and government related or owned bodies such as Crown entities use the full "dual name" in written documents, but does not require the public to do so. Should there be no consensus, or a consensus to keep with alterations, a second RfC will be held to determine what alterations are necessary. 04:09, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• I think it's still worth mentioning something about how they're officially a single name, since based on move requests in the past a lot of people tend to get confused between this concept and interchangeable names (eg. the difference between Aoraki / Mount Cook being a single dual name and the North Island and Te Ika-a-Māui being two separate names for the same thing. I also think the third sentence of the background is a tad misleading, since it implies that there's something which explicitly says "you need to use this name" or "you don't need to use this name" to the general public, which to my knowledge doesn't exist for any names in New Zealand. Turnagra (talk) 04:16, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Sorry, I ghost-edited on you; I actually added that sentence (though I removed the examples to keep it concise as I believe your phrasing is clear enough) while you were writing your reply; you are right in that it provides important clarification BilledMammal (talk) 04:22, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with removing the "Unlike other name changes" and just go with something like "This change bears..." Spekkios (talk) 04:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oh cool, happy with the wording of that part - I still have a bit of an issue with "Unlike other name changes, this change bears no requirement on the public to use one, the other, or both names" but other than that it looks fine. Turnagra (talk) 04:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• I've been a bit iffy with that myself; I've removed the "Unlike other name changes", as it is unclear what name changes it is referring to, and reworded the rest. How does the new version read to you? BilledMammal (talk) 04:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Yeah, I think that's okay. It feels a bit redundant as this is something relevant to all official names in NZ and not just dual names specifically, but I don't think that's a big enough issue given the current wording. Turnagra (talk) 04:55, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• I think it's fairly clear that the dual name is supposed to provide for both names to be used independently rather than using both names at the same time [6]. Spekkios (talk) 04:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not sure which bit of that brochure you're referring to, but regardless of how it's intended they're distinct from how alternative names are handled (we have examples of those as proof) and that bears mentioning. Turnagra (talk) 04:55, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• I've tried to find an authoritative source on this matter but I've been unable to; in the absence of this, and the fact that the question is clearly in dispute and thus might be seen as non-neutral, I've removed it from the proposed RfC. Per this framework, I've also clarified that government organizations are required to use the dual name only in written documents. BilledMammal (talk) 05:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• I've also just gone in and removed the frequency of the use of official dual names/unofficial dual names; I don't believe it will be particularly useful to the discussion, while reducing the number of paragraphs to three really helps with keeping the proposal concise. Does anyone mind this? BilledMammal (talk) 05:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think it's in dispute at all - arguments from both sides on previous move requests have focused on dual place names as the full form (eg. "Cape Reinga / Te Rerenga Wairua" instead of "Cape Reinga") - if anything, dual names being used as either name interchangeably has been more controversial than using the full name. At any rate, as I said the official name is a single entity regardless of how it's used, and I think that's worth flagging so that we don't get people incorrectly citing multiple place names in their arguments.

I also think the frequency is worth mentioning personally. It doesn't add much in terms of length, but it provides useful context to see that this is actually a fairly common thing in NZ and not just a couple of outliers. Turnagra (talk) 05:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• I've restored the frequency of official names by putting it in parenthesis; I feel that should demonstrate that it is fairly common while also keeping the demonstration succinct? In terms of multiple place names I believe it does have a level of relevance ("Biel/Bienne" is actually an official name, comparable to the use in NZ). As such, I think it is best to leave that part of the background out; at least one user disagrees on its factual correctness, and another (myself) disagrees on the purpose for its inclusion. BilledMammal (talk) 05:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks, I'm happy enough with how the numbers are included (at least to the extent of this discussion, I'm still annoyed at the NZGB for having so many unofficial names in general but that's another discussion altogether!) - as far as multiple place names, forgive my ignorance but isn't Biel/Bienne explicitly cited as an exception to the policy because the dual name is official, so it'd only be relevant to the extent that it doesn't apply in this context? At any rate, I'm not fussed enough about the inclusion of that part of the background to die in a ditch over it so I suppose it's fine. Turnagra (talk) 05:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• I will note that I've "ghost edited" on you again sorry; as the text no longer clarifies which format the count is referring to, I've added the number of names that use the parenthesis format to the count (55). I think that Biel/Bienne is explicitly cited because the official dual name is also common, but I'm not entirely certain what you are asking here. In any case, I plan to post the RfC in half an hour or so, once other editors have had a little more chance to comment. BilledMammal (talk) 06:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

RfC on the use of dual names for locations in New Zealand

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

After thorough review of the entire discussion, the consensus is to remove the paragraph regarding dual names from the New Zealand-specific naming convention guidelines regarding article titles. Redirects can be used to help guide users to the correct page. Much, but certainly not all, of the back-and-forth discussion was driven by two editors, which added nuance to the discussion, but also increased its length and substance significantly.

This RfC was based off of a history of discussions in this area. Since there is a consensus to remove, the suggestion to hold a further RfC to rewrite the guideline could be deemed irrelevant, though further RfCs could of course be initiated in this topic area in the future.

Main considerations in this RfC were:

Should New Zealand have specific considerations for dual names that are not applicable in other countries or topic areas?

Do existing guidelines already cover the issues arising in dual name questions? In other words, is the guideline redundant?

Claims of a rapid and recent assimilation of Māori language into NZ English that is unique to NZ

Does the guideline meet the criteria to avoid WP:CREEP?

Some (but not all) arguments for keep:

- Dual place names avoid POV violations

- NZ has specific considerations (WP:MOSAT)

- Lesser-known locales/formations make it difficult to determine common name

- Māori has been undergoing assimilation into New Zealand English in recent years

Some (but not all) arguments for remove:

- These issues are already covered in WP:COMMONNAME, and are thus redundant

- Guideline is an example of WP:CREEP, thus the existing guidelines are preferable

- The language in the guideline is ambiguous and will lead to more disputes

- Article titles should represent what an English user would actually search for

Guidelines frequently cited in this discussion:

WP:WIAN

WP:COMMONNAME

WP:MOSAT

WP:CRITERIA

WP:NPOV

WP:NZ

WP:NCNZ

WP:CRYSTALBALL

WP:CONSISTENT

Head count and after analysis of votes with regard to changed votes and deleted votes

Keep: 7

Remove: 14

Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:46, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

---

In 2011, following a discussion between two editors, the following paragraph was added to the New Zealand-specific naming convention guidelines. Is there a consensus to keep it or remove it?

Dual names. If there are sources that indicate that a dual name has usage beyond mandatory official usage, put the article at the dual name, with redirects from each of the component names. The redirects may require disambiguation, but it is highly unlikely that the dual name will be ambiguous. The date of renaming should be noted and sourced in the article. Links to the article need not use the dual name unless it is appropriate, and the dual name should not be used where historically inaccurate (e.g. a historical reference before the renaming). If sources do not support use of the dual name, the English name will almost certainly be the one in common usage.

The background to this is that in New Zealand many place names (currently 425) officially have a dual name consisting of names derived from both European and Māori origins; for example, since 2013 "Cape Reinga" is now officially "Cape Reinga / Te Rerenga Wairua". Government and government related or owned bodies such as Crown entities are required to use the full "dual name" in written documents, but the public are not required to do so.

Should there be no consensus, or a consensus to keep with alterations, a second RfC will be held to determine what alterations are necessary. 07:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Remove. The entry, questions about whether there was ever a consensus for it aside, should be removed entirely. The central section (The redirects may require disambiguation, but it is highly unlikely that the dual name will be ambiguous. The date of renaming should be noted and sourced in the article. Links to the article need not use the dual name unless it is appropriate, and the dual name should not be used where historically inaccurate (e.g. a historical reference before the renaming).) aligns to broader policy and general content practice and thus specific guidance here is superfluous and contributes to WP:CREEP. If the guidance is deemed useful, it would be better suited for an advisory essay.

The first sentence (If there are sources that indicate that a dual name has usage beyond mandatory official usage, put the article at the dual name, with redirects from each of the component names.) is a drastic departure from WP:COMMONNAME and Multiple Local Names (MLN) that also fails to align with our broader title guidelines, as it requires titles that are neither WP:CONCISE nor WP:NATURAL to be used. It is also unnecessary to have a guidance where the dual name would be the common name, as MLN already allows for such use as with the cited example of Biel/Bienne. It is also unnecessary to disqualify mandatory official usage, as COMMONNAME requires independent sources, requiring such disqualification.

The last sentence (If sources do not support use of the dual name, the English name will almost certainly be the one in common usage.) grants an unnecessary impetus towards the English-language name; it is generally redundant, as WP:TRANSLITERATE already supports such a preference, but in the cases where the Māori name is the common name in English it fails to align with our broader title guidelines, specifically WP:NATURAL. BilledMammal (talk) 07:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Keep with revisions. Dual names are a large and important part of New Zealand's cultural geography. Their use dates back at least 90 years, and many represent the outcome of the Treaty of Waitangi claims and settlements process where dual names have been adopted to recognise the significance of sites to Māori people. As the prompt mentions, since their introduction they have become increasingly commonplace - in addition to the 425 places mentioned in the prompt, a further ~220 places without official names have dual names as the only recorded unofficial name.

Per the lede of the article, the New Zealand Naming Conventions are for where New Zealand practice differs from universal Wikipedia conventions for article titles, or where cases specific to New Zealand are not covered in global policy. With the exception of very limited cases (such as Biel/Bienne), dual place names in this form - where both names form part of a whole, as opposed to being separate and interchangeable - seem to be exclusive to New Zealand. This approach also means that Multiple Local Names is irrelevant in this case, given that dual names are typically treated as a single entity and more closely align with the aforementioned Biel/Bienne usage instead of other examples such as the Derry/Londonderry name dispute. For example, the common and official name of Aoraki / Mount Cook is just that, rather than either "Aoraki" or "Mount Cook" with equal footing. While these names may seem odd to those outside of New Zealand, they are increasingly common in New Zealand English and, contrary to the user above, in many cases absolutely adhere to WP:CRITERIA:

• Recognisability - Dual place names are clearly recognisable to anybody familiar with New Zealand places
• Naturalness - As above, dual place names are no more unnnatural than a name like Papua New Guinea, especially given the increased integration of Te reo Māori into New Zealand English. The conventions' use of redirects from either side can help in instances where they are historical references, such as describing the naming of a feature by a European explorer or its significance to local Māori.
• Precision - Dual names are far more precise than either component name, and can avoid unnecessary disambiguation. For instance, there are four other instances of Mount Cook, 18 other instances of River Avon, and 25 other instances of Riverton, which can be resolved by using Aoraki / Mount Cook, Avon River / Ōtākaro and Riverton / Aparima respectively.
• Concision - While some dual names can get long, they can also prevent the need for disambiguation as above, meaning that some dual names can be shorter than the alternative. Avon River / Ōtākaro is shorter than the former Avon River (Canterbury), and Riverton / Aparima is shorter than Riverton, New Zealand.
• Consistency - There are currently 136 articles which make use of dual names, 19 of which are redirects. Having a convention to support dual name use allows for consistency and ease of access across these, instead of some being located at their dual name, some being located at their old English name, and some being located at their Māori name.

While I would (and indeed have) argued that many dual place names are indeed the common name for the feature, I also note that WP:MOSAT highlights that naming conventions may recommend the use of titles that are not strictly the common name, so long as this produces clear benefits that outweigh the use of common names, follows a neutral and common convention specific to that subject domain, and otherwise adheres to the general principles for titling articles on Wikipedia. The use of dual names provides clear benefits that would outweigh use of a common name in the rare instances where the dual name is not common, clearly follows a specific, neutral and common convention, and as above follows the general principles of article names otherwise.

With that said, past discussions have highlighted that the current text is ambiguous, and the topic of rewriting the convention has come up frequently in the past. I agree with the above user in that the final sentence which favours the English name should be removed (given the vast number of place names in New Zealand with Māori origins). usage beyond mandatory official usage has caused questions in the past regarding what level this is set at, and the preclusion of official source usage causes issues for some features which have very little independent coverage given New Zealand's small population and the isolation of many such locations. However, these are issues which are easily able to be resolved through rewriting the dual place name guidelines instead of wholesale removal.

Despite the introduction of the dual place name guidelines 10 years ago, their presence has never been controversial within WPNZ. There have been disputes about the wording, but never about the existence of the policy itself. Revising the policy to make it clearer and less ambiguous would ensure that the use of dual place names for relevant places in New Zealand can be far clearer going forward. Turnagra (talk) 08:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. From reading your comment, I get the idea that you are arguing for dual names in general rather than for/against this specific guideline. For example, in your section on WP:CRITERIA you give examples of how dual names meet WP:CRITERIA. It might be the case that dual names meet WP:CRITERIA, but that is not an argument for an additional guideline. On the contrary, that would suggest that WP:CRITERIA is actually sufficient to deal with dual naming articles.

However, with that being said, I do believe that you are misinterpreting some of the WP:CRITERIA. Papua New Guinea meets the naturalness WP:CRITERIA because it is what an English user would naturally look for. While English speakers may in fact search for a name such as Cape Reinga / Te Rerenga Wairua over Cape Reinga, we cannot assume that simply on the "increased integration of te reo Māori into New Zealand English"; Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. As I mentioned above, if an English speaker does in fact search for a name such as Cape Reinga / Te Rerenga Wairua over Cape Reinga then naturalness could be used to justify the name change, and therefore WP:CRITERIA is sufficient without an additional guideline.

In addition, I fail to see how "significance to local Māori" should affect the decision to keep or remove this guideline. Wikipedia does not WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, especially with article titles. For instance, Iroquois is used over "Haudenosaunee" despite the lack of significance to the Iroquois of the former name. This is because it is what an English user would naturally search for when requiring information on the topic. I would also like to point out that there is a Māori language Wikipedia, where names "significant to local Māori" will be used by default as per their article titles requirements. Any name of significance can easily be detailed within the article itself, such as under a "name" section such as with [7].

You also state that "Despite the introduction of the dual place name guidelines 10 years ago, their presence has never been controversial within WPNZ". However, as per the introduction to this RfC, the dual place name guidelines where determined by a consensus of only two persons. Claiming that it has been uncontroversial is a stretch, given the many discussions on dual naming both on WP:NZ and the naming conventions discussion page. Regardless, I do not find that the length of time you suppose it has been uncontroversial for is relevant, as consensus can change, which is the point of the RfC.

Finally, while you say that multiple local names is irrelevant, it is actually extremely relevant. Specifically, for the example given of Biel/Bienne, it clearly states that the double name was the most common used in English, and that "This should not be done to settle a dispute between national or linguistic points of view; it should only be done when the double name is actually what English-speakers call the place". Therefore, because we have multiple local names we do not need another guideline, which risks WP:CREEP. --Spekkios (talk) 10:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• I'm making the case for dual names because that's the whole point of the guidelines in the first place. As outlined below, there are specific considerations which mean that having specific guidelines for dual place names will result in less consistency and more confusion within this topic area, including inconsistency of style (using parentheses for some and slashes for others), extremely limited numbers of sources in some instances (especially non-government sources), discrepancies between official and unofficial names, and the political debate around using English names vs. Māori names.

In terms of my comment around it being uncontroversial, until this RfC no-one has proposed the removal of the guidelines - discussions have been exclusively around rewriting it, but the presence of guidelines for dual place names specifically has not been controversial. By not having a clear policy for dual place name usage, we rely upon people's judgements and inadvertently risk violating WP:NPOV. Turnagra (talk) 20:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• The case for or against dual names can be made on a case by case basis using policy and guidelines without the additional one presented in this RfC. I'm also not sure what you mean when you say 'clear up confusion' as there are many examples of multiple names for something not used in the title. I'm sure Americans would be 'less confused' if they had their spelling of Aluminum in the title as a dual name, but that would go against polices such as concise and common name.

I'm also not sure what you mean when you say that no one has proposed removing the guideline, as this RfC is clearly proposing exactly that, hence this discussion. Regardless, we already have policies and guidelines in place for dual names as others have outlined, and even if it has been uncontroversial that would not override WP:LOCALCONSENSUS or WP:CCC. --Spekkios (talk) 22:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• If you re-read my comment, I expressly said until this RfC no-one had proposed the removal. In terms of the rest of your argument, deciding it on a case-by-case bias goes completely against WP:CONSISTENCY. Personally I have a higher view of Americans than to expect them to be confused by the difference between Aluminum and Aluminium, but my point was more that it would be confusing to be looking for a place and have no idea what name it would be under - if I want to find Whakaari / White Island, should I be searching for the dual name, just Whakaari, or just White Island? What about Maungawhau / Mount Eden, or Rangitoto ki te Tonga / D'Urville Island? Despite all three of these having dual names, none of them have the same approach to the names, causing confusion for anyone trying to find a place. Turnagra (talk) 23:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, and my point is that it doesn't matter. Consensus can change so arguing against the removal of this guideline because no one has challenged it until now is redundant. Furthermore, you can claim WP:CONSISTENCY, but if there is WP:CONSISTENCY then it has primarily been defined using the very guideline that we are discussing, which as mentioned in the introduction, only had two people agree on it. That isn't a consensus on the value of this guideline, and even if it was, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS still applies. WP:CONSISTENCY is also not the only policy or guideline we follow when determining article names, especially if previous article names haven't been changed in line with policy. WP:CONSISTENCY is also WP:CRITERIA, so if your main argument for dual names in general (which, as I've said before, is beside the point entirely) is reliant on WP:CONSISTENCY then that would make this guideline redundant as someone could just reference WP:CONSISTENCY.

To your final point: This is the English version of Wikipedia. Article titles are written to cater for what an English user would look or search for. WP:NATURALNESS is pretty explicit on this. I can't take seriously the claim that an English user would realistically search for 'Rangitoto ki te Tonga' over 'Durville Island' and I highly doubt an English user would be confused. Confused about what exactly? Where Mount Eden is? Because it doesn't appear that people have an issue. Those sorts of potential issues are also what WP:UEIA is for, which makes this guideline again not needed.

Also, where are you reading about conflicts with style? The guideline in the introduction mentions nothing of the sort. --Spekkios (talk) 00:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• Regarding Multiple Local Names, I just wanted to mention that dual names, in the form of NAME/NAME, are not limited to New Zealand and the singular exception of Biel/Bienne. Other examples from Switzerland include Leubringen/Magglingen*, Domat/Ems, Disentis/Mustér, Celerina/Schlarigna, Murten/Morat. Additional Swiss examples exist, often insufficiently documented on Wikipedia (an example of this is with Murten/Morat), and these examples are also not limited to Switzerland - I understand such cases also occur in Alsace. This leads me to part of the reason I oppose this entry; I fail to understand why a policy that is so functional for dualled names outside New Zealand is unsuitable for dualled names in New Zealand. BilledMammal (talk) 10:47, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• New Zealand place names have added challenges, such as inconsistency of style (using parentheses for some and slashes for others), extremely limited numbers of sources in some instances (especially non-government sources), discrepancies between official and unofficial names, and the political debate around using English names vs. Māori names. Having guidance around dual name use allows us a clear process that fits with WP:NPOV and avoids us inadvertently taking a political stance through using outdated names. Turnagra (talk) 20:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• I think most of those challenges are similar to the Swiss use case; there are an extremely limited number of English sources for some Swiss locales, and the political debate around using French names vs German names vs Italian names vs Romanch names (although, we should not be taking note of the political debate and instead sidestepping it through the use of COMMONNAME). Meanwhile, I think the inconsistency of style can be solved through a simple application of WP:CONSISTENT, possibly with an advisory essay, while the discrepancies between official and unofficial name shouldn't matter, as whether a name is official or not has no bearing on our decision. BilledMammal (talk) 21:33, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Even if there are more instances than just Biel/Bienne, it seems to be a far more limited scope than what we're dealing with here. Some of the most famous places in New Zealand - Aoraki / Mount Cook, Whakaari / White Island and so on - use dual place names, not to mention hundreds of smaller places. As far as the official / unofficial thing is concerned, it has absolutely played into move requests before even with the current guidelines and used as an argument against moving places, so we can't really just say that it shouldn't happen and leave it at that. Turnagra (talk) 23:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Remove. The phrase usage beyond mandatory official usage is ambiguous. It suggests that any usage outside of official sources is enough to put the article at the dual name, regardless of how much usage the dual name may have. This can very easily lead to cases were this local guideline conflicts with the broader community naming policies. Specifically, this WP:LOCALCONSENSUS can conflict with WP:COMMONNAME, as WP:COMMONNAME states that the article title preference is determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources. The vagueness of usage beyond mandatory official usage can also result in a bias towards WP:OFFICIALNAMES, as if any usage outside of official usage is enough evidence for changing the article name then the official cases might actually number more than independent sources.

Furthermore, following this guideline can very easily lead to cases which conflict with WP:CRITERIA, especially WP:NATURALNESS and WP:CONCISE, for the following reasons:

• The WP:NATURALNESS policy may conflict with this guideline as WP:NATURALNESS states that: The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English. I don't think that an English-speaker (even a New Zealand English speaker) would, for example, search for names such as Southern Alps / Kā Tiritiri o te Moana over just Southern Alps, or Franz Josef Glacier / Kā Roimata o Hine Hukatere over Franz Josef Glacier, Fox Glacier / Te Moeka o Tuawe over Fox Glacier, or the example provided in the introduction; Cape Reinga / Te Rerenga Wairua over Cape Reinga, even if such dual names are official or used sometimes outside of official sources.
• The WP:CONCISE policy may conflict with this guideline because if usage beyond mandatory official usage can be established (despite the lack of a significant majority of independent sources) then this could potentially lead to article titles that are not WP:CONCISE. WP:CONCISE states that The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. This gives us titles such as United Kingdom over United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Germany over Federal Republic of Germany, and Uruguay over Oriental Republic of Uruguay. My previous bullet point on WP:NATURALNESS shows some potential examples where WP:CONCISE may conflict with this guideline. Many such names are provided for far better by mention in the article introduction as perWP:UEIA.

In the general case for article titles we already have conventions and policy for dual names, primarily WP:ENGLISH and WP:TRANSLITERATE. WP:ENGLISH gives us article titles such as Christchurch over Ōtautahi, Auckland over Tāmaki Makaurau, and Wellington over Te Whanganui-a-Tara. WP:TRANSLITERATE gives us article titles such are Tauranga, Kaiapoi, Akaroa, and Taranaki. Therefore, current consensus has established adequate policy and conventions to establish when the English language name is preferred over the Māori language name. In addition to the potential conflicts I gave above, this also could run into WP:CREEP. --Spekkios (talk) 08:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Neither: Instead, Ask the Kiwis: This sounds like Mumbai vs. Bombay. Keep it simple. Go with whatever the government of New Zealand advises. If they advise both, would some real Wikipedia "official" please contact the New Zealand government and ask them which of two names they would prefer listed? It's their policy of dual names that is driving this debate: ask them to solve it! - Aboudaqn (talk) 17:22, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

There is basically a difference with many of these between the official name and common name. Some use the Maori name, some the English and some use both. Also it is complicated with there being unofficial names. See New Zealand place names for a bit of an overview. Aircorn (talk) 19:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Aircorn (talk) : Your response reads incomplete to me: does your response change my recommendation? - Aboudaqn (talk) 21:39, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Probably not. Just thought I would try and give some background. The government in almost all cases prefer dual names so your !vote would probably be to use the government (i.e official) name, which is slightly stronger than what we currently say. In some instances the official name has become the common name and in others it has not just yet. It is not really a unique Wikipedia problem apart from that it is a sort of middle ground approach where the official usage is both names instead of changing from one to the other. Aircorn (talk) 22:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Tentative remove Or it at least needs some major modification. Wikiproject guidelines (which is what this essentially is) should not directly contradict community guidelines without good reason. This is the case here as it is currently directly opposed to COMMONNAME, NATURALNESS and CONCISE as outlined above. These should be decided through a case-by-case process and weighted more on our standard policies, with this offering guidance on how to do that. Aircorn (talk) 19:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• The plan was for exactly that sort of modification to happen following this RfC if there was a consensus to keep it in some form. As I mentioned above, there's a definite need to refine the wording, and there's potential to amend it to include guidance on standardisation (ie. using the slash for all dual names, such as Lake Ellesmere / Te Waihora instead of the official Lake Ellesmere (Te Waihora)) and differences in approach when the name is officially a dual name vs. when it's an unofficial name. Turnagra (talk) 20:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• That kind of stuff should definitely happen if it is kept. I am reading the crux of this RFC as being when it is appropriate to change the singular name to the duel name. I see the main issue being the official vs commonname argument. In many case those will match so no issue. In some the commonname will be obvious. The value of this guide will be in those situations where there is no clear commonname. Aircorn (talk) 22:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Totally agree, which is why I was advocating for the convention to remain and be altered as it would allow us to have clear and consistent guidance in those instances. Turnagra (talk) 23:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Striking tentative. Just starting to get a handle on how widespread this is and now think it needs to be removed. Basically articles are being moved based solely on this guideline with no regard for common name or any other WP:Criteria (see Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board#Various dual place name move requests and the discussions linked). I still think a guideline may be useful in the future, but it should start from scratch. Aircorn (talk) 23:02, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• Remove, basically per Spekkios. Topic-specific naming convention guidelines should give domain-specific advice for choosing titles which are consistent with the broader principles of WP:AT, which enjoy strong consensus. But the current advice wildly diverges from the core policies of WP:CRITERIA and WP:COMMONNAME (and its supplement, WP:OFFICIALNAMES). Colin M (talk) 19:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• Remove, Either we use common name (normal Wikipedia rules, more or less) or we use the official name. Not 'official name as long as it has been used a few times somewhere else', seems arbitrary and will not make discussions clearer or Wikipedia better. I am happy with 'official name' because it will stop arguments and happy with 'common name' because Wikipeda follows it does not lead. Dushan Jugum (talk) 20:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Wouldn't guidelines in either case be useful to show preference either way and make it clear what to do? Turnagra (talk) 20:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• We already have guidelines for when to use common and official names as described above and as per policy such as WP:COMMONNAME. --Spekkios (talk) 22:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Well for WP:COMMONNAME we could just use general rules, it may be useful for that to be explicit and for 'official name' we would need something. But I would like that to be a new discussion with a nice clean question: Eg. 'Should all NZ place names with offical names, per this website, use them as titles?'. Anyway if we are voting on corections not removal my vote here is clear (ish), happy with either option, but not what is there now. Put another way, remove now, then discuss replacement forever. Dushan Jugum (talk) 22:18, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• FWIW I think in the context that probably doesn't align with your vote - the way the RfC is worded implies that removing it is to remove the guideline altogether instead of replacing it with something else. Turnagra (talk) 23:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• I see your point now. thanks for the heads up, but I am good. I'm just excited that I learned a new acronym/initialism; still working on that part. Dushan Jugum (talk) 23:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Remove This quote: Dual names are a large and important part of New Zealand's cultural geography, sums up much of the current problem we have with NZ names. Even if it is true, so what? Unless we are trying to push an agenda (not suggesting anyone intentionally is doing that) we follow WP common name policies and guidelines. I hope this was said tongue in cheek: Go with whatever the government of New Zealand advises, but if not it once again highlights the problem we have. NZ specific guidelines should complement or adjust the standard WP policies and guidelines, they must not override, ignore, or change them, which has so often happened and which leads to article titles like Ōpāwaho / Heathcote River that are so far removed from common usage by NZ English language speakers as not even to be amusing. Spekkios has defined the issues and problems more thoroughly. I had originally thought the guidelines could be amended but on closer examination I think it is better to start again and to focus on being a neutral encyclopedia and nothing else. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• That quote was more to provide context for people that may be unfamiliar with the concept of dual names, rather than using it as part of the argument. As far as the rest of your argument, I provided a number of sources which showed the dual name in use that would beg to differ with your claim that it's not in common usage. As mentioned further above, I would also argue that using single English names only instead of official names is the exact opposite of being a neutral encyclopedia, given the ongoing debate around such names, and would contravene WP:NPOV. Turnagra (talk) 23:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Keep, with alterations

Dual names are part of New Zealand English. A guideline for their use will help in resolving the many disputes that unfortunately arise while both official and 'common' usage is in flux.

I'll save my detailed arguments for the korero to agree the new guidelines :-) Ka kite ano!

Somej (talk) 07:45, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

(I wrote this in reply to Turnagra, before reading Somej's post that crossed) Being neutral does not mean catering for every opinion and every usage: weighting deals with that. In fact, if we did not use weighting we would, on many occassions, not be being neutral. A good comparison with use in wikipedia articles is what has been happening of late on NZ TV and National Radio. (For the benefit of those readers outside NZ, English and Maori names for places, and for other common expressions, are used interchangably.) Leaving aside the reasons for this, it is not the way English New Zealanders at this point in time commonly speak or use the language, making it artificial which can be seen as not neutral. If we are not careful we will end up doing the same thing here in NZ articles. Government controlled radio and TV has to give undue prominence the Maori language but wikipedia does not. In time it might be that the use of many dual names may become common NZ English usage but with a few possible exceptions we have not reached that point yet. Even if we can find several sources that use a particular dual name that still does not necessarily make it the name we should use: what about sources that do not use the dual name? Once again, weighting needs to be considered.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:08, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• While I see and appreciate your point, I think your claim that this is not the way English New Zealanders at this point commonly speak or use the language is a pretty bold claim and would - as with any use of language - depend on a huge range of factors and demographics. As an anecdotal example, I routinely hear interchangeable usage of English and te reo words in everyday life, at least to a similar level to that used in TV. I'm not trying to dispute your claim or make an argument to the contrary, just that it's incredibly difficult to be able to say that definitively. I also think it's getting a bit close to slippery slope fallacy territory by saying that dual place names will lead to increased use of Te Reo on the English wikipedia, but that's a different thing altogether. Turnagra (talk) 23:15, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Somej, are there any specific alterations that you believe would make this portion of the guidelines more helpful? — HTGS (talk) 00:36, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

A guideline on the use of dual names for New Zealand places will be useful to record a consensus on how to choose titles. While other related guidelines exist, it is clear that people can and do have different interpretations of how they interact with one another.

"English New Zealanders" is an interesting phrase. That's not who Wikipedia is by or for (even if such a group exists - i'm assuming that the editor above doesn't mean 1st-generation immigrants from England, but s/he might). And it is not "English Wikipedia" or "Wikipedia in English" that we are discussing here either; it's place names for pages that have the {{Use New Zealand English}} tag.

The New Zealand English page is worth reading in this context. It says An important source of vocabulary is the Māori language of the indigenous people of New Zealand, whose contribution distinguishes New Zealand English from other varieties.

Anyway, writing this makes me realise how distracting, offensive, and irrelevant the comments such as the "undue prominence [of] Māori" are. Here's an attempt at a summary of the issues relevant to the question we have been asked, which is "Is there a consensus to keep it or remove it [the paragraph in the guideline]?":

* Many official names of places in New Zealand have a 'dual format'

* Also, many places in New Zealand have two names: one in English, and another, usually older, in Māori

* The general Wikipedia guidelines for article titles are unclear with respect to dual format names in this New Zealand context

* Move requests to assign dual names to existing pages are often contested, with the same or similar arguments being raised each time.

Having considered these issues, my view is that we should keep a paragraph about dual names in the WP:NCNZ guideline. I would also support a further RFC to improve it.

Somej (talk) 09:05, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Somej I think you're misinterpreting the cause of these contested moves. The current guidelines (WP:CRITERIA and WP:COMMONNAME) are fully sufficient to determine place names; the problem is that this NCNZ guideline is in direct opposition with these primary policies, and gives some people cause to believe that NZ place names should be at their WP:OFFICIALNAMES even when this name is not commonly used.

I still don't have a clear idea of what changes you would suggest we make to the guideline, by the way. — HTGS (talk) 01:24, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with your statement about whether current guidelines are "fully sufficient". While each move request is still contested, that is clearly false. But the reason I'm not engaging with the debate here, HTGS, is that I've only responded to the RFC question, which is Is there a consensus to keep it or remove it? [the paragraph]. The current discussion is too rambling and unfocussed; I'd rather wait for the second RfC that may follow Should there be no consensus, or a consensus to keep with alterations, a second RfC will be held to determine what alterations are necessary. Somej (talk) 02:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Even government-controlled organisations are inconsistent with their use of dual names. For example, Aoraki/Mount Cook and Milford Sound/Piopiotahi are signed as such on road signs (e.g. here and here), but Cape Reinga/Te Rerenga Wairua is signed as "Cape Reinga" (see here, here, and here.) Lcmortensen (mailbox) 03:25, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, road signs are generally only updated as they reach the end of their life and are replaced - given the shift to Cape Reinga / Te Rerenga Wairua happened much more recently than either of the other examples (~2015 vs. 1998 IIRC) that's not entirely unsurprising that road signs don't reflect the updated name yet. Turnagra (talk) 03:50, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Even new signs are inconsistent. The signs on the Taupō bypass (opened 2010) sell the town "Taupō" (with a macron), but the signs at the Tīrau roundabout (opened 2015) spell the town "Taupo" without the macron. Also in Bulls, there is a sign pointing to "Whanganui" (with the H) and "Taupo" (without the macron)! Lcmortensen (mailbox) 08:33, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

The related request to move Shag Point to the dual name Shag Point / Matakaea was accepted last week by a neutral admin, Havelock Jones. Interesting to see that the closing admin read this rfc and other requested moves to dual names, and commented on the opinions about Neutrality:

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."'

Somej (talk) 01:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• Remove per the Platypus. My desire for a long time now has been to clarify that these instructions do not supersede COMMONNAME, per LOCALCONSENSUS, but BilledMammal has actually swayed me on how CREEPy the rest of the paragraph is. I don't think there's much more to add, but if anyone wants my extended opinions (or those of Turnagra), they are more than welcome to read through the above section: On article titles conforming to Common Name guidance. Thanks — HTGS (talk) 04:08, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
• Remove, {sbb} to slavishly follow a 'dual-language' logic is pointless. Maori name MAY BE justified within the text, or in some well-known instances in titles, but not slavishly in article names where COMMONNAME (and common sense) take precedence. This is to an extent mirrored by the use of Welsh and Irish and Scottish, where govt policies dictate certain levels of use, in road signs etc., but local use is actually fairly minimal and of course almost non-existent much further afield. Informing the reader of what the Maori name will in many instances be relevant info, but imposing it on article titles is RIGHTINGWRONGS. Pincrete (talk) 04:10, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

RIGHTING GREAT WRONGS Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:03, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• I'm struggling to see how this relates to WP:RGW, given that says we can only report that which is verifiable from reliable and secondary sources which is clearly the case in these instances - the fact that these places have dual names is easily verifiable by anyone that cares to look. Turnagra (talk) 08:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• WP:RGW applies to treating such things like "acknowledging history" and "showing respect" as valid reasons to have an additional guideline on top of guidelines and policies such as WP:CRITERIA. WP:COMMONNAME clearly states that the name of an article should be the one that has prevalence in a significant majority of English language sources. The fact that certain places have a dual names does not mean it meets WP:COMMONNAME nor does certain places having dual names mean we need an additional guideline on top of the ones we already have. Which instances are you referring to? --Spekkios (talk) 08:20, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not trying to argue about the common name point here, I'm genuinely asking about your use of WP:RGW - I might be blind, but I'm not seeing anything along those lines anywhere within it. The examples listed are clearly different to what we're dealing with here and seem more aligned with conspiracy theories than these name changes. As mentioned above, this guideline requires that information is verifiable from reliable and secondary sources, with the examples of mainstream media and books from reputable publishing houses cited as examples. All questions around whether or not they're the common name aside, I think even you would agree that it would be verifiable from such sources that these places - at least officially - have dual place names. Turnagra (talk) 09:26, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not quite sure what you aren't understanding. Maybe see WP:ADVOCACY then. The point behind WP:RGW is that despite what someone things the name of a place should be, that does not reflect what Wikipedia actually titles articles.

And yes, this guidelines requires verifiable from reliable and secondary sources....just like WP:CRITERIA and WP:COMMONNAME. If they officially have dual names then that goes in the article, not the title. --Spekkios (talk) 10:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• Remove. The current wording is vague and confusing. At Talk:Southern Alps#Requested move 15 September 2021, two editors have interpretations that are 180 degrees opposite. We should remove the confusing guideline, defaulting back to global naming guidelines. Once the poorly-written guideline is removed, I would encourage NZ editors to come to consensus on a new local guideline. I have no opinion about what that new local guideline should be, because I am not familiar enough with NZ culture. — hike395 (talk) 14:30, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• To be fair I think the guideline is pretty straight forward. If it is the official name, easily found,[https://gazetteer.linz.govt.nz/] and at least two sources use the official name then the title should be at the official name. Aircorn (talk) 00:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• I get you. But us editors try very hard to read rules in confusing ways. I note that you had to rewrite the text, changing "If there are sources" to “at least two sources” in order for it to be unambiguous. Provided we all agree on what a source is, in this context. Dushan Jugum (talk) 00:51, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• Sources is written in the plural so I take that to mean more than one or "at least two". Taken at face value a source could be anything from an academic paper to Twitter as long as it is not a government source (forgot to mention this above, but it has to be outside official use). Very few if any duel names will fail to meet this criteria. This guideline is being used as a blunt instrument to change article titles, while ignoring other well established criteria and I don't think that is right. If it is to exist it should be giving guidance on how to deal with duel New Zealand names in the context of this criteria, not inventing its own unique one. Aircorn (talk) 06:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• Yes User:Aircorn, I think we interpret the current rule the same way and we might even want very similar things in future. But, there is something odd here, I think it is that these supplementary rules don’t have respect from editors or are not well known among them (projection?). That is the main reason I want the rule gone and if I fail, the main reason I will sing the virtue of the new rule from the rooftops. Dushan Jugum (talk) 07:25, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
• I can somewhat agree with this. I think there is scope for the conventions to clarify a bunch of things around dual place name usage that would help to inform the use of dual names so that everyone can be on the same page when a move request comes around. Even things like the wikipedia admin around it (eg. redirects from both constituent names, listing on the Wikipedia:Articles with slashes in title page, using the slash for consistency even if the dual name officially uses another form and so on) would be useful to include to keep things tidy. Turnagra (talk) 08:06, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• I would just like to comment that I would oppose much of that clarification on the grounds of WP:CREEP. For instance, it's obvious that redirects from the individual names (or the dual name to the individual name) should be created; it will never be controversial to do so, and so a formal guideline is not required - if advise is thought necessary, an essay would be the suitable location for it. BilledMammal (talk) 08:14, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
• These conventions already exist. See WP:NCNZ, specifically here. --Spekkios (talk) 09:14, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. New Zealand English is evolving very quickly to incorporate elements from the Māori language. It's been building for decades—see Māori renaissance—but the pace is much faster in recent years, possibly partly because technology has now made it easy to use macrons so almost all print media are now using them. Most New Zealanders appear to welcome the changes, but there is a risk that some people will be left behind, and of course not everyone who reads articles which are written in New Zealand English is a Kiwi.
  

Some aspects of the evolution are easier than others. For example, macrons assist in understanding pronunciation, and for people who don't understand macrons they can easily ignore them. Adopting the lack of a plural 's' on words of Māori origin rarely causes any difficulty in comprehension.

On Wikipedia we use a fairly formal style of writing, and we need to be conservative about changes in the language, but we also need to write in modern language. Using official names is about as conservative as you can get, and people who aren't interested in the Māori component of a dual name can easily ignore it. Most place names in New Zealand which are not of Māori origin are not unique in the world and need a disambiguation term, so the dual name fits this purpose with redirects and disambiguation pages providing a way for people to find the article, just as they would need to do with a term such as "(New Zealand)" appended to the title.

I think we need to be cautious about using Māori words and phrases in articles, as these will confuse some readers. I'm not concerned about the words that have been in New Zealand English for many decades, such as "pākehā" and "iwi", which have much more nuanced meanings than the common translations of "New Zealand European" and "tribe", but I see editors using "tohutō" in their edit summaries when "macron" will be more meaningful to most editors.

I think the current naming standards on dual names were insightful when they were first introduced, and still work well, but we should revisit them in another few years because they may need to be strengthened.-gadfium 21:20, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

1:There is a trend in NZ English for using more Māori, but we still need to work place by place, word by word as you point out with 'tohutō'. Therefore 'common name' should do fine, we will change with society, neither behind nor ahead of it.

2:'If the government does it, it must be conservative' is an idea completely at odds with the way my parents self identify.

3:The current system does not work because too few editors know it or enforce it. I think it was last week I was politely told to go read 'common name' on this very issue. We need really good reseaons to come up with ad hoc rules that most editors will never find/follow.

4:I agree with your thoughts on avoiding disambiguation pages, I just don’t think that is good enough to overturn ‘common name’.Dushan Jugum (talk) 05:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. Much has changed in New Zealand over the last several decades, and one of these things is the near universal use of dual names. See: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12].
  If the country of NZ acknowledges that using and prioritizing dual place names is a gateway to stopping racism, then why would Wikipedia consider itself above this? WP follows, it does not lead. We are not the ones who should be deciding whether something should have a dual place name, we should be deferring to the people of New Zealand. This policy helps reinforce the usage of COMMONNAMES where appropriate, especially when such names are Dual. We need a guideline/policy like this to overcome WP:CONCISE as these are longer, but contain crucial information.
  We cannot and should not treat NZ culture as any other country's in this regard, as they have shown a particular affinity for dual names. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:29, 30 September 2021 (UTC) (withdrawn 23:49, 30 September 2021 (UTC))

[13] [14] [15] [16] [17]. Shibbolethink, how do these references you gave above show the near universal use of dual names? What they show is there is a healthy debate on the topic and that some people are saying dual names are now widely used, which is reporting original research. Also, one is a blog and the other is govt controlled, thus making it unreliable on this topic. How do we establish what common usage is? Are we left solely with neutral independent publications? Should we rule out the countless other examples of common usage, such as road signs and social media? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:20, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• In regards to reinforce the usage of COMMONNAMES, especially when such names are Dual I am not entirely clear on why we need to reinforce COMMONNAMES when it appears to be fit for purpose as is, based on the Swiss dual names discussed above? I also believe it to be functional in the case of New Zealand; for instance, even absent this guideline Lake Ellesmere / Te Waihora would be in its current location. I would also note that my interpretation of the current guideline is that it overrides COMMONNAMES, not reinforces it, but that is a different discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 01:02, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
• If the use of dual names is indeed "universal" (which it really isn't, but that's beside the point) then the article title could be moved under COMMONNAME already and doesn't need another guideline. Also, if the guideline conflicts with WP:CONCISE then that is a reason to remove the guideline, as WP:LOCALCONSENSUS does not override general Wikipedia consensus. Spekkios (talk) 02:55, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

  we have conflicting consensuses. All over the project, but especially here. Concise vs Common, Disambiguation vs Concise, etc. etc. The utility of this NCNZ entry is to help us reconcile those conflicts. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 09:21, 30 September 2021 (UTC)(withdrawn 23:49, 30 September 2021 (UTC))

• This NCNZ doesn't reconcile any conflict; rather, it is the cause of it. It can be and has been used to ignore all other consensus such as concise, common, disambiguation, etc. All the consensus you listed must be read together; this guideline can be read in isolation. --Spekkios (talk) 10:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Suggesting that the use of dual names is “near universal”, or that NZ should be treated differently from other countries based on a perceived “affinity” is disingenuous at best, but backing that statement up with a handful of opinion pieces and blogs is plainly deceptive. If the country has an affinity, it will be plain and clear on a case by case basis, and we shouldn’t need this guideline; if concision needs to be overcome, that’s easily done by citing precision. And really, if the guideline clearly reinforced common name policy, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. — HTGS (talk) 20:54, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Collapsing as WP:TALKOFFTOPIC. Policy violations should be discussed at user talk pages or WP:ANI.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:49, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I will say, I’d have only a small problem with Shibbolethink’s opinion here if he hadn’t already moved so swiftly to close 10 ongoing arguments after becoming aware of this RFC. (Addition, 00:07, 2 October 2021 (UTC): I did not mean to imply that Shibboleth broke any rules here.) (Those being: Cape Kidnappers / Te Kauwae-a-Māui, Clutha River / Mata-Au, Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana, Franz Josef Glacier / Kā Roimata o Hine Hukatere, Lyttelton Harbour / Whakaraupō, Paterson Inlet / Whaka a Te Wera, Port Pegasus / Pikihatiti, Riverton / Aparima, South Cape / Whiore, Fox Glacier / Te Moeka o Tuawe.) — HTGS (talk) 20:54, 30 September 2021 (UTC) actually I closed all of those before this RFC existed, and before I read or commented a single word on this page. Check the dates, and then strike your comments slandering me, please. Because you've just asserted something that is demonstrably false. It happened the other way around. I closed those in line with consensus on each discussion, and then realized some wanted to change that consensus. It is entirely in order to relitigate those discussions if and when this changes, as I said in each close. The RfC was still in its first draft, and it could have been weeks before it was formed or initiated, there was no way to tell. There was still much disagreement about the framing of the RfC. If a draft of a possible RfC were enough reason to put a discussion on hold, then anyone who was dissatisfied with something could simply attempt to stall by creating an RfC. That's why discussions are closed based on pre-existing consensus, not held hostage based on the idea of possible future changes. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:26, 30 September 2021 (UTC) While HTGS is a little confused about the timing (you closed them before the formal RfC opened, but were aware of the ongoing preliminary discussions), I was also a little discomforted by the sequence of events, and though I originally decided against saying anything that can of worms is clearly open now. In particular, closers are required to be "uninvolved", and to close and then become involved seems to be a inadvertent violation of the spirit, if not the word, of those requirements. BilledMammal (talk) 22:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC) Prior to closing those discussions, I had never commented on a single of those articles or in any article about New Zealand in any way, shape, or form to the best of my knowledge. I had never read, watched, or written a single thing about dual names in New Zealand. A phenomenon I did not know existed. To now say that becoming involved after closing a discussion is a violation of the spirit is to say I can never, days later become interested in something given closing discussions about it. So am I to stay away from every topic I have ever closed a discussion on? When is the time limit? Who is the judge? Past closers often weigh in on later move discussions as a !vote. In fact, it's customary to notify a past closer if a new discussion is initiated so they can weight in. I often become interested in topics after reading and closing discussions about them. Think about the consequences of what you are saying is the "spirit" of WP:INVOLVED. I do not read any such spirit. 1) I close multiple move reviews per day on average, in all different areas of the project. Occasionally I become interested in one and start editing there, avoiding closing future discussions about it for a long while. 2) I am not an administrator. 3) The entire section is written with past tense clauses, very intentionally. Those discussions were closed in line with consensus, and with most respondents in favor of the close. It's !NOTAVOTE, but it was a very clear consensus each time. My comments here are in order. If you disagree, take it to Wikipedia:Move review, and leave it out of this discussion. Because it is irrelevant. And frankly borders on WP:ASPERSIONS. More than anything, this is WP:TALKOFFTOPIC if we agree that no actual violation of any policy has occurred. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:00, 30 September 2021 (UTC) It is hard to define the line, and though I encounter less of these lines in my editing due to fewer permissions, I hold the opinion that it is best to be overly cautious than insufficiently so. In this case, I would consider the line crossed because you closed the RM being aware of a directly related discussion that you would later become involved in. I will also note that while WP:INVOLVED speaks directly to administrators, I think it would be flawed to believe it does not apply to all users who decide to close discussions, particularly those with advanced permissions, and I will also note this ARBCOM ruling, which establishes that having a "rooting interest" is sufficient to have a COI under INVOLVED. Finally, I will note WP:NACINV, an essay that speaks to the points I raise. I don't believe MR is the correct forum for this, but am happy to strike my comments and continue discussion on your talk page should you prefer. (PS: I need to type faster. I think I've been caught in edit conflicts five six times now, and had to update my reply three times) BilledMammal (talk) 23:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC) Take it to WP:ANI or my talk page if you believe I've violated a policy. I'm collapsing this as TALKOFFTOPIC and withdrawing my !vote, as this entire saga has left me with a sour aftertaste. Do not tag me any longer in this discussion. Thank you. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. It seems to me that discussion of the Swiss Language border situation highlights the distinction between concepts such as Röstigraben and the surveying under the colonial government, which fixed most English names in New Zealand. Because of that distinction, a guideline is needed which acknowledges that history. Johnragla (talk) 02:58, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• Guidelines aren't about "acknowledging history"; see WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. The history of the subject can be discussed about in the article itself. Article titles should be decided in line with Wikipedia conventions, as the arguments above have highlighted. --Spekkios (talk) 04:37, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
• True, but because the history is different, the issues are different and a global solution therefore doesn't take those issues into account. Johnragla (talk) 04:45, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I understand. How does the history impact WP:CRITERIA to the point that we need another guideline? What issues aren't covered by policy like WP:CRITERIA? How are the global policies and guidelines insufficient to deal with dual names?--Spekkios (talk) 04:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

  What issues aren't covered by policy like WP:CRITERIA The different culture of NZ in comparison to other places wrt this exact issue. That's what we help establish here. We are not "The English Wikipedia enforcing western and american/english values on all countries", we are "The English Wikipedia accurately representing the occurrences, events, and peoples of all places." Sometimes, that means using only the English name. Sometimes it means using only the local name. Sometimes it means dual names. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 09:24, 30 September 2021 (UTC)(withdrawn 23:49, 30 September 2021 (UTC))

• The issue with this guideline is that it does not do that. This guideline clearly states "beyond mandatory official usage". Does that mean it has to reflect the culture, events, and people of New Zealand? Nope, because according to the guideline a couple of sources from somewhere can be enough to change the name of an article regardless of if it actually reflects common usage. You say that sometimes it means only using the English or local name, but current guidelines already account for both of those. --Spekkios (talk) 10:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Shibbolethink, I beg to differ. This is an English encyclopedia so we use the English name, period. If that (commonly used) English name incorporates another name in some way we can use that. What you need to do is show that the commonly used English name for a given place is now the dual name. To make things easier, you only need to use the NZ varient of English as your marker, not English worldwide. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:28, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Please do not tag me any longer in this discussion. I'm good. Thank you.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:49, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• Keep We have the page on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (New Zealand) including Place Name guidance. There are 500+ dual name geographic features and this number is growing. There has been confusion on naming these articles in the past. It makes sense to have clear guidance on this page on how dual names in New Zealand should be dealt with in Wikipedia. The policy WP:MOSAT allows for specific conventions and in this case I believe they are justified. There have only been small disagreements in the last ten years these guideline have existed. If the guidelines need refinement then we should fix them. That is not a good reason to scrap them completely.

A bit more official context on exact what dual names are from LINZ: [18]

Dual naming

Dual naming recognises the equal and special significance of both the original Māori and non-Māori names. You must use both names on official documents. The NZGB format is for dual names to be separated by a forward slash with a space either side, eg, Aoraki / Mount Cook. Generally, the Māori name comes first, recognising rights of first discovery.

Other policies in Wikipedia aren't exactly clear on how these dual named places should be named. One can cherry pick Wikipedia:Article titles or other guidelines to argue a point anywhere from no dual names to only dual names as article title. Therefore I believe it makes sense to have clear guidance on what to do in these cases. If we remove the guideline I believe we're create more contention and more disagreements. Here are some examples of the ambiguity of how we can argue various ways with the current guidelines:

WP:COMMONNAME, often cited. When the geographic feature is lesser known this is often hard to determine. What is the common name of Te Hāpua / Sutherland Sound?

WP:CRITERIA

• Recognizability – Pukeamoamo / Mitre, Mitre, or Pukeamoamo? Some people may know the mountain by the old English only name Mitre, for others may confuse that with Mitre Peak. What name is more recognisable?
• Naturalness – Aoraki / Mount Cook - what is more natural, Aoraki, Mount Cook, or Aoraki / Mt Cook
• Precision – This one can favours dual names see Riverton / Aparima over the disambiguation at Riverton. Or not as may be the case with Stewart Island / Rakiura
• Concision – In the aftermath of the 2019 Whakaari / White Island eruption news outlet were using the complete dual name and both names separately and individually. Having the page at the dual name allowed for instant understanding of the dual name of the feature. It would have been very confusing if you'd read an news article taking about White Island and came across or even couldn't find the page Whakaari on Wikipedia.
• Consistency - Most of these dual named location with a wiki page are currently at the dual name - should they all be? should none be? What is consistent?

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), it is a pretty easy case for dual names all the time: This policy clearly states:

The title: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it

WP:WIAN goes on to mention Encyclopedias, atlases, gazetteers, databases such as the Geographic Names Information System, maps, and governments agencies. All of these tend to update quickly and reflect the dual names quickly after renaming.

WP:RECENTISM and WP:MODERNPLACENAME - I've also seen these used to argue for and against dual names.

I think this whole discussion indicates they is enough to a least have clear guidelines on Dual Names in NZ. If there is particular issues with the wording then we can adjust but I believe the guideline serve a purpose. ShakyIsles (talk) 02:48, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• Reply ShakyIsles:

1: Not all NZ places have official names see ‘Cook Strait’ so we either follow normal rules or always have two sets of rules for NZ place names.

2: How will we find the common name for obscure locations?…by looking at the reliable references used to justify the page, like we do for every other page on minor topics.

3: Recognizability/Naturalness: wouldn’t the common name be the best way to get this?

4: Consistency: as so many names are not official or officially duel, this may always be beyond our grasp. Dushan Jugum (talk) 04:48, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• With regards to your first point, one of the things I've been toying with for a replacement convention proposal (and why I think we need a replacement convention) would be to clarify the process for places which have official names vs. places which have unofficial names. This way we're making sure that it's much clearer overall, instead of having disagreements on what the officialness of the name means, if anything. There have been instances in the past where a name being unofficial has been cited as reason to oppose a move by people who have elsewhere said that a name being official should have no standing on such requests, and obviously the flip side where people who cite the name being official as justification to move propose a dual name for a feature where that name is unofficial. Having a naming convention with clear guidance helps to alleviate all of these issues which we would potentially run into.

As to the second point, what happens if there are no non-government sources which mention the feature at all? Per WP:NGEO this would likely still be notable enough for an article, but given the role of DOC and LINZ in providing information on places in the back blocks, there's a definite chance that a feature could have no sources which aren't required to use the official name.

Also, for clarity, I added an extra layer of indent to your reply so that it read correctly as a reply to ShakyIsles above instead of as a separate top-level comment. Hope that's okay! Turnagra (talk) 05:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes as you can tell by now indents are not my thing. Look if I am being honest my big problem is having rules that sit around, known by few editors, trusted by even less. If we do sort these rules, how do we do better in getting them out there. If this current duel name rule was well known we would not have ten duel name discussions on the go, some of which just ignore this rule. Maybe that is Wikipedia, but some good ideas in this direction would be a big selling point for me. Dushan Jugum (talk) 05:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• I get that, but I think that's easily manageable and something that we can collectively work on. The guidelines for macrons above haven't caused any issues since their adoption, and having clear guidelines would mean that everyone could be on the same page about when a page should use its dual name and when it shouldn't. It would also provide a cohesive place which could be pointed to when a move is proposed and ensure that people new to the area can get an understanding of what the standard approach is for such names. Turnagra (talk) 06:11, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• For your last point, do you have an example where it meets WP:GEOLAND#4 while only meeting it through mentions in government sources? I'm not fan of creating rules on the basis of hypothetical issues (WP:CREEP issues), so an example would be helpful.

Incidentally, with that example I think I can explain why there a name not being official is used as an argument against moving - one of your reasons above in support of keeping this guideline. The reason is the existence of this guideline.

Because this guideline gives heavy weight to the use of dual names when they are designated by official, it becomes a rebuttal against a move, when that move is not supported by reasons outside this guideline, to demonstrate that the name is not official; as such, getting rid of this guideline will solve that issue. (So will, of course, updating the guideline, but I don't think a guideline can really be kept on the basis that it could solve an issue that it currently causes.) BilledMammal (talk) 05:47, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• I'll have a look to see if there's an example for the point - I don't know one off the top of my head, but given that the two main sources for anyone going into the wilderness here in NZ will be DOC information on the tracks and the LINZ supplied topo maps, I wouldn't be surprised if such an example existed.

I see what you're saying in the second portion, but I don't think the guideline being silent on something is the same as it implicitly opposing it. In all likelihood, unofficial names were probably just an instance which wasn't even considered at the time as a thing given that it's such a quirk of NZ's place naming process (hell, I think finding out in 2009 that our two main islands didn't have official names was a shock to everyone) and so 'official' would've just been used as a shorthand. It's an easy enough thing to clear up with revised guidelines and would make the guidelines much clearer and smoother to implement than they currently are, and compared to if no such guidelines existed at all. Turnagra (talk) 06:11, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• The major point of above conversations is that the guidelines (and policy) already exist.--Spekkios (talk) 06:52, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• Another major point of those conversation is that the guidelines aren't sufficient for dual place names, and that specific conventions and guidelines will help to prevent a lot of the issues we're currently having. Turnagra (talk) 18:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• I think that there have been enough examples of policy and guidelines to show that isn't true, and that whatever problems we are having are down to this guideline existing in the first place. --Spekkios (talk) 21:28, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• I suspect we're just going to have to agree to disagree here because I don't think either of us are going to persuade the other. Turnagra (talk) 21:58, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• My only purpose with brining this up in this conversation is to point out that "no such guideline existing" is incorrect. --Spekkios (talk) 22:13, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, my point is there are lots of guidelines but they are not sufficient and even contradict each other in respect to some dual place names hence we should have specific dual place name guidance. ShakyIsles (talk) 02:51, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• What policies or guidelines are contradictory? I think they seem really clear. The dual name would have to be used in a majority of English languages sources, be the common English name for the location, be concise enough, be the name an English user would search for, etc. The policies and guidelines work together and a dual name guideline would still have to be read with all of them. --Spekkios (talk) 04:16, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

  As I stated above in some instances of that advice can be contradictory to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) which states: The title: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. WP:WIAN mentions Encyclopedias, atlases, gazetteers, databases such as the Geographic Names Information System, maps, and governments agencies.

  Take for example Cape Reinga / Te Rerenga Wairua. The dual name is in the NZ gazetteer, on maps, in atlases, and in Te Ara Encyclopedia of New Zealand. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) would therefore suggest it should be at the full dual name. When the name change was suggested for the Cape Reinga it was argued dual name was not used in a majority of English languages sources hence it was not common.

  So how do we weight up these contradictions and where do WP:MODERNPLACENAME and WP:CONSISTENT fit? Surely it makes sense to have clear guidance for dual names Wikipedia:Naming conventions (New Zealand) to clear up any confusion.

  Again we're allowed to have specific conventions see WP:MOSAT. It makes sense to have have agreed way of dealing with these places. There aare going to be many more places renamed to a dual name to reflect both the dual history in NZ. ShakyIsles (talk) 01:57, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think WP:WIAN actually supports your interpretation of it; the use in independent maps and atlas (but not the NZ Gazetteer, nor the Te Ara Encyclopaedia of New Zealand, as neither are independent) supports it being the common name, but other evidence should also be used in determining the common name, such as Ngrams and a review of recent news reports. In this case, it seems that "Cape Reinga" is the clear common name, followed distantly by "Te Rerenga Wairua", with the dual name showing no significant use.

I think to use "Cape Reinga" as an example, you need to argue why we need to abandon WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CRITERIA in the case of NZ place names, as otherwise there is no clear reason why the outcome that you state is desired is actually desired. BilledMammal (talk) 02:23, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• WP:WIAN does support that interpretation, given that it uses sources from the US government in multiple places as examples, along with those from other governments for their respective jurisdictions. Our equivalent here is the NZGB Gazetteer.

This goes back to my earlier point about limited coverage of such places though. We don't have an independent encyclopedia here, nor are our features important enough on a global scale for the international examples to cover them. Local naming conventions provide the best opportunity for us to be able to strike the right balance between approaches without having to rely on inconsistent and competing guidelines.

As I've mentioned before as well, ngrams and similar tools are famously unreliable when it comes to dual names given that both of your other options (in this case, Cape Reinga and Te Rerenga Wairua) are also going to include references to the dual name. There is also a wide range of inconsistent approaches to dual names (for example, "Cape Reinga/Te Rerenga Wairua", "Cape Reinga / Te Rerenga Wairua", "Cape Reinga (Te Rerenga Wairua)", "Cape Reinga Te Rerenga Wairua", all of the aforementioned in the alternate order, and so on) as well as interchangeable use of either component name in the same article, all of which should count as use of a dual name but won't necessarily show up on an automated search. This is all the more reason that we need guidelines to try and highlight what falls into this, what doesn't, and what approach should be taken. Turnagra (talk) 02:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• Apologies, I was not clear. My primary point about the interpretation is that we should not solely be relying on those sources; even if all of those sources agree that X is the common name, if everyone else says that Y is the common name, then WP:WIAN tells us to go with Y. I will also mention that the case in New Zealand is slightly different from the US; from what I have been told, use of the dual name is mandated for government and Crown entities, which makes the situation different from the other government-examples and against the broader policy requiring the use of independent sources set by WP:COMMONNAME.

The point I was getting at is we still don't have a reason why we need local guidelines. For instance, it was claimed above that it would be desirable to have the "Cape Reinga" article at "Cape Reinga / Te Rerenga Wairua"; why would that be desirable?

PS: To address your edit, I'm again seeing this as another hypothetical issue - where the dual name as a concept is the common name, but so many different forms of dual names exist that this fact is extremely difficult to determine - that we should prove exists before trying to solve. Looking at "Cape Reinga" it doesn't appear to be the case here; Ngrams for the alternatives you provided show minimal use, while Google trends shows the same. Meanwhile, a news search on Bing and Google reveals the same results as Ngrams and Trends.

I will also note that we can easily account for the overlap issue where the dual name is in sufficient use to warrant consideration as we know that the dual use is a subset of each of the singular uses, and can thus be directly subtracted from them. BilledMammal (talk) 03:08, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

PPS: While interesting, I don't understand why I am spending so much time on this discussion; I think I will make this my last reply on the topic, and hopefully help prevent the continued acretion of discussion that will deter other editors from contributing. BilledMammal (talk) 03:19, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• But those aren't contradictions at all. WP:WIAN has to be read with WP:COMMONNAME. The compliment each other and need to be read together. That's how every policy and guideline on Wikipedia works; they aren't meant to be read indepednently. WP:MOSAT requires clear benifits, and as we have seen above, current conventions allows for dual names to occur without any additional guideline. Not sure what a supposed "dual history" has to do with Wikipedia naming polciy either. --Spekkios (talk) 03:54, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• Remove from the guide. If the dual name is the common name, then use it for the page name. But if the common name is one of the two names, then just use that. Redirects definately should be there, from the single names or combination name. If the article does not have the common name, then Wikipedia is pushing a particular point of view. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Remove from the guide. WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CRITERIA are decisive of where an article should be. Saying that Wiki should favour official NZ practise even if it is not how the place is generally known is POV, WP:SOAPBOX. If the dual name has merely "usage beyond mandatory official usage" this is meaningless if the other name is still overwhelmingly favoured in reliable sources, however under this standard we would favour the dual name even if the other name is overwhelmingly more common. Also thoroughly agree that creating NZ-specific article-naming criteria is WP:CREEP of the worst kind. FOARP (talk) 07:17, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Keep, but rewrite Wikipedia is a community made up of editors from around the world. It's important that guidelines, and even more so policy, can easily be followed and applied. As many editors have already outlined, there are a number of those guidelines and policies that apply in this topic area. And while dual naming conventions are not unique to New Zealand, I suggest that the particular situation in New Zealand is unique on several levels. And out of this uniqueness comes a requirement to have guidance how our editors should respond to the situation. In other countries where dual names exist, two different languages are being used. What is different in New Zealand is that many Māori language terms are being assimilated into New Zealand English. It is something that has been going on since the first white settlers arrived in the country (e.g. they renamed the major river just north of Christchurch the Courtenay River but the name did not catch on and nowadays, hardly anyone remembers that the Waimakariri River once had an English name) and has in recent decades become more prominent through the Waitangi Tribunal, which was set up in 1975. But what we are really facing is a much more recent phenomenon which kicked in around 2018, when something switched and there has been a massive uptake in the use of Māori terms in New Zealand. I say 2018 because that is the year when most mainstream media outlets adopted that practice and when, for example, the correct use of macrons (which are essential to make Māori words correct) began. In the context of dual place names, I suggest that in many cases, we aren't looking at place names from two different languages but more often it is two interchangeable terms of New Zealand English that are in use. For some places, the English name may be used more often and for other places, the traditional Māori term may be more commonly used. But importantly, often both name components are in use. Fauna has gone through a similar process and is a bit further ahead than place names, I would suggest. I've been in New Zealand for long enough that I can remember that almost everyone would refer to our native pigeon as the wood pigeon or New Zealand pigeon. For many years, that was used interchangeably used with kererū and these days, there are few who do not refer to them as kererū. For dual place names, we are in the phase where the names are often used as interchangeable terms (and it's not Wikipedia's job to predict the future). Thus, New Zealand-specific guidance needs to reflect where things are at, as that isn't something that one can know from reading WP:COMMONNAME and the like. The other thing that country-specific guidance needs to document is the influence that the New Zealand Geographic Board has, where some names are official and others are not. There's a bit of intricate knowledge required how to interpret that and it's easiest if that is concisely documented. Sorry, I've been late to this party. Been wanting to comment from the moment this popped up but we are moving house, which keeps you rather occupied. Schwede66 20:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you User:Schwede66 I agree with your excellent summary of facts, but not where they lead.

"In New Zealand Terms are interchangeable" yes, but this is not unique, in fact it is the problem faced by many pages see Great War/World War I and 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre both problems solved without specific new rules. Your argument that ‘common name’ cannot work, when a language has two words for one thing and somtimes both are used, needs development. I would imagine common name was designed for that very problem and the multiple language issue is the exception.

"Not Wikipedia's job to predict the future" yes, that is why we use common names now rather than the ones we would like them to be in future.

"As that isn't something that one can know from reading WP:COMMONNAME" we follow we do not lead. An encyclopaedia will and should be a bit behind the times otherwise we are following fads, doing origonal research and predicting the future. I hope the 2018 shift is not a fad, in fact it shows a big shift in the common name, if only we already had a rule for that(see Kererū).

”New Zealand Geographic Board has… intricate knowledge required “ we are not special, if increate knowledge and iron clad rules are needed for NZ place names, I fear the Wikipedia dream will be a failure. One hopes the best representation of reliable references rises to the top. Trust in us, not in a new rule.

We need to overcome WP:CREEP before making a new rule...

1 "There is a real problem that needs solving, not just a hypothetical or perceived problem."

2 "The proposal, if implemented, is likely to make a real, positive difference."

3 "All implied requirements have a clear consensus."

To overcome this we need a problem and a solution. The problem can not be the amount of debate we are having for page names as we have had an uncompromising NZ rule for some time and we still have endless debates. So what is the problem that a new new rule would fix, given that amoung other things half the editors won't know it exists? Dushan Jugum (talk) 22:41, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

The naming from the NZGB is a bit all over the place. Some rather large towns don't actually have an official name.[19] Aircorn (talk) 05:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

This is actually one of the reasons I think it'd be good to have guidelines in place - it would allow us a clear approach for dealing with the perculularities that we get thrown with things like official and unofficial names, and the various formats that dual names come in. Turnagra (talk) 06:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

A name being official or unoffical has no bearing on the article title; COMMONNAME already deals with those cases (ie use the common name). We also already have conventions for formats. See WP:NCNZ, specifically here: "Dual names consist of an English name and a Māori name separated by a spaced slash, e.g. Mayor Island / Tuhua". This RfC is not about the format of dual names. --Spekkios (talk) 23:04, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Except it does have a bearing on it, because it's explicitly been used as justification by users in the past to oppose name changes and it shows that a dual name has some legitimacy as an actual name. I noticed today that, until 2011, Mount Taranaki had the article title of Mount Taranaki/Egmont - Taranaki Maunga never had a dual name and this was only able to be moved to its current title following the implementation of these very dual name guidelines. As to your second point of how this RfC is not about the format of dual names, I disagree - this is about whether or not we should have dual place name guidelines, and so anything which could potentially fall within that is part of it by default. Turnagra (talk) 08:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I believe we have already had this discussion; this guideline sets different standards for use based on whether a name is official or not, which makes a names status relevant - and as such, getting rid of this guideline will get rid of the use of those justifications, because both official and unofficial dual names will be subject to the same standards. BilledMammal (talk) 08:58, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• Just because some users use the official name as justification does not mean it is a good justification. Usage of the official name is covered by WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIALNAMES already, so a user using the official name as justification can be directed to those policies already. The approach is already clear from those guidelines: "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. However, in many other cases, it will not be". What additional clarification is needed beyond that?

I'm not quite sure why you disagree about the scope of this RfC. The RfC is about the guideline Dual names. If there are sources that indicate that a dual name has usage beyond mandatory official usage, put the article at the dual name, with redirects from each of the component names. The redirects may require disambiguation, but it is highly unlikely that the dual name will be ambiguous. The date of renaming should be noted and sourced in the article. Links to the article need not use the dual name unless it is appropriate, and the dual name should not be used where historically inaccurate (e.g. a historical reference before the renaming). If sources do not support use of the dual name, the English name will almost certainly be the one in common usage. from here. From the same place we have Dual names consist of an English name and a Māori name separated by a spaced slash, e.g. Mayor Island / Tuhua. which isn't included in the RfC. --Spekkios (talk) 22:13, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Turnagra, you're right, Taranaki shouldn't have been placed at a dual name in 2011, but we already have global guidelines that deal with that issue well: Multiple local names. — HTGS (talk) 03:56, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Except they clearly didn't work at the time, just as the rest of the global guidelines also didn't work. The title was only reverted once the dual name conventions came in. Turnagra (talk) 07:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

How did they not work? It seems there wasn't a consensus to change the article title, but there was a weak consensus to have another move request. The users arguing for keeping that name seem to be citing WP:COMMONNAME. The second move request was held as per the first move request. What part of that process was not working as per policy and guidelines? Unless you're saying that the guidelines weren't working because the dual name wasn't selected? But why would that be the desired outcome in a no consensus about what the WP:COMMONNAME is? --Spekkios (talk) 07:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

They didn't work because the name Mount Taranaki/Egmont survived two move requests when it shouldn't have been at that name at all. It only got moved to a non-dual name after the dual name guidelines came in and explicitly because of the guidelines. Turnagra (talk) 08:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

1st move request opposed by two editors, one because Mount Egmont is the official name. 2nd move request wanted to change the name to ‘Taranaki (mountain)’. Is it your opinion that 'Mount Taranaki/Egmont' is or ever was the common name of the mountain? I suppose I am saying that questionable implementation of current rules (in 2010 by two editors) is not a good argument for creating more rules (in a different place) that conflict with those rules. I am much more interested in hearing why it is in the interests of Wikipedia to name the Moeraki Boulders page 'Moeraki Boulders / Kaihinaki' which would have occurred if we had been aware of/following the NZ rules in September of this year. Dushan Jugum (talk) 09:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Nah, that's my point - Mount Taranaki/Egmont was never any name of the mountain, but rather an amalgam of two separate names - Mount Taranaki (or Taranaki) and Mount Egmont. Dual names, in contrast, are a tangible thing - regardless of whether or not you think it's the common name, I'm sure you can agree that there's a difference between these two cases. Turnagra (talk) 17:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Nobody here is suggesting that “tangible” dual names should be banned; merely that they should be held to the same standards as any other name. But that’s counter to your goal, isn’t it? — HTGS (talk) 22:41, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Im trying to say that you're assuming that the name shouldn't have been placed at the dual name. You might disagree with the result of a move request but that doesn't mean that the guidelines have been used incorrectly. I could easily make the exact same argument:Fox_Glacier_/_Te_Moeka_o_Tuawe should never have been placed at the dual name and only was specifically because of this guideline. Hence, this guideline should be removed. I'll also say that the name of Mount Taranaki/Egmont could have been changed later based on just WP:COMMONNAME. There is nothing to say that the decision made by the editors in 2010 was the correct interpretation of the guidelines or that the only interpretation is that of users 10 years ago, especially because a lot of users who supported a name change thought Taranaki (Mountain) was the best choice. --Spekkios (talk) 16:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

As I said above, that's because Taranaki doesn't have - and has never had - a dual name. Mount Taranaki/Egmont is two separate names that had standing on their own, but they were never combined. In contrast, a proper dual name like 'Aoraki / Mount Cook' and, yes, Fox Glacier / Te Moeka o Tuawe, are a single name combined of multiple origins. Also, you might disagree with the result of a move request but that doesn't mean that the guidelines have been used incorrectly is exactly my point - I think those move requests from back in the day were fine from a process point of view, which is why I'm saying that these guidelines were useful as they allowed us to not have a dual name where one didn't exist. Turnagra (talk) 17:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

It's never had a dual name according to whom? According to the users in that discussion, they argued that the dual name was the most appropriate title. So it would appear that, at the time, there was some disagreement about what to name the article. Whether or not it's official is irrelevent. Also: which is why I'm saying that these guidelines were useful as they allowed us to not have a dual name where one didn't exist. This could be met by WP:COMMONNAME. There would be no case for that article to use a dual name today based soley on WP:COMMONNAME. --Spekkios (talk) 19:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Per Dushan Jugum: [to justify the guideline] we need a problem and a solution. The problem can not be the amount of debate we are having for page names as we have had an uncompromising NZ rule for some time and we still have endless debates.

I think few people are acknowledging outright that the current guideline is the cause of the endless debates. The current guideline is—by at least one interpretation—in direct opposition to most other Wikipedia naming policy, and so we have editors who prefer different policies arguing past each other. — HTGS (talk) 01:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

There are enough various wikipedia policies that, even without these naming conventions, they can contradict each other. As you said yourself, people's interpretations of the wikipedia guidelines differ greatly. Having clear guidelines for these places allows us to all be on the same page about how to interpret the guidelines and to have a consistent approach across pages. Turnagra (talk) 07:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

People have contradicting interpretations of this guideline. Generally speaking, they do not misinterpret other guidelines at nearly the same rate. Generally speaking, the other guidelines do not contradict each other. (Even Concise and Precise work together in a push-and-pull manner.) Even if they did, keeping this guideline would only add to the number of confusing guidelines. Hence CREEP. — HTGS (talk) 22:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you write, but I am not seeing how this is a case for a subject specific guideline over other more general guidelines, in particular the commonname one. If anything it seems to be in favour of using the commonname (i.e hardly anyone remembers that the Waimakariri River once had an English name, For some places, the English name may be used more often and for other places, the traditional Māori term may be more commonly used. and there are few who do not refer to them as kererū) I don't think anyone is arguing against using dual names if they are the common one. Am I missing something? What is it you are proposing needs to be rewritten? Aircorn (talk) 05:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• Keep, I think part of the problem is that common usage for place in NZ is changing, with increased use of either dual names or Māori names only. This will probably be reflected in sources, with older sources using the English name and newer sources using the Māori name. I'm wondering how Wiki would have handled the Bombay to Mumbai change had wiki been fully active then.Red Fiona (talk) 22:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• If it's reflected in sources then why would we need an extra guideline? It's already governened by WP:COMMONNAME, etc. --Spekkios (talk) 23:04, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• This goes back to my earlier points about how many of the names are for places so remote and infrequently talked about that it's often impossible to get non-government sources which talk about it since the name change, which means that relying on old sources would give an outdated impression of name usage. Having guidance around how to approach dual place names generally allows us support on approaching these cases, as the usage of the dual name in sources would likely be consistent if the feature got more coverage (eg. places generally would have a consistent approach to dual place names, rather than using some and not others, as we've seen with macrons). Turnagra (talk) 08:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• I don't accept that we need an additional guideline just because there are some places that don't have sources. That is actually already covered by the notability guideline WP:NFEAT. If the feature doesn't have enough sources because they are infrequently talked about then it's probably not notable and should probably be removed from Wikipedia regardless of what the article title may or may not be if it had more coverage. Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL so we can't make judgements about article titles relying on what the name might be. This also goes back to WP:COMMONNAME as the article name has to have overwhelming evidence for common usage before a name change. Finally, Wikipedia article titles are already consistent in regards to dual names without this guideline, i.e: use the WP:COMMONNAME, which may be a dual name. --Spekkios (talk) 22:13, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• Rather than Bombay/Mumbai, I looked at Burma/Myanmar, which was only changed in 2015, following discussion around the common name.

It's worth pointing out that if we keep the strong preference for the official name as it is written in these guidelines, we will be prevented from making any future move to a common name. All names will essentially be stuck in their bilingual amalgam. I can't foresee any future RfC surpassing consensus here, so there will never be any dual-named places at their Māori names alone, no matter how much that name becomes the common name for the place. — HTGS (talk) 00:55, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• 'Bombay to Mumbai' We would have used the most common name in Indian English, just like we try to do now. Governments; elected, colonial, dictatorial and otherwise are always changing the names of things. By using the common name we remain neutral. Otherwise we find ourselves saying yes to NZ official names, no to DPRK ones and argue over everything in between, based on politics, not attempted neutrality. Dushan Jugum (talk) 00:59, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• Question From the RfC “Should there be no consensus, or a consensus to keep with alterations, a second RfC will be held to determine what alterations are necessary” this feels like a loaded statement. It could be read as “if we disagree the rule stays”, rules need to have consensus, even an old one. I refer you to an old rule to support my point WP:CREEP. And if we can ‘vote to remove’ in the theoretical next RfC won’t it just be the same discussion over again. This time with people proposing actual changes to the old rule. At least then I would know what I am discussing. Is this whole RfC just a straw poll to decide if we should really talk, for real this time? Dushan Jugum (talk) 20:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• The worst thing about the prospect of a second RfC is that no one who wants a resolution of “keep with changes” (the majority of !voters for “keep”) has any responsibility to say what changes they think would make these guideline worth keeping. It definitely leaves one with a very disingenuous taste in the mouth. — HTGS (talk) 22:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oh come on, I hope you think more highly of us than that (or at least know better than to think I'd sit aside in a 2nd RfC!). I've given numerous initial thoughts across the thousands of lines we've written on this by now (as an aside, we should probably archive this page once this RfC is done as it's getting tough to load and is rapidly moving up the ranks of longest wiki articles) and would absolutely propose changes / offer a draft new convention. Turnagra (talk) 09:11, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• This is the same with any discussion on wikipedia. In move requests, no consensus means that the page doesn't move, same with deletion and merge proposals. As far as I could discern from the original intent of the proposal, the idea here was to determine whether we should have guidelines around dual names - whatever they may be - and then have a second discussion on what they'd look like. It's not necessarily what I would have gone with if I were to have done the RfC proposal, but I was happy to go with the proposed approach at the time. Turnagra (talk) 09:11, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, the general vibe of Wikipedia is that the current version (particularly if it is old) gets the benefit of the doubt. However, if it is for a rule we must follow I am not sure that should be so (nor are Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines). Anyway, I am getting dangerously close to being that guy who throws the toys out of the cot when things are not going his way. So, I got a hunch I am not going to change the minds of those editors who have commented “keep” and moved on with their lives. If there is not a “remove” voter who thinks they can sway the “keep” voters who have no incentive to even follow this thread, or a large group of keep voters who think they might ever change their minds… Not my place to say. But I will see you at the next RfC where I will work hard to help create the best rule we can.Dushan Jugum (talk) 19:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• This RfC will absolutely need a formal closing when it comes time to end it. The closer will need to weigh the arguments in favour and against removing the guideline, not just the number of people for or against. See WP:NHC and WP:RFCEND for more detail. --Spekkios (talk) 21:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Mass Ping Discussion.

Along the lines of the similar approach taken during the macron RfC, I've gone through the various discussions which we've had on dual names and identified the users which have been involved. Some of the users involved in those discussions have already been involved, but I've pinged the remaining users to invite them to weigh in on the discussion here should they wish to. User:Chocmilk03 / User:NZFC / User:Lcmortensen / User:Giantflightlessbirds / User:Schwede66 / User:Gryffindor It would be great to get your input as we should ensure that any decision reflects consensus. Turnagra (talk) 07:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC) (Edit: Adding User:FOARP and User:Stuartyeates, both of whom I previously forgot.) Turnagra (talk) 17:44, 14 October 2021 (UTC) Having done this, I'm not actually sure whether I did it properly... Turnagra (talk) 07:25, 14 October 2021 (UTC) @Turnagra:: whatever you did, it worked! Lcmortensen (mailbox) 08:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC) (EC) Turnagra, yes, the ping has worked. Yes, I’ve been meaning to comment. Hopefully, I will find time tomorrow. Schwede66 08:38, 14 October 2021 (UTC) Hi Turnagra; I have to admit to some concerns about who you decided to ping for this debate, as it seems by unfortunate happenstance you selected users who, based on my reading of their comments, are likely to generally align with you in this discussion (I count five likely to be "for" and one "unknown"). Even by the accident this surely was, if I am correct in my assessment (and I might not be, given my lack of experience in this area, in which case I profusely apologize for bringing this up) then this raises serious WP:CANVAS concerns, but for now I guess the best option is to see how they !vote and proceed from there. BilledMammal (talk) 09:10, 14 October 2021 (UTC) @BilledMammal: I can assure you that this wasn't my intention at all - I went through and listed all of the users who had contributed to the general discussions on dual place names in the past (the ones further up on this talk page as well as Clarification on the use of dual place names in article titles on the WPNZ notice board - I didn't look at any of the contributions to specific move requests in doing this either, just people who contributed to the meta discussions on dual names generally), then removed any names of people who had already contributed above. I did this quickly and didn't pay any attention to the views they expressed, just what the specific usernames are. I may well have accidentally missed a user or two in the process, but if so this would've been completely accidental and not because of their views. Happy for you to take a look over the previous discussions and see if there's anyone else who hasn't yet contributed that I missed - four eyes will undoubtedly be better than two! Turnagra (talk) 09:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC) As I said, I have no reason to believe that this wasn't more than an unfortunate happenstance, but that doesn't change the fact that it may be a serious WP:CANVAS issue and so can harm our efforts to develop an consensus of independent editors. Hopefully my assessment is wrong - yourself and others who have experience in WPNZ can perhaps give an early indication if I am - and we can forget about this whole discussion, but if I am not then we do have a problem. (edit conflict × 2) BilledMammal (talk) 09:42, 14 October 2021 (UTC) PS: I've gone through the two pages, and I've found just two that you missed; Stuartyeates (who you previously pinged above) and FOARP. I would consider the first as likely to be "for", and the second as likely to be "against"; I'm trying to WP:AGF here, but I'm sorry - it is getting a little hard when the only user you have not pinged at all is the one likely to be "against" your position. BilledMammal (talk) 10:01, 14 October 2021 (UTC) You're right, I missed both of them off - my apologies, it was late when I was doing it and I was about to head out so I didn't check it as well as I should've - I'll add them to the pings above now. But I don't quite know what to tell you beyond what I've already said - there's no grand conspiracy here, and from my read of WP:CANVAS posting a notification to users who have previously been involved is completely fine so long as it wasn't selective on their votes. If someone like HGTS or Spekkios hadn't yet contributed I absolutely would've tagged them as both had been active in the earlier discussions. Instead, you're using it to cast aspersions around my character (the second time you've done that in this RfC for someone who disagrees with you on the naming conventions) and hold it as some sort of Sword of Damocles based on whether and how anyone chooses to vote despite me not having done anything wrong. Turnagra (talk) 17:44, 14 October 2021 (UTC) I'm not sure if I was counted as a possible "for" or the unknown, but I'm still thinking on this issue and will try to contribute in the next few days if I can form a view; thanks for the contact! I see how there might be a concern, BilledMammal, but I do think that the fact that Turnagra was very open about the "mass ping" and posted here (rather than, say, contacting users separately on their talk pages) should help, as it allows other users to identify anyone who may have been missed (as you have helpfully done!). The NZ wiki community is pretty small which also helps. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 20:55, 14 October 2021 (UTC) First, my apologies. I can see how you can interpret my phrasing with matters such as "proceed from there" as in regards to you, but I would like to clarify that I meant it in regards to the RfC and in my opinion, that simply means leaving this discussion here for the closer to keep in mind, with perhaps a neutral note about it at the RFCL. I am also sorry if this comes across as casting aspersions on you, but the issue needed to be discussed, and in doing so I have tried to focus on it, rather than on you - I will do better in the future Second, I would like to clarify that even without the unfortunate coincidences mentioned above, I would still have issue with a ping by anyone at this late date of the RfC, simply because it is so late. The appropriate time would have been at the very start, and to do it now raises concerns, to steal the words of another, about "erod[ing] the fairness (perceived or otherwise) of the process" BilledMammal (talk) 04:52, 15 October 2021 (UTC) Thanks for the apology, I'm sure it wasn't intentional but it still definitely came across in that manner which didn't feel great. As far as the timing is concerned, I can see where you're coming from but I based that as well off the RfC above. I haven't got a huge amount of experience with the RfC process, so I looked at the one above for timing which showed contributions for a couple months at least. I figured a ping would be useful once there had been an initial burst of activity so that it wasn't harassing people who may have already been across it, with the ping serving more as a heads up for people who had weighed in in the past but may have missed that there was a current discussion going on. Apologies if that isn't the standard timeframe / process for RfCs! Turnagra (talk) 06:59, 15 October 2021 (UTC) "Standard" time for RfC is 30 days, but can go for as little as 3 or as long as 300; there isn't any set time. As an aside, I've placed a notice in WP:NPOVN and WP:VPPOL to try and stimulate discussion and comments, especially from non-NZ Wikipedians. --Spekkios (talk) 08:02, 15 October 2021 (UTC) Turnagra has previously used pings for similar issues (see here for a similar example) so I don't believe there is an issue with this ping. --Spekkios (talk) 21:34, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Remove New Zealand is not the only country that has dual names. This happens with every bilingual country. In those cases the English name is preferred in the English Wikipedia. TFD (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• In those instances though, the names separate for the respective languages - similar to how the North Island has that as an English official name and Te Ika-a-Māui as an official name in Māori. In these cases though, the place has a single official name derived from both English and Māori. For example, the official name of Aoraki / Mount Cook is just that as a single name, they're not separate. Turnagra (talk) 18:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• If a place has an official dual name that does not necessarily mean the dual name is actually used by default and very often the names will still be used separately. Regardless, the article title will still need to show common usage. --Spekkios (talk) 22:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• Remove, I suppose. (Summoned by bot). Simple is better, shorter is better, most recognizable is better. It's a shame for the Maoris and we don't want to be racist, but OTOH being sensitive to minorities is not really our writ, within reason. If there are cases where both names are more or less equally used (this isn't usual I think), then handle that on a case-by-case basis (the usual rubric is to pick one). Herostratus (talk) 02:12, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
• Remove, WP:COMMONNAME should take absolute primacy. That does not preclude the use of the dual names in the article. Cavalryman (talk) 14:29, 28 October 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.