Talk:French Pass

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151121203027/http://www.linz.govt.nz/regulatory/place-names/recent-place-name-decisions-and-place-names-interest/nzgb-decisions-august to http://www.linz.govt.nz/regulatory/place-names/recent-place-name-decisions-and-place-names-interest/nzgb-decisions-august

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

What level of detail is appropriate?

My edits to add the number of fatalities from the diving accident were reverted, due to "excessive detail – readers can read the references if they want that level of detail".

Readers certainly can, but where should the line be drawn between information in the article and information in the references? WP:DETAIL is unhelpful on this question. WP:ROWN suggests to me that this reversion is not for a good reason.

The number of fatalities is currently described as "multiple". Is that two, three, or fifty? To me, that information seems germane and fits with WP:SS but I'm happy to discuss whether others believe so. There is other information in the article that is equally borderline. The article describes them as "students". Is that more relevant than the number of fatalities? I don't think there's a hard and fast answer here, so I'm asking for guidance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happyinmotion (talk • contribs) 06:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Ashley River (New Zealand) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 16 December 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: The primary argument against moving is the existence of the previous RM. As the closer of the previous RM, I would've appreciated someone dropping me a ping to ask me about how wide-ranging the close consensus was but, as I'm closing it here: BilledMammal is correct that the previous RM was primarily concerned with disambiguation, and there is no bar on a more specific move request for different reasons (indeed, I said as much about the article currently at Franz Josef / Waiau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)). There is a consensus that this is the primary topic, so the article is moved. Sceptre (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

---

• Te Aumiti / French Pass → French Pass
• French Pass → French Pass (disambiguation)

– The disambiguation form of Te Aumiti / French Pass was recently changed from French Pass (New Zealand). However, it turns out that disambiguation is not required; the French Pass in New Zealand is the primary topic for "French Pass", and so should be at the base page per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. This can be seen in page views, with the New Zealand pass receiving many times more views than the other pass, and it can be seen in Google News results, even when searching from the United States where the other "French Pass" is, with the French Pass in Oregon receiving no coverage, and the French Pass in New Zealand receiving a significant level of coverage; the following is a small, but indicative, sample: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16. BilledMammal (talk) 22:37, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Note that a number of the references listed above actually are referring to the settlement of French Pass (Anaru) near the body of water Te Aumiti / French Pass, and some others are ambiguous and could be referring to either the settlement or the body of water. Paora (talk) 02:13, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

On re-reading, there are two that are ambiguous, Much loved dolphin returns to French Pass and 'There isn't much holding it up': Disintegrating French Pass jetty on last legs, so I've struck them both though I would still read them as applying to the water, particularly the monument to the dolphin that used to live in the pass. However, I can't see any that unambiguously refer to the land based location? BilledMammal (talk) 02:29, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Ref 2 refers to both the settlement and the water. The dolphin story is clearly about the settlement, referring to the French Pass community, the French Pass residents association, and the jetty, which is at the settlement on Elmslie Bay, not in the body of water called French Pass. Similarly, the jetty story is referring to the settlement and makes no reference to the body of water. All of the earthquake stories are ambiguous as they talk about the earthquake being centred some distance from French Pass, without any indication of whether it is the settlement or the body of water, as it doesn't particularly matter in the context of the stories. Paora (talk) 03:58, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the jetty, I see you are right, but as I said, struck already. 2 disambiguates the settlement as "French Pass town", while it refers to the water as "French Pass", without qualification; I think that is indicative. For the quake, "GeoNet said on Tuesday about 2.55pm that the quake was centred 80 kilometres north of the French Pass." If the context is the settlement, "the" is grammatically incorrect. BilledMammal (talk) 04:14, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Geonet almost exclusively refers to settlements in their locations (only one of the last 100 earthquakes refers to a geographic location, and that's for an earthquake down past Fiordland where there aren't towns to refer to). I'm almost certain that the geonet reference will be in regards to French Pass / Anaru instead of Te Aumiti / French Pass. Turnagra (talk) 19:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

On Geonet's map, the community isn't labelled, only the waterway is. It seems more likely that they will define an earthquake in relation to a feature that is on their map, than in relation to a feature that is not. To confirm this, I checked the most recent fifteen or so locations with an earthquake defined in relation to them, and all of them are labelled on the map. BilledMammal (talk) 23:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support per nominator. This article is the primary topic so does not need disambiguation. --Spekkios (talk) 04:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose a move request on this was completed literally 24 hours ago, with a fairly strong consensus behind it. If you have an issue with the result, take it to WP:MOVEREVIEW instead of a vexatious use of move requests. Turnagra (talk) 19:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• The move request was to discuss the form of disambiguation, and assumed that disambiguation was required. This move request is to discuss whether disambiguation is actually required, with evidence that it is not; they cover separate topics, and so are entirely appropriate to hold in close proximity. If you still believe that it is inappropriate, then please take it to WP:ANI rather than continuing to cast WP:ASPERSIONS here. BilledMammal (talk) 23:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
• Could someone explain why the change is needed and how those looking for other French Passes aren't going to be confused by only finding this one please? What is proposed for the disambiguation page and should it include the Nepalese French Pass? Johnragla (talk) 01:14, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• The change is needed per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and per WP:PLA; onsite and offsite evidence tells us that when "French Pass" is referred to, it is overwhelmingly in the context of this body of water. As with all primary topics, there will be a small number of readers looking for a different topic, and that will be handled as it is in all other cases, with a hatnote added to this article.

Regarding the current disambiguation page, per the proposal it will be moved to French Pass (disambiguation), and the Nepalese French Pass should be added to it. However, I don't believe its existence changes this being the primary topic, both per recent coverage, and per the fact that the notion of adding that French Pass to the disambiguation page has not come up before, which suggests that references to it are infrequent. To confirm this, I looked into JSTOR results for "French Pass", and of the identifiable locations, the community was mentioned just twice, the Nepalese pass just three time, while the waterway was mentioned twenty-eight, making it much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined. BilledMammal (talk) 01:50, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment given the proximity of this to the recent move, it's probably also worth paging the other editors involved in that discussion (and I'm somewhat surprised that you didn't do this to begin with): @Giantflightlessbirds:, @Gadfium:, @ShakyIsles:, @Schwede66:, @ModernDayTrilobite:, @EmeraldRange:, @Gonnym:. Note that I haven't included four users from that who have already been engaged above. Turnagra (talk) 20:47, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose on procedural grounds as this has gone through a requested move with clear consensus recently. Schwede66 16:33, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support based on common name and primary topic. Dual article titles are generally discouraged. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:50, 31 December 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.