Talk:Manawatāwhi / Three Kings Islands

[Untitled]

This article is remarkably similar to http://www.tutorgig.com/ed/Three_Kings_Islands Kotare 11:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey Kotare. That site is a Wikiclone,and their Three Kings article acknowledges its source as Wikipedia - hence the similarity. I removed the link to it since its the same info almost exactly. Kahuroa 19:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

humpf

The islands are situated on a submarine plateau, the Three Kings Bank, and are separated from the New Zealand mainland by an 8 km wide, 200 to 300 m deep submarine trough

in fact they are separated by 32 NM and surely the sea is far more deeper than 300 m !

the text is a bit ambiguous - the width and depth refer to the actual dimensions of the trench and not to the distance between the islands and the mainland. Needs someone with access to the original source to rewrite. Kahuroa (talk) 18:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Translation into Chinese Wikipedia

The version 05:37, 17 October 2019‎ ShakyIsles is translated into zh:三王群岛 to expand an existing stub there.--Wing (talk) 05:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 17 April 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: Not moved. Consensus to use the double name which is official in NZ. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 00:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

---

Manawatāwhi / Three Kings Islands → Three Kings Islands – Not a name used officially or colloquially. WP:COMMONNAME — HTGS (talk) 00:27, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done @HTGS: It appears this page was moved to its current title in accordance with WP:Naming conventions (New Zealand)#Dual and alternative place names. I think a requested move is necessary to gauge consensus for a move per WP:COMMONNAME. For sources that use the dual name see [1][2][3]. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

This one has a history of a bit over a year of lots of undiscussed moves; nothing on the talk page. The right move would be to request a revert of undiscussed move to the status quo ante, and then discuss on the talk page whether to use the official name as article title or not. There's no justification to protect the current title presently. Dicklyon (talk) 23:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 17:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose I’m not sure what you are saying as this is the official name. As per our naming conventions, we use a spaced slash even if the official name has it unspaced. Schwede66 19:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. In addition to the sources cited by Lord Bolingbroke above, I note the following additional sources that appear reliable and that use both names: [4] [5] [6]. The current page title therefore seems appropriate and in accordance with WP:Naming conventions (New Zealand)#Dual and alternative place names. Chocmilk03 (talk) 20:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Those links provided is more than enough proof that its official and common name when you have LINZ, Stuff, Auckland Museum and even National Geographic using the dual name. NZFC^(talk)(cont) 06:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose based on WP:NCNZ and the links given by Chocmilk03 and NZFC Somej (talk) 07:34, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment only commenting (though I oppose the move) as I feel like, as the original instigator of the most recent move, I have a conflict to some degree. The justification for making this without a formal request was that consensus has built around the use of dual names for places in New Zealand where they have an official dual name (which, to counter the original claim, the Manawatāwhi / Three Kings Islands do, as per the official NZGB place name gazetteer). There have been multiple instances in the past (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) where move requests to dual names have been supported unanimously, which have deemed the move of place name articles (where they have an official dual name) to be uncontroversial. Further, my most recent move was simply to align the page name to be consistent with the official name, by swapping the order of the Māori and English names to have the Māori first. Turnagra (talk) 09:14, 20 April 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.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Port Pegasus / Pikihatiti which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 20 May 2022

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

The result of the move request was: no consensus. There is no momentum in favour of moving the page, but the oppose arguments aren't overwhelmingly strong. The opponents mainly cite WP:WIAN, but the nominator disputes whether the opponents' interpretation is acceptable, with no end in sight. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:48, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

---

Manawatāwhi / Three Kings Islands → Three Kings Islands – Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE. Searching for Manawatawhi as a substitute for the dual name, as all forms of the dual name will include Manawatawhi, ngrams shows that Three Kings Islands is overwhelmingly the commonname. Google News shows the same result, with 25 results for Three Kings Island in the past year, compared to 6 results for any form of the dual name, all referring to the same story. BilledMammal (talk) 09:04, 20 May 2022 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 13:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment, is there a reason this is being re-proposed in the same way it was proposed about 30 days ago? EDIT: My bad, I now see it was a year ago. But my question stands. Has anything substantially changed in that time? --Cerebral726 (talk) 18:06, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
  • @Cerebral726: The main argument opposing the previous move request was a section of WP:NZNC that required the use of the dual name even when it wasn't the common name, such as at this article. That section was removed following an RFC last year. BilledMammal (talk) 10:59, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose another proposal which has been litigated and relitigated. Opposing this for the same reasons already explained in depth above. WP:WIAN tells us to use such sources as Encyclopaedia Britannica, gazetteers, maps (incl. google maps), and international sources such as the NGIS database and the Library of Congress, not to mention explicitly referencing government agencies whose job it is to standardise place name usage, as the NZGB would be here. All of these use the dual name. Turnagra (talk) 19:04, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

  WP:WIAN requires disinterested reference works - in other words, independent. The only independent source you have provided is Encyclopaedia Britannica, as the rest are either New Zealand government sources, which don't try to determine what a place is called, but what it should be called, or directly copied from New Zealand government sources.

  Encyclopaedia Britannica is a good source, but it isn't enough to outweigh the use of the name in independent English-language news media. BilledMammal (talk) 10:59, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

  You yourself have said in the past that google maps is an independent source, so it seems weird that you're trying to discredit it now. I also find it bizarre that you're trying to assert that the Library of Congress somehow has a vested interest in dual place names by claiming it's not disinterested. Turnagra (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

  The source of the current Library of Congress entry is Land Information New Zealand WWW site, June 4, 2010:NZGB gazetted notices archive (3 March 2005: Notice of final decisions to assign place names; Manawatāwhi/Three Kings Islands, group of islands 60km north-west of Cape Reinga, [formerly] Three Kings Islands). It's not independent.

  Google Maps sometimes sources from government sources, and it is not clear when it is sourcing from government sources, when it is sourcing from independent sources, and when it is independently choosing the name of a location. It is more appropriate to not use it as a source rather than guess whether a specific example is independent. Apple Maps has the same issue (although in this case it uses "Three Kings Islands"). Bing Maps makes it clear which source it is using, but it isn't useful here as its source is Wikipedia. BilledMammal (talk) 02:32, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, principally per WP:WIAN. Government agencies whose goal is to standardize the use of place names are explicitly listed on WP:WIAN as examples of reliable, disinterested sources, so I don't find myself convinced by the claim that we should discount sources that are connected to the NZGB. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 03:19, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

  WP:WIAN presents that as an example of Disinterested, authoritative reference works. NZGB is different from most such government agencies as they aren't disinterested; they don't record what places are called, but instead what they believe a place should be called. Further, the examples provided, even if accepted as suitable references, don't allow us to ignore the ngrams results, the Google News results, and the Google Scholar results (31 for the dual name, 193 for Three Kings Islands) all of which support Three Kings Islands being the common name. BilledMammal (talk) 04:02, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose I see zero need to relitigate what we resolved a year ago. Schwede66 09:58, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.