Talk:Maniniaro / Angelus Peak

Requested move 10 February 2023

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. Aside from a lack of consensus, the arguments for moving do not convincingly obviate WP:NZNC. Hadal (talk) 20:27, 20 March 2023 (UTC) No consensus. --Hadal (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

---

Maniniaro / Angelus Peak → Angelus Peak – Per WP:COMMONNAME, MOS:SLASH, and WP:CONCISE. Independent and reliable sources rarely discuss the location, but when they do they refer to it as Angelus Peak; Google news shows two results for the proposed title, compared to none for the current title. The proposed title is also shorter, and complies with MOS:SLASH which recommends against joining two words with a slash because it suggests they are related without explaining how. BilledMammal (talk) 07:26, 10 February 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. No such user (talk) 14:27, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Added move of associated dab. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 06:19, 14 February 2023 (UTC) reverted

Vacated close
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 07:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - as mentioned several times in past discussions with the nominator, MOS:SLASH doesn't apply in cases concerning NZ dual name titles as there are provisions for this sort of thing within that guideline, while criteria in WP:NZNC that the nominator supported require the use of a spaced slash for dual name articles. With that said, I'm pleased that the request points to the news results, as they demonstrate that the proposed title is clearly unsuitable and not WP:PRECISE enough - one of the two results is for a completely different mountain in the Karakoram Range. That leaves one article discussing the subject of this article with the name "Angelus Peak" from before its name was changed, alongside another article from last year that uses the name Maniniaro/Mount Angelus. Add to that the fact that the exact sort of sources that WP:WIAN tells us to use (Maps, Gazetteers, Databases, and more maps) all use the dual name - if they cover this at all - as well as the limited research which mentions it, and there's really no justification to move it to the proposed title. It's less precise, less recognisable, its use of a slash is supported by the relevant naming conventions, and literally the only article to mention it in the past decade uses the dual name. Turnagra (talk) 08:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

require the use of a spaced slash for dual name articles When the dual name is the appropriate title, due to being the clear WP:COMMONNAME, the slash is appropriate as that is the format typically used. Outside of those cases, the MOS tells us not to use the slash - if you want to propose an alternative format for dual names, please do so.

one of the two results is for a completely different mountain in the Karakoram Range That is a fair point; I overlooked that. However, the proposed title is sufficiently precise because the primary topic is this mountain; Angelus Peak currently redirects here.

You are also right that the WP:COMMONNAME case is weaker than I believed, due to that article you found (even though it also doesn't use the current title), but that still leaves us with WP:CONCISE and MOS:SLASH, both of which support the current title.

WP:WIAN tells us to use Disinterested, authoritative reference works and gives us a list of examples of sources that can be disinterested. In this case, they are not; the Gazetteer is required to use the official name, geonames copies the Gazetteer, maps published in New Zealand are legally required to use the official name, as is research. The New Zealand Geographic Board, which sets and enforces those rules, notes that Google Maps doesn't always comply with them despite their efforts to compel them to do so, but as Google maps sources more obscure place names from government sources that doesn't help matters here. BilledMammal (talk) 08:55, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Dual article titles are generally discouraged. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - The Pakistan peak frequently refered to as Angelus Peak is at least as notable. Notwithstading that, the current name is the actual name and seems to be often used. It meets all the requirementsat WP:WIAN. ShakyIsles (talk) 07:22, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support per Rreagan007. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:29, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom. --Spekkios (talk) 19:44, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

---

• Weirdly, for completely technical reasons, I oppose this move. I generally like WP:USEENGLISH and WP:COMMONNAME and detest slashed titles, but A) the common name case isn't compelling to me, B) WP:NATURAL may have to apply (given the other peak named Angelus), and C) New Zealand English often really, really likes Maori names, so local NZ sources need to be located to compel me about this move. Red Slash 18:47, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose: The dual name appears in most of the article's cited sources: Ref 1 (the NZ gazeteer), Ref 2 (a news site), Ref 6, and Ref 8 (which records the adoption of the dual name); "Angelus Peak" alone appears in Ref 7 (borderline in terms of being a WP:RS); Ref 3 is a dead link for me; Ref 4 & 5 do not actually name the mountain. So, if there is a common name, it is the dual name. If there isn't a common name, then WP should use the official name. Furius (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up about the dead ref! I'll try and get that fixed up shortly. Turnagra (talk) 19:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose: Given that the mountain in Pakistan is also known as Angelus Peak, the dual name is a useful for natural disambiguation. Schwede66 22:52, 13 March 2023 (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.