Talk:Moeraki Boulders

Untitled

The article tries to explain their origin and fails... why are they round ? --88.164.17.243 (talk) 19:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Is today's EPOD ripping us off, or what's the deal there? Melchoir 00:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Not vague and redundant or anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.96.11 (talk) 19:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

"...nearly to almost perfectly spherical."

Wow that's clear as mud. Kinda like the difference between fast and really fast, or slow and kinda slow.

Wouldn't "...majority being nearly spherical." suffice? Especially when the next lines goes on to describe the ones which aren't spherical.

I have also seen these types of boulders along the Pacific coast of California, specifically, Crystal Cove at Newport Beach. The boulders are much older than those we saw in New Zealand, most of them being either flattened or reduced in diameter. The largest we saw in California were probably 8 feet in diameter, most being 3-4 feet in diameter. Amazingly, no one seems to notice these boulders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.196.196.237 (talk) 15:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

These boulders also occur in a cliff face, which is inland from Amberley, New Zealand. Upstream and downstream from where Laidmore Rd hits the river. GPS co-ords -43.057426, 172.582018 and -43.057210, 172.591886. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiwistyler (talk • contribs) 07:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

How many boulders are there? Can someone include this in the article, preferrably the first paragraph? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.191.86 (talk) 02:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 15 September 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: (non-admin closure) NOT MOVED - consensus is that a common name is preferred over the official name for this topic. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

---

Moeraki Boulders → Moeraki Boulders / Kaihinaki – official name since 1998 [1], time to update this. Gryffindor (talk) 08:17, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Is 'Moeraki Boulders / Kaihinaki' the official name for the boulders or for the geographic location? I read the page being about the boulders, not the place where they are most famously exposed. For example is the rock outside the Otago Museum a 'Moeraki Boulder' or a 'Moeraki Boulder / Kaihinaki'. 'Moeraki Boulders' still seems to dominate in the geological literature. Google scholar 'Moeraki Boulder' 198-536 hits depending, Kaihinaki 8-15 hits depending. We also have the name/spelling Te Kai-hinaki. Dushan Jugum (talk) 09:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

The NZGB Gazetteer (the official source for place names in NZ) lists Moeraki Boulders / Kaihinaki as the official name for the rock formation. As to your question about the one outside the museum, I'd say that it was from the Moeraki Boulders / Kaihinaki rather than using a singular, but I acknowledge that different people would have different choices in that regard. Turnagra (talk) 03:30, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose At this point I can not find evidence that 'Moeraki Boulders / Kaihinaki' or 'Kaihinaki' are the common or official or scientific name for the boulders. In small part because the boulders extend far beyond the scenic reserve with that name and in large part because the name of an area is not automatically the same as the name of the things in it. Dushan Jugum (talk) 09:55, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

It's late and I am being pedantic. I will wait and follow consensus. Dushan Jugum (talk) 10:11, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Gryffindor as per Stewart Island / Rakiura and NZGB[2] and this discussion, I think you are within your rights to be bold and change it. Dushan Jugum (talk) 21:13, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

As Dushan Jugum points out, this page is about the boulders/rock formations, which have no official name. Please, Gryffindor, look before you leap and measure at least once before you cut. You are wandering through pages now, without sight towards whether these name changes are appropriate at all. The common name is what we are looking for, and the common name is indisputably "Moeraki Boulders", with rare mentions of the Māori name. — HTGS (talk) 02:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I find the proposed revised name to be confusing. The name change should be to 'Moeraki / Kaihinaki Boulders' to make it clear to readers that the boulders are the feature being referred to Paul H. (talk) 17:12, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

To clarify, this is an example of a dual place name, which is where the old name of the feature (usually given by European settlers) is combined with the traditional Māori name using a slash. In this instance, the offical name of the boulders is "Moeraki Boulders / Kaihinaki" Turnagra (talk) 03:20, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

This comment is incorrect - the boulders / rock formation does have an official name, and this official name is Moeraki Boulders / Kaihinaki. Turnagra (talk) 03:20, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Turnagra, in rereading Dushan's comments, I actually find them much more confusing than they were when I first skimmed them. I still don't see a need to move the page, as the boulders are best known by the current title and adding the dual name brings little to no benefit—adding only a confusing and long title when the page is sufficiently recognisable as it is. — HTGS (talk) 03:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose The guidelines are very clear that the official name of a place is not sufficient to change the title of a Wikipedia article. As per WP:NCGN, WP:RECENTISM, and WP:COMMONNAME, there is not sufficient evidence to show that the requested name is commonly used to the point were an article name change is required. Spekkios (talk) 09:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Also see WP:CONCISE, WP:UCRN, and here Spekkios (talk) 06:25, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. No evidence supporting a move in terms of policy (which people are asked nicely to read before raising or commenting on an RM, and in several places during the process). A redir from the official name is however required, and I have created it. And no, that doesn't pre-empt the RM process. If we get consensus here to move, the redir can be easily overwritten (unlike its talk page, which I have therefore not created for now). Andrewa (talk) 08:37, 23 September 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.

• Support as per dual / bi lingual use in New Zealand English. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:38, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Can I have a bit more Stuartyeates, this affects many NZ pages. As long as no one mentions macrons we should be safe. Dushan Jugum (talk) 03:50, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Not needed found Wikipedia:Naming conventions (New Zealand). Dushan Jugum (talk) 08:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)