Talk:Riverton / Aparima

Untitled

Photos of the Sound Shell in action 'back in the day' would be great — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.109.166.142 (talk) 08:50, 1 January 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: moved. per discussion consensus, WP:NCNZ, and WP:CONCISE as it removes the DAB. There may be an ongoing discussion about changing that convention, but for now, the current guideline is how we adjudicate and close discussions. When/if that guideline changes to not support dual names, this can be revisited. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:45, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

---

Riverton, New Zealand → Riverton / Aparima – official name since 1998[1], it's time to update this. Would also eliminate disambiguation issue. Gryffindor (talk) 08:44, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not give preference to official names over common names. (For clarity, consider the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland or North Korea.) Please provide evidence that “Riverton / Aparima” is the predominant name outside of official usage. Consider that “Apirama” alone may be more common than “Riverton” and “Riverton / Aparima”. — HTGS (talk) 00:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support As per naming conventions. Seems like there are many references to the dual name in multiple sources. Also avoids the disambiguation of Riverton.ShakyIsles (talk) 10:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support Moving to official dual names has a strong precedent and has previously been ruled as uncontroversial - as ShakyIsles said, this move would alleviate the requirement for disambiguation and better reflect recent usage. Turnagra (talk) 04:49, 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. Furthermore, the "long precedent" of doing so involves for the most part a couple of users supporting a move and does not represent a consensus, and it is dishonest to claim as such. Users not understanding naming conventions and changing article names is should not be seen as a precedent, and if it is, the only precedent that has been establish is a precedent of ignoring guidelines for WP:ADVOCACY Spekkios (talk) 09:17, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Comment As with on the other move requests, let's go through those. WP:NCGN states that articles should use the widely accepted name (WP:WIAN), and that sources which can be used include:

• Major English language encyclopedias, widely used atlases, modern country names and spelling of place names - all either not relevant or can't find anything because of how small Riverton / Aparima is. Best I've got is that Google Maps uses the dual place name, as does the Encyclopedia of New Zealand.
• gazetteers - the NZGB Gazetteer uses the dual place name
• databases - both the above gazetteer and the US Board of Geographic Names database list the dual name
• Maps - topo maps of the area use the dual name.
• Government agencies to standardise place names - the NZGB is responsible for this, and recognise the dual name as the official name as above in the gazetteer.

Further down in the guidelines, WP:MPN says to use the modern name for the feature, which in this instance is the dual name. As to WP:RECENTISM, this explicitly states that it's not wikipedia policy or part of the guidelines. A better, actual policy in this case would be WP:NAMECHANGES, which states that extra weight is given to sources used after the name change. At any rate, given that this change happened over 20 years ago, I'm curious as to how long your criteria for recent changes is.

Finally, I'd like to remind you that WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH is a thing. I'm more than happy to go back and tally up the users involved on both sides in past move requests / discussions on dual place names as it is only two/three users at most that consistently oppose the shifts compared to a much wider group in favour of dual names, but that doesn't seem like a productive use of time. Wikipedia has enough policies and guidelines that don't necessarily work in alignment that both sides are able to try and cite justification for their views, which is why move requests like this are important to establish consensus and track record.

As with South Cape / Whiore, it's also worth pointing out WP:PRECISION here. Shifting to the dual name eliminates the need to have the disambiguation of New Zealand in the title. Using the accurate title of "Riverton / Aparima" helps to distinguish this article from the 25 other instances of "Riverton" listed on wikipedia. Turnagra (talk) 23:01, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support as per dual / bi lingual use in New Zealand English. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:37, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: It might be worth noting these ongoing discussions:

1. Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (New Zealand)#Dual names
2. Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (New Zealand)#Does a consensus for the section "Dual and alternative place names" exist?

There may be some question of whether the relevant aspect of NZ naming conventions actually reflect[s] the consensus of the community. While these discussions are ongoing, I decline to present my own opinion on this proposed move. BilledMammal (talk) 07:12, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. There is a current RfC proposal draft on the guidelines for dual names. Spekkios (talk) 23:49, 25 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.