Talk:Selwyn River

Move

Turnagra, do you really think a move request is required here? "Selwyn River" is clearly the commonname per Ngrams, as well as news results that show that Selwyn River is used preferentially. While we can have an RM, it seems to be a waste of time for a move that should be as uncontroversial as this one, particularly as the reason this was moved in the first place in now longer valid given the change to WP:NZNC. BilledMammal (talk) 01:39, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes - I've made my thoughts on ngrams clear elsewhere, but they're not suitable enough to have any impact on this discussion. Turnagra (talk) 18:32, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Would you agree that in almost all cases, the "official" dual name will be the most common dual name? If you do, then I struggle to see your issue with dual names in cases like these, where dual names are so uncommon that the most common doesn't even register on the chart. Can you explain, so I can address your concerns? BilledMammal (talk) 23:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Turnagra; just pinging you to see if you want to respond before I open the move request. BilledMammal (talk) 09:59, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd assumed that this was being usurped by the process you're proposing on the NZNC page. I'm also not really set on the official orthography being the most common one - for instance, up until recently Lake Ellesmere / Te Waihora used parentheses instead (Lake Ellesmere (Te Waihora)) which wasn't necessarily the most common orthography for the name - even we used a slash instead. A quick look shows fairly prominent sources which use no punctuation, a dash, or reversed order. Many of these instances, as I've explained elsewhere, would be contributing to the rates of individual names, and I suspect that "Waikirikiri" being at a significantly higher proportion of references to the river in that ngram now is actually a reflection of the dual name being much more common. Turnagra (talk) 17:46, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 5 March 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: moved. Favonian (talk) 10:02, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

---

Selwyn River / Waikirikiri → Selwyn River – Per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE, and MOS:SLASH. Google ngrams shows use of Selwyn River, but not of the current title. A Google News search shows 18 results for Selwyn River in the past year, but only seven for Selwyn River / Waikirikiri. A Google Scholar search shows 105 results for Selwyn River since 2019, but only 19 results for Selwyn River / Waikirikiri. (I haven't fully reviewed the Google Scholar results and a few may be unrelated, but not enough to change the clear preference for Selwyn River)

The proposed title is also shorter, and better complies with MOS:SLASH which recommends against using slashes because it suggests that the words are related without specifying how. BilledMammal (talk) 08:29, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Support per nom, but leave slashed version in the lead. BhamBoi (talk) 20:22, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

It would be; my preferred format is currently used at Uluru: Uluru, also known as Ayers Rock and officially gazetted as Uluru / Ayers Rock BilledMammal (talk) 04:00, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Something similar happens at Donostia BhamBoi (talk) 04:30, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support - Per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CRITERIA, WP:SLASH. There was a well-intended effort to include non-English language names in the titles of Wikipedia articles, but we do not name articles based simply on official names - we use the common name, which the search results show to favour just "Selwyn River". Conciseness easily favours the shorter Selwyn River name, as does recognisability. FOARP (talk) 13:47, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Dual article titles are generally discouraged. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NZNC#Dual and alternative place names which states this is how it's done for New Zealand titles. Not sure why, but this is a policy page, and title consistency is important. Steel1943 (talk) 00:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Steel1943: That only tells us how to use dual names when we use dual names, it doesn’t instruct us to use dual names - the section instructing us to use dual names was removed following an RFC in late 2021. BilledMammal (talk) 00:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  Umm, the section stating the dual names is the one I linked. My rule of thumb is that we should go by the most specific policy with the smallest scope. WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE, and MOS:SLASH can apply to like any article in any subject, whereas WP:NZNC is specific to subjects relating to New Zealand, meaning out of all of the titling policies mentioned thus far, WP:NZNC should take priority. In addition, I don't see anywhere it is explicitly clear which section to use in WP:NZNC for such titles; I mean, the section I linked doesn't even state to refer to another section, such as the one above it, instead of itself. So, the safest bet would probably be to start a discussion to move all titles away from the dual titles if the dual title is not the WP:COMMONAME (which was not the specific result of the RFC you linked.) Steel1943 (talk) 00:56, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  The section you linked doesn’t tell us to use dual names? And we already started that discussion, it was the one to remove the requirement to use the dual name even if uncommon that I linked. BilledMammal (talk) 01:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  May want to reread what I said about the RFC. And thus, my interest in participating in this discussion has been exhausted due to the incoming WP:BLUDGEON. That's all folks! Steel1943 (talk) 01:13, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  Replying to one editor who disagrees is not bludgeoning. And I read your comment on the RFC; removing the instruction to diverge from higher level guidelines like WP:COMMONNAME is equivalent to adding an instruction to use the higher level guidelines. BilledMammal (talk) 01:49, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  ...There it is! Sprinkled with some WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT essay that may not exist! Steel1943 (talk) 06:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Steel1943 You need to settle down. NZNC is not policy, so it does not take precedence. Nobody is bludgeoning you; you are confused about the situation, and BilledMammal is trying get you both on the same page. At this point your own behaviour most resembles someone refusing to get the point; attempting to close discussion by walking away is not good faith. — HTGS (talk) 20:57, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  @HTGS: You need to realize I stopped giving a crap about this discussion once the usual suspect did their usual type of response. I don't have any desire to get in the weeds here, so don't bother. Thanks. Steel1943 (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  ...Well, that, and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT doesn't mean what I thought it meant, so struck that out. Steel1943 (talk) 01:47, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

  It always seems that people used to write more essays in the olden days. Makes you wonder what changed… — HTGS (talk) 10:29, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

  You and several others, I'm afraid. It seems to be par for the course with the dual name discussions, everyone else in favour of dual names has long since been driven from the discussions. Turnagra (talk) 04:25, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom. --Spekkios (talk) 19:07, 9 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.