Talk:Taukihepa / Big South Cape Island

Requested move 10 December 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: no consensus. Even setting aside the continued dispute over the independence of maps, there is sufficient uncertainty about the common name in other sources (compare the nomination statement with Turnagra's !vote of 15 December) to prevent me from finding a consensus in this more-or-less evenly divided discussion. The dual name is the stable status-quo title. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

---

Taukihepa / Big South Cape Island → Big South Cape Island – Per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE, and MOS:SLASH.

Google News shows 13 results for the proposed title, compared to 6 results for any form of the dual name. Google Scholar shows 334 results for the proposed title, compared to 73 results for any form of the dual name. The scholarly results appear to mostly be relevant, though a complete review has not been completed. BilledMammal (talk) 05:22, 10 December 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Lightoil (talk) 03:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject New Zealand has been notified of this discussion. Bensci54 (talk) 13:41, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose per the name's regular usage in reliable independent sources which routinely cover the island, such as maps and gazetteers (the sort of thing WP:WIAN tells us to use). The mentioned scholar results also include extremely old sources from before the name change - looking at recent usage, we see:

• Dual name: 21
• Big South Cape Island: 15
• Taukihepa: 7
• Multiple names including dual (equal):1
• Multiple names including dual (mainly Taukihepa): 4
• Multiple names including dual (mainly Big South Cape Island): 2

These figures demonstrate a clear preference for the dual name over other options and, alongside the use of the dual name on the aforementioned maps and gazetteers, suggest that there is no good argument to justify a move to an outdated name. I'd also note that MOS:SLASH has no relevance to this move request due to WP:NZNC requiring the use of a slash for dual names and the provisos for such cases in MOS:SLASH, and that the proposed title isn't even the most concise option - but that concision needs to be played against other criteria, such as actual use and recognisability. Turnagra (talk) 22:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose move per WP:RS. The most reliable source (NZGB gazetteer via Toitū te Whenua/LINZ) gives the name as Taukihepa / Big South Cape Island per https://gazetteer.linz.govt.nz/place/5838. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support Maps are not independent - they are bound by instruction from the surveyor-general who is not independent. This is similar to LINZ as recently shown on another talk page. The dual name system is a muddled mess created to promote words above their weight in common English usage, principally words in the Maori language. Once again, not independent. In any case, these dual names should not be considered as 'one indivisible name' despite what some might say: they are, in most but not all, cases simply a confusing amalgamation of two words, one English and the other Maori. If we use only the English word component of the dual name there is no misunderstanding whatsoever and there is no real deviation from the official dual name either because the English name is part of that dual name. We therefore avoid the artificial non-independent name used by all recent maps and government agencies. If we do that the only reason a person has to advocate use of the full dual name here in Wikipedia, is if that person wanted to promote the Maori part of the dual name. There will be exceptions, such as dual names that do not comprise two words in two languages, that have to be dealt with as they arise. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

  WP:RS is a generally accepted standard. WP:ITSALLACONSPIRACY is not. Daveosaurus (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

  WP:IS is a required standard for determining the common name; see WP:NZGB. BilledMammal (talk) 22:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

  See also Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (New Zealand)#Is LINZ a "disinterested" source? where your argument that LINZ isn't independent was thoroughly rebuked. Until there is actual community consensus that LINZ isn't a reliable or independent source, its use of certain names is relevant to these discussions (and highly so). Turnagra (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

  I think you’re a little confused; LINZ is probably independent, but it isn’t disinterested. However, LINZ is only one source, and as long as we aren’t assigning excessive weight to it, as to do so would violate our policy of not automatically using the official name, I’m not overly bothered whether we use it.

  Meanwhile, sources which are legally required to follow LINZ’s lead lack editorial independence - as a thought experiment, imagine I’m creating a map or writing a local government report. Because the map is being published in New Zealand, or the local government report is for an NZ local government, I’m legally required to use the official name. Did I independently choose to use the official name?

  Of course not; independence precludes being legally required to say something. BilledMammal (talk) 23:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

  Again, your argument on this has never held up to any scrutiny nor does it have any community consensus behind it. Until that point, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWdd6_ZxX8c - Turnagra (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

  That consensus already exists; we don’t need a seperate consensus for every source that is legally required to say X that it saying X isn’t independent. You’re welcome to try to overturn that broader consensus, but good luck. BilledMammal (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

  Where is your consensus that LINZ is disinterested and that they successfully exert influence on sources to alter their use of names? Turnagra (talk) 00:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  As I said, I’m not particularly concerned by LINZ, but if you are interested I can provide a pile of sources demonstrating they are not disinterested on your talk page.

  Regarding other sources, see the sources at WP:NZGB which prove both the legal requirement exists and is enforced. BilledMammal (talk)

  Thanks for confirming that you have no consensus behind your claims. Turnagra (talk) 01:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  That consensus already exists; we don’t need a seperate consensus for every source that is legally required to say X that it saying X isn’t independent. You’re welcome to try to overturn that broader consensus, but good luck.

  BilledMammal (talk) 01:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  You can't magically hand-waive at a vague consensus to support your claim that nearly every NZ source isn't independent when it comes to names. If you've got a backing, prove it. Turnagra (talk) 01:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  A minority of NZ sources.

  And there is no magic hand waving here; I’ve demonstrated, with reliable sources, that a legal requirement exists and is enforced - you don’t get to pretend that sources that are legally bound to say X are independent on the topic of X.

  If you wish for these sources to count I suggest you open an RFC proposing language be added to WP:NZNC that removes the WP:COMMONNAME requirement that we use independent sources. BilledMammal (talk) 01:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  Again, the argument that such sources aren't independent was resoundly rejected over at WP:NZNC, and your "proof" of enforcement doesn't actually provide any proof that it's enforced other than LINZ saying the diplomatic equivalent of "trust me bro" with no concrete examples. So I repeat my earlier https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWdd6_ZxX8c, and mention that this is now getting off track from the original (and largely pointless) move request. Turnagra (talk) 02:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  To be clear, your argument is that the source that you have repeatedly said is highly reliable, the source which Daveosaurus called "the most reliable source", is lying?

  Good luck.

  As for the informal local discussion about whether LINZ is disinterested; our involved assessment of that discussion of involved editors differs, but as I've said repeatedly, I'm not particularly concerned by LINZ. BilledMammal (talk) 02:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  It's possible for a source to be authoritative and reliable when it comes to one area, while also wanting to demonstrate that they have done more when it comes to their performance review.

  And that discussion involved multiple editors which are not regulars to NZ place name discussions, so your claim of them being involved is also flawed. Turnagra (talk) 02:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  Generally, a source that outright lies is considered generally unreliable, so its a little convenient for you that it is only unreliable in areas you want it to be unreliable, but ok. Fortunately, your concern is unfounded; if you look at the sources I provided you will see concrete examples. I trust you will withdraw your objection now?

  Of the editors who participated in that discussion, only one is not a frequent participant in these discussions. But as I have said repeatedly, I'm not particularly concerned by LINZ - if you want to count that as a single source for the purpose of WP:COMMONNAME, I will not object. BilledMammal (talk) 02:45, 3 January 2024 (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.