Talk:Taumatawhakatangi­hangakoauauotamatea­turipukakapikimaunga­horonukupokaiwhen­uakitanatahu

Requested move 24 February 2020

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: Consensus to not move. The noes have it. (closed by non-admin page mover) OhKayeSierra (talk) 14:42, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

---

Taumatawhakatangihangakoauauotamateaturipukakapikimaungahoronukupokaiwhenuakitanatahu → Taumata (hill) – This title is too long. It fills up the address bar and may cause formatting problems on mobile and desktop. Aasim 23:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Wikipedia:Article titles tells us how articles are to be named. It is strongly guided by the concept that we call common name and the existing article title represents the common name. There isn't anything on that page about the kind of technical difficulties the proposer is talking about. The case for a page move has not been made. Schwede66 23:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Even then, per WP:CONCISE, titles should be the shortest title to search the subject. So that village in Wales has an article title of Llanfairpwllgwyngyll, not Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch. So... the title may need to be shortened to Taumata (hill), but for a different reason mentioned in the title policy.:) Aasim 02:06, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, this is the common name, used in the sources, and the name is the reason for its notability. Note that there were similar proposals to change the article title in 2014, which failed. See /Archive 1.-gadfium 03:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)o
• Oppose per above and per common name (I hear it in conversation all the time). Randy Kryn (talk) 03:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

  To be honest, what I hear in regular conversation is "That hill with the very long name somewhere in the south of the North Island, which I visited in 20xx when I was ...", but I'm not suggesting we move the article to that title. For me, the last time I visited the site was nine days ago, when I was ....-gadfium 17:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per Randy Kryn (and others as well, but mainly because I wanted to {{ping}} Randy and say "hi!" following a contentious MfD for Portal:Painting I originally closed as "keep," but re-opened following a request from another participant). This is a good case where we need to ignore WP:CONCISE and/or WP:COMMONNAME and invoke WP:IAR. So, call this a strong oppose per WP:IAR. Doug Mehus T·C 02:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

• Hello Dmehus, and may the winds, fine food, and rustic music of Taumatawhakatangihangakoauauotamateaturipukakapikimaungahoronukupokaiwhenuakitanatahu be at your back and guide you into a weekend of editing and good cheer. As to your point, since the name is the real name of the location there is no need to ignore any rule. This is the same as a nomination to change the name of London to Lond, Toronto to Toro, or Rome to Roma (wait, that one should actually be tested). Enjoy. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

• Came back to say I checked Rome and was surprised 'Roma' wasn't boldfaced in the lede as an alternate name (although it's in the infobox title and listed as a Roman name), so boldfaced it and removed its unneeded italics in the infobox title, and will keep watch. Thanks for the inspiration. Who would have known that the flute music from the hill of Taumatawhakathang...well, you know, would reach the seven hills of Roma on Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:33, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

• Randy Kryn, Oh, good point! Doug Mehus T·C 14:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

On a side note, at least the page Taumata (hill) was redirected. Hopefully it makes it easier to find and not painstakingly long to type in :) Aasim 16:45, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 3 July 2024

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. There exists consensus generally opposing the move as proposed.

Most arguments given by supporters fell into WP:CONCISE and WP:COMMONNAME. Generally, usage of these policies pointed toward the display of the title for readers. Opponents, meanwhile, argued on the basis of WP:RECOGNISABILITY. Main arguments against the move focused on the notability of the hill in popular culture and reputable sourcing, as well as the hill being more commonly recognizable using its formal name.

While the overall consensus is fairly evenly split, I find that there is a rough overall consensus against the page move based on the discussion below. (closed by non-admin page mover) EggRoll97 ^(talk) 22:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

---

Taumatawhakatangi­hangakoauauotamatea­turipukakapikimaunga­horonukupokaiwhen­uakitanatahu → Taumata (hill) – Per WP:CONCISE. The shorter name also appears to be more common; even articles that discuss the long name appear to prefer the short one, including Stuff, news18, and NZ Herald BilledMammal (talk) 06:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Support I didn't even consider this would be controversial, let alone that prior proposals would be opposed. It's quite clear per our article naming WP:CRITERIA that this is far too lengthy of a title. Taumata hill is a perfectly natural alternative that is used in multiple reliable sources and described as being the named used by locals. Also WP:WIAN states 'A name can be considered as widely accepted if a neutral and reliable source states: "X is the name most often used for this entity"' Stuff states 'its everyday name is Taumata Hill.'[1]. That's a reliable source quite clearly stating the name is widely used amongst locals. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I prefer your proposed natural disambiguation of Taumata Hill over the parenthetical disambiguation I proposed; looking at the sources again, it also appears to be preferred by them too. BilledMammal (talk) 07:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

The long name establishes its notability. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 22:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment: LilianaUwU Please move the article back to the original name of Taumatawhakatangi­hangakoauauotamatea­turipukakapikimaunga­horonukupokaiwhen­uakitanatahu until consensus is reached. There had already been two requested moves and consensus was not to move. ―Panamitsu (talk) 07:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Panamitsu, I'm aware of this. I'm trying to see how to copy the old title to actually properly move it back. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 07:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

See this. It wasn't intentional, and they have been trying to get it back to that title, although there are technical issues because of its length. BilledMammal (talk) 07:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Did I do it? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 07:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, yours still had the soft hyphen character. I think I've managed to fix it now. BilledMammal (talk) 07:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the original did have the soft hyphen character to an extent, hence why it was at AN for being blacklisted. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 07:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake - I think you're right; they're in the link in my RM, but not the previous RM. I think Canley accidentally introduced them in this edit. However, should it have them? BilledMammal (talk) 07:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I mean... on my end (with Vector 2010), the title trails off the screen, pretty much. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 07:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

And moved back, sorry about that. BilledMammal (talk) 07:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for this mess and waste of time. Although it somewhat highlights the issues with the lengthy name. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:55, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Support per WP:CONCISE and other arguments above. Left guide (talk) 07:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose The hill's unusually long name (arguably the longest in the world) is the specific reason why it is notable. PatricKiwi (talk) 07:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Strong Oppose, per PatricKiwi and it's not the common name. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 07:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Weak oppose. This has been discussed repeatedly, and basically nothing has changed AFAIK. As I said before, the notability of the place seems to stem largely from its lengthy name. The Guinness Book of World Records did not celebrate the place as "Taumata". The Mountain Dew jingle wasn't about "Taumata", and neither were any of the other pop culture references. It is not special in The New Zealand Geographic Placenames Database for being called "Taumata". Most reliable sources that talk about the place seem likely to feature its longer name. Without the name, it's just a non-notable hill. The soft hyphens are helpful for display purposes. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Weak support: Llanfairpwllgwyngyll is also notable for its extremely long name and yet WP uses a shorter, but more frequently used variant as the title. The cases seem analogous. BilledMammal and Traumnovelle cite a range of sources for Taumata as the common name. I'd change my position if there was evidence that the long version was the common name. Furius (talk) 21:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

(a. It obviously remains notable for the long name regardless of whether we use that as the article title; b. it should also be notable for its role in the life of Tamatea Urehaea, but sadly as the article stands it doesn't even include an account of the story: who was the lover? what was the outcome of Tamatea's flute playing?) Furius (talk) 21:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Even without its lengthy name, Llanfairpwllgwyngyll ‎would have a Wikipedia article written about it. It has thousands of residents, a substantial list of notable people who lived there, and a long and rich history dating back several thousand years including a fort, a capture by Roman forces, a notable medieval church, and a Victorian-era church. For that town, the long name is just an interesting observation and tourism promotion, not its only or primary source of notability. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:15, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment I note that the LINZ Gazetteer - which we usually use for guidance in how to name WP pages for NZ places - does not list this hill as "Taumata" at all; instead, it uses the long name. PatricKiwi (talk) 22:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

The Gazetteer actually uses neither the current name or the proposed one; they shorten it to Taumatawhakatangihangakōauauotamateapōkaiwhenuakitānatahu. Also, see WP:OFFICIALNAME. BilledMammal (talk) 00:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose Taumatawhakatangi­hangakoauauotamatea­turipukakapikimaunga­horonukupokaiwhen­uakitanatahu is the real name of the hill can not change it just because it is really long. 173.72.3.91 (talk) 23:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

  Even if the article's title is changed the article body will remain how it is. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose per @BarrelProof comments. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 01:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Support. The sources given by BilledMammal indicate that Taumata is the common name. The article is about the hill, not the long form of the name of the hill; that the hill is well-known for having a long name does not mean that the long name should be the article's title - especially when there is another, more commonly used name. WP:CONCISE also clearly provides support for the shorter name. XabqEfdg (talk) 03:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Support. Taumata is the common name. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 15:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose per Barrelproof and the reason for the hill's notability being the long name. Since the shorter version is redirected to this page there is nothing broken, and the notability remains intact. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support - The length of the place name may be why it is notable, but that doesn't mean we have to keep the article at that name. WP:COMMONNAME applies. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose The hill longest name is what make this hill known for, even though there is a shorter WP:COMMONNAME used by the NZ media, or a shorter but not too short WP:OFFICIALNAME Taumatawhakatangihangakōauauotamateapōkaiwhenuakitānatahu. This place, as the world's longest name, is more notable. I'm concurred with @BarrelProof, without it's longest name, that would become non-notable. --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 19:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment : So as a "compromise", I would support instead to a "medium" WP:OFFICIALNAME of Taumatawhakatangihangakōauauotamateapōkaiwhenuakitānatahu. --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 19:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose any shortening or moving to a shorter name. The hill's notability is in the length of its name. Abbreviating it to "Taumata" would lead to confusion with Taumata near Clinton, about 850 km distant. Daveosaurus (talk) 08:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

No one is going to confuse this hill with an unnotable sheep station in the middle of no where. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Unnotable? If not for its name Taumatawhakatangi­hangakoauauotamatea­turipukakapikimaunga­horonukupokaiwhen­uakitanatahu the hill at Porangahau would be an order of magnitude less notable than Taumata the locality at Clinton, which is a Settlement under the land policies of the 1890s and subsequent decades (which deserve an article of their own if anyone has the time to write one). Clinton is a well known refreshment stop on Highway 1 approximately mid-way between Dunedin and Invercargill. Porangahau is miles from any highway and is in the wild country between Dannevirke and Cape Turnagain.Daveosaurus (talk) 09:11, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support - I haven't followed this debate but at a glance I think the common name should apply, ie the short version. However, the place is notable almost entirely due to its long name and so that must be written in bold in the first sentence as an 'also known as'. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  The first bold text in an article doesn't need to match the title, see today's featured article: Ed Bradley. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  Okay thanks. Wouldn't that mean using the short version for the title and the long name as the first bold at the start? The commonly used name is the title with the formal name at the start of the lead. However, on reflection, what is it the article is about? Is it the hill or the name? Hmm, on balance I still think it should be about the hill with the short name as the title. Apologies if I am going over detail already discussed. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, if this move is successful the title would be Taumata hill with the leading remaining as it is. The article is about the hill although focuses on the name a bit. There is some content that can be used to write about the hill itself: https://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/back-your-backyard/300097188/world-famous-in-new-zealand-hawkes-bays-taumata-hill (note how Stuff chooses to use the short name for the title too). !Traumnovelle (talk) 09:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  I've thought more...The title should be the commonly used name. That will be the short name. References using the long name are about the name itself, not the hill. The Welsh comparison isn't a good one because the Welsh town's long name is not as excessively long and so can be and is sometimes used in sources about the twon. See Oriental Republic of Uruguay, an unusual but official name but the article title is just Uruquay. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Support per WP:COMMONNAME 『π』BalaM314〘talk〙 12:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:RECOGNISABILITY. As others have stated, the long name is the reason for the hill's notability, and is far more prominent than an arbitrarily shortened name. The proposed name is also frankly generic, with several other places in NZ sharing it and the title introducing unnecessary disambiguation. I'd be open to use of the shorter official name as I think that would align with WP:NZNC but my preference would be for the current title to be retained. Turnagra (talk) 00:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. The long name is more recognizable than the shortened version. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 04:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Support. Per nom. --Spekkios (talk) 10:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. The primary rationale given by the proposer is concision, per the WP:CONCISE policy. According to the OED, "concise" means "Expressed in few words; brief and comprehensive in statement; not diffuse." And its opposite, "diffuse", means "expressed in or containing many words; expansive, discursive". Nothing at WP:CONCISE is contrary to the dictionary definition of "few words", as opposed to "many words". The current title is one word (albeit a very long one). The proposal is to move to a title of two words (albeit much shorter words). But concision is few words, not few letters. The proposal is actually for a less concise title. The secondary rationale given by the proposer is commonness, and three news articles are provided in support of this. The first article, in Stuff, mentions "Taumata Hill" in the headline and the article states, "Locals will pronounce it fluently for you, but its everyday name is Taumata Hill". The second article, in news18, states "Local people call this place Taumata Hill". news18 also refers to it variously as a "hill", "mountain", "place", "village" and "township". It is a hill and a place, and I'll let have "mountain", but it is not a village or township. news18 is a news site in India, so it is not too surprising that they might be hazy on a NZ topic, but IMO these mentions make them less than reliable on this topic. The third article is in NZ Herald. Oh dear, this article must have been mentioned by mistake. It says "known also as Te Taumata for short". It makes no mention of the simple "Taumata", nor of "Taumata Hill". In my reckoning, this leaves us with just Stuff, a single news article, which is hardly sufficient weight to move the page. Those are my policy-based arguments. Additionally, and I said this to a previous move request, to Taumata, but it was ten years ago (to the hour), so please excuse the repetition, the short name is used in casual conversation by people who live nearby, just as they say "Waipuk" for Waipukurau, and we are hardly going to move that article (in that discussion I was defending the shorter long name as title, not the present longest name). Nurg (talk) 11:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

The policy says The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. This appears to be referring to length in general, not word count. BilledMammal (talk) 11:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

It can also be referring to word count. This is one word, a concise applicable title. The nomination extends that to two words. That's too long, compared to a one-word descriptor. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it’s more than a little silly to claim that an 85 character title is not longer than a title consisting of two words and 12 characters. BilledMammal (talk) 13:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

And it could be argued the other way, including the above information brought by Nurg. The language is unclear. Every long-winded hill has the right to a defense, no?, and since more-than-a-little silly is medium silly, maybe, but still accurate. Word count is mentioned in one of the two examples given at WP:CONCISE, as is letter-count. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

It is obvious that the current title is longer than "Taumata Hill". Nurg's OED definition is irrelevant, since nowhere is it written "all terms are used in accordance with the OED". The meaning of the policy is clear from context; it makes no explicit reference to word or letter count, just brevity. The current title is not brief, which is why it is not in common use.

Besides, the current title is merely many words joined together, so even if the OED definition was to be used, the page should still be moved. XabqEfdg (talk) 14:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

No, we shouldn't use the OED definition, but it is a point of reference. For Wikipedia policy, one of the two examples at CONCISE mentions word count and letter count. In common use, if you show the full title to someone they may recognize it because of its notability. Show lots of people the two-word redirect title and I'd guess they'd have no idea what makes that notable let alone recognize it. I wouldn't have. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Dictionaries such as the OED give the meanings of words. A word's meaning is not irrelevant. Nurg (talk) 09:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

While I agree that it's silly to claim that the current title is more concise than the proposed, I don't actually think the proposed title is suitable under the definition you just quoted. I don't think someone could reasonably be expected to look at the proposed title and be like "Oh that's that hill in the Hawkes Bay with the super long name", and as mentioned the title introduces disambiguation which wouldn't be needed with a different choice of name. Turnagra (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

BilledMammal, The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects does indeed appear to be referring to length in general, when taken out of context. The full quote though is Concision – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects, and Concision means fewer words. Nurg (talk) 09:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. The real name of the place is Taumatawhakatangi­hangakoauauotamatea­turipukakapikimaunga­horonukupokaiwhen­uakitanatahu, and the fact that the name is really long does not mean it can be changed. A redirect can be provided for the shortened version. I'm Here to Help You (talk) 05:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - the name is key to the subject's notability and significance, changing it to anything else would be confusing to readers. If Taumata is being used anywhere, it's likely for brevity and convenience, I don't feel that the common name would be anything other than the full name, given its significance. ASUKITE 16:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support per BilledMammal Zinderboff(talk) 17:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, seems weird to chose a less-notable contraction of a name for a place that is only really notable for the name.David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 04:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support - per WP:CONCISE. I did not find any good arguments for oppse:-
  1) "Real name of the place" is not very relevant, see WP:OFFICIALNAME.
  2) "The place is notable for its name" - Thats an argument against deletion. The long name being its claim to notability does not influence the title. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:55, 20 July 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.

Soft hyphens

If the current RM fails, should this be moved from Taumatawhakatangi­hangakoauauotamatea­turipukakapikimaunga­horonukupokaiwhen­uakitanatahu to Taumatawhakatangihangakoauauotamateaturipukakapikimaungahoronukupokaiwhenuakitanatahu? They look the same; I'm just proposing deleting the current title's four soft hyphens. These are hidden characters that permit the page title to be broken up at line breaks, but because they virtually never appear in page titles, they can cause confusion for editors and non-editing readers — especially since they're invisible, and there's no immediately obvious reasoning that they're placed where they are, rather than at other spots in the word. See this discussion at WP:AN, related to the recent series of pagemoves started by someone who was unaware of title discussions here at talk. Nyttend (talk) 12:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I would support that, if they're arbitrarily placed and invisible, no reason to have them. The only reason I can think of adding them is that maybe in some case they show? Perhaps on certain mobile browsers, but I can't get them to render for me. (Scratch that, they showed on Edge and not Firefox.) Still really unnecessary, as the title text stands out enough on its own to not need hypens (the only real purpose for which is indicating that a word is continuing, but the title style is unique and large enough to make this irrelevant)

Actually, on that note, perhaps it's so that links to the page wrap in body? That's a possible reason to keep the hypens. ASUKITE 16:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Per the discussion with LilianaUwU, omitting them causes the title to run off the edge of smaller screens (take a look at the redirect with your browser window shrunk). Because of this, I think they're necessary. BilledMammal (talk) 16:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

For me at least (using Edge), the redirect wraps better (or rather more smoothly) when I shrink the size of the window. At the current address, shrinking the window causes it to wrap in irregular chunks. Furius (talk) 09:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)