Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (New Zealand)/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Lead sentence and infobox

Reading MOS:LEADLANG I am inclined to believe that when an article has an English title the introduction should use the format Title (Māori: Maori) such as with Christchurch. I can't find any other policy or guideline that would suggest otherwise. I am also under the impression that infobox names are to be of the format found here. Does anyone know of policy or guidelines that would suggest otherwise? --Spekkios (talk) 01:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:LEADLANG is dealing primarily with the language in parentheses, not what format the rest of it is. WP:OFFICIALNAME and WP:COMMONNAME both state that other names (such as an official name, or a person's actual name) should appear in the introduction. Using the examples from WP:COMMONNAME, the article for Bono opens with Paul David Hewson KBE (born 10 May 1960), known by his stage name Bono, not simply "Bono", while the article for Fall Guys opens with the full title of Fall Guys: Ultimate Knockout without any reference to it being usually shortened to Fall Guys. I presume you're talking with regard to the use of dual names in infoboxes, in which case the point is moot because dual names are the English name, and as this name is also of Māori origin then repeating the Māori name immediately below it would be redundant. Turnagra (talk) 05:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Turnagra, 100 per cent correct. Schwede66 08:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not so sure it is. WP:OFFICIALNAME states the official name should always be provided early in an article's introduction, not immediately or an equivalent. This can be seen in the geographic examples from WP:COMMONNAME such as Germany (German: Deutschland), officially the Federal Republic of Germany, the Great Pyramid of Giza (also known as the Pyramid of Khufu or the Pyramid of Cheops), North Korea, officially the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK). So for Franz Josef Glacier it would be something like "Franz Josef Glacier (Māori: Kā Roimata o Hine Hukatere), officially Franz Josef Glacier / Kā Roimata o Hine Hukatere" or something like that using the examples provided. The official name could alternatively be placed elsewhere per general guidelines for geographic names.

For the infobox, is there a consensus or policy that would suggest that would be the case? That's quite a bold claim to make as I'm sure there will be many who would argue that the dual name is English/Maori, not just English. --Spekkios (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be reading stuff that isn't there. Something stating that the official name should be provided early instead of it using the term immediately doesn't mean that it can't be provided immediately should we so choose. There's no reason why we shouldn't have the dual name first up (except for someone's personal preference, which isn't justification enough). As for infoboxes, we've had this discussion several times before about dual names being the English name so I'm not going to bother relitigating it. I'm sure there are many who argue lots of things incorrectly, that doesn't make them right. Turnagra (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Should we so choose? Has that decision been made? Is there a policy or guideline or consensus to say that decision has been made? There's no reason why we should have the dual name first up (except for someone's personal preference, which isn't justification enough). As for infoboxes, again: is there a policy or guideline or consensus to support using a dual name over the standard format? Style guidelines seem to support using one over the other. --Spekkios (talk) 19:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Interesting discussion. Something that to me is constantly overlooked in debates like this is what I call the commonsense approach. By that I mean we should take a step backwards to take a more overall commonsense view, something that an 10 year old would understand. In this case, this is an English language encyclopedia so we use the term/name that comes naturally to an English speaker, NZ English speaker if you want. We do not need anything more than commonsense to know that the term, say, Franz Josef Glacier / Kā Roimata o Hine Hukatere is not used by the vast majority in everyday speak. Therefore, our starting point is to use the normal common name of Franz Joseph, with the official name taking a secondary position. To do anything other than that is to artificially force the issue which contravenes common sense and the whole point of an encyclopedia in a democracy. Artificial diktats like that belong with govts trying to push an agenda, such as official PR of China maps, or in this case the NZ govt who choose to interpret legislation in a particular way. There are other issues to consider as well as the use of official name in all official sources, but they should not override the commonsense intent of an English language encyclopedia. Before anyone jumps up wagging their finger and saying that commonsense is not a criterion for what we right here, I would point to the sky is blue principle - we don't need to prove something that is patently obvious, namely that the common name of that place beside that rapidly declining chunk of ice is simply Franz Joseph Glacier. (I'd say the same for Christchurch, too). Turnagra, you state, "There's no reason why we shouldn't have the dual name first up (except for someone's personal preference, which isn't justification enough)". I would say there certainly is a reason we should not give undue prominance to dual names by putting them first - common sense. Common sense is not necessary someone's personal opinion, as you are implying. The sky is blue - that is not my personal opinion, it is blue because it is, and I do not need to prove it. That west coast settlement is call Franz Joseph, and I similarly do not need to prove it. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

For official dual names I'm not sure why we're making this complicated. Isn't the commonsense and simple way just to write the official dual name and avoid the need for any further breakdown. Full history of naming can be included deeper in the article. See Cam River (Canterbury), Benneydale, Dagg Sound - This simple approached is also used at the places that are already at the official dual name on Wikipedia e.g. Aoraki / Mount Cook, or Doubtful Sound / Patea. For example Cam River (Canterbury): The Cam River / Ruataniwha is a small river in Canterbury in the South Island of New Zealand. It is a tributary of the Kaiapoi River, itself a tributary of the Waimakariri River.

This is the beauty of dual names; the combined name already contains the two historical names and they can be used together or individually.ShakyIsles (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I would have said that the common sense approach would be to keep the general style regardless, especially because there are no style guidelines saying otherwise. That example would become Cam River (Māori: Ruataniwha), with the official name stated later in the introduction or article. --Spekkios (talk) 22:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

In my view, in the case of Aoraki / Mount Cook it would be odd and jarring to have Mount Cook in the heading of the infobox and Aoraki in italics below it (or similarly to have Mount Cook (Māori: Aoraki) in the lead sentence). The dual name *is* the common English name, just like Māori words form part of New Zealand English. In my view, if the dual name is the name of the article, this should certainly be the approach taken (and seems common sense). Is this something we could agree on, as a matter of consensus?

I'm less sure about the approach to be taken in the infobox and the lead for articles such as the Franz Josef Glacier, where I would be inclined to agree that the dual name under current guidelines shouldn't be the title of the article... I do see the point being made about consistency with other approaches, but I also see ShakyIsles' point about the clarity and simplicity of using the official dual name up front. Perhaps there is a role here for an NZ guideline? Will keep thinking.

Incidentally, as a final point, I don't believe Christchurch has a dual name, so am not sure it is a helpful example to use here. It has an informal te reo name, which is quite a different situation. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 00:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Using the title as the first name in the lead sentence is covered by point 2 of the general guidelines, so in the case of Aoraki / Mount Cook the lead would remain as it is, but in the case of Cam River (Canterbury) the lead would change to the method I described above. The Christchurch example was used as an example of that format, not as an example of a location with a dual name. --Spekkios (talk) 01:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Spekkios, I misunderstood your initial comment about Christchurch; appreciate the clarification. In relation to the infobox side of things, I note the general guideline says: "Infoboxes should generally be headed with the article title, and include these alternate names. The formal version of a name (Republic of Serbia at Serbia for a header) can be substituted for it (etc)". Could this be a case where the dual name (as the formal name) could be substituted in the infobox? Just throwing the thought out there for discussion. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 02:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

With cities I think we tend to use the common name of the city, rather than the official - for example, Jamestown, Saint Helena and Munich. BilledMammal (talk) 02:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

That would suggest that substituting the dual name (as the formal name) instead of the alternate names would be acceptable (but not required), yes. That of course assumes that the dual name is the formal name as opposed to a formal English and formal Maori name separately. I would say based on that guideline that either is fine, but we should also be consistent throughout articles. --Spekkios (talk) 03:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

In instances where we're using the old name as the article title I could live with having the dual name as the infobox title and the article title as the first bit as a compromise approach, but I don't think it should be anything less than that. For instance, Cam River (Māori: Ruataniwha), officially Cam River / Ruataniwha at the start, with Cam River / Ruataniwha in the infobox. For articles that are at their dual title, I think the dual name should be both but I'd be fine with having the old name also there (eg. Cam River / Ruataniwha (Māori: Ruataniwha), also known as the Cam River). Would you be able to live with that so that everyone is somewhat happy? Turnagra (talk) 08:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not inquiring about what I (or anyone else) has to live with to be happy: I'm inquiring about what policy, guidelines, or consensus exists for the lead and infobox sections of articles. From what I have seen through this discussion, the first name mentioned should be the title of the article followed by any alternative names either in the lead or in a section on the name. For the infobox, the header should be the article title or the formal name of the subject. Given that the vast majority of articles across Wikipedia follow a standard format I don't see any reason to divert from that. --Spekkios (talk) 08:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Which my approach is consistent with - I'm proposing that we agree on a consistent approach to it based on that so that we don't keep having edit conflicts on the matter. Turnagra (talk) 08:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what approach you have or have not been following, but if it's consistent with the guidelines above I don't have an issue with it (not that it needs my approval). --Spekkios (talk) 08:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm meaning the approach I proposed in this edit, which should be useful for all cases. Turnagra (talk) 09:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I think your approach is consistent, though we may need a different method for where the dual name is used for the purpose of disambiguation. BilledMammal (talk) 09:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I see your point, but I think that just ends up complicating things and will likely lead to good faith attempts at changing it. It's easier just to treat them as any other dual name article for this purpose. Turnagra (talk) 09:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I think we need to credit the average reader with a modicum of intelligence. Using the example of biographies, which in my view works well, the common name is the article title (obviously) but the lede opens with the subject's full name, without the need to then explicitly note the difference betwen the common name and the full name. Picking a random example, the article on cricket umpire Fred Goodall begins: "Frederick Robert Goodall ONZM ED (9 January 1938 – 18 October 2021) was a … ". There is no need, reinforced by the MOS, to explain that Fred Goodall is his common name and that Fred is short for Frederick. The analogous situation here would be if the article is Cam River (Canterbury), and it is agreed that Cam River is the common name, then it is entirely appropriate to start the lede: "The Cam River / Ruataniwha is a small … ", and then use Cam River in the rest of the prose, rather than the clumsy and repetitive form, "The Cam River / Ruataniwha (Māori: Ruataniwha), also known as the Cam River, is a small …", or the similarly repetitive form, "The Cam River (officially Cam River / Ruataniwha), is a small …". Obviously, within the body of the article, there will be more detailed discussion of the various forms of the name, and how it has changed over time, being made official, spelling changes and so on. If Cam River / Ruataniwha were used as the article title for disambiguation purposes, then the lede would still be as per my first example above, and the article would proceed as described.

As an aside, it would be good if people would refrain from editing articles to their preferred form while this discussion proceeds and we have (hopefully) achieved a consensus here. Paora (talk) 09:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe biographies are the most appropriate comparison, as there is a convention there that extends beyond Wikipedia that means that format is not confusing. The same convention doesn't apply to place names.

Turnagra, I slightly misunderstood what you were proposing. I believe the infobox should be headed with the article name, as the infobox is supposed to clearly present the details of the article, and introducing a name without any explanation or indication as to why it is different is not clear, as well as likely to lead to good faith attempts at changing it. I do agree with what you say about the disambiguated articles, although for those we should replace "also known as" with "commonly known as". BilledMammal (talk) 09:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: You seem to be suggesting that my proposal is confusing. It would be helpul if you could please explain what you find confusing. Thanks! Paora (talk) 10:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Your proposal doesn't provide any context for the dual name, while the format at Cape Kidnappers, for example, does. I also don't see any benefit in using a name that is not the common name, and if that is the desired path we should change policy to have the article titled at the official name, rather than using one name for the article and a different name in the lede and infobox. BilledMammal (talk) 00:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

As we've already established above, infoboxes can substitute the article title for the formal name of a place, as is used in multiple country articles such as Serbia, North Korea, and the United Kingdom. I don't think what you describe is an issue, as the very first sentence would have the difference in name as well as a section explaining the actual name. Turnagra (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree that this is the simplest and easiest way to go with the lead sentence and would be my preference. Nobody is going to get confused and think that Cam River / Ruataniwha is somehow not the Cam River. Turnagra (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

This was exactly my point above. It avoid the clumsy repetition. People still realise they're at the correct article as the dual names contains both other names. This format is already used widely at articles that are at the dual name and articles at a single name. See Cam River (Canterbury), Benneydale, Dagg Sound, Aoraki / Mount Cook, and Doubtful Sound / Patea.

With regards to the info box. I believe standard should be to put the full official name at the top as well. This seems standard at geographic place names. I point to the hotly debated East Timor page that doesn't even have "East Timor" anywhere in the infobox. ShakyIsles (talk) 19:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

That format is inconsistent with almost all other pages such as the New Zealand pages Christchurch and Dunedin as well as other pages in other countries like Edinburgh and Lothian. If having the official name in the lead is clumsy it can be placed in a "name" section as per the policy above.--Spekkios (talk) 20:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Spekkios, let it go. You've made your point. Others have heard you. They just don't concur with what you've got to say. Schwede66 21:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

This is a discussion, Schwede. It requires that people discuss proposals. ShakyIsles, Chocmilk, Turnagra, and others have also continued to discuss after making their original point. It is inappropriate to single me out, especially when, contrary to your statement, there is no clear consensus about what "others" think about the points I have raised, nor anyone else mentioned or participating, and especially when we already have guidelines and policy concerning this issue which need to be considered. Furthermore, to describe my participation as "deliberate trolling" as you did in your edit note is extremely innapropriate and not in good faith. Note that during this discussion Chocmilk and I discussed guidelines raised by Chocmilk that related to infoboxes which concluded that using the official name as the infobox title is perfectly acceptable as per the aforementioned guideline, and as such I considered this conversation productive. This is off-topic, so if you or anyone else has issues with my conduct, take it elsewhere, such as my talk page.--Spekkios (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@Spekkios: I don't see any inconsistency here. Pages such as Christchurch and Dunedin are for places that do not have an official dual name, so the format that you suggested right at the outset of this thread is, in my view, the way to go. The format that I, Turnagra, ShakyIsles and others are suggesting above is for those places that do have an official dual name. Paora (talk) 23:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the official status of a name should have any impact on how we write the first mention of the subject in the lead. An official can be mentioned later in the lead or in a naming section. My basis for that is point 2 of the general guidelines for geographic names which states that the title can be followed in the first line by a list of alternative names in parentheses. That seems to imply to me that the first name used in the article should be the title of the article page regardless of the official status of the name in question. Using the proposed method above would be inconsistent with that guideline. Those guidelines also provide for using other names like official names (ie:Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or that is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted. Local official names should be listed before other alternate names if they differ from a widely accepted English name or Alternatively, all alternative names can be listed and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section immediately following the lead, or a special paragraph of the lead; it is recommended to have such a section if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves). That would imply that because the official name is just a combination of the title and another name in English or Maori that it doesn't wildly differ from the title name and therefore can be placed later in the lead or in a separate naming section. --Spekkios (talk) 00:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Come on. I hope that this is being facetious and not a genuine attempt at a comparison - nobody is suggesting that Christchurch / Ōtautahi or Dunedin / Ōtepoti are the names for those respective cities. Articles which refer to a feature which has separate Māori and European names are irrelevant here; we're talking about articles where the feature has a dual name - as in, a name where both the Māori and former European names form part of the same name. This is different from alternate names where they're distinct, and is something which I feel like I've tried to clarify enough that I'm sounding like a broken record. Your argument seems to either fundamentally misunderstand dual names or is trying to pretend they don't exist, both of which seem bizarre.

At any rate, I think we've settled that the infoboxes can and should use dual place names. I'd also like to point out that those guidelines state that are advice, intended to guide, not force, consensus (emphasis mine). I believe that the prevailing consensus so far is that the dual names should be referred to in the lead sentence and, moving forward from this, that the most concise way to include this information and the other names is simply by using the dual name as - by their very design - doing so has the nice side effect of including the other names for the feature already. Turnagra (talk) 05:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, I disagree with using the dual name as the primary name in the infobox; I misunderstood what you were proposing previously, believing you were suggesting the dual name should be included in the lede and infobox, but not as primary in either. BilledMammal (talk) 06:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, but it does appear you're the only one here with that view as having the dual name as the primary name in the infobox seems to be consistent with wider wikipedia policy. Turnagra (talk) 09:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Though no one has actually mentioned it, the policy you are referring to is MOS:INFOBOXGEO, which grants an exception for the formal name. The issue with applying this is that official names are not always formal names; "French Republic" is an official and formal name, but "Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana" is only an official name. It also makes little sense in the broader context; even if you believe the dual name to be pure English and thus not applicable to locations like Munich, it would be applicable to locations like Uluru. Indeed, I believe Uluru sets an excellent precedent for how we should use dual names in an articles infobox and in its lede. BilledMammal (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I think for this purpose official and formal are synonymous - you're not going to have an informal official name. Australia also has a fundamentally different environment to New Zealand in regards to dual names. Such names have much more acceptance and use in New Zealand than they do in Australia, and so trying to make equivalences doesn't really work. That said, if you want to try and change Uluru's infobox for consistency with NZ dual names then go for it. Turnagra (talk) 17:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

While there won't be an informal official name, there are formal unofficial names. "Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana" is the official name while "Hauraki Gulf" is the formal English name.

We shouldn't be factoring "different environments" into the format of encyclopedia articles. Such names might have more acceptance in New Zealand, but that shouldn't affect the format we use, especially when discussing using different formats. "Different environments" weren't a factor in RM's such as Port Elizabeth and Kiev: only policy and guidelines. --Spekkios (talk) 00:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

How are you deciding that "Hauraki Gulf" is a formal English name? I'd argue that the formal name is the full dual name as that's the name that's used in a formal capacity when referring to the Gulf. Different environments are absolutely a consideration in this regard just as they were with macrons. We have greater recognition of dual names in NZ English, and per WP:LANGVAR we should be reflecting that in our articles. Turnagra (talk) 09:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

If there's greater recognition of dual names in NZ English then the titles will be at the dual name which would mean the lead would also be the dual name. I'm deciding that Hauraki Gulf is the formal name because that's how English speakers normally refer to it in a formal capacity as opposed to "the Hauraki" or "the Gulf" or other names. Formal can be outside of official government usage. --Spekkios (talk) 11:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

This isn't being facetious at all and I'm quite aware that the discussion is about articles which have dual names, thank you. The fact that those cities have no official dual names doesn't matter, especially when I am refering to the style of lead that those articles use, and using a consistent style across Wikipedia is hardly irrelevant. A landmark having a dual name doesn't make it magically any different than the name of any other landmark. It is simply an WP:ON, which while important enough to note in the article, doesn't mean we create new WP:CREEPing guidelines when we already have guidelines for lead sentences which cover everything that we have been discussing.

Your argument seems to either fundamentally misunderstand dual names or is trying to pretend they are far more important than any other WP:ON name, both of which seem bizarre. A dual name is an WP:ON, something which can be noted in the article but doesn't have any affect on how we title or write the article. As for your comment about "sounding like a broken record" please see your above quote: I'm sure there are many who argue lots of things incorrectly, that doesn't make them right. You are simply incorrect about how much weight should be placed on a dual name. You say that "both the Māori and former European names form part of the same name" but that is obviously incorrect as we are discussing cases were the article title is not a dual name; if it was the name of the location the article would already be there. I myself sound like a broken record given how many times I have said that we shouldn't be considering the official status of a name unless given reason to.

The guidelines do say that they are meant to guide, not force, consensus. That is not a reason in itself to ignore the guidelines as they are supposed to drive consistency. The proposal above is not consistent with the rest of Wikipedia, which (as the guidelines say) introduces the topic using the title name and gives any alternate name. If the names are too long, if there are too many names, or if that format is too clunky then a seperate section is created which discusses the name of the location. I see no evidence of a consensus on ignoring those guidelines here, although if there is I would appreciate you pointing it out to me. --Spekkios (talk) 06:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I think the place's name is relevant if it means we need to avoid redundancies. We don't have The Waimakariri River (Māori: Waimakariri) is... because that would be pointless. To the same end, having the subsequent Māori and old European names in something like Cam River / Ruataniwha (Māori: Ruataniwha), also known as the Cam River... is pointless because it's repeating the information that's already presented in a more concise manner with the dual name. The exception to this would be if there was a different Māori / European name that was also in use, such as with something like Te Hauturu-o-Toi / Little Barrier Island (Māori: Hauturu) is... or Lyttelton Harbour / Whakaraupō, formerly Port Cooper, is..., in which case this would add useful information that isn't redundant.

Ignoring a place's name doesn't make it obviously incorrect either - as for your argument, they were at their proper names before you decided to unilaterally try and wipe out as many dual place names on Wikipedia as you thought you could get away with. Saying that the proposal inconsistent with the rest of Wikipedia is also blatantly incorrect, and there have already been multiple examples in this discussion which the proposal is consistent with. Of the unique editors involved in this discussion, the majority are in favour of a dual name approach as this is the cleanest, most accurate, and simplest approach.

At any rate, if you insist on just parroting my lines back to me then I'm happy to cut out the middleman and finish the discussion by myself. It'd save everyone a lot of time and make these articles demonstrably better. Turnagra (talk) 09:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Are there any geographical examples? I recognize there are some for country infoboxes, but I believe that is the closest we come to examples where it is as you say - compare that to my examples of Jamestown and Munich. BilledMammal (talk) 09:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're using Munich as an example as I can't see anything that says they have a different formal English name. One topical example of this at the moment is Hunga Tonga, which uses the full name of Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha'apai for both the start of the lead and the infobox title. Generally though, it seems that most places are at their actual name instead of having people insist on using outdated names, making the issue usually redundant. At any rate, the fact that the guidance says it can be subbed out doesn't really mean that examples of it not happening prevent us from opting to go for that route here - if everyone waits for precedent from somewhere else then nothing would ever change. Turnagra (talk) 18:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Not the best example; "Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha'apai" isn't the official name (the BBC describes it as "unofficially known as"), and a search for "Hunga Tonga" suggests that "Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha'apai" is in fact the common name, and so I've moved the article. However, if you believe I am incorrect, please revert and I will open an RM. BilledMammal (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree with you on that being a more suitable title, but changing it in this context feels dangerously close to WP:POINT - editing another page where it just so happens that it now better supports your case. That said, if you'd like a better example how about those dual name Swiss towns you mentioned? Disentis/Mustér and Murten/Morat both use single names for their article title and the full dual name in their infobox. Turnagra (talk) 17:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I would disagree; imagine you linked an article without inline references to argue that we shouldn't add inline references. Would it be a WP:POINT issue if I added inline references? (with no comparison between the merits of your position and the position against inline references being intended, as your position isn't unreasonable, even if I don't believe it is ideal)

Changing the Swiss towns would be a point issue, because it is unclear where consensus lies, but I am not about to do that. However, I would like to expand this discussion to include dual-named locations in Switzerland, Alsace, and Australia, as I see a benefit in consistency - though the format I prefer is that of Uluru, not Disentis.

While I am referencing the above discussion, my point isn't that the name is informal, it is that I don't believe such classifications can apply. BilledMammal (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Avoiding redundancies in the manner you have described is a straw man argument. The Waimakariri River (Māori: Waimakariri) would be pointless, but that is not being suggested because they are both Maori words. Cam River / Ruataniwha (Māori: Ruataniwha), also known as the Cam River... is pointless but again, that is not being suggested. What is being suggested is . Cam River (Māori: Ruataniwha) because, as has been repeated many times, that is the article title as per the aforementioned policy. In the Little Barrier Island example, the format would be Little Barrier Island (Māori: Hauturu or Te Hauturu-o-Toi) is... or something similar. Furthermore, it isn't ignoring the place name as the place name is in the title and lead, with official name either in the introduction or later in the article. That is the opposite of ignoring. And yes - the proposal is inconsistent with wider Wikipedia naming policy as those examples you refer to, such as Franz Josef Glacier or Dagg Sound are the very reason this discussion is occuring. Would you have prefered I change those to the guideline format before opening this discussion so you couldn't claim that they were "in line" with Wikipedia lead policy? Using a small selection of articles which are opposed to the general guidelines to try and claim that Wikipedia guidelines support those as opposed to the millions of articles that use the guideline format is a fallacy. For the record, the only reason I am "parroting" your arguments back at you is to highlight that they are bad arguments that aren't well-grounded, which is again highlighted by your aforementioned straw man and your (repeated) mischaracterisation of my (very public) reasons for moving articles.

I'm not sure how you are counting, but I don't see how we have either a majority or a consensus at the moment. At any rate, I fail to see how The Franz Josef Glacier / Kā Roimata o Hine Hukatere is a is a cleaner and simpler approach than The Franz Josef Glacier (Māori: Kā Roimata o Hine Hukatere) is a. The later is used in millions of articles, the former is used in little. --Spekkios (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

But as stated above the official name should be stated early in the intro. So realistically the options are:

1. Franz Josef Glacier / Kā Roimata o Hine Hukatere is a.....;
2. Franz Josef Glacier / Kā Roimata o Hine Hukatere (Māori: Kā Roimata o Hine Hukatere), commonly know as Franz Josef Glacier, is a.....; or
3. Franz Josef Glacier (Māori: Kā Roimata o Hine Hukatere), officially Franz Josef Glacier / Kā Roimata o Hine Hukatere, is a.....

Option 1, seems to be the consensus here is the cleanest and simplest way to deal with dual named places in NZ. It works for all dual named places regardless of if they're at the dual name or a singular version. Any reader will know they're in the right place. Why would we we go for a more complex solution? ShakyIsles (talk) 02:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

My preference is option 3 simply because it keeps the same format used in the guidelines and throughout Wikipedia. If the full name is too long then a seperate "naming" section can be created (which would be consistent with the guidelines). I personally think it is very important to remain as consistent as possible throughout the project, and option 3 is the best candidate for that as it keeps the alternate naming style and the convention to use the article name as the first name in the article. I also don't agree that it is more complex: I would argue straying from the standard format is introducing additional complexity. I don't think anyone has actually proposed using option 2; I've been participating in the discussion on the assumption that the two formats being debated were options 1 and 3. --Spekkios (talk) 04:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Option 2 is thrown in the mix when the article generally when the article is at its dual name, such as this revision back when Cape Kidnappers was at its dual name. I'd disagree that option 1 is inconsistent - it follows the thousands of articles which don't require different names under MOS:LEADLANG. To be clear, I think that Option 1 is still the best approach for articles with dual names. But that said, I'd be willing to have a compromise approach between option 1 and 3 based on the article title (so long as we use the dual name in the infobox) if only to put an end to this so that I can get on with more productive things. Turnagra (talk) 04:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

For my part Option 1 seems clearly the best option as most concise and clearest; Option 3 is unwieldy even if it is conventional (and I'm thinking about WP:IGNORE). Plus, Option 1 will be consistent with other dual-named articles where we accept that the dual name is the common name. But, just my thoughts. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 20:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree that option 3 is unwieldly. To me it is the same as Spekkios own example above The Waimakariri River (Māori: Waimakariri) is a..... which is agreed to be pointless. And I note Spekkios, that you say option 2 is pointless but then advocate for option 3 which has the same amount of redundant information? ShakyIsles (talk) 21:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

The information provided in option 2 is different to that of option 3. Option 2 opens with the official name of the location which isn't the common name (nor the article title) and then states what the common name for the location is. Wikipedia articles are placed at their common name, which in the case above would be "Franz Josef Glacier". Explaining that the location is "commonly known as Franz Josef Glacier" is redundant because if it wasn't commonly known as Franz Josef Glacier then the article title would be different. Option 3 presents new information, ie: what the official name of the location is. Because the article is not at the official name that information needs to be included at some point, either in the introduction or in a separate "name" section. It makes far more sense to me to state what the location is officially gazetted as rather than what the common name of the location is. The first is new information that isn't redundant while the second is redundant due to the article title.

On the other hand, option 1 opens with a name that is different to the one given in the title. The reason for that would need to be stated in the article: the reason is the name is the official name. We therefore end up in a similar position as option 3: we need to state that the dual name is official, which gives reason as to why the first name and article title is different. Failure to do so would just lead to confusion as to why the names are different, especially because option 3 is used throughout Wikipedia. I'm unsure what Turnagra is referring to when they state that option 1 "follows the thousands of articles which don't require different names under MOS:LEADLANG" as the article title and leading names are different in option 1. To clarify: option 1 should be used for articles with dual name titles. I don't think anyone is disagreeing on that. "Aoraki / Mount Cook" and "Franz Josef Glacier (Māori: Kā Roimata o Hine Hukatere)" are equivalent formats, as both "Aoraki / Mount Cook" and "Franz Josef Glacier" are the articles titles, and the Maori name isn't required in the first due to the Maori name already being included.

Finally, I do agree in the example provided that using the official name in the lead is unwieldy. In that case the official name can be discussed in the "name" section of the article. Shorter official names can be provided in the lead. --Spekkios (talk) 00:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

The Waimakariri point raised just above is, IMO, more important to this and other debates than people seem to think. Until it is dealt with I believe all these discussions are circular. I have tried to raise it elsewhere but with little success. Rather than the Waimak I will use Taupo because it is clearer. Words from other languages enter English all the time and they go through stages of integration. Initially, they are often pure copies from the foreign language (ie a foreign word/phrase in all respects, eg Chargé d'affaires). Finally, they become fully accepted and used as an English word, using English rules of usage (eg algebra) - it is an English word of foreign origin. In the middle there the word/phrase that often have characteristics of both, used with different spellings interchangeably, the foreign word and the English word (cafe/café). Taupo is a fully integrated English word, whereas Taupō is the Maori word. An English writer using Taupo is not spelling the word wrong. This is where so many of these debates are going off track. I can see the argument made above, I think, by Turnagra that a dual name, eg Cam River / Ruataniwhain, in its entirety is an English word but I think this is stretching it to a fairly untenable position. It is IMO one word, used in English, but comprising two parts, one English and one foreign/Maori. Whether than combined name will develop into a fully fledged English name only time will tell, but at the moment it is not. Sorry if this post looks to some like a tangent. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I generally agree with your thoughts. An example of a change becoming accepted over time would be the change from Mount Egmont to Mount Taranaki. Claiming the later is not now part of the English lexicon would be untenable, and the former could now be considered archaic English for the mountain. While it could be debated that Aoraki Mount Cook has entered the lexicon enough to be considered the full English title, I hardly think it is debatable that Franz Josef Glacier / Kā Roimata o Hine Hukatere has, certainly not to the same level. --Spekkios (talk) 04:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

In reference to your example, Roger, we've been over this. Macrons are widespread in New Zealand English, especially in regards to place names and specific words (eg. Māori). They may not have the same level of usage overseas, but New Zealand English is just as much English as any other dialect (despite what I'm sure some Australians might argue!) and we should be using macrons where appropriate given that articles about NZ topics use NZ English. New Zealand English has also incorporated Māori grammar where appropriate, such as not using -s to indicate a plural of a Māori word. Hence why we say "Tūī" instead of "Tūīs".

That said, I somehow agree with your take on how dual names function, albeit swapping the word 'word' for 'name' as obviously something like "Cam River / Ruataniwha" isn't one word. They are one name, which is derived from two parts - a European name (not all of them have English origins) and a Māori name. Turnagra (talk) 04:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Of the three options, I have a strong preference for #1, as it's the most concise form. I think of it the same way as a bio. A bio's article name is generally shorter than the bold text in the first lead sentence. Sometimes, it's completely different (e.g. Nurse Maude or Mother Teresa). So if we have the same situation with geographic names, what is the problem? None, in my view with option 1. Schwede66 01:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

As per my previous posts, I strongly favour Option 1. Paora (talk) 02:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

The only viable option is 3. I agree that bios tend to work and are similar. The glaring difference with Mother Theresa is that the title, Mother Theresa, is the common name. As such, the lead sentence works. The problem we have is the title for Franz Josef Glacier is not the common name. The solution is to change the title back to the common name. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@Roger 8 Roger: The title of the Franz Josef Glacier article is currently Franz Josef Glacier. Are you suggesting it should be changed back to the dual name? If not (which I think might be the case), can you clarify why you prefer Option 3 over Option 1, given that Option 1 is more consistent with the biography approach (eg in the Mother Teresa article)? Just trying to understand the position being taken here. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 03:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was looking at the wrong article - Franz Josef / Waiau. All these dual names are confusing. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Surely it's easier to tell the difference between Franz Josef / Waiau and Franz Josef Glacier / Kā Roimata o Hine Hukatere than it is between Franz Josef and Franz Josef? Turnagra (talk) 09:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Not really: would be much easier if it's Franz Josef Glacier and Franz Josef (town), since the glacier is the primary topic. --Spekkios (talk) 11:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC) contribs)

I'm not sure what you're saying here - Mother Theresa's lede doesn't use the common name at all, so by your example you're supporting the use of dual names in the lede? Turnagra (talk) 09:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

The RFC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Presentation of dualled place names in infoboxes and ledes is relevant to this discussion.-gadfium 05:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I notified WP:NZ, but on reflection it probably would have been a good idea to post it here as well. BilledMammal (talk) 05:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

As mentioned on that page, that RFC leaves a poor taste in my mouth. It seems in very poor form to wait until a consensus is emerging against your view to open an RFC in another location without any prior discussion of such an idea. Turnagra (talk) 09:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't see an issue with wanting more input into an issue that could affect other pages (such as Uluru), especially as the RfC was notified. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS would apply. --Spekkios (talk) 11:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Noting that I didn't see a emerging consensus, and that from the start I had believed an RFC would be required. BilledMammal (talk) 04:08, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I mean, either you didn't read the discussion or you selectively chose to interpret it as no consensus - at the time of your posting the vast majority of unique editors involved in this discussion were in favour of option 1, and still are (7-3 in favour by my count, which would be more than enough consensus for any non-involved editor to make a judgement on the proposal.) You may well have believed that, but you didn't act on it until it was clear that your view wasn't winning and so sought to reset the discussion with an outside group without so much as mentioning the RfC or proposal for it in this discussion at all. Turnagra (talk) 09:22, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I count 5-3 by time the RfC was launched. Regardless: seeking wider opinion isn't discouraged; the opposite actually is per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Besides, Wikipedia isn't about WP:WINNING --Spekkios (talk) 09:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, I'd miscounted and got the time of the reply below mixed up. At any rate, the approach taken isn't a case of seeking wider opinion (such as posting about this discussion on WP:NPOV and seeking input here), but rather of WP:FORUMSHOP - I find it highly unlikely that the RfC would've been started if the discussion was going in favour of not using dual names. Turnagra (talk) 19:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

No worries - it took me a while to check myself as it was a bit confusing. As for WP:FORUMSHOP I agree that the RfC should have been discussed before posting. I can definitely see that it can come across as forum shopping without that discussing taking place. --Spekkios (talk) 00:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Of the options given, Option 1 is the most clear and concise. Rather than cluttering up the info section, further depth can be gone into later in the article. Daveosaurus (talk) 11:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

? Possible compromise

• Editors have expressed a desire for concise first sentence without redundancy.
• Readers from outside of New Zealand may not understand the meaning of a dual name: they may not realize the origin of the duality, nor know the source of the te reo name
• It would be beneficial to indicate the official name somewhere prominently in the article.

The suggested compromise is: in articles where the title is English-only, and where the official name (from the New Zealand Gazetteer) is a dual name, then

• The lede should start (for example): Franz Josef Glacier (Māori: Kā Roimata o Hine Hukatere) is a...
  • Note the immediate reference to the NZGB for the official name
• The infobox title should be the dual name with the "/", e.g., Franz Josef Glacier/Kā Roimata o Hine Hukatere, again for conciseness and as the spot for the official name.

I believe that this compromise follows all relevant global guidelines:

• WP:ALTNAME says that relevant non-English names should be listed. Clearly te reo is relevant.
• WP:ALTNAME says to "consider footnoting" names if they clutter the first sentence. Per Turnagra, listing an English name, a Maori name, and a dual name is cluttered
• WP:INFOBOXGEO says that using a formal version of a name is acceptable as a infobox title.

This may be the solution that causes the least amount of distress amongst the diverse opinions here. What do editors think? — hike395 (talk) 10:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I prefer the format used at Uluru, but I wouldn't object very strongly to this (which appears to align with the format used at Disentis). However, it does need a few changes:

In articles where the official name (from the New Zealand Gazetteer) is a dual name but not the common name, then:

• The lede should start with the common name, followed by either the English or the Maori name in brackets

In particular, this addresses cases where the common name is Maori, not English. BilledMammal (talk) 10:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

You are correct: if the common name is Maori, then it should come first. — hike395 (talk) 11:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• As above, I think a rough consensus has emerged among most of the editors here in favour of option one and it would be odd to go against that. In terms of a couple other minor points:

We've previously discussed articles where the dual name is being used for disambiguation, and agreed that they should be treated primarily as any other dual name article but with minor wording changes.

For citations like what you're suggesting, it's probably better to suggest using Template:LINZ as that's a lot cleaner.

Totally open to a compromise approach of some degree but I think we need to respect this discussion and have the dual name more prominent. Turnagra (talk) 19:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• I agree that this is the best method going forward as I don't believe we have a consensus on this page. The only modification that I would make is that in caseses were the dual name isn't the article title it should be in a footnote to save cluttering the lead sentence, and that the date of the official status should be discussed in an etymology or name section in the article. Proposal already includes footnote --Spekkios (talk) 00:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Any solution that removes the official and/or dual name from the lede and pushes it to a footnote is, in my view, not a compromise, but a complete disregard for the preference of most of the people in this discussion. Paora (talk) 00:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Would a better option perhaps be to use the dual name, but then to have some sort of generic footnote that's along the lines of "This place is one of many in New Zealand to officially have a dual name consisting of its Māori and former European names, and is often known by either component name individually" to give context and introduce the alternate names? Turnagra (talk) 01:02, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

My understanding is that this is related to examples like Franz Josef Glacier, where there isn't anything "former" about the name at all. --Spekkios (talk) 01:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I meant former in an official sense, but that wording wasn't intended to be final by any stretch - more of an indication as to a potential approach to a explanatory footnote. Would you be open to an approach like that, wording pending? Turnagra (talk) 01:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I think the footnote should be short: the proposal above is a lot cleaner, in my view. --Spekkios (talk) 01:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

As per Paora's comment above though, it disregards most of the preferences expressed in this discussion and so doesn't really work as an option. I'm trying to propose a way forward which matches the comsensus here while still alleviating your concerns. Turnagra (talk) 03:51, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

The way to alleviate these concerns are to use the common name first, whether Maori, non-Maori, or dual. BilledMammal (talk) 05:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Noted. Given a clear majority have expressed preference for the dual name in the lede I'm not sure how we can reconcile that for you in cases where the dual name isn't the common name. Turnagra (talk) 05:42, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Note that I have no objection to the dual name being in the lede; when it is not the common name, my preferred format would "Bradshaw Sound (Māori: Kaikiekie) and officially gazetted as the dual name Kaikiekie / Bradshaw Sound" as it concisely provides the reader with all the relevant information without confusing them. BilledMammal (talk) 05:52, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Good to know - but again, that's a very different approach to what has a clear majority of support above. Out of curiosity, would you be willing to have it explained via a footnote like what I suggested above? Turnagra (talk) 08:25, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how it does - the footnote would be immediately after the name of the location - it would keep the lead clear of very long names like the example proposed in the compromise. --Spekkios (talk) 01:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Paora: --- the proposal was to put the dual name into both the footnote and the title field of the infobox. I hope that's prominent enough? — hike395 (talk) 03:51, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I've gone back through this discussion in an attempt to bring some summary of positions. I hope i'm not misrepresenting anyone:

I think there is consensus on the infoxbox to have the official name as per MOS:INFOBOXGEO

for the lede sentence there is clear majority of users who above who are supportive of the simple concise of option putting of just start the article with the official dual name and having naming history deeper in a etymology or history section of the article. e.g. the format used at Cam River (Canterbury): The Cam River / Ruataniwha is a small river in.....

The users that are supportive of that above are: ShakyIsles, Turnagra, Chocmilk03, Paora, Daveosaurus, Schwede.

Roger 8 Roger supports Cam River (Māori: Ruataniwha), officially Cam River / Ruataniwha, is a...... BilledMammal also supports a version of this. Spekkios support this except when it is arbitrarily long in which case omit the official name in lede e.g. Cam River (Māori: Ruataniwha) is a.... with a the official name deeper in the article.

Given there is a clear majority, why are we not settling on that option? ShakyIsles (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm more than happy for there to be a footnote such as what I proposed above which explains dual names, but I think given the majority here we should call it and get on with things. Turnagra (talk) 03:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

If you're going to only have a dual name in the lede, then I think a footnote will be required to explain it to non-NZ readers. — hike395 (talk) 03:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Āe, can do. What do you think of the sort of approach which I proposed above? (eg. "This place is one of many in NZ to have a dual name, consisting of the names of Māori and European origin separated by a slash. Generally, the names are used either together or separately." Turnagra (talk) 04:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

That implies that either format is the common name when the article isn't at a dual name format. I'm not in favour of a footnote in that case. --Spekkios (talk) 08:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm fine with the footnote as proposed by Turnagra. @Spekkios: if there is an article with a English-only common-name title, and we start the lede with the dual name, what are readers not familiar with NZ culture supposed to think of the name in te reo? Is there alternative wording you are in favor of? — hike395 (talk) 08:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I expect that they will read on, and find out in the article. That's why they came to the article after all, because they wanted to find out more about the subject. If they knew everything about the subject already they wouldn't have bothered coming to the article. It's like if I wanted to know more about Joe Biden, and I went to the article about him, I'm not suddenly going to throw up my hands in horror and get all confused and not know what to think when I read the first three words, "Joseph Robinette Biden". No, I'll think, that's interesting, his middle name is Robinette, I didn't know that, and read on to find out more. Moreover, I presume that if the name of the town or city solely has a name that comes from te reo Māori, they aren't going to have a problem knowing what to think, so why should there be inherently a problem with a dual name? Paora (talk) 10:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

That is because you are familiar with the structure of names. Readers are not familiar with the structure of dual names. BilledMammal (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Give people some credit. They're hardly going to show up at the Cape Reinga article and get confused when they see Cape Reinga / Te Rerenga Wairua. It's also a fairly bold and blanket call to say that readers aren't familiar with dual names at all, given their widespread use in NZ and on NZ articles. Turnagra (talk) 19:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I would disagree, particularly in cases where the dual names starts with the part that is not common, as is typical. And New Zealand readers would be familiar with dual names, but we aren't writing for just New Zealanders. BilledMammal (talk) 19:34, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is MOS:SLASH which points out when Wikipedia uses "A/B", it's unclear what the relationship between A and B is. The guideline suggests re-writing. We can't rewrite the official name, but we can and should explain it. It's not like a person's name, where we know what a middle name is (for English names, e.g., Spanish names are more complex). Turnagra: I thought you were in favor of a footnote? What made you change your mind? — hike395 (talk) 02:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

For clarity - I don't think a footnote is necessary and would probably prefer not to have one if it were my call, but I proposed it as a compromise approach as a way for us to put an end to this conversation and move forward with making the changes. Turnagra (talk) 04:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

The relevant part section of MOS:SLASH is as follows: A spaced slash may be used ... to separate items that include at least one internal space ... where for some reason use of a slash is unavoidable. That is the case here, where we are giving a direct quote of an official name, which contains a slash. If the official name is to be correctly stated, then it is self-evident that that the use of the spaced slash is unavoidable. Paora (talk) 05:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

If we have to explain why there are two names then it's important enough to have it in the article which just means we would be repeating the footnote elsewhere. I maintain that if the title is a single name then the article should open with that single name, in part because of that very reason you describe. Since the consensus is not to use that format, I don't see the point in adding extra complexity to something that shouldn't be that way in the first place. -- Spekkios (talk) 09:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, even with the footnote proposal I was still intending to include information about the names etc in an etymology section. I just thought that a footnote might be a good way to ensure we still have the explanation in the opening that you were keen on while matching the consensus of the disussion. Turnagra (talk) 19:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

One thing I don't understand is why you believe that you need to have the official name mentioned in the lede, and also believe you can't have the common name mentioned in the lede. I understand you believe that the lede would have too many redundant names, but our normal solution would be for the common name to be the sole name in the lede, with all other names, including the official name, being placed in the etymology section.

I don't agree with that solution, as I don't believe that the lede will have too many names, but it seems to be the most policy-compliant solution to your objection, so I would be interested in hearing why you believe it is not appropriate. BilledMammal (talk) 21:52, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I think ShakyIsles summed it up nicely above - the beauty of dual names is that they already contain the other names of the place. So if you only know the place by one of those names, you're still able to recognise what it's referring to. With something like the article for Bono, you need both there because with just having it open as "Paul David Hewson is..." then nobody other than hardcore U2 fans would recognise who it's talking about. In constrast, even if you think that the Waiau Toa / Clarence River's common name is just the Clarence River, that still shows up within the dual name and you're still able to recognise it as such. Equally, even if you just know of Whakaari / White Island as Whakaari, you're still able to see what it's referring to.

So, just to be clear, you don't want there to be a footnote at all, even if it's a choice between the dual name only with a footnote and the dual name only without one? Turnagra (talk) 22:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Your position throughout has been that they are one name, not two - but now you are saying that they are two? My position is that whether they are one name or two, it is irrelevant - the format is confusing. Instead, I propose the alternative. We always move the dual name to the etymology section, and have the common name at the start of the article, followed by the Maori or English name in brackets. This should address your worries about readers not recognizing one of the two names, while addressing my worries about the format of the dual name confusing readers.

And I consider both of those to be bad options, though the footnote option is slightly less bad. BilledMammal (talk) 23:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

It is one name, made up of the Māori name and the old name of European origin. My position on this has been consistent thorughout. And again, I note your opinion, and also note that it's not what we as a group have reached as a consensus and not the approach we will be taking. Turnagra (talk) 00:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not keen on having the explaination though: I'm keen on having the Title (alt name) format for consistency with the wider project. My argument is that if the location is generally refered to as a dual name then the article should already be at that dual name, which means the introduction would already use the dual name. If the location is generally refered to as a single name then the article should be at that single name, meaning the introduction should use the single name too. A footnote doesn't account for that. -- Spekkios (talk) 23:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Noted, but that's not the consensus which has been reached as you pointed out above. We're talking about whether we want a footnote within the context of the dual name being used in the lede, per the consensus. Turnagra (talk) 00:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

You might be able to argue that there is a consensus here, but only if you ignore the opinions that have been expressed elsewhere - which is clearly inappropriate. BilledMammal (talk) 00:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Are you meaning the RfC, where there's a 2:1 majority in favour of letting national WikiProjects handle what they want to do locally (as we're doing here), or did you open yet another discussion in another place? Turnagra (talk) 01:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Nine currently favour no global solution, six oppose C. There is no majority favouring allowing national wikiprojects to create a solution without external input - there are more people who support deciding this article by article than support that. BilledMammal (talk) 01:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, but I am aware of what is being dicussed, and I think I have made that quite clear. I was responding to the claim that the footnote contained elements that I was keen on, which simply isn't true. Indeed including a footnote in the method described would actually be contrary to my argument, as in addition to what I described in my previous comment, I am not aware of a widespread number of articles using that format. -- Spekkios (talk) 03:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I would note that consensus building is not a vote, and that there are a number of other editors who globally oppose this solution whose opinion is relevant and cannot be ignored just because we are holding this discussion in an obscure forum. On the topic of the chosen forum, I will note that this is the wrong one to make such a decision, as it deals with article titles, not article bodies. BilledMammal (talk) 03:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

If this discussion had gone in the other direction, you would have been perfectly happy with accepting the result of it. The RfC so far has an even larger consensus in favour of not setting any global standard and having the respective WikiProjects and national naming conventions handle how best to approach situations. MOS:TIES also states that we should be using variations of English relevant to the subject at hand, meaning that there may be areas where we differ from global standards - that's exactly why we have things like NZNC – which does, by the way, also include content in it beyond the article title. So no, I don't think the location of this discussion is particularly relevant given the wide range of opinions which have been expressed from various users, and I don't think you can use that as an excuse to go WP:FORUMSHOPPING to get an answer you want. We have got enough of a consensus here, it's time to accept that and make sure that articles reflect it. Turnagra (talk) 04:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

It might be closed in favour of "no global standard", but it hasn't yet - and there is no reason to believe that the editors who oppose this solution globally will not also oppose it locally. To reiterate; there is no consensus, and I will add that seeking wider participation is appropriate so long as those sought to participate are not partisan (and I don't believe there is any argument that they are). BilledMammal (talk) 04:21, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Except, again, that's not what you did. You started a new discussion in an unrelated area without any reference to it or notification about it in this discussion, hoping that those in favour of using the dual name in the lede didn't see it as you sought to undermine and overturn a decision which you didn't agree with. Despite your protests, there is a clear majority opinion here and close enough to a consensus that any move request would have been closed long ago. It's time to accept the outcome and move on. Turnagra (talk) 04:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

If I was hoping that those here didn't notice it, I wouldn't have notified WPNZ. And regardless of what you think of that discussion, at the very least we need to wait for it to close before taking the next step, whatever that step may be. BilledMammal (talk) 04:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

So if I had started another RfC on the use of dual place names in a different location during that one, would you have been equally inclined to wait for the results of that before taking any further action? Turnagra (talk) 05:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Starting a second RFC concurrently to the first one is slightly different to starting a first RFC. If you had started a second RFC on a related but different question (perhaps how we disambiguate places with dual names) straight after the first one was closed, I would have waited for that one to close before taking further action on the impacted articles. Equally, if you had taken the RFC closure to AN for review, I would have waited for the review to close before taking further action. BilledMammal (talk) 05:06, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Because my comments are lost in the discussion, above, I want to make clear that I oppose having a plain dual name in the lede, if the title is not a dual name, unless there is some sort of explanation. My opposition is based on MOS:SLASH, which points out that a slash form is not clear.

However, I think some sort of compromise is certainly possible and we should discuss it. It sounds like footnotes have no support. How about when the title doesn't match the dual name, we use a parenthetical statement, like:

Franz Josef Glacier/Kā Roimata o Hine Hukatere (official name) is a...

What do other editors think? — hike395 (talk) 02:20, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I think there is an issue in that it is not entirely clear what is meant by "official name". Further, I think there might be issues with how summaries of the lede are presented elsewhere if we include the clarification in brackets, such as when hovering over a wikilink. Finally, I still believe we need to prominently mention what people actually call the place - and I note that so far no one has actually been able to explain why we want to use the dual name over the individual names. A reason has been presented why we don't want all three names, and though I don't agree with it I can understand where those presenting it are coming from, but no explanation has been provided for why, if that is the case, we prefer the dual name over the individual names. BilledMammal (talk) 02:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

That has been covered before - several times - and so I'm not sure why it's still an issue. There's a consistent desire to have all three names represented in the lede, and the way of doing that which is best and most concise is to just have the dual name, as it includes both the old European name and the Māori name. Turnagra (talk) 04:06, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Two issues. First, per MOS:, we are required to avoid ambiguous statements. Using one dual name to represent three names is ambiguous; either readers will interpret it as a MOS:SLASH situation, where there are two individual names but no dual names, or they will interpret it as a single name that includes a slash. Either way, we aren't representing all names, and we are violating one of the fundamental principles of the MOS.

Second, thank you for clarifying that the desire is to have all three represented - but could you explain why you desire all three to be represented? While I desire the same thing, my reasons for that desire is not compatible with using just one, as it means we cannot tell the reader what the place is actually called. BilledMammal (talk) 05:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I think that if we decide we need anymore discussion on this topic it should be an RfC. -- Spekkios (talk) 02:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I would agree, assuming the current RFC doesn't produce a consensus that prevents another RFC, though we do need some discussion as to what question should be asked and where it should be held. BilledMammal (talk) 02:44, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I think relitigating this issue further is pointless - we have a clear outcome of a decision here, we're just arguing over the finer points. Given there hasn't been any further discussion on this outside of the attempted compromise above in nearly a week, I'm inclined to move forward with the dual name approach with a small footnote and bigger explanation in an etymology section. Turnagra (talk) 04:06, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

This proposal is clearly controversial, which means we need the opinion of outside editors. The current RFC is an effort to get those opinions, but if it doesn't produce a clear answer due to opposition to a global solution, then a second RFC that allows different solutions for different countries is required. Further, I would note that I don't believe the answer is clear, both due to the opposition expressed to option C at the RFC, and due to the fact that consensus isn't based on votes. BilledMammal (talk) 04:20, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Two people consistently shouting against a consensus doesn't mean that it's controversial. You also seem to be selectively choosing arguments made at that RfC to support your view instead of looking at the discussion as a whole, which was far more in favour of national wikiprojects doing their own approach - as we're doing. Turnagra (talk) 04:43, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I would disagree with that assessment; if the RFC was closed today, I suspect it would be as "no consensus", or "consensus against a global standard". There is clearly no consensus to allow individual wikiprojects to produce their own solution without input from the broader community, and even if there was that would be a violation of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. BilledMammal (talk) 05:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

National wikiprojects deciding their own approach doesn't mean an RfC can't be held to determine guidelines. I suggested an RfC because if this discussion continues it will clearly go nowhere without outside input. -- Spekkios (talk) 05:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I mean, I don't intend to continue this conversation anyway - the discussion has produced a consensus on most aspects, so I don't see a need for it to continue. I would oppose any RfC on the grounds of it being WP:FORUMSHOPPING given there is already a clear consensus, unless it was on a specific aspect (eg. should there be an explanatory footnote) with the proviso that anything about the dual name being in the lede / infobox was out of scope per the above consensus. Turnagra (talk) 07:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Neither do I. As for WP:WP:FORUMSHOPPING: That would not apply. We have a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS amoung a small number of editors. Seeking wider input is a completely normal part of the Wikipedia decision-making process. Fourmshopping is for cases were the same user(s) raise the same question in different places to get the answer they like. That is not the case here. See the previous RfC held here for an example. --Spekkios (talk) 08:09, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I feel like a footnote is a cleaner approach to that, since that feels like it'd be a bit cumbersome. But again, I'm happy to support that if there's a consensus for it as a way forward. Turnagra (talk) 04:06, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

What, I ask myself, is wrong withh...Title = Franz Josef Glacier; Lead sentence starts = Franz Josef Glacier, officially Franz Josef Glacier/Kā Roimata o Hine Hukatere, (Māori: Kā Roimata o Hine Hukatere), is a...? It complies with all wiki policies and guidelines and is as clear as crystal. Heading and lead name is the commonly used name, its official name is in a prominent position, and a relevant other language name is also prominent. What is at all confusing about that or where does it breach any wikipedia rules? Many sources available now will use the official name (because they have to), but what is the problem with that? If there are no RSSs that use the common name (because most sources will use the official name) then we will have to use common sense or consensus which in nearly all place names means the established English name. In my view, if it takes this much time and effort to come up with a solution, then we are approaching it the wrong way. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:47, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

What's wrong with it is that a clear majority of involved editors have decided that it's too long and that there are better ways to present the information. I'm also not sure I understand your second point as it seems to go completely contradictory to the arguments made against dual place names thus far. Turnagra (talk) 07:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: - I note that you believe there is no outcome here yet. As I've mentioned before, dragging out a discussion after there has been a clear consensus doesn't mean that the consensus hasn't been reached. It's time to accept that this conversation has reached a verdict, even if you don't like that verdict, and move on. The point of this is to find a consensus on how we can improve wikipedia, and now that we have such a consensus you're now stopping those improvements from being made. Turnagra (talk) 18:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

As Spekkios said, an RFC is needed, assuming that the current one is closed as "no consensus" or "no global solution". You might see a consensus here, but I don't, and I certainly don't see one when we consider the opinions of editors expressed at the current RFC is opposition to C. Further, I note that your implementation went far beyond what was discussed here, with your edits removing all mentions of the common and alternative names from two of the articles, and all mentions of the alternative name from the third. BilledMammal (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Spekkios said that an RfC would be needed if we were going to continue the discussion, to which both them and I then said that we had no intention of continuing it as a consensus had been reached. You're also taking a bizarre interpretation of the results of that RfC by focusing on a minority of views which have been expressed in trying to justify your stance - even if we ignore the consensus in that RfC to not have any global standard, there is more support here for dual names than there is in opposition at that RfC. I also suspect that, had this discussion resulted in a consensus of the same size against dual names, you would be demanding that we respect the result of it and not prolonging the discussion. This whole thing reeks of forum shopping to me, as I've said previously, and makes me wonder whether you'd accept any result that was in favour of dual names or continue to appeal.

As far as the manner I made the changes, that's fair - I was worried with the small size of the Aotea / Shelly Beach article that it would result in undue focus on the name, but I'm happy to implement the changes again with an expansion of the name section. Turnagra (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Whatever the consensus is, I would accept it. A few points. First, I don't see a consensus here, as consensus is based on adherence to policy, not vote counting. Second, in an informal discussion it is inappropriate to ignore the opinions of editors expressed elsewhere, which you are doing. Third, your failure to WP:AGF is problematic; you have no reason to believe that if I saw a consensus in support of my position here I would oppose requests from you to hold a formal discussion, and based on the fact that when I saw a consensus to move three titles and you requested a formal discussion I agreed, you have reason to believe the opposite.

I realize you may see this as prolonging the discussion, but I believe it is an important part of the process, and WP:NODEADLINE. BilledMammal (talk) 02:04, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. This page is now nearly 90,000 bytes on this topic alone. But, because people are talking about tallying votes and taking consensus, I feel compelled to say that I oppose any outcome that dictates a standard first sentence, and especially any that says we cannot include alternative names (being the common names, the official name or the Māori name), as this amounts to violating WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. We need to be able to adapt to varying levels of dual name relevance (where some places go by their dual name as much as any other, and some places never use the dual name), and all this hui is just distracting good editors from other things they could be doing.

The discussion at the MOS appears to be settling on a "do not regulate" resolution, so any editor who hopes to make an explicit standard will have to make a very compelling argument for why Wikipedia should consider New Zealand dual names different to those of other countries. I expect any RFC should end swiftly and with either no consensus, or a consensus that reflects a similar result as that at the global MOS. And so I recommend against starting one, though I understand if editors need more conclusiveness than we currently have. — HTGS (talk) 22:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

The difference being that the alternative names are there, just in dual name form. "Cam River / Ruataniwha" still includes the names 'Cam River' and 'Ruataniwha' - if the name we were proposing to use was completely different then I would totally agree with you, but it's not.

As for the RfC, most of the points opting for no global standard are saying that these should be decided at a regional level by wikiprojects to work out what works best for that area. That's what we've done here and we have got (in my view) a pretty clear outcome, which I'm keen to get to work on actually implementing. Turnagra (talk) 19:17, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

You haven’t explained why New Zealand is a special case. Article title policy states significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph. — HTGS (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I think I have already explained why I disagree with that interpretation, so won't repeat myself, but clearly we are not making any progress here. Instead, I believe we should discuss an RFC on a convention for just New Zealand. BilledMammal (talk) 05:36, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

RFC Before

I believe we should begin discussing how to word the RFC on the above question, and where it should be held. BilledMammal (talk) 00:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I maintain my opposition to an RfC per WP:FORUMSHOPPING given there is a clear consensus above, regardless of whether you wish to see it. Turnagra (talk) 01:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

What I see is a lot of readers (for a NZ item) checking in when there is any activity on this page. The way I see it, something named Preservation Inlet tells me something, it is an inlet and it saved someone's life. If someone is aching to give it a totally meaningless name (a devoutly political act) let them use it in their own Wikipedia. Turnagra where do you see this consensus you keep claiming? Eddaido (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Noting that the origin of the name "Preservation" is also unknown. BilledMammal (talk) 03:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

This is a terrible and frankly pretty racist take. Who are you to decide that a name of European origin has more meaning than one of Māori origin? What about the Ōtākaro / Avon River - is "Ōtākaro", which talks of how the river used to be known for children playing on its banks, or "Avon", which says that someone early in CHCH liked Shakespeare, more informative? At any rate, names are names and they don't need to be informative, or to conform to your particular sensibilities. As for the consensus, it's fairly clear in the discussion above. There is a preference for the use of dual names from a clear majority of those in the above discussion; one of the editors opposed to this doesn't appear to understand their own argument, and one other taking a middle ground approach to the issue, leaving two informed editors opposed to the concept compared to at least 7 in favour. Such an outcome would have closed any other discussion long ago, were it not for a vocal minority opposing this interpretation. Turnagra (talk) 07:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Noting the origin of the name avon. The name 'Avon' is a cognate of the Welsh word afon, meaning 'river'.

I think what you wanted to say was I disagree with you so you typed out the " terrible and frankly pretty racist take " response. Racist or not you have placed your own interpretations on the discussions and I disagree with you there too. Eddaido (talk) 08:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

As I stated above there was a clear majority of people agreeing on the simple option of starting with just the dual name yet you keep trying to fight this BilledMammal. See my earlier comment:

For the lede sentence there is clear majority of users who above who are supportive of the simple concise of option putting of just start the article with the official dual name and having naming history deeper in a etymology or history section of the article. e.g. the format used at Cam River (Canterbury): The Cam River / Ruataniwha is a small river in.....

The users that are supportive of that above are: ShakyIsles, Turnagra, Chocmilk03, Paora, Daveosaurus, Schwede.

Roger 8 Roger supports Cam River (Māori: Ruataniwha), officially Cam River / Ruataniwha, is a...... BilledMammal also supports a version of this. Spekkios support this except when it is arbitrarily long in which case omit the official name in lede e.g. Cam River (Māori: Ruataniwha) is a.... with a the official name deeper in the article.

This is a clear majority. there is no need for a RfC. Stop WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Give it a rest. ShakyIsles (talk) 00:50, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

And I disagree; what issue do you have with an RFC? BilledMammal (talk) 01:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

For the text of the RFC, I would propose using similar text to the RFC regarding dual titles generally, although I would not object to removing option B. As for location, I believe here would be appropriate, despite being unrelated to naming conventions. BilledMammal (talk) 05:23, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

What RFC? I don't believe I've seen any agreement that one is necessary. Turnagra (talk) 08:49, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

We don't need an agreement to start dispute resolution. I am going to open an RFC in a few weeks; if you have thoughts on the details of the RFC, please provide them. BilledMammal (talk) 05:24, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:DROPTHESTICK Turnagra (talk) 23:32, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

@Turnagra: Might that be considered offensive too? Eddaido (talk) 09:39, 11 March 2022 (UTC)