This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
New Zealand and
New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rivers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Rivers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RiversWikipedia:WikiProject RiversTemplate:WikiProject RiversRiver articles
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: no consensus.
There are 4 editors supporting the move per
WP:NZNC and
WP:NCGN and 3 editors opposing per
WP:COMMONNAME and
WP:CONCISE. Those are all policy based positions. Per
WP:NHC it is not for me as closer to say which policy is preferred, and I judge that roughly equal numbers of responsible Wikipedians support each position, so there is no consensus. The arguments (which were not supported by evidence) that the proposed title is the common name failed to convince the opposing editors and took the discussion no nearer to consensus. It has been over 2 weeks since the last activity, so there is no real prospect that keeping the discussion open would allow consensus to be reached.
See also
this similar RM for further discussion of the interaction between the policies. Again, I note
there is a current RfC to address these guidelines, and it may be that this proposal can be revisited if a clearer community consensus emerges as to the broader issue.(
non-admin closure)
Havelock Jones (
talk) 11:15, 11 October 2021 (UTC)reply
There are plenty of mentions of the river in reliable sources, and none of the recent mentions in the
Herald,
RNZ or
Stuff refer to the river by the dual name. Please at least do your due diligence before making claims like this. — HTGS (
talk) 02:34, 19 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Support per NZNC and the guidelines set out in
WP:NCGN - Gazetteers, both domestic and international, use the dual name, as do atlases and maps of Stewart Island / Rakiura dating back over 20 years. Should be an uncontroversial move.
Turnagra (
talk) 04:52, 21 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose The official name of the article has no bearing on the name of a Wikipedia article. Further, I can find very little reference to anything using the name suggested.
Spekkios (
talk) 05:04, 21 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose per the links given by HTGS; it does not appear that the official name has yet become the common name. Should it be possible to provide a weight of evidence showing reliable sources using the dual name, I will happily change my !vote - please ping me.
BilledMammal (
talk) 01:29, 25 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Support as per dual / bi lingual use in New Zealand English.
Stuartyeates (
talk) 02:38, 25 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment: It might be worth noting these ongoing discussions:
There may be some question of whether the relevant aspect of NZ naming conventions actually reflect[s] the consensus of the community.
BilledMammal (
talk) 05:06, 25 September 2021 (UTC)reply
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.