The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: After an extended listing period of full 14 days there seems to be an unanimous support for the requested move. ThT ( talk) 10:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Pu'uhonua o Honaunau National Historical Park → Puʻuhonua o Hōnaunau National Historical Park — In 2000 the name was changed by the Hawaiian National Park Language Correction Act of 2000. ThT ( talk) 22:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support

Bringing the article title into line with the National Parks policy makes obvious sense. Also, to use the 'okina but not the kahakō is inconsistent, and both are needed since they are full phonemes which determine the pronunciation and meaning of Hawaiian terms. Awien ( talk) 00:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC) reply

• Support at the risk of looking like "backing the winning horse during the race". As long as it does not waste time with further move wars it is clearly the modern notation. W Nowicki ( talk) 18:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC) reply
• Support The names of national parks tend to follow their official names, whichever country you happen to be in. Skinsmoke ( talk) 08:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Discussion

I would have to be neutral here, though leaning positive. I am very much in favor of using the modern diacritics in the body. To head off the usual argument: diacritics are used in Hawaiian language for English speakers, and this is the English language enclopedia. Approximating ʻokina with apostrophe and dropping kahako is not "converting to English" as many people claim. However, my experience is that moving articles around between these different spellings usually brings people out who insist on moving them back. So it ends up wasting a lot of time that could be better spent improving the content. All the redirects mean searching works either way. That is why the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Hawaii-related articles) says not to use them in titles; that was the compromise we reached. If the consensus changes, please update the manual of style to match the policy!

In the long term I do agree it would make sense to just use them in titles too, so that we can avoid using piped links all the time. And I do agree on using a real ʻokina instead of apostrophe. Just not sure now is the right time. Perhaps worth a try, since a large number of recent moves of historic people s names recently has not produce anbody to object. As I recall, the biggest pushback was from the CDP names, since the 2000 Census used the old pre-diacritic name database. The basic truce was to wait until the 2010 census data came out. There were also purists from the NRHP project, since the old NRHP database did not use diacritics either (and alas, the new "focus" database does not either). Good luck. W Nowicki ( talk) 17:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC) reply

I'm aware of the discussions in general and this proposal is not intended to disagree with the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Hawaii-related articles). But in my view this is a different circumstance, because the Hawaiian National Park Language Correction Act of 2000 changed the name of Haleakalā National Park, Hawaiʻi Volcanoes National Park, Puʻukoholā Heiau National Historic Site, Puʻuhonua o Hōnaunau National Historical Park, and Kaloko-Honokōhau National Historical Park officially by law. -- ThT ( talk) 06:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC) reply

I fail to see a distinction. The GNIS and Cenus databases are also based in US Law, but Wikipedia is not; it is a global organization. Despite the power that Congress thinks it has sometimes, they cannot control what names are in common use. For example, the self-important names that they give bills "Apple-pie, motherhood and freedom act" etc. fail to catch on in favor of "cash for clunkers" or "Obamacare". It should be mentioned in the body, but probably not the lead since "normal" people probably care less than us editor nerds. My point was that time was on our side: as non-unicode browsers fade slowly from the earth, and limited typesetting systems go the way of the ASR-33 (showing my age?), the symbols should be more and more prevalent, cancelling the usual argument of numbers. I will do an official support vote to clarify that I am for it long term. W Nowicki ( talk) 18:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC) reply

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. No further edits should be made to this section.