Talk:Rakituma / Preservation Inlet

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Preservation Inlet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100523075121/http://www.realjourneys.co.nz/content/library/Wilderness_Magazine__Preservation_Inlet_Discovery_Cruise.pdf to http://www.realjourneys.co.nz/content/library/Wilderness_Magazine__Preservation_Inlet_Discovery_Cruise.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081016165721/http://doc.govt.nz/upload/documents/conservation/marine-and-coastal/fiordlandcoastalnewsletter-oct07.pdf to http://www.doc.govt.nz/upload/documents/conservation/marine-and-coastal/fiordlandcoastalnewsletter-oct07.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:18, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Milford Sound which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:01, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Doubtful Sound / Patea which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 14 May 2022

 * 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. Yet another impasse between dual name supporters and opponents over how to establish the common name and what namings are natural. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 07:05, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Rakituma / Preservation Inlet → Preservation Inlet – Per WP:COMMONNAME. Google News shows ten results for Preservation Inlet in the past year, compared to four for the dual name and Google Trends shows that people overwhelming use Preservation Inlet over the dual name. The proposed name is also more WP:CONCISE. BilledMammal (talk) 03:04, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose dual name is used by a wide variety of sources, including several major NZ media sources, not to mention local businesses, museums, and conservation groups. The current title is also consistent with other major fiords in the area, including Taiari / Chalky Inlet, Tamatea / Dusky Sound, Doubtful Sound / Patea and Milford Sound / Piopiotahi, not to mention the dozens of other New Zealand places with dual names as their article name. Per WP:WIAN, we should use sources such as maps and gazetteers to determine place name titles, all of which use the dual name. Turnagra (talk) 06:03, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You forget that WP:WIAN also recommends the use of English-language news media and Google Scholar (28 results for Preservation Inlet since 2020, 3 results for Rakituma / Preservation Inlet). I also note that many of your examples are either not reliable (ie, vimeo) or not independent (ie, the New Zealand government). BilledMammal (talk) 10:47, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You've been very keen in the past to exclude scholarly results under the claim that they're not independent, why is that suddenly different now that you see them as supporting your point of view? Turnagra (talk) 23:43, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Turnagra do you have reason to exclude reliable published scholarly work in this case, or are you just being argumentative? — HTGS (talk) 01:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I don't - I'm trying to clarify BilledMammal's perspective, as they are the one who has sought to exclude reliable published scholarly work several times in the past and so it seems odd for them to suddenly be using that as justification. Though I would note that, from a quick skim, several of them aren't relevant as they're talking about the fiord during the 19th century, when it would be accurate to just use Preservation Inlet. Turnagra (talk) 01:29, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I've been keen to exclude non-independent scholarly results, which are legally required to use the official name. I have no issue with using independent scholarly results, and I am not concerned when the bias introduced in overall results by non-independent use has a minimal impact on the overall result. BilledMammal (talk) 02:49, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Per nom. The common name is clearly Preservation Inlet. Usage in selected sources does not override common use. The other fjords should have their name moved as well, because the common name for those is clearly not the dual name either. --Spekkios (talk) 23:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support as proposed. — HTGS (talk) 05:08, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Preservation Inlet has sufficient usage in media and is an officially gazetted name per LINZ. NebuchadnezzarHammurabi (talk) 12:53, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * NebuchadnezzarHammurabi, this comment appears to support the request. Dekimasu よ! 06:17, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure - they refer to the officially gazetted name per LINZ, which is Rakituma / Preservation Inlet Turnagra (talk) 06:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I believed I had copied the dual name, was commenting late at night. Sorry for the confusion. Again, was opposition to move, Rakituma / Preservation Inlet should be the preferable title as it is the officially gazetted name and has sufficient media usage to be considered regular parlance in my opinion.NebuchadnezzarHammurabi (talk) 06:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose. Dual name is used often. The current name meets the rules at WP:PLACE. It is the name used in all the authoritative reference works per WP:WIAN. Also per WP:CRITERIA: Recognizability - the dual name is more recognisabl as it is the current name and includes the both historical names (so it is found regardless of what a user might search). Naturalness - the dual name is the most natural given it is at the actual name. Precision - the dual name is the most accurate title, unambiguously identifing the fiord by it's legal name (the name on all modern maps). Concision - the dual name is slightly longer than suggested name but not excessively long, Consistency - consitiant with the other Fiordland fiords. ShakyIsles (talk) 05:25, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree with your conclusions here. The dual name might be used often, but it's not the most often used. Naturalness states that the name used should be the name that a person would most likely search for, and I find it hard to believe that most people would search for the current title over simply "Preservation Inlet". The proposed name is also 1/3 the size of the current name, which is hardly "slightly longer". --Spekkios (talk) 03:41, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I consider the dual name less recognizable; with the common name at the end of the dual name, readers are likely to not recognize it, particularly when it is in a list. I also believe you are mistaken about WP:NATURALNESS; it doesn't require us to use the official name, but the name people use for the place - and Google Trends tells us that when searching for the place, people almost always use "Preservation Inlet", not "Rakituma / Preservation Inlet".
 * Further, precision supports the proposed title over the current title; it tells us that titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that. Preservation Inlet unambiguously defines the topical scope of the article, and to add Rakituma to it makes the title too precise. BilledMammal (talk) 04:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Claiming that readers are likely to not recognize it seems like an awfully big stretch and something which you have absolutely no basis for not everyone is as fundamentally opposed to indigenous names as you seem to be. It seems bizarre to claim that the name "Rakituma / Preservation Inlet" is somehow less recognisable than either component name, given that people will either know it as the dual name, Rakituma, or Preservation Inlet, with the dual name neatly capturing all three and thus being more recognisable to the widest range of people possible.
 * I also disagree with your interpretation that precision supports the current title we don't have "Las Vegas" at "Vegas" or "Atlantic Ocean" at "Atlantic" because the shorter names are enough to unambiguously define the article, they also need to make sense. And frankly, your proposals don't. Turnagra (talk) 10:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Recognizability depends on how familiar readers are with dual names. Readers unfamiliar with dual names - as most readers are - may struggle to recognize "Rakituma / Preservation Inlet" as "Preservation Inlet". However, it seems we will have to disagree here, but please disagree civilly. Your statement fundamentally opposed to indigenous names was both incorrect, and not civil.
 * Regarding precision, unless you are saying the name "Preservation Inlet" doesn't make sense, then I don't understand the point you are making.
 * The only real question that is relevant here is what people commonly call this location - do they call it "Preservation Inlet", or do they call it "Rakituma / Preservation Inlet"? Per all the evidence presented so far - Google News, Google Scholar, Google Trends, and Google Books (9 results since 2020 for Preservation Inlet, 1 result for Rakituma / Preservation Inlet), the answer is overwhelmingly Preservation Inlet, and as such the only appropriate title under WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CRITERIA is Preservation Inlet. BilledMammal (talk) 12:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)