Talk:Stewart Island/Archive 1

Disambig needed
Just to annoy everyone I've linked Darwin Sound, South America to Stewart Island, but when checking the link this showed up: con the title go to the american one, or do you want something else done?...dave souza 10:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I have removed the link. Would you like to create a Stewart Island (Tierra del Fuego) article?. Cheers Moriori 19:45, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Fauna
I don't think Kakapo are thriving - haven't they all been removed before they were wiped out? Of course, they no doubt did well on Stewart Island before man came along! GrahamBould 13:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Stewart Island, the Name
Before reading this article, I had never before in my life heard 'Rakiura'. I have lived in the South Island my entire life. Also, I have never before on a map seen Rakiura in place of, or along side Stewart Island. Furthermore, I think if one of New Zealand's 3 'main' Islands was to be renamed, i.e. Rakiura added, then the media etc would ensure people actually new about it. Infact, you can go to Stewart Islands own website, and read the history of their name, see: http://www.stewartisland.co.nz/About%20the%20People%20and%20the%20Island/The%20Naming%20of%20Stewart%20Island.html the LINZ website is an informative website but has no legal naming right. That falls with the NZ Geographic board, who, pending any change in the name, would Gazette the change first and take submissions. Stewart Island, as its residents will tell you, is Stewart Island. --Hayden5650 12:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Hayden5650
 * We should establish what the legal name is. I'm not sure how to go about this. I would have thought the New Zealand Geographic Placenames Database kept by LINZ was authoritative, but I'm willing to take Hayden's word that it isn't. In the meantime, I'm fairly sure that Rakiura is the more commonly used Maori name, though it is certainly less commonly used than Stewart Island, and have changed the article accordingly.- gadfium 19:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hayden, the New Zealand Geographic Board decisions are available on the LINZ website, and the LINZ database is official. Stewart Island/Rakiura was officially renamed, along with another 87 places, as part of the Ngai Tahu settlement. --Limegreen 22:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I am a New Zealander from Chrischurch New Zealand and I have never heard Stewart Island called RAKIURA were in the world did you get the idea that it was known by that I bet you only about 5% or less of the Population of The South Island (no Idea abouth the North)would ever call it that

Exactly, and I have asked many people about this matter, non of whom have ever heard of the name rakiura. When it is debatable whether this name even exists legally on paper, and is certainly not used or even known of, it has no place on Wikipedia in the naming of an article. People come here for information, not opinion and not to have a small group of maoris opinions forced upon them. --Hayden5650 10:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It is the legal name. There is zero doubt, if you follow the links. Also, one of the reasons why one person asking people they come across is a bad idea is that you tend to come across people exposed to similar things. Thus, you poll people and find no-one knows, but every body I know does know it. You obviously missed the name change in 1998, and the opening of Rakiura National Park in 2002. And it is used, even people  who live on the island (e.g., ).--Limegreen 11:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it, and I don't even know the fellow who posted just before. Sometimes things are legal on paper. I'm an engineer and work with roads/highways. There is things called paper road. It exists on paper, but you sure as heck can't drive on it, nor would you put it on a map or direct people to it. The same is the case here. Also, according to the 2001 census, 93.2% of people affiliated with the European ethnicity, so I doubt they would call it Rakiura. And also, if you follow the link; you will see that it is referred to soley as Stewart Island. The Statistics NZ department is just as official as LINZ, if not more so, and they are not even using the name Rakiura. Maybe we could include a 'Controversy' section at the end of the article with reference to a naming dispute or something of the like. However, Rakiura certainly should not appear throughout the article as if it is a common, known and used name. If a tourist was to land in NZ, in anywhere but your town, Limegreen, and asked for directions to Rakiura I'm sure they would receive some funny looks and stammere answers indeed.


 * I'm quite familiar with paper roads. There are several paper streets in the "block" where I live. You might have noticed, however, that sometimes paper roads become actual roads, some are "stopped", and some just stay as paper roads. And sometimes placenames change names. There are some suggesting that Palmerston North may become Manawatu City for example. The New Zealand Geographic Board (on the LINZ) site are the arbiters of placenames, not Statistics New Zealand. And just because someone has a European ethnicity doesn't mean they share your opinion. You need to produce something more definitive. --Limegreen 12:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou, Limegreen, as you are completely correct. Paper roads may someday become roads, but until they are used they are not advertised. The same with Palmerston North. Some may even call it Manawatu City now, but I strongly doubt it as I've never heard anything of it, hence the article is named soley Palmerston North. I have no objection to Rakiura being mentioned and discussed in the article, however I do object to it being presented as being equal to the real and used name Stewart Island. Also, I think the link is posted somewhere above, Stewart Island's own website see's fit to only list Stewart Island as the name.


 * The name is becoming used. This process will probably take a generation or two, but given that it was changed by the National Government, has been preserved by a Labour Government, there is unlikely to be a change back to just Stewart Island. I would assume that when kids are doing geography at school they have, or will have soon, maps with Stewart Island/Rakiura on them. Thus, much like the metric system, younger people will end up growing up with the new name, and older people will probably continue to mostly think of it just as Stewart Island. People you know, or people I know aren't a good index of what people actually use, so it's hard to tell what the most "used" name is (but there are people using both). The official name is clear. I'm not sure what the "real" name is. And it is also likely that the use of the new official name will increase over time. --Limegreen 21:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I would suggest to put a paragraph on the renaming of the island into the section about its name (And when was the renaming?). You could add an encyclopedic rendering of the issues in this discussion. That would be a solution of this debate, I think. Soczyczi 11:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Does this article somehow fall outside the provisions of Naming conventions (common names)?&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 14:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It falls under Naming conventions (New Zealand), which says "New Zealand placenames are written simply as the place name".- gadfium 20:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It's hard for me to tell whether you know this already, but it is clear from context that what this means is that places in New Zealand should be titled Christchurch rather than Christchurch, New Zealand, Auckland rather than Auckland, New Zealand, etc. It has nothing to do with the policy on using common names.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 03:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Territorial Authority
I was under the impression that the Territorial Authority covering the island is Southland District, and not Stewart Island/RakiuraSkinsmoke 01:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * ??????????? The article clearly says "in local government terms, the island is part of Southland District". Moriori 01:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I am referring to the boxed information where it states that the 'Territorial Authority' is Stewart Island/Rakiura. I understood that there is no such territorial authority under New Zealand's local government legislation.Skinsmoke 01:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm. In which case it would be silly to have both territorial and regional in the box. However I think in this case territorial is community board and regional is district council. Hopefully someone from down that way can elucidate. Moriori 02:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Stewart Island, along with Ruapuke and adjacent island groups, comprises the Stewart Island Ward of Southland District and elects one Councillor to the Southland District Council. The Southland District Council is the territorial local authority. I am not absolutely certain of the legal status of community boards but I believe the Stewart Island Community Board is considered to be a committee of the Southland District Council. Hope this clears up the confusion. Daveosaurus (talk) 10:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Surely the pattern should be the same for other areas of New Zealand. The general pattern is to include the population etc for the City, Town, Village (or in this case Island), then to indicate the Territorial Authority (in this case Southland District) then the Region (in this case Southland Region). Southland District and Southland Region are not the same (don't blame me for New Zealand's confusing local government system - I'm in England!)Skinsmoke 02:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

title?
Why is this article called Stewart Island/Rakiura, in common, english daily useage, it is only called Stewart Island. If this format is keeped South Island should be moved etc... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Brian New Zealand


 * The Assertion re the South Island is wrong, as neither Te Wai Pounamu nor Te Waka a Maui has any official status. As of 2009 the names board is (somewhat controversially) considering a Māori name for each Island, but the indication is that it would be an alternative name (designated as "South Island or he aha hoki*" rather than "South Island/He aha hoki") so it will still be a different situation from Stewart Island/Rakiura.
 * * He aha hoki = "whatever". dramatic (talk) 02:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It is called Stewart Island/Rakiura because its name is Stewart Island/Rakiura. Same as we call Aoraki/Mount Cook Aoraki/Mount Cook. I am unsure what you mean by your last sentence. Moriori 21:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not signing, I'm sure i added it :)
 * I mean for the South Island we should be renamed to South Island/Te Wai Pounamu
 * Untill I read this page I had never heard it called Stewart Island/Rakiura. btw some (alot of) New Zealanders still call Mt Cook by its name, and Mt Egmonut by its name.
 * The Maori name for the Stewart Island is unusued by and unknown to English speakers. Brian | (Talk) 23:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It is not "the Maori name for the Stewart Island" but the official name of the island, incorporating Maori and English. It is most certainly not "unusued by and unknown to English speakers". Granted, it is taking longer for some people to adapt that's to be expected. Some older folk still talk in inches, feet, yards and miles.  Moriori 00:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay :) I had never heard of it before now, I asked a couple of people and they had not heard of it either :) for intrest when did that become the offical name? could that be written somehow into the article? and maybe something about how a lot of people refer it it as Stewart Island Brian | (Talk) 00:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Could/should something be written into the article? Not unless heaps of other articles are changed too, such as what some people call Somes Island in Wellington Harbour or White Island in the Bay of Plenty. Click on them to see their correct names. Maybe we could have an article dealing with the progressive naming/renaming of places in NZ. Go to it. Moriori 02:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that its a bit sad that many of our society fail to keep up with that renaming process, I know its not intentional, I believe that the places should never have been renamed from the name that they had when Europeans arrived, in my POV. I am really happy with Rakiura and have used it myself for around 10 years, since discovering that Rakiura loosely translates as great glowing in the sky and refers to aurora australis frequently seen in the area. I worked at Waituna Farm next to Waituna lagoon in 1994 and took images of the aurora from Invercargil and Bluff overlooking Rakiura/Stewart Island. To honour that experience i took rakiuraimages as my future art website, and I have my 1994 rakiura images photos at: aurora australis photos. LINZ publishs the official names that are approved by a geographic board for New Zealand, there can be no confusion. Lets just be happy sharing the titles in this new era of collaboration . moza 18:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That's cool, but let's be clear that Wikipedia is not "our society" where "us" is "New Zealand". Wikipedia is international, and its policy is to use common English-language names for things, peope, and places. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 19:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's be equally clear that Wikipedia reflects change as well. Click on Calcutta and Bombay and Ivory Coast as examples. It can take a long time for people to adapt to change. For instance, the CIA factbook hasn't yet caught up with Stewart Island/Rakiura, but its 2004 edition adopted Aoraki-Mount Cook as the name of NZ's highest mountain. Moriori 22:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't really agree with that. Wikipedia reflects changes once those changes have altered standard English usage. I have no idea why Calcutta, Bombay, and Ivory Coast have been moved; but, if they don't have a good reason, there's no reason to copy that mistake here. Here is the polcy on using common names. Now, policies aren't always set in stone and I'm very comfortable with WP:IAR, but a policy generally reflects a strongly established consensus of editors, and we should be very careful about going against that. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 03:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

On the one hand you say "Wikipedia reflects changes once those changes have altered standard English usage" and then say you "have no idea why Calcutta, Bombay, and Ivory Coast have been moved". They have moved because they reflect the changing standard English usage of their official names. If people ignored the changes, they would effectively block them from ever becoming "altered standard English". Nothing can change unless we accept it. Wikipedia has enough critics already but refusing to acknowledge that some countries have changed names of geographic locations would earn us many more critics IMMHO. Moriori 04:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree with "Nothing can change unless we accept it," if by "we" you mean "Wikipedia". Wikipedia follows changes that have already occurred outside of Wikipediad. It's an interesting hypothetical to consider how Wikipedia would handle things in the future if we become such a large source of information that people are following our lead on what to call things, but we're not there yet. In the cases above, I find it hard to believe that the common name for Calcutta and Bombay has really changed (Ivory Coast, I don't really know about). Likewise, for Stewart Island, is there any evidence that it's common name has changed? "Stewart Island/Rakiura" gets only 20,000-some google hits, whereas "Stewart Island" alone gets over 700,000. Even the Stewart Island website (http://www.stewartisland.co.nz) seems to use "Stewart Island" by itself in most cases. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 19:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I would argue that as wikipedia is 17th most popular site worldwide it is in fact very much the leader, for better or worse, despite the policy to be a follower and no original research etc. There is a cognitive dissonance here between the intent to copy only whats alraedy published and proven; and the ability for anyone to edit at any time, and publish immediately known information. I think there may be multiple layers of activity that need to be recognised for what they are. Sometimes publishing un-verified information allows the verification to emerge as a result, I think that process may be informal but it happens more than most care to acknowledge. Personally I'm not gonna hide my head in the sand. Humans fall into many categories of behaviour, and I'm an 'early adopter' so its hard for me to understand the resistance to change. I actually see incredible arrogance in sailing across the world and renaming places that have already been named for thousands of years by the HUMANS that lived there. It was a 'gunpowder' mentality that became 'science'. I dont even like the names they chose, they were often simplistic and therefore downright stupid! I live in the 'NORTH' 'ISLAND' of 'NEW' 'SEA LAND'. How creative... not. For all that I will still insist on using the official agreed and published names, there are 55,000 approved and availble on a free download from Land Information New Zealand. I'm licensed to their data supply, and thats the only reference I'm going to take notice of.moza 02:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Like Brian asked before, could someone provide details of when the official change was made? Changes like this are interesting and could easily be worked into the article IMO Mattlore 08:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not against calling the article "Stewart Island", and I accept that the official name is "Stewart Island/Rakiura", but having the slash in the article name makes confusing reading in the URL. Would putting the "Rakiura" in brackets like these work, even if just for the URL? Trombonator Lord Dark 08:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Requested move 2009

 * 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 no consensus.- gadfium 23:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The result of the move request was moved. Naming conventions prefers the most commonly used name to the official name. No one has presented an argument that the double name is the most-used. -- Aervanath (talk) 03:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus for this move. Please find consensus before making controversial moves.- gadfium 04:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Seconded. The naming convention used to reach this decision by Aervanath in full states that the common name is to be used "except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication". In this case, the New Zealand naming conventions suggest the current name. As such, the reasoning behind the closing of this move request was faulty. Grutness...wha?  05:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As I stated on my talk page, Wikipedia policy on using the most easily recognized name overrides local naming conventions. If you believe that I have closed this improperly, please resort to WT:RM or WP:AN to ask for other admins to review my decision. Until then, please leave the page where it is. Thank you.--Aervanath (talk) 05:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You appear to have this backwards. Please read WP:Naming conventions (common names). You don't even have to read very much, just the box near the beginning which gives the guideline in a nutshell.- gadfium 06:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * See WP:AN.- gadfium 06:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have struck Aervanath's conclusion, as no one has contributed to this discussion for almost two months. As suggested by Aervanath, a discussion on the attempted close was raised at Administrator's noticeboard. A later attempt to strengthen the common name policy and weaken more specific naming conventions Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions/Archive 13.- gadfium 23:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I propose to move this to Stewart Island, which redirects to this entry, so it appears to be unambiguous; the above discussion strongly suggests that this is current local usage.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Survey

 * Support as nom. Double names are undesirable. Official usage should be followed when and only when it becomes common usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Standard practice is to use the official names where possible for New Zealand geographical articles - this is one of many to use the official bilingual naming. Note that much of this talk page is discussion of the name, much of it giving explicit reasons why the article name is the way it is. there is a redirect from Stewart Island, moving the article there would be both unnecessary and incorrect. Grutness...wha?  00:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Grutness. To call it by other than the official name is to open up a whole can of worms for numerous other articles on New Zealand places, where commonly used names are offensive slurs on the official name. I'm not suggesting that the name "Stewart Island" is itself offensive.- gadfium 01:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. There is no citation in the article that uses, requires, or advocates this name.  Wikipedia is not required to follow the diktat of New Zealand's (or any other) government, especially if it contravenes WP:UCN (use common names).  This name format is not used in the text of the article or in referring to places on the island (e.g., Half Moon Bay, Stewart Island).  The current title is vaguely justified by Naming conventions (New Zealand) but local naming conventions should not differ so significantly from naming conventions (i.e., WP:UCN, WP:UE, issues with strokes/slashes).  Some of this is summed up at WP:OFFICIALNAMES. —   AjaxSmack   02:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. "Rakiura" is well known to mean Stewart Island (and has indeed been a name for the island for longer than "Stewart Island" has been). For example, the majority of the island's land area is the Rakiura National Park. Daveosaurus (talk) 12:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC) - Furthermore, if anything to do with Stewart Island is to be shifted, it would be much more appropriate for "Half Moon Bay" to be shifted to "Halfmoon Bay", which is correct usage as per LINZ (source: Terralink Fish Eye) and NZ Post (source: Postcode Finder). Daveosaurus (talk) 12:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Support There are large parts of the world where there are genuine disputes about different names, but this approach is a can of worms. We have to take a definite decision one way or the other. PatGallacher (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Support There is an extensive scientific and botanical literature covering Stewart Island, and I find virtually no mention of the location as other than Stewart Island. Much of this literature is quite contemporary. A section in the article discussing name controversy would be splendid, but to germinate confusion for the sake of political correctness is not a good path for wikipedia. kind regards. Kiwikibble (talk) 21:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose, official (legal?) unambiguous placename per LINZ . There is another Stewart Island in Nelson . LINZ is an authoritative source for New Zealand placenames. XLerate (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose: if we are not going to use the official name, then we ought to be using Rakiura since it has the longest history of use (with a hundred-year blip where the European renaming held precedence). The scientific community does seem to be relatively conservative with regard to place names (viz Egmont Volcano), presumably for reasons of backward compatibility with earlier publications. That doesn't mean that we have to be.dramatic (talk) 01:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. It's not Wikipedia's job to advocate a particular point of view (WP:NOTAFORUM / WP:NOTADVOCATE) but to describe what exists.  Even if Rakiura is more politically correct and/or Stewart Island too conservative, Wikipedia should reflect the island's common, English name. —   AjaxSmack   03:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A common name that is in the process of changing. My not-quite 7-year-old has been taught Rakiura at school, even though their atlases are out of date. There is no effective way of gauging how far through the transition we are. But for Wikipedia to assert via the article title that the old name is more significant is highly POV. In the end, Stewart Island, Rakiura and Stewart Island/Rakiura all lead to the same article. dramatic (talk) 05:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose As far as I understand it Stewart Island/Rakiura is the full name, they are not alternate names as was proposed for the North & South islands recently. That means that they both should be used together, not either or Mattlore (talk) 07:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Comment: the current title appears to be the legal name since 1 Oct 1998 . XLerate (talk) 07:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have added similar information to the article. Can't understand why no one had done it previously. dramatic (talk) 09:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Surely this is a similar situation to Ynys Môn|Anglesey in Wales or Bolzano/Bozen in Italy. Those are the official names.  However, in English they are referred to by one of those names, Anglesey and Bolzano respectively, and not by the dual version.  The Wikipedia naming policy specifically advises NOT to use the and/or version, but to use the version most common in English for the English Wikipedia.  This is a policy that seems to have worked successfully in Ireland, Wales, Belgium, Canada, Finland, Scotland and Switzerland, and I can see no reason why it should not work equally well in New Zealand. If, as at Caernarfon, Ceredigion or Porthmadog, the official name is changed from one language to the other, then the name should change in Wikipedia too.
 * Having said that, the rule set out at Naming conventions (New Zealand) is quite clear :-
 * Rules of Maori place names are still under discussion, but at present, where the usual name of a place is Maori, macrons are not used in the name. Where the usual name is English but there is also a Maori name, macrons are used in the Maori name. Thus Whakatane is simply Whakatane, but Christchurch is also listed within the article as Ōtautahi. Where the official name of the place includes both English and Maori names the order given by the New Zealand Geographic Board is used (e.g., Aoraki/Mount Cook, Stewart Island/Rakiura, Whakaari/White Island). In the rare instance where a place officially has both Maori and English names and both are used equally, both names are used in the article title, separated by an oblique. The order in which the two names are listed is not fixed, but is often by preponderance of normal usage. A redirect from the alternative order of names is desirable in these cases.Skinsmoke (talk) 03:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand. The island does not have dual English and Māori names. The official name is "Stewart Island/Rakiura". "Stewart Island" is not an official name, nor is "Rakiura".- gadfium 09:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Naming....again
Eh, I'm a year 9 (form 3), and 'they haven't taught us anyhting about Rakiura being a name for...well...anything at all. If they're not teaching me this, how is anyone else supposed to know? I'm not arguing about official stuff, but i agree with everyone else. It isn't the more widely used name. Or widely known.122.57.139.225 (talk) 08:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Teachers and schools don't know much everything. Maybe they need to shape up. Kahuroa (talk)
 * Agreed.122.57.141.253 (talk) 05:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Legend of Maui - Link to Title
Does anyone think it should be made clear that very few Maori ever migrated further south than the Malborough Sounds before European settlers's began arriving. Therefore it is very unlikely that the Maori people even discovered Stewart Island before European settlement and thus its original name was in fact "Stewart Island"! Also the legend of Maui's canoe is also somewhat of a historical fallacy, only existing after maps of the New Zealand islands were produced by Europeans so the reference to Stewart Island being Maui's anchor stone is relatively irrelevant. Unsigned entry by TheHawk123 at 14:45, 9 November 2011
 * No to your question. No to your discovery hypothesis. No to your fallacy hypothesis. And no to your anchor stone hypothesis. Moriori (talk) 02:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It should not be "made clear" because there is absolutely no reliable source to back up those claims. There were Māori settlements all around the South Island. Just in the Southland area there were Colac, Pahia, Ruapuke and Oue, to name but four. I suggest you go and read yourself some Herries Beattie. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Island list
Added a major island list onto the description box. I think this is needed since its a quick way to jump some of these important places. ⁓⁓⁓⁓ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grapeman4 (talk • contribs) 09:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Threats and Preservation section Questions
I fixed up the grammar and a run-on sentence in this section. But two things stood out as unclear to me, so I could not fix them.

1. "As the island has always been sparsely populated and there has never been very much logging, much of the original wildlife is intact, including species that have been devastated on the larger islands to the north since their habitation by humans."

Should that actually say, "since settlement by Europeans", or were some populations on other islands devastated by the Maori?

2. The earlier wording made it clear that cats, rats, etc. did not historically threaten indigenous wildlife. But the wording was unclear as to whether cats, rats, etc. currently present a threat to the indigenous wildlife, or whether they present a potential future threat to indigenous wildlife.

So I had to leave that unclear. Someone should do a further fix with that info.


 * (1) Bird extinctions pre-date the arrival of Europeans, most notably that of the Moa.
 * (2) They didn't historically threaten indigenous wildlife because they weren't here - dogs and rats arrived with the Māori some time in the 12th or 13th centuries, cats and stoats with the Europeans from the 18th century onwards.
 * This isn't my area of expertise so I'd be reluctant to change too much. As it is your changes have improved the clarity of the sentence so I think they should stand. Daveosaurus (talk) 02:12, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Population
Is it "just under 400" per first paragraph - or 236 as stated under the map?"
 * Any consensus yet? The gap is huge. GrahamBould 10:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This discrepancy is still there. Oban, New Zealand says that place had a population of 387 in 2001, which would make the 236 figure impossible. 81.158.2.114 11:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I've just updated the population (and density) from the 2013 census, to 381 for Stewart Island. The article's template has a value of "largest city", currently set to 322. I can't find any info in the NZ census tables for Oban, though, so I don't know where to find the latest figure, if there even is one. Can anyone update this properly? Izogi (talk) 05:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 26 July 2014

 * 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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: move to Stewart Island. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Stewart Island / Rakiura → Stewart Island – The guideline WP:NCNZ says that we should use dual names (like "Stewart Island / Rakiura") "if there are sources which indicate that a dual name has usage beyond mandatory official usage". Google news search gives 0 (zero) results for "Stewart Island / Rakiura", 65 results for "Stewart Island" and 60 for "Rakiura". Google Books search returns 6.310 results for "Stewart Island / Rakiura", but most are about the Rakiura National Park. When the "National Park" is excluded, there are 3.140 results. On the other hands, Google Books returns 106.000 results for "Stewart Island", ("Rakiura" excluded). I think that this clearly shows that there is almost no usage of the dual name "beyond mandatory official usage". Vanjagenije (talk) 01:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , 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.


 * Rename to something. WP:SUBPAGE, MOS:SLASH, we should avoid using slashes in article titles, as it has the appearance of a subpage. If nothing else, use a dash Stewart Island&mdash;Rakiura, or use Rakiura, or use Stewart Island; but something should be done. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support as proposed, but second choice is Rakiura, not a "no move" Red Slash 05:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support a move per Wikipedia titling guidelines (MOS:SLASH) and common usage (WP:UCN). Support a move to Stewart Island per common usage and WP:UE (use English).  —  AjaxSmack   14:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Still the common name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:


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

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Stewart Island. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111005175409/http://globaltwitcher.auderis.se/artspec_information.asp?thingid=222 to http://globaltwitcher.auderis.se/artspec_information.asp?thingid=222

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 7 January 2017

 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Nobody actually addressed the point of the precedent mentioned by, at Aoraki / Mount Cook, which would have been a nice topic for discussion here, to determine if there is any parallel between the two cases. That being said though, there is consensus below that the proposed name does not satisfy WP:COMMONNAME, and in fact the present title is the commmon name, so no move is warranted. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Stewart Island → Stewart Island/Rakiura – Stewart Island/Rakiura is the commonly used name of the island by NZ government agencies, as designated by the New Zealand Geographic Board under the Ngai Tahu Settlement Act. This is consistent with Aoraki / Mount Cook and Mount Taranaki, formerly Mount Egmont. This name is used by all New Zealand government agencies such as the Department of Conservation, Te Ara The Encyclopedia of New Zealand, etc. Stewart Island is no longer the official name of the island and cannot be used by central government agencies. Darren (talk) 23:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. Before !voting here, editors may wish to consult [in addition to the two (2009 and 2014) discussions on this page, above] the discussions on a similar topic, mentioned in the nomination, at Talk:Aoraki / Mount Cook in 2005, followed by "Move suggestion 2" and "Requested move" in July–August 2006 and "A move back needed" in 2007, continued in 2009. While those discussions center upon the expected topics of resistance to and acceptance of name changes, there is an additional element of six back-and-forth moves regarding the use of a slash, a dash and spacing (either Aoraki/Mount Cook, per NZ Geographic Board, or Aoraki / Mount Cook per Wikipedia guidelines — see Aoraki / Mount Cook: Revision history or, if that takes too long to load, Talk:Aoraki / Mount Cook: Revision history). &mdash;Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 01:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment In a number of countries where multiple names exist for places and objects, it's often common for the formal government listing to adopt a dual name form. This does not necessarily mean the dual form is actually used very much outside of government. Naming conventions (New Zealand) implies a dual form should only be used when it reflects usage beyond officialdom. Do New Zealanders commonly write and say "Stewart Island/Rakiura" or do they generally use one of the alternative names? Timrollpickering 00:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Based on my own experience and a quick search of the NZ Herald, "Stewart Island" is still in common usage, compared to "Stewart Island/Rakiura". Mattlore (talk) 21:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Just because the government likes to mash two different names for the place together with a slash doesn't mean WP should use such an awkward style. Lots of jurisdictions present placenames in multiple languages (in various styles); WP does not mimic this, and just gives the most common name in English sources.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 'Oppose I don't see the purpose of this. I don't think any other wiki nz pages have this naming format. I'd be happy with having the intro in the format of the New Zealand wiki page (i.e. New Zealand Listeni/njuːˈziːlənd/ (Māori: Aotearoa [aɔˈtɛaɾɔa])).  by  c o d y  10:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Why not propose "Rakiura" as a name? It's better than the proposed title. However, if "Rakiura" alone is not commonly used, then use the status quo for now. George Ho (talk) 00:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


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

Naming - again
The name Stewart Island/Rakiura is used throughout the article. In line with the debate and decision above, should these be changed to Stewart Island? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Not every occurrence of "Stewart Island/Rakiura" (because that is, after all, the official name of the island, and so needs to be mentioned somewhere). But it does read awkwardly in English text; having "Stewart Island/Rakiura" on the page 17 times seems like overkill.  So I'd favour changing some of these 17 occurrences of "Stewart Island/Rakiura" back to "Stewart Island", at your discretion. Ross Finlayson (talk) 15:02, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * FYI, User:Jay_D._Easy has now made this change. Ross Finlayson (talk) 00:40, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Article name
I propose changing the name of this article to the official name of the island, viz. Stewart Island/Rakiura (see LINZ http://www.linz.govt.nz/rcs/linz/pub/web/root/core/placenames/index.jsp ). Apart from the first use in the intro, I have no problem with a shorter form of the name, e.g. Stewart Island, being used in the article. Any objections? Nurg 08:05, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * sounds OK - might need redirect pages at both Stewart Island, New Zealand and Rakiura though... Grutness 05:06, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The Maori name for the island is unusued by and unknown to English speakers. A Wikipedia article name should reflect what the place is called in the English language, otherwise calling this article Stewart Island/Rakiura is no different from renaming France to France/Française, Germany to Germany/Deutschland, Auckland to Auckland/Tāmaki Makau Rau and so on. There is a Te Reo Maori edition of Wikipedia, that is where all articles should be named in Maori, and likewise with all other respective languages. Otherwise, this is going to become very silly very fast. User:203.109.252.196 11:20, August 6, 2005


 * To the contrary. As language evolves, so too do naming, and eventual usage. Kids were taught at school that the mountain near New Plymouth was called Egmont. Now they are taught it is called Mount Taranaki, and that's what they call it, (some older Taranaki-ites probably excepted). By government decree, Stewart Island/Rakiura is the official name, combining two of New Zealand's official languages, and that name must be printed on official maps/signage etc. It is not strictly so that Wikipedia article names should "reflect what it is called in the English language". Wikipedia has to reflect changing reality, not someone's wishes. Click on Burma for an example. Would you suggest that Myanmar should be changed back to Burma because that is the name you are comfortable with? Furthermore, you are drawing a very long bow when you say it is no different from renaming France to France/Française. There is a world of difference. France/Francaise means the same thing twice. Stewart Island/Rakiura recognises two totally different things -- (1) Captain William Stewart who in 1809 was the first to accurately chart the island, and (2) Rakiura, the name that Maori used for untold centuries, which (roughly)  translates as Glowing Skies, maybe referring to the island's super sunsets, or for the aurora australis lights that are particularly spectatular there. Moriori 00:24, August 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * I second this, I live on this island and merely calling the island "Stewart Island" does not reflect what people here use to identify their home. The name Rakiura is used by tourists frequently, many if not most people use "Rakiura" on their postal address which arrives with New Zealand Post. The Department of Conservation (a Government Department) along with Ngāi Tahu tangata whenua, the Ministry of Primary industries and most local businesses use Rakiura in their signage, advertising and documents. As Wikipedia is a source of information, the argument that "The Māori name for the island is unused by and unknown to English speakers.." does not stand at all. I am an English speaker and this name is used by me. All of the residents on the island speak English and they also use the name Rakiura profusely if not more than Stewart Island. Rakiura 'land of the glowing skies' is a bastardisation of the true meaning of the name and is incorrect. What is correct is that it is a perfectly usable name which is still being used, and has been used for ions. Clumster (talk) 02:26, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "All of the residents on the island speak English and they also use the name Rakiura profusely if not more than Stewart Island." I find this very difficult to believe.  I suspect you're being a bit disingenuous here... Ross Finlayson (talk) 04:52, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Welcome to wikipedia and it is great to have someone from the island contributing. I suggest you take your time learning some of the rules and techniques used by editors before making any significant changes. Even if what you say is true, and even if it is not just a sales pitch to tourists, the rule about locally used English names usage applies to NZ as a whole, so Stewart Island it remains. Government bodies will and must use the duel name, but WP is not a NZ govt body. Why not read the other discussions about the name, further down on this page - they are much more recent than 2005 and have created a consensus of sorts. By the way, when I was last there, not too long ago, I never heard Rakiura used once. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:29, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Stamps?
OK, for the however many-th time I've flagged the paragraph about stamps as needing a citation. They do exist - but there is no reference to them anywhere I can find in anything published before about 2008 and they seem to be a fantasy or vanity production with nothing whatsoever to do with the actual fundraising they were purportedly for. If I don't see a reference in the next week or so, that paragraph gets deleted. Also, if the citation flag gets deleted again without a reference being supplied, that paragraph goes.Daveosaurus (talk) 06:19, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 7 February 2021

 * 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: Moved  (t &#183; c)  buidhe  01:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Stewart Island → Stewart Island / Rakiura – Launching this discussion again as it has been several years since the last move request, during which time acceptance and use of dual place names has increased dramatically in New Zealand. The dual name is used by many official sources and businesses, including the Ministry of Culture and Heritage in Te Ara / the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, the Department of Conservation, the AA, local community organisations and NGOs, the International Dark-Sky Association, Lonely Planet and Southland District Council. Local residents of the island who have engaged in previous discussions on the name (such as in Talk:Stewart Island) have mentioned the frequent use of Rakiura alongside Stewart Island (or instead of it) on the island itself, and the official name of the island as per the NZGB Gazetteer is Stewart Island / Rakiura. Making this change would bring Stewart Island more in line with the dozens of articles on New Zealand places which also have official dual place names, including Milford Sound / Piopiotahi, Aoraki / Mount Cook, Clutha River / Mata-Au, Whakaari / White Island, and nearby Codfish Island / Whenua Hou. Previous discussions have taken place several years ago, since which time Māori place names across New Zealand have gained much greater acceptance and widespread use, both in their official capacity in dual names and in unofficial use to refer to places without dual names (such as referring to Christchurch as Ōtautahi). Several arguments in the past move requests have also consisted of opposition to the dual name format generally (which is negated by the dual name being recognised in WP:NZNC and by the consistency to the many other dual place names mentioned above), or alternatively that people don't have understanding of naming conventions for NZ articles with dual names / the extent to which dual names are now used. These arguments don't stack up in the current environment, especially when taken against the growing prevalence of the dual place name in New Zealand generally and its widespread use to refer to the island. Turnagra (talk) 01:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Is the slash really part of the official name or is it just a Wikipedia convention? J I P  &#124; Talk 02:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that the dual title separated by a slash is acceptable on Wikipedia as a title, but it still must conform to WP:COMMONNAME, so it must be shown that the dual name is more commonly used in English than either name on its own. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: The slash is part of the official name, yeah. Or rather, the official name is Stewart Island/Rakiura (ie. without the spaces), but the general convention on Wikipedia is to add the spaces. In some instances the official name has the Māori name in brackets, such as Lake Ellesmere (Te Waihora), but in these cases we still go with the slash for consistency with the majority of dual names (eg. Lake Ellesmere / Te Waihora). As far as the common name goes, dual name usage in New Zealand is typically - at least in spoken English - done through interchangeable use of the two names. Written examples tend to use the dual name in full, which is fairly common in recent sources, as the various links above demonstrate. Turnagra (talk) 04:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support - this is how I have seen it recorded in recent media Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 31 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: moved to Stewart Island. To save space, I have collapsed my full closure in the box below:

In this requested move discussion, the community debates whether the article about New Zealand's third-largest island should be moved from the title "Stewart Island / Rakiura" to "Stewart Island". From a purely numerical perspective, the !vote tally is 11 supports to 8 opposes. Requested move discussions, however, are "not a vote and the quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority", so the !vote count, while not irrelevant, did not play a major role in my determination of consensus. Let us turn to the strength of arguments. First of all, I gave no weight to arguments based solely on personal opinion rather than policies or guidelines. (There were only a handful of these.) I also discounted !votes that were focused on WP:NCNZ since, as the result of this 2021 RfC, that guideline simply has nothing at all to say about whether or not to use a dual name. I considered the argument that HTGS's 22 June mass ping constituted canvassing, but I will AGF that it was intended to improve the quality of discussion by notifying "[e]ditors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic", which is generally permitted. (In any event, the mass ping's effect appears to have been minimal: only two of the pinged editors participated.) On to the crux of the matter. Supporters marshaled evidence that the dual name was used less frequently in reliable sources than Stewart Island. They also argued that the proposed title was preferable under WP:CONCISE (which favors shorter titles) and MOS:SLASH (which generally disfavors the use of slashes). Opposers seemed most focused on showing that the dual name was in common usage. This is certainly true, but it does not address the argument that other titles are also in common usage to a similar or greater degree. When several titles are common, pointing out that one of them is common is not a persuasive argument. Put another way, the opposers don't contest that "there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by" independent reliable English-language sources, and per WP:UCRN (which is policy) that means that the issue should be settled by looking at the criteria. Viewed through this lens, it becomes more clear that the supporters have the stronger arguments from a policy perspective. They argue that the proposed title is used somewhat more frequently in sources (and thus is more natural), and they also invoke WP:CONCISE and MOS:SLASH. Those are plausible reasons to break the tie in favor of Stewart Island. The opposers provide no such reasons: they don't argue that the dual name is more common, nor do they argue that it's needed for precision reasons, nor do they make a consistency-based argument, nor do they argue that "official" names deserve some special solicitude. Put succinctly, one side argues "the dual name is widely used", and the other side argues "Stewart Island is more widely used, plus it better comports with other policies and guidelines". From a closer's perspective, these arguments are not equally strong: the supporters' arguments resonate more strongly in policies and guidelines than the opposers' do. That means that there is, narrowly, consensus to move. (As an aside, even if I closed this discussion as no consensus, I think there would be a strong argument that Stewart Island is the "most recent prior stable title" since the 2021 RM had too little participation to establish stability. Arguably, the distinction between "consensus" and "no consensus" here is a distinction without a difference.)

If usage changes in the future, a subsequent RM may yield a different outcome. Thanks to all for a productive discussion. (closed by non-admin page mover) Best regards, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Stewart Island / Rakiura → Stewart Island – Per WP:CONCISE, WP:COMMONNAME, and MOS:SLASH.
 * 1) Google News shows 255 results for Stewart Island in the past year, compared to compared to 214 for Stewart Island / Rakiura.
 * 2) Google Scholar shows 325 results for Stewart Island since 2021, compared to 167 for Stewart Island / Rakiura
 * 3) Ngrams shows Stewart Island is used fifteen times as much as Stewart Island / Rakiura

Note that these Google News and Google Scholar results are heavily biased towards the dual name; any article that includes both "Stewart Island" and "Rakiura" is counted as a use of the dual name. For example, the following 32 news articles are counted as uses of the dual name, even though they refer to the island as Stewart Island and only use Rakiura in reference to the national park, the trail, or the museum: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

– BilledMammal (talk) 04:15, 31 May 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:53, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Pinging participants from previous discussions on the same question. — HTGS (talk) 00:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Support I remember the onerous debate about trying to stop the dual name becoming the title. Thanks for the research. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose per the arguments made in the many move requests above I see no reason why we need to be relitigating this again. The current title meets all the requirements of WP:WIAN, even my National Geographic world map which predates South Sudan uses the dual name. As does Encyclopaedia Britannica, Google Maps, the US Government and so on. The dual name is far and away the best choice for the name. Turnagra (talk) 09:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Of those many move requests, only one found in favour of the dual name, and that move request had just one !vote. In addition, the current name doesn't meet the requirements of WIAN, as those requirements include English-language news media, Google Scholar, and Google Ngram Viewer.
 * Can you link the US government source? Google Maps is also not a useful reference, as we cannot tell which place names are copied from government sources and which are chosen independently. Apple Maps and Bing Maps both use "Stewart Island", and though Apple Maps is unusable for the same reason Google Maps is, Bing Maps is sourced to TomTom which is independent. BilledMammal (talk) 09:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the same reasons as the last time this was brought up. Poketama (talk) 13:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose move. Island has been Rakiura for many centuries longer than it has been Stewart Island. Stewart Island / Rakiura is its official name. Daveosaurus (talk) 02:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Daveosaurus, I agree. So what? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Support. I think this case is quite close to being a page where the dual name should be used as the page title, and without the ngrams and other data I would have opposed this move. However, the data provided does seem to indicate that the dual name isn't the common name. I also dug out an old Heinemann Atlas and Encylopedia Britannica maps, both over 20 years old, and they only use the single name for the island. --Spekkios (talk) 08:31, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * How much over 20 years? Given the island's name was only changed in 1998 it may be that they predate the change altogether, noting that more recent Britannica sources use the dual name. Turnagra (talk) 09:29, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That question is how I think the whole dual name discussion should be handled. Whether a modernised name is used by sources because they legally have to use it, making the source's reliability questionable, there will come a time when, due to its frequent officially imposed use, the new name does start to become embedded into common usage. It has already started in some areas which is the intent of course. At what point the new name takes over in common usage will be a judgement call. I think we still have a long way to go before reaching that point for most place names and everyday words, but some places are getting close, such as Aoraki-Mt Cook. I can see no justification in making sweeping automatic change to every place name in NZ which some editors take such pleasure doing. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:16, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 2001 and 2003. --Spekkios (talk) 10:38, 5 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Strong Support We got too many articles with Maori names floating around the web, it is getting quite annoying. I suspect that there is a political movement going on at the moment. If we tolerate this any further, they will want to change New Zealand, North Island, and South Island too. In Australia, the government will never allow this kind of thing to happen.


 * Let's just move all of them to their English names please:


 * Stewart Island / Rakiura → Stewart Island
 * Manawatāwhi / Three Kings Islands → Three Kings Islands
 * Snares Islands / Tini Heke → Snares Islands
 * Aoraki / Mount Cook → Mount Cook
 * Clutha River / Mata-Au → Clutha River
 * Codfish Island / Whenua Hou → Codfish Island
 * Milford Sound / Piopiotahi → Milford Sound
 * Whakaari / White Island → White Island, New Zealand


 * Thank you. 2001:8003:9008:1301:DD39:BB04:EBAD:D9F3 (talk) 07:54, 13 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Yikes - this is exactly the sort of racism which shouldn't have any place in these discussions. Nobody is proposing to change the name of New Zealand, nor is this some sort of slippery slope. I'd also note that all the names you mentioned are already at the English title. Turnagra (talk) 09:57, 13 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I guess everything is now related to racism, isn't it? Those Maori names should stay where they belong: Maori Wikipedia. Why are you people trying to make all those Maori names part of the English title? I haven't seen Québécois turning Canadian articles into English/French bilingual titles. Furthermore, why are some of the titles have Maori names placed ahead of English names? It's so frustrating, not all English speakers can understand Maori. These bilingual titles look intricate and outlandish, they violate WP:COMMONNAME big time. They are NOT good for our eyes. 2001:8003:9008:1301:DD39:BB04:EBAD:D9F3 (talk) 15:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * They are articles where the actual name of the place has both English and Māori aspects - see, for example, Aoraki / Mount Cook. If you look at any reference to Aoraki / Mount Cook for instance, chances are it'll use the dual name in that or a similar form (ie. the dual name is the common name). The reason some have the Māori name first and others have it second is because we follow the order generally used elsewhere. Some places just have the Māori first. I'd also note that there are already hundreds of places in NZ which exclusively use their Māori name. Turnagra (talk) 18:41, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * To Aussie 2001:8003:9008:1301:DD39:BB04:EBAD:D9F3, There is more to this in NZ than you say. Ultimately it goes back to the Treaty of Waitangi. However, you are basically correct. Mention any opposition to this pro-Maori name approach and you will be labelled a racist. I notice a comment above where it took all but seven words before the word 'racism' was used. All official documents and maps, which is virtually all the references we have, must use the new official name, commonly used or not. All govt controlled bodies must promote Maori, irrespective of its common usage. Wikipedia is independent of the NZ govt but a group of editors have tried to follow the same pro-Maori approach. They claim the Maori or dual names are commonly used, hence they meet wiki rules; they claim that NZ English uses all these names as English names, including with diacritics, rather than as Maori foreign names. As quoted above: "the dual name is the common name". No, it isn't! It is the name used by most recent documents because they have to use that name, commonly used or not. A consequence is as you have outlined, the NZ English articles are smothered with these mixed names which is not only unnatural and annoying, it breaches 'common usage'. There is a good case for incorporating the dual names into NZ articles, more so IMO than Australia's use of indigenous names, although I'm no expert on that. The level to which that is done in NZ articles is the real question, one that cannot be answered properly if the actual situation is not properly accepted by everyone. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:09, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This argument feels to me like it's trying to right great wrongs. Even if the dual names were originally made official by a political movement, like is claimed, Wikipedia should still reflect the usage of those names when they become widespread. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 21:13, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree this is about righting a great wrong - the result of not getting this done properly is significant - it affects hundreds of articles. I agree that the point is we use the name commonly used, but as backed by RSSs. If we remove the usual RSSs because they are not reliable in this situation, then we are left with a new name that is being questioned and cannot then be confirmed by RSSs. The logical consequence is that the old name stays. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME in English-language sources. Should never have been moved after one poorly-attended RM, given the results of the previous RMs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Regular Support as proposed, per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CRITERIA. This isn't even on the level of United Kingdom vs United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland, where the full official name is well-known, but less common. This is a name that conservatively 40% of English-speaking New Zealanders aren't even aware of, so the dual is clearly counter to WP:AT policy on naturalness, as well as concision. — HTGS (talk) 04:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That seems like a pretty bold claim, do you have something to back it up? Also, I'm slightly confused by your edit summary saying you're opposing the move Turnagra (talk) 04:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If you’re looking for evidence, BilledMammal has supplied quite a bit at the top. Or just go ask five people on the street what New Zealand’s third island is called. (Excuse my edit summary, I still type that stuff by hand, and make good old fashioned mistakes sometimes.) — HTGS (talk) 06:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose To be honest, the original move request with the Google Scholar/ngrams read like it was in support of the usage of dual names. The statistics show that there is wide acceptance of the dual name, rather than just being used as an official name as per WP:WIAN. The other arguments in support of the move seem to also be debated and far from consensus. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 13:34, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @EmeraldRange: “Wide acceptance” of a name is not enough reason to move to a less-common and longer official name. On Wikipedia we follow article title policy, which says that we should prefer the common name for a place. — HTGS (talk) 03:20, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Almost like WP:WIAN is part of the article title policy for geographic places EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 16:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @EmeraldRange, not to be fussy—although, where better to be fussy than a Wikipedia talk page 😅—but WP:NCGN is a convention, and not policy. Also—less fussy this time—WIAN begins by pointing out that we are looking for “the name most often used for this entity”. <span style="font-family:Avenir, Tenorite, Verdana, sans-serif">— HTGS (talk) 03:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose, principally per WP:WIAN. Though the nomination statement indicates that the single name "Stewart Island" is frequently used, it ignores the fact that the dual name is also a commonly used name for the island. Sources such as, , , and  show usage of the dual name; there are also occasional sources such as  and  that use both "Stewart Island" and "Rakiura" interchangeably. Because the single name and the dual name both have frequent use, the dual name is more useful for helping prospective readers find the article. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 21:13, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ModernDayTrilobite, WIAN says: A name can be considered as widely accepted if a neutral and reliable source states: "X is the name most often used for this entity". Without such an assertion, the following sources may be helpful in establishing a widely accepted name. That is quite specific and thus excludes just using the name. It also says in relation to otherwise good news sources: English-language news media can also be very reliable sources. Due caution must be given to the possibility of bias in some, such as for nationalistic, religious or political reasons. This includes most if not all news sources controlled from NZ, where the bias is having to use the new names by law. WIAN does otherwise support the use of a name change that is widely used. But, WIAN also says such things as ...even a widely recognized name change will take time to be reflected in such searches, as they may still include references to the place name before the change which at first sight supports the use of dual names. On second sight, the phrase "widely accepted sticks out, which leads us back to the wiki contradictions of how to define "widely accepted", where a usually RSS is biased, if the definition of common usage is defined as what RSSs use (not the man in the street). I think we would all benefit in opening up this debate to a global audience. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:25, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * sigh... Roger, nobody is forcing the media to use the dual names. Turnagra (talk) 06:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment having stopped off at a bookstore today, I can confirm that the latest print editions of both the Times and Collins atlases use the dual name of Stewart Island / Rakiura (as well as several other dual names). Happy to provide images as evidence if needed. Turnagra (talk) 06:21, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You're correct that news organizations are not required to use the official name, but maps published or prepared in New Zealand are - see WP:NZNGS. BilledMammal (talk) 06:29, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a good thing that both Times and Collins are major international and reputable sources then, eh? They're the textbook definition of reliable sources. Turnagra (talk) 06:40, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * They're reliable, but that doesn't mean they are independent in this regard - they still need to follow the law. BilledMammal (talk) 06:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Turnagra, government controlled media have to use dual names and promote them. That covers a large amount of NZ media. Maps are used courtesy of the surveyor-general who gets her pay-packet from the Crown. Rather than languishing in denial, you might want to consider taking (legal) advice or just ask the relevant board or chairperson. I spoke to someone today who said the arbitrary smothering of all NZ en-wiki articles with unknown Maori or dual names amounts to disruptive editing. That person has a point. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:54, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The media in New Zealand is not government controlled, and if you did even a cursory search you would find plenty of examples of them not consistently using dual place names - not something they would do if they were legally required to use them.
 * As to your thinly-veiled threats, if you have something to say please come out and say it rather than using WP:WEASELWORDS. Turnagra (talk) 09:01, 21 June 2022 (UTC)


 * "Official maps use official names" isn't exactly the grand conspiracy you seem to think it is. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:04, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I still refute the core of your argument and disagree with your essay, but even taking it for the sake of this argument, we're talking about two major international atlases. They're about as independent as you can get, and you can't just dismiss them as not independent on a whim. I'd also note that neither atlas is universal in their use of dual names (neither uses Tasman Bay / Te Tai-o-Aorere, for instance), which they would presumably do if what you said was true. Turnagra (talk) 08:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * When there is a law that requires them to use the dual name, and a government agency that says they enforce the law, we must dismiss them as not independent. I note that Tasman Bay doesn't disprove this, for two reasons. First, the NZGB only requires the name to be changed when the map is being updated. If it hasn't been updated since 2014, then they would not have been required to change it. Second, the NZGB is not omnipotent; it only "liaises with offenders to remedy non-compliance" when the failure to use the official place names comes to their attention. For example, it took twenty years for them to address NZTA's failure to use the official names on some signs in the South Island.
 * The issue isn't that there is no independent usage, it is that we don't know which usage is independent and which isn't, meaning that to comply with policy we should avoid all sources covered by the NZGB Act 2008, particularly when there are plenty of independent sources that we can use. BilledMammal (talk) 02:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Per WP:NCNZ. We could waste a great deal of time on these. The consensus has been, when in doubt use the dual name with blanks before and after the slash, exactly as the current title of this article. This is not perfect but it works. Let us not re-debate this. Andrewa (talk) 09:28, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Where is this consensus? There is nothing on that page that would suggest that we use the dual name if in doubt. Spekkios (talk) 11:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Andrewa: To clarify, the guideline at NCNZ did previously support dual names over common names, but that was in error, and has been corrected since late last year. Consensus throughout Wikipedia is against longer, slashed and official names, per WP:CRITERIA and WP:COMMONNAME. <span style="font-family:Avenir, Tenorite, Verdana, sans-serif">— HTGS (talk) 03:10, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Turnagra. Radio NZ and TVNZ. Overwhelmingly two of the largest media sources in NZ. One subject to a board appointed by a govt minister and the other a crown entity. The dual names are used in different ways subject to their act so there is not necessarily an issue with interchangeable name usage. The crown is obliged to promote Maori issues, such as place name usage but what that promotion is is often discretionary, hence apparent contradictory usage. This has all been discussed ad infinitum which is why I am bewildered that you seem not to 'get it'. There is some common ground between us, such as the consequences of the use of some place names in major world atlases, but we appear to be reaching that common ground from following different paths. That then creates a problem whenever a specific case has to be analyzed in detail. I do not see any threat, presumably because none was made. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:54, 21 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Per WP:WIAN. There is clearly common usage as outlined in many other posts, and the difference between 255 vs 214 to argue one usage is "heavily biased" over the official usage is extremely flawed. The WP:SLASH argument clearly falls out of the purview of New Zealand as via WP:NCNZ. NebuchadnezzarHammurabi (talk) 02:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not 255 vs 214; see my note. I haven't fully reviewed which articles are incorrectly counted as using the dual name, but there are at least 32, so the most optimistic figures for the dual name are 287 vs 182. BilledMammal (talk) 02:40, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @NebuchadnezzarHammurabi do you have a response to the issue of WP:CONCISION? Article title policy says that even if they were equally common, we should prefer the name that is more concise. WIAN also doesn’t support using a less common name, as you appear to think it does. <span style="font-family:Avenir, Tenorite, Verdana, sans-serif">— HTGS (talk) 03:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * By the logic of concise, shouldn't we then be using Rakiura as the most concise of the three names? Turnagra (talk) 04:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I am fine with Rakiura. But I think you are being childish; at no point have you argued that the page should be at Rakiura. <span style="font-family:Avenir, Tenorite, Verdana, sans-serif">— HTGS (talk) 04:43, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I haven't, because I think the dual name is the better title. I'm just playing out the thought process associated with your concision argument, not arguing for that title specifically. Turnagra (talk) 04:51, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Then it is I said: you are being childish. If you want to play games, go ahead and explain to me why don't we simply call the page Stewart? Or S, or R? <span style="font-family:Avenir, Tenorite, Verdana, sans-serif">— HTGS (talk) 05:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Because those aren't names for the island - Stewart Island is, Rakiura is, and Stewart Island / Rakiura. Each of these has enough usage that a case can be made for it to be the title. If you can show similar usage for any of those options then I'm all ears. Turnagra (talk) 05:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME policy. We put articles at the most common name in independent reliable sources, and put alternative names in the lead. The WP:CONCISE and MOS:SLASH rationales are also good.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:20, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support—precisely as SMcCandlish says. <b style="color:darkgreen">Tony</b> (talk)  07:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support – we can consider the "slashed" names when and if they ever get into more common use. Per WP:RECENTISM and WP:OFFICIALNAME, and various other naming policy points as discussed above, and in light of the poorly attended previous RM discussion, going back to the longstanding more concise more common name does seem best for this one.  I am sensitive to what sounded like racist reasoning in at least one supporting comment above, but that's not a reason to frame this proposal in terms of racism. Dicklyon (talk) 18:55, 22 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Support. It is clearly demonstrated that "Stewart Island" is the most commonly used name in English language sources. I see many "oppose" votes citing "Per WP:NCNZ", but there is nothing in WP:NCNZ that would support dual names as a convention. I see no serious attempt to show that the dual name is more common than "Stewart Island". Many participants have tried to prove that the dual name is common, but none have demonstrated that it is the most common name.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  21:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm a bit concerned by the timing of the choice to ping several editors above, made by a user who supports the move immediately after a string of editors who oppose the move weighed in. The editors tagged have for the most part supported the proposed title either explicitly or implicitly in the past, with some users having not even engaged on this page at all. While I am trying to WP:AGF, such a move being made so late in the piece and after the discussion swung away from the notifying editor's preferred option can't help but feel like a form of WP:CANVASSING. Turnagra (talk) 02:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Your concern is noted. The ping was made out in the open, where you are welcome to audit it. The editors were pinged very specifically for their interest in the exact same discussion.
 * I do apologise for not pinging earlier… the discussion could have been closed much sooner. <span style="font-family:Avenir, Tenorite, Verdana, sans-serif">— HTGS (talk) 02:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This seems no different to this --02:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC) Spekkios (talk) 02:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That is a completely different situation - the discussion was stale (with no edits for two weeks), the ping was explicit at the end of the discussion instead of hidden at the top, and it was not in response to events of the discussion. If I had tagged those users immediately after a bunch of people showed up who disagreed with my view then sure, but that's not what happened in that case - but it is what happened here. Turnagra (talk) 02:59, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I note the participation of what appear to be non-NZ based editors in this discussion, something I think is needed. This entire topic of Maori words and the Maori renaissance has become over analylised IMO and has been stale for a long time. We are simply going round in circles. There is a lot of excellent work and research being done but it always seems to lead nowhere. Fresh outside eyes are needed. If we are going to resolve this endless dispute we must come up with a solution that is dead simple, and that does not take sides. Compare this with Londonderry=county, Derry=city. There is no admission that either is correct, meaning nobody gets offended, but there is a workable compromise. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Strongly Oppose - The New Zealand Geographic Board gives the official place name as Stewart Island/Rakiura. This is the name now shown on New Zealand maps. This name is the result of the Ngai Tahu Treaty Settlement under Section 269 and Schedule 96 Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998 and was effective from 1 October 1998. Both Stewart Island and Rakiura are valid place names that have been used in the New Zealand English language. However, in recent years, the dual English/Māori versions, or even just the Māori version, of many New Zealand place names are being used in preference to the colonial names assigned by early European explorers. This change in New Zealand English word usage has been gradual one, but has become quite noticeable within the last few years. Also among the WP:CRITERIA for a title is to use a commonly recognizable name and both "Stewart Island" and "Raikura" or both names are commonly used now. Consequently, applying a search engine test to determine what is the most common name needs to be tempered with what is current usage, since a search engine's results are not going to be particularly time/usage sensitive as such searches will prefer historic usage. WikiProject New Zealand's solution to finding a TITLE for these places has been to adopt a dual naming convention that uses the official dual names of places. Changing the name of this article goes against the dual name convention. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 01:34, 26 June 2022 (UTC) :(Edited to correct spelling of ] - [[User:Cameron Dewe|Cameron Dewe (talk) 05:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC))
 * For Google News, the search engine test was limited to results in the past year. For Google Scholar, the test was limited to results since 2021. I believe that should address your concerns about the search preferring historic usage. WP:NZNC did previously support dual names, but that support was removed following an RfC last year. BilledMammal (talk) 02:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If that is the case then Naming conventions (New Zealand) needs to be amended, first. It still advises to use the official dual names. These are the WP:PRECISE place names and avoid having two articles being created, one under each name. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 03:14, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe you have misread the current guidelines. They only require that when there is a consensus to place an article at a dual name we use the spaced slash format, regardless of the format used by the official name or the common name.
 * WP:PRECISE prefers the proposed title, which unambiguously defines the topical scope of the article but is no more precise than that - the current title is too precise. BilledMammal (talk) 03:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If I have misread what was intended by the guideline then I think the guideline needs to be reworded to explain how to handle a New Zealand place name article that has a dual place name but is not placed on the dual place name as its title. The dual place name section, itself, needs to explain, or point to, the decision making process that needs to be gone through, as well as the considerations needed for using, or not using, the dual place name when an official LINZ dual name exists. I would consider the place name given by the New Zealand Geographic Board to be the most reliable source of a New Zealand place name, so any process that requires not using that (official) name needs to clear, obvious and repeatable, so it is not open to being misinterpreted or producing ambiguous results. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 05:43, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The dual name guideline is about format, and the process is covered already by WP:CRITERIA and WP:OFFICIALNAMES, which was a leading factor in the removal of the automatic dual naming convention. --Spekkios (talk) 07:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * , you misspelled Rakiura. And not only did you not notice this spelling error twice, but you were so certain of this spelling that you decided to create a redirect page. This does not give me great hope that "Rakiura" or "Stewart Island / Rakiura" are well-known or well-used names by the New Zealand public. <span style="font-family:Avenir, Tenorite, Verdana, sans-serif">— HTGS (talk) 04:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Apologies for that. In my enthusiasm for this debate I appear to have made a typo. I see there is already a redirect from Rakiura (island) and there is a disambiguation page for Rakiura. I have edited my earlier comment to correct the mis-spelling. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 05:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * People misspell names all the time we're not proposing different names for Rio de Janeiro or Hanmer Springs as a result of that. Turnagra (talk) 09:00, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You’re missing the point, . It’s not someone writing Stuart instead of Stewart, it’s instead like someone saying Stewark… repeatedly. The fact that an ardent proponent of the dual name doesn’t know the word well only proves the problem with it: the dual name is very unfamiliar to the majority of New Zealanders.
 * For the record, I don’t mean to deride you at all, Cameron. It was an honest mistake and no apology is necessary. It’s just that it’s also a mistake that belies a problem in your argument. <span style="font-family:Avenir, Tenorite, Verdana, sans-serif">— HTGS (talk) 10:34, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - as this is the english-language Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 06:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * And the current title is the English-language name - glad we've got that sorted. Turnagra (talk) 08:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Turnagra, I am politely asking you to please stop saying that "Stewart Island / Rakiura" is the English name without any form of qualification. It will be the English name once it becomes the most commonly used name in English, not until then. As of now, it is an artificial construction made up of the English language name and the Maori language name, and that is how it is described. The two distinct languages are noted, for example, by Cameron Dewe above. The issue is how to determine the most commonly used name. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)


 * "Stewart Island" will do. "Rakiura"? nope GoodDay (talk) 18:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)