Talk:Taiari / Chalky Inlet

Requested move 2 November 2021

 * 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.

No consensus to move. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus for a move at this time. BD2412 T 06:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Taiari / Chalky Inlet → Chalky Inlet – Sources tend to use Chalky Inlet only. Spekkios (talk) 02:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. Havelock Jones (talk) 18:45, 11 November 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 08:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Looking at the news for the last month I found one article that uses Taiari / Chalky Inlet and many that just use Chalky Inlet Aircorn (talk) 05:09, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose the sources above either relate mostly to a single story (and so will be consistent with each other) or come before the change. The current name meets the requirements of a place name per WP:WIAN, showing up in the NZGB Gazetteer, National Library, local press releases, maps of the area and various social media posts. Turnagra (talk) 17:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This sets the most unusual of standards that I think I’ve ever seen. You want multiple sources, from multiple, independent news vendors (which Stuff, the Herald and the ODT are… at least for now) to actually address different stories? I suppose I can’t accuse you of moving goalposts if you’re already playing a different field to the rest of us. — HTGS (talk) 09:16, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * When we consider whether sources are independent, one thing to consider is whether they are from journalists simply rehashing what another journalist has said. As such, the argument from Turnagra isn't quite as crazy as it might appear, but it isn't well argued (it isn't sufficient for the journalists to have written on the same topic, we have to establish that some or all of them are rehashing the first, and in this case they appear to cover different aspects of the story, suggesting this is not the case), and it is very hypocritical, given they are arguing to dismiss non-independent sources here, but arguing to use non-independent sources later in this discussion. Of course, in this case it doesn't really matter; while three of the sources are on the topic of the cannon, we have a number of other sources covering different topics. BilledMammal (talk) 04:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * We are only trying to find the common name not notability I do not see how the number of events is relevant. "The Change" is only relevant if it affects common usage, something that needs to be demonstrated. Dushan Jugum (talk) 19:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the fact that we have to trawl social media posts is indicative. The others, a FMG press release (which uses the non-dual name in text - although as a quote so YMMV), primary and official sources are not terrible persuasive either. Google scholar I found one with Taiari / Chalky Inlet  and four with just Chalky Inlet. Interestingly some use dual names for other features, but still the non-dual name for this inlet.Aircorn (talk) 20:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Should note that I only looked post 2020 so these reflect the current usage. Aircorn (talk) 21:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per above sources. WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE seem most relevant here. (For anyone else considering checking Google trends, don’t bother.) — HTGS (talk) 19:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Chalky Inlet more common in recent non official reliable references (Stuff search box). Even articles which have both in the title use Chalky Inlet in the text which is a sign to me that it is the common name. Dushan Jugum (talk) 23:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Removing vote due to indecision. Dushan Jugum (talk) 05:47, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Forgive my flip-flopping, I was musing on the use of official name/google maps name on locations with no "common name", much like we would use for some obquire beetle or chemical compound. For me this location does not quite fit that, given it has a good deal of coverage, even enough to be notable you could say. Dushan Jugum (talk) 20:15, 5 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose WP:CONCISE is relevant but I do not think Taiari / Chalky Inlet is inconcise. Taiari on its own would be more concise, but I doubt anyone is in favour of that, and we'd muddle it with Taieri! TreeReader (talk) 20:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * What are your thoughts on Common name, I ask because this is a very close call for me. Dushan Jugum (talk) 20:32, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a tricky one. I think that in this particular case, i.e. a remote location in Fiordland, there's so few people around that it honestly doesn't matter if we use a dual name - in some ways, the common name is what we make it. If someone from Fiordland chimes in on this I could be persuaded the other way. In contrast, I would certainly argue for Wellington over Whanganui-a-Tara, because it is currently the more common name. In general, I prefer dual names in the spirit of reducing racism on WP. TreeReader (talk) 02:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This is one of those instances I was talking about back in the RfC about when a place is remote enough and so seldom talked about that it's extremely difficult to determine a common name either way, especially when most sources are from before the dual name. Taiari / Chalky Inlet is far from the only place in this predicament as well. Turnagra (talk) 18:09, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Turnagra, there are sources in the move request. Either you can’t read, or you’re being wilfully ignorant. Aircorn and Dushan were able to do their research too, in case you’re having trust issues with Spekkios. — HTGS (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * HTGS I addressed those in my original opposition - most of them are from the same news story which limits their ability to provide a clear picture (if the original story / release had used the dual name, there's a high chance that all of them would have), while other sources he cited are from before the name change. With the exception of the single story, recent sources (as I demonstrated) are more likely to be using the dual name. Turnagra (talk) 22:47, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * spirit of reducing racism on WP At least we have some honesty around righting great wrongs. Anyway there are enough recent sources that show to me the clear common name. Aircorn (talk) 21:34, 5 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose As noted above most of the sources cited above are about the same one event. The dual name meet all the criteria WP:WIAN and is the WP:MODERNPLACENAME. ShakyIsles (talk) 20:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This part of WP:MODERNPLACENAME "Per Wikipedia's naming policy, our choice of name does not automatically follow the official or local form, but depends on that change having become predominant in common global usage. That can be assessed by reviewing up-to-date references to the place in a modern context in reliable, authoritative sources such as news media, other encyclopedias, atlases and academic publications as well as the official publications of major English-speaking countries, for example the CIA World Factbook. " I am not pretending this solves the problem, it just changed my mind from agreeing with your argument. Dushan Jugum (talk) 22:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There is also the section starting "We recommend choosing a single name..." not a nail in the coffin as it is written for slightly different situations, but interesting. Dushan Jugum (talk) 22:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Just reiterating that dual names, somewhat paradoxically, are a single name - that convention is referring to where there are multiple distinct names, such as how the North Island and Te Ika-a-Māui are distinct names of equal footing. It would be as if Taiari and Chalky Inlet were both official names for the fiord, whereas the name is instead a combined Taiari / Chalky Inlet as a single entity. Turnagra (talk) 22:33, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That might be true in a de jure sense but I hardly think there is much justification that dual names are a single name de facto. The WP:OFFICIALNAMES does not necessarily align with how the name is actually used. --Spekkios (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There are sources that refer to it as just Taiari Chalky Inlet without the implied double name although incredibly uncommon. The use of the phrase ``Taiari / Chalky Inlet`` is preferred. The de jure name also has consequences in de facto usage as government-funded or government run research like this end up using the de jure name in reliable sources.EmeraldRange (talk) 19:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Turnagra, yeah I get it. Dushan Jugum (talk) 00:30, 6 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Support. Ngrams shows no use for the dual name, and equivalent use for the Māori name and the English name. Searching recent news, most sources using "Taiari" refer to "Pakake Taiari", a wharenui named after a prominent chief. Only one source I found used "Taiari" as a single place name, and the article defined that location as being near Anchorage Cove, 130 kilometres away from this location, making it unlikely it is referring to the this location. Meanwhile, independent sources such as NatGeo, in addition to the ones provided by the nom, use "Chalky Inlet" (12), while the sources Turnagra provided are either social media, where individual examples are not indicative, or not independent, being government sources required by law to use the dual name, and thus must be dismissed per WP:COMMONNAME. (LINZ and NatLib are self-evidently government sources, as is the government press release, while Topomap directly sources their maps from LINZ, making them not independent from LINZ, who is not independent themselves as previously established). BilledMammal (talk) 09:54, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing in WP:COMMONNAME where it says to discount such sources - this would be an odd call, given that WP:WIAN explicitly says to use them. Given that other users have in the past said to discount the media, you're now saying to discount social media and government sources, I'm not entirely sure what's left. Turnagra (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This line: Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above., emphasis mine. I believe WIAN talks about cases where there isn't a law requiring government entities to use a specific name. I might have misinterpreted it slightly; could the law be considered an independent source? If so, perhaps we apply that by considering the gazette to be an independent source, while dismissing the rest (NatLib, press releases, Topomap etc) as not being independent from the gazette? Reading WP:OFFICIALNAMES, the law would be considered a primary source, and so whether it is independent or not shouldn't matter; whether other sources are independent from it is what matters.
 * To be clear, I'm not saying that social media can't be used; I'm saying that single examples, as you provided, are not indicative. Looking at it broadly, like we look at searches broadly with google trends, can be useful, if someone can be bothered to do that.
 * Could you link where users have argued to discount media? I would be interested to see their reasoning. BilledMammal (talk) 22:46, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this move hits on many of of the wider discussions. For these lesser know features it very hard to determine common name. These maps and usgae by DOC are the way most people interact with the place. I think Google Maps using the name also adds weight. Surely if the common name is hard to determine then these 'offical' uses need to be considered. ShakyIsles (talk) 06:55, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Take the example of the humble Leptodiaptomus I am fine with the page not using the common name, however if we had multiple news articles using "Seawig" to describe them (see Earwig), I would suggest a change. And if the official bug naming guide called them Leptodiaptomus/Seawig I would not think this whole thing was its common name. Dushan Jugum (talk) 08:05, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * In your hypothetical example above why wouldn't the whole thing be the common name, especially if sources were using it? We all agree dual names can be the common name e.g. Whakaari / White Island or Aoraki / Mount Cook.
 * In this case it was called Chalky Inlet until 2019. The name was changed to Taiari / Chalky Inlet in 2019. Since then there appears to have been one notable new story about a shipwreck cannon been found and the press release in this case used the former name Chalky Inlet. There is one other article in Stuff that uses Taiari / Chalky Inlet.
 * Turnagra has shown links above to individuals using Taiari / Chalky Inlet on social media. Companies are also using Taiari / Chalky Inlet on social media: and in articles:.
 * I agree we don't have a lot of independent sources to indicate what the common name is. But then surely, as per WP:WIAN the usage by National Library, DOC, LINZ and in the most used map in the world (google maps) holds some weight? ShakyIsles (talk) 23:54, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Forgive me, but as far as I'm aware there's not a law which requires government agencies to use dual names where they exist. They might use official names because it seems like using something's actual name is a no-brainer, but I don't think they're required by law to do so. See recent furore over government departments using "Aotearoa" instead of New Zealand, which isn't an official name at all but is still used often. The closest I can think of is the settlement legislation for ToW claims but by my understanding that just changes the official name through legislation and doesn't actually mandate its use. ShakyIsles also hits the nail on the head with regard to these remote places, which is something I mentioned in one of the various discussions around the RfC.
 * I'll try and track down the media things, I should really have done a better job at jotting down where arguments have been made across the dozens of arguments on this topic... Turnagra (talk) 18:33, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * In general an official source using an official name tells us very little about what is in common usage, even if they are not bound by law. Dushan Jugum (talk) 19:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * LINZ says that Official geographic names must be written in full in official documents.
 * "Official documents" is defined in the NZGB Act 2008, which states:
 * official document—
 * (a) means a published document created by a public office or by a local authority in the course of business; and
 * (b) includes, in relation to documents published in New Zealand or prepared in New Zealand for publication outside New Zealand (whether or not created by a public office or by a local authority in the course of business),—
 * (i) geographic and scientific publications and manuscripts; and
 * (ii) publications intended for travellers or tourists
 * Maps are also included in this list; an example provided of where the official name must be used is LINZ maps and charts.
 * We actually discussed this when drafting the RFC, and it was agreed to include the line Government and government related or owned bodies such as Crown entities are required to use the full "dual name" in written documents, but the public are not required to do so. in it. BilledMammal (talk) 02:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This actually extends much further than I thought. For instance, the New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics is required by law to use the official name, as are all other scientific journals published in New Zealand, and all entries in foreign scientific journals prepared by individuals residing in New Zealand. Map agencies, meanwhile, who publish in NZ, are also required to use the official name; in the case of Topomap, even if it created the maps rather than sourcing them from LINZ, we would still be unable to consider them an "independent source" as they would be required to use the official names. The question of Google Maps, Bing Maps, Apple Maps etc is a little less clear, but I would read it as applying to them too, as they do "publish" in New Zealand. BilledMammal (talk) 03:34, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I see that in the discussion for the move to this title the use of the name on road signs was provided as an example of the dual name being in common use, and so I feel I should explicitly mention that road signs are required by law to use the official name. Road signs are official documents and come within the scope of the NZGB Act 2008. BilledMammal (talk) 04:15, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we need to take that with a fairly big grain of salt - by the broadest read, that would cover literally anything by any tourism company in addition to almost all actual sources for most of these places. You'd be basically left with media articles as the sole arbitrators of what names to use for things, which is a terrible way to determine which name is used. The precedent from the macron discussion is that some official sources can be used which I think is reasonable given how few non-official sources would exist for many of these places. I'd also point out that official dual names aren't exclusively used by govt agencies - see for example Lake Ōkataina being used instead of the full dual name. Turnagra (talk) 09:09, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Not just media articles; we would also have non-fiction books, and of course the body of work published and prepared outside of New Zealand. Yes, our requirement for independent sources does limit us in this case more than most others, but we don't ignore the requirement in the other cases of comparable breadth and we shouldn't here. Personally, I believe that if a name is in common usage independent sources will demonstrate it, and if it is not in common usage then we shouldn't use non-independent sources to pretend that it is.
 * The other issue you raise, cases where few independent sources name the feature, is not an issue. In the cases where independent sources do name it, we follow those sources, and is cases where they don't, it is not controversial to use the official name - no one will suggest we create our own name for a geographical location.
 * Finally, in the case of the Lake Ōkataina walking tracks, I believe it is using "Lake Ōkataina" as a shorthand for "Lake Ōkataina Scenic Reserve", which is an official name used in the linked article, rather than as an unofficial alternate name for "Lake Ōkataina/Te Moana i kataina ā Te Rangitakaroro". However, I would expect that you can find cases where the official name is not used, in violation of the law; this doesn't change the fact that the law exists, it just means that mistakes do occur, just as you would expect to find on occasion misspellings and outright inaccuracies in some of the documents covered by this law. BilledMammal (talk) 10:47, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, excluding that many sources in an instance where we're already struggling to find sources for many of these places is frankly ridiculous, especially the notion of relying on international sources to determine a common name in NZ. I'm not sure what it is about those opposed to dual place names that prompts you all to keep trying to exclude various sources. Turnagra (talk) 17:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * One of those Nzgeo links is pre the name change so should be discarded. ShakyIsles (talk) 06:39, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It needs to be demonstrated that a change in the official name has changed the common name for that to be true. If the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea changed its name tomorrow we would still call it North Korea and evidence from yesterday could be used. However, if it could be proved the common name changed since then, that would be different. If you think I am being hyperbolic that is kind of my point, we have rules that work for both the NZ government and the DPRK with no special treatment. This would also be true if Germany changed its name to Deutschland. Dushan Jugum (talk) 19:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If we're trying to determine the current name, I'm just pointing out there no point using a article from 1998. ShakyIsles (talk) 23:25, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well how am I ment to disagree with that. Dushan Jugum (talk) 23:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NAMECHANGES, we don't discard articles written before the change, we instead give more weight to articles written after it. This isn't important in this case - the majority of sources written after the change continue to use "Chalky Inlet" - but it will be in cases where the object is written about with such little frequency that the only articles on the object written after the name are about the name change, or even where there are no articles written after the name change at all. BilledMammal (talk) 02:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Spekkios please stop your campaign all over the NZ pages to revert back to single naming schemes only and adhere to the official dual-names that have existed in parts since decades to reflect the Maori heritage. It's time for you to accept this reality. Gryffindor (talk) 08:40, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * :* User:Gryffindor, this is covered by: WP:OFFICIALNAMES, WP:CRITERIA, WP:UCRN, WP:CRYSTALBALL, and WP:NOTADVOCACY. Wikipedia does not give weight to the official name; common name is applied. --Spekkios (talk) 17:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose - My impression of WP:WIAN is that seems to privilege sources like gazetteers, atlases, and maps above news sources for the purposes of determining names. Based on the sources linked by both sides of the dispute, it does seem that "Chalky Inlet" alone is the common name among general news sources, but that the dual name is typically used by sources like atlases and maps. Consequently, my feeling is that the dual name has a stronger body of sources. ModernDayTrilobite (talk) 15:21, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi User:ModernDayTrilobite. I just wanted to mention that in regards to WP:WIAN, it requires "disinterested, authoritative reference works". Unfortunately, due to the NZGB Act 2008, that does not apply to New Zealand; most of the entities are required by law to use the official name ("official documents" extend to a wide range of documents, including non-government maps), while the NZGB and its Gazetteer differ from normal Gazetteers in that they are tasked with the mandate of "promoting the use of te reo Māori", which while admirable makes them fail the "disinterested" requirement. BilledMammal (talk) 23:33, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:WIAN expressly includes the line Many governments have an agency to standardize the use of place names, such as the United States Board on Geographic Names (see BGN below), the Geographical Names Board of Canada, etc., which would strongly suggest that such sources are fine. Turnagra (talk) 02:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Those are provided as an example, and while they are generally an example of a "disinterested, authoritative reference" that can be used to ascertain the "widely accepted name" that is not the case with the NZGB, due to their mandate of "promoting the use of te reo Māori", rather than recording the "widely accepted name". BilledMammal (talk) 02:54, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * On that it also explicitly goes further in a section dedicated to the United States Board on Geographic Names which says However, if colloquial usage does differ, we should prefer actual American usage to the official name. Aircorn (talk) 03:25, 13 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Support It's worth remembering that the reason WP:COMMONNAME exists is that, in practice, the most commonly used name in RS is likely to be the one that best achieves the WP:CRITERIA. With that in mind, I think usage in news sources is more likely to reflect the name that will be most recognizable and natural to a typical reader than usage in gazetteers or geographic databases (even setting aside the issue raised by BilledMammal of some of these sources being beholden to government requirements to use dual WP:OFFICIALNAMEs, which is a further reason to give less weight to them). Colin M (talk) 20:13, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * What about the various businesses and people in the area which I've cited that use the dual name, surely that's an even better indicator of common name than the media? Turnagra (talk) 19:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Turnagra, you cited one business and one personal social media post. — HTGS (talk) 04:49, 22 November 2021 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 10 December 2023

 * 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. Participants not clearly supported to move the article to new title suggested by the nominator in the following discussion. (closed by non-admin page mover)  αvírαm  | (tαlk) 16:25, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Taiari / Chalky Inlet → Chalky Inlet – Per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE, and MOS:SLASH. A Google News search finds 12 results for the proposed title, compared to 8 for any form of the dual name, which includes four results announcing the official name change but not using the name and one that uses both the dual name and the proposed title. Google Scholar presents an even greater disparity, with over 100 results for the proposed title, and just 7 for any form of the dual name. BilledMammal (talk) 05:31, 10 December 2023 (UTC) — Relisting.  Arbitrarily0   ( talk ) 15:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose nothing has changed since the failed move request further up. Give it up. Turnagra (talk) 05:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject New Zealand has been notified of this discussion. Bensci54 (talk) 13:41, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose There wasn't consensus to move this in 2021. I fail to see why anything would have changed in the meantime.  Schwede 66  01:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)