Talk:Gillespies Point

This article is written in New Zealand English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, analyse, centre, fiord) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

New Zealand Low‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 25 November 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Gillespies Point / Kōhaihai to Gillespies Point. The result of the discussion was moved.

Requested move 25 November 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: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 14:44, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gillespies Point / Kōhaihai → Gillespies Point – Per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE, and MOS:SLASH. This location is obscure but a search for sources reveals some use of the proposed title and no use of the current title; Google News returns one result for the proposed title and 0 results for the current title. Google Scholar does the same, returning 10 results for the proposed title and 0 results for the current title.

The proposed title is also more concise, and better aligns with MOS:SLASH which generally recommends against the use of slashes as they suggests that the words are related without specifying how. BilledMammal (talk) 07:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Kōhaihai returns 10 hits on news and 4 on scholar [1], [2]—blindlynx 21:37, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I checked those before opening this RM; it refers to a river with the same name, not to this point. BilledMammal (talk) 02:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the use of arguments which have been repeatedly debunked is bordering on bad faith. As repeatedly stated every time you seek to move a dual name article, MOS:SLASH is irrelevant as it allows for the use of slashes as part of names, as is the case here. The use of a slash is also specifically required for dual names in a New Zealand context per WP:NZNC. You've said yourself that this location is obscure, and a single result is nowhere near grounds to move an article. Of the scholar results you cited, over half are from before the name change (or are referring to specific data from before the change) and so obviously wouldn't use it. As far as I can tell, the remaining articles all were either produced in New Zealand or involved field work here, which according to yourself means they aren't independent and must be discounted. Or is that only the case when they don't align with your view?

If we're including those sources, then we should also be sure to include sources such as local government, research institutes, community organisations, maps, government agencies and gazetteers (as in, the exact sort of sources which WP:WIAN tells us to use) - all of which use the dual name and are far more contemporary than the outdated sources you're citing. Turnagra (talk) 22:40, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said many times to you, "prepared in New Zealand" doesn't extend so far as to include field work. I'm not sure why you continue to claim that I have said otherwise.

WP:COMMONNAME requires independent sources; government agencies and government gazetteers using the name because they are legally required to are indisputably not independent, and nor are maps using the name because they directly use government maps who are again legally required to use the name. BilledMammal (talk) 02:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where is your source to back up your interpretation of "prepared in New Zealand"? At the moment, the wording is ambiguous and could be read multiple ways. At any rate, several of the articles are written by New Zealand authors and published in New Zealand journals, so your argument would still apply and they would still need to be discounted. Turnagra (talk) 04:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where is your source to back up your interpretation of "prepared in New Zealand"? If you want to have this discussion, I would suggest having it at WT:NZGB. However, please stop representing a position that I have explicitly stated is not mine as my position; you are welcome to have that position, but you are not welcome to present it as my position. BilledMammal (talk) 04:25, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am merely wanting to make sure that we are being consistent. If the argument is that we must discount certain sources as they are required to use the dual name, as you have said earlier in this discussion, then we should be discounting all sources which meet that criteria - which include the ones which you have used earlier. Otherwise it's just WP:CHERRYPICKING. Turnagra (talk) 04:27, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And you are welcome to argue as your position that certain documents, such as scientific publications that did field work in New Zealand, should be discounted. You are not welcome to argue that it is my position that they should be when I have repeatedly stated that it is not.

And honestly, I'm not sure why you are so insistent that they should be. As long as I am consistent - and I am - in saying "documents ... prepared in New Zealand" doesn't include field work (to summarize why; "documents prepared" discusses where the publication itself was authored or produced, not where preparatory work took place) then if you're right and they are legally required to use the dual name then it will bias the results towards the dual name while if I'm right it will not bias the result in any way. Either way, it doesn't harm your position. BilledMammal (talk) 04:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that it isn't a consistent application of your own views, even setting aside the fieldwork question.

Looking at the ten results you've flagged, four are from NZ Government sources (NIWA, DOC, and Biosecurity NZ), a further four are either New Zealand journals or from New Zealand universities, and the remaining two have a majority of their authors from New Zealand institutions (one is entirely authored by staff of a former government agency, and the other has 2/3 of the authors from the University of Otago). As such, per your guidance at WP:NZGB, they cannot be considered independent for the purpose of determining place names.

If your view is that these are fine to be considered, then we must also consider the range of other material from government sources which overwhelmingly uses the dual name. If your view is that none of it should be counted, then we are left with the community organisation above which is the only truly independent source and which uses the dual name. Turnagra (talk) 09:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've gone beyond the scope of this discussion, so I've opened a discussion here - effectively, for a topic like this where sources are few and far between, it's acceptable though not ideal to accept sources with slightly less independence, like those published in foreign journals by New Zealand authors, as while it does introduce a bias towards the official dual name this bias is not overwhelming.

I'd note the community organization isn't the only source that is 100% independent (although, it's unclear whether it's a reliable source); there is one news article from this year, and when we look beyond Google News and Google Scholar as you did other sources like MetService start to emerge - although I'll note that looking beyond in this way introduces issues of cherry picking, as it's no longer a comprehensive and unbiased review. BilledMammal (talk) 01:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:COMMONNAME as proposed, based on preponderance in scholar search. I also note that although mos:slash does not directly instruct on this issue, it is in the spirit, and more importantly: the slash and the use of a long, bilingual name makes the current title less natural—one of our WP:CRITERIA on article titles, along with concision and recognisability. — HTGS (talk) 00:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per HTGS. --Spekkios (talk) 19:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.