Talk:Taiari / Chalky Inlet

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 2 November 2021[edit]

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)[reply]

Taiari / Chalky Inlet → Chalky Inlet – Sources tend to use Chalky Inlet only [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. 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)[reply]

  • Support Looking at the news for the last month I found one article that uses Taiari / Chalky Inlet[6] and many that just use Chalky Inlet[7] Aircorn (talk) 05:09, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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 [8] and four with just Chalky Inlet[9]. 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)[reply]
    Should note that I only looked post 2020 so these reflect the current usage. Aircorn (talk) 21:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Support Chalky Inlet more common in recent non official reliable references (Stuff search box). Even articles [10] 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)[reply]
Removing vote due to indecision. Dushan Jugum (talk) 05:47, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thanks Turnagra, yeah I get it. Dushan Jugum (talk) 00:30, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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: [11] and in articles: [12].
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
One of those Nzgeo links is pre the name change so should be discarded. ShakyIsles (talk) 06:39, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Well how am I ment to disagree with that. Dushan Jugum (talk) 23:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    @Turnagra, you cited one business and one personal social media post. — HTGS (talk) 04:49, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Taiari / Chalky Inlet/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 18:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First a couple of FYIs; these are not issues for GA, but just comments.

  • I don't think you need the internal links to the upper arms of fiord. It is sometimes useful to have internal links like this, but these are ToC headings so the reader is likely to be perfectly aware they're covered in this article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Have removed these - they may eventually merit articles in their own right but the links can be added at that point.Turnagra (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS:DASH says you should have either spaced en dashes or unspaced em dashes, but not both. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I've got all of them now, but may have missed one or two. Turnagra (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA issues:

  • What's the evidence that File:Chalky Island Te Takahu skink by Hannah Edmonds-DOC.jpg is released under CC 4.0? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Department of Conservation has a CC BY 4.0 license on all its images per their copyright page. Turnagra (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the sources, I paused over fmg.org.nz. Is this just a group of concerned locals? I get the feeling that they turned into more than that but can't see evidence of it. What makes them a reliable source? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As I understand it they started out like that, but they've grown in prominence and gained legal recognition through the Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine Management Act 2005. They now have a formal role in conservation of the area and provide advice direct to government ministers and have govt appointed board members. By my read they seem fairly solid as a source for Fiordland-related things. Turnagra (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I found this which covers the government-appointed bit, which is good enough. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 08:49, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 12, fiordlandnz.com, is a dead link. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC) [reply]
    Have managed to find an archive of that link, which looks like it has the formatting messed up and looks way too close to a 90s wordpress site for comfort despite being an NZ govt source. Will try and find a better source for these statements but hopefully this works for now? Turnagra (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I said that wrong -- dead links are not a problem per se for GA, but source reliability is; I should have said I needed to be able to see why the source was reliable. This seems to be the relevant "About" page, and it looks like it's a trade organization, perhaps an unofficial one. I don't think this is a great site to use for historical information, which is what it looks like you're using it for. What would make this reliable for historical content? Or can you find the same material from another source? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right - I was getting nz.com (which does seem like a trade organisation at the absolute most) confused with newzealand.com, which is a government source. There should be other sources for that content though, I'll take a look in the morning and see what I can come up with. I suspect some deep dives into early NZ sources ahead... Turnagra (talk) 09:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 20, goodnature.co.nz, appears to be a blog. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's technically a business page for the company manufacturing the traps, but point taken. I'll try and find a better source for the stuff around the pest control in the area. Turnagra (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes FN 25, predatorfreenz.org, a reliable source? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They're one of the most prominent NGOs in NZ around eliminating introduced pests and so work closely with these islands. But given they're citing a report in a proper scientific journal, I might just cut out the middle man and cite that if I can track it down. Turnagra (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Good idea, but I think you're right that it's enough as it stands, so I'll strike this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest glossing "iwi" inline; many non-NZ readers won't know the term. I see you do gloss it later in the article; you could just move that up. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Done Turnagra (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Following the collapse of the whaling industry, Taiari has remained largely uninhabited." Looking down the article I don't see anything about any current population. I know countries differ in whether people are allowed to live in something defined as a national park, so perhaps there are humans living there, but should "largely" be struck? Or should the article say that it is now uninhabited, or perhaps has been uninhabited since some date? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Have reworded this - it was mainly a reference to the expeditions and brief attempt at mining but given that was more in the next fiord over I think it's fine to say uninhabited aside from temporary expeditions. Turnagra (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that's better, but per WP:LEAD we need everything in the lead to be in the body, and I don't see the equivalent statement in the body. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "continues the roughly north–south orientation of the main length of Taiari, whilst Te Korowhakaunu / Kanáris Sound runs roughly perpendicular to this in an east–west orientation": just from looking at the Google Maps view, it seems the main line of the fiord is northeast-southwest, not north-south, and the angle between the two arms is about 45 degrees, and isn't really close to perpendicular.
    Fair point - have reworded this to hopefully be more accurate. Turnagra (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had to read the sentences giving the derivation of the Māori names Te Tapuwae-o-Māui and Te Rereka-o-Māui a couple of times to follow them. (Why is the latter in italics on first mention, by the way?) I think the issue is that because you give the names first, and then go back to give the derivation, the names have to be repeated, but as they're not English names one has to look back up a couple of times to tie the references together. How about doing giving the English names first, and then give the Māori names via explaining the derivation? Perhaps something like this: "The head between these two fiords, on the northern edge of Te Korowhakaunu and the eastern edge of Moana-whenua-pōuri, is known as Divide Head in English. The Māori name comes from the Māori creation myth for the fiord, which tells that the demigod Māui leapt ashore at Divide Head, giving it the name Te Tapuwae-o-Māui (the footstep of Māui), and the hills behind the head are named Te Rereka-o-Māui, representing his leap." Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've taken another pass at the wording here, can definitely see how it was confusing. How does it look now? Turnagra (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That works. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cora Lynn Falls drain": shouldn't this be "drains"? Or are these multiple falls? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's just the one, so have changed. Turnagra (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the arrival of Māori in New Zealand, roughly 800 years ago": I think the current scholarly consensus is about 700 years ago (or possibly a little less). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Have changed to 700. Turnagra (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and established a camp for a number of months. The crew of the Cutter made camp": can we avoid the repetition? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Good shout, changed this - also made me realise that I had accidentally renamed the ship in the process, so that's fixed now too. Turnagra (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The most prevalent of these was that of Alfred Henry Burton": I don't think "prevalent" can be the word you want, but I'm not sure what the intended meaning is. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Prominent, perhaps? Or alternately, perhaps 'consequential' could work too? Turnagra (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Prominent" works. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the National Parks Act 1952 worth a redlink? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Have added one in. Turnagra (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "including the renaming of Chalky Inlet to the dual Taiari / Chalky Inlet": do the Māori names for the upper arms also only have official status from 2019? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They do - Te Korowhakaunu / Kanáris Sound was subsequently renamed again in 2021 to correct the spelling from Cunaris, but that was separate to the dual name addition. Have reworded this section and added an archive link as the press release on the citation was dead. Turnagra (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The fiord also contains evidence of multiple petrel colonies": seems an odd way to say it. Can't we just say "The fiord also contains multiple petrel colonies"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Have changed this. Turnagra (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks:

  • FN 17 cites "Since this, Taiari / Chalky Inlet has been largely untouched. Its isolation has prevented the development seen in fiords further north, such as Milford Sound / Piopiotahi or Doubtful Sound / Patea. There is no land route to the fiord, even by foot, so human interaction is limited to sea or occasionally air access." The source is a commercial travel company; I don't see all of this information on that page, but even if I missed some of it I don't think this is a good source for most of this information. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I wasn't sure about the reliability side of things for some of the sources as I'm sure you can tell! I'm wondering if this article might help to establish the lack of development, perhaps alongside the topo map to demonstrate the lack of land access? Let me know what you think. Turnagra (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's a reliable source; you'd have to change some of the wording, but it would support e.g. "very difficult to reach on foot" and the fact that they're remote. I think "the bush has taken it all back" is good enough to say that the towns have gone. I went looking for the rules for NZ National Parks and found e.g. this, so I don't know if we can definitively say *nobody* lives there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 8 cites "The name Cunaris Sound stems from this expedition, although the exact etymology is unclear. It was previously believed to be derived from the plural of the French name for the canary, canaris, in reference to the songbirds and mōhua (yellowheads) prevalent in the area at the time." The source talks about the original name being Bras Canaris, with a later corruption to Cunaris. The birds mentioned in the source are bellbirds; we have "songbirds and mōhua" -- are those two different things? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Bellbirds and Mōhua are both songbirds, but they're distinct. Given the source uses bellbird specifically, I've updated the wording here to match that.
  • FN 14 cites "After a stay of a few months, the Cutter left to continue its mission of maintaining supply depots around the region. Upon its return in 1820, Edwardson's account described the environment around Lake Cove and the changes which he witnessed from his first experience. The cove, which had been a lagoon impossible to enter by ship on their first visit due to dangerous tides and silt, had opened up into a deep harbour large enough to hold a whaling ship, with two large river inflows instead of one." I don't see support for "maintaining supply depots around the region". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I definitely read that somewhere, but can't for the life of me find it now. I've changed it to match the specific source, but will keep digging. Turnagra (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The spotcheck has to be passed for me to promote this to GA, so rather than check any more I'm going to pause to let you respond to these points and check that all the citations source all the information they're used for. When you've had a chance to do that I'll do another spotcheck. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing this so quickly and thoroughly, Mike! I've made a few changes in light of your comments, and have added responses above (apologies if this isn't how I'm supposed to do it, it's my first GAN). I'll get stuck into checking the reference side of things now, and will let you know once I've sorted that for another spot check. Turnagra (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck most points; for the unstruck ones it was either evident you're still working on them or I've replied. Yes, adding interspersed responses is fine -- there's no requirement to copy up the signature of the person you're responding to, though it's harmless. See Talk:Albert Luthuli/GA1 for a typical GA layout. Would you be interested in reviewing a GA or two, by the way? You're a good writer, and an experienced editor, and we always need more reviewers. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think I've gotten everything and fixed up the sources. Let me know if I've missed something and I'll take another pass - I suspect the wording I've added around the stoat might be a bit clumsy but hopefully it's okay. Turnagra (talk) 09:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The stoat wording looks fine to me. Before I do another spotcheck, it looks as if the material you added to the lead is not also in the body? Shouldn't that also be at the end of the history section? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:04, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have taken another pass at that wording (helped by another source which helpfully states how The Southern fiords (Figure 4.6) have traditionally received low use, largely as a result of their distance from ports (access difficulty). Hopefully this does the trick! Turnagra (talk) 18:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Second spotcheck[edit]

For a couple of these, it would be a good idea to identify in the citation which page of the source you're using. I do it by using short form citations, but there are other ways. The problem with just giving the page range of the article is that if it's a ten-page article it's hard for a reader to find the reference.

  • FN 20 cites "A 1977 study identified a number of invasive species to remove from the area, including noting the impact of deer on the area." Verified.
  • FN 12 cites "Two battles are said to have taken place in neighbouring Rakituma / Preservation Inlet around 1780 between the iwi, indicating the extent to which Kāti Māmoe were pursued." I can see there are references to Rakituma but can't spot the supporting text -- what page or pages should I be looking at?
  • My bad, I'd forgotten to change the text on that to match the source. Have updated it to match pages 59-60 (note that Kai Tahu and Ngāi Tahu are the same iwi in different dialects)
    OK, this now looks good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:27, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 24 cites "Over 100 stoat traps were set on the island in response to the sighting, with staff from the Department of Conservation seeking to capture it as part of wider pest control efforts in Fiordland." Verified.
  • FN 13 cites "Evidence of Māori habitation in the fiords is noted by many European explorers from this point and has been identified through archaeological studies of Fiordland, indicating that occupation may have become permanent for a period." Again can you give me the page number I should be looking at?
  • The many European explorers is a summary of the bottom left quarter of page 33, but I have no idea where I got the second bit from given that the right hand column says almost the exact opposite - I've edited the text to match. Turnagra (talk) 09:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    OK for the European explorers. What are you seeing that supports "seasonal habitation"? The right hand column of p. 33 talks about different Māori settlement patterns, and at the bottom of the left-hand column there's a bit about a cave in Preservation Sound but I don't see anything that makes it definite it was seasonal. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I was basing that off the right hand column, where it says "Round houses may have been associated with highly seasonal but irregular and opportunistic journeys to Fiordland during the late prehistoric period, whereas the rectangular dwellings, the traditional form of Maori dwelling constructed in Southland (see below), may have been associated with task-specific and perhaps more patterned journeys to Fiordland during the colonial era." But I'm also happy to get rid of the seasonal portion altogether if you don't think that's enough. Turnagra (talk) 17:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I think that's fine; I just missed it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 10 cites "However, evidence has since suggested that the fiord was instead named after Konstantinos Kanaris, a hero of the Greek War of Independence, and in 2021 the spelling of the European portion of the name was altered to Kanáris Sound to reflect this naming origin." This is a dead link; do you have an archive link for it?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:11, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • It seems that LINZ unhelpfully updated their link format - the document is here, and I've updated the citation with an archive link of it. Turnagra (talk) 09:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, that clearly supports the Greek name. I would suggest also adding a cite to the parent link page, which confirms that the change was made -- the pdf only says the change was proposed, as far as I can see. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again - I'll respond more comprehensively later on when I'm back at a computer, but in the interim what's the best way of indicating the page number when using different pages from the same citation in different spots? for example, the hydrology data from source 1 is from a couple different pages in that publication, so I'd like to point to the specific one but I'm unsure of the best way to do that. Turnagra (talk) 20:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The standard is to cite only the supporting pages, not the page range of the article. See here for a discussion. As you can see there are arguments about it. Another way to do it is to use one of the short form citations. See ice drilling for an example -- in the sources, Aamot (1968) is a journal article with a page range of 321-328; in the footnotes FN 154 cites Aamot with the specific page. You can also do this with {{sfn}}, though I don't use it because it doesn't work well with the visual editor, which I prefer. See Ludwig Ferdinand Huber for an example -- that has the advantage that the footnote link jumps you to the right source. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:25, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for these, I'll work my way through the sources tomorrow and add specific page numbers to the citations. Turnagra (talk) 09:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK -- when you do that I'll have one more look and I think we're getting close to promotion to GA. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go ahead and pass this. Adding more page numbers is helpful but isn't required for GA. The second round of spotchecks found only minor issues; I've eyeballed a couple more sources just now and saw no further issues, so I think this is good to go. Congratulations! And I'd like to reiterate my suggestion that you consider reviewing; you'd make an excellent reviewer and we're always short of reviews. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:24, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'm definitely keen to try and help out at some point, I think I need to get my head around the criteria a bit more first - there's some of the stuff you picked up that I never would've! Turnagra (talk) 06:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by BorgQueen (talk) 14:23, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Turnagra (talk). Self-nominated at 08:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Taiari / Chalky Inlet; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: @Turnagra: Good article. But, there's a hook citation problems. Alt2 doesn't even mention the chalky inlet so I can't verify that hook in there. Either tell me where it mentions the inlet or get rid of the hook. Onegreatjoke (talk) 13:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Onegreatjoke - would it be enough to include it alongside the photo from Burton in the article with some minor rewording? This way it'd be showing that his photos of Fiordland, as referenced in the source, included trips to this inlet. Turnagra (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Onegreatjoke: just wondering if you had any thoughts on my suggestion above? Happy to remove that hook if necessary, but I think the image could be a good inclusion anyway so wanted to float that first. Turnagra (talk) 10:19, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Turnagra: The problem with alt2 is that the source doesn't seem to mention the Chalky inlet at all. So I can't verify if what the hook is saying is true. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:22, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Onegreatjoke: I was hoping that including the photo he took in the inlet would demonstrate that the photos he took of Fiordland per the source included this inlet, but all good - I'll just strike that one. Turnagra (talk) 19:39, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Onegreatjoke: apologies for the follow up ping again, just wondering if you had any further thoughts or if it'd be possible to progress this? Turnagra (talk) 05:20, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The others are fine. Onegreatjoke (talk) 13:35, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 December 2023[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Oppose nothing has changed since the failed move request further up. Give it up. Turnagra (talk) 05:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject New Zealand has been notified of this discussion. Bensci54 (talk) 13:41, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There wasn't consensus to move this in 2021. I fail to see why anything would have changed in the meantime. Schwede66 01:28, 14 December 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Taiari_/_Chalky_Inlet&oldid=1205554138"