Jump to content

Talk:Doubtful Sound / Patea

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

Dubious claim in this article

[edit]

From the text:

"The difference in the refractive index between these two layers makes it difficult for light to penetrate. Thus, many deep-sea species will grow in the comparatively shallow depths of the Sound."

This claim sounds dubious. It does not cite a reference, and conflicts with material in reference 6 [1], which makes note of the fact that:

"A layer of fresh-water runoff, stained brown with tannins from the forest, sits above the sea water in Doubtful Sound. After heavy rain, the layer can extend to a depth of 9m, acting as a sun block, cutting down light penetration and allowing deepwater organisms such as Gorgonian fans and black coral trees (some 200 years old) to live in shallow conditions. That fresh-water layer increased after the construction of the first tailrace for Manapouri Power Station in the 1960s."

This seems a much more plausible explanation for low light levels, and is relevant in issues about freshwater discharge from the Power Station.

Sendervictorius (talk) 09:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Call me stupid, but I do not see the contradiction? Ingolfson (talk) 22:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay, I think I see what you mean. Ingolfson (talk) 22:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"...it is not possible to drive to Doubtful Sound. However, many visitors do manage to take a boat cruise to Doubtful Sound. The less common way to access Doubtful Sound is by sea. However, there are some boat cruises that operate out of Manapouri. They first take a boat across Lake Manapouri and then a bus across to Wilmot Pass to Doubtful Sound."

- So there you have it - it is impossible to drive there, but buses can do it??

The tildes, oh the tildes! 211.31.104.172 (talk) 13:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a road that connects Patea and Manapouri, however to get to this road you must take a ferry across Manapouri. There is no road to get there that you could drive to in a personal vehicle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.58.124.217 (talk) 22:26, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Doubtful Sound. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:04, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Doubtful Sound. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another, erm, doubtful claim removed

[edit]

The text read: "Today these form a unique cluster of the only Spanish names on the map of New Zealand: Febrero Point, Bauza Island and the Nee Islets, Pendulo Reach, and Malaspina Reach." I think the people of Miramar, Portobello (indirectly), and anyone passing Perano Head might complain about this statement. I've changed it to "...a unique cluster containing most of the Spanish names...". Grutness...wha? 07:17, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

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

Requested move 2 November 2021

[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: This looks to be a trainwreck situation. There may be consensus for some of these moves individually but evidently not as a group. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 08:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


– All of the above with the exception of Nancy Sound have had their article names changed based on a WP:NCNZ guideline that no longer exists after an RfC [2]. The proposed names are the WP:UCRN as per [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. Spekkios (talk) 01:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)— Relisting. Havelock Jones (talk) 18:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose all - All of these places have sufficient usage of their dual names to justify remaining here - both as a collective whole and as interchangeable use of the component names. This move request seems to have been made on the notion of dual names as a whole and not on the individual merits of each of these names. Turnagra (talk) 17:12, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Oppose At the very least Piopiotahi has enough usage to justify an individual conversation about the use of duel names under the surviving rules. I still approve of the sentiment if not the optics of the first mass moves, but I suggest we slow down a bit or else at best these discussions are going to get very complicated. Dushan Jugum (talk) 19:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose Doubtful Sound / Patea and Hinenui / Nancy Sound; while it seems clear that a move is required, it is not clear which of the two names should be the target. See below for move proposals; they might need editing as the process I had planned is no longer viable given recent developments, but they are a start.
Support Rakituma / Preservation Inlet → Preservation Inlet which appears to be uncontroversial per Ngrams.
Support Milford Sound / Piopiotahi → Milford Sound which appears to be uncontroversial per Ngrams.

Doubtful Sound / Patea {{subst:requested move|Doubtful Sound|reason=Nominating following the deprecation of the dual names element of [[WP:NZNC]]; the article was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=976472355#Requested_move_18_August_2020 moved] in mid-2020 under the NZNC, as well as the assertion that the name was in everyday use. [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%5BDoubtful+Sound+%2F+Patea%5D%2CDoubtful+Sound%2CPatea&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2C%5BDoubtful%20Sound%20/%20Patea%5D%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CDoubtful%20Sound%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CPatea%3B%2Cc0 Ngrams] suggests that Patea has about twice as much use as Doubtful Sound, but that use is tainted by the existence of the town and river, to which most results refer to, while a google search shows a significant amount of use of the "Doubtful Sound", almost all of which refer to this location. As such, it appears that Doubtful Sound is the commonname, but I believe the situation is sufficiently opaque to warrant a focused discussion, rather than being included with the uncontroversial moves.}}

Hinenui / Nancy Sound {{subst:requested move|?|reason=Nominating following the deprecation of the dual names element of [[WP:NZNC]]. [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%5BHinenui+%2F+Nancy+Sound%5D%2CHinenui%2CNancy+Sound&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2CHinenui%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CNancy%20Sound%3B%2Cc0 Ngrams] suggests that Hinenui is vastly more common, but this is tainted by its use as a name and its use as a word. It also informs us that the dual name is effectively unused. A google news search for '"Hinenui" fjord' and '"Hinenui" fiord' return five results between them, only three of which are related to the fjord, while a search for '"Nancy Sound" fiord' or '"Nancy Sound" fjord' returns the same number of related results, though a broader search for "Nancy Sound" does find older articles using that name. In any case, either title would be primary, so disambiguation is not required and thus though a move is required, a discussion is needed to determine where to move it to.}} BilledMammal (talk) 23:36, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment ngrams don't work with dual names, and any argument that relies on them is fundamentally flawed. By virtue of the various approaches to dual names that sources can use, it's pretty much impossible to use that to get an accurate picture. If nothing else, your attempt to use it as evidence that reverting Milford Sound / Piopiotahi away from a dual name would be uncontroversial should send some sort of signal that the process you're using is flawed. Turnagra (talk) 09:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see it as a part of the mix as long as we know its limitations, no one system will get us there. The other problem I have run into is ngram sometimes does not cover the most recent years. Dushan Jugum (talk) 09:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support move of Milford Sound and Rakituma, Oppose others. For Milford Sound and Rakituma, the move is supported by the Recognizability, Naturalness, and Precision criteria. Interestingly, the names for all of these features in Te Reo are more WP:CONCISE than either the English or the dual name. Per BilledMammal, we need consideration of using the Te Reo names for Patea and Hinenui. — hike395 (talk) 03:59, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Choice, then I'll be Neutral for Doubtful Sound/Patea. — hike395 (talk) 01:11, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposing moves without providing a reason to oppose them other than that you want to discuss them separately comes across as a vote that is required to be ignored in closing, rather than a policy-based argument. Can you specify which ones you object to and why? BilledMammal (talk) 22:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies, I was hesitant to add heaps to this already lengthy discussion! I agree that these pages should be treated case by case, especially when considering WP:COMMONNAME. For example, Milford and Doubtful sounds are well known throughout NZ as such, whereas Hinenui & Rakituma are less well-known, and so people discovering them on Wikipedia can learn both names at the same time. Also, partly due to DOC etc increasing their use of dual names in signage, people are increasing their use of dual or Māori names (I haven't researched that in depth, it's just my impression of the last 5 years or so). I don't know enough about ngrams to base an opinion off them. Hope that helps! TreeReader (talk) 02:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • One independent source using the dual name does not outweigh the sources provided by the nominator using the dual name, while your topomap sources must be dismissed as not independent; its maps are taken directly from LINZ, which is a government source and required by law to use the official dual names, and thus per WP:COMMONNAME should have no weight in this discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 09:21, 6 November 2021 (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.

Requested move 25 November 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. There is no clear consensus for the move. The users who support the move are more numerous and persuasive, but they do not address the official status or the permissiveness of the dual name. The users who oppose the move are fewer and less convincing, but they do raise some valid concerns about the sources and the guidelines used by the nominator.

My suggestion is to keep the current title until a more compelling case for the move can be made. The current title reflects the official name given by the New Zealand government, and is consistent with the naming conventions for New Zealand places. The common name argument is not strong enough to override the official name, especially when the sources used to support it are questionable or incomplete. The slash issue is not a major problem, as the MOS allows for slashes in names, and the dual name is not meant to be restrictive but permissive. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:12, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtful Sound / Patea → Doubtful Sound – Per WP:COMMONNAME and MOS:SLASH. Searching Google News, we see that in the past year there have been seven articles using some form of "Doubtful Sound / Patea", but there has been almost 100 using "Doubtful Sound".

Google Scholar shows a similar result, with two results for any form of "Doubtful Sound / Patea" and hundreds for "Doubtful Sound". While not all the results here are relevant - for example, one goes The doubtful sound which is used to construct the uncanny island of The Tempest... - the vast majority are, and given the paucity of results for any form of "Doubtful Sound / Patea" leave the COMMONNAME clear. BilledMammal (talk) 07:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans (talk) 00:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • oppose without including the results for just 'Patea' or 'Pātea' the search results look cherry picked, could you please include them to make a clearer more compelling case? (this goes for the other RM as well)—blindlynx 21:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Blindlynx:; there are many results (Google Scholar, Google News) but skimming through them I can't find any that are relevant outside the ones already shown above as using the dual name - Patea is a common name and a common word, meaning that most of the results refer to other topics. BilledMammal (talk) 01:58, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There isn’t much of a case for a move to Patea, and I don’t think at this point it would be sensible, just given how rare the name is used for the sound. I think it would even be less common, and less sensible, than the dual name. — HTGS (talk) 01:33, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the fact that you WP:JUSTDONTLIKE dual names (which is evident from the massive amount of simultaneous moves you've undertaken) isn't grounds for a move. As mentioned on the dozens of times in the past you've tried to move dual names, MOS:SLASH is irrelevant as it contains provisions for when the slash is part of the name, as is the case here. Slashes are also required for dual names per WP:NZNC. Recent versions of most major atlases (including the Times and Collins atlases) use the dual name, as do global databases such as the BGN and local gazetteers - as in, all of the sources which [WP:WIAN]] tells us to look for as guidance. As for your sources, I question the accuracy of the numbers given that several results are actually various forms of the dual name (which aren't captured in your dual name search). Add to that the several irrelevant results and it's far less clear of a picture than you're attempting to paint. Turnagra (talk) 23:43, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the fact that you WP:JUSTDONTLIKE dual names It's not relevant to this discussion, but is there any reason why you throw this accusation at me, but not at editors who open an even greater number of moves in the opposite direction?
several results are actually various forms of the dual name Which several? I'll update the query to ensure they are correctly counted, but given the disparity in results "several" isn't going to change the fact that the overwhelming WP:COMMONNAME is Doubtful Sound.
Add to that the several irrelevant results I've accounted for those; it's why I said "almost 100" rather than "over 100". BilledMammal (talk) 02:02, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - from a methodological standpoint, comparing a set of results requiring both alternative names to be present against another set of results that includes mentions of only one name as well as mentions of the dual name cannot be reasonably construed as evidence in favor of the single name as WP:COMMONNAME. It seems to me that official nomenclature, rather than ghits, would be a more appropriate metric in such cases as this. Newimpartial (talk) 03:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Newimpartial: I think you have misunderstood my methodology; the results for "Doubtful Sound" exclude results that use "Patea" or "Pātea"; the query used is "Doubtful Sound" -"Patea" -"Pātea". In other words, the set of results for Doubtful Sound should not include any mentions of the dual name. BilledMammal (talk) 04:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I may have understood your methodology in that respect, but I sense a bigger problem. As I understand it, the point of dual nomenclature is not to requrire that both names be present, but rather to be either/or. Otherwise stated, I believe that such nomenclature is intended to be permissive rather than restrictive - but your methodology assumes the opposite. Newimpartial (talk) 04:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Newimpartial: Land Information New Zealand (the New Zealand government agency responsible for naming places) states that dual names are not an either/or proposition; they are used together as one name. It will take a bit of time to find the source again, but if the source would convince you to change your !vote I am happy to do so?
With that said I'm not sure why it is relevant here; sources have consistently decided to use "Doubtful Sound"; the fact that they could have chosen to use other names doesn't change the fact that they chose not to. BilledMammal (talk) 04:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would certainly consider new information. Newimpartial (talk) 11:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Dual place names are two names for a place or feature from different languages with equal significance. Dual place names are usually in te reo Māori and another language. They are used together as one name, such as Maungakiekie / One Tree Hill. Usually the Māori name is first to reflect first naming." BilledMammal (talk) 12:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I can't see a normative or proscriptive statement there, as you appear to do. Newimpartial (talk) 12:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Newimpartial, is it that you don’t think it’s possible to find the more common name? I have compiled a list below of mainstream news sources that demonstrates the ongoing preference for the single name in English. — HTGS (talk) 02:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The ODT does mention Patea for the sound a couple of times: in 2022, but it’s mentioned, not used in English, and makes no reference to a dual name (“Doubtful Sound was named Patea by Maori settlers. Patea translates as "the place of silence" and cruising around Crooked Arm you can see (and hear) why.”); and in 2021, where it’s used in relation to a discussion on dual names. The Herald in 2023 quotes someone using “Pātea-Doubtful Sound” (itself including an erroneous macron, and a divergent dual name), but doesn’t use it in the paper’s own voice.
There is no expectation that Patea is needed to understand which body is being referred to, so this correlates easily to the United Kingdom vs United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland case, per WP:CRITERIA. For the specific parts of CRITERIA, the English part of the dual name seems to best meet recognisability, is more concise, more natural and just as precise (obviously consistency doesn’t matter much here). — HTGS (talk) 21:30, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: Relist for clearer consensus, notifying WikiProjects Reading Beans (talk) 00:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject New Zealand has been notified of this discussion. Reading Beans (talk) 00:26, 5 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:Doubtful_Sound_/_Patea&oldid=1201629567"