Talk:Hinemoatū / Howard River

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

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: not moved. There is consensus to not move this. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hinemoatū / Howard River → Howard River – Per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE, and MOS:SLASH. The current title receives almost no use in reliable and independent sources; Google news returns no results, while Google Scholar returns only one - a primary and non-independent source. In comparison, Google News returns several relevant results for the proposed title, and Google Scholar returns dozens.

The proposed title is also more concise and better aligns with MOS:SLASH. BilledMammal (talk) 08:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans (talk) 00:32, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - the official name dates from 2014. Little is written about the river, so it's not surprising that the majority of references still use the former name, which is out of date. Johnragla (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you clarify why you believe the proposed title is "out of date", in the context of Wikipedia policies and guidelines? I note that several of the sources using the proposed title are from after 2014, while none of the sources using the current title are. BilledMammal (talk) 16:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    but many of them aren't. The name Howard River could also be confused with the river of the same name in Australia. Johnragla (talk) 16:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To avoid confusion I've now created a disambiguation page Howard River. Johnragla (talk) 08:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose contemporary sources use the dual name—blindlynx 21:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you clarify which contemporary sources you are referring to? BilledMammal (talk) 02:14, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    the ones cited in the article—blindlynx 21:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the sources in the article, aside from LINZ sources (LINZ is the government agency that determines what the official name of a location is and gazettes those names) and sources which directly mirror LINZ, only two sources use the dual name; Google Maps and a document published by the Department of Conservation.
    In other words, only one non-government source in the article uses the official dual name; in contrast, there are two contemporary non-governmental sources that use the single name, BirdLife, and the New Zealand Botanical Society. Given that WP:COMMONNAME tells us to use independent sources, I think the sources in the article actually support this proposed move? BilledMammal (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Those references are to Howard Valley and Howard Reserve, not to the river. The problem is that so few people live in that area and very few write about it, so that there is no common name. The best we have is the official name, which has had some research and consultation. Johnragla (talk) 23:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking again, you're right about NZBS; it refers to the "Howard Valley" that the river exists in. BirdLife is a little confusing, referring to the "Howard River Valley". Either way, there isn't a weight of independent contemporary sources using the dual name already in the article.
    The problem is that so few people live in that area and very few write about it, so that there is no common name. I don't think that's accurate; certainly this isn't a commonly discussed location, but there are still dozens of independent and reliable sources about it and virtually all of them use "Howard River". It is true that most of these are from before the name change, but not all are (for example, 1, 2, and 3), and per WP:NAMECHANGES we shouldn't fully discount sources from before the change, and we shouldn't use the new name until sources written after the change routinely use the new name. BilledMammal (talk) 00:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are several sources written after the name change, which all use the dual name as demonstrated above. Turnagra (talk) 04:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you link the sources? I might be missing something but I'm not seeing them in this discussion, unless you referring to the non-independent LINZ sources? BilledMammal (talk) 04:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this ridiculous crusade against dual names has gone on long enough. As pointed out in multiple past move requests whenever you rail against dual place names, MOS:SLASH is irrelevant as it contains provisos for when the slash is part of the name, as it is here. The use of a slash is also required by WP:NZNC (something which I'd note you supported, which feels very underhanded now that you're using a slash to justify your proposals). Your news articles highlight a significant problem with your proposed title, given the vast majority of them don't have anything to do with the river. Sources which WP:WIAN tells us to use are in fact far more likely to use the dual name. Turnagra (talk) 22:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your news articles highlight a significant problem with your proposed title, given the vast majority of them don't have anything to do with the river. Yes; they include things like a list of names. However, there is no other article using "Howard River" so we don't need to worry about disambiguation, and I've accounted for the presence of those results in the numbers I provide above; the "Howard River" is still the clear common name for this topic. BilledMammal (talk) 02:14, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The other Howard River is closer to a large centre of population, so probably better known than this one. When an article on that is written, this will need a name change. What would you change it to? Johnragla (talk) 03:53, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It will depend on use results when that happens. At the moment, natural disambiguation wouldn't be appropriate because the dual name is obscure and WP:NATURAL tells us not to use obscure names, but that might have changed by the time an article is created on the Australian river.
Either way, it's a problem for the future and isn't relevant to this discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 04:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The official name is Hinemoatū / Howard River.[1] It follows WP:NCNZ. The name has been around since 2014, and the sources listed by the proposer on Google Scholar are from before 2014. I don't understand the comment about MOS:SLASH when the official name has a slash in it, especially given that slashes are mentioned in WP:NCNZ. —Panamitsu (talk) 02:52, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:OFFICIALNAME; we don't use the official name of a location, we use the WP:COMMONNAME. Regarding the google scholar results, some are from before 2014, but not all - and given that there have been no scholarly sources using the name after 2014, the COMMONNAME remains clear. BilledMammal (talk) 02:56, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I tried to use Goggle Ngram viewer to see what was most common, Hinemoatū didn't even return any results. Howard River per WP:COMMONNAME. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 09:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That wouldn't be a reliable indication of this name's usage though, given confusion around different Howard Rivers and sources where both terms would come up. Turnagra (talk) 17:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Contemporary English sources use “Howard River”. See, eg: Nelson Mail 2022 and Spinoff 2020. Note there are older sources, but those will no doubt be spurned by the dual-name team for being too old: Nelson Mail 2010 and Nelson Mail 2012. I contend that they are not too old, but of course given that there are no contemporary sources using the dual language name, that’s irrelevant. — HTGS (talk) 04:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Nelson Mail is a reference to a work camp, not the river. Spinoff is quoting a gold miner, who's using the names he learnt from his grandfather when he lived there. Johnragla (talk) 20:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, which Mail source did you mean? As far as I can tell, all three refer to the very same river? I also don’t understand why a gold miner who clearly knows the area should be discounted? We are looking for contemporary English references to the river. Are we no longer allowed to learn our language from our grandparents? I’m sorry, but this all feels like quite an absurd response. — HTGS (talk) 20:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Language changes, which is why this is Wikipedia, rather than the spelling our grandfathers would have used, derived from encyclopædia. Nelson Mail is referring to the name of the camp as it would have been. The problem is there's no "commonly or frequently used name". Even if the Mail and Spinoff articles refer to the river, to cite 2 articles in a decade as evidence of common use, really stretches the definition of the word common. Johnragla (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is an encyclopædia, and we are trying to decide here which language to use. We do not default to picking language merely different to what older sources used. If language has changed, we reflect that; if language has not changed, we reflect that too. In this case, it appears that two generations later, the name has remained the same.

    The Murchison Earthquake caused havoc around The Grips, with big rockfalls having to be cleared away by workmen from the Public Works Department’s camps at Howard River and Lake Rotoiti.

    It seems quite clear that the camp referred to is “at Howard River”, and to interpret otherwise could seem disingenuous. Further, the newspaper makes no effort to clarify for modern readers that “Howard River” refers to the river now known as “Hinemoatū / Howard River”. They expect that the river is still known as the “Howard River”. I am trying to avoid making accusations, but your logic here, on both points, doesn’t feel honest. — HTGS (talk) 22:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They probably expect few readers to know either name, because neither is common and it is almost a 2 hour drive from Nelson. Also names aren't the main focus of either story. Johnragla (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I still fail to see how this any of this off-topic speculation would support use of the dual name. The expectation is that if readers know any name, it will be “Howard River”. That is enough for WP:COMMONNAME. — HTGS (talk) 02:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I also fail to see. How can a possible 2 articles in a decade be common use? Johnragla (talk) 03:08, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia … prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)

    — HTGS (talk) 03:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That guidance is written with the assumption that there will be lots of references, rather than that the name is uncommonly used. Otherwise it wouldn't use the word common. It also says, "generally". The guidance also says, "Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources. In many cases, the official name will be the best choice to fit these criteria." Hinemoatū / Howard River is recognisable because it appears on maps and Department of Conservation guides, which are the most likely other sources readers will look at. It's unambiguous because it's clearly not Australian. The only other usage is possibly 2 articles in a decade. It's reliable because the Geographic Board researched and consulted about the name. Johnragla (talk) 04:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if you’re not counting HTGS’s older-but-still-recent sources, I presented additional examples above of sources from the last couple of years. BilledMammal (talk) 05:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Possibly 5 over a decade. Does that fit the dictionary definition of common as happening regularly or frequently? Johnragla (talk) 05:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You are welcome to ask over at WT:AT about how many sources are needed to apply the rule of “most common”, but I think the conversation here has run its course. — HTGS (talk) 05:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It has already been asked, but got no answer. It was asked in relation to Kolkata, which has many more references than any Howard. Johnragla (talk) 10:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Besides the common name issues, it needs to be determined if this river is the primary topic for "Howard River" or whether there is no primary topic with the Australian river. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howard River (disambiguation) which is now in an unnecessary AfD discussion because of an improper move by BilledMammal against the disambiguation rules. (t · c) buidhe 21:34, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is an important point which has been ignored thus far. Doing a news search after filtering out all of the various irrelevant sports articles that were dominating results, and we find that of the 10 relevant results, 7 are for the river in Australia and only 3 are for the river in New Zealand. This is also true of scholarly results, which are overwhelmingly in favour of the Australian river (28-2 in the first three pages). This clearly suggests that the river in Northern Territory is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and as such it would be inappropriate for this page to move to the name Howard River. Turnagra (talk) 08:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not surprising that the Australian river features more, though still not common. It's longer, has a much higher population in its catchment and the occasional crocodile to catch the headlines. I think this lengthy discussion shows the need for much simpler naming guidelines, using the official name, unless there's evidence of political interference in the choice of that name. Editors' time could have been much more productively used editing articles, rather than seeking out sparse information on a name which is not in common use. Johnragla (talk) 19:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe: If there is a consensus that "Howard River" is the WP:COMMONNAME, but not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, would you support moving this article to Howard River (New Zealand), per the disambiguation format required for unpopulated places in New Zealand by WP:NZNC#Disambiguation of New Zealand place names? Same question for the rest of the respondents: Spekkios, Johnragla, Turnagra, buidhe, HTGS, Necrothesp, Kiwiz1338, Panamitsu, blindlynx, Stuartyeates. BilledMammal (talk) 05:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in WP:NZNC prevents the use of dual names as WP:NATURAL disambiguation, and there is past precedent for the use of dual names in that context. The current title is also more WP:CONCISE than parenthetical disambiguation, and is used more commonly than that form in sources. So no, that is a far worse title and I'd be equally opposed to that. Turnagra (talk) 05:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NZNC says that when disambiguation is required for non-populated places, we use parenthetical disambiguation. In addition, even if we form a local consensus here to ignore that, WP:NATURAL says that we shouldn't use obscure names as natural disambiguation - given the paucity of independent and reliable sources that use the dual name, "Hinemoatū / Howard River" would be one of the dual names that NATURAL warns us against using. BilledMammal (talk) 05:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation isn't required when using the current name, you're choosing to use an older name where disambiguation is required and therefore introducing a problem which need not exist. Furthermore, the name isn't obscure, given the wide range of sources which have been described by other users already that use the dual name. Ideally WP:NZNC would have been clarified to avoid exactly this. Turnagra (talk) 05:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Howard River (New Zealand) would be the right name. Oppose dual names as titles. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dual names are WP:NATURAL no need to complicate this—blindlynx 16:09, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Duel names are not natural. They are a recent creation being pushed by a government. They are awkward. They are not used in natural running text. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be under some mistaken illusions about dual names - they've been in use since the 19th century in some instances, and are as natural as names no-one questions like Papua New Guinea or Alsace–Lorraine. They are also routinely used in natural running text. Turnagra (talk) 04:11, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not clear it is even the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Disambiguation page should be at Howard River. Hinemoatū / Howard River is a natural way to distinguish it from the Australian river and it appears to be common name anyway. Also meet all the criteria at WP:WIAN. ShakyIsles (talk) 05:10, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What evidence do you have that it is the WP:COMMONNAME? There are dozens of independent and reliable sources using the single name, compared to almost none using the dual name; as such, I'm a little confused by your claim. BilledMammal (talk) 05:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For starters every modern map uses Hinemoatū / Howard River. ShakyIsles (talk) 05:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume you are referring to online maps like Google Maps, Apple Maps, and Bing Maps? They have independence problems, as they directly copy from government sources without making any attempt to independently choose the name to use. They also have reliability issues, as they source material from OpenStreetMap and Wikipedia, which violates WP:USERGENERATED.
    Since we are usually unable to determine whether they have determined a place name independent or whether they have copied it from a non-independent or unreliable source, we cannot use them to determine the WP:COMMONNAME. BilledMammal (talk) 05:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't just hand-waive away any source which uses the dual name as not independent. WP:WIAN says to use exactly that sort of source, if you have issues with that you should take it up over there. Turnagra (talk) 05:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WIAN doesn't say anything about online maps like those, and it also says to use neutral and reliable source states. Unfortunately, these online maps are neither, as I explained above. BilledMammal (talk) 05:33, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Examples of WIAN sources include gazeteers, maps, and databases, which all use the dual name. Not to mention the disinterested international maps, which I would point out often do not use dual maps, so your claim that they are beholden to the official name holds even less water than the river in summer. Turnagra (talk) 05:40, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for listing some sources. However, none of these are independent. The gazetteer you list is LINZ, which is the entity tasked by New Zealand to determine and propagate the official name for a location and thus is self-evidently not independent. The map you list is TopoMap, which mirrors maps published by LINZ, and thus again is self-evidently not independent. Your final source, GeoNames, also has independence issues, but I won't bother to go into them as it doesn't actually support your assertion as it lists both "Hinemoatū / Howard River" and "Howard River", without specify any preference between the two.
    And in any case, even if those sources both were independent and supported your position, three sources don't outweigh the dozens we have for the single name.
    As an aside, to avoid us repeating this discussion time and again I've opened a discussion on whether LINZ is the sort of "disinterested" source that WIAN tells us to use, and provided a number of sources suggesting otherwise - your participation would be appreciated. BilledMammal (talk) 05:44, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: Relisting for clearer consensus Reading Beans (talk) 00:32, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject New Zealand has been notified of this discussion. Bensci54 (talk) 13:46, 11 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.

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Howard River, Northern Territory which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hinemoatū_/_Howard_River&oldid=1202721418"