Talk:Paterson Inlet

New Zealand Low‑importance

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

On 15 September 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved from Paterson Inlet to Paterson Inlet / Whaka a Te Wera. The result of the discussion was moved.

On 24 June 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from Paterson Inlet / Whaka a Te Wera to Paterson Inlet. The result of the discussion was moved.

Redirect?

Why the redirect? Is there another Paterson Inlet? Grutness 06:00, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Moved over redirect to Paterson Inlet. – Liveste (talk • edits) 21:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Paterson Inlet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20041109051705/http://www.fish.govt.nz:80/current/press/pr8604.htm to http://www.fish.govt.nz/current/press/pr8604.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 September 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. per discussion consensus and WP:NCNZ. There may be an ongoing discussion about changing that convention, but for now, the current guideline is how we adjudicate and close discussions. When/if that guideline changes to not support dual names here, this can be revisited. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 12:52, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paterson Inlet → Paterson Inlet / Whaka a Te Wera – official name since 1998[1], it's time to update this Gryffindor (talk) 08:42, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not give preference to official names over common names. (For clarity, consider the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland or North Korea.) Please provide evidence that “Paterson Inlet / Whaka a Te Wera” is the predominant name outside of official usage. — HTGS (talk) 00:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support - moving to an official dual name follows a longstanding precedent for places in NZ that officially have dual place names, as Paterson Inlet / Whaka a Te Wera does. Publications referencing the inlet use the dual name, as do mapping services and other sources. Turnagra (talk) 08:04, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The guidelines are very clear that the official name of a place is not sufficient to change the title of a Wikipedia article. As per WP:NCGN, WP:RECENTISM, and WP:COMMONNAME, there is not sufficient evidence to show that the requested name is commonly used to the point were an article name change is required. Furthermore, the "long precedent" of doing so involves for the most part a couple of users supporting each move and does not represent a consensus, and it is dishonest to claim as such. Users not understanding naming conventions and changing article names should not be seen as a precedent, and if it is, the only precedent that has been established is a precedent of ignoring guidelines for WP:ADVOCACY Spekkios (talk) 09:20, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also see WP:CONCISE, WP:UCRN, USEENG Spekkios (talk) 06:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support as per dual / bi lingual use in New Zealand English. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:38, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per NZ naming conventions. There is usage beyond mandatory official usage therefore it should be moved. ShakyIsles (talk) 04:35, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It might be worth noting these ongoing discussions:

There may be some question of whether the relevant aspect of NZ naming conventions actually reflect[s] the consensus of the community. While these discussions are ongoing, I decline to present my own opinion on this proposed move. BilledMammal (talk) 07:14, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is a current RfC proposal draft on the guidelines for dual names. Spekkios (talk) 23:50, 25 September 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.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Port Pegasus / Pikihatiti which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 24 June 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Seems to be the common name. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:29, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paterson Inlet / Whaka a Te Wera → Paterson Inlet – Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE. The current dual name sees minimal use in reliable and independent sources, with no news sources and only 21 scholarly sources mentioning both names, and even less using a dual name. In comparison, 72 news sources and 657 scholarly sources use the proposed title. BilledMammal (talk) 08:15, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The New Zealand Geographic Board's official name for this place is Paterson Inlet/Whaka a Te Wera. This name appears on maps and has been in use since 1 October 1998 following the Ngai Tahu Treaty Settlement and enactment of New Zealand legislation under Section 269 and Schedule 96 of the Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998. The naming conventions for article titles have several CRITERIA, of which WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE are but two. Being WP:PRECISE and WP:CONSISTENT also apply. The latter also indicates that there are topic-specific naming conventions on article titles for New Zealand articles. In this case there are specific naming conventions for New Zealand places that have dual names. I believe these conventions should be preferred over WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE. In effect, this move discussion is attempting to re-litigate the previous 15 September 2021 move discussion where the title Paterson Inlet / Whaka a Te Wera was agreed upon. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 02:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cameron Dewe:; there used to be a naming convention supporting dual names for New Zealand places but that was removed in November 2021 after a consensus was found against it. WP:PRECISE favours the proposed title which unambiguously defines the topical scope of the article but is no more precise than that - the current title is too precise. Meanwhile, WP:CONSISTENT doesn't favour either title, with both single names and dual names being used as article titles for places in New Zealand with official dual names. BilledMammal (talk) 02:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BilledMammal: If the naming convention has been changed then perhaps the wording of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (New Zealand)#Convention for dual names needs to be clarified to explain how these names are treated. The current wording implies that articles about places with an official dual place name are to use that name. After all, that name appears on official maps that have been produced since the name change. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 03:34, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The dual name guideline is about format, and the process is covered already by WP:CRITERIA and WP:OFFICIALNAMES, which was a leading factor in the removal of the automatic dual naming convention. --Spekkios (talk) 07:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nominator. This isn't even close - Paterson Inlet is the very clear common name. --Spekkios (talk) 07:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support as proposed, per evidence provided for common name usage. I also strongly oppose naming articles with official names in general. — HTGS (talk) 03:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Common name in English-language sources. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 29 June 2022 (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.