Talk:Hinenui / Nancy Sound

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.

It is requested that an image or photograph of Hinenui be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Doubtful Sound / Patea which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 March 2023

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

The result of the move request was: NOT MOVED. Aside from a lack of consensus, the arguments for moving do not convincingly obviate WP:NZNC. Hadal (talk) 20:32, 20 March 2023 (UTC) No consensus. --Hadal (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hinenui / Nancy Sound → Nancy Sound – Per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE, and MOS:SLASH. Google ngrams shows use of Nancy Sound, but not of the current title. A Google Scholar search shows 9 results for Nancy Sound since 2019, but only two for Hinenui / Nancy Sound. There is also one result for "Homemio/Nancy Sounds". Google news had insufficient coverage to establish a common name; there have only been three stories about the location (two for Nancy Sound and one for Hinenui / Nancy Sound), and two stories announcing several official name changes, including this one.

The proposed title is also shorter, and better complies with MOS:SLASH which recommends against using slashes because it suggests that the words are related without specifying how. BilledMammal (talk) 04:47, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Nancy Sound already redirects here, so we might as well just use the shorter name. --Spekkios (talk) 04:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it’s worth saying that the “we-might-as-well-just-use-the-shorter-name” argument (more usually called WP:CONCISE) also supports “Hinenui”; the clearer point, of course, is that Nancy Sound is the most common as well as the more concise, and is most likely to be understood by readers familiar with the topic… which is the goal after all. — HTGS (talk) 04:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "might as well" isn't grounds for a move request, nor is using ngram results which don't even include the period since the dual name was adopted. The dual name is used by several reliable sources, including the latest edition of the Collins World Atlas, Google maps, and the US place name database. As far as the supposed nine sources you found, at least one predates the name change and one is a masters thesis and thus less reliable - but I'd also point out that, per your own claims, we can't actually use any of those nine because of authors based in New Zealand or field work done here and thus they're not independent. This is true also of the two sources for the dual name, but given this wipes out any scholarly coverage and there are no news articles, we're left with the name the maps and gazetteers use - Hinenui / Nancy Sound. Turnagra (talk) 08:55, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Might as well" is absolutely grounds for a move request if it is to a shorter name, which in this case, it absolutely is. --Spekkios (talk) 09:03, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having field work done in New Zealand isn’t sufficient for the law to apply and thus those sources are independent; we previously discussed this on the talk page of the essay you linked. In addition, the independence issues with some of the scholarly sources also applies to the maps and, to an even greater extent, GINZ and the NZ Gazetteer which directly copy the official name - you can’t cherry pick which sources you consider the independence of.

There is also no basis in policy to dismiss the source from before the name change, nor to dismiss the ngrams result for the same reason. BilledMammal (talk) 11:40, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just basing this off the comments in your essay, which state:
Scientific publications covers both those published in New Zealand, as well as those published outside New Zealand that were prepared in the New Zealand. This means that New Zealand scientific publications cannot be considered independent for the purpose of determining place names, while foreign publications should first be assessed to determine whether they were prepared in New Zealand before considering them independent. This can be done by reviewing the list of involved entities and authors to determine a connection to New Zealand.

Based on that wording it seems pretty clear that preparation in New Zealand would be grounds to dismiss all of those sources - but of course if you want to accept that scholarly articles are actually fine then I'd be more than happy to establish that precedent, you might just want to revise your essay. As far as your accusations of me cherry picking and setting the projection aside, my point with that was that dismissing these academic articles and the lack of news coverage owing to its remoteness means that we're left with sources such as those which WP:WIAN describes as they're the only things which cover it - and they all use the dual name.

On the subject of WP:WIAN and turning to your claim about not dismissing sources before the change, the first paragraph of WIAN states For modern sources, it is important to identify any recent watershed moments in the location's history (such as the fall of the Soviet Union for Eastern Europe, or other revolutions, invasions and nationality changes), and limit sources to those published after that watershed (emphasis mine). It's also just common sense - you wouldn't be arguing that we should say Trump is president because sources from before 2021 say that he is, so why include sources from before a name was adopted to claim that a different name is being used? Turnagra (talk) 18:47, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We’ve already had this discussion on the talk page; to summarise, “prepared in New Zealand” is less expansive than you believe, and doesn’t cover fieldwork or other work like peer reviews. If you believe the essay needs to be updated to make this clear I will do so.

What this leaves us with are a number of scholarly sources (the examples you provide lack independence for the same reason you accurately dismiss some of the scholarly sources) and ngrams, both of which are also listed at WIAN and support the move.

I also note that both Apple and Bing maps use “Nancy Sound”; while Apple Maps lacks independence for the same reason Google maps does and should not be considered here, Bing maps is a suitable source.

I wouldn’t consider a name change to be a “watershed moment” and it seems our guidelines don’t either as we have specific guidance for name changes; see WP:NAMECHANGES. It tells us to give less weight to coverage from before the name change, but not no weight. BilledMammal (talk) 02:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, for clarity, you're saying that all of those academic sources you provided - including several written by people in New Zealand who work for New Zealand institutions, are independent and therefore those sort of sources can be counted for future discussions? Great, glad that we've set that precedent.

As for what you would and wouldn't consider important, great that you've got that interpretation; I would consider it a watershed. WP:NAMECHANGES is one piece of guidance, and WP:WIAN is another specifically for geographic articles, which clearly has more importance here.

I also find it bizarre that you're treating Bing maps with more reverence than the Collins World Atlas, which seems like far more of a reliable source and which you've completely ignored or vaguely hand-waived a perceived lack of independence at. Turnagra (talk) 04:27, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, that’s not what I said; please reread my comment.

If you believe that a name change is a watershed, then I suggest you open a discussion proposing to add it to the list of examples; at the moment it is vastly less significant than any existing example.

I’m not sure what basis there is to consider it more reliable, but while the NZGB has noted an issue enforcing the law on online maps that are available in New Zealand they have made no such comment about offline maps. If they have and I have missed it, then please provide the source and I will update the essay. BilledMammal (talk) 04:37, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're saying that your scholarly sources are independent and therefore able to be used to determine the name, despite several having been written by people in New Zealand working for New Zealand institutions. If you don't think that type of source is independent please clarify your numbers.

As for the sources, the burden of proof is on you to prove that it's unreliable, not the other way around. There is no evidence of the NZGB enforcing anything on overseas publishers (or successfully enforcing anything full stop, outside of a vague comment about a conversation with another government entity). Turnagra (talk) 04:45, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m saying that some of them are; the ones you dismissed due to fieldwork being done in New Zealand.

I’m not claiming it’s unreliable, I’m claiming it’s not independent. And I have proven both that the law exists and that there are active efforts to enforce it; I have met my burden. The burden is now on you to prove that it has no impact in regards to these sources, if you happen to believe that. BilledMammal (talk) 04:52, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll repeat, if you don't think that type of source is independent please clarify your numbers.

I've also yet to see this evidence that "active efforts" have resulted in any actual changes, other than a "productive conversation" with Waka Kotahi - another government agency. That is a far cry from the evidence you're claiming it for and is a hell of a conclusion to leap to. The burden of proof has absolutely not been met in this context. Turnagra (talk) 04:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In this case I don’t consider it necessary, because it will make the scholarly results favour the proposed name more, not less; the ratio goes from 9:2 to ∞:1.

Regarding the law, I’ve proven that the law exists, that the NZGB actively liaises with offenders to remedy non-compliance and offer assistance, and that there are examples of it being successful, and you claim that I haven’t met the burden of proof? I consider it clear that I have, and unless you have evidence of your own to offer I consider this conversation finished. BilledMammal (talk) 05:08, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So you're refusing to say which sources you rule in and out and provide any clarity as to what counts as independent - that doesn't sound like a solid foundation to build a name change argument off.

And you say there are examples of it being successful - which examples are these? The only one I've seen, as mentioned, is a government agency - which, as an aside, doesn't actually say conclusively that it worked. This is a very different kettle of fish to a private company, and I haven't seen any examples of that work. Turnagra (talk) 05:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m saying I haven’t bothered to do so, because doing so will make my case stronger, not weaker, and it is already sufficiently strong.

Regarding the NZGB, please see my previous request for evidence that this actively enforced law has no impact. BilledMammal (talk) 05:33, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asking so that I can be sure the same standards are being consistently applied, instead of moving the goalposts when it best suits you.

As far as evidence, you provide plenty of it yourself. Have a look at all the articles and publications which, by your logic, should be using every single dual name all of the time. They obviously don't, otherwise this would have been a much easier conversation. We don't say that people only follow the speed limit because the police issue speeding tickets, or that drug enforcement is the only thing stopping everyone from getting high 24/7, so why are you arguing that a very flimsy statement that an agency might be trying to enforce names means that everything which uses a dual name is suddenly unreliable? Turnagra (talk) 07:08, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We’ve also had this discussion before; as I said last time, enforcement isn’t perfect - it relies on non-compliance being reported to the agency, and we have evidence that it can be very slow, but that doesn’t mean that enforcement is non-existent.

To use your example, it would be like arguing that laws against speeding aren’t enforced because some people speed and get away with it.

so why are you arguing that a very flimsy statement that an agency might be trying to enforce names means that everything which uses a dual name is suddenly unreliable? I’m not making that argument; I’m pointing out that sources which are legally required to use the official name aren’t independent. I don’t know whether you continue to misunderstand or are just misrepresenting my position, but I’ve already corrected at least part of the misconception you’ve expressed in this statement (I’m not claiming it’s unreliable, I’m claiming it’s not independent.) - whatever the reason is, it’s clear that this discussion is no longer productive. I’ve made my point, and I’m going to leave it to be appropriately considered by the closer. BilledMammal (talk) 07:30, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support as most common and more concise. I think MOS:SLASH is a distraction here, as yes, slashes are unprefered ceteris paribus, but are nowhere near verboten. I know you won’t like this, Turnagra, but I think that atlases (and similar) are not ideal sources for this sort of name because (IMO) they should always list a dual name when the dual conveys two names from two different languages. That is the point of the dual name, after all. And yes, sometimes the dual name becomes common in its own right (hence Aoraki / Mount Cook), but this is a rarity, as discussed in the Biel/Bienne case at WP:MLN (where the “double name is the overwhelmingly most common name in English”). — HTGS (talk) 04:47, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree that they should do that, but I've yet to see an example where an atlas consistently does do that (that same atlas, for example, somewhat bizarrely just uses "Lake Ellesmere", despite Lake Ellesmere / Te Waihora being one of the most common dual names.) Until that does, surely the usage which does occur can still be used as an indication? Turnagra (talk) 04:51, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The 9 Google scholar results for "Nancy Sound" include many clearly unrelated items ([BOOK] Creative Resilience and COVID-19: Figuring the Everyday in a Pandemic; [BOOK] Wordless Syntax and Holarchic Flux in Terrain, Speaking Songs: Music-Analytical Approaches to Spoken Word, Cultures of listening: psychology, resonance, justice, "But for Nancy, sound"...). Meanwhile Tunagra has cited a number of reliable and relevant sources. Furius (talk) 01:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are 18 results, nine of which are relevant; I have already excluded the ones you mention from the count provided in my nomination. BilledMammal (talk) 02:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Names like this are never the common name in the English language, although they may be on official websites. However, WP:OFFICIALNAME. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned elsewhere, that's just blatantly untrue - several places have a dual name as their common name, like Aoraki / Mount Cook, Whakaari / White Island or Ōwairaka / Mount Albert. Whether or not its a dual name is immaterial. Turnagra (talk) 18:12, 15 March 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.