Talk:Wharepapa / Arthur Range

Mountains Low‑importance

	Mountains portal This article is part of WikiProject Mountains, a project to systematically present information on mountains. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Contributing FAQ for more information), or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MountainsWikipedia:WikiProject MountainsTemplate:WikiProject MountainsMountain articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

New Zealand Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anthropology: Oral tradition

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology 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.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by Oral tradition taskforce.

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) 20:31, 20 March 2023 (UTC) No consensus. --Hadal (talk) 22:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wharepapa / Arthur Range → Arthur Range (New Zealand) – Per WP:NZNC, unpopulated places that require disambiguation should use the format "Placename (New Zealand)". Natural disambiguation is inappropriate here both because of that naming convention and because the current title is not commonly used; a Google News search finds no uses for it, while a search for "Arthur Range" "New Zealand" finds nineteen. Ngrams provides the same result.

The proposed title also better conforms with MOS:SLASH, which recommends against using a slash because it suggests that the words are related without specifying how. The proposed title is more WP:RECOGNIZABLE as it leads with the common part of the name, and because readers are more likely to understand that this is the mountain range in New Zealand if we disambiguate with "New Zealand" than if we disambiguate with "Wharepapa". BilledMammal (talk) 07:17, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I think the slash might be breaking the ngram and google searches because just googling Wharepapa / Arthur Range brings up a few uses (https://ciel-outside.medium.com/wharepapa-range-b2afff97b5f2, https://skitouring.co.nz/mt-arthur-tablelands-and-mt-peel/, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThLEDq3Zqk8). Also in context, the rule in WP:NZNC to use Place Name (New Zealand) seems to just be to prevent confusion with other similar named places. As Wharepapa / Arthur Range isn't likely to be confused it isn't really relevant. The current name has the benefit of being what appears on the New Zealand official topographic map, which I imagine would be used a lot by hikers (https://www.doc.govt.nz/parks-and-recreation/places-to-go/nelson-tasman/places/kahurangi-national-park/things-to-do/tracks/mount-arthur-summit/) It also works as natural disambiguation with the Arthur Range of Tasmania.

Safes007 (talk) 13:47, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Safe007: The Google Ngrams dataset is collated from published books; those web pages aren't part of it, so can't show up. They also aren't reliable sources; when determining which name to use we are required to limit our consideration to reliable, independent, English-language sources.

The confusion is with the underlying title; if there were no other Arthur Range's this article would be titled Arthur Range as the common name for the location, but as there are we need to disambiguate it. Naming conventions (New Zealand) tells us how we should do this; we should use "Placename (New Zealand)". The alternative option, naturally disambiguating it, doesn't apply here as we have a naming convention, and because such titles are required to be in common use and "Wharepapa / Arthur Range" is not.

Finally, we don't give any preference to the official name of the place, and the New Zealand official topographic map lacks independence from the official name, making it a source we cannot use to base the article title on. BilledMammal (talk) 13:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - the fact that you WP:JUSTDONTLIKE dual names, which this essentially boils down to, isn't a relevant justification for a move. The proposed title is a far worse form of disambiguation when the current title doesn't require disambiguation whatsoever. ngrams has known issues with using slashes and so isn't going to provide a reliable result here - and even if it didn't, any result for "Wharepapa / Arthur Range" would also be added onto the counts for "Arthur Range" and "Wharepapa" individually, so is always going to appear lower (as an aside, Wharepapa has a much higher frequency for Arthur Range on ngrams when searched individually).

The name "Wharepapa / Arthur Range" has widespread usage enough to justify its use per WP:NATURAL, and by the nominator's own admission naming conventions don't replace policy and guidelines so NATURAL is still relevant in this case. Further to that, WP:NZNC calls for the use of a spaced slash when it comes to dual names, while nowhere does MOS:SLASH say anything about article titles. Turnagra (talk) 19:42, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While we commonly use Ngrams as a shorthand for Google Ngrams that is inaccurate; see n-gram. The stackoverflow question you linked to doesn't refer to Google Ngrams. BilledMammal (talk) 19:49, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that there are still issues with slashes in google ngrams. At any rate, though, that still doesn't address the double counting of component names or the lack of recent data. Turnagra (talk) 19:51, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Slashes require modification of the query but if the modifications are done do not cause issues; I have done the modifications. This will address the double counting, although I would note the ngrams was more to show the lack of use of the current title than the level of use of the proposed title. The lack of data since 2019 is addressed by the Google News results, which shows nineteen results for the proposed title, and zero results for the current title. BilledMammal (talk) 19:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nominator. We should avoid using a slash unless the common name includes one. --Spekkios (talk) 04:49, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:NZNC#Dual and alternative place names. Yeah, it's weird, but apparently it's the way it's done for New Zealand titles, and consistency in titles is important. In addition, the current title meets WP:NATURAL (which is a policy that has strong preference over disambiguators) since it contains no disambiguator. Any issues with this titling policy should probably be discussed on its talk page for proper exposure, not here. Steel1943 (talk) 00:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Steel1943: Same comment as in the other RM (I see I replied to that !vote at the same time as you made this !vote); that only tells us how to use dual names when we use dual names, it doesn’t instruct us to use dual names - the section instructing us to use dual names was removed following an RFC in late 2021. Regarding natural disambiguation, the proposed title needs to be in common use; the title here isn’t in common use, as seen in the news results. BilledMammal (talk) 00:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
...And same response. Steel1943 (talk) 01:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The range is in my neighbourhood and is known by locals by both its Māori and its English names, which supports the use of the dual name. Schwede 66 13:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per common name, which is abundantly clear by usage in domestic news organisations via Google news. All technical issues with the way Ngrams works are moot here; news sources are enough. NZNC does not take sides on whether to use dual names.
Per Schwede66, if both names are common that’s fantastic, and they should be made clear in the lead, but WP:MLN suggests picking one, except in cases where the “double name is the overwhelmingly most common name in English”. In this case it is not. — HTGS (talk) 21:38, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: This eliminates a clear disambiguation, in favour of a less clear one. Furius (talk) 01:56, 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) 15:58, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sweeping generalisation that just doesn't align with reality - plenty of dual names are the common name, such as Aoraki / Mount Cook, Whakaari / White Island, or Ōwairaka / Mount Albert. Turnagra (talk) 18:09, 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.

Ready for GA?

I've had a read of this article. Nice work. I would have liked to read a bit more about it:

How do you get access? As far as I know, the Flora car park is DOC's car park with the highest elevation.
More on the current use for tramping. And you can mountain-bike from Flora to Upper Takaka via Barron Flat (not sure of the physical extent of the range; the MTB route might or might not go through the area)
Geography: which rivers originate in the range?
Given the interesting geology, I would be very surprised if the area hasn't been subject to various theses. Maybe check in with DrThneed.
Should the Friends of Flora get a mention? I see that you've used their good work in references.

Apart from those content questions, all other GA aspects look reasonably solid. Schwede 66 04:58, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, this is great feedback! I'll try and find time to work on it shortly and get it all set for a GA nomination. Turnagra (talk) 10:03, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]