Talk:Stephens Island (New Zealand)

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

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Discussions:

No consensus, 22 March 2022, to Stephens Island / Takapourewa, see discussion.
Not moved, 30 May 2022, to Stephens Island, see discussion.
No consensus, 7 June 2022, to Stephens Island / Takapourewa, see discussion.

Top Predator

"Outstanding ecological features – Takapourewa has been calculated to have the greatest density of top predators both in numbers and biomass of any piece of land on Earth (calculated by the author and published in New Scientist C1996)". Perhaps this could be expanded to explain what these 'Top Predators' are. GrahamBould 10:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right now I cannot find any reference to 'Top Predators' or 'Outstanding ecological features', so I assume this issue went away when the article was revised to resolve the copyright issue talked about below. Herewhy (talk) 03:00, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright query

Telso

The phrase "(calculated by the author and published in New Scientist C1996)" suggests that this was taken from a published author's article, and while that person could have been the anonymous IP who contributed it, I doubt it. The "C1996" suggests it was taken directly from a webpage, but I have had no luck finding it. If someone has New Scientists from 1996, that would certainly be useful. Telso 20:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Outstanding ecological features – Takapourewa has been calculated to have the greatest density of top predators both in numbers and biomass of any piece of land on Earth (calculated by the author and published in New Scientist C1996)"

This could be a free interpretation from what Peter Lawless, Department of Conservation Nelson, New Zealand writes to New Scientists: "Leigh Dayton reports (New Scientist, Science, 12 March 1994) that the place with the highest density of predators in the world is the flood plain of the Adelaide River near Darwin. (...) The tuatara (Sphenodon punctatus) of Stephens Island, Cook Strait, New Zealand can shatter all of these records. These only living members of the Sphenodontia reach densities of over 1500 individuals to the hectare in forest remnants. " User:Andorraliechtenstein 8 jun 2009

Part of it is here with the rest behind a paywall. I will remove the claim from the article until concrete refs come to light. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of the large-scale clean-up project of a massive copyright infringement on Wikipedia. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously.

For more information on this situation, which involved a single contributor liberally copying material from print and internet sources into several thousand articles, please see the two administrators' noticeboard discussions of the matter, here and here, as well as the the cleanup task force subpage. Thank you. --Whpq (talk) 17:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Cam River (Canterbury) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 30 May 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: not moved. The consensus is against calling this island primary, with virtually all other participants finding the usage data too weak for the nominator's conclusion. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 00:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

– WP:PRIMARYTOPIC by usage; looking at pageviews, we see that it is much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term; it receives twice as many views as the second most viewed articles, and 60% of the total views. BilledMammal (talk) 10:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. It's in the same ballpark of obscurity as other dab page items – the New Zealand island receives barely 300 views per month (10 a day). Dab page is the best solution for such low-traffic pages. No such user (talk) 12:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. I remain unconvinced by the updated pageviews; while this one does technically satisfy "more likely than all other topics combined" it does so only just, and in my opinion the bar should be higher for obscure topics. I can support the alternative title Stephens Island / Takapourewa. No such user (talk) 08:10, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as proposed, Support move to Stephens Island / Takapourewa as natural disambiguation. When you break down the page views to daily it becomes far less clear cut. There are a couple of large peaks for the NZ island (likely related to the recent move request), but there are also plenty of days in which the Torres Strait island is ahead in views, and even a couple where the island in British Columbia is. This seems far clearer that there is no primary topic. Per WP:NATURAL, the island's dual name would be a far better means of disambiguating the place name. Turnagra (talk) 18:18, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The primary topic by usage is the article that is likely to be sought when readers search for that term. This article is that topic, with 60% of readers seeking it, and the fact that for 13 days of the past 365 other articles by the same name received slightly more views doesn't change that. If not moved to primary, oppose alternative proposed name, per WP:NZNC #3 and WP:NATURALNESS. BilledMammal (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  You said yourself that it needs to be more likely than all other topics combined, and I don't think this article meets that bar Turnagra (talk) 19:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  This article has received 3605 views in the past year. All other topics combined received 2412. BilledMammal (talk) 19:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My pageview link is incorrect, as it doesn't include readers who arrived at the article via a redirect. This is the correct link; This article receives three times as many views as the second most viewed articles, and 60% of the total views. BilledMammal (talk) 05:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as proposed, Support move to Stephens Island / Takapourewa. Same reason as per the Cam River move request the other week. Also, natural disambiguation makes much more sense to me than parenthetical. Schwede 66 06:17, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as proposed, Support move to Stephens Island / Takapourewa for reason noted above. Sensible way to disambiguate. ShakyIsles (talk) 07:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per No such user. Also oppose Stephens Island / Takapourewa, as it does not meet the naming WP:CRITERIA. --Spekkios (talk) 07:13, 2 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.

Requested move 7 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: no consensus. Many were not satisfied by the natural disambiguation argument, it turns out. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:10, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stephens Island (New Zealand) → Stephens Island / Takapourewa – WP:NATURAL - As per the above discussion it is a natural way to disambiguate and meets all naming WP:CRITERIA. ShakyIsles (talk) 01:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Same reason as per the Cam River move request the other week. Also, natural disambiguation makes much more sense to me than parenthetical. Schwede 66 01:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the reasons stated above and at the move request mentioned by Schwede above. I'd also note that it seems above that there is consensus to move to this title. Turnagra (talk) 09:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging the closer of the discussion above: Mellohi!. – Uanfala (talk) 09:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Basically I wanted to separate the RM into two, each dealing with a different issue. The previous RM originally dealt with whether to call this the primary topic, which was opposed by everyone. This one now is whether to use parenthesis vs. the dual name. I closed the old RM to make sure the original idea of moving to just plain "Stephens Island" is ruled out. I have done and advised something similar at Grey River (New Zealand), where the first RM was on whether it was the primary topic and I advised others to start another RM to confirm the dual name later.

I did not immediately move to the dual name this time because of my experience with other RMs regarding dual names. Every single time a dual name got brought up there was no consensus on whether to use it. But I'll concede that the novel argument of the need for natural disambiguation overriding the revised NCNZ may change the results this time, and possibly Grey River if somebody starts another RM there. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 14:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per WP:NZNC #3, which requires the current disambiguation. The current title also aligns better with WP:CRITERIA; it is more WP:RECOGNIZABLE, as the disambiguation of "New Zealand", which allows the reader to understand where the island is situated, is more useful to readers than "Takapourewa". In addition, the current title better meets WP:NATURALNESS, as parenthetical disambiguation is more natural for readers and editors than slash disambiguation. BilledMammal (talk) 10:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per BilledMammal. Parenthetical makes much more sense in this case because the proposed name is not commonly used. --Spekkios (talk) 03:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Common name isn't actually the point here – per WP:NATURAL we can use an alternative name that is also regularly used as a better means of disambiguating the page. Given that the dual name is used by local encyclopedias, museums, tourism operators, land visualisation tools, NGOs, academic articles, and google maps, I'd say that the dual name more than meets that criteria. I'd also note that in many cases, even when a dual name is official the historic single names are still recorded by the NZGB place name gazetteer. In this case however, Stephens Island / Takapourewa is the only name recorded for the island. Turnagra (talk) 19:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Generally only if the alternative is very commonly used. However, this isn't. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:56, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As demonstrated, it's used plenty well enough for this purpose. Turnagra (talk) 18:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, it really isn't. Contrary to popular belief, WP:NATURAL does not mandate the non-use of parenthetical disambiguators or use of them only as a last resort. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:15, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We don’t use two names from different languages to disambiguate pages. There is no evidence that use of the “dual name” is treating it as one single name; it is far more likely organisations are using both the Māori and the English name for the island to show respect for both languages. Especially when the two names are commonly reordered around the slash, or alternatively put in parentheses. Further, there is no official name for the island, so rather than make up a bilingual one, the common name should prevail. — HTGS (talk) 21:49, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to point out that whilst it is not an official name, the New Zealand Gazetteer does not even have an entry for "Stephens Island". The only entry they have is for "Stephens Island / Takapourewa" (under ID 54681). Schwede 66 01:14, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dual names are absolutely treated as a single name, and you absolutely already know that, so how about we dispense with the accusation that we've just made this name up and just accept that it's got more than enough usage across the board to justify it being used as a natural means of disambiguation here? Turnagra (talk) 09:28, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a broader discussion, but I would be interested in seeing the evidence you have that people treat dual names as a single name? Even looking at Aoraki / Mount Cook, the dual name that is probably the most accepted, Google Trends suggests that people treat them as two different names. BilledMammal (talk) 09:53, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the best analogy for it is given names of people – the full name is a name of its own right, as is the first name and the surname. Nobody would dispute that Jacinda Ardern is a name, for example, but after using that initially you might switch to just Jacinda or just Ardern, or even use them interchangeably. That use doesn't negate the fact that her name is still Jacinda Ardern, and she would be referred to as such in most cases. Turnagra (talk) 23:09, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How do United Kingdom or North Korea fit into your analogy? Forgetting even that issue, why don’t we put Teller (magician) at Raymond Teller? We use common names on Wikipedia… but you’ve already been told that countless times. — HTGS (talk) 01:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We're not proposing the Democratic People's Republic of Stephens Island, or the United Kingdom of Great and Little Barrier Island. I also find it odd that you're trying to justify your stance using one of the only examples of your point, instead of the tens of thousands of articles which use people's names in the way I'm using as an analogy. Turnagra (talk) 03:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Turnagra you in turn are selectively ignoring the tens of thousands of place names that do not use full official names, dual names or slash-separated bilingual names. The vast majority of places use their common name, just the same as the vast majority of people use their common name too.

As for your point about the Democratic People's Republic of Stephens Island, I can only ask why your personal preference for dual names should be rated higher than other people’s personal preference for the full name of the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland? Maybe that’s the root of our problem. — HTGS (talk) 11:08, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think first and last names are the best analogy; I think it is more similar to James Carroll and Timi Kara; those two names are often put together, but they are still treated as different names. BilledMammal (talk) 02:37, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a poor example, as those names have no link other than being for the same person. Your analogy would be better suited for something like the North Island and Te Ika-a-Māui, which isn't a formal dual name but rather alternate names for the same place. In contrast, dual names are treated as a single name, but each part is also a name in its own right. Turnagra (talk) 03:25, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The question though is whether they are treated as a single name, or if they are treated as a means to record multiple separate feature names. BilledMammal (talk) 03:38, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you seem to be one of the only people incapable of understanding that they are treated as a single name. Turnagra (talk) 03:46, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asking for evidence in support of the position that they are generally treated as a single name. Do you have any? My own research has not been able to turn up anything. BilledMammal (talk) 04:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've given you hundreds of examples across the vexatious move requests you and others have carried out. Perhaps the LINZ website is the best to sum it up, which makes the distinction between dual names, which requires that you use both official names, and alternative names, where either one or the other of the official names can be used. Perhaps you could take a page from this editorial, which states that dyed-in-the-wool Pākehā have no reason to be afraid of dual names. Turnagra (talk) 04:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The second reference doesn't address the question, and the first says Dual naming requires that you use both official names, for example, Aoraki / Mount Cook on official documents. This suggests that they are not treated as a single name, but instead as two names that are required to be used together. In addition, the NZGB can only tell us how they are supposed to be treated, not how they are actually treated. BilledMammal (talk) 05:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is bordering on WP:WIKILAWYERING – they are clearly treated as a single name. See the difference in how the NZGB treats alternative names (eg. North Island), where the other name is listed as "Other official name", and dual names (eg. Aoraki / Mount Cook), where it is listed as a single name. At any rate, this is still in keeping with my original example of personal names, where "Jacinda" and "Ardern" are both names in their own right, but nobody in their right mind would try to say that "Jacinda Ardern" is not also a name. Turnagra (talk) 08:53, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we are going to agree here. In particular, I think we are talking about different things - you are talking about whether the NZGB considers them to be a single name, or two names that are required to be used together. HTGS and I are talking about how organizations use the dual name; whether they are using it to use both names, or whether they are using it as a single name.

I suspect the answer is the former, as dual names are rarely used in a consistent format - for Stephens Island, we have "Takapourewa/Stephens Island", "Stephens Island, Takapourewa", "Takapourewa (Stephens Island)", "Takapourewa-Stephens Island", "Stephens Island (Takapourewa)", and "Stephens Island/Takapourewa". BilledMammal (talk) 10:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – having a slash is not natural. cookie monster 755 06:30, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are hundreds of names in New Zealand which use a slash and are plenty natural - see, for example, Aoraki / Mount Cook or Whakaari / White Island. Turnagra (talk) 09:11, 11 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.