Jump to content

Talk:Mount Aspiring / Tititea

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

Requested move 29 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: no consensus. There is no clear consensus for the move, as there are strong arguments and sources on both sides, and the number of users supporting and opposing the move is roughly balanced. Therefore, I would suggest that the article title should remain "Mount Aspiring / Tititea" until a more convincing case for the move can be made, or a better compromise can be reached. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Aspiring / Tititea → Mount Aspiring – Per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE, and MOS:SLASH.

Mount Aspiring is clearly the common name for this location; in the past year alone there have been around 40 news articles using Mount Aspiring, compared to just 5 for any form of the dual name. Google Scholar shows a similar result, with 25 results for Mount Aspiring from the past year, compared to one for any form of the dual name.

Note that the third option, Tititea, receives no use on either Google News or Google Scholar. BilledMammal (talk) 05:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC) — Relisting.  ASUKITE 17:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Did you even look at the results? Not one of the first page in your hundreds of news articles is actually referring to the mountain. They all refer to either Mount Aspiring College or Mount Aspiring National Park. The name of the mountian is Mount Aspiring / Tititea. It is what is has been called for the last 25 years and is named as such on all modern maps. 06:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC) ShakyIsles (talk) 06:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The mountain is located in the national park, which is referred to both as "Mount Aspiring National Park" and "Tititea / Mount Aspiring National Park" - I felt references to it were indicative of what the common name of the mountain it was named after is. I overlooked the school, but I note that it is also named after the mountain and known in full as "Te Kura o Tititea Mount Aspiring College".
To satisfy your concerns, I've updated the move request to exclude those results; it reduces us from hundreds to around 40 for the proposed title, and from 22 to 5 for the current title; even with this cleaner query, the common name remains very clear. BilledMammal (talk) 08:06, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per ShakyIsles, the results are almost entirely irrelevant. I've been going through dozens of the pages of your results that you've cited and have found almost no relevant results. I even tried filtering out results for the national park, college, and road, by which point I was finally getting a few relevant results, but a greater number of results for the Dulux paint colour. To be fair, the same also applied to the dual name results due to the Māori name of Mount Aspiring College being Te Kura o Tititea, but even accounting for that the proportion of relevant results in the dual name search seemed a lot higher.
This is also true for the google scholar results. Looking at the results you flagged for the single name, there are:
  • Mount Aspiring National Park: 15
  • Mount Aspiring Hut: 1
  • Mount Aspiring College: 1
  • Aspiring terrain rocks: 1
  • Name of a species of fungi: 1
  • Irrelevant poetry ("At that one mount, aspiring o'er its fellows"): 1
  • Relevant, but actually from 1874: 1
  • Other false results: 1
  • Unable to access: 2
Frankly I'm amazed, I was honestly expecting at least some relevant results. I also note that in the process of me writing this comment you've updated your search queries, but the results are still not painting the picture you think they are as they due to a large number of false results. For example, this is referring to a pass in the National Park, roughly 40km away from Mount Aspiring / Tititea, this is referring to a nearby locality called Mount Aspiring, this is referring to Mt Aspiring Kapa Haka, this is flagging an unreliable user comment, this is still the school and this is one of several still flagging the paint colour. The dual name is far clearer and returning many more relevant results as a proportion, even before you filtered them down. Add to that the dual name's usage in a range of maps, databases, atlases and other sources which use the dual name, and there's no good justification for using the old name. Turnagra (talk) 08:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mount Aspiring National Park As I said to ShakyIsles, I consider the decision reliable sources make to use either the dual name or the single name for the national park named after and encompassing the mountain to be indicative of the common name for the mountain. However, even if you exclude those, and assume that your numbers are correct, we are left with no google scholar results for either (the single dual name one is a PhD thesis, not a reliable source) and so need to rely on the news results.
There, even accounting for the remaining irrelevant results (note the fuzziness of the "around 40" due to their presence) I'm sure you'll agree we still have far more results than the five we have for the dual name. BilledMammal (talk) 08:41, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They're fundamentally different things - the name Westland Tai Poutini National Park doesn't mean that the name of the district is Westland Tai Poutini. It's true that the park was named after the mountain, when it was established in 1964. But times change, and usage now indicates that the clearest name for the mountain is the current dual one. Honestly, I think it's clear here that you were in such a rush to move away from the dual name that you didn't properly do your due diligence on this one, and it's showing. Turnagra (talk) 08:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still feel the national park is indicative, given how some sources choose to use the mountains dual name for it and others don't, but we won't agree on this so not much point discussing further.
and usage now indicates that the clearest name for the mountain is the current dual one How? Even your review shows dozens of results using the single name for this mountain, compared to just five using the dual name. I did make some mistakes with the query as I only checked a random sampling of results and not all of them, but that shouldn't change the fact that once the query is cleaned up the common name is still Mount Aspiring. BilledMammal (talk) 08:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is a crazy argument. Its is like saying references to Bombay Gin support the name Bombay over Mumbai. The national park and the mountain are different things. The National Park was established in 1964 and named after the mountain (as it was cnamed in 1964). The mountain had a name change in 1998 and is now commonly refered to as Mount Aspiring / Tititea. ShakyIsles (talk) 20:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If Bombay Gin is a geographic region named after and encompassing Mumbai, that people sometimes call Mumbai Gin, then yes - it’s like saying that.
now commonly refered to as Mount Aspiring / Tititea Do you have evidence for this? At the moment all the evidence suggests the opposite is true, even after cleaning up and manually reviewing the queries. BilledMammal (talk) 22:58, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per NZGB and increasing convention. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This reads as an appeal to authority. We generally avoid any preference for names on the basis that they are official (WP:OFFICIALNAMES). — HTGS (talk) 21:15, 4 December 2023 (UTC) edited 04:29, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've misunderstood that essay. Our guidelines don't tell us to avoid the official name, rather that we don't explicitly use a name just because it's the official name (except in some circumstances, such as the WP:NZNC macron policy). Given the amount of research which the NZGB put into their naming and justifications for names, citing them is perfectly valid here. Turnagra (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You’re right, and that is what I meant. I was either speaking shorthand, or misspoke; I don’t remember which. Corrected now — HTGS (talk) 04:29, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, appreciate the clarification - I've definitely got into more than a few pickles by missing words as a result of thinking faster than I type! Turnagra (talk) 04:31, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Recent reliable sources show no indication that English language has trended towards the dual name. Worth noting that the dual name gives a Māori language name and an English name, so it’s easy to see why there is a preference for including both in official documents, while use in English has kept a preference for the English name. See sources, none of which make any mention of the Māori name: Herald Nov 2023, RNZ Nov 2023, Stuff Feb 2023, Stuff Feb 2023 (different story), Stuff 2018, The Press 2018 with in depth coverage of the peak itself.
The list goes on and on, and there is clearly no expectation that the public needs Tititea to understand which peak is being referred to. This is a classic United Kingdom vs United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland case, per WP:CRITERIA. — HTGS (talk) 21:01, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We don't arbitrarily shorten names just because we don't like the full name - Bosnia and Herzegovina is not at "Bosnia", and the United Nations is not at "The UN", even though both names would still be easily recognisable to people still. As for your sources, I'm also more than capable of doing the same cherry picking of sources as you've done, but that tells us little about the actual usage. Looking at every scholarly article to mention the mountain since 2019 (and manually filtering out irrelevant results such as the national park, to prevent sources which mention both the park and the mountain being excluded), I've found:
  • Mount Aspiring / Tititea region: 3
  • Mount Aspiring region: 3
  • Tititea Mount Aspiring: 4
  • Mount Aspiring Tititea: 1
  • Mount Aspiring: 4
  • Tititea: 1
One source also uses the dual name, Tititea, and Mount Aspiring interchangeably an equal number of times each.
Note that for the region ones I applied discretion based on the context and the location being described. If it was in the immediate vicinity of the mountain I included it, but if it was describing somewhere further afield (eg. the Dart Glacier or Haast Pass / Tioripatea) I ruled it as talking about the park. But regardless, this shows roughly equivalent levels of usage between the dual name and the older European name in recent coverage. Add to that the wide range of reliable, independent sources which do use the dual name, such as maps, gazetteers, park guides and so on, and I'm not seeing any justification to move away from the dual name. Turnagra (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify how you decided to exclude results? I'm looking through scholarly results since 2019, and I'm seeing more than four results using "Mount Aspiring". BilledMammal (talk) 03:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I excluded results where it was described as the "Mt Aspiring area" but which were talking about something that is within the park but quite a distance from the mountain, such as the Routeburn Track or the Makarora River, as it would be a stretch to call those within the vicinity of the mountain and so the reference is more likely to be in relation to the national park. I also excluded references to "Mt Aspiring" when it was in the context of a list of national parks, as again the context makes it clear that the reference is to the national park, not the mountain. Turnagra (talk) 03:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject New Zealand has been notified of this discussion. Bensci54 (talk) 17:04, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: Relisted to give time for further discussion, as requested ASUKITE 17:53, 6 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mount_Aspiring_/_Tititea&oldid=1195105201"