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
This page has been moved around a bit. Most recently, I renamed it from "South Cape" to "South West Cape, New Zealand", because both my atlases and all the Google hits I could find call it "South West Cape", not "South Cape", and because there is already a "South West Cape" article for the one in Tasmania. — Johan the Ghostseance23:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a confusing move then - because just to the west of South Cape ( South Cape as is is called on the current Nautical Charts & it is the most southerly point etc & the name Cook gave to this most southerly point (Cape South)) is a .... South West Cape! (Puhiwaero). So the South West Cape is really the South Cape - not to be confused with the actual South West Cape - a mile or two to the West? LawrieM (talk) 20:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looking the Cape up in Google Earth, it seems further south than Murphy Island. The internet is pretty scarce about articles refering to both places (except for pages coming more or less directly from this article), or about this Murphy Island in general... Is it "certain" that Murphy Island is further south? Thanks, Ibn Battuta19:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
South West Cape Latitude 42 17.428 S -- Murphy Island 42 17.366 S. So the winner of the most Southerly of the two is ... South Cape LawrieM (talk) 19:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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, WP:WIAN, WP:NCGN 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, this can be revisited. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Shibbolethink(♔♕)12:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support as above - moves to official dual place names follow a long precedent of doing so and have previously been determined as uncontroversial. As other users have pointed out, the dual name would also help eliminate the need for a disambiguation. Turnagra (talk) 03:03, 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 a move and does not represent a consensus, and it is dishonest to claim as such. Users not understanding naming conventions and changing article names is should not be seen as a precedent, and if it is, the only precedent that has been establish is a precedent of ignoring guidelines for WP:ADVOCACYSpekkios (talk) 09:11, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this instance is a bit more difficult as it's not as widely covered as, say, the Southern Alps / Ka Tiritiri o te Moana or the Clutha River / Mata-Au, but let's still take a look through the criteria you've pointed out. WP:NCGN states that articles should use the widely accepted name (WP:WIAN), and that sources which can be used include:
Major English language encyclopedias, widely used atlases, modern country names and spelling of place names - all either not relevant or can't find anything because of the small size of South Cape / Whiore.
gazetteers - the NZGB Gazetteer uses the dual place name
databases - both the above gazetteer and the US Board of Geographic Names database use the dual name, only referring to "South Cape" as an old form of the name.
Maps - topo maps of the area use the dual name. This map from 1999 also uses the dual name, showing that it has been in use for over 20 years.
Government agencies to standardise place names - the NZGB is responsible for this, and recognise the dual name as the official name as above in the gazetteer. The US BGN above is also cited by this row as a source to use
Further down in the guidelines, WP:MPN says to use the modern name for the feature, which in this instance is the dual name. As to WP:RECENTISM, this explicitly states that it's not wikipedia policy or part of the guidelines. A better, actual policy in this case would be WP:NAMECHANGES, which states that extra weight is given to sources used after the name change. At any rate, given that this change happened over 20 years ago, I'm curious as to how long your criteria for recent changes is.
Finally, I'd like to remind you that WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH is a thing. I'm more than happy to go back and tally up the users involved on both sides in past move requests / discussions on dual place names as it is only two/three users at most that consistently oppose the shifts compared to a much wider group in favour of dual names, but that doesn't seem like a productive use of time. Wikipedia has enough policies and guidelines that don't necessarily work in alignment that both sides are able to try and cite justification for their views, which is why move requests like this are important to establish consensus and track record.
In this instance, it's also worth pointing out WP:PRECISION. Shifting to the dual name eliminates the need to have the disambiguation of (New Zealand) in the title, as South Cape is a pretty generic and inaccurate name on its own. Shifting to South Cape / Whiore is more precise and leaves no confusion about which instance the article is referring to. Turnagra (talk) 21:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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) 07:11, 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.
level-5 vital article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
