Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (New Zealand)

Is LINZ a "disinterested" source?

@Turnagra: This has come up several times over the years in various requested moves, so rather than repeating the same discussion time after time with slightly different context, I was hoping we could have a general discussion here, with the participation of other editors, and if not resolve the question at least better understand each others positions.

According to WP:WIAN, we should use disinterested and authoritative reference works. In regards to LINZ, I agree that it is authoritative, but I don't believe it is disinterested, because it seeks to promote the use to Te Reo Maori.

This can be seen in its Maori Language Plan Report, which says The Board regularly has opportunities to increase use and status of te reo Māori via its authority to name places, and then commits to use that opportunities by saying The Board agrees to support the promotion of te reo Māori where and when possible.

This is reinforced by the Kaupapa for Māori Place Names, which says The Board has functions to collect and encourage the use of original Māori place names for recording on official maps and charts. It also says, under its principles An original Māori place name, where suitable, should be given preference.

We can also see evidence for this in the NZGB Frameworks, which lays out a plan to use dual names to transition from single European names to single Maori names, as well saying that the Board has statutory functions (including a Treaty clause representing partnership) and strategic goals, to collect and encourage the use of original Māori place names.

While these may all be noble aims, it does result in them not being the disinterested source that WIAN tells us to use; if you disagree, I would be genuinely interested in hearing why. BilledMammal (talk) 06:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

The legislation sets out the Board's principle functions, which make no mention of the topic. Under the heading of 'other functions' the Board may "encourage the use of original Māori names". The Board decides each case on its merit, sometimes using Māori names, sometimes dual names and sometimes English names. Furthermore, the guidance is about 'widely accepted names'. Geographic features in remote locations often have no widely accepted name; most are largely unknown and only rarely written about. The first most readers will see of them is on a map, or DoC guide, which will use the official name. Using the official name also has the merit of being much simpler than disputing the quantity and validity of other sources. Johnragla (talk) 07:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Most of your response goes beyond the topic here, so I've #Using the official dual name when "no widely accepted name" opened a separate section for it to keep this discussion on track.

As for the section that is on topic, I'm not sure quite what you are arguing; can you elaborate? BilledMammal (talk) 07:51, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I'd be interested to see what Turnagra has to say, and others. Thank you for the references. As you doubtless know, I have been saying for years that all government connected entities cannot be regarded as truly reliable or secondary sources when it comes to place names, for the simple reason they are obliged to promote Maori, which is what your links show. The same thing will exist in other entities not just LINZ. Whether that is a good or bad thing is irrelevant. It is regrettable that many, but not all, editors here take any mention of this problem as some sort of anti-Maori racist rant. The real issue to discuss is how we incorporate these sources like LINZ into wikipedia, bearing in mind we are not bound to promote Maori language or culture in any way, while also having to deal with the reality that most sources we can use are affected by this obligation to promote Maori, artificially if necessary. The countless plans to do this in my opinion are approaching this from the wrong angle and just complicating the problem. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm making the points that -

1. the Board has the power to make decisions based on Te Reo, but is under no obligation and does make decisions not to use it.

2. the WP guidance only relates to widely accepted names.

3. to the extent that any name is widely accepted by WP readers, it'll be the official name, because that is most widely available in commonly used information sources.

4. use of the official name avoids endless discussions on talk pages.

Is that sufficient elaboration? Johnragla (talk) 08:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I'll reply to your first point here, as the rest is better suited to the section below: the Board has the power to make decisions based on Te Reo, but is under no obligation and does make decisions not to use it.

Whether the board is obligated to promote Maori is, in my opinion, immaterial - the question is whether they seek to do so; the sources I have presented establish that they do.

However, I also believe that they are obligated to do so; my sources refer to statutory functions to promote Maori; elsewhere these are referred to as "legal functions", such as in this report submitted to the UN, which adds that it has Treaty of Waitangi partnership obligations to meet - these obligations can be seen in the NZGB Act of 2008, which says that the Treaty confers on the Board the function of encouraging the use of original Māori names of geographic features on official charts and official maps. Elsewhere, the NZGB describes this as legislative functions requiring the New Zealand Geographic Board to collect original Māori place names and encourage their use on official maps, charts and documents.

However, before we go further with this discussion, I want to establish something; do you believe that LINZ is a disinterested source, or do you just believe that we should use its name as a matter of course regardless of whether it is disinterested? BilledMammal (talk) 08:48, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, NZGB is a disinterested source. Any source can have bias and there's no more reason to pick on NZGB than other sources. It makes decisions for both languages and has left a large majority of places without official names, though they often have alternatives, including the largest city, Tāmakimakaurau, or Auckland. If NZGB awarded that city an official name it'd be clear what the common name was. At the opposite end of the spectrum are the places with official names, but no population. Yes, I believe those places should use the official name, as evidence of any other name is sparse, contentious and leads to long, distracting discussions such as this. Johnragla (talk) 09:23, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, NZGB is a disinterested source. Can you explain why you believe that given all the evidence I have presented telling us that, in accordance with their legal obligations, they are seeking to promote the use of Maori? BilledMammal (talk) 09:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

cos they don't always choose Te Reo, they research and they consult and I'm not aware that the alternative sources do any of those. Johnragla (talk) 09:47, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we're going to be able to agree here; your position appears to be that anything short of always choosing Maori means they are disinterested, while typically "disinterested" would mean that they have no preference for either Maori or English. BilledMammal (talk) 09:56, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Whatever their bias, all sources meet the criteria of Wikipedia:Independent sources when it comes to non-populated geographical features. There is no such thing as being unduly influenced by a lake. With populated places it's more arguable but I would still say that preferring non-government sources when it comes to determining a common name for a locality is itself a form of bias. That said, the official name is not definitive if another name is demonstrably more commonly used. (t · c) buidhe 00:23, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:Independent sources says An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective. Independent sources have editorial independence and no conflicts of interest.

Sources that are legally obligated to use the official name lack editorial independence - I assume that isn't a controversial statement?

As for LINZ itself, it has a vested interest in a sub-aspect of the topics, specifically the name, as established by the sources I provided above. BilledMammal (talk) 07:23, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

What is LINZ vested interest? LINZ looks at historical records works with the public, local councils, and mana whenua to determine the actual names for places. How is there a "vested interest”? There is not some giant conspiracy here. They literally work to try and determine the best official name given the history and of what places are called. ShakyIsles (talk) 18:55, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Because they are obligated to promote the Maori name. BilledMammal (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I think reading LINZ as a non-independent source and interreting its interest in placenames as, essentially, COI is not grounded in enwiki policies or guidelines. Such sources should be understood as independent - and I belive they are, except in instances where editors prefer not to consider them in WEIGHT discussions... Newimpartial (talk) 20:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand; a vested interest is not the same thing as an interest. They have a vested interest in promoting Maori place names due to legal obligations to do so; per WP:IS, that means they are not independent on that topic.

With that said, they are only one source; if we are in agreement that sources that are legally obligated to use the official name lack editorial independence then I am not too concerned about whether we do or don't consider LINZ independent - an additional source in one way or the other is rarely going to change the result. BilledMammal (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Some people are fumbling around trying to act like a legal expert giving their opinion. Legislation exists that obliges Crown entities to promote Maori issues. I could tell you that that does not compromise LINZ's independence in how that is carried out (which addresses your concerns), but LINZ still has to do it because the law says it does. I could say that but I won't because I am a WP editor, not a High Court judge. Instead, I will look at something called common sense to put my case across. The problem is that common sense and (unintentional) personal opinion/bias rarely go hand in hand, so I might as well not waste my time. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:27, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

The idea that a legal obligation to observe the law constitutes a confilct of interest - and let's be clear, the kind of vested interest that matters in sourcing is a conflict of interest - is, as far as I know, completely and utterly unsubstantiated by policy. Lots of legal obligations exist, including obligations to publish various facts, documents, and findings, and I have seen no reason whatsoever why those obligations should be seen as undermining the independence of a source in relation to a topic - unless some other, actual COI exists for that source, on that topic. Newimpartial (talk) 22:34, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's a conflict of interest, I'm saying it's a vested interest - they're related, but they are not the same thing nor is one a subset of the other.

For example, while Facebook doesn't have a conflict of interest with regards to Facebook, it isn't an independent source on the topic of Facebook because it has a vested interest. BilledMammal (talk) 22:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Here's a piece of common sense. A website from the North Korean govt telling us how well it is maintaining the human rights of its citizens would be dismissed as unreliable by most wikipedians. A similar website from the govt of the UK about its citizens would be treated as a valid RSS. What's the difference? Initially none, except personal opinion of WP editors. To create a valid 'difference' we would have to look more deeply into the sources which would not be as simple as it might sound, to show that the NK govt is not as reliable as the UK govt. Therefore, government websites are not all the same. I suggest they are firstly, not RSS, and t be treated as such they need to prove themselves. In the case of NZ and place names I am suggesting the basis on which the NZ govt related websites are treated as reliable has changed, so we too need to change our approach to cater for that.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I've read this discussion in full and with an open mind, but I still honestly don't see any issue with using LINZ or other government agencies as sources. Every organisation will have a naming policy of some sort, including media outlets, which dictates what sort of names they use. This is no different, and is simply ensuring consistency across the products that the relevant agency produces. Every organisation will also have a kaupapa that informs the work they do, which doesn't make them any less reliable of their own accord. I'm inclined to agree with buidhe and Newimpartial that ignoring such sources lacks any proper validation in PAG, and in itself is a form of bias against particular sources and the names that they use. We shouldn't use only official sources of course, just as we shouldn't use only non-official sources, but given that some places have government sources as the only available material it seems incredibly biased to ignore them altogether, particularly as it has an underlying assumption that the name used by government sources won't be the common name. Turnagra (talk) 21:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

@Turnagra: other government agencies ... ignoring such sources lacks any proper validation in PAG.

Can you clarify why you believe this lack of validation exists? WP:IS makes it clear that for a source to be considered independent it needs to have editorial independence; we've well established that official documents lack such editorial independence on the topic of official place names. BilledMammal (talk) 02:30, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

We've not established that, you've asserted it and nobody can be bothered with getting into an endless dispute with you about it. Sources obviously have editorial independence from whichever feature they're writing about, except in very limited situations where the feature has legal personhood and legal advocates whose role it is to speak on its behalf (but even then, they're probably still independent enough in those instances). As mentioned previously, any organisation - governmental or otherwise - will have adopted positions on how to refer to names for internal consistency, which may in some instances be taken at a higher level (eg. a parent corporation). This does not make them any less reliable for our purposes and there are no grounds to exclude them for that. Turnagra (talk) 09:32, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Sources obviously have editorial independence from whichever feature they're writing about I don't think you understand what editorial independence is.

Editorial independence refers to the freedom of publications to make decisions about the content of their publication without undue influence from outside sources, such as advertisers, government entities, or other external pressures. It doesn't matter whether they are independent from the subject; it matters whether they are free to speak independently on it.

In this case, where laws exist requiring the official name to be used in official documents, they lack editorial independence. BilledMammal (talk) 02:33, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I understand the concept of editorial independence, I merely disagree with your assertions around it in this instance, and think that government agencies still have plenty of editorial independence in these cases. I'd also thank you not to speak down to me. Turnagra (talk) 02:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I apologize, but based on your quoted comment, you appeared to be conflating independence from a topic with editorial independence.

Can you explain why you disagree?:

1. Do you disagree that official documents are legally required to use the official name, or
2. Do you disagree that a legal requirement to use the official names prevents editorial independence in that narrow area, or
3. Do you disagree for some other reason

BilledMammal (talk) 03:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

In my view, you have not at all eatsblished that official documents lack such editorial independence on the topic of official place names - this is simply a thing you have repeatedly asserted (albeit with the occasional rhetorical flourish).

It seems to me that you are understanding "official place names" to be something akin to a marque or trademark which serves as an asset for the owner - but even if such assets existed in the form of place names (and I don't believe they do), their value would not accrue to the issuing body.

It is as though you were asserting that a list of trademarks issued by an intellectual property office lacks independence from the corporatations on the list and the trademarks they recognize, because of a vested interest the intellectual property office has in each and every property registered with it. To say the least, this is a novel and unusual application of the principle of independent sourcing, and one for which I have as yet seen no support in the enwiki P&G milieu. Newimpartial (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Can you clarify why you feel I have not established this? I've presented copious evidence that official documents are legally required to use the dual name, and it seems obvious to me that if you are legally required to do something you do not have editorial independence in regards to that something. BilledMammal (talk) 02:33, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

To clarify, then: the existence of legal mandates of various kinds is not generally understood as a limitation on source independence. To recycle two examples I have used elsewhere, national intellectual property offices operate under national intellectual property frameworks, and national statistical organizations typically operate under a thick web of legal requirements. But neither are typically seen as having a vested interest in the privately-held intellectual property they register, or in the population of sub-national units they report. Newimpartial (talk) 11:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not arguing that official documents which are legally required to use the official name have a "vested interest"; for those, I am merely arguing that because they are legally required to use the official name they lack editorial independence in that narrow area.

I want to understand why you don't believe I have established that official documents lack such editorial independence on the topic of official place names; above I asked Turnagra:

1. Do you disagree that official documents are legally required to use the official name, or
2. Do you disagree that a legal requirement to use the official names prevents editorial independence in that narrow area, or
3. Do you disagree for some other reason

I think asking you the same may help advance this discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 13:04, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Mosty I suposse I dispute the premise, which is a combination of 2 and 3.

The relevant descriptions in wikipedia P&Gs inclide the following.

From WP:N - "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it.

From WP:USEPRIMARY - a third-party or independent source, with no significant financial or other conflict of interest.

From WP:IND - Independent sources have editorial independence (advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (there is no potential for personal, financial, or political gain to be made from the existence of the publication).

None of these P&G passages - even WP:IND, which mentions editorial independence - says or implies that sources that follow a specified style or nomenclature in their editorial decisions therefore lacks the "editorial independence" necessary to be an independent source that counts towards WP:N. In fact, WP:IND points to the article editorial independence, which refers to content decisions rather than matters of style. I can clearly remember instances of interference by owners in matters of style - for example, when Conrad Black insisted that the Canadian newspapers he owned had to add "Mr.", "Mrs.", etc. when referring to people by name - but these style decisions don't affect the independence of sources for wiki purposes.

To give another example that might be clearer to the topic under discussion - there is now at least one United Nations nomenclature that uses "Czechia", and numerous publishing bodies are either externally required or directed by their principals to use this UN nomenclature in their decisions. GoodDay seems to be arguing that no such publication counts as independent with respect to determining the common name of that country, which seems absurd to me. If Czechia is not the common name of the country, it is because sources using Czech Republic are still a minority, and not because some editors are required by the styles set by their principals to use Czechia. Newimpartial (talk) 14:48, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

therefore lacks the "editorial independence" necessary to be an independent source that counts towards WP:N I think you're interpreting my position as being broader than it is.

All I am saying that if sources are legally required to use a certain name for a certain location, then they lack editorial independence solely in regards to the name of that location. The rest of the source can still be independent and suitable to use for the purposes of establishing WP:N or any other purpose that we need independent sources for.

Consider the hypothetical where New Zealand passes a law that Swains Island must be referred to as "Olohega" in all New Zealand official documents, likely for the purposes of advancing the Tokelauan claim to the island. Usage after the passage of this law in such documents wouldn't be independent usage due to a lack of editorial independence on that narrow topic, and wouldn't be helpful in determining what the common name is, even if the rest of the source is independent.

The same is the case here; the motive is different (increasing the use and status of te reo Māori, rather than supporting a territorial claim) but otherwise the situation is identical; usage in such sources is not independent usage, and is not helpful in determining what the common name is. BilledMammal (talk) 15:07, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't see any basis in enwiki policy for this idiosyncratic notion of what is or isn't an independent source in a specific context. I don't think we can know - and if we do know, I don't think it matters - what LINZ's motives are in using a specific nomenclature any more than it matters why the National Post started using Mr. and Mrs. or why various publications inside or outside the UN started using "Czechia". If the source is independent of the subject (and in this instance the subject is the place, not the place's name) then it "counts" towards WEIGHT on various aspects of that subject (including the place's name). Newimpartial (talk) 16:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, all I have been talking about for the last several replies is the official documents that are legally required to use the official name. This does not include LINZ, which is a different matter.

For these documents, all that matters is whether they are able to exercise independence when deciding which name to use. If they aren't - if in this narrow area they lack editorial independence - then solely in relation to the name they aren't independent. BilledMammal (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

What is the position of literal translations? (unofficial and uncommon)

I've noticed a lot of articles recently that list unofficial, uncommon and literal Maori translations of places in New Zealand. Examples include Cambridge, Oxford, and Featherston (the last one's asserted Maori name is so uncommon, NZGB made Featherston an official english-only name).

Personally, i don't think this is appropriate. I think we should have a clear rule where a name (English or Maori) is only added as an primary/alternative name on wikipedia if either:

1. It is an NZGB official name; or

2. It is demonstrably a common name (and not just a literal or dictionary name).

If it fits neither, then the default is either the name is not notable enough for wikipedia, or does not comply with WP:EN. Lluq (talk) 10:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I think it's totally fine having a Māori name in the lede even if it's uncommon, as it doesn't take up a huge amount of space and represents that Māori is also an official language of New Zealand. But I don't think this is the best place for this discussion, as this is specifically about the conventions for titles - which are irrelevant here. I'd suggest maybe reposting this over at the Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board. Turnagra (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

The official language of the English-language Wikipedia is English though.

Even if we should include uncommon Maori names for the mere sake of them being Maori), a literal translation is not a new name. It's just a translation that isn't used by anyone.

It would also open up the question why not include uncommon and unofficial place names for everywhere in New Zealand? Surely you can see the problem if the question is (as you suggest) "is the suggested place name written in an official language in New Zealand, irrespective of its relevance, use, and meaning?". Lluq (talk) 07:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The official language of the English-language Wikipedia is English though.

Even if we should include uncommon Maori names for the mere sake of them being Maori, a literal translation is not a new name. It's just a translation.

It would also open up the question why not include uncommon and unofficial place names for everywhere in New Zealand? Surely you can see the problem if the question is (as you suggest) "is the suggested place name written in an official language in New Zealand, irrespective of its relevance, use, and meaning?".

EDIT: corrected errors from comment above. Lluq (talk) 07:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The official languages of New Zealand, which is what WP:LEADLANG talks about, include Māori. And I'm not sure that a transliteration is any less of a Māori word than an English word, but I'm definitely sure that none of us are the person who gets to make that call. If there are reliable sources, such as the Māori dictionary, stating that as the name, then it doesn't matter where it came from. I'd also note that plenty of commonly used Māori (and English) terms are transliterations or adaptations from other languages - take for example ngā pirihimana. I can honestly say that I don't see any issue here, nor do I think this is something worth any of our time to be talking about. Turnagra (talk) 08:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikiproject NZ would be the wrong place to discuss this, per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. BilledMammal (talk) 07:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Any reading of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that disqualifies WP:NZ also disqualifies this page. For the record, I think your reading of that is flawed and not in line with longstanding practice on Wikipedia. Turnagra (talk) 08:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

If we don’t have a reliable source telling us "this is the Māori name for this place" then we shouldn’t be including it in the article. If we have just a couple, it’s probably undue for the lede, but it’s less clear cut - and I think all your examples are in the first category? BilledMammal (talk) 07:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

In fact, we have reliable sources for all three of them - see Kemureti, Ōkiwhata, and Paetūmōkai. But, at any rate, surely we don't need something explicitly saying "x is the Māori name for y", as a source that says something like this one where it uses both names and makes clear that there is such a link would also suffice. Turnagra (talk) 08:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

It’s not clear to me that any of these are referring to the specific locations, but I may have missed something - can you clarify why you think they are referring to them? BilledMammal (talk) 08:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Generally the bit that says "(location)" is a good indication that it's referring to a location. Turnagra (talk) 08:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The first two say (place), but as far as I can tell the third doesn’t say anything. However, that wasn’t my question - I was asking how you know that they are referring to these specific locations? BilledMammal (talk) 08:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll grant you that it seems the Oxford name was referring to the UK location (and I've since found an updated name which seems more accurate), but if you look at the example in the Cambridge one then it's pretty clear it's referring to the location in the Waikato. As for Featherston, could you please point out any other location with that name which it might be getting confused with? Turnagra (talk) 09:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)