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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Glaciers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Glaciers 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.GlaciersWikipedia:WikiProject GlaciersTemplate:WikiProject GlaciersGlacier
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
This article is written in New Zealand English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, analyse, centre, fiord) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
User:Turnagra, WP:NOTBROKEN is about fixing redirects. That is not what I am doing. I am changing the WP:OFFICIALNAME to it's WP:COMMONNAME, which is the article title on Wikipedia. At any rate, you are reverting edits to non-linked items such as image captions. I see no good reason why this article shouldn't use the common name and article title. It's fairly standard to not arbitrarily refer to something using a title that isn't it's common name. Can you also explain the difference between my edits and your most recent edit is, please?--Spekkios (talk) 04:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit statement for one of the earlier edits was that ...we should still be using the actual article title, meaning that you were essentially changing it because it was a redirect. You're also blatantly misrepresenting the argument by stating that we're "arbitrarily" referring to it by another name, as though the dual name has been made up on the spot and isn't the actual name of the glacier.
As for the difference between this and my recent edit, that was meant to be made alongside me writing an article on Puhi Kai Iti / Cook Landing Site but I ended up publishing it first because I had less time to write that than I thought. While I was updating that, I took the liberty to also update the link to Hāpūpū to reflect recent changes to that reserve's name as well. These changes improved accuracy and were a benefit to Wikipedia, which I can't say the same about the changes you've made here. Turnagra (talk) 05:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was changing the name of the glacier in the list so that it matches the article title. That is impossible to do without changing the link. You're obviously perfectly fine with changing links when it suits you, as that edit shows. There isn't any reason to not use the common name of the glacier which is the article title. I made a note in the "note" section for what the official name is, which is the better location for that sort of information. Wikipedia doesn't often use names that aren't the article title even when the official name is different. See a list on countries for example. My arbitrary comment reflects that trend. Locations don't have "actual" names anyway - what's the "actual" name of Germany? Deutchland? Niemcy? Allemange? I fail to see how your reversion improves Wikipedia: the common name of these glaciers is what I changed them to, and we shouldn't be using other names when that isn't they what they are called in the English language, which is what Wikipedia is written in. --Spekkios (talk) 06:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a false equivalence and a bad argument, and you should feel bad for having made it. Of course we should use Germany - that's the name of the country in English and what the country calls itself in English. This is exactly the same as how, for example, the English name of the glacier is Haupapa / Tasman Glacier. We're not proposing that we use the glacier's Māori name, but rather its English one. Would you propose instead referring to the Netherlands as "Holland" or Spark as "Telecom"? Of course not, as those are outdated - just as the names you propose are. Turnagra (talk) 08:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not false at all despite your rude and hostile remarks - we have a name for Deutchland in English: Germany. Actually, the English name is "Federal Republic of Germany" but you don't see that one Wikipedia except for very specific circumstances. We have a name for Haupapa / Tasman Glacier in English: Tasman Glacier. That's the name the article is at, that's the name that is used basically everywhere else in Wikipedia, that's the name that English-speakers are going to use and search for. It should therefore be the name we continue to use throughout Wikipedia. They aren't "outdated" when they are used practically everywhere. --Spekkios (talk) 09:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is false, because you're insinuating that Haupapa / Tasman Glacier is not an English name. And this isn't hostility, it's exhaustion at having to argue this point with you for the umpteenth time because your entire existence on this site seems to have been built around an aversion to dual place names. Place names change - as these ones have - and you need to be able to accept that dual names are a thing and move on with your life. Turnagra (talk) 09:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't the common English name. Which is what we use everywhere. The New Zealand Gazzeter isn't the arbiter of New Zealand English. I don't understand how this is so hard. And no, I am not against dual place names. I've told you multiple times now that isn't the case. If I was so against dual place names why wouldn't I change Aoraki / Mount Cook on here? --Spekkios (talk) 09:35, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In all honesty, based on our interactions on here I believe you'd do that in a heartbeat if you thought you could get away with it. Turnagra (talk) 08:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well thank you for your honesty but that's just plain unproductive. I'm not "getting away with" anything. That's close to WP:ASPERSIONS territory. More to the point, the common name in English should be used, just like we use Germany instead of Federal Republic of Germany and the United Kingdom instead of the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Norther Ireland. This is fairly standard across Wikipedia and there isn't any reason to change it in this case. The official name is in the relevent article and in the notes in this article. --Spekkios (talk) 08:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe it is casting aspersions, given it's based on your entire history of involvement in this issue, as well as past actions where you've completely ignored the entirety of others on the issue in favour of forging ahead with your own views on the issue. Given the ongoing debates about the place of te reo and Māori-derived names in NZ I'd like to remind you that dual names came about explicitly to act as a compromise between Māori and Pākehā names, and by consistently trying to remove dual names you're actually violating WP:NPOV. I notice you've gone and unilaterally made further changes again causing new issues on this page, so I'd advise that these get changed back to avoid such issues from coming up agian. Turnagra (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you are talking about when you accuse me of "forging ahead" with my own views, nor does my history in this issue even remotely suggest that I would be trying to "get away with" editing an article to change it to a name that isn't the article title. I have changed the article to use the common name of the locations. Is not an opinion that Fox glacier is almost always refered to as Fox glacier; on the contrary, using another name that isn't the common name would be in violation of WP:NPOV. Whatever a third-party has compromised or decided on isn't the concern of Wikipedia, just like cases were we have not changed the names of Ivory Coast, Port Elizabeth, East Timor, etc. If you could show me were a Wikipedia consensus has decided that dual names are to be used in articles then I would be happy to revert my edit but at this stage I see no reason why the common name should not be used. --Spekkios (talk) 21:33, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
