Talk:Aoraki / Mount Cook

Move suggestion

I haven't done so yet, but I think that it should be considered that this page is move/renamed to reflect the moutain's actual name: Aoraki/Mount Cook. I'm interested to see what other people's perceptions are of this. It's certainly been a change by stealth, but I note now that all the highway signage, even near Christchurch now reads Aoraki/Mount Cook, and that the village is also now calling itself Aoraki/Mount Cook Village.

Also, the page on Mount Taranaki is under that name rather than Egmont...

--Limegreen 03:02, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please no - we prefer to reflect reality, not some bureaucratic gobbledygook. It works perfectly well to have Aoraki be a redir to the name most commonly seen in English over the entire world (not just NZ). Redirs aren't feasible on street signs, thus the dual nomenclature, but we're not limited in that way. Stan 06:06, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I do see your point, however "reality" is not a static thing. It's not the first mountain in NZ to have undergone a name change, and some of theser were initially resented, and may have been labelled by some as "bureaucratic gobbledygook". I note that the page has been re-directed and then reverted before a year or so back. However, I'd guess it'll definitely be ready for a change in 10 years, even if it is policy to be trend-following. Limegreen 11:48, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If the mountain was only known to locals, there would be a stronger case, but Mt Cook is very well-known outside New Zealand. Also, why would an official name change be by stealth? If it's official, you want to publicize widely so travel agencies can change their brochures, newspapers can issue new instructions to proofreaders, etc. Perhaps you could elucidate further? Are they saying the name is "Aoraki" or "Aoraki/Mount Cook"? Governments often use a "/" on road signs as a transitional form so people don't get lost, that doesn't tell you which is the "official" name. Stan 16:39, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you re-read my original post, I didn't say it was an official name change by stealth... I referred to the changing of the name happening by stealth. The mountain's name has been officially changed for around 7 years now. The first couple of years nothing much happened, and indeed, I don't think some people were too happy about it. However, at this point I've started to notice more changes, and not just to road signs. Commercial websites, running tourist operations in the area, are starting to adopt the change. And the name is "Aoraki/Mt Cook". Had it not be named after Cook, I'd imagine the english monkiker, to paraphrase the Inspector General of Intelligence, would have been outski. Perhaps as a comprimise, the point at which half of the top ten results for "mount cook" in google come back with Aoraki/Mt Cook, it'll be time. It's currently sitting at around 2-3/10. Limegreen 23:28, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Move suggestion 2

The official name is Aoraki/Mount Cook, and I think that's a better arbiter than google. We can always redirect from Mt Cook for international readers with guide books older than 1997. All the newer ones have the correct name, however. I'm going to request a move. --Tirana 22:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Naming convention says use the common name, not necessarily the legal name, I oppose the move on that ground. Brian | (Talk) 05:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

How do you define what's common? A/MC is common enough - you see it in the newspapers[1], in major guidebooks[2], and on road signs over half the South Island. Paraparaumu is listed under its proper name, though the shortened use is far more commonly spoken. --Tirana 23:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I support the move because I think that if a name appears in national newspapers and on television, that makes it a fairly common name. And whether or not you think it is in common use probably depends on the people you happen to know. Many people I know prefer AMC to MC. Kahuroa 00:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC) (ps - sorry about the hasty move - my error done in haste when I was short of time. Apology.) Kahuroa 00:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Using Brian's reasoning, we would not be discussing this because the original name Aoraki would still be the common usage, in that no name anywhere in the world could have been changed in the past or could be changed now or forever. Those recent explosions would have happened in Bombay, not Mumbai. Should Wikipedia change its article names for Côte d'Ivoire, or Myanmar or Yangon? Names can only become common usage after they have been in use for a while. If the government of any country decides there is good reason to change a geographic name, who the hell are we to tell them they are wrong? Had he been around at the time, Brian would have opposed the name change from Constantinople to Istanbul. Moriori 01:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Who are a bunch of tin-pot dictators to tell millions of English speakers how to use their languages. (This does not include the doubleplusgood government of New Zealand). - AjaxSmack 14:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Like those who changed the name from the original Aoraki to Mount Cook? Moriori 20:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

You forgot East Timor Timor-Leste :). I'm not arguing the legal name; the legal name is "Aoraki/Mount Cook" however it is commonly known 'worldwide' and ‘nationwide’ by its former name. If we get into the naming of articles 'debate' a classic one that should be moved is Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom --> Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, and Saint Kitts and Nevis, and that will bring npov, however it is slightly to long!. :P

The main problem I dislike about renaming the article is the "/" messes up talk pages etc. Brian | (Talk) 05:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It went right over your head Brian, didn't it. It can't become "commonly known 'worldwide' and ‘nationwide’ " if the article name isn't changed. Refusing to acknowledge a change of name made by a government will prevent it from ever achieving the "commonly known 'worldwide' and ‘nationwide’ " status which you demand. Illogical. Moriori 09:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:UE Brian | (Talk) 09:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I support the move to Aoraki/Mount Cook. The redirect's history is completely trivial. Moriori created that page by moving the contents of Mount Cook to it. One editor added an interwiki link, but also changed quotes to smart quotes, and another editor then fixed the quotes. The Mount Cook article was then reverted to a version before the move and the A/MC article redirected to it. I think we can delete the current A/MC redirect without worrying about compliance with requirements of the GFDL to preserve article history.-gadfium 02:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay I see Moriori reasoning , I now 'Support the move (half-heartedly) Brian | (Talk) 21:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

So, is that a consensus? I tried moving the article myself but it wouldn't let me seeing as there's already an article at A/MC. Would blanking A/MC fix that, or does someone with special admin powers need to delete the old A/MC before pasting the new one on top? Or is it appropriate to cut and paste, with the redirect and edit history left behind here? --Tirana 21:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it needs to be done by an admin. There's currently a four-day backlog on Wikipedia:Requested moves, and this article's request has just entered the backlog section. So it'll probably be done in a few days. (FWIW, I support the move too.) -- Avenue 03:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

First traverse of triple peak

An anon changed the very long-standing claim in this article that Edmund Hillary made the first traverse of all three peaks. They appear to be right; see [3] under "Routes overview".-gadfium 22:53, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are numerous written references, beginning with Freda Du Faur's biography, Hugh Logan's Classic Peaks, John Pascoe's Great Days in New Zealand Mountaineering ....

No references- what on earth!!??

Why?? This article's been obviously getting plenty of attention, that it has gotten so large without any references or citations makes the mind boggle.. verifiability is important, no good wikipedia article is without references or citations Kotare 07:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, this article now has plenty of footnotes- its looking really good :) Kotare 03:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move

The result of the debate was Move Mount Cook → Aoraki/Mount Cook – The official name of the mountain is Aoraki/Mount Cook. — Tirana 23:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I moved this request back to the top of Wikipedia:Requested moves because a place for voting was not made. Please vote. -- Kjkolb 10:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support. Mildly controversial cases like this are better placed at the official name. -- Avenue 14:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Discussed above. --Tirana 21:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose per above Brian | (Talk) 21:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support. It logical to follow Wiki precedents (Burma--->Myanmar etc) and illogical to not use official names. Moriori 21:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

you mean like Timor-Leste East Timor thats had so many RMs but most votes said to use the common name Brian | (Talk) 21:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Bangkok's official name is Krung Thep Maha Nakhon Amon Rattanakosin Mahinthara Ayutthaya Mahadilok Phop Noppharat Ratchathani Burirom Udom Ratchaniwet Mahasathan Amon Phiman Awatan Sathit Sakkathattiya Witsanu Kamprasit but Wikipedia uses the "illogical" Bangkok anyway. -  AjaxSmack  00:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support as per my comments above Kahuroa 23:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support per above.-gadfium 04:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose PC OTT 210.54.114.146 07:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose -- use common name -- Wikipedia is not an agent of the New Zealand authorities. -  AjaxSmack  00:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support Wikipedia is not the agent of India or other countries either, but........ Rense 01:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• oppose NO one calles it Aoraki/Mount Cook except for govt hacks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.236.44.41 (talk • contribs).

HUH?? I think the vote above this is the second one by that user. Kahuroa 05:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I just did a quick whois, the first IP is owned by "Telecom Internet Services" (aka Xtra) the second "SchoolZone Telecom New Zealand Limited " Brian | (Talk) 05:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh; did you mean the IP's ? Brian | (Talk) 05:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh I get it now - as you were. Kahuroa 06:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Moving article. OK. It is a week now since this was listed, so the "few days" have gone. The consensus is move, so I am moving it. Moriori 08:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

A move back needed.

The following discussion 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.

---

Commonly known, 'Aoraki' is a mere politically correct move to include Māori culture. The official name is still Mt. Cook. I am proposing a strong suggestion to change it back to the original name, as there was no need to change it in the first place.

Mount Cook however, is not the only mountain to undergo political pressure for a change of name. Mount Egmont (now Mount Taranaki), was changed also.

So to conclude this short piece of writing, the name should be reverted, and I will follow through with it if there is enough support.

- Qnif201

No, the official name is Aoraki/Mount Cook.-gadfium 08:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Land Information NZ is the government body that assigns official place names in New Zealand. If you do a search for "Cook", then it shows that the official name is actually "Aoraki/Mount Cook" [4]. The official topographic map at nztopoonline.linz.govt.nz also shows "Aoraki/Mount Cook" --Ozhiker 10:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected - Qnif201

Qnif201 I'd have to agree. Mt Cook is a recognisable name. Aoraki is not. It appears to be a push to de-"anglify" NZ Aoteroa (sp?). I accept it makes sense to include it in a cultural discussion/the history of the mountain but as the actual name???? So what takes precedence the official name, the actual name, the common name...? 23:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.25.1.208 (talk)

What takes precedence? The official name (Aoraki/Mount Cook)? The actual name (Aoraki/Mount Cook)? The unambiguous recognisable name (Aoraki/Mount Cook)? The name which every year becomes more commonly used (Aoraki/Mount Cook)? Pick any one. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 23:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

What on earth is Aoraki! Up until a few months ago I had never heard of it. If it were not plastered on every sign in NZ I'd still not have heard of it. It is this de-anglification that really discourages me from coming back other than occasional holidays! Mt Cook is an internationally recognised, historically significant name. Aoraki is what - a modern adaptation of a minority name. Forcing foreign culture where it is not needed. We rarely talk about Deutschland or Danmark or italia so why anything else? As regards the terms before official name - that which the government calls/legislates it, actual name - okay fluidic but more formal than the common name and in this case Mt Cook, common name, what almost ie everyone bar (maybe) non-English speakers)everyone calls it ie Mt Cook. it is possible some people might have nicknames or abbreviations etc and so might have alternatives but you get the idea.203.25.1.208 (talk) 06:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Māori are not considered to be a foreign culture in New Zealand. That the name is on "every sign in NZ" is rather a good reason why we should use it.-gadfium 06:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

No not a foreign culture, precisely, certainly a different culture though. And a minority. Who's the second cultural group in NZ now? Asian is too general, Korean, Chinese ...? That the name is on every sign merely means there is a concerted effort to push the PC name. Perhaps I should ask around here (here as in my locality as opposed to this wiki) who has heard of Mt Cook vs Aoraki. Might be interesting?203.25.1.208 (talk) 06:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

You say "Up until a few months ago I had never heard of it." Who'd have guessed! As you have a problem with the name, why don't you complain to the people pushing to "de-anglify" NZ?In the meantime, allow Wiki to continue with its naming conventions, using the official name (Aoraki/Mount Cook), the actual name (Aoraki/Mount Cook), the unambiguous recognisable name (Aoraki/Mount Cook) and the name which every year becomes exponentially more commonly used, (Aoraki/Mount Cook). That last bit rankle with you a little? A lot? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 08:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Rankle K.? No merely distasteful. A matter of personal preference/choice. I did the straw poll amongst some my co-workers. Statistically unreliable of course but I asked who knew of Mitre peak, Aoraki, Mt Cook. All knew Mt Cook, most knew/thought they had heard of Mitre Peak (which I found surprising) and only one thought Aoraki sounded familiar but she was unsure whereabouts in the Himlayas it was. And these are highly educated information professionals I asked. I shall try and ask one or two others to confirm these results but ... Clearly Aoraki is a term only known in parts of New Zealand. As regards complaining to whom? It is a top down cultural push. I prefer a bottom up rejection. As regards the growth of the term exponential = 2, 4, 16 ... It does not mean significant numbers only large growth. I doubt the argument though. Also knowledge is not the same as agreement. I could memorise Mein Kampf it does not mean I actually agree with anything in it. 05:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC) 203.25.1.208 (talk) 06:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC) expatriate Colonial from the Middle Isle - aka the mainland :) Oh as regards the biggest minority Maori Vs Asian it looks like 14.5% vs 9% so a bit more of a gap than I realised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.25.1.208 (talk)

Sometimes our personal choices are overcome by events, like Wiki using the official name, (Aoraki/Mount Cook), the actual name (Aoraki/Mount Cook), the unambiguous recognisable name (Aoraki/Mount Cook) except among your educated professional co-workers who likely have never heard of Kolkata, and the name which every year becomes exponentially more commonly used, (Aoraki/Mount Cook). I am truly sorry for you that you find it distasteful that the original Māori name of this mountain (several hundred years), was incorporated into the current name. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 08:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this is descending into a chat forum so the discussion had best come to an end. Obviously we agree to disagree. It is not the assocation of the Maori name for Mt Cook I object to, but the renaming of the mountain, reflecting a change/loss of culture. Kolkata??? No. Unless you mean Calcutta in India which I really doubt. 203.190.201.15 (talk) 04:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC) expatriate Colonial from the Middle Isle - aka the mainland

Before you go, which particular re-naming do you object to? The first one? Or the last one? Click on Kolkata. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 04:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

My apologies about the delayed response. I did see this but have not been able to allocate time to respond (and still do not so apologies if this is abbrev.) Re-naming, I am not sure I understand you? I am not sure Captain Cook Stokes/the British Empire ever saw their naming Mt Cook as a renaming if that is what you mean? Thanks for the Kolkata link. It was Culcutta that you meant obviously.203.190.201.15

What did you say about "reflecting a change/loss of culture"? Stokes re-named a mountain which had already been named for many centuries. So it's the second renaming you object to, the one which restored the historic original name given by the indigenous New Zealanders and combined it with the name given by latter day colonisers. It complemented the apology. So that's sorted. And, nope, I meant Kolkata, not Calcutta, which is why I said "Click on Kolkata". Funny how you missed that! Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 03:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay lunchtime so ... Did Stokes rename the mountain or was it that he gave it a name for English/European/World maps? Latter day colonisers? Britain etc was the second or third wave of colonisers. There have been plenty of immigrants since though, and will likely continue to be. I said Calcutta deliberately though I did follow the link. It seems to be an issue akin to the Peking/Beijing naming. Trying to match up a local name to an English name and then adapting a more local flavour to the pronounciation ... While I will continue to think in terms of Calcutta the link between the two is near enough mentally leap between, unlike the Bay-Jing/Pee-King example I gave before. Sorry. This is almost starting the debate up again and we are clearly not going to agree so ... 203.25.1.208 (talk) 04:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

What did you have for lunch? Sour grapes? ): Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 06:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Minor suggestion. How about somebody tidy this up? It does not resolve anything so delete the conversation? Wikipedia is not a chat forum so yes/no/maybe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.190.197.103 (talk) 10:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

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.

Move without discussion

This article was recently moved without discussion (the spaces around the slash being removed) and the article title now contravenes Wikipedia:Naming conventions (New Zealand). Because this potentially effects 90+ other articles, I have initiated a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(New_Zealand)#Does_usage_trump_convention? dramatic (talk) 01:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Merge this article with Aoraki/Mount Cook National Park

Copying information between these articles is problematic because of refs. There is lots of overlap between the 2 articles. Sections for Forests and glaciers, Area history, and probably Climate on the Aoraki / Mount Cook article are for the park, rather than the mountain.

I also put this on Talk:Aoraki/Mount Cook National Park#Merge this article with Aoraki_.2F Mount_Cook Aaabbb11 (talk) 05:04, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Aoraki / Mount Cook/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I only rated it as start class as I feel it lacks information on Maori significance, it doesn't read well in parts and more information on climbers (eg important women too) would help --Nengscoz416 22:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 22:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 06:12, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Aoraki / Mount Cook. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/8106
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927005432/http://tpo.tepapa.govt.nz/ViewTopicExhibitDetail.asp?ExhibitionID=0x000a4de2&ExhibitID=0x000a4ede&Language=English to http://tpo.tepapa.govt.nz/ViewTopicExhibitDetail.asp?ExhibitionID=0x000a4de2&ExhibitID=0x000a4ede&Language=English

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:24, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 3 November 2021

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: Withdrawn - withdrawing for now, as while I remain convinced by the Ngrams, WP:SNOWBALL applies to this request, though I might revisit the topic in a few months after more research, should this additional research supporting moving. BilledMammal (talk) 10:24, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

---

Aoraki / Mount Cook → Mount Cook – Following the depreciation of the dual name section of WP:NCNZ, the current title no longer complies with policy; Ngrams tells us that the dual name is not the WP:COMMONNAME with both Aoraki and Mount Cook having significantly higher use, and as either would be primary disambiguation is not required. Mount Cook by itself is 50% higher than Aoraki by itself, and though we have to consider that there are some other entities named Aoraki or Mount Cook, they are all relatively insignificant and should not have a significant effect on the result (Wikipedia page views for the others are insignificant, and news searches almost exclusively return results about the mountain).

News sources appear to prefer Mount Cook; some use it exclusively, while most of the rest mention the dual name before using just Mount Cook. For example, BBC, NZ Herald NZ Herald 2 Stuff, Broadsheet, ABC, The Australian Overall, evidence seems to suggest that Mount Cook is the WP:COMMONNAME, but Aoraki is also a possibility worthy of discussion. Where Aoraki / Mount Cook National Park should move should also be considered here. BilledMammal (talk) 00:52, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose, your argument appears to be that most sources call it "Aoraki / Mount Cook" in the lead and then use the shorter term "Mount Cook" later. Since such sources also call our Prime Minister "Jacinda Ardern" in the lead and just Ardern later, I think this is more a confirmation of the current title than a argument that carries weight.-gadfium 02:15, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• Apologies, I was unclear. Some do it in the way you describe; others refer to it as "Mount Cook" initially, then use "Aoraki / Mount Cook" to demonstrate the official name, and then revert to "Mount Cook". Others don't use "Aoraki / Mount Cook" at all (about half of the provided examples). The question is what sources commonly refer to it as, and the Ngrams, combined with the sources that only use "Mount Cook", and the sources that use both but prefer "Mount Cook" suggests that the answer to this questions is "Mount Cook". BilledMammal (talk) 02:33, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• Some texts choose to use the Māori part of the name, some the part that is a memorial to a great English explorer, some the dual name - so looking for the most common permutation of words is not helpful. Both Mt Cook and Aoraki are likely terms that users will search for. The Dual Name make the page easy to find by everyone. Overall, this suggests that the answer to this question is "Aoraki / Mount Cook" Somej (talk) 08:59, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. I didn't participate in the recent RFC because I couldn't form a decided view, but Aoraki / Mount Cook seemed to me a clear example of a situation where the dual name is the WP:COMMONNAME. Of the news sources you have cited, it seems that all of them use Aoraki / Mount Cook except for this ABC article, which only makes a passing mention to the mountain (i.e. it's not actually the subject of the article) and this NZ Herald article. (I can't access The Australian source, but from the URL I take it that it also uses Aoraki / Mount Cook.) This seems to me to support that Aoraki / Mount Cook is the common name. I further agree with Gadfium that using a shorter form of the dual name further on in an article doesn't mean that the dual name isn't the common name. To use an example from the policy, you wouldn't seen a news article say "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi" and then "Mahatma Gandhi", it'd say "Mahatma Gandhi" and then "Gandhi". Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 03:49, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oops, you're right - I forgot that the Broadsheet article is one where it uses "Mount Cook" initially, switches to "Aoraki / Mount Cook" on the second mention, and then goes back "Mount Cook" as their preferred name.

As for Ghandi (or Obama, or many other notable politicians) I think you will find that news articles will tend to use "Ghandi" or "Obama" throughout, but names of people often have slightly different naming criteria from names of places. BilledMammal (talk) 03:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: No worries! Ah, I do think my rationale applies to places as well. For example, I've never seen an article refer to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea or the Collegiate Church of Saint Peter at Westminster (to use the examples in the guidelines). I am conscious that there could be a possibility of bias; I know others in this discussion have suggested that the NZ news media may have pressure brought to bear on them by government, for example, to use the dual name. But given that it seems we have UK and Australian sources using the dual name, I think that is unlikely. I think this is genuinely one of the rare cases when the dual name is "the overwhelmingly most common name in English".

For what it's worth, also, here is an example of an article referring to Biel/Bienne which uses both the dual name and Biel on its own (I tried to find more examples of articles to see how it is usually treated, since this is a clear example of a dual name under the normal rules, but it was difficult to find English language articles about the city): [5]

• Oppose for now. My analysis of the naming criteria:

Recognizability --- prefer dual name, because it appears to be well-known in NZ.

Naturalness --- prefer single name, English readers are more likely to search for "Mount Cook", per WP:COMMONNAME and ngram results.

Precision --- dual name is unambiguous, single name has a dab page: Mount Cook (disambiguation)

Concision --- single name definitely more concise

Consistency -- for now, WP titles of well-known NZ landmarks appear to be largely dual names.

It's a close call, but it seems that the dual name should be kept. I'll re-iterate my recommendation for NZ editors to please come up with a well-written replacement for the old dual name guideline. I would urge people to not change article titles until we can come up with a consistent set of rules of when to use dual names. — hike395 (talk) 04:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose this is almost certainly the clearest cut example of a dual name being by far the common name. Other users are correct in terms of how dual names are used in practice. Your reliance on ngrams is flawed as they routinely don't work for dual names (by default dual names will have fewer results as they also count for both components). I'm honestly struggling to comprehend the rationale here. Furthermore, you seem to have also misunderstood the result of the RfC, which doesn't forbid the use of dual names at all - especially when such a name is as clearly in common use as with Aoraki / Mount Cook. Turnagra (talk) 05:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• Ngrams works fine for dual names; its a simple calculation to address that problem. I've done it for you here. And I'm not saying that dual names are forbidden; for example, I've deliberately left Lake Ellesmere / Te Waihora alone, as the dual name appears to be the common name. BilledMammal (talk) 05:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• And the various other forms of punctuation used for dual place names (eg. Aoraki Mount Cook; Aoraki-Mount Cook; Aoraki (Mount Cook); vice versa for all the above)...? Turnagra (talk) 06:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• The only one with any usage registered is "Aoraki Mount Cook", and it is insignificant. I'd add it to the query anyway, but the query becomes too long for Ngrams to accept. If there are other options you want to check, you can query the database yourself - you don't need an account. Just use the search bar at the top, and make sure to place any phrases with special characters (-, /, etc) inside square brackets. BilledMammal (talk) 06:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• My point being, there are enough different manners in which dual names are used that it's impossible for something like ngrams to accurately pick up their usage. The specifics of dual names mean you need to actually look at things instead of using automated tools like that. Turnagra (talk) 08:31, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• You seem to be doing a good job of thinking of the alternatives, and it seems that none of them have any use of consequence. If there are others you would rather I check rather than checking yourself, please let me know. BilledMammal (talk) 09:15, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support move to Aoraki/Mount Cook as when the dual name is the common name, the common name should override the official slash format per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIALNAME. I strongly oppose a move to Mount Cook, per others and the fact that keeping the dual name provides inherent disambiguation with other Mount Cooks such as these. YttriumShrew (talk) 22:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• I think between Aoraki / Mount Cook and Aoraki/Mount Cook, Aoraki / Mount Cook is the common name; the second doesn't even show up on Ngrams. In terms of disambiguation, I don't think it is required here, because either Aoraki or Mount Cook is primary. BilledMammal (talk) 23:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• Aoraki/Mt Cook doesn't show up on nGrams because of how they've formatted it. Most sources spell it with a non-spaced slash, such as DOC, the Mackenzie Region website, Metservice and the Christchurch NZ website. YttriumShrew (talk) 23:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing why that will make a difference, but if you're confident then I have support your proposal should the proposal to move to "Mount Cook" be rejected. Incidentally, you did make me realize I didn't consider the "Mt Cook" format; see here if interested, though I'm not sure it changes anything. BilledMammal (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

• It's also worth noting there are other Mount Cooks, which may be clouding the water a bit. YttriumShrew (talk) 01:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

• I considered them, as well as the other Aoraki's, but my research suggested they are sufficiently inconsequential to have a minimal effect on the Ngrams, and we already have established what the primary topic is. BilledMammal (talk) 01:59, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. The official, Dual Name is the best title for the page. Some - but not all - of my reasons:

Taking the proposal literally, "depreciated" means old but still usable. A depreciated guideline is still useful and applicable, and the dual name is clearly in common use as per the section referred to.

The official name is the appropriate entry for a global encyclopedia. The dual name is part of New Zealand English (the language of this page). Some texts choose to use the Māori part of the name, some the part that is a memorial to a great English explorer, some the dual name - so looking for the most common usage internet ngrams is not material.

The current wp:NZNC guideline states "The article should be placed at the name which recent reliable sources indicate has more common usage. " and expands on what is "recent". The raw ngram counts which rely on WP:COMMONNAME are flawed.

If you do still prefer to count total usage across all time, Aoraki was used for much longer than the more recent Mt Cook - but in an oral culture which was not recorded in internet text archives. The dual name recognises both on equal terms.

Both Mt Cook and Aoraki are likely terms that users will search for. The Dual Name make the page easy to find by everyone.

WP:NPOV is relevant. Dual names are New Zealand's elegant solution to the need to "represent fairly" all "significant views" on the topic - and in this case, there are certainly significant views on the usage of both "Aoraki" and "Mount Cook".

Similarly, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is relevant. There are strong, and passionate, arguments for both the Māori and the English-language name for this mountain. Wikipedia's role is not to adjudicate; using the Dual Name is an elegant compromise solution to balancing these strongly-held views.

Please stop wasting everyone's time, and focus your energy on drafting updates to WP:NZNC that have some chance of achieving consensus.

Somej (talk) 08:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose after questioning my life choices I was pleasantly surprised to find that Aoraki/Mount Cook or similar passed all the tests I have been using to determine popularity on other duel name pages. In fact if I was being consistent I would be supporting a name change to just Aoraki. Best not to dwell on that. Might see something I don't like. Dushan Jugum (talk) 10:03, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

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.