Talk:Cape Kidnappers

Other notes

The name of the boy who was kidnapped was Tiata.

Images

I removed the images showing the location and a satellite image, and have replaced them with some taken during a trip to the cape. The article has coordinates associated with it, so people looking for location & satellite pics can click on that to get what those previous images provided.Mr3641 (talk) 03:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cape Kidnappers. 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:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5QE8rvIqH?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.birdlife.org to http://www.birdlife.org

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 14:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 15 September 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: moved. per discussion consensus 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 here, this can be revisited. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:58, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

---

Cape Kidnappers → Cape Kidnappers / Te Kauwae-a-Māui – official name [1], see Aoraki / Mount Cook for reference Gryffindor (talk) 06:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:CONCISE and WP:COMMONNAME. — HTGS (talk) 09:39, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Support - moving articles of New Zealand place names to use their official dual names where one exists has a longstanding precedent and has previously been determined to be uncontroversial. References to the Cape since it was given its dual name use the dual name, including RNZ, Te Ara / the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, and the AA. I also note that the article, until recently, had wide usage of the dual name but that this appears to have been removed by the user opposing the name change. Turnagra (talk) 19:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

The article uses the common name instead of the cumbersome official name because, while both the common name and the official name are valid, one is much more accessible to readers, without as much visual clutter. The common name is fully intelligible to readers, and filling the article with slashes and long names is as necessary as changing the United Kingdom article to read "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" over and over.

NB: There are zero English speakers who understand the dual name, but do not understand "Cape Kidnappers" alone.

And we can both present sources that use either name—eg, these reliable secondary sources: the Dom (via Stuff), Stuff travel, RNZ, the Herald—but the current name clearly contains as much information without sacrificing concision. — HTGS (talk) 21:04, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• 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. Spekkios (talk) 09:08, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Also see WP:CONCISE, WP:UCRN, and here Spekkios (talk) 06:28, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I'm a bit concerned by your use of "Use English" as an argument here. New Zealand has hundreds of Māori place names that are the primary name for locations - both single names such as Taupō and Akaroa, and dual names such as Aoraki / Mount Cook and, yes, Cape Kidnappers / Te Kauwae-a-Māui. Their origins in Māori do not negate their use in NZ English - and if they did, by this argument we'd need to revert the Waimakariri River to the Courtenay River, and Whanganui to Petre. Turnagra (talk) 21:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment New Zealand has hundreds of Maori place names that are the primary names for locations in the English language. The primary place name for this place is Cape Kidnappers, not Te Kauwae-a-Māui. The Waimakariri River and Whanganui are the primry names in English. Spekkios (talk) 23:57, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support as per dual / bi lingual use in New Zealand English. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:39, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support as per NZ naming conventions. There is usage beyond mandatory official usage therefore it should be moved. ShakyIsles (talk) 04:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: It might be worth noting these ongoing discussions:

1. Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (New Zealand)#Dual names
2. Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (New Zealand)#Does a consensus for the section "Dual and alternative place names" exist?

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) 07:16, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. There is a current RfC proposal draft on the guidelines for dual names. Spekkios (talk) 23:52, 25 September 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.

Requested move 13 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: moved (closed by non-admin page mover) Calidum 18:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

---

Cape Kidnappers / Te Kauwae-a-Māui → Cape Kidnappers – Article was recently move to this title following an RM based on a now-removed section of the New Zealand Naming Conventions. Following its removal, policy and guidelines no longer support the article being at this title - the current title fails most of WP:CRITERIA, including being natural (the "common name") and being concise.

Evidence for this is that Ngrams shows no use for any name other than "Cape Kidnappers"; the fact it doesn't register any use for "Te Kauwae-a-Māui" should address concerns that we are missing the dual name being used in other forms. Google News presents similar results, with significant levels of use for "Cape Kidnappers" from a variety of sources, while "Te Kauwae-a-Māui" shows just seven results (a search for "Te Kauwae-a-Māui" would also present all results using the dual name). When considering other sources, it is worth noting that many sources, both government and non-government, are required by law to use the official name, and so don't meet the WP:COMMONNAME requirement for "independent" sources; I have written up a draft containing additional details of this at NZGB Independent Sources BilledMammal (talk) 00:31, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Support move to "Cape Kidnappers". Looking at the title criteria:

Recognizability: ??? As with many other NZ articles, I cannot tell whether the single form or dual form is more recognizable in NZ. Maybe single form, because dual form is so uncommon?

Naturalness: Per BilledMammal, above, prefer "Cape Kidnappers" single form, which is the global WP:COMMONNAME

Precision: "Cape Kidnappers" is unambiguous, so prefer single form

Concision: Single forms are shorter than dual form

Consistency: For now, dual forms are more common in WP. — hike395 (talk) 01:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support. I applaud BilledMammal for the meticulousness and clarity of their nomination statement. Based on the evidence they've presented, the outcome dictated by WP:COMMONNAME seems very clear. Colin M (talk) 01:24, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Support. Not much else needs to be said; as BilledMammal has laid out, the common name also satisfies all of CRITERIA. — HTGS (talk) 09:43, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Support per BilledMammal and Hike395. YttriumShrew (talk) 22:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Te Kauwae-a-Māui should certainly be mentioned prominently in the lead and perhaps an infobox could be added which includes this name, but this is an instance where I agree the dual name is not the best name for the article, given that it is rarely used in practice and based on Wikipedia's policies. Usage may of course change over time, but WP:CRYSTALBALL etc. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 20:38, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom and above --Spekkios (talk) 20:51, 16 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.

Repetition in the opening sentence

Cape Kidnappers, also known as Te Kauwae-a-Māui and officially known as Cape Kidnappers / Te Kauwae-a-Māui is redundant as it literally repeats the same names.

I edited it to simply say "Cape Kidnappers / Te Kauwae-a-Māui" but it got reverted claiming there was no redundancy in having the two names written twice in the opening sentence. Maybe I'm missing something here but it seems bizarre. Are there some linguistic gymnastics that are being played out by repeating the name in the opening sentence? 202.89.154.251 (talk) 04:33, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

The issue is that the dual name is different from the actual name; the location is called "Cape Kidnappers" by most people, not "Cape Kidnappers / Te Kauwae-a-Māui", and the article needs to reflect this, both for clarity and to avoid giving WP:UNDUE prominence to the official name. A good example of how dual names should be handled in articles is seen at Uluru. BilledMammal (talk) 04:40, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree about the common name, I'd never heard the Maori name till I read this article. It seems at odds with itself that the article is simultaneously trying to not give the official Maori name undue prominence and yet it redundantly states both names twice in the opening sentence. It just sounds like bad grammar to me. 202.89.154.251 (talk) 04:55, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

To clarify: this location has three names. The English name, which is the common name, the Maori name, and the official dual name, which uses both the English and the Maori name. Perhaps we should reword the opening sentence to make it clear what each name is?

I would suggest: Cape Kidnappers, known in Māori as Te Kauwae-a-Māui and officially gazetted as Cape Kidnappers / Te Kauwae-a-Māui

BilledMammal (talk) 05:02, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with your contention that the cape has three names. Both Linz and the Gazette refer to these as "dual named" places. There is a long list of dual named NZ places here https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/List_of_dual_place_names_in_New_Zealand, I looked at a few and they seem to follow the style of just stating the dual name (people are free to pick the one they prefer), few of them feel the need to state the name twice. It seems redundant to state that the name is also the official name. Anyway, I'm not that bothered about the article, I'm just passing through. Keep up the good work. 202.89.154.251 (talk) 05:36, 27 March 2022 (UTC)