Talk:Fox Glacier/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

stub graphic

The stub graphic for this article has the north island highlighted in blue. This is misleading as Fox glacier is in fact in the south island. could someone with better knowlege of how wikipedia works than me please correct this? RealmKnight 21:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Fox aircrash

Gday, I dont think this part of the article is relevant to an article about the glacier. a skydiving plane crashed in the township, it is less relevant than numerous (12+) aircraft crashes that are not listed that have occurred on the glacier itself in the last 50 years. Now, I could go onto the page and input details of all these accidents, but that is ultimately very bad for a town that relies on tourism. So my question, why should the recent crash be the only one listed when it is possibly one of the least relevant forms of air ops to the glacier? As someone closely connected to the industry I would request this information be removed. There is a seperate article about the accident that people can find if they have an interest in what happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.35.209 (talk) 00:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

If there are so many accidents, then a list of them would be great. Leave me the source and I'll do it myself.-gadfium 01:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, isn't the information age a 'great' thing. Look at it from the point of view of the township that relies ENTIRELY on tourism. If we listed every bad thing/accident that had happened over the last 100 years in, what is after all, a fairly extreme mountain/meteorological environment do you think that would be a great thing for the people of the town? As a business owner down here I find it rather galling to see the wikipedia article which has half a dozen paragraphs about the town/glacier combined and then 2 paragraphs about deaths here. Imagine if we listed 20 accidents, the average person doesn't look at the dates and realise they are spread over 100 years, the average person just thinks 'hmm what a dangerous place' I believe it is entirely fitting to have a detailed description of the various accidents, but it can remain separate from the main page (referenced from the main page). If you were happy with that compromise then I would be willing to compile a list of fox/franz accidents.

I see you have added a second you won't find details of many more online because they pre-date the online news sites or too minor to google easily —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.8.53 (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Would it be helpful to separate out the article on the township from the article on the glacier, as is done for Franz Josef glacier and Franz Josef, New Zealand?
If there is a suitable source for the accidents, it would be appropriate to say something like "X people have been killed and Y injured on the glacier since 19xx, out of an estimated Z tourist visits" rather than list them all. That puts them into context. However, making specific reference to particularly deadly accidents such as the FU24 crash still seems appropriate.-gadfium 19:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
As a comparison, the Uluru article has a one-sentence summary of tourism deaths. For aircraft accidents, the Aviation Safety Network WikiBase (searching on New Zealand)[1] has 13 entries for Fox Glacier (incl. "near") since 1977. While a wiki isn't a RS, I think they all link to either the Archives NZ accident reports or newspaper stories. At the time the Archives records only went to the end of 1982, there are at least two missing entries after then, and the fatalities information is incomplete. XLerate (talk) 05:43, 9 January 2011 (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, 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 (♔ ♕) 12:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Fox Glacier → Fox Glacier / Te Moeka o Tuawe – official name since 1998 [2], it's time to move along and update this now. Gryffindor (talk) 08:53, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not give preference to official names over common names. (For clarity, consider the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland or North Korea.) — HTGS (talk) 09:00, 15 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) 09:38, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Support This move fulfils all of the criteria listed in WP:WIAN within WP:NCGN, as well as the dual place name guidelines for WP:NZNC. The dual name is used by local maps, international gazettes of place names, local climbing groups and academic sources. As mentioned on other move requests, WP:RECENTISM isn't relevant here - least of all because the change was made over 20 years ago. Turnagra (talk) 04:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment The common name used throughout both of those sources is Fox Glacier. There are also plenty of other academic sources that refer to the glacier as Fox Glacier. The fact that the official name has changed 20 years ago is irrelevant. WP:CONCISE is also applicable here; the current name is concise, while the proposed name is not. Spekkios (talk) 02:48, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Support This article is in New Zealand English, and the consensus among publications written in NZ English is now to use both names. e.g. [3] [4] [5] -- haminoon (talk) 04:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Three of those source are actually referring to Fox Glacier (town), not to the glacier itself. The Guardian article in fact does spell out the full name of the glacier, twice. Two are incidental mentions, one just the word "Fox" in a sentence mentioning the two other glaciers. So I don't think you've established anything. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 05:05, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Support as per dual / bi lingual use in New Zealand English. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:36, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Some of the commenters don't seem to be familiar with the NZ dual naming conventions, which require that "there are sources that indicate that a dual name has usage beyond mandatory official usage". Not that it is the only or dominant usage, just that it's used unofficially. Plenty of sources have been supplied that demonstrate that, so in line with other comparable articles such as Mayor Island / Tuhua, Aoraki / Mount Cook and Matiu / Somes Island, the article should be moved. See a similar discussion at Talk:Aoraki / Mount Cook back in 2007, which led to the creation of the naming conventions. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 05:05, 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) 07:11, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Even if the dual name were used just as much as the current name (it’s really not), the current name expresses just as clearly, but is much more concise.
I know I put that Google Trends link in brackets, but it’s worth a look. People just aren’t using the dual name like proponents allege they are. NB: Searches for the glacier (according to Google) track pretty well with searches for the term “fox glacier”, meaning it’s unlikely that there’s a lot of muddy waters due to the town. — HTGS (talk) 11:27, 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 2 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: All moved. In terms of numbers, the numbers of supports and opposes is roughly equal; however, as we know, WP:CONSENSUS is formed by considering !votes through the lens of policy and guideline. In this case, the opposition seems to be largely on "procedural" grounds, with several saying that the three moves should be split into separate requests and another making a bad faith accusation of "sneaking" the moves through. I see no reason why these shouldn't be treated as a block, however, given that they all pertain to the same issue and were all moved recently at a time when a different set of guidelines was in place from now. Multi-move requests are a longstanding part of WP:RM procedure. Of those !votes addressing the actual merits of these moves, all seem fairly clear per the evidence in the nomination, that WP:COMMONNAME / WP:CONCISE and the updated NZ guideline support the proposed names, therefore I see a consensus to move without our needing to go through the rigmarole of relisting them all individually.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

– The above glacier articles were originally moved primarily using a guideline from WP:NCNZ that no longer exists due to an RfC [13]. The current article titles are not in line with WP:CONCISE, WP:UCRN, or the naturalness WP:CRITERIA. There are plenty of sources that show the current name is not common usage, such as journal articles [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] and news websites [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] . Spekkios (talk) 01:16, 2 November 2021 (UTC)— Relisting. Havelock Jones (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 02:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Even when these names are used in the titles of papers and websites it reverts to the common name most often in the body of the text. Dushan Jugum (talk) 02:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - these should be individual move requests. The previous move request from Tasman Glacier to Haupapa / Tasman Glacier didn't even cite WP:NCNZ and was supported.
Are you referring to the move request with only two participants one of which was a "weak support"? Or you could provide some evidence of it being the common name or other Wikipedia explanations. I am not on a crusade, but give me something to work with. In the Stuff search engine "Tasman Glacier" gets 1560 hits and Haupapa gets 224 and many of those (~90% really rough count) are for other things. Dushan Jugum (talk) 10:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Only Haupapa appears on an Ngram search[31] and is well below the English names (post 1900 at least as it was popular earlier). Aircorn (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
At a guess Haupapa appears on Ngram because it is a noun/verb[32] in Te Reo. Dushan Jugum (talk) 19:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Fox Glacier is also the name of the town ShakyIsles (talk) 00:42, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Good call. Dushan Jugum (talk) 01:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
True. Consider this a weaker support for Fox Glacier as there is some argument for using it as an disambiguater. I would say that the glacier is the clear primary topic though so still feel it should be moved. Aircorn (talk) 19:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Support:
Caption text
Current Target Ngrams Notes Previous move type and justification
Fox Glacier / Te Moeka o Tuawe Fox Glacier link Use of any term other than "Fox Glacier" to refer to this glacier is vanishingly rare, supported by both Ngrams and a google news search; this seems to be an uncontroversial move. Moved after RM argued and closed on the basis of the now deprecated section of WP:NZNC
Franz Josef Glacier / Kā Roimata o Hine Hukatere Franz Josef Glacier link Use of any term other than "Franz Josef Glacier" to refer to this glacier is vanishingly rare, supported by both Ngrams and a google news search; this seems to be an uncontroversial move. Article was moved after a September 2021 RM argued and closed on the basis of the now depreciated section of WP:NZNC
Haupapa / Tasman Glacier Tasman Glacier link Clear common name, based on Ngrams and google news. Article was moved following an RM November 2020 based on the now deprecated section of WP:NZNC. It was also suggested that this is now the common name, but my own search strongly suggests that this is not the case to the extent that I don't believe a seperate RM is required.

BilledMammal (talk) 23:51, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Support move for Franz Josef and Tasman glaciers, Neutral for Fox Glacier. My analysis of the naming criteria:
Recognizability --- ??? I don't have enough data to know whether the dual names are more recognizable in NZ than the single names. Does anyone have any data on this?
Naturalness --- The single names appear to be much more common, per ngrams, and hence would be what an English-speaking reader would search for
Precision --- supports dual name for Fox Glacier (which is ambiguous), and single name for Franz Josef and Tasman Glaciers
Concision --- supports single name for all
Consistency --- for now, dual names seem preferred on many WP articles about NZ geography.
To me, movind Franz Josef and Tasman glaciers to their single names seems clear. I don't know about Fox Glacier (due to its potential ambiguity). If other editors can find data about the recognizability of dual names for these glaciers in NZ, I could easily be swayed to change my !vote. I will continue to urge NZ editors to come up with a well-written guideline for the use of dual names. — hike395 (talk) 04:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. YttriumShrew (talk) 03:52, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. Proposed names are recognisable, concise, natural and common. — HTGS (talk) 09:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Respect move results on those pages, User:Spekkios do not try to sneak in a blanket move discussion without involving all those who voted in favour there. Gryffindor (talk) 17:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
  • First, WP:CCC. Second, there isn't any "sneaking" going on here. You might want to read the proposed move and the reasons why I have initiated it before making such an accusation. Third, see WP:CANVASS, and consider this a warning. --Spekkios (talk) 18:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
  • WP:CCC is a weak argument here - reviewing decisions in light of a policy change is one thing (which is very different to unilaterally moving dozens of pages at once, but that's an aside) but do it in that context, don't cite CCC. Otherwise we could just keep doing move requests until we get the answer we want and cite CCC as justification for doing so. As for Canvas, for the record I'd been planning to comment on this anyway (as I'm sure you can imagine) but just hadn't got around to it yet. Turnagra (talk) 18:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
  • WP:CCC is in response to "respect move results on those pages" as a reason not to move the articles given the above reponses and the RM. Moratoriums are also a thing if RMs are continuously proposed, which isn't the case here. User:Gryffindor has posted notifications of this discussion on the pages of users who supported the previous move and not those that didn't, which is blatant canvasing.--Spekkios (talk) 18:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
  • It was posted on the New Zealand noticeboard so it has been anything but sneaky. There is no requirement to notify editors who !voted a certain way, in fact doing so is very much frowned upon.[33] While I am sure most of those editors knew of this discussion anyway, your blatant canvassing (there was not even an attempt to make it neutral) has poisoned the well here. Aircorn (talk) 18:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
    Yeah, it bears saying that advertising deletion discussions on relevant noticeboards is actually encouraged, and it is not a canvas violation. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 13:57, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
  • The canvassing occurred when User:Gryffindor notified editors on their talk pages, and only those editors who had voted a certain way. --Spekkios (talk) 19:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose all I'm always a bit confused around the argument where people use WP:UCRN to try and justify moving to a single name for these places - does anyone really hold such a low opinion of Wikipedia users that they think they would get confused and think that Fox Glacier / Te Moeka o Tuawe and Fox Glacier are two separate things? The two West Coast glaciers are also complicated by the fact that there are nearby towns which - with single name usage - are identical to the glaciers, meaning that the glacier names fail WP:PRECISE (incidentally this could also be alleviated by using the proper name of the town of Franz Josef / Waiau, but the user who nominated this move also unilaterally removed that dual name too.) This also supports recognisability as the dual names are more clearly associated with the glacier than the townships. As per hike395 above, the use of dual names is also consistent with many other features in New Zealand and is more accurate than using a name nearly 25 years out of date.
As for the move of Haupapa / Tasman Glacier, I'd like to point out that the original move request to the dual name made no reference at all to NCNZ, making the original claim in this move request incorrect at best and intentionally misleading at worst. I also provided numerous sources from a variety of locations to support that move, including various academic articles, New Zealand Geographic, and tourism operators. Turnagra (talk) 18:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Turnagra (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)
  • WP:UCRN is applicable here because Fox Glacier is the recognisable part of the name, not Te Moeka o Tuawe, which is not. The current names fail WP:PRECISE because as that policy states titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that. For instance, Saint Teresa of Calcutta is too precise, as Mother Teresa is precise enough to indicate exactly the same topic. On the other hand, Horowitz would not be precise enough to identify unambiguously the famous classical pianist Vladimir Horowitz. Fox Glacier / Te Moeka o Tuawe is too precise, as Fox Glacier is precise enough to indicate exactly the same topic. Please provide evidence that dual names are more clearly associated with the glacier than the townships as all the sources provided above say otherwise. The name is not 25 years out of date as it is clearly still in use, as per the above sources. You might want to check the provided sources, as they show that Tasman Glacier is far more common than Haupapa / Tasman Glacier.--Spekkios (talk) 18:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
  • It made reference to official name, which I interpreted as being a reference to the former guideline, as outside that guideline the official name has no weight. To return to this move, I note that the two academic articles you provide are not independent, being required to use the official name under the NZGB Act 2008, and so per WP:COMMONNAME which requires independent sources should not be considered here. Meanwhile, "newzealand.com" is the official tourism website of New Zealand, and as a publications intended for travellers or tourists is also required to use the dual name and thus is not independent. This "compulsory usage" can be readily seen here; both your tourism sources cover the same "adventure", both are created by the same people, but only one, the "tourism publication" use the dual name, while your second source declines to do so. Finally, your NZGeo sources uses the two names interchangeably, using "Tasman Glacier" on the first occurrence, while other NZGeo articles use just "Tasman Glacier", such as this one. BilledMammal (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
  • In response to the canvassed accusation that BilledMammal has added to discredit my response, I was already well aware of this move request and had written a draft response by the time that the message was placed. Gryffindor's message had no bearing on my decision to get involved in this discussion. Turnagra (talk) 23:43, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Procedural oppose There are issues individual to the various articles that cannot be covered in a multi-move request. For example, Fox Glacier is also the name of a township and that impacts issues like natural disambiguation. Close the multi-move and start again with individual requests. Schwede66 18:48, 9 November 2021 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Schwede66 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)
  • Apart from the disambiguation (which can be discussed here) I see no other issues with this multi-move request. --Spekkios (talk) 18:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose If we want to review the moves in light of changed WP:NZNC rules, we should review them individually on recognizability and the disambiguation needs of each place like the potential need to disambiguate Fox Glacier for the township. "If one name would require disambiguation while the other would not, the non-ambiguous name may be preferred." and we may want to discuss renaming Fox Glacier / Te Moeka o Tuawe to be just concise enough with Te Moeka o Tuawe. EmeraldRange (talk) 19:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that EmeraldRange (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)
  • Note that concision is described "The goal of concision is to balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the general subject area." Given the lack of use for "Te Moeka o Tuawe" (see Ngrams above) I don't think it meets this second part - and if we are going by pure character count, "Fox Glacier" as the primary topic is slightly shorter. In general though, concision is just one aspect of WP:CRITERIA, which hike has covered above. BilledMammal (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Support All per nom. The proposed titles are obviously more concise, equally as accurate, are less likely to surprise, do not offend against WP:SLASH, and are the WP:COMMONNAME in each case. WP:NCNZ was a failed attempt to override global Wikipedia policies/guidelines and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS through a local consensus, time to undo it. FOARP (talk) 15:45, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose all - Per previous opposers. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 20:38, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose all per procedural concerns (should not concatenate moves that are so simple with ones that are much more complicated), as well as issues with several individual moves. Including A) Fox Glacier is better DAB'd from the township by using its Maori name. If there is ever a way to disambiguate in a more natural way, that is preferred to unnatural parentheticals. B) Similar argument for Franz Josef / Waiau, and C) The fact that we are attempting to overwrite the consensus at Haupapa / Tasman Glacier by now re-applying new name requirements which do not change that discussion is at best a misunderstanding and at worst a revisionist attempt to make the new NCNZ into a negative guideline. It does not prescribe any change at Haupapa. We should not apply it there as though it does. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Worth mentioning that WP:NZNC does have a prescribed format for disambiguation. Further, Fox Glacier doesn't need disambiguation, as Fox Glacier is the primary topic for Fox Glacier even when it is at a different title. As for Franz Josef Glacier, the same applies - disambiguation from the town of "Franz Josef" is not required, due to the glacier being primary, and having a different name. BilledMammal (talk) 23:10, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Are you meaning the same NZNC guidelines that have led to both Fox and Franz townships being disambiguated as "x Glacier, New Zealand"? They don't seem like great guidelines in this instance, and can still cause confusion. Turnagra (talk) 23:43, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Under the guideline, they should be disambiguated as (town). Off topic, but would you object to such a move to quickly fix the issue? BilledMammal (talk) 00:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Turns out we were both a little confused. Fox Glacier is already at Fox Glacier (town), while Franz Josef needs to be disambiguated to "Franz Josef, New Zealand" due to the existence of things/people outside of New Zealand. BilledMammal (talk) 07:14, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I meant that they'd both been through the NZ disambig in the past - Fox was only moved to the current title last year. As far as Franz goes, I think it doesn't need to be at that title because it has a perfectly suitable natural disambiguation in "Franz Josef / Waiau", but that's a conversation for another time. Turnagra (talk) 08:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
  • A) This article is the primary topic and does not need disambiguation. Names must also continue to meet WP:CRITERIA and this name is simply far too long.
B) Ditto for Franz Josef.
C) This consensus is hardly strong. Furthermore, the only non-weak support was due to "Use of the dual name has become common over the last two years" which would only be relevant under the old guideline unless proven to be the common name. --Spekkios (talk) 19:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Oppose all per above. SHB2000 (talk) 10:01, 28 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fox_Glacier/Archive_1&oldid=1150249485"