Talk:Lyttelton Harbour

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

Toponymy[edit]

What is the toponymy of Lyttelton Harbour? The article says the name was made official in 1858, however the source says this was Port Lyttelton and it seems to be saying Lord Lyttelton was officially consenting to the use of his name for the Port, not the Harbour. Has the source been misinterpreted, or is it wrong? The first reported use of Lyttelton Harbour that I can find comes from John Robert Godley in 1853, when he gave a speech to the Canterbury Association upon his return to England. The first use I can find in an official document is when describing the electorate for the Town of Lyttelton in 1858. Port Cooper was officially declared to be Port Victoria when it was declared a Port of Entry in 1849, while the Town of Lyttelton was officially proclaimed as a Town (effective 1 June 1850) on 29 May 1850. Additionally, Port Victoria is still being used as late as 1878 in official documents announcing election results, so I don't think that name has been extinguished officially. Also, Whakaraupō first appears in English as Wakaraupo Bay in a letter dated 4 May 1849 from Captain J. L. Stokes, H.M.S.V. Acheron, to Governor Grey; so I think the Maori language toponymy is entirely credible. As is the official dual name of Lyttelton Harbour / Whakaraupō because this is readly found in the NZGB Place name Gazetteer. But the common name of this place is currently Lyttelton Harbour and the usage starts in newspapers from 1853, not from 1858. Why? There is no toponymy story for this recorded, but unofficial, place name that is in most common usage. The article doesn't explain the place name and I don't think anybody has properly researched it, either. So this is going to be rather tricky to explain if one is to avoid it being labeled "original research" - which it probably is. Even so, the current article, and especially the lead section, is inaccurate and uninformative in this respect and does need to have the place name and its usage properly explained. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 07:12, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After some more research, the New Zealand Pilot (1875) pp 212-215 [1] has an entry for Port Lyttelton or Victoria. The notes there indicate that the original name was Port Cooper but the names Lyttelton or Victoria are from an 1849 survey chart by Captain Stokes R.N., where both names are used. There are reports noted from the Collector of Customs at port Victoria in 1855 and the Lyttelton Harbour Commission in 1863. This provides a better explanation for the name, because the harbour appears to have acquired it name from the Commission managing the harbour, or was it the other way around? Unfortunately, there is no record of a linguist or a toponymist observing these changes in name usage, so one needs to rely on printed information that we still have access to today. Examples of this are newspaper columns like the Shipping News, that report the coming and going of vessels under the various names; Cooper, Victoria and Lyttelton. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 20:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

History section[edit]

What should really be in the History section? Most of what is there at the moment is more relevant to individual places in the harbour that have their own articles. There is nothing about the harbour's pre-history, European discovery, exploration, early settlement, survey, Canterbury Association settlement plans, and that just takes us up to 1850. There is one mention about Port development in the inner Harbour, but what happened with other harbour developments such as cross-harbour ferries, marina, land reclamation and tank farm, Roll-On-Roll-Off Ferries, the container port, Cruise ships, the 2011 earthquakes, earthquake recovery. Is any of this relevant or should it be covered in other articles? If it is the latter, there should be at least a sentence or so here that directs readers to where the item is dealt with more thoroughly. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 September 2021[edit]

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 (♔ ♕) 12:54, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lyttelton Harbour → Lyttelton Harbour / Whakaraupō – official name since 1998 [2], time to move along now and update this. Gryffindor (talk) 08:05, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also worth adding that naming conventions does not explicitly support this change and is ambiguous in guidance this case. — HTGS (talk) 23:04, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As further evidence, reliable sources using the current name without mention of the dual name: RNZ 1 and 2; Stuff; The Star (via ODT); Herald. This name is just too long and cumbersome for people to be using it as a common name… and clearly they're not. — HTGS (talk) 04:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support reflects the current convention of dual place names taking precedent over old, outdated forms, and follows the official usage from the gazetteer. The dual name of Lyttelton Harbour / Whakaraupō is also used by many local companies and organisations that interact with the harbour, including the Lyttelton Port Company and local NGOs. Turnagra (talk) 03:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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) 09:12, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The media's using the name (eg Stuff article) and many websites use it; a Google search for "Whakaraupō" finds 42,100 results. Johnragla (talk) 09:23, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (New Zealand), the relevant and official wikipedia naming convention, reads in part Dual names. If there are sources that indicate that a dual name has usage beyond mandatory official usage, put the article at the dual name, with redirects from each of the component names... If sources do not support use of the dual name, the English name will almost certainly be the one in common usage. Andrewa (talk) 08:48, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sorry, could you clarify this a bit please? From my read, the supporting comments have proven that the dual name has usage beyond mandatory official use of the dual place name, in which instance the quoted passage would support a move to the dual name. Turnagra (talk) 09:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per NZ naming conventions. There is usage beyond mandatory official usage therefore it should be moved. ShakyIsles (talk) 04:37, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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) 07:15, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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 discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Port Pegasus / Pikihatiti which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Surface area[edit]

The article says the harbour has a surface area of 4000 km². According to page 6 of this report [1] by Environment Canterbury the whole of Banks peninsula has a total area of around 1000 km² so Whakaraupō cannot be anywhere near 4000 km². Wirikinihana (talk) 07:35, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Using the measuring tool at NZGB Gazeteer I get 42.551177 km2 (16.429101 sq mi). That's original research, but maybe better than the current figure? Johnragla (talk) 09:17, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was a discussion about areas, which was inconclusive, but inclined towards leaving it for article editors to decide. Is that sufficient reason to add 43 km2 (17 sq mi)? Johnragla (talk) 19:23, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe it's meant to be 4000 Hectares and someone got the unit wrong? Turnagra (talk) 18:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Banks Peninsula/Horomaka". Retrieved 5 December 2021.

Requested move 11 May 2022[edit]

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. Would have closed this as no consensus, given the clear impasse here. But as such a close requires that we have the article at the latest stable title. Unlike several other dual names, the dual name title of this article wasn't stabilized before the fateful RFC that repealed mandatory dual names was filed; this article was moved from the proposed title to the dual name only one day before the RFC started. The only other stable title available is the proposed title, so we should use it. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 07:27, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lyttelton Harbour / Whakaraupō → Lyttelton Harbour – Per WP:COMMONNAME. Ngrams shows that Lyttelton Harbour is overwhelmingly used compared to Whakaraupo, which means that it is overwhelmingly used compared to any format of the dual name as all formats will include Whakaraupo. Google News shows the same thing, with 97 results in the past year for Lyttelton Harbour, compared to 23 results for Whakaraupō. BilledMammal (talk) 03:40, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. These results are biased towards the dual name; for example, it counts this article and this article as results for the dual name, not Lyttelton Harbour, despite them appearing to prefer Lyttelton Harbour and not using any form of a dual name. The fact that the preference for Lyttelton Harbour is so strong despite this bias should strengthen the argument to move to the single name. BilledMammal (talk) 03:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. FWIW, I count only 86 results for "Lyttelton Harbour" when I click that Google News link, but the margin (plus the mitigating factor described above) are still sufficient to convince me that "Lyttelton Harbour" is the common name. Colin M (talk) 17:40, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - per the multiple arguments made the previous two times this was litigated. There's widespread use of the dual name across a variety of sectors which interact with the harbour (including by the successor to the Lyttelton Harbour Board, references to which may inadvertently prop up the total number of references to the proposed title). This use includes a variety of the reference works which WP:WIAN tells us to use in determining the article title, including maps, gazetteers, and international databases, all of which points to the dual name being the one to use. Turnagra (talk) 20:03, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please stop WP:LAWYERING. Advice at WIAN is consistent with policy at WP:AT; that is, we should use the most common name, and there is no directive to preference official names. — HTGS (talk) 00:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Use in a small number of selected sources or sectors does not override the common name, which is quite clearly Lyttelton Harbour. --Spekkios (talk) 23:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, as well as WP:CRITERIA; the proposed title is significantly more natural, recognisable and concise. Also worth noting that WP:WIAN wants the name most often used for this entity. — HTGS (talk) 00:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) says, "By following modern English usage, we also avoid arguments about what a place ought to be called, instead asking the less contentious question, what it is called." That clearly doesn't apply to all the arguments going on over names in this country. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Search engine issues sets out the problems with using that evidence. According to who we speak to, where we are and what we read, we all have different perceptions of what is commonly used. Unlike some other countries, the Geographic Board is much less influenced by government. Therefore I incline to accepting its decisions. Also there has already been more discussion on the name when it was changed in September, so I don't see that anything significant has happened since. Johnragla (talk) 19:25, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As discussed above, the search engine issues in this situation actually bias towards the dual name. And New Zealand dual names are generally over-represented in news media, relative to their local, English language use. So we should only prefer the dual name if it is certainly the most common result in search tests. And as of 2022, it is not.
    It’s also incredibly misleading to suggest that the Geographic Board doesn’t simply follow what the government dictates; this particular dual name was created by an act of parliament, after all. — HTGS (talk) 21:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I'm not sure why this is being relitigated when there is a robust debate above with Gryffindor's nomination. The current name meets the criteria Lyttelton Harbour / Whakaraupō of WP:PLACE. As Turnagra has outlined it is the name used in all the authoritative reference works per WP:WIAN. Also WP:MODERNPLACENAME is relevent and point to the current dual name.
Regarding the the Ngrams and google searchs counts, as has been previously mentioned, these counts are throw out by references to historical events and even current organisations, buildings that use the historical short name e.g. Lyttelton Harbour Board or Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre (that has the dual name plasted at the top of thier website).
What do people who interact with the harbour regularly call it? The port [3], the local museum [4], sailing club on harbour [5], business association [6] all use dual name.
Finally, per WP:CRITERIA: Recognizability - the dual name is arguably more recognisabl as it also include the historical moari name, Naturalness - the dual name is the most natural given it is at the actual name (the name of the harbour for almost 25 years), Precision - the dual name is the most accurate title, unambiguously identifing the harbour by it's legal name, Concision - dual name is slightly longer than suggested name buit not unessary long, Consistency - consitiant with a range of dual named NZ place name including other local water bodies e.g. Lake Ellesmere / Te Waihora. ShakyIsles (talk) 22:27, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is being discussed again because since that discussion WP:NZNC was changed to no longer support dual names, which per the closer of that discussion is sufficient reason to hold a new discussion. WP:MPN requires the change having become predominant in common global usage, and WP:WIAN requires us to use reliable sources - none of the sources you provided meet the requirements of WP:RELIABLE. I also disagree with your assessment of WP:CRITERIA:
  1. Recognizability - the dual name is less recognizable to readers who are familiar with the area, but not sufficiently familiar to know that it official has a dual name
  2. Naturalness - the dual name is less natural because natural refers to what the subject is actually called in English, not what the official name is, and per the evidence presented above it is actually called Lyttelton Harbour. Google Trends tells us the same thing.
  3. Precision - the names are equally precise
  4. Concision - the single name is around half as long as the dual name
  5. Consistency - both dual names and single names are used on other arguments; consistency doesn't apply here.
BilledMammal (talk) 23:22, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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:Lyttelton_Harbour&oldid=1203682204"