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. That said, I really would like to see some consensus at WP:NCNZ that says "in the case of disambiguation, dual names are preferable to parentheses as they are a natural form of disambiguation", which is the direction of this discussion, but is only persuasive for future cases, not binding. I'd also like to see another discussion just for Franz Josef, because it's a different form of natural disambiguation, but I don't see any reason to single it out from the consensus of this discussion. Sceptre (talk) 17:56, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Ashley River (New Zealand) → Ashley River / Rakahuri
• Clarence River (New Zealand) → Waiau Toa / Clarence River
• Cook River (New Zealand) → Cook River / Weheka
• Franz Josef, New Zealand → Franz Josef / Waiau
• French Pass (New Zealand) → Te Aumiti / French Pass
• Pig Island (New Zealand) → Pig Island / Mātau
• Quail Island (New Zealand) → Ōtamahua / Quail Island
• Queen Charlotte Sound (New Zealand) → Queen Charlotte Sound / Tōtaranui

– These pages were part of a group of articles that was moved without discussion, due to the recent change to the WP:NCNZ guideline. These pages were moved away from the dual names, but their current titles require disambiguation to be distinguished from other similarly named places. I feel that the dual name is a superior choice of disambiguation for these cases, as alternative names are considered to be a form of natural disambiguation and are therefore preferable to comma-separated or parenthetical disambiguation. I've also limited this RM to place names where the dual name is shorter than the parenthetically-disambiguated name, which makes the dual name preferable under WP:CONCISE. In each case, my suggested destination is the title by which the article was known prior to its move. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:25, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I agree. Johnragla (talk) 18:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Yes, this seems like a reasonable use of dual names as disambiguators, especially as the dual name is more concise. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 21:05, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If the use of dual names is chosen please use a consistent style: "Ashley River / Rakahuri" is "English / Māori" while "Waiau Toa / Clarence River" is "Māori / English". Gonnym (talk) 13:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The inconsistency in style is part of the official nomenclature, not a decision being made on my end. For instance, the New Zealand Gazetteer lists the two places as Ashley River / Rakahuri and Waiau Toa / Clarence River respectively. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:16, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree, though I think the consistent and policy compliant style would be "Commonname / Uncommonname". BilledMammal (talk) 05:39, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support these moves as a natural way to disambiguate the names.-gadfium 20:27, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Disambiguation as proposed is both natural and concise. Paora (talk) 21:53, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. As above concise and natural. Also meets WP:WIAN. ShakyIsles (talk) 23:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, as natural disambiguation is preferable over parenthetical disambiguation. Schwede66 19:31, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. WP:NZNC specifies how disambiguation for New Zealand place names where the WP:COMMONNAME is not unique, and the current format meets the format set out, while the proposed format does not (with the exception of Franz Josef, New Zealand, which should be moved to Franz Josef (New Zealand). I also note that three of the proposed moves do not disambiguate the common name, but instead replaces it; if dual naming is deemed to be an appropriate method to disambiguate, then the common name should be the leading name, with the disambiguating name placed after the slash. BilledMammal (talk) 05:25, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first sentence of NCNZ's "Disambiguation of New Zealand place names" section is New Zealand place names are written simply as the place name, unless confusion is likely to occur with duplicated names within the country or outside it. I would argue that the dual name is "simply... the place name" itself, and so there's no need to fall back upon the later disambiguation rules in such a case. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 17:03, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • In Wikipedia, the place name is determined by our other policies, and so in these cases the dual name is not "simply... the place name". In any case, would you agree with moving "French Pass (New Zealand)" to "French Pass", per my comment below? BilledMammal (talk) 20:38, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:COMMONNAME says,"When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus". Are any of these names demonstrably common? Johnragla (talk) 07:26, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe so. Take "Cook River"; Google News shows five recent articles using some variant of "Cook River / Weheka", all from stuff.co.nz, while from just stuff.co.nz it shows three recent articles using just "Cook River". If we start to check other agencies, such as the NZ Herald, Lonely Planet, the Spinoff, RNZ, and Otago Daily Times we see that it is the clear common name.

I couldn't find any use of just "Weheka" in relation to the river.

We could do the same investigation for the rest, but if we start an in depth discussion about which of these have a common name and which don't (I believe all of them, but I may be wrong) this will turn into a WP:TRAINWRECK, and it would be better to split this discussion into separate RM's rather than keeping it as a bundle. BilledMammal (talk) 08:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: As an addition to my previous comment, French Pass (New Zealand) should be moved to French Pass as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The disambiguation page currently at French Pass shows three entities with that name; one of them doesn't have an article, and the other receives 1% of the views that the French Pass in New Zealand receives. BilledMammal (talk) 10:07, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support all, including moving French Pass (New Zealand) to Te Aumiti / French Pass, per nom and other commenters. Turnagra (talk) 07:56, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you explain why you support moving French Pass (New Zealand) to Te Aumiti / French Pass rather than French Pass? Do you believe that this French Pass is not the primary topic, because I don't see how that can be? BilledMammal (talk) 08:19, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: While the suggested titles require disambiguation, a disambiguation title still needs to meet naming WP:CRITERIA. The proposed names are not the natural titles that someone would look or search for. I highly doubt that someone who wants the Ashley River in New Zealand would search for "Ashley River Rakahuri" over just "Ashley River New Zealand". The titles must also reflect how the topics are referred to in English, which again would be by their current titles and not by the proposed. "Queen Charlotte Sound" is referred to in English as "Queen Charlotte Sound", and if there is any confusion over which Queen Charlotte Sound someone is referring to, then it would be referred to as the Queen Charlotte Sound in New Zealand, not "Queen Charlotte Sound Tōtaranui". That is simply not natural for English speakers, nor is it the WP:COMMONNAME. As such, the current titles properly convey the topic as it is commonly referred to in English, and are therefore the most natural disambiguations that we could use. I also support moving French Pass (New Zealand) to just French Pass because it is the clear primary topic and doesn't need a disambiguation. --Spekkios (talk) 02:37, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who searches for Ashley River would come across an Ashley River Rakahuri page, so I don't think this is a relevant argument. WP:CRITERIA also does not ask that we use the title exactly as we would refer to it in English as the title should be concise and precise. Particularly, on the point of precision, using dual names is effectively a disambiguation is essentially as consise as adding a parenthetical disambiguation. It is clear that Ashley River / Rakahuri is in New Zealand by virtue of the dual name and Maori name. EmeraldRange (talk) 05:01, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who searches for Ashley River would come across this page at any number of title varriations. WP:CRITERIA also requires that we use the name commonly used in sources and by English speakers. These proposed titles are hardly more concise than the current titles. We shouldn't assume that everyone who wants the Ashley River in New Zealand is familiar with Maori or dual names. --Spekkios (talk) 17:54, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]