Talk:Aoraki/Mount Cook

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Mountains, a project to systematically present information on mountains. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information)

Contents 1 Move suggestion 2 Move suggestion 2 3 First traverse of triple peak 4 Requested move 4.1 Survey 4.2 Discussion

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 ....