Talk:Mount Cook Village

Requested move 31 August 2026

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: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) msk 14:50, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

---

Mount Cook Village → Aoraki/Mount Cook Village – The official name of the village is Aoraki/Mount Cook. However, the qualifier Village is important to provide distinction with the mountain, Aoraki / Mount Cook. The pages for Aoraki / Mount Cook and Aoraki / Mount Cook National Park already correctly reflect the official names, albeit with additional spaces added. This page should be updated to reflect the official name.

References

~2026-47311-96 (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 04:22, 15 September 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 04:26, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Comment if the page does get moved, the naming conventions specify that we need to use the spaced slash form. So it would be Aoraki / Mount Cook Village, not what is is proposed in the request. Turnagra (talk) 20:19, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Where is that expressed in the naming conventions? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:55, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

WP:NZNC#Convention for dual names. Turnagra (talk) 18:57, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Looking at some of its discussion history, it appears that at some point in time, MOS:SLASH said "A spaced slash may be used ... to separate items that include at least one internal space ... where for some reason use of a slash is unavoidable." It no longer says that. Apparently that was removed relatively recently – at 22:19, 16 November 2025 (UTC) after a now-archived discussion. The discussion did not seem to focus much on the "internal space" aspect; instead what was primarily discussed was the vagueness of when it can be concluded that "a slash is unavoidable", and as a result, the exception about an internal space in the alternatives was removed. If both alternative names are just a single word, I wonder whether the space is desirable or not. Are there any good New Zealand examples of cases like that? The New Zealand naming convention seems to now conflict with the modified guidance that applies across the whole of the English Wikipedia. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:31, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

I think it's almost always going to be at least two words on one side of the name, owing to the English tradition of place names typically being "Mount x" or "y River" and so on. The only one that potentially comes to mind is Pūkorokoro / Miranda but it's definitely the exception rather than the norm. I'd be hesitant for that discussion to have too much of a bearing given it seems like it was a pretty small discussion that was oblivious to this context and this is a pretty well traversed area. I have a vague recollection that the NZ Geographic Board is also in the process of standardising all dual names to the spaced slash form (which, granted, I couldn't find a reference to in my cursory search, but I'll try again when I have more time), which means moving away from that would put us out of step with usage on the ground of these names. Turnagra (talk) 19:55, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose Mount Cook Village appears to be the common name https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Anzherald.co.nz+%22mt+cook+village%22&tbs=qdr%3Ay Traumnovelle (talk) 21:08, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

  That search is fundamentally flawed - of course you're only going to find results for "Mount Cook Village" if all you search for is "Mount Cook Village", and (thankfully) the Herald isn't the sole arbiter of what's common. Other sources seem to use the dual name a lot more, or even just "Aoraki Mount Cook" to refer to the whole area without the distinction of the village. I don't have strong feelings one way or the other, but I don't think your google search is enough to base the decision on, especially as some of those results use the dual name too. Turnagra (talk) 19:48, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

  2/14 use the dual name. Results for Aoraki Mount Cook Village show up when searching for Mount Cook Village and Google does not include slashes in the search so it won't matter

  Its on the nominator/those who support the move to prove the common name. I searched the main NZ newspaper and it wasn't close. Stuff don't use it either Traumnovelle (talk) 20:56, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

  Whether you think it is the common name or not is, infact, irrelevant: https://gazetteer.linz.govt.nz/place/7298 ~2026-50184-65 (talk) 23:00, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

  It is not irrelevant per WP:COMMONNAME, and the name you propose isn't the common name nor the official name. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:06, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

• Support “Mount Cook” remains recognizable in the proposed title, while including “Aoraki” better reflects the settlement's official name. I think “Aoraki / Mount Cook Village” provides more benefit than harm because it retains clarity while distinguishing the settlement from the similarly named geographic features.

WP:NATURAL allows the use of alternative names found in reliable sources to resolve ambiguity, and WP:PRECISION says a title should contain enough information to distinguish the subject from others. While “Aoraki / Mount Cook Village” is not itself the gazetted name, the purpose of the title is not necessarily to reproduce the official name exactly, but to identify the subject clearly and unambiguously. Sergeant Curious (talk) 20:55, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

• I don't think the evidence presented establishes that Mount Cook Village is the common name under WP.

  The cited Google search is not really a comparative test of naming usage: it specifically searches for pages containing "mt cook village" and then counts the names occurring within that pre-selected set. In statistical terms, that tells us something like the proportion using the dual form conditional on the page already containing “Mt Cook Village”; it does not tell us the proportion of reliable sources referring to the settlement that use each competing name. Articles referring to the locality as Aoraki/Mount Cook Village, Aoraki/Mt Cook, Aoraki, or simply the village can therefore be systematically underrepresented.

  Looking at the underlying sources rather than raw search hits shows substantially more mixed—and changing—usage. For example, 1News explicitly referred to the “South Island villages of Aoraki/Mount Cook and Lake Ōhau” and later to Aoraki/Mount Cook Village in 2022, and used Aoraki/Mt Cook village again in 2024. ODT's 2025 travel coverage independently introduces the settlement as Aoraki Mount Cook village and thereafter frequently calls it simply the village. Recent NZ Herald reporting has likewise used Aoraki Mt Cook village.

  There also appears to be a temporal change. Older sources frequently distinguish Mt Cook Village from Aoraki/Mt Cook: for example, ODT did exactly that in a 2015 travel article. Contemporary sources, however, demonstrably use both Mount Cook Village and Aoraki/Mount Cook Village, with the latter becoming increasingly conspicuous. This is therefore not a case where the proposed form is merely an unused officialism competing with an obvious contemporary common name.

  It is also worth distinguishing the official name from the proposed article title. The gazetted name of the settlement is Aoraki / Mount Cook. “Village” is a natural disambiguator from the identically named mountain, and Aoraki/Mount Cook Village is itself demonstrably used by reliable sources. WP does not require a naturally disambiguated title to reproduce the Gazetteer entry verbatim.

  Most importantly, WP asks us to look at prevalence in independent reliable English-language sources. The evidence presented so far does not demonstrate a significant-majority contemporary usage for Mount Cook Village. It demonstrates that Mount Cook Village remains an established name alongside substantial contemporary usage of Aoraki/Mount Cook Village and Aoraki/Mount Cook.

  The claimed “2/14” result therefore shouldn't be treated as evidence of a 12:2 preference in reliable sources: the denominator was generated by searching specifically for one of the competing names. To establish that sort of claim, the appropriate comparison would be a corpus of sources selected because they refer to the settlement, followed by classification of which name each source independently chooses—not a corpus selected because it already contains Mt Cook Village.

  Where no single name has been shown to predominate, the other WP criteria—recognizability, naturalness, precision, concision and consistency—remain relevant. The official name Aoraki / Mount Cook, naturally disambiguated as Aoraki/Mount Cook Village and already well attested in contemporary reliable-source usage, therefore cannot simply be dismissed on the basis that the exact proposed string is neither the Gazetteer entry nor an established significant-majority COMMONNAME. ~2026-50184-65 (talk) 00:12, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

• Do not use an LLM to write your comments. You will be blocked and your comments will be disregarded. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:38, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

  that is not a substantive response. ~2026-50184-65 (talk) 20:55, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

  Anything written by an LLM lacks substance. You are meant to make arguments yourself, not have a machine do it for you. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:11, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) And that is deflection, and at best a non-denial. We are here to discuss what we think, not what an LLM can produce in favor of one outcome or another. Prompted by instructions like "give me a Wikipedia talk page argument in favor of X", an LLM will generally not respond with "Gee, I guess you're right, and I would like to withdraw the proposal" or "Now that you mention it, Y would be a better idea." —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:14, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

  the irony being that this is precisely the sort of thing that LLMs are actually somewhat useful for... Ultimately, @Traumnovelle used a flawed analysis to support their argument. Which of course is further undermined since google searches are generally non-deterministic themselves given that google is trying to cater its results to the preferences of the searcher (and yes, LLMs are utilised in that process, and no, disabling personalisation does not guarantee a deterministic google search).

  Perhaps the most interesting revelation to come out of this is that "the main NZ newspaper" is lagging in implementing a gazetted placename, despite it being relatively commonly (if not predominantly) used elsewhere. Lazy journalism? Sloppy editorial standards? An outdated style guide? An editorial bias against a fairly significant treaty settlement? I suspect the first, but who knows. I think it's weird and lazy to rely on a single (not particularly local) media outlet as a determinant of the common name of a locality.

  I note also the following from Wikipedia:Article titles - Wikipedia (bolded emphasis mine):

  "In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies, and notable scientific journals."

  I think there's a fairly reasonable case to make the change to "Aoraki / Mt Cook". This would obviously require at the very least disambiguation from the mountain. I'm on the fence with appending village.

  The motivation behind the WP approach to common names is overall decent, but it is also not infallible (or moreover, maybe naming conventions aren't as universal as we might like). This is an example where it can start to drift toward common style fallacy. ~2026-50184-65 (talk) 22:00, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

  Google personalisation changes which results are shown first. It won't hide results: you can repeat the exact same search and you will get the same results.

  Your opinion of the NZ Herald is irrelevant.

  >I think it's weird and lazy

  This is your nomination, it is on you to provide evidence. The only evidence you have provided to support the move is the gazetteer entry. Also I provided a search from Stuff as well, which also overwhelmingly prefers Mount Cook Village or various forms.

  >I think there's a fairly reasonable case

  Based on what? You've quoted the guideline but haven't given any evidence nor explained why the guideline supports your move.

  >The motivation behind the WP approach to common names is overall decent, but it is also not infallible (or moreover, maybe naming conventions aren't as universal as we might like). This is an example where it can start to drift toward common style fallacy.

  Then you need to explain why 'Aoraki / Mount Cook Village' is a better choice of article title. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:52, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

  This isn't my nomination. I joined the discussion after the RM was opened, and as mentioned above, I'm on the fence about whether “Village” should be appended. My main issue is your insistence that Mt Cook Village is overwhelming the contemporary common name, for which I think the evidence is thinner than you suggest, and mired in shortcomings of WP protocol - especially when it comes to geographic names. I don't think it's particularly useful to frame this as “my move” which I have some special obligation to defend.

  My point about the evidence is narrower. Your searches provide some evidence of usage, but they aren't a comparative test establishing that Mount Cook Village is the common name. A Google search for pages containing "Mt Cook Village" returns results conditionally on them containing that string. Counting how many results in that sample also contain Aoraki doesn't tell us the relative prevalence of the competing names in an unselected body of sources - it suffers selection bias. The fact that Google may return the same results when you repeat a search doesn't make the ranking/search methodology a controlled or reproducible analysis (it fundamentally is not).

  The Gazetteer isn't irrelevant evidence either. WP:AT expressly says that in determining which alternative name is most frequently used, it is useful to consider geographic name servers alongside major media, encyclopedias, scientific bodies, etc. The NZGB Gazetteer establishes that the official name of the locality is Aoraki/Mt Cook. Because of NZ's open national spatial-data infrastructure, official geographic names from the NZGB Gazetteer propagate through LINZ datasets and into the mapping ecosystems used by major web-map and navigation providers. So if I (or anyone else) ask Google Maps or Apple Maps for directions to “Mt Cook Village”, I'm directed to the locality labelled Aoraki/Mount Cook. For a geographic name, that is a substantial element of contemporary public usage and exposure which simply isn't captured by searching newspaper archives. This is probably a much more common "experience" of the name than obsessing over the NZ Heralds anachronisms. That doesn't automatically determine the Wikipedia title under COMMONNAME, but it is plainly relevant evidence rather than something displaced by a search of the Herald or Stuff.

  I don't think the evidence presently establishes either proposition as strongly as you're suggesting. There is evidence for continued media use of Mount Cook Village, and there is evidence for Aoraki/Mount Cook from the authoritative geographic naming source and other usage. If the RM is going to turn on common name rather than the official name, the useful next step would be a genuinely comparative sample of independent reliable sources, rather than searches preconditioned on one particular name. ~2026-50184-65 (talk) 21:03, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

  I said appears; the NZ Herald search was to give an indication of what name is more common. If the results were more mixed I would have undertaken a more thorough look, but as it stands I have no reason to given both searches I have done indicate Mount Cook Village and variations is more common than the dual name.

  The guideline states: as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources, the gazetteer, as legally required to use the name that was passed into law by Parliament is not independent here. The gazetteer includes Mount Cook as well, which is what the guideline text is about, i.e. is the name recorded.

  >So if I (or anyone else) ask Google Maps or Apple Maps for directions to “Mt Cook Village”, I'm directed to the locality labelled Aoraki/Mount Cook.

  You quite clearly have your bias here if you are going to label the use of Mount Cook Village as an 'anachronism' and your spiel about some alleged bias against a 1998 treaty settlement.

  >and other usage

  Which still has yet to be provided.

  > If the RM is going to turn on common name rather than the official name, the useful next step would be a genuinely comparative sample of independent reliable sources

  The onus is on those who wish to change the name to provide evidence and a convincing argument for that. If no consensus is formed the status quo is maintained. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:33, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

• Weak oppose due to no WP:COMMONNAME evidence, we don't use WP:OFFICIALNAMES just because, and if we were it should be "Aoraki / Mount Cook (town)". Cannot argue use "official name" but then alter it. Evidence is needed showing a change to the existing WP:COMMONNAME, and that more sources use this specific altered proper form among all forms. Actual signage uses just Aoraki Mount Cook Village (no slash) complicating it more. DankJae 00:04, 23 September 2026 (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.