This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A new post-quake photo would be useful. 65.93.15.125 ( talk) 12:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
whats with this "was" and "which"? shag rock is still standing and stronger than ever! yeeeeeeeaah! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.69.247.109 ( talk) 10:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
The article is about Shag Rock, which is called Rapanui in Māori, so the article should be called by one or other of those names. However, there are other places recorded as Shag Rock (about 8 in NZ alone) and other places called Rapanui (at least one in NZ), but no others I am aware of where both names come together. The Christchurch City Libraries have an article called Rapanui — Shag Rock and this is one of those unofficial place names that really deserves to be given a dual Māori/European name. In Maori such tokatūmoana, literally rocks (toka) in the sea (moana), are given their own names, in this case it is Rapanui. But never in my life have heard this place being referred to as Rapanui Rock! This is a bastardization of both the English and Māori names and indicates the original contributors are not only being somewhat culturally insensitive to both Europeans and Māori but also have not really understood the Wikipedia naming conventions for Articles or the more specific naming conventions for New Zealand place names. Also, looking through the early edit history I can see this started off as a copyright violation of the [cited] Christchurch Library article in any case, so I don't know why they even chose this unfortunate article title. I think this place is sufficiently notable to deserve its own separate article, as it has been the subject of numerous paintings and photographs, as well as described in various books. Reference to its change as lost heritage is also noted in a (not so recently) published book.
Consequently, I think this article should be moved to Shag Rock / Rapanui. This puts the more common English usage first but puts the Māori usage into the title. While this is not an official dual place name, this naming gets around the problem that both names are already used in Wikipedia for other places. If the place is ever given a dual name, which is quite possible, then Rapanui / Shag Rock would still be available, should it ever be needed. Any thoughts before I get bold and make this move? - Cameron Dewe ( talk) 22:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I just noticed that the web page Rapanui — Shag Rock by the Christchurch City Libraries cites Wikipedia. This source appears to be the original source material for the article but has been updated with information from Wikipedia in May 2014. I am thinking of moving this source to an External link, rather than have it as a reference source but it contains other information from an older source too. I think the affected information in this source is probably the post-2010 Earthquake information about sea-stacks, so shouldn't be cited for its geology. This article is also cited in relation to the meaning of the place name, but I think there are other sources that can be used. This article needs a better reference source about its geology. Any ideas? - Cameron Dewe ( talk) 19:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A new post-quake photo would be useful. 65.93.15.125 ( talk) 12:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
whats with this "was" and "which"? shag rock is still standing and stronger than ever! yeeeeeeeaah! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.69.247.109 ( talk) 10:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
The article is about Shag Rock, which is called Rapanui in Māori, so the article should be called by one or other of those names. However, there are other places recorded as Shag Rock (about 8 in NZ alone) and other places called Rapanui (at least one in NZ), but no others I am aware of where both names come together. The Christchurch City Libraries have an article called Rapanui — Shag Rock and this is one of those unofficial place names that really deserves to be given a dual Māori/European name. In Maori such tokatūmoana, literally rocks (toka) in the sea (moana), are given their own names, in this case it is Rapanui. But never in my life have heard this place being referred to as Rapanui Rock! This is a bastardization of both the English and Māori names and indicates the original contributors are not only being somewhat culturally insensitive to both Europeans and Māori but also have not really understood the Wikipedia naming conventions for Articles or the more specific naming conventions for New Zealand place names. Also, looking through the early edit history I can see this started off as a copyright violation of the [cited] Christchurch Library article in any case, so I don't know why they even chose this unfortunate article title. I think this place is sufficiently notable to deserve its own separate article, as it has been the subject of numerous paintings and photographs, as well as described in various books. Reference to its change as lost heritage is also noted in a (not so recently) published book.
Consequently, I think this article should be moved to Shag Rock / Rapanui. This puts the more common English usage first but puts the Māori usage into the title. While this is not an official dual place name, this naming gets around the problem that both names are already used in Wikipedia for other places. If the place is ever given a dual name, which is quite possible, then Rapanui / Shag Rock would still be available, should it ever be needed. Any thoughts before I get bold and make this move? - Cameron Dewe ( talk) 22:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I just noticed that the web page Rapanui — Shag Rock by the Christchurch City Libraries cites Wikipedia. This source appears to be the original source material for the article but has been updated with information from Wikipedia in May 2014. I am thinking of moving this source to an External link, rather than have it as a reference source but it contains other information from an older source too. I think the affected information in this source is probably the post-2010 Earthquake information about sea-stacks, so shouldn't be cited for its geology. This article is also cited in relation to the meaning of the place name, but I think there are other sources that can be used. This article needs a better reference source about its geology. Any ideas? - Cameron Dewe ( talk) 19:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)