Talk:Afon Tanat

Wales Low‑importance

	Wales portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rivers Low‑importance

	Geography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rivers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rivers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RiversWikipedia:WikiProject RiversTemplate:WikiProject RiversRiver articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

Requested move 2 April 2024[edit]

It has been proposed in this section that Afon Tanat be renamed and moved to River Tanat.

A bot will list this discussion on requested moves' current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly.

Links: current log • target log • direct move

Afon Tanat → River Tanat – Ngrams shows "River Tanat" is used more in English, therefore the WP:COMMONNAME. As used by CPAT [1], NRW [2], and UK Gov. A lot of search results seem to take after Wikipedia when searching the current name. Plus the current name is from Welsh, but not the apparent common Welsh name itself, which is Afon Tanad, so the current is neither the common Welsh or English name. Dank Jae 12:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Natg 19 (talk) 23:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose OS maps use the current name and the OS is English rather than Welsh. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why does OS maps take precedent over everything else? We don’t follow WP:OFFICIALNAMES. Dank Jae 17:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The OS is normally the best indicator of common usage, doesn't the fact that the English based OS use a Welsh name say something? Though at the same time I accept that the OS is less reliable at the same time outside England so if the consensus that "River Tanat" is the common name I'm quite happy for the closer to discount my opinion but I'd note that while Google searches for both the current name and proposed suggest the proposed may be slightly more common and as you note the title of this article may have influenced other sources I don't see the proposed name as being significantly more common so using the OS name may make sense. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the OS is now undergoing a review of all place names in Wales, using an academic rather than common usage approach, the OS is now set to be less "common use" but more "correct use". I don't think OS has ever stated they represent common use. Dank Jae 19:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OS name policy state they consider "local usage and custom" and communicates with authorities for the "most suitable name", nothing about common use. For Welsh, OS state they consider common usage for Welsh place names, but they also consider many other factors too, such as consistency, seeking proper authority, and discussing the "accepted form". Therefore not certain "common use", so other evidence needs to be used, then just OS alone.

I've seen cases where the OS is wholly rejected by sources, notably my local Cefn Mawr. Dank Jae 19:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: It has a generally accepted English name, as can be seen on a wide variety of websites, official and unofficial, e.g. the UK Environment Agency, Tripadviser, local hostelries etc.---Ehrenkater (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Afon Tanat is used by Ordnance Survey and by Natural Resources Wales. This is an area where the Welsh langauge is dominant. This is also an area much loved by visitors, especially from England who may choose to call it the Tanat River or River Tanat in blogs and websites, which may lead to searches revealing this as more common. I have never encountered it being called anything other than Afon Tannat and, although I am English, I worked in the regulation of Welsh rivers my whole career. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Velella, NRW also use River Tanat [3]? AFAIAA Wikipedia does not respect local usage, nor non-English use, but English-language use as a whole, or Bangalore, Snowdonia and Milan would've been dropped here long ago. Although accept there are minimal formal sources either way. Dank Jae 01:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I guess I should've added the following too. But "River Tanat" (or "Tanat River", nonetheless not "Afon") is also used by the following: MyWelshpool [4], County Times [5][6], Severn Trent, Canal and River Trust, Shropshire Star, Oswestry & Border Counties Advertizer As well do local fishing groups,[7], local holiday parks,[8][9] and local halls.[10] The councils of Penybont Fawr, Llangynog, Llanrhaeadr-ym-Mochnant, Llangedwyn, and Llanyblodwel, all along the river and all except one, are all in Wales. So @Velella:, bit confused if the local councils don't use the "local name".

While "Afon Tanat" is used by the following: Wales Farmer, BBC and Wales Online. Dank Jae 01:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Wales has been notified of this discussion. Dank Jae 21:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - Frankly, I don't care one way or the other. In terms of consistency, though, it's probably better to use the English name. Deb (talk) 08:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Too subtle a difference, too small a rationale, fails WP:TITLECHANGES. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe, WP:TITLECHANGES applies if a discussion was not raised. I have raised a discussion. Any "weak rationale" should be avoided on undiscussed moves, but a RM can have any rationale. Is arguing WP:COMMONNAME weak? Note my comment later basically expanding my initial proposal with more evidence. Dank Jae 10:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I like to read it a bit different. It says Changing one controversial title to another without a discussion that leads to consensus is strongly discouraged. I prefer to read it as Changing one controversial title to another without ~~a discussion~~ good reason that leads to consensus is strongly discouraged. I don’t think your reasons are good enough to outweigh the disruption to status quo.

COMMONNAME is very strong, have you made the case that one is a COMMONNAME and the other is not?

I see this as WP:RETAIN. Leave it alone. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well you're changing the words of policy to fit your own so not a policy-based argument. WP:RETAIN is for English variety, so not relevant here. Dank Jae 11:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also confused how this RM is "disruptive", avoid WP:STATUSQUOSTONEWALL and assuming WP:BADFAITH. Dank Jae 11:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, not bad faith. You believe the proposed is better. I don’t think it’s better enough to be worth the change. “Afon Tanat” is used plenty enough for a long time to meet COMMONNAME, and so it is acceptable. You have not established a big enough problem with the status quo. The “t” vs “g” issue is not good enough, it’s just a pronunciation variation. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still I argue using what the sources use over what Wikipedia has used. If you just don't like it then state that. Dank Jae 12:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll look again later. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]