Talk:Hauraki Gulf

Untitled

Can you please give me the meaning of the name "Hauraki". Thank you.

Cheers,

Chad Thompson

Done. Cheers MadMaxDog 22:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The map of Hauraki Gulf may be misleading as it shows the extents going up Coromandel, but not across Great Barrier and encompassing Little Barrier. I understand that the Gulfs easterly limit would be bounded by Croromandel and Great Barrier and it's Norther limit bounded by Great Barrier, Little Barrier and Cape Rodney. This is not indicated on the map. Thanks StefanRichardson (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hauraki Gulf. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151121192608/http://www.linz.govt.nz/regulatory/place-names/recent-place-name-decisions-and-place-names-interest/nzgb-decisions-september to http://www.linz.govt.nz/regulatory/place-names/recent-place-name-decisions-and-place-names-interest/nzgb-decisions-september

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 15 September 2021

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. per discussion consensus and WP:NCNZ. There may be an ongoing discussion about changing that convention, but for now, the current guideline is how we adjudicate and close discussions. When/if that guideline changes to not support dual names here, this can be revisited. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:02, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

---

Hauraki Gulf → Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana – This has been officially renamed already in 2014, time to update this. See Aoraki / Mount Cook for reference. Gryffindor (talk) 06:48, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Support - there's a long precedent of using dual names when they are offical, and such moves have been previously determined as uncontroversial. Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana is used in a variety of recent sources, including Encyclopedia Britannica and the Americas Cup. Turnagra (talk) 05:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:CONCISE and WP:COMMONNAME. There’s no reason to make the name longer than necessary, and the dual name adds no specificity for the added length; nobody who knows the dual name doesn’t already know the current name. — HTGS (talk) 10:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose The guidelines are very clear that the official name of a place is not sufficient to change the title of a Wikipedia article. As per WP:NCGN, WP:RECENTISM, and WP:COMMONNAME, there is not sufficient evidence to show that the requested name is commonly used to the point were an article name change is required. Spekkios (talk) 09:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Also see WP:CONCISE, WP:UCRN, and here Spekkios (talk) 06:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support as per dual / bi lingual use in New Zealand English. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:40, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support as per NZ naming conventions. There is usage beyond mandatory official usage therefore it should be moved. ShakyIsles (talk) 04:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: It might be worth noting these ongoing discussions:

1. Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (New Zealand)#Dual names
2. Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (New Zealand)#Does a consensus for the section "Dual and alternative place names" exist?

There may be some question of whether the relevant aspect of NZ naming conventions actually reflect[s] the consensus of the community. While these discussions are ongoing, I decline to present my own opinion on this proposed move. BilledMammal (talk) 07:17, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. There is a current RfC proposal draft on the guidelines for dual names. Spekkios (talk) 23:52, 25 September 2021 (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.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Port Pegasus / Pikihatiti which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 31 May 2022

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. Normally I'd close these obviously perpetually deadlocked NZ place name RMs as no-consensus, but the most recent stable title just happens to be the proposed title. That last RM that recommended the dual name happened way too close to the fateful RFC to call its result stable. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

---

Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana → Hauraki Gulf – Per WP:NATURALNESS and WP:CONCISE.

1. Google news shows 249 results in the past year for Hauraki Gulf, compared to 83 for Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana
2. Google scholar shows 413 results since 2021 for Hauraki Gulf, compared to 22 results for Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana
3. Ngrams shows significant use of Hauraki Gulf, but minimal use of Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana.

In addition, WP:RECOGNIZABILITY may apply. Since the move in September of last year, pageviews per month for this article abruptly fell from a long term average of 1500 to 1100, suggesting that readers are struggling to find it at its current title. BilledMammal (talk) 02:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. These results are biased towards the dual name; for example, it counts this article and this article as results for the dual name, not Hauraki Gulf, despite them not using any form of the dual name and only using Tīkapa Moana in quotes. The fact that the preference for Hauraki Gulf is so strong despite this bias should strengthen the argument to move to the single name. BilledMammal (talk) 02:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: You have an error in methodology for your assertion about pageviews. It's likely that Hauraki Gulf receives more views because it is the target of more internal links. Compare 403 links to Hauraki Gulf, vs 162 for Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana. I think your point might still be made by a slightly different pageview analysis that looks at the sum of redirects, but it's definitely not as clearcut. — HTGS (talk) 04:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
  • You're right, I didn't realize that was how pageviews worked with redirects. Adjusted - note that I haven't included the spike between December 2020 and March 2021 in calculating the long term average. It's possible that this fall is just a coincidence, but I suspect it is related. BilledMammal (talk) 05:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  Also worth noting that the higher number of links to Hauraki Gulf than to Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana speaks to the way the names are used by editors around Wikipedia. Though it’s certainly not the main metric we should use, it does suggest that most people know the body of water by the shorter name. — HTGS (talk) 01:37, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support as written. This is one of the clearest cut cases for moving NZ places from the official name to the common name per article title policy (the Clutha River also comes to mind). — HTGS (talk) 04:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  To expand, the common name of the body of water is clearly “Hauraki Gulf”. Major media orgs use “Hauraki Gulf” almost exclusively, and even where “Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana” is used (eg, by RNZ [1]) the full, official name is only used briefly as formality.

  Nota bene: in more recent, and more common use, RNZ uses only “Hauraki Gulf” [2], and this is only one example of a major media organisation in New Zealand, and RNZ is one that tends to use official names, and Māori names, with a greater frequency than most others. — HTGS (talk) 01:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose for the reasons why it was moved only a few months ago. However, I am interested to hear if the pageview analysis does shine through to actual less clicks onto the page. I'm not convinced as yet that users would have difficulty finding the page, as there is a redirect and it easily comes up through Google and Wikipedia search. Poketama (talk) 13:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@Poketama that discussion was closed citing WP:NCNZ, which recommended using the dual name if any sources could be found that use the dual name. That guideline no longer supports dual names when they aren’t the common name, which is why this is being reconsidered. If the dual name is confusing that’s secondary by far to the fact that the shorter name is clearly the common name. — HTGS (talk) 01:58, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose the dual name isn't going to make this any more difficult to find, especially if you're making that claim because people would be searching for "Hauraki Gulf" - this would absolutely still come up in the same way that "All That You Can't Leave Behind" still comes up by typing in "All That You". As for the drop, that's far more likely related to the great big sporting event held there beforehand dropping off. Turnagra (talk) 20:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support per HTGS. In this case it's extremely clear what the common name is, i.e. Hauraki Gulf. Proposed name is far more concise. --Spekkios (talk) 23:40, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose the dual name is no harder to find. Any dropoff likely due to end of America's Cup. in fact other pages like Rangitoto Island dropped away even further: [3]. Dual names make Wikipedia pages easier to find, it one of the big advantages of them as they come up when you search for the dual name or either singular form.ShakyIsles (talk) 02:24, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

  I hardly think that someone searching for "Tīkapa Moana" wouldn't come across this page. --Spekkios (talk) 03:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

  I hardly think that someone searching for "Hauraki Gulf" wouldn't find the dual name either. Turnagra (talk) 08:23, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

  Great! Then that isn't a valid reason to oppose the move. And because the proposed name is more consise and far more natural for a reader to look for, the article should be moved to the proposed name. --Spekkios (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

  I don't follow your logic – I'm saying that the dual name is easier to find, nothing I said discredits any reason to oppose the move. I'd also question your claim that it's more natural, especially since titles shouldn't be based on what first comes to your mind. What's natural for you to look for isn't necessarily going to be what's natural for others to look for. Turnagra (talk) 10:09, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

  If someone searching for "Tīkapa Moana" or "Hauraki Gulf" ends up at this page no matter the page title then it doesn't matter what the page title is, the searcher will still end up in the same place. Therefore, opposing a move based on where somoene would end up if they serached for the subject isn't a valid reason for opposition. And you would have to have some extremely strong evidence that there are enough people searching for "Tīkapa Moana" that it would be considered natural for someone to search for it. As per WP:CRITERIA: "Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English. The chances that someone would search for "Tīkapa Moana" over "Hauraki Gulf" are very close to zero. The number of people searching for "Tīkapa Moana" is so small it doesn't even register on Google trends. So I'm not quite sure you would question my claim that "Hauraki Gulf" isn't the most natural term that a person would most likely search for, as it seems to be quite clear that it is. --Spekkios (talk) 21:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

  Views of Rangitoto Island have been declining for years. In comparison, Hauraki Gulf returned to its long-term stable value after the America's Cup for six months, before a sudden drop at the same time as the page was moved to its current title. BilledMammal (talk) 13:50, 8 June 2022 (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.