Talk:Hauraki Gulf

New Zealand C‑class Mid‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics 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.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Auckland C‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Auckland, which aims to improve the coverage of Auckland, New Zealand, on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.AucklandWikipedia:WikiProject AucklandTemplate:WikiProject AucklandWikiProject Auckland articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 15 September 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved from Hauraki Gulf to Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana. The result of the discussion was moved.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Support as per dual / bi lingual use in New Zealand English. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:40, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Comment: It might be worth noting these ongoing discussions:

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)[reply]

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

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.