Talk:Hauraki Gulf
New Zealand C‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Auckland C‑class High‑importance | ||||||||||
|
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
It has been proposed in this section that Hauraki Gulf be renamed and moved to Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana. A bot will list this discussion on the 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. |
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:
- 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)