Jump to content

Talk:Cook Strait

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

Can anyone add more info on the possible plans of contructing a tunnel and/or bridge across to the other side? Is it too stormy to be feasible? I am also quite curious as to whether any steps have been taken to decide to build infrastructure links across the:

Anyone with inside knowledge on any of these? I've posted similar requests elsewhere. Gruesome Twosome! 8v] //Big Adamsky 20:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No serious plans that I'm aware of. There is a power cable though, linking the North and South Islands. 03:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, There is no plans that are serious that I know of. The only plan the I know of is a few hundred water turbines that would lie on the seabed and generate electricity for the country.

not sure about the geology and any potential geotechnical issues with building a tunnel but even if possible I would doubt that with a population base of 4 million people for the entire country of NZ that building such a tunnel would be feasible in the forseeable future. (unsigned)

A floating submersed cable stayed rail tunnel would be feasible, especially given the depth of the strait. The lack of population on the south island makes the project fairly unlikely, although if the tunnel were practical for commuting it could become a very heavily used link. --Jaded-view (talk) 23:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a subject that is discussed when the beer flows in the evening but it will never happen. Even a link between the nearest points on the two Islands would be one of the World's greatest structures. (It would be considerably longer than the Great Belt link and in a more hostile environment.) The population of New Zealand doesn't warrant such a building. But just getting to the closest points would require magnificent engineering. On the North Island, the area around Terawhiti is only 10km from Wellington but it is guarded by a 400 m high range. On the South Island you are looking at 30km of tunnels through hills. What most Kiwis find amusing is the speculation (normally by Americans) about a fixed link between New Zealand and Australia when Canada is nearer to Mexico than NZ is to Aus. One USA web site even claimed that Auckland Harbour Bridge is connected to Sydney Harbour Bridge. OrewaTel (talk) 10:07, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oceanography

[edit]

Recently a map of the World showing the tide height was added without explanation. This was an animated map that showed the tide height over a complete tide cycle. The map was removed because it seemed irrelevant. That was partly because there was no explanation and partly because it was a global map whereas this article is about a small strait. Actually the map was very relevant. It showed very clearly why Cook Strait has such extreme tidal flows.

It is common for islands to act as tidal nodes. The tidal wave (and tides are waves) circles the node. New Zealand is unique in that the combined North plus South Islands act as a single tidal node but because they are separated by body of water (Cook Strait) we have the situation that two places no more than 50 km apart are subject to huge differences in tidal level. So when Cape Palliser at the East end of Cook Strait is at low water, Oteranga Bay at the West end is at high tide and vice versa. Putting it down in words is unsatisfactory whilst the animated map not only makes it plain but also shows how unusual is this situation.

I notice that the map has been reinstated with an explanatory caption. This has improved the article and the map should not be removed for a third time without a discussion here. OrewaTel (talk) 11:06, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


@OrewaTel: - thanks for the explanation - and I do agree that the animation is of value to Wikipedia generally. I'm just not sure it is the most appropriate animation for this page - the removal was because most of the map was irrevelent to the Cook Strait and the relevant part is clearly covered by the existing map https://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/coasts/research-projects/all/physical-hazards-affecting-coastal-margins-and-the-continental-shelf/news/m2mov which is embedded in the page. I would be interested in what you think the duplicate new animation is showing that is relevant to the Cook Strait. I certainly do not believe we need both the specific and the very general tidal animations. I see that Epipelagic has reinstated the map, I thank you for not doing so while the addition is under discussion, he/she was wrong to do so until consensus has been established as to its suitableness. Andrewgprout (talk) 03:39, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! I totally agree that this animation is not the best one for this article but it shows the tidal wave racing around the whole of New Zealand. The detailed maps do show the tides at either end of the Strait but they don't give the context that shows how it happens. Now if someone (or me!) can find an animation that just shows the environs of New Zealand then that would be far better. If we can find a general source for this sort of animation, I can think of several articles that would benefit from them. For now, however, I think it is the best we have. OrewaTel (talk) 09:24, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@OrewaTel: But this artice is not about the tides around the whole of New Zealand. perhaps that would make a good new article which would be a more appropriate place for the animation. It is important to keep articles focussed on their primary subject. Can you explain why the second animation detailed in the article does not show the tidal bulge travelling about New Zealand, all this in an animation that does not include the inappropriate whole world.Andrewgprout (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrewgprout: Perfect! The second external link animation is exactly what is required. What I would like is for this to be incorporated into the article itself but I need to check for copyright issues. OrewaTel (talk) 21:37, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Name change to Te Moana-o-Raukawa / Cook Strait

[edit]

Hi Powellelli, I was aware of the South Island official duel names but not for the Cook Strait. Have you got a ref so I can stop fretting. @Powellelli:. Thanks Dushan Jugum (talk) 07:42, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply] 

   Hiya Dushan, the NZGOVT website "New Zealand History" marks the Cook Straits name as "Raukawa" or "Raukawa Moana" (https://nzhistory.govt.nz/keyword/cook-strait), I read the "Te Moana-o-Raukawa" which was already within the wikipedia article as a correct phrasing of that but in hindsight that may have been hasty of me Powellelli (talk) 08:17, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have one problem with this name change. I have never heard or read anyone using Raukawa Moana but I respect that this may be the Māori name and so may deserve to be in the title. But this is very different from Taranaki or my home town Whangārei. There are people who still say Mount Egmont but they a very small minority and consequently the Mount Egmont page was (rightly) renamed Taranaki/Egmont and subsequently the 'Mount Egmont' name was dropped altogether. At the moment this body of water is Cook Strait. This may change in the future but for now the page should be called 'Cook Strait/Raukawa Moana' not 'Raukawa Moana/Cook Strait'. OrewaTel (talk) 09:25, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see in the info box that someone has renamed the strait, 'Te Moana-o-Raukawa Cook Strait'. According to https://gazetteer.linz.govt.nz/place/18886 the name of the strait is 'Cook Strait' and there is no place in New Zealand called 'Te Moana-o-Raukawa'. We should declare the Māori name in the article. That is informative and respectful but we should not be making up names for geographical features. Unless someone can come up with some evidence that the name 'Te Moana-o-Raukawa' is used then I shall remove it from the info box. (Of course if someone has a citation they can put it back again.) OrewaTel (talk) 06:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the article should continue to include the Te Reo name 'Te Moana-o-Raukawa' in brackets in the first sentence of the lede. At this stage, I do not think there is sufficient common usage of the name 'Te Moana-o-Raukawa' in English language sources to include this as part of the main title, or the heading of the Infobox. The existing redirect from 'Te Moana-o-Raukawa / Cook Strait' should remain.Marshelec (talk) 07:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline's Trivial information

[edit]

Recently, there has been a discussion about whether "Gary Freedman completes the first electric powered aeroplane flight across the strait." is trivial information or something to mention in Cook Strait#Timeline. I would argue that if that is only considered "trivial" and should not be added, then at least 1/4 - 1/3 of the timeline section needs to be removed on those same grounds. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Timeline section is somewhat unusual. None of the entries are supported with in-line citations, and many are only loosely associated with the article title and scope. It appears unlikely to me that readers would benefit from most of these entries. Although it would require a reasonable amount of work, I favour deleting the timeline section entirely, and attempting to find more closely associated articles where these milestones could be reported, if they are not already there (including finding citations if possible). In some cases, the milestones relate to existing content in the Cook Strait article, and could be relocated to the relevant section.Marshelec (talk) 22:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
yup delete, it is a trivia magnet. Dushan Jugum (talk) 22:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was about add an inline citation for this comment. It is about as noteworthy as Louis Bleriot's flight over the English Channel in 1909 (or Blanchard and Jeffries in a balloon in 1785). That is to say the longest over water flight by an electric aeroplane is most definitely notable. However the 'Timeline' section can do with some shaking up. Perhaps we can separate the notable events into sections such as 'Crossings', 'Discovery' etc. OrewaTel (talk) 23:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If someone wants to make it better I will not rain on their parade. My gut still says fold it into the history section. Dushan Jugum (talk) 23:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline needs major overhaul

[edit]

My view is that the timeline is currently far too long and distracts from what should be the core purpose and content of this article. Long lists are not great in a standard article. My suggestion is that the timeline content should be reviewed and restructured, with a possible future move of most of this content to a separate list article. I suggest these first steps (a) move the timeline content towards the bottom of the article (b) split it up into related topics - eg shipwrecks in Cook Strait, cables laid across the strait, notable crossings by aircraft, notable crossings by swimmers etc. (c) purge the timeline of items that are of questionable benefit/relevance to this article (eg the 1855 earthquake) - especially when the topic is (or should be) well covered in existing articles elsewhere. Also purge listings that probably belong elsewhere, eg resource consents for tidal power stations that have never proceeded. Overall, a significant amount of work is also needed to provide citations for many of the listings Feedback please._Marshelec (talk) 06:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Foveaux Strait was assessed as a WP:Good article in July 2024, and may provide a useful benchmark for content and quality for improvements to this article._Marshelec (talk) 06:38, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if we could just remove the timeline section entirely and move its entries into the relevant sections in the article. That way we can have more than just one sentence on these events. ―Panamitsu (talk) 07:14, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks, that is worth a try. In some cases, the facts listed in the timeline are already included in the main sections of the article, plus there is already a separate list article about notable air crossings. I will give more thought to that proposal, and may just go ahead in the next few days. The list could be pruned in stages as items are moved into sections in the body of the article (or deleted if they are duplicates or not particularly relevant)._Marshelec (talk) 08:02, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've now got rid of the entire timeline section. Just like you've said, I've removed parts that were duplicates and moved parts that weren't to other sections. A lot of them didn't have any citations and I've done a bit of a sloppy job organising it so there's quite a bit more work to do. ―Panamitsu (talk) 23:53, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Panamitsu Good work. Thanks for taking the initiative here. I have been otherwise occupied. I will review to see if I can add anything useful. This article is important and deserves to be of good quality._Marshelec (talk) 05:48, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed the listing of Paul Caffyn kayaking across Cook Strait in 1979. While this person has many extraordinary achievements, the crossing of Cook Strait is a minor achievement. Although he crossed Cook Strait at the end of his circumnavigation of the North Island, in my view the crossing itself is not significant in the context of this article. I will delete it.
On a related matter, it seems clear that Māori regularly crossed the strait in waka/ canoes. It would be useful to add content about their crossings of Cook Strait if we can find any good sources. There are also mentions of crossings in the 1890's by Europeans using canoes. See: [1]_Marshelec (talk) 03:53, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Marshelec @Panamitsu Hello All, I'm currently drafting a list article regarding Cook Strait crossings by sea, and hope to share that shortly. It'll be similar to the one I did for air crossings.
Kind regards, 05:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC) Aerohydro (talk) 05:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Aerohydro Great, I look forward to seeing it. I guess it will be somewhat difficult choosing what to include, since there has been so much vessel traffic across Cook Strait from very early times._Marshelec (talk) 05:49, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds very interesting. I can't wait ! ―Panamitsu (talk) 06:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Marshelec @Panamitsu Hello All, I've completed the listing, and have uploaded that as a draft, though have not yet submitted it for review. I *think* I have sorted out the formatting and the references, but if you find anything that's awry or could be improved, please let me know.
Draft:List_of_Cook_Strait_crossings_by_sea
Also have put some comments into the talk page, which you may like to check over as well.
Draft_talk:List_of_Cook_Strait_crossings_by_sea
Kind regards, 03:29, 1 February 2025 (UTC) Aerohydro (talk) 03:34, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The formatting looks good to me ! ―Panamitsu (talk) 03:51, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Panamitsu @Marshelec
Thanks. I've now uploaded the List of Cook Strait crossings by sea article. It focuses mostly on small watercraft (plus the odd, odd van), as that's what interests me. The listing - ATM - doesn't include pre-European crossings or those made by large commercial vessels, so there's room for expansion.
Kind regards, 02:57, 15 February 2025 (UTC) Aerohydro (talk) 02:57, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cook_Strait&oldid=1275790356"