Jump to content

Talk:Northland Region

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

Climate

[edit]

Sometime I might add the monthly av minimum temperatures. They are probably more indicative of the warmth of the climate than the maxima are. Kahuroa (talk) 10:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a short video (I created) that shows highlights of the Northland region. Propose addition of an external link:

Oppose. As has been explained to you by several people at User talk:Faber Optimé, you should not be linking to your own work, and all those who have reviewed your videos to date appear to have agreed that they are not suitable as links.-gadfium 20:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. The debate was numerically tied, but those opposing a move had a more solid policy basis for doing their view. WP:NATURALDIS says "if it exists, choose an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title". The opposers provided some imperfect evidence that the current names meet those criteria, but also that some of the titles which would be created by this proposed move are themselves ambiguous. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


– In general, a capitalized "Region" is not considered part of the name of these regions of New Zealand. The regions are usually referred to in sources as "FOO" or "FOO region", though there are instances of "FOO Region" that can be found, even in government sources. I suggest that for most of these, the best name would be the name of the region followed by "(region)" as a disambiguator. The last three that are listed may not need the disambiguator, the region being the most common use of the term, though some users may wish to argue for including the disambiguator in all cases. This has been an ongoing issue of debate and I suggest it get settled somehow. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For context: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Zealand/Archive 3#Regional categories and articles was a 2009 discussion which resulted in the current naming system, with Region. Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 18#Regions of New Zealand, revisited is a more recent discussion.-gadfium 23:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "West Coast (region)", "Northland (region)", "Southland (region)", "Canterbury (region)", "Marlborough (region)"; first WP:NATURALDIS and secondly, "West Coast" is a region of North America, Australia, etc, especially North America. Northland and Southland suffer from local usage for many different Northland and Southlands that are regions of various places. And the region of Canterbury is the region around Canterbury, England. Same with Marlborough. The disambiguator "(region)" removes all the clarity currently provided by the capital R-region attached to the name. It makes it all the more ambiguous. If you want to use these names, then they must use "(NZ region)" as the disambiguator, same as how the US state of Georgia carries "(U.S. state)" -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 05:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article on the US state of Georgia is so-named only as a disambiguator to avoid confusion with the country of the same name. Most articles on US states have no such addition in the article name; nor should articles on NZ regions. I don't see that an article named West Coast (region) is any more confusing than West Coast Region. And the addition of the capital on "Region" in article names never made any sense at all. "Region" is not a proper noun nor part of the region name. BlackCab (talk) 06:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The names as they stand now are a primary topic issue, the names using "(region)" become a disambiguation issue. As there are many topics with those names that are regions (in the generic "region" sense, and not the NZ organizational level) then they are not disambiguous enough to be able to identify the subject, therefore need additional disambiguation. There are many regions of the world referred to with these names when stripped of the "Region". We shouldn't use ambiguous disambiguation in the articles. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 11:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You've created a false distinction. There is no reason that a disambiguated article name cannot also be the primary topic of a thing that can be so disambiguated. The two principles are not mutually exclusive, in other words. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I have, since others have lodged similar opinions at other requested moves. And under your point of view, I would object to using "(region)" as disambiguation for these as I don't think they qualify definitively as the primary topic of "West Coast" as some sort of region. Or Canterbury, considering that prominent place in England. Southland being South Los Angeles, Northland. These all need to be discussed separately to establish their primary topic as a generic region without attached "Region" as an organic part of the name. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 05:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, because some users have expressed a particular opinion in some discussions, a new consensus has developed on this point? I don't think so. There are still hundreds of articles that combine non-exclusive disambiguation with the "principal use" principle. Wikipedia articles names that use disambiguation are still far from absolutely unambiguous. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some users expressing opinions in some discussions shows a disagreement which can lead to a new consensus. After all, consensus can change.
Regardless, "West Coast" is prominently associated with a region of North America, so "West Coast (region)" is a bad name under all conditions. Similarly, I have stated reasoning for the others I lodged objections for (I didn't blanket object to this move, only to some of the pages), under the conditions you are using. Indeed, under the prevailing conditions, "West Coast (region)" should redirect to the US article about its West Coast. And similarly for Canterbury. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 00:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, consensus can change, but I don't see that it's moved at all on the issues you are trying to cleave apart. Essentially, you've just expressed an opinion of how you think things should be, but I think it's fair to recognize that that is not currently how things are treated in fact. That was my initial point and the only part of your comment that I was commenting on; I wasn't commenting at all on the other points you made. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you just swore there, Skookum1. Wrong country! BlackCab (talk) 07:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(It's nice that we're getting comments here from people who know something about the topics in question) ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Region" with the capital "R" forms part of a proper name and has a specific meaning (it is a specific layer of local government) which is not always the same as the general area people would use the name for (these general areas more closely resemble the Land Districts than they do the Regions). The Regions themselves are mostly of limited notability (other than actually existing). I haven't checked the articles recently, but when last I checked them most of them covered a general area other than a Region and a more appropriate move target would be something like "Nelson, New Zealand", "Canterbury, New Zealand" or just "Otago" for places where the general area is the only significant usage of the name. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Auckland, Wellington, Gisborne, possibly Hawke's Bay all obviously need a disambiguator in the article name, however. The capitalisation of "region" remains inappropriate, despite your statement that it forms part of a proper name. I have searched online for any reference to "Taranaki Region" (with both words capped). The one occurrence is on Wikipedia. Taranaki is a region; nowhere though, is it known as "Taranaki Region". It is not a proper name. BlackCab (talk) 05:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And in any case, in NZ the "general regions" and the organized regions pretty much correspond, so there's not really a live issue there that I can see that backs up Daveosaurus's theoretical problem posed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BlackCab: I've got no idea where you're looking if you can't find any other than in Wikipedia. I get about half and half with ones including capitals such as here [1] or the PDF report here [2] which refers to "the Taranaki Region" throughout.
Good Ol'factory: I can assure you that almost nobody other than the bright spark who drew the lines back in 1989 thinks that North Otago is in Canterbury. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Daveosaurus, both examples you provide seem a bit random, a bit like butchers capitalizing Steak and Sausages on their blackboards. The liquefaction report variously refers to "Taranaki Region", "Taranaki region" and "Taranaki". BlackCab (talk) 06:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that all the parts of North Otago that matter are still part of Otago (R)/(r)egion. :) Lots of the examples of capitalizing the "R" come from the regional councils. Taranaki Regional Council is always capitalized, but Taranaki region generally is not. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 07:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Northland Region → Northland, New Zealand – This is one of a series of ongoing discussions about the names of the regions of New Zealand. The common name of most of the NZ regions seems to be the name of the region without the word "Region". This was a recent discussion that applied to this article, where it was argued by some that "Northland (region)" is inappropriately ambiguous. Given Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Disambiguation and WP:NATURAL, I believe that the proposed name in this nomination is probably the best in this case. --Relisted. Armbrust The Homunculus 08:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC) Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Northland Region is only a part of Northland, New Zealand. Check out the leads to Wellsford and Warkworth. Both are in Northland but neither is in the Northland Region. Seems to me a change would make it more ambiguous than it already is. Moriori (talk) 03:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a number of options, including, but not necessarily limited to:
  1. Move North Auckland Peninsula to Northland, New Zealand
  2. Move North Auckland Peninsula to Northland Peninsula, and change Northland, New Zealand to redirect to it
  3. Leave North Auckland Peninsula unchanged, and change Northland, New Zealand to redirect to it
Nurg (talk) 11:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. I don't even recall making that edit. I think it was when I first discovered the dog's breakfast of article names pertaining to regions of New Zealand. If I ever return to Northland Region for a holiday, I'll remember that. I'll withdraw from the conversation. BlackCab (TALK) 10:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you ever return to Northland Region for a holiday you would need to drive through quite a bit of North Auckland Peninsula before you reach the region. Moriori (talk) 22:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Population - hard to believe

[edit]

It's hard to believe that the population increased from 148,470 to only 151,692 between 2006 and 2013, and then jumped to 166,100 in June 2014. Nurg (talk) 07:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sources appear to check out. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, the sources contradict each other. The spreadsheet says 152,700 in 2006 and 164,700 in 2013. Nurg (talk) 09:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you're right, I didn't notice that. What must be going on here is that the lower numbers are the actual census results, and the higher numbers (including the 166,100 for 2014) are the estimates of true population. We should use one set or the other, but probably shouldn't mix and match. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Northland Region. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The link has been updated & the archive link removed. Nurg (talk) 00:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Order of towns in infobox

[edit]

How should the towns be ordered in the infobox? At present it seems haphazard, but with a bias towards north-to-south order, unless there is some order that escapes me. We could make it properly north-to-south, or alphabetical, or something else. Haphazard is not good. Nurg (talk) 22:15, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Northland_Region&oldid=1204336944"