Talk:Ōtara

New Zealand Mid‑importance

	the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Auckland 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Added Point of View Check due to comments over merits of one High School over another. Don't know enough about the schools merits, but the comments seem not to comply with Neutral POV. Tom Webb 04:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the comments on the schools entirely, and cleaned up other POV statements a bit. It could do with more work, but I think the POV tag is no longer needed. Please re-add it if you disagree.-gadfium 05:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have thought that it is the other way round, with Hilary College being better than Tangaroa College (which is my local school). Although I'd have to look up their ratings to be sure about that. Do at least agree it was written in a very non-NPOV. Mathmo 00:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand European V Pākehā

I have changed the description of "white people" (I couldn't think of a better term)from Pākehā to New Zealand European, but have included Pākehā as an alternate term. I think to people outside New Zealand the term Pākehā is not very descriptive where as New Zealand European is pretty self explanatory (although still not completely accurate). I see in the history there has some been debate a couple of reverts about this, but I hope this can be a compromise in the absence of a totally accepted term for pale skinned New Zealand citizens. Leaderofearth 10:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Otara/Ōtara

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 03:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otara → Ōtara

— Cheers Gadfium for the heads up on doing this properly. In light of which, I'd like to suggest this page be moved from "Otara" to "Ōtara". Does this require explanation/justification? I'm assuming the reasons would be self-evident to any interested parties.--Te Irirangi (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this might be a useful test case. Our existing convention, set out at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (New Zealand)#Place names, is not to use a macron when the Māori and English spellings are otherwise identical. I note that Te Ara uses the macron (see for example http://www.teara.govt.nz/Places/Auckland/AucklandPlaces/16/en), but the New Zealand Geographic Board Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa does not appear to do so (see for example the entry for Flat Bush on page 24 of New Zealand Gazetteer of Official Geographic Names (20 July 2009). I'll put a notice up at New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board about it.-gadfium 20:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the redirect and the use of macrons in the article not sufficient? Standard keyboards do not produce letters with macrons so on the

principle of least surprise Otara is probably the better of the two options although it will be not much of a surprise if the alternative is used. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Oppose per
WP:UCN (Use common names). A specific regional guideline shouldn't override two major Wikipedia guidelines without very good reasons. — AjaxSmack 06:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
You may have misread the New Zealand naming conventions. They suggest "where the usual name of a place is Maori, macrons are not used in the name".-gadfium 06:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It took some parsing, but I think I figured out what's up here. The name of this article is based on a Maori name, but the current
Wikipedia:Naming conventions overall guideline then nobody would be able to argue that one contradicts the other. Therefore, my suggestion is to set this aside briefly, change the guideline, and then relist the movereq (at that point, you could probably even use the uncontroversial move mechanism at Wikipedia:Requested moves.
— $V = I * R$ (talk) 07:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
No, the guidelines I cited do not support a move to Ōtara. Ōtara is not widely used in English-language sources. As far as I can tell, none of the references or external links in the article use that form — they all use Otara. My remark about the current
WP:UCN. — AjaxSmack 17:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

I'm somewhat confused about the current discussions, so I'm going to just state my overall thinking about what "should be" for this page.
Otara would be the page which redirects to Ōtara. Basically, it's currently backwards, and it appears that the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (New Zealand)#Place names guidance is backwords as well.
— $V = I * R$ (talk) 19:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I believe that almost all use of the name is without the macron. There are some reputable sources, such as Te Ara that I linked to above, which do use a macron, but as far as I am aware there is no use of the macron by the Government bodies responsible for determining names. It is possible that someone can show me that I'm wrong about this. If there is official use of the macron, then we can debate whether the most common use or the official usage should prevail. If there is no such official use, it appears clear that the article should remain with the current title.-gadfium 21:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, but the use of macrons in names isn't really a
WP:TITLE
and it's sub-guidelines, but the point is that the normal convention that Wikipedia has settled on is to redirect from the page without macrons to the page with macrons.

On the other hand, if the point is that the name which uses a macron is some sort of original research (ie.: it only exists on Wikipedia), then that's a completely different topic. If that's the point, then consensus needs to be established and all references to the name with the macron need to be excised from the article (and the title with a macron should then be AfD'ed).
— $V = I * R$ (talk) 22:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Fostering greater i18n/l10n" is POV. Using the macron in opposition to common sources is by definition not neutral. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 20:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That may be, but there seems to be at least some consensus that it's a good goal for Wikipedia to peruse. Excluding macrons and diacritics is often a typesetting choice rather then an authors editorial choice, anyway.
— $V = I * R$ (talk) 00:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your claims are empty without supporting evidence. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 01:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can play this game...
WP:UCN all support increasing internationalization to varying degrees. None of them outright says "follow i18n/l10n" or anything like that primarily because Wikipedia policy doesn't work that way.
— $V = I * R$ (talk) 02:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
That's an ... interesting reading of those guidelines. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 02:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with 81.111.114.131. It's not Wikipedia's mission to prescribe "correct" usage. We use whichever form is most commonly used in English language reliable sources. You may argue that not using a macron is due to technical restrictions, and others may argue that the correct way to write the name in English is without the macron, but that's just one point of view. What really only matters is what our sources call the subject of the article. Jafeluv (talk) 22:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I mist be really screwing something up somewhere here, because "It's not Wikipedia's mission to prescribe "correct" usage" is exactly the point I was trying to make. Wierd...
— $V = I * R$ (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so we all agree with the general principle. My view is that article names should describe English usage, and picking an article name that is not generally used by reliable sources would not be descriptive. Therefore, even if using the macron was considered more correct, we shouldn't use it if our sources don't. See
this policy: "Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject." Jafeluv (talk) 23:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
meh... OK. If everyone else thinks that the references support not using a macro, then that's fine by me. There seems to be this perception that has sprung up here that I really care passionately about this or something. I'm only here because it was listed on Requested moves, so feel free to make a decision and close the conversation. All I was trying to point out originally is that the article content (where the references don't appear to support a clear case of
Wikipedia:Naming conventions seem to be colliding somewhat here, and based on what's in the main naming conventions guideline and what other articles do it seems as though the article should use the macron, and there should be a redirect from the name without to the name with.
— $V = I * R$ (talk) 00:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move to Ōtara

I have moved this article to Ōtara per

WP:BOLD

, after merging the article histories in what was previously a cut-and-paste move, making this much less of a big deal than it would have been before, as it should now be easy for this article to be moved back and forth via simple renames.

Rationale: The discussion above is four years old, times have moved on, the article already uses the macron in its text throughout, and has done so since at least 2010, the local population has a majority of Pacific Islanders, NZ national and local government uses it here: http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/photograph/32432/otara and here: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2012/0065/21.0/DLM4732583.html and here: http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/planspoliciesprojects/plansstrategies/annual_plan/Documents/annualplan1314summaryotarapapatoetoe.pdf in what are clearly English-language documents intended for a general audience.

If you want to move it back, just do so. -- The Anome (talk) 09:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"If you want to move it back, just do so." Ok, I've 'done so'. The spelling "Otara" continues to overwhelmingly dominate in English usage. (The only significant use of "Ōtara" in English is in "Ōtara-Papatoetoe" - Auckland Council's name for the local board.)

I recently spent time driving through the whole suburb, looking at how many "Ōtara"s I could see on signs there. To my astonishment, I didn't see a single one. In contrast, I saw at least a dozen "Otara"s. (And I didn't even count motorway/road direction signs, which never use macrons anywhere (except sometimes for "Taupō")). Most damning of all were the signs at the "Ngati Otara" marae - see [1]. If I'd expected to see macrons anywhere, it would have been there. But no. Ross Finlayson (talk) 16:20, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]