Talk:Northland Region

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.

• Northland Region → Northland (region)
• Auckland Region → Auckland (region)
• Bay of Plenty Region → Bay of Plenty (region)
• Gisborne Region → Gisborne (region)
• Hawke's Bay Region → Hawke's Bay (region)
• Wellington Region → Wellington (region)
• Taranaki Region → Taranaki (region)
• Tasman Region → Tasman (region)
• Marlborough Region → Marlborough (region)
• West Coast Region → West Coast (region)
• Canterbury Region → Canterbury (region)
• Southland Region → Southland (region)
• Waikato Region → Waikato
• Manawatu-Wanganui Region → Manawatu-Wanganui
• Otago Region → Otago

– 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]

• Support – Such a move will create consistency and eliminate the unnecessary and misleading inclusion of the word "Region" in the article titles. BlackCab (talk) 03:39, 18 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]

• comment
  West Coast (region) should be to West Coast (Australia) or West Coast (Australian region) because of long-standing and MOSTCOMMON West Coast article.Skookum1 (talk) 06:50, 18 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]

• Please consider
  WP:NATURAL (#1) in this discussion. —  AjaxSmack  02:14, 21 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.

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]

• 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]

• Comment - actually the lead for Wellsford states that is in the Auckland Region ("The town is the northernmost major settlement in the Auckland Region"), and Warkworth, New Zealand's lead states that it is "lying at the far north of the Auckland Region but just south of the Northland Region." Ollieinc (talk) 05:27, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nomination Ollieinc (talk) 05:27, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Moriori is right – Northland Region is only part of Northland. The article about Northland as a whole is named
  North Auckland Peninsula (a case could be made for renaming that). I think this article best stay named Northland Region. Happy to hear new arguments for something different though. Nurg (talk) 08:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Relisting comment @Nurg:@Moriori: If the Northland Region is only part of Northland, New Zealand, than why does the later redirect to the former? Shouldn't it be deleted? Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:53, 11 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]

• Comment/question. So what is the primary meaning of "Northland, New Zealand"?—the administrative region or the peninsula? Or is it all too muddled or close to say that one is primary over the the other? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is the peninsula. But I wouldn't be averse to Northland, New Zealand becoming a disambiguation page containing the first 4 links from the Northland disambiguation page. Nurg (talk) 10:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Northland Region is the dominant page out of all these. I'd suggest moving it to Northland, New Zealand; leave the others as is and add a disambig line at the top of Northland, New Zealand with the "This article is about xxx for the yyy see zzz. The opening line of the Northland Region article is proof enough that no one calls it Northland Region with a capital R. BlackCab (TALK) 10:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The opening line is not proof. It was just what you wrote it to say in this edit. I have changed it back, with a reference. Nurg (talk) 09:52, 18 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

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.