Talk:Bay of Plenty Region

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

Comments[edit]

Populations of the cities probably need updating —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.86.84.192 (talk) 10:21, 31 July 2005

Taupo[edit]

Taupo is in the Waikato region. Part of the Taupo district lies in the Bay of Plenty but not the population as was given. Enzedbrit 02:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Northland Region which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:59, 17 March 2014 (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: It wasn't a great idea to multi-move this, but here's the result list:

☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:15, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


– This is one in a series of rename discussions for the New Zealand regions. The regions of NZ are not named "FOO Region". They are regions, and each is named "FOO". In the instances in this discussion, "FOO" (meaning the region) is probably (in some cases, clearly) not the primary meaning of FOO, so we do need some disambiguation to the name for these. These are instances where specifically referring to the FOO as regions is not ambiguous. Including or excluding the parentheses for these are possible options. --Relisted. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC) --Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good Olfactory, at New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board you said "it's clear ... that if there is to be any change they will probably have to be approached individually". That seemed like a good idea. Why did you change your mind and raise Auckland, Gisborne etc on the Bay of Plenty page? Nurg (talk) 05:08, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because they all seem to present a roughly similar case—they could potentially be disambiguated with "(region)" without being ambiguous with respect to non–New Zealand places in the world. The same can't be said for the other ones that remain. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think your earlier idea was better and I suggest that even now you change course and raise the RMs individually. Nurg (talk) 10:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Handling a group of them together highlights the need for uniformity in article naming. If there are one or two in this group that are particularly problematic, they might be removed from this proposal and handled separately. To Nurg, which, if any, bother you most? BlackCab (talk) 11:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gisborne. It is the one in this group that is administered by a district council, so may have implications for other district council areas. Nurg (talk) 20:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Nurg—well, in my mind, I haven't really changed from one "idea" to the other. I'm sorry that I didn't literally do each and every one individually, as you were expecting, but as BlackCab points out, sometimes there is a benefit to dealing with similar cases at the same time in order to reach similar results. It also reduces the amount of overall time spent on this issue, which is really dragging on and given the number of times resolving this has been attempted, it's approaching intractability land. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:38, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all not because the existing names are any good, but because the alternatives are no better. This is because a Region (capitalised) is a specific type of local government area, whereas a region (uncapitalised and in common English usage) has a different meaning, and the article content after a quick look seems to be a hodgepodge of both meanings. As an alternative I propose: Bay of Plenty Region merge into Bay of Plenty; Auckland Region (which no longer exists) merge into Auckland; Gisborne Region (which also no longer exists) merge into Gisborne, New Zealand; Taranaki Region move to Taranaki after moving the article there to Taranaki (disambiguation); Wellington Region merge to Wellington. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Throwing up our hands and saying "all the names are terrible"—which might indeed lead us to want to get rid of the articles—is not really the ideal solution, in my opinion. There are ways to make the disambiguation more precise if that is the concern. If you don't like "(region)", then there's always things like "(administrative region)" and the like. But personally I think that goes overboard and I feel your concerns split hairs a bit too finely. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re Bay of Plenty, I agree with Daveosaurus: merge into Bay of Plenty. That article currently has an identity problem. According to the lede it is about the body of water. But quite a lot of the content is about the area of land. Let's make it about both. Nurg (talk) 02:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and better define the content of specific articles where necessary. BlackCab (talk) 02:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re Taranaki, I agree with Daveosaurus: move Taranaki Region to Taranaki after moving the disambiguation page there to Taranaki (disambiguation). Nurg (talk) 09:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re Gisborne Region, Good Olfactory, did you consider the option of moving it to Gisborne (district). If so, what do you see as the pros and cons for choosing Gisborne (region) over Gisborne (district)? (I strongly disagree with Daveosaurus's merge suggestion for this one.) Nurg (talk) 09:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I didn't consider that, but I suppose it would make some sense given the unique nature of the situation there, with the district and regional council essentially being one and the same, if I understand correctly. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll admit I'm not au fait with the distinction between regions and districts in the nomenclature of these local government bodies, but for the sake of uniformity, the article title should still refer to the region. At the foot of the Gisborne Region article,the navigation box lists the 16 "regions" of New Zealand, among them Gisborne. The fact that the local government authority is a district council rather than regional one doesn't disqualify it from inclusion in that navigation box, and nor should it determine the name of the article about the area. The Newzealand.com tourism website also lists Gisborne as a region, albeit one of 25 NZ "geographical regions". The lead paragraph of the Auckland Region article notes the continued use of the term "Auckland region" in the casual sense, and it is those distinct regions of New Zealand—distinguished more by geography than LGA naming conventions—that are the focus of this series of articles. BlackCab (talk) 06:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing Auckland Region will likely lead to changes to the titles of a number of other articles and numerous categories. Good Olfactory, if Auckland Region was changed to Auckland (region), what would you anticipate/propose for an article like List of schools in the Auckland Region? Nurg (talk) 09:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lower case the R in region. It should never have been capitalised in the first place and the article contains a mishmash of styles in which "region" is capped or lower case. BlackCab (talk) 10:14, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • BlackCab, so if it was List of schools in the Auckland region, would you still favour Auckland (region) over Auckland region, or had you just not considered that? Nurg (talk) 10:24, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't really have a strong preference as to whether the parenthetical is used or not. I understand some would prefer one or the other depending on what emphasis they place on which particular guideline. Subjectively, I think "Auckland (region)" does communicate better that it is an administrative region named "Auckland", whereas "Auckland region" to me suggests more of a general or loose geographical term referring to the area roughly around Auckland. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think the inclusion of parentheses would look very messy, but it's another debate for another day. BlackCab (talk) 12:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support Auckland (region) and Wellington (region). And for categories and other articles of the type "... in the Auckland/Wellington Region", I support BlackCab's suggestion of simply decapitalising "region". Nurg (talk) 11:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Summary so far[edit]

This is my assessment at this point:

Nurg (talk) 11:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If there is support for Bay of Plenty Region → merge into Bay of Plenty and Taranaki Region → Taranaki, I have no problems with those and can support them as well. I'll notch it up to my error in not doing all of these separately. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose most per WP:NATURAL emphasizing that Foo Class is always preferable to Foo (class). Support "Taranaki Region" to "Taranaki" and "Bay of Plenty Region" merge to "Bay of Plenty." Dralwik|Have a Chat 03:24, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Dralwik, avoid parenthetical disambiguators. No opinion on mergers of Taranaki or Bay of Plenty. walk victor falk talk 16:38, 24 May 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.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bay of Plenty 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 08:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bay of Plenty Region. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 03:26, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Otago which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bay_of_Plenty_Region&oldid=1194713885"