Talk:Te Urewera

New Zealand Low‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

'burnt penis' sounds unlikely. Don't include this in your school project! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.82.205 (talk • contribs) 11:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The origin of the name is correct, strange as it may seem. I wasn't aware that the chief died, though. – Liveste (talk • edits) 21:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

I propose that Te Urewera National Park be merged into Te Urewera. The former park is now just called "Te Urewera" (see: 1, 2 and 3). Te Urewera has been out of date for some time, and much of the information that should be there is in Te Urewera National Park. -- haminoon (talk) 04:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent idea. Can be confusing when an article has national park as part of its name when it isn't a national park. Aaabbb11 (talk) 05:54, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support. The area dealt with in the National Park article is not coterminous with the area of Te Urewera, though information about that could be covered in the combined article. Grutness...wha? 23:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. If this does happen please include the NZ national parks info box. alastairgbrown (talk) 04:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support because we've got few editors working in this area. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed because they are two different things, and they are both notable in their own right. Schwede 66 23:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Schwede66: I see your point, but what should the Te Urewera National Park article be called? Bearing in mind that DOC are just calling it Te Urewera.[1] -- haminoon (talk) 01:54, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned, the name is fine as is; I suggest that is what it is still known as. It doesn't matter that it doesn't exist any longer as such; there's lots of articles on WP about things that don't exist any longer (e.g. New Zealand Legislative Council). If we agree that the common name has changed to simply 'Te Urewera', we can have a think about an appropriate disambiguator (e.g. 'former national park'). Schwede 66 02:51, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose at this time. I have recently expanded & improved both articles somewhat. There is scope for further expansion. Let see how they develop further. Nurg (talk) 10:23, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed per Schwede66. The area is 'Te Urewera', the legal entity is called Te Urewera since 2014, but from 1954 until 2014 there existed a national park Te Urewera. It had/has in itself a history, which is worth mentioning. The title(s) can remain the same. In the introduction is clearly written that the national park no longer exists. I will be glad to help expanding both articles (somewhere in the future). --Dick Bos (talk) 08:56, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing, given the consensus not to merge. Klbrain (talk) 20:42, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Te Urewera[edit]

Hi Moonraker. You edited Ruatoki to say that Ruatoki is in the Te Urewera protected area, which is not correct, and I have reverted the edit. And when I look also at what you have done with Te Urewera, it makes me suspect that you mistakenly think that the protected area occupies all of Te Urewera. The Te Urewera article has always been about the whole of Te Urewera, not just those parts in the national park and the legal person area. The separate issue of whether the national park and the legal person entity should be covered by one article or two can continue to be discussed. But, converting the Te Urewera article to be one about the protected area is not appropriate, as it means the loss of the article about the full Te Urewera. I think we should roll back your most recent changes to Te Urewera and Te Urewera National Park, and then we can get back to discussing whether the national park and the legal person entity should be covered by one article or two. If it was to be two, that would be a case of splitting Te Urewera National Park/Te Urewera (protected area), rather than commandeering Te Urewera for that purpose. Regards. Nurg (talk) 08:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nurg, moving this thread here from my talk page. Always happy to be corrected. On the question of merging the pages about the historic national park and the present-day Te Urewera, see the thread above. Do you think we need a page for the geographical area which is bigger than the protected area? If not, it seems to me the answer is to include that in this page, which seems to have been the position before I expanded the page and focussed on the protected area, which I agree was a mistake. That information clearly wouldn’t belong on the national park page. I have added more to this page, along the lines suggested. One thing we badly need is a map of the various areas, do you know of one that isn’t copyrighted? Moonraker (talk) 18:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't know of a suitable map that isn't copyrighted, unfortunately. There's no modern maps at Commons. Nurg (talk) 05:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]