Talk:Wellington Region

message: Wellington applies to the major city, but the also applies to the region (provincial administration level) that encompass the greater urban area known by the same name.  The Wellington region is administered by the Wellington Regional Council, while Wellington (not Wellington City) is administered by the Wellington City Council.  The city and the region are known as Wellington but the primary meaning of Wellington is the city, with the region as a secondary meaning.  Since Wellington City, New Zealand is rather obscure and using Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand seems totally redundant, very obscure and both are still ambiguous, I have left Wellington, New Zealand for the city unchanged and added [Wellington (region), New Zealand] for the greater urban area, with cross linking on both pages.   Is this a reasonable approach? -- kiwiinapanic 16:45 Dec 31, 2002 (UTC)
:I'm a bit iffy about the idea. Even the term "Wellington region" is used in multiple senses. Informally (I'm beginning to hate that word) Wellington region is the four cities, and probably the Kapiti Coast, at least as far as Waikanae. On the other hand, there's the formal Wellington Region, the area of the Wellington Regional Council, which includes the Wairarapa. I thought that this page could be part of a New Zealand-wide network of regional council pages, but that doesn't even sense. I mean we're hardly going to want a Gisborne Region page as well as a Gisborne City/District/city/town page. At the moment I'm thinking we should just admit that the term Wellington is ambiguous and throw everything under the Wellington page. A section of the page could go into detail about the different ways the name "Wellington" is used. I'm not going to do anything about it now... because I want to hear what other people think.
::I've slightly changed the wording of the second paragraph in the Definitions section.  I felt a bit uneasy about it broadly stating that all public perception defines the Wellington Region as only the four major centres, and I'm still not sure if it's ideal.
::I suspect it's quite related to where people commute, and where they perceive people commuting to and from.  I've always thought of Kapiti as being part of the Wellington region, and I think it's partly because I've had reasons to go there a lot, and also because that's where the metropolitan trains reach... which imples there's still a reasonable demand for commuters to get between Kapiti and Wellington (or places on the way there).  I have a completely different perception of the South-Eastern Wairarapa, which to me feels very cut-off by having to go all the way around the Rimutakas and back again.  Someone in Masterton might feel very different about this.
::I'd be quite interested to know what the perception is of people who commute daily from somewhere like Masterton, or Kapiti.  I think there are quite a lot of people who do, and I'm interested to know if they think of themselves as being part of Wellington. Izogi 07:15, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming & definitions

message: Lets agree that Wellington Region means exactly what every official organisation says it means on their web site. That co-relates with my official data and that makes me at least certain of what it means. I respect the human usage but that pertains as much to Greater Wellington as anything. In an age of diversity we probably need to put the stick in the ground and go with LINZ and Stats for the definitions, and perhaps add our own, the Greater Wellington thingy. Its a community of common interest, for things like transport, waste, tourism, and probably many other aspects. Ive left notes on the other Wellington sites for comment, and as soon as I get motivation and time, and a better understanding of CAT:'s I'll jump in and resolve some of the duplication and confusion.moza 17:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "In public perception, the term "Wellington region" is much smaller. For some people, it is unlikely to include either the Kapiti Coast or the Wairarapa, both of which have their own distinct communities and identities. It is thus centred more heavily on the four cities at the southwest of the region." This is not really verified as far as I can see, perhaps more accurately local knowledge, and it isnt necessarily correct. How can we check the truth of it? Is it majority rule? do the people in the north of the region lose their identity just because more of us in the south forget about them? It may be correct but it just seems disturbing. 'Region' is a highly variable term but officially, in the context of Wellington, it only ever means one thing. If poor education or awareness create distortions of reality then this space is doing its job by being strict, and acting as a reference. moza 03:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wellington Region

message: It's a Slippery Slope really.  When I talk about Wellington I usually mean the city, but when I talk about Wellington Region I usually mean the five main population centres (I include Kapiti Coast in that).  The fact that I think that way probably reflects the fact that I live in the smallest population centre in that group (Porirua).  I suspect that people who live in Wellington (city) think similarly, whereas people who live in the Hutt Valley or the Kapiti Coast very likely think differently.  I don't think that people who live in the Wairarapa think they live in the Wellington Region, however.  One thing which argues for the inclusion of Kapiti Coast, and the exclusion of Wairarapa (to me, anyway) is the coverage of the train services: travel from Upper Hutt or Paraparaumu into Wellington on the train takes roughly equal time, and has roughly equivalent service.  As such the two areas are both 'commuter country'.  While many people from the Featherston, Otaki, Masterton or Palmerston North *do* commute to Wellington, there are far fewer services for them to use in doing so.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karora (talk • contribs) 12:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The public transport perspective

message: Isnt Kapiti coast also a city of wellington if so should we not add it also to the lists of citys wellington has within her ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.217.248 (talk) 09:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  If it isn't a 'City' it is certainly a 'metropolitan area' of some kind.  It has it's own Territorial Authority (i.e. the Kapiti Coast District Council http://kcdc.govt.nz/ which justifies it to me.  Create yourself a username and get onto it :-) Karora 05:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, on second thoughts, I've just done a thorough read and review (and rewrite of parts) of this article and I think that the coverage is correct to refer to Kapiti as 'the Kapiti district'.  The towns there (i.e. Paraparaumu and Waikanae) are both mentioned, but neither of them is formally a city.  I think we should wait for some offial declaration of 'Kapiti City' when some charismatic councillor decides it should be that way. Karora 10:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Kapiti Coast/City

message: 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)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Bay of Plenty Region which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 01:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Wellington Region. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070609200822/http://www.gw.govt.nz/section115.cfm to http://www.gw.govt.nz/section115.cfm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Wellington Region. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081121032356/http://www.stats.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/4733BC5E-9C90-461C-9BA5-5E1A9E7FC4C2/0/Dec07_NationalReview.xls to http://www.stats.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/4733BC5E-9C90-461C-9BA5-5E1A9E7FC4C2/0/Dec07_NationalReview.xls
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The United Kingdom is a sovereign state. England and Scotland are not sovereign states. Wikipedia pages list in population statistics the nation state of foreign-born citizens, not states, provinces, regions, etc. It is both in keeping with Wikipedia's own standards and nationality that the United Kingdom be kept as the birthplace of foreign-born residents of Wellington. To remove the United Kingdom sets a cumbersome new precedent that would logically also lead to the break-up of Australia, China, and another nation states into their sub-national categories. Twistedpiper (talk) 07:33, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: All I ask is next time to do a better job of handling the source data. UK is not simply England + Scotland numbers. I've adjusted the numbers to reflect England + Scotland + Wales + Northern Ireland + United Kingdom (not further defined) + Other UK and Ireland, which is essentially all of "Total people, United Kingdom and Ireland" except "Ireland". Feel free to redefine how this statistic should be represented, as the source tool is there to re-evaluate the numbers in this table. As for definitions of "nationality", Wikipedia has guidelines—not standards—and they are generally flexible to fit different definitions of "nationality". I didn't see any big issue with the previous definition, but just "UK" is fine too.  +mt 23:36, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Population