Talk:New Zealand place names

message: Why are Te Ika-a-Māui and Te Waka-a-Māui written with hyphens? We don't have New-Zealand, South-Island or Te Wai-Pounamu. If hyphens were to be used they should be consistent, ie, Te-Ika-a-Māui and Te-Waka-a-Māui. Can we take the hyphens out? Nurg (talk) 05:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. I don't know why they were there in the first place. --Helenalex (talk) 00:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hyphens in Te Ika-a-Māui and Te Waka-a-Māui 

message: The section on European place names is very confusing regarding the links - about half go to the place in New Zealand, the rest to the European place that was the origin of the name. You should pick which you want to link to and point all the links to there, or explicitly link to both for all places. Thryduulf (talk) 15:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: They should link to the New Zealand one. I will double check them. Thanks AIRcorn (talk) 22:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confused situation regarding links 

message: I have no knowledge of this ever actually being suggested as a slogan for the city, and that article linked as a citation not only significantly post-dates its usage, it doesn't actually contain anything relevant to the point. I know personally that people have been calling it Hamiltron and The City of the Future since the mid-90s at least - when I was a student at Waikato in 99-03 it was already firmly established. I'm pretty confident it's just an ironic nickname, because Hamilton's an arse-backward, over-grown farming town and damned proud of it. If anyone's got any actual evidence, though, that'd be awesome.--115.30.72.24 (talk) 10:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Here we go. A radio station apparently coined it in the 90's. There is the from Te Ara too. These are both better than the current ref, if someone wants to change it go ahead. If not I will have a go tomorrow. AIRcorn (talk) 12:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hamiltron: City of the Future 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on New Zealand place names. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110312122944/http://www.linz.govt.nz/placenames/find-names/topographic-names-db/index.aspx to http://www.linz.govt.nz/placenames/find-names/topographic-names-db/index.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:33, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: This does not read like a 'good article' to me. Should that status be removed until it is further improved? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 13:35, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this still an issue? If so could you be more specific please so i can fix it. Aircorn (talk) 18:41, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Having had a quick glance, it still does not appear to meet that standard, although I notice a large number of references. I am not sure how to improve it though and I may not be the best person to ask. One point though is that I think there should be a section about the placename related legislation that has occurred in recent times. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not completely following. Number of references don't have much to do with prose quality and I am not noticing any issues with either that necessitate failing the Good Article criteris. Can you give me a link to this new legislation or an article discussing it so I can add it? Could probably mention something about the use of macrons, but other than that not seeing anything that is really missing. Aircorn (talk) 04:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

text: I meant this  legislation, and the NZGB, but having another quick look I can see that it does get a mention after all. Since making that initial comment some time ago my interest in this topic has waned somewhat which is why I may not be the best person to comment in any detail. I agree that the article does appear to meet many of the standards required for 'good article' status, beyond just having plenty of references. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:32, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Good Article status?

message: Here is an observation, that may have been made before, but no harm in repeating it. The titles must meet all these wp:CRITERIA:
Recognisabilty (Generally NO)
Naturalness (Generally NO)
Precision (Generally NO)
Concision (No)
Consistency (N0)
However, under WP:ON ‘’The phrase "common name" (WP:COMMONNAME) has existed since before the change of the policy from "Naming conventions" to "Article title" and it does not mean the vernacular name (as described in scientific literature), instead it is a shorthand for the commonly recognizable name as shown by the prevalence of the name in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources (WP:UCRN). Following UCRN means that the article titles for most flora article are the scientific names not the vernacular names.’’. This stresses the importance that a common name means as used in reliable secondary sources, as opposed to man in the street usage. Therefore, does this not mean that it does not really matter that nobody ever uses these artificially created dual names, if a significant majority of reliable secondary sources use them. That brings us back to the independent reliability of sources that use dual names because they have to by law. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:05, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official names and NZ dual-names