Talk:North Head (New Zealand)

Requested move 11 October 2014

The following is a closed 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 to move. (non-admin closure) —innotata 23:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

---

North Head, New Zealand → Maungauika – New name for cone. Haminoon (talk) 04:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

References

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Have you put a note on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Zealand regarding these requests? Gregkaye ✍♪ 05:39, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, have done now. Haminoon (talk) 06:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

---

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.

name confusion. now resolved

Volcano and reserve There is a slow burning edit-war brewing with an anonymous editor. I'll clarify here: This article is about both the volcano and the reserve. The two entities have two different names. The changing of both these names is clearly explained in the article. Currently the reserve name is only mentioned near the bottom of the article. I don't have a problem with it being mentioned in the lede, but not if it involves introducing factual errors (as the anon editor has been doing). -- haminoon (talk) 23:38, 31 March 2015 (UTC) The name of the article is "North Head". This is the English name which has been in common use for over 170 years. In 2014 that name was changed and it is now known as "Maungauika / North Head Historic Reserve". That is the official gazetted name and the suggestion that it is "also known as North Head" is a factual error which I am trying to correct. An unofficial name in widespread use would be also known as, but not an official gazetted name. Secondly, the statement that "The two entities have two different names" is wrong. The English name for both the volcano and the reserve is North Head and it has been for a very long time. There are a huge number of historical references to the volcano being called this. Thirdly, the statement that "the volcano was officially named Maungauika" is not correct. The Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Act 2014 refers to the entire reserve and gives it the name "Maungauika / North Head" so as stated above, this is the proper name to use. Nowhere in that legislation does it make a distinction between the reserve and the volcano, Maungauika is defined in Schedule 1 of the act and this area is the area of the reserve formerly known as North Head. Please don't go trying to rename geographical features or edit warring, it's very important that we use the correct names. Thanks and keep up the good work. Look up Maungauika in the gazatteer - the hill and the reserve come up as two separate features with two different names. The act you link to lists the gazetted names for the "geographical features" in Schedule 1 and is referred to in Subpart 11. It says Maungauika, not Maungauika / North Head. Subpart 4 section 49 talks about renaming the reserve. The volcano renaming is talked about here and the LINZ guideline is here. This was all clearly explained in the article in the "Treaty settlement" section. -- haminoon (talk) 09:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC) The article is about North Head. The proper Gazetted name for North Head is "Maungauika / North Head Historic Reserve". If you don't believe that North Head and Maungauika are the same thing then that's up to you, but at the end of it all the article is about the feature known as North Head and we need to state it's proper name. I never said the hill naming never took place. What I am saying is that we should use the official, gazetted name for North Head (the name of the article) which is "Maungauika / North Head Historic Reserve". Check out the style of the neighbouring Mt Victoria to see the style I was aiming for.... Both articles are about the volcanos/hills. The gazetted name for Takarunga / Mount Victoria is Takarunga / Mount Victoria. The gazetted name for Maungauika is Maungauika. Check the gazetteer. -- haminoon (talk) 10:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC) That would be fine if the article was about Maungauika but it's not. The article is and has always been about "North Head". In 2014 the name for North Head was changed to "Maungauika / North Head Historic Reserve". As with many places in New Zealand this feature has both English and Maori names which have equal status. As a compromise, let's just redo the naming in the same style as the Mt Victoria article to avoid bias towards one name or the other. The two names do not have equal status - only one is the official name of the hill. Its not a "style". I've arranged the Mt Vic page like that because it has two names of equal status. -- haminoon (talk) 10:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC) Reading the Gazetteer entry for "North Head" it says: This is an official name Status: Approved (2012 (7) p.202) History/Origin/Meaning: Assumed to be a descriptive name given for the feature for the coastal head feature at the northern entrance to Waitemata Harbour. Māori names for the hill on this coastal head are known to be 'Takapuna' lit. 'the rock with a spring' and 'Maungauika' lit. 'Uika’s Mountain'. [Simmons / Graham]. - See more at: http://www.linz.govt.nz/regulatory/place-names/find-name/new-zealand-gazetteer-official-geographic-names/new-zealand-gazetteer-search-place-names#zoom=9&lat=-36.83022&lon=174.80318&layers=BTT Don't forget that this article is titled "North Head" so we shouldn't narrow the definition to only be about the volcano which is called Maungauika in Maori or North Head in English... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.98.216.2 (talk) 11:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC) That is the entry for the point. It says "Feature type: Point. A distinctive coastal point at the northern entrance of Waitemata Harbour.". The hill, the reserve and the point all have different names. I don't have a problem with the point and the reserve being written about more prominently in the article. What I do have a problem with is factual errors, such as the one that currently starts the article: "Maungauika / North Head Historic Reserve is a volcanic cone". The cone/hill has one name and there are important reasons behind it having only one name. -- haminoon (talk) 11:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC) According to DOC: North Head is one of the oldest of the approximately 50 cones in the Auckland volcanic field. It was formed over 50,000 years ago in a series of great volcanic explosions.[1] According to GNS Science (New Zealand Crown Research Institute) it's one of the Auckland volcanoes [2] There are lots of other references to North Head being a volcano, it took me about 2 minutes to find a bunch of them. [3] [4] [5] [6] As with Takarunga / Mount Victoria and a great many other places where the Maori names have been given official status the English name remains with equal status. I think you are already aware those documents pre-date the treaty settlement. And lets leave out this "English name" misnomer - these are names used by different peoples in English. -- haminoon (talk) 12:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC) The Treaty settlement did not remove the name North Head. It changed it to Maungauika / North Head. Why don't you stop the edit warring and try and come to a compromise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.98.216.2 (talk) 04:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC) I offered a compromise above with "I don't have a problem with the point and the reserve being written about more prominently in the article." The problem is that both the changes you have repeatedly made are factual errors. "the volcano was officially named Maungauika / North Head Historic Reserve" is false, as the gazateer and the references to the settlement make clear. A compromise between a truth and a lie is still a lie. -- haminoon (talk) 04:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC) as with a great number of places Maungauika / North Head has a dual Maori/English name. You not accepting this doesn't change that fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.56.202.110 (talk) 05:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Rewrote parts of the article

OK folks I can see there is some controversy over this but, here's a summary:

1. North Head is the name of the headland
2. Maungauika/North Head Historic Reserve is the name of the reserve
3. Maungauika is the name of the vocanic cone

https://gazette.govt.nz/notice/id/2014-ln5965

I've rewritten parts of the article to reflect this. I understand there are strong feelings about this but let's consider this one with care and try our best to keep the POV neutral.

101.98.221.59 (talk) 10:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

(1) Those three names are correct. However I am wondering if you are the same IP editor who was claiming otherwise above and edit warring to get fallacies added to the article.

(2) You have rewritten the article to be primarily about the headland rather than the volcano. This is a major change and should be discussed on the talkpage first. The infobox still relates to the volcano and not the headland. Is there a reason you've done this other than because of what the official names are?

(3) You have claimed your edit fixes "POV problems" but haven't stated what these are.

(4) You have removed the text "Most of the volcano is in the Maungauika / North Head Historic Reserve." Why?

(5) You have changed part of the text I wrote on the treaty settlement to "was vested to the collective for the common benefit of the Tāmaki Makaurau and all other people of Auckland." What does "the common benefit of the Tāmaki Makaurau" mean? Do you even know what Tāmaki Makaurau is?

(6) Throughout the article you have changed Maungauika to North Head. Why?

(7) You have removed this reference: 1. Why?

(8) You have written in the lede "(In 2014) the volcanic cone on the headland was given the Maori name Maungauika". Obviously it wasn't given that name in 2014 - that name has been used for centuries and pre-dates "North Head". Why call it a "Maori name"? Maungauika has been used in English by the owners of the land for well over a century. We don't say that "volcano" is a French word.

(9) You have added references to webpages without including the date accessed field. Please don't do this as it makes it difficult for people to check references later. The DOC one will presumably be removed soon and the Heritage NZ website often changes.

(10) Māori is spelt Māori. -- haminoon (talk) 11:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

(1) My motivation is to fix the article, please give me the benefit of the presumption that I am acting in good faith and that I strive for neutral point of view.

(2) I've attempted to recast it slightly because it transpires that North Head has always been the name of the headland and there was apparently never an official name for the volcano (though the hill was and still is widely known as North Head). I don't think that it's helpful to narrow the scope of the article to just be only about the volcano, only about the reserve or to split the article and have a separate one about the headland. I'm confident that the three entities can be properly documented in the one article. North Head was and still is a gazetted name, it also follows WP:COMMONNAME guidelines so it's correct that the article leads that way.

(3) I understand that you are passionate about this subject but the article gave undue prominence to the name Maungauika over the more widely known and used name North Head.

(4) Stating that the volcano was in the reserve sounded to me like it was stating the obvious, I've reworded that a bit to make it clear that the mountain is part of the reserve.

(5) common benefit of Tāmaki Makaurau and all other people is an error which should read common benefit of the iwi/hapū of Tāmaki Makaurau and all other people of Auckland. I think I was doing the links to iwi/hapū so that non New Zealand readers would understand the terms and somehow this got deleted from the quote. Sorry if you were offended by this mistake, none was intended.

(6) I haven't changed it throughout, only where the historical context is that this is how people referred to the site (eg, during it's military history)

(7) the reference was removed, probably because I felt it was redundant and covered by other references. Feel free to reinstate it if you feel that it covers something that isn't referenced elsewhere.

(8) I will rephrase that to say that to say was officially given the Maori name Maungauika. As you will remember, it was also called Takapuna by some iwi and the point I'm making there is that the name Maungauika was given official status.

(9) I don't know how to do this, feel free to help me out there.

(10) Māori or Maori are of course both acceptable spellings but for consistency of style, I will change it to Māori. Thanks for pointing that out.

101.98.221.59 (talk) 09:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Also fixed the info box for the volcano, with a ref to the New Official Geographic Name. 101.98.221.59 (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Rest assured I am not trying to narrow the focus of the article. The volcano and the headland are inseparable; North Head is a common name for Maungauika and vice versa. The title will remain as North Head as that is currently the most commonly used name for both the volcano and the headland.

I feel strongly that both names should be mentioned in the first sentence of the article. As well as being the official name Maungauika is the name that has had the most continuous use, and has important cultural and spiritual value. "Takapuna" was only used briefly and appears to have been based on a misunderstanding (much like Remuwera). I would like us to come to a consensus on the start of the article. Originally it said:

Maungauika (commonly known as North Head) is a volcanic cone forming a headland within Auckland, New Zealand, in the suburb of Devonport at the east end of the Waitemata Harbour (Auckland's harbour).

Perhaps it could read:

Maungauika / North Head is a volcanic headland within Auckland, New Zealand, in the suburb of Devonport at the east end of the Waitemata Harbour. Maungauika is the official name of the volcano and North Head is the official name of the headland. -- haminoon (talk) 02:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Yep, I think we should go with that. You could add "though the names are used interchangeably"? Either form is good, I think go ahead with the edit unless anyone out there has a better idea. Thanks 101.98.221.59 (talk) 09:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Nope, because Maungauika / North Head establishes it as the name of a volcanic headland when it is not the name. If we present a combined geographic name to the reader it should reflect the official name, as do Aoraki / Mount Cook and Aoraki/Mount Cook National Park, or Mount Aspiring / Tititea, or Whakaari/White Island (speaking of volcanoes). I support "'Maungauika (commonly known as North Head)...." which is accurate and doesn't imply a double banger as official name. There is also the possibility we could find ourselves with Maungauika / North Head . Moriori (talk) 21:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the process for establishing consensus in these cases, but since there are two of us preferring the previous text and one objecting I figure it should revert back until we can agree on something. -- haminoon (talk) 05:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)"

Let's stick with the overwhelming Wikipedia convention and begin the intro with the article name. @Haminoon:, when you made this edit, it would have been logical , if the article name had been changed from North Head to Maungauika. But that didn't happen so we have this tête à tête re a made-up combination name. The common name is North Head, the name of the article is North Head, so the intro should start with North Head. I have made an edit which says what we are trying to say, is accurate, flows nicely and is not ambiguous for the reader. Perhaps you and @IP:101.98.221.59: might like to comment here. Cheers. Moriori (talk) 22:42, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Moriori. I've made some minor changes and think it looks okay now. -- haminoon (talk) 05:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

The tricky thing is that as per WP:COMMONNAME, North Head could refer to the headland, park or mountain though the name change means there is now only a headland gazetted as North Head. It transpires that the volcano people variously knew as North Head, Maungauika or even Takapuna didn't actually have an official gazetted name. The added complication is that the volcano is now simply named Maungauika but the reserve is dual named North Head/Maungauika. I think that in future all three features will probably just end up being styled as Maungauika/North Head where there is no preference for one name or the other. If we wanted to be completely pedantic about it then Maungauika/North Head is a historic reserve within the Auckland suburb of Devonport comprising the North Head headland and the Maungauika volcanic cone ... is strictly correct according to the gazetted names. I don't think this would recast the scope of article as it covers the mountain, headland and reserve in equal measures. I would vote for changing it as bolded here but if both of you are happy with the article as it stands then let's stick with that. Thanks for your efforts. 101.98.221.59 (talk) 13:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

We are all tying to improve the article but are at cross purposes. The name of the article is North Head but your bolded sentence just above reads as if the article is called North Head reserve. Two different things, and if you mentioned North Head to an Aucklander I'd bet they'd automatically think headland/hill rather than reserve. I believe the intro can be improved further, so I am being bold again and doing a rewrite. You say an "added complication is that the volcano is now simply named Maungauika...". Not so, its name is Maungauika Hill, see here. I have fixed that in my amendments. Cheers. Moriori (talk) 23:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Thats a formatting error, if you see the pdf version and all the other cites, you'll see it is just called Maungauika. Maunga basically means hill. -- haminoon (talk) 23:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Huh! the government gazette (extracts) says:

Land Notices

Notice of New and Altered Geographic Names.....

Schedule 1 below specifies the details of the new geographic names; their geographic feature types and their descriptions.

Schedule 1

Official Geographic Name Geographic Feature Type Description

Matukutururu Hill A hill in Wiri (suburb) near Wiri Lava Cave Scientific Reserve. Locally known as Wiri Mountain. NZTopo50-BB32 653027.

Maungataketake Hill A hill at 73m on the coastline adjacent to Karore Bank near Auckland International Airport. Locally known as Ellets Mountain. NZTopo50-BB31 555043.

Maungauika Hill A hill at 65m above North Head near Devonport.

So here we have a govt land notice clearly giving the Official Geographic Name as "Maungauika Hill" and the Geographic Feature Type as "A hill". Nothing ambiguous about it, and certainly not a formatting error. Regarding maunga meaning hill -- it's probably more mountain -- some of our naming conventions seem a little weird, like Mount Maunganui e.g.. 00:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Its a table! Check page 3239 of the pdf I linked above. I'm pretty sure "Maungakiekie / One Tree Hill Hill" is a formatting error also. -- haminoon (talk) 00:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

OK I get it. Duh. Carry on that man. Moriori (talk) 01:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Once again the word volcanic/volcano and Maungauika have been removed from the first sentence. -- haminoon (talk) 23:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I see that, and will fix. Moriori (talk) 00:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)comment

Infobox naming

I've restored the infobox to it's previous state; generally, we lead the infobox with the same name as the article. However, I'm unsure whether to place the dual name in "other_name" and the Maori name in "native_name", or the Maori name in "other_name" as the Maori name seems more prominent out of the two. BilledMammal (talk) 06:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

MOS:INFOBOXGEO states Infoboxes for geographical items (e.g. cities and countries) should generally be headed with the article title, although the formal version of a name (e.g. Republic of Montenegro at Montenegro) can be substituted. E James Bowman (talk) 06:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

This isn't a formal name, though; it's an official name. Formal names refer to things such as the "Republic of Montenegro", not "Warszawa" or "Maungauika". While we discuss, I've reverted the article to the status quo. BilledMammal (talk) 06:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Your link refers to country names. Google "formal". The Oxford Languages dictionary definition #2 is "officially sanctioned or recognised". The gazetted official name of this geographical item is the 'formal version of the name'. E James Bowman (talk) 07:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Replied at Talk:Pigeon Mountain (New Zealand)#Infobox naming. BilledMammal (talk) 09:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I shared about this discussion at Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board#Infobox naming. As the identical discussion is happening across three Tūpuna Maunga talk pages, it had been suggested the discussion is taken there. I agree. E James Bowman (talk) 22:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)