Jump to content

Talk:Otago

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

Terrible HDR photo

[edit]

The "North from Macrae's Road, Otago, New Zealand" photo is a perfect example of HDR/Photoshop gone horribly wrong. Do such things belong on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.255.154 (talk) 22:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flag

[edit]

This is the first time I've ever seen this flag for Otago. Is it an historical one? Where did the picture come from? Is there a link anywhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Auccl799 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the link to the regional council, deleting everything after the .nz part. This is because the URL that had been there was a broken link. Oddly, the shortened version redirects to the other URL anyhow.--Coryma 03:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The flag was chosen after a competition about three years ago, and is currently used by the ORC, as well as being fairly common among the Otago public. The picture was one I created from the winning design of the contest (I was one of the judges of it). Grutness...wha? 00:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could caption the flag, then; I'm a member of the "Otago public" and have never seen it in common use . The "unofficial" blue half/gold half flag seems to be much more widely used.60.234.233.29 —Preceding comment was added at 08:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wines - POV?

[edit]

Is there a verifiable source that we can find to say that Otago's wines are excellent quality and that the extreme climate is a factor? Not that I doubt it, I don't, but verifiability and POV and all that Kahuroa 19:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both of the following sites are (understandably) POV, being commercial sites, but they do list a lot of international awards won by Central's wines: [1] [2]. Perhaps something can be weaved into the text to make it less POV...? Grutness...wha? 00:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about this link along those lines but from a more independent news source: [3]. Calls Central 'New Zealand’s leading pinot noir region' Kahuroa 00:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that looks useful. Grutness...wha? 01:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iagree with these proposed changes. I'll try and edit them into the page.Bruce896387 04:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

"Otago also appears as a street name in Whittlesey near Peterborough in England. There is Otago road and Otago Close. There is a mystery as to why this small fenland town should choose this name for two of its streets.

Also, the College of Piping in Glasgow, Scotland, is situated in the city's Otago Street. But, considering Otago's Scottish roots and New Zealand's strong piping tradition, this comes as no great surprise."

This has no place in this article, surely. Any objections to deleting it? Aaadddaaammm 05:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

[edit]

Posted to my talk page:

I note that you have added the regional council infobox back into the Otago article. I am separating the geographical info from the political info. The info box is now repeated in two articles and I feel it is not needed in the Otago article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I want the infobox to remain on this page, because it has the map of the region, statistics and list of places. I didn't agree with the edit moving the infobox to a two sentence stub, and don't see the need to split the articles when they are so small.
My suggestion is to revert the Otago Regional Council to a redirect, and add the ORC content here until the size would justify a split, per WP:SPLIT - like the subheading Politics in the New Zealand article for example. XLerate (talk) 07:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A far better idea, surely, is to try to expand the article on the ORC. There should be plenty of information on it suitable for a Wikipedia entry. After all, Otago and the ORC have slightly different meanings, as is clear from the text. If that can be done, then it would make sense to move the infobox to that article. There would be no reason why a similar binfobox dedicated to Otago itself rather than the ORC couldn't also be used on the Otago article in that instance. Grutness...wha? 23:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, the end goal being two good articles. But I don't see the sense deleting location maps and other basic facts from the region articles, as has happened with Southland and Canterbury also. The infobox was uniform across all the NZ region articles. I don't see a big problem with duplicating the current infobox on both Otago and ORC, but if anywhere should stay with the region. XLerate (talk) 05:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Otago looks like africa

[edit]

Just thought i would mention that the map of otago kind of looks like africa! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.247.93 (talk) 05:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Oscillation

[edit]

This came up about 6 months ago, where I found the description of the daily to weekly weather patterns in terms of the Southern Oscillation misleading. It was clarified, so that I now understand what is meant by the section. I am still unsure, however, about how the SO "produces an irregular short cycle of weather which repeats roughly every week" - perhaps a citation or link to a more in depth explanation would be appropriate? What does the SO have to do with it? Is this common knowledge? I'm throwing this to the talk pages because NZ climatology is not my specialty, but I would be interested in seeing more information added. Ovis23 (talk) 20:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... Seems on further examination that I've been confused by two distinct uses of the term Southern Oscillation. The usual meaning seems to refer to the El Niño/La Niña cycle - but there's a common use of the term to describe someting which I can't seem to find any other name for either on line or in hard resources that i have on hand -a regular barometric pattern which travels east around the globe approximately between 40°S and 50°S, driven by the circumpolar westerlies. This pattern, which consists of a series of high-pressure anticyclones separated by troughs, passes over southern New Zealand, repeating roughly once per week, leading to alternating warm, dry winds from the northwest for several days followed by cold, wet winds from the southwest for roughly the same period. It isn't caused by the El Niño/La Niña cycle; it is caused by a different pattern also known (locally at least) as the Southern Oscillation, for which I don't know any other name. Some small amounts of reference to this pattern can be found at [4] and [5]. Grutness...wha? 23:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah - okay. In work in South America, we've referred to that same phenomenon as the 'southern hemisphere storm track.' There are some good descriptions in the opening pages of Trenberth 1991 (Storm Track in the Southern Hemisphere, Am. Met. Soc.) and Hoskins and Hodges, 2005 (A New Perspective on Southern Hemisphere Storm Tracks, J. of Climate). Both are available online. Assuming that this is the same thing (sounds like it), I suggest that we either change the terminology on the page, or that we at least make it very clear that this weekly oscillation is distinct from ENSO. Thanks for the info! Ovis23 (talk) 19:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. Is there an article on the S.H.S.T.? If not, there probably should be. Grutness...wha? 23:48, 2 December 2009 (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: page moved. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Otago Region → Otago – The actual name of the region does not include "Region", it is just "Otago". (On the other hand, it is possible to find some sources, even governmental ones, that do include the capitalized "Region", but I believe they are in a distinct minority.) Otago already redirects here and is the primary meaning of the word (the other meanings are already at Otago (disambiguation)). (This discussion is a spin-off from this broader discussion, where it became clear that some users were uncomfortable considering all of the New Zealand region names as a group. So I'm planning on having individual discussions for them all; this is the second one. The first resulted in a name change.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:15, 5 April 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.

Quick question

[edit]

Now that this article is about Otago itself, and not the Otago Region, is it really necessary to have all the Otago Region paraphernalia - info-boxes, etc. - at the start of the article? Daveosaurus (talk) 05:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of the article has not changed, just the title—it's still about the region. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then why doesn't it say so? It now says it's about Otago, which is just as likely to refer to Otago Province. This should be a disambiguation page, with the article at Otago Region - the region's official name - where it belongs. The current name can only be massively confusing. Note that the vast majority of articles relating to the area also have "Otago Region" as part of their names (as - until this name-change went through - did all the categories). This has also thrown a major spanner in the works as far as uniformity is concerned, since all other New Zealand regions use "Region" as part of their article and category names. Grutness...wha? 08:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the current region is the primary meaning. Any confusion can easily be dealt with by a disambiguation hat. I haven't claimed that the article is in perfect or ideal shape—of course it can be worked on and improved. The above discussion was one of a series of discussions for all of the NZ region articles—we tried a unified discussion, but the general feeling was that to take these one-at-a-time would be preferable. This just happens to be one of the first ones that was discussed. I also don't think there's a need for all the region articles to have uniformity in naming. In some cases, such as "Otago", the name is the primary meaning. For others, such as Wellington Region, it will not be, so the latter will have to be disambiguated in some form or another. At least we're having formal discussions about these now. There is a long history of users just moving the region articles to names that they think would be good without a general WP:RM having been conducted. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly isn't a clear primary meaning - both Otago Region and Otago Provice are regularly described as being Otago, and by having the article at the heading Otago you will inevitably get edits which relate to both, which a hatnote will not fix. Grutness...wha? 23:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think one performs various google searches and scans the results, one would find that most sources that use "Otago" are referring to the region, not the old province. That would make it primary usage, in my view. The university is also "regularly described as being Otago", as are the rugby and cricket teams, but that doesn't mean that they are necessarily the primary meaning. If you think the article should be renamed, I suppose you could start another WP:RM. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't consider either Otago Region or Otago Province to be within a bull's roar of the primary meaning of Otago - if anything, the primary meaning would be the (not well defined) general Otago area rather than the Region (which omits areas generally thought of as being in Otago, such as Kurow, Otematata and Omarama) or the Province (which includes areas generally not thought of as being in Otago, such as Wyndham, Waikaia and Papatotara). The existence of a Region as a particular layer of local government is why the word 'region' should not be used to describe the general area - as the only difference between the two concepts is the capitalisation, if used when not required it leads to ambiguity. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think distinguishing between the administrative region and the general area is not one that should be bothered with in terms of having separate Wikipedia articles. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Population

[edit]

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 Otago. 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) 07:28, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New map

[edit]

Please either undo or shift to geography section if you don't like it. I can edit it in any way either on or off Wikipedia (it is Location map many friendly). If you hate it get rid of it, it is a work in progress (made for History of the Otago Region). Old map "Position of Otago.png"Dushan Jugum (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Old map
New map?

Where? Which?

[edit]

"... the name of the Māori village near the entrance to the harbour." What harbour? Which harbour? The text should explain to someone who is not from the area. Shenme (talk) 19:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed? After a quick look I think the page might not know if it is about the Otago Region, Provence or metaphysical concept. Dushan Jugum (talk) 20:20, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 March 2022

[edit]
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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: some moved, some not. There appears to be consensus that some of these articles should be moved, specifically three that require disambiguating (the first three listed) plus Marlborough which is a district rather than a region:

However, there appears to be no consensus on the others. Number 57 20:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

– Per WP:CONSISTENT. Moving these region articles would make them consistent with the following region and unitary articles:

The articles already at the "region" name are there due to disambiguation reasons. Moving the other region articles will ensure that Wikipedia is WP:CONSISTENT across all New Zealand region and unitary authority articles. Note that all proposed moves have redirects from their proposed names to their current ones, e.g. Canterbury Region, Waikato Region, etc. Spekkios (talk) 00:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:23, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason I thought that the unitary authorities had the name "district" instead of "region" despite Auckland and Marlborough being at "region". I've updated the proposal to move both Tasman and Gisborne to "region". I think I confused myself when I checked the district list. --Spekkios (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment West Coast is potentially ambiguous without having ", New Zealand" on the end. There is also a West Coast Region in The Gambia (wiki has it at West Coast Division (The Gambia), but that seems to reflect pre-2007 terminology), and a number of other regions (with a lower case r) called West Coast around the world. For Southland and Canterbury (currently ambiguous), adding "Region" reduces ambiguity since there are many other places around the world with these names, but no other regions. Furius (talk) 00:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is unnessasary and confusing. Every American state could be followed by "state", but it's just a mundanity. This isn't worth our time and effort. The only possible changes I would see appropriate would be the chaning of the generically named Southland to its increasingly common Māori Murihiku and Northland to Te Tai Tokerau.--Aubernas (talk) 10:01, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could you expand on why it's confusing? 5 pages already use the name; do you think those should be moved? --Spekkios (talk) 08:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While I generally support an attempt to get some better consistency in the article titles of the regions, I feel like given the patchwork of different authority and sub-national divisions in NZ it'll be difficult to come to a nice clean solution here. You're going to have consistency issues regardless, whether that's at the regional level or district level. I'm not sure what the solution is - I'd note that Hawkes Bay doesn't need the region specification as it stands, because the geographic feature is just Hawke Bay, and Marlborough could probably be consistent with the districts (which might be worth staying at "district" titles given they're all governed by District Councils specifically as the unitary?) I'll do a bit more thinking about this to see whether I can come up with something that might work. Turnagra (talk) 18:41, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Geography has been notified of this discussion. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:24, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject New Zealand has been notified of this discussion. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:24, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partly support I am partly supporting the move proposal. I think we should move the 11 non-unitary regions for WP:CONSISTENT reasons, but for those 5 unitary regions, I reckon we should stick to their official names (except Auckland, which is a metropolitan area):
  1. Auckland Region → Greater Auckland (link)
  2. Gisborne District (link) – keep
  3. Marlborough Region → Marlborough District (link)
  4. Nelson, New Zealand → Nelson City* (link)
  5. Tasman District (link) – keep
* The current disambiguation page → Nelson City (disambiguation)
N.B. Please note that the official name for the Manawatū-Whanganui area is the Horizons Region, not the Manawatū-Whanganui Region. Therefore, we should also move Manawatū-Whanganui → Horizons Region (link). 2001:8003:9008:1301:8D43:AA2D:7B64:D202 (talk) 04:12, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If Manawatū-Whanganui is moved to Horizons Region, then the text of the article ought to explain where on earth that name has come from. At the moment, the article does not explain at all. Furius (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: I'd also note that the Dept of Internal Affairs refers to the region as Manawatu-Whanganui [ https://www.localcouncils.govt.nz/lgip.nsf/wpg_URL/Profiles-Councils-Manawatu-Wanganui-Regional-Council-Main] and I think this is a far more common name than 'horizons'. Furius (talk) 22:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the region is Manawatū-Whanganui Region [6]. The council trades under the name Horizons Regional Council, but that does not change the name of the region. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:14, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note There is a move discussion above and the article was moved from Otago Region to the current title Otago. You cite WP:CONSISTENT but one of the criteria listed there is concision. It seems counterintuitive and unnecessary to redirect Otago to a longer article name. There is no disambiguation required. However I support the proposed renaming for West Coast, Canterbury, Southland where the titles are need disambiguation. --Hazhk (talk) 20:54, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for the regions that need disambiguating (i.e. Southland, Canterbury, West Coast). I also support Waikato being moved back to Waikato Region, per my 2014 comments at Talk:Waikato#Requested move 2.
Oppose moving regions that do not need disambiguating (i.e. Otago, Manawatū-Whanganui, Taranaki, Bay of Plenty). WP:CONSISTENT has its place but not to the extent of disambiguating titles that are not ambiguous.
Oppose for the unitary authorities. Gisborne Region, as it was then, was discussed in 2014 and moved to Gisborne District, which I supported then and still do. Any proposal to reverse that should address the matters raised at Talk:Gisborne District#Requested move 24 May 2014. Following that discussion, Tasman Region was moved to Tasman District on the same basis as the Gisborne move, per Talk:Tasman District#Requested move. Having a quick look at Marlborough makes me think we should consider moving Marlborough Region to Marlborough District as well, as suggested by Special:Contributions/2001:8003:9008:1301:8D43:AA2D:7B64:D202. This would make it consistent with Gisborne and Tasman. Unitary authorities are not regional authorities, so consistency of the names with region names is not important. Nurg (talk) 01:22, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What about Auckland? Is it a city or region? The Auckland Council website hasn't provided any details about the area's official status. 144.130.162.86 (talk) 05:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the unitary authorities I support whatever makes them consistent, regardless of if it's 'district' or 'region' --Spekkios (talk) 07:49, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't Taranaki also potentially ambiguous with the mountain? And several of the others with the old provinces of the same names? Furius (talk) 08:30, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would say Taranaki on its own typically refers to the region - the mountain is either going to be Mount Taranaki or increasingly Taranaki Mounga (which we may end up needing to rename the article for in the future, depending on how that goes). As for the provinces, I'd say the modern regions would almost certainly be the primary topic. Turnagra (talk) 09:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's obvious to a New Zealander in the same way that it's obvious to a NZer what West Coast, Canterbury, and Southland refer to, but I wonder whether it is obvious to Anglophones elsewhere - it's quite common to refer to some mountains by name alone (e.g. "Hillary and Tenzing conquered Everest"). Furius (talk) 12:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No suffix: Bay of Plenty, Hawke's Bay, Manawatū-Whanganui, Otago, Taranaki, Waikato
x District: Gisborne, Marlborough, Tasman
x Region: Auckland, Canterbury, Northland, Southland, Wellington, West Coast
other: Nelson
Turnagra (talk) 09:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I Agree with your proposal except that Auckland is neither a region nor a city. Auckland and the Chatham Islands are both unitary authorities without a specific designation.
Source: https://www.localcouncils.govt.nz/lgip.nsf/wpg_url/Profiles-Councils-by-Type-Unitary
My suggestion:
Auckland Region → Auckland
Auckland → Auckland urban area 110.145.30.41 (talk) 04:23, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wouldn't disagree in saying that all these are regions of New Zealand with some inconsistency in this nomination among all these article titles.
As to naming: whenever I see a title with the name, followed by the comma, and then the country/state, I tend to think this is the name of a city, which is rarely used, see the relevant naming convention. So Southland Region, Canterbury Region and West Coast Region could work as well as the possibility of Southland (New Zealand region) or similar. Though West Coast Region will likely be confused with others.
The current titles of two of the five article titles below the WP:CONSISTENT line in this talk page: I am wondering if the Auckland and Wellington ones are incorrectly titled as both are also known as "Greater Auckland" and "Greater Wellington" respectively when viewing them. Either way, this nomination appears to be split in moving only a certain number of pages instead of all of them so we should consider doing these requested moves separately either single or a subgroup (such as the two articles affected with "District" in the title, the three articles with the ", New Zealand" at the end). See this talk page where there are people opposing mass change and advising a separate nomination for each page instead. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 22:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gaelic pronunciation

[edit]

Following on from a few IP edits - Is there any actual utility in including the Gaelic pronunciation of "Otago"? There may have been 150 years ago, when there was still a significant Gaelic-speaking community in Dunedin, but those days are long gone. Daveosaurus (talk) 07:08, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think adding the Gàdhlig spelling for Otago would help to bring back more usage of the word and to maybe help try to bring back an historical language that our city and region was founded upon 2407:7000:826B:C075:F1F1:384E:79C7:8E6E (talk) 07:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be good if you could include a source. Alexeyevitch(talk) 07:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I grew up as a Dunedinite and the use of the name Otàigho is still very common among museums and translations of the region into Scottish Gaelic, although uncommon with the English speaking public. Ok324 (talk) 07:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend providing a source which mentions that. Alexeyevitch(talk) 08:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Otago&oldid=1253862677"