Talk:Mount Taranaki

Current and former names

I've given a little more prominence to the former name, since it will still be very common in atlases. Grutness 09:16, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Attention:User:Moriori and User:OrewaTel especially.

Before recent changes, relevant paragraphs of our article read as follows: It appeared as Mount Egmont on maps until 29 May 1986, when the name officially became "Mount Taranaki or Mount Egmont" following a decision by the Minister of Lands. The Egmont name still applies to the national park that surrounds the peak and geologists still refer to the peak as the Egmont Volcano.
As part of the treaty settlement with Ngā Iwi o Taranaki the mountain will be officially named Taranaki Maunga. As of 18 July 2021, the settlement has not yet been completed. (My emphasis added in 3 relevant parts of the quote above by underlining.)

Judging by recent reverts and edit comments, at least 2 editors seem to think either that the infobox should be at variance with our article or that the 2 paragraphs quoted above (that at first sight seem to be adequately sourced) are materially wrong.

I would readily admit that inside contemporary New Zealand, one rarely hears or reads about "Mount Egmont" - however, this encyclopedia has a worldwide audience, and in a similar way to the neologisms of "Aotearoa" and "eSwatini" (which are, as yet, largely unknown outside their countries of origin by the general populace) we hardly do our readers a service by obscuring names that have been the most common in the English language for more than 200 years.

Consequently I intend, after a decent interval for discussion, to revert the recent reversions unless either policy justifications or reliable sources are put forward to support censoring the (still official alternative) name of "Mount Egmont" in the Infobox. --06:13, 31 August 2021 (UTC) BushelCandle

References

Old comments

Satellite photo

The satellite photo (particularly in 3d) shows two bumpy structures NW of the main cone. I'd guess these were older cones that haven't erupted as recently as the main one (they look eroded)? -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 13:29, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've added some info on them. dramatic 04:10, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Gardener or surgeon?

Are the sections "Rare Optical Phenomenon" and "Sacred" really necessary? The optical phenomenom looks like just an excuse to have a pretty picture, and the sacred just says that it's sacred without further explanation.

I agree that these sections seem to have little merit. I moved/removed them once, but their author quickly replaced them. I had no desire to get into an edit war then, so I haven't done anything more, but I would support their removal (with one exception - I think a link to the origin legend is worthwhile). Avenue 15:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is much easier to be cutting, than investigating and adding. Edit wars? it takes more than one to make a war. Art and Science can be partners, and if one leads to the other then what is wrong with that? Often discovery follows imagination, and I suspect that is a concept difficult for the less-creative humans to grasp, so bring out the surgeons knife and get cutting. Fortunately the wiki has it's place; the greater web really is democatice, the bits I use are mostly protected from this pseudo science approach, reductionist as it is. Not necessary? I think we all could do well to take stock of reality; The entire wiki is un-necessary in the technical sense, we just want it, and thats not a bad thing. Collaboration is a fabulous opportunity here opened up by technology and imaginative application of intellectual property. Gifting is good. Surgical activity is great too - when its tempered with discipline and caring, healing and growth is the result.

Bulls in a china shop dont create any new china, they just create a mess that has to be surgically removed. How about use the existing framework to create an improved and enriched experience for the subject visitor, as a policy a lttle bit different to the common practice of 'if in doubt rip it out'

And for contrast, we have editors re-writing and replacing enntire pages with their own work; is that a collaborative approach? Who is correct? remove what you dont like invoking a said policy of less is better ( it has to be 'necessary' to survive), or making a massive page using a stated policy of more and better content is best.

The fantastic thing about all tis is that its quite amusing to watch human behaviour, lets pretend that there is no pov... Imagine, John Lennon got it right.

So anyway I'm suggesting that if you take this too seriously you need a life, there is in fact lots of outside this thing we all love with a passion. I think that there is room in here for everyone and everything, and maybe a bit more effort by the surgeons could create a more appropriate outcome for the benefit of the most number of users.

Here's an idea, before you cut, how about move the subject to its own page/s... ie grow the wiki? a little respect for the actual people that GIVE their copyright to the human race wouldnt go astray. If you had spent many hours in bitterly cold conditions creating an image for the world, then you would probably be entitled to a pov when the surgeons came along and it ended up on the cutting room floor.

How about a pause and consideration for the actual real people that love the particular subject, and make extraordinary efforts to contribute to it. Or possibly you could just go on believing that its yet another of the zillions of valueless web images that are un-necessary and smash them to pieces.

And for the record have any of the surgeons of this subject ever been on this mountain? this particular mountain has a lot more going for it than exists on wiki, but if you cut the contributions to shreds as they come in, the information is less likely to continue arriving.

One last plea for constructive application of your editing skills and time? please? ~~ moza

When I asked if they were necessary, I was talking about for this article. If Wikipedia is to be useful, then the content of the article must relate to the subject of the article. I'm not a surgeon, just a gardener doing some weeding.

I'm not a weed, I'm a plant fruiting edible food.moza 05:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Fantham's Peak: Māori name?

Can anyone supply the Māori name of Fantham's Peak, please? Copey 2 14:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Panitahi according to A.B. Scanlan's book Egmont National Park. Moriori 20:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Name

In researching a response for wikipedia's place name conventions, I note that the official name is actually "Mount Taranaki or Mount Egmont"[1]. Given the preference for not using slashes in names, it would seem to make sense to move it. Any objections?--Limegreen 02:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Obviously given the ugliness of that nomenclature, and the linguistic redundance in Mount Taranaki, it would probably be better if it followed the precedent of Aoraki/Mount Cook[2], and became Taranaki/Mount Egmont....--Limegreen 02:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll second that. Because no original research is allowed, it would be very difficult to dispel the "Mount Taranaki or Mount Egmont" name. Yes, Linz itself perpetuates that botchup. I'd bet my left one that the minutes of the meeting where the name/s were chosen is the culprit. It was minuted as "Mount Taranaki or Mount Egmont" but should have been "Mount Taranaki" or "Mount Egmont", as alternative usages. Your "Taranaki/Mount Egmont" suggestion makes sense. Moriori 03:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

So wait, having given two opinions... you agree that the name should be the "or" version (because it's official), but that it would be better if it were Taranaki/Mount Egmont officially, because the "or" version is silly?--Limegreen 03:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You said it would "probably be better......Taranaki/Mount Egmont" and I replied that "I'll second that". I concluded by saying your "Taranaki/Mount Egmont suggestion makes sense". Are they the two opinions you mean? Moriori 09:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The reference to the mountain's name change says only that it took place in "the 1980s". Given the level of feeling over the issue, is it possible to add more detail on exactly when this took place, and at whose instigation? Grimhim 13:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Wait, how does this get rid of the slashes? Anyway, the current title follows the official naming, and I don't see what benefits changing it would bring.--Efil's god 12:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

If you follow the link, you will discover that the current article title does not reflect the official name Mount Taranaki or Mount Egmont (and would remove the slash).--Limegreen 00:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The official name has Mount applying to both Taranaki and Egmont. The slash means the two terms are interchangeable there. That's what I was getting at.--Efil's god 00:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

To reopen this old discussion, I note that the original suggestion was to call this "Taranaki/Mount Egmont", whereas it was actually named "Mount Taranaki/Egmont". Given that "Tara" means peak, this has made the page into a tautology. It also doesn't reflect the contents of the pge which say that "The mountain was called Taranaki [by the Maori]" (not "Mount Taranaki"). I've created a redirect at the initially proposed "Taranaki/Mount Egmont" (thereby linking a small slew of articles which redlinked to it). Grutness...wha? 01:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of what is oficial, it's name to the vast majority of locals currently living has always been Mount Egmont.210.185.8.216 (talk) 09:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Speaking as a local of eight years, I haven't heard a single person call it Mt Egmont since I moved here. It's either "The mountain" or "Taranaki".dramatic (talk) 01:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

With regards to Mount Taranaki being a tautology, it certainly would be on the Marori Wikipedia if you had Tara Taranaki. But I've certainly heard it called Mount Taranaki, which helps distinguish it from Taranaki, the district. With regards to the rename, I've never heard it called anything but Taranaki in the three and a half years I've been living in New Zealand. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Two points regarding the alleged tautology of the term Mount Taranaki:

• Where speakers of one language use place-names drawn from another language, it is common to add their own feature terminology (Mount, Lake, River) to such names, even if the name includes the word for that feature in the original language. The classic example is that of Torpenhow Hill in Cumbria, with four successive terms meaning "hill" in various languages.
• The iwi Māori of the region of Taranaki - those who name Mount Taranaki as their maunga (mountain) - commonly refer to it, especially in oratory or song, as "Taranaki te maunga" - Taranaki the mountain.

On name usage, I lived in Taranaki until 1969 (I was born in 1951). Egmont was then the official name, but rarely used in conversation—it was simply "the mountain". I never hear "Mt Egmont" these days, and often hear "Mt Taranaki", but I live several hundred miles away. I've never heard complaints when I've been there. I suspect locals nowadays are not much bothered—it's still just "the mountain". Koro Neil (talk) 14:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Having said that, I'm going to follow this close with a new proposal that may have had consensus here, but is not clear with the multiple suggestions floating around. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Mount Taranaki/Egmont → Mount Taranaki — Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The current article name is clearly wrong. We have official sources [3] (look in the Dec 09 FAQ and expand "What is the difference between alternative naming and dual naming?") that say it is an alternative name, not a dual name like Rakiura/Stewart Island or dozens of others. It is usual to use one or the other (whereas for dual names, official documents must use both). Furthermore, LINZ indicates that Mt Taranaki is a departure from the slash nomenclature used for dual and alternative names. [4] So, we have a situation of an entity with two official names of equal standing. Common sense and Wikipedia guidelines say that the article should be located at the more commonly used name (in current usage). We do not combine both names.

(In most cases below, some of the uses of Egmont are where both names are mentioned or the alternative naming is the point of the mention. There are also some groups whose official name still includes Egmont, e.g. Mt Egmont Alpine club - which crop up.).

• NZ Herald - generally uses Taranaki
• Fairfax group newspapers use Taranaki exclusively
• New Plymouth District Council: Taranaki 250, Egmont 5
• Taranaki Regional Council: Taranaki 115 - Egmont 9
• The Dept of Conservation generally gives both names, with a slight advantage to Taranaki.
• The Prime Minister says Taranaki is now the most common name, so it must be true :-) (Waitangi day speech, 2010).

I therefore propose that we move the article to Mount Taranaki. dramatic (talk) 03:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support I concur that the current name is not right, and it should change to one or the other, but it shouldn't stay as is. My preference is for it to change to 'Mount Taranaki' as proposed, but I could live with the alternative 'Mount Egmont' if that ends up to be the majority view. WP:NCNZ is also relevant to this discussion. Note that I've slightly amended the above proposal by inserting (in brackets) where to look in the first external source. Schwede66 04:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Prefer Taranaki (mountain) as suggested below by Pakaraki, and for the additional reasons outlined by Avenue below. Schwede66 01:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - you had me until you brought up Key. But if I pretend you didn't I'd say support. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't find the wikimarkup for "dripping sarcasm". dramatic (talk) 08:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support per Dramatic. Egmont still seems more natural to me, but I'm clearly becoming a dinosaur. --Avenue (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support "Mount Taranaki" or "Taranaki (mountain)", prefer Taranaki (mountain) as suggested below by Pakaraki. It is closer to modern usage, and avoids the linguistic tautology complained about above. --Avenue (talk) 00:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• On reflection, either of the Taranaki variants is okay with me. --Avenue (talk) 14:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• Move to one of the names. The English gets a de facto head-start, and GNS refers to it as "Egmont Volcano", but almost all the first ten hits on Google for "Mount Egmont" also refer to "Mount Taranaki", while the reverse is not true. What are the locals saying? 81.111.114.131 (talk) 23:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support. DoC's "slight advantage to Taranaki" should not be seen in isolation, but as only part of wider developments. Here's DoC and here are the three approved mountain guides listed on that PdF, Adventure Dynamics and MacAlpine Guides which both use Taranaki, and Top Guides which has two bob each way but a visitor calls it Taranaki, indicating how it has been widely adopted outside Taranaki District. What are the locals saying? All the maps in the world will not influence usage as much as what the kids are taught at schools. Check this out. Done and dusted IMMHO. Moriori (talk) 00:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I'm not sure about the locals, but I think Egmont is becoming less and less common. Saying "Mount Egmont" just seems weird to me now. (not of course that that is a good wiki-argument). The other arguments above seem compelling. Limegreen (talk) 00:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: Support BUT - if you're intent on moving it to Taranaki, get it right. Here's a quote from the article: "The name Mount Taranaki is linguistically redundant, since the word tara means mountain peak. Naki is thought to come from ngaki, meaning shining, a reference to the snow-clad winter nature of the upper slopes." So call it "Taranaki" not "Mount Taranaki". ALSO, PAY ATTENTION TO THE ABOVE TALK PAGE DISCUSSION. Here's a quote from Limegreen: "Obviously given the ugliness of that nomenclature, and the linguistic redundance in Mount Taranaki, it would probably be better if it followed the precedent of Aoraki/Mount Cook[5], and became Taranaki/Mount Egmont...." I find this suggestion preferable, actually. Wikkitywack (talk) 08:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Huh. Reading the rest of the above discussion has me confused. It seems Limegreen doesn't realize what he's proposed. So, essentially, my comment is identical to Moriori's response above: "Your 'Taranaki/Mount Egmont' suggestion makes sense" Wikkitywack (talk) 08:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC) (No, that comment was re a previous proposal, not this one to change the name to Mount Taranki, which I support).Moriori (talk) 09:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

However, the official name (or one of them) is "Mount Taranaki" be it tautological or not, and Mt Taranaki is common usage. I have even heard Māori speaking of "te maunga Taranaki". Taranaki is the (modern) name of the entire region (and former province) of which the mountain is the dominating feature. In conversation you can have context to clarify whether the speaker is referring to the region, the mountain, or the rugby team - in an article title you don't. Taranaki/Mount Egmont is equally as bad as the current title as it is not an official name (unlike Aoraki/Mt Cook, which is) and is not a common usage.dramatic (talk) 09:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Why does Mt. Cook get special treatment and not Mt. Egmont? They were both rechristened by Capt. Cook at the approx. same time, yes? It's just that by your experience Egmont is not used enough to justify inclusion in the title? Doesn't someone say in the above conversation that the official title is something like "Mount Taranaki or Mount Egmont"? A small personal sidenote: in my American biology textbook there was a picture labeled Mt. Egmont - and it inspired me to investigate the volcano because I thought the name sounded like something out of Dr Seuss. There was no mention of Taranaki. So, again, Taranaki/Mt. Egmont sounds like a good idea. And as to "Mt. Taranaki" vs. "Taranaki" - let's get it as technically right in the title as possible (and make a note of common usage in the article). This is an encyclopedia after all. Wikkitywack (talk) 21:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed Wikkity, this is an encyclopedia, and therefore it must be ever evolving to be current or accurate. This article first appeared in Wiki just over seven years ago, but it was less than six weeks ago that we actually got the mountain's naming right with this edit. What this discussion is about is article naming, and perhaps if you concentrate on the recent comments rather than irrelevant older ones further up this page you may get a better picture. Moriori (talk) 22:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Wait a second Mori...I thought you were all for the "Taranaki/Mount Egmont" suggestion. When did you "evolve"? Wikkitywack (talk) 23:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is about Mount Taranaki/Egmont → Mount Taranaki. If you look several paragraphs above this one, you will see my Support vote. Moriori (talk) 00:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikkity - Names change - and the "Name" section in the article handles that fairly well. Prior to 1986, the official name was Mt Egmont, although for some years before that there had been calls from Māori to reinstate traditional names over or alongside more recently imposed European names. (And some European names never achieved common usage at all, e.g. Waitara and Okato. As part of the process of settling Treaty of Waitangi grievances, many places have been renamed, either with dual names (official documents must use both) or alternative names (either may be used). The renaming of Mt Egmont was the first to engender much newsworthiness and debate. The 1986 decision caused some confusion due to placing the "or" within quotation marks. LINZ has since clarified their intent (I gave two references in my proposal above) - that the names are alternative names, and that Taranaki is an exemption from their policy (formed I believe since 1986) of using slashes for both dual and alternative names. So Aoraki/Mt Cook is not an exemption. Lastly, I do not regard my experience living in the place where the name is used most to be a reliable source, which is why I backed it up with evidence of what reliable sources are actually using. dramatic (talk) 00:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Removing Mt Egmont from the article would be clearly wrong, as it is an officially recognised name still widely used. Having alternative names does not mean you must use one to the exclusion of the other. The current title is working fine, it parses out as Mt Taranaki or Mt Egmont perfectly, there is no pressing need to change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.171.254.96 (talk) 09:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

No one is suggesting that we take Mt Egmont out of the article. It will still be in bold on the first line, there will still be a full section explaining the naming, and both Mt Egmont and Egmont Volcano will redirect to the article. However, the current name is in clear violation of Wikipedia naming guidelines, as it is neither an official name nor a name in common use, and it uses a slash, which is discouraged except where unavoidable (as it implies a subdirectory). dramatic (talk) 11:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to say from the article title. Looking through the guidelines, it seems to be valid ‘’article names can contain slashes if appropriate – there is no need for such titles to be fixed‘’ I would contend this article is an appropriate place, where the two names are equally valid. ‘’In the rare instance where a place officially has both Maori and English names and both are used equally, both names are used in the article title, separated by an oblique.‘’ The current title fits this well. Another option could be to fully expand the article title to Mount Taranaki/Mount Egmont. But dropping Egmont completely would be wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.171.254.97 (talk) 09:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Either keep as-is, or if the slash is currently considered too confusing, fully expand the title to Mount Taranaki/Mount Egmont, as per 146.171.254.97's suggestion. Take the Egmont out of the page title and there will be drive-by talk page questioning from now until the next decent eruption. It has two names, they're both used. (Me, I just call it the mountain, but that's local idiom). Iridia (talk) 05:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support The article name could also be Taranaki (mountain). Local usage is invariably the mountain or Taranaki. Things were very different a couple of decades ago before the official name change. Back then it was always Mount Egmont, and books from that era follow that old naming. Time has moved on, and we should keep Wikipedia up to date. --Pakaraki (talk) 19:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oh, that would be a lot nicer. And a good nod to the local usage, too. Can we do Taranaki (mountain) instead? Then it would be Taranaki for Taranaki (region), Taranaki (mountain) and Taranaki (iwi), and we can set up a clear disambiguation page. I'd definitely support that. Iridia (talk) 23:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The disambiguation page has been done. It might not be complete, but it's a good start. Schwede66 02:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice job. Very complete. Iridia (talk) 03:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The official titles from LINZ clearly have Mount as a prefix, so the best, article title should reflect that. The name possibly being a tautology is a rather weak reason to deviate from the name that people will find on maps. Besides which, what's wrong with a good tautology?146.171.254.97 (talk) 12:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Since LINZ's maps say "Mount Taranaki or Mount Egmont", we'll be deviating from their formula anyway. A good point nonetheless. --Avenue (talk) 14:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment on Taranaki (Mountain). I am so surprised how we have sidetracked here. I have never ever heard the term Taranaki (mountain) used as the name of it, or seen it written down as the name. Anywhere. I just did a google search for "Taranaki (mountain)" and I suggest everyone else does too. I found only one hit -- repeat one hit -- where the term was used as the name, and that was by Google in its (Google's) heading for Encyclopedia Britannica's article which is entitled, wait for it, Mount Taranaki. I am truly astonished that it could even be suggested that instead of Wikipedia adopting the correct title which is now widely accepted and used, we should use a name that is inaccurate, has never been used anywhere and is not used now. Furthermore, how would we refer to the mountain in our articles? For instance, our Stratford article says the town "lies beneath the eastern slopes of Mount Taranaki/Egmont....". Are we seriously considering changing that to read "lies beneath the eastern slopes of Taranaki (mountain)". Really? When the name Mount Taranaki is now accepted and used everywhere else? Moriori (talk) 02:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

We are trying to decide the article's title, not the mountain's name. No one is suggesting that articles should include the term "Taranaki (mountain)", and a search for that precise term is beside the point. No one writes "Mercury (planet)" either, but that is the title of our article on that topic. "Mount Taranaki" is commonly used, yes, and we should at least have a redirect from that term. But plain "Taranaki" is also used in formal contexts: see e.g. many of the results in this search on Te Ara. --Avenue (talk) 03:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

A lot of those links contain Mt. Taranaki. Which returns a lot more results when searched.146.171.254.97 (talk) 12:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Active or Dormant?

According to Volcano#Volcanic_activity, an active volcano has erupted in the last 10,000 years. That would make Mt Taranaki active rather than dormant. Am I justified in changing the article to active volcano? 05:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not quite so simple. It's an active volcano in a state of quiescence, says GNS Science, a New Zealand government-owned research organisation. [6] On the other hand, it's not currently active, but in a state of quiesence, says the NZ Journal of Geology and Geophysics [7] Maybe "Possibly active, but quiescent." Grimhim (talk) 07:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've updated the main page. I couldn't find the quote in your second link (the PDF) - what page is that on? Thanks peterl (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Strange. Maybe I picked up the wrong link. Here it is. [8] Grimhim (talk) 00:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks peterl (talk) 00:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Requested move, part 2

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. Ucucha 13:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Mount Taranaki/Egmont → Taranaki (mountain) — Based on the above discussion, it may be possible that there is a consensus to moved this article to Taranaki (mountain) but the discussions were rather diverse. So. I'm proposing this since I think if we focus solely on this name, we may well see consensus develop. I have no opinion on the merits of this name and am listing to see if the consensus that I think was there in the previous discussion is in fact there. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support per my comments above. Iridia (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support as per the suggestion by Pakaraki, and for the additional reasons outlined by Avenue above. Schwede66 23:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support. The current article name is clearly wrong and this move is an improvement. Mattlore (talk) 04:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• Neutral Support - at least it is close to an official name and it is in common usage. There is no reason not to use one of the official names. Yesterday our newspaper included a 4 page insert published by DOC about the National Park. It's banner headline: "Maunga Taranaki" with the smaller heading "Egmont National Park" - obviously they are not worried about tautology (Just as the tautological "Mount Maunganui" is an official name and the only common usage for that place). I've said neutral because I don't want to see a situation where there is no change. dramatic (talk) 06:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - it's not how other articles about mountains are done - it's Mount Fuji not Fuji (mountain) (peterl (talk) 06:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC))

• Oppose - because it is spectacularly illogical not to use Mount Taranaki as the article title. I will reconsider my vote the day I see Wikipedia change Mount Everest to Everest (mountain). Moriori (talk) 08:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment: in the above cases, there is nothing of equal significance named "fuji" or "Everest", hence no grounds for using a disambiguator.dramatic (talk) 23:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, but you know there are equal namings you would have extreme difficulty in changing. How about proposing we change Lake Taupo to Taupo (lake) to disambiguate from Taupo Volcanic Zone which of course would then need to be changed to Volcanic zone (Taupo) to be consistent. Or how about proposing we change Mount Tongariro to Tongariro (mountain) to disamb from Tongariro Volcanic Zone which of course would also have to be changed to Volcanic Zone (Tongariro) to be consistent. If something ain't broke/confusing then we should retain the status quo. We are complicated enough already.Moriori (talk) 08:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

and on that very point about complication of naming, take a look at today's (Tuesday) Featured Article on our Main Page. The first sentence says -- "The Victoria Cross is a military decoration of Canada modelled on the original British Victoria Cross." The Victoria Cross is not a Canadian military decoration -- the Victoria Cross (Canada) is. The first VC reference redirects to the Canadian VC, and the second, original Brit VC, redirects to VC. Quaint indeed. Moriori (talk) 08:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - For same reason as Peter1 and Moriori 146.171.254.96 (talk) 12:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Ideally, the article name would be Taranaki, but this would be ambiguous, as illustrated here. Next best article title (IMHO) would be Taranaki (mountain), which is unambiguous and consistent with Wikipedia practice (such as Taranaki (iwi), Taranaki (New Zealand electorate), Dom (mountain), Pilatus (mountain), Mount Olympus (Mountain), Bishop's Mitre (mountain) and Mercury (planet) ). The current title is clumsy. --Pakaraki (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

There you go!!!! You specified Mount Olympus (Mountain) which is an article that doesn't even exist. It is actually a redirect to an article called Mount Olympus!!!!! Anyway, you are misguided about Wikipedia practice. I did a search for articles from "mount" to "mount arthur". There were maybe 60 or so mountains called Mount xxxx on that page alone. See here. Goodness knows how many mountain articles we have with the title starting with the word Mount, but it has to be many thousands. That's the reality of Wikipedia practice . Moriori (talk) 09:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move, 2011 style

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

---

Mount Taranaki/Egmont → Mount Taranaki —

We now have a naming convention covering New Zealand alternative names. This says that only one of the alternatives should be the article title, and that should be the more commonly used in recent usage.

Previous discussions have established that Mount Taranaki is now more common than Mount Egmont, in official, media and colloquial usage.

Debates about tautology are a non-starter. Our place names are full of inter-language tautology - we have dozens of lakes which are Lake Rotosomething and plenty of rivers with the form Awawhatsit River. dramatic (talk) 02:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Support: As per the naming conventions. Mattlore (talk) 04:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support, per nom. --Avenue (talk) 09:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support, as per the 2010 attempts to move this to a more sensible name. Good on you for getting the discussion going again on this. Schwede66 10:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. According to this ngram, "Mount Egmont" is still used more often than "Mount Taranaki", and has in fact grown in relative popularity over the past few years. Google Books searches from 1980-present also prefer "Mount Egmont" to "Mount Taranaki". Of course, the current title is not very good, but based on the evidence, I would support "Mount Egmont" over "Mount Taranaki". Dohn joe (talk) 21:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• I think the ngrams for British English and American English are interesting; they show absolutely no mentions of "Mount Taranaki" in British English, while "Mount Taranaki" has recently overtaken "Mount Egmont" in American English. I would like to see an ngram for New Zealand English, which I think would be a lot more relevant to our decision than either BrE or AmE, but they don't offer it.
• Regarding the Google Books searches, the mountain's name only changed in 1986, so going back to 1980 seems a bit dubious. "Mount Taranaki" has a slight lead over "Mount Egmont" when searching from 2000-present. --Avenue (talk) 01:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Ngrams would be a very dubious source without examining the raw data. For example, many books written about Taranaki are histories, and would use the contextually correct Mt Egmont when referring to historical events. And you would probably find cases of "Mount Taranaki (Mount Egmont) within the data. As our naming conventions state, when names change, it is only recent data that should be considered. Probably 1995 onwards, but there has been a cultural shift of acceptance even more recently than that as dual namings became common 10 years ago.. dramatic (talk) 05:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Alright, just looking at 1995-present:

• Google Books: "Mount Egmont" - 922 results; "Mount Taranaki" - 857 results
• Google Scholar: "Mount Egmont" - 198 results; "Mount Taranaki" - 187 results;
• The ngram, which covers global English sources.

The trend certainly seems to be in favor of "Mount Taranaki". But Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nor does it tell people what an article's subject "should" be called. All we can do is look at reliable sources, and determine what the common name of a subject is. At the moment, it seems to still be "Mount Egmont". Perhaps in another ten years (or five, or fifteen) "Mount Taranaki" will have overtaken it. But for now, the evidence I've seen says that hasn't yet happened. Dohn joe (talk) 05:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's analyse the first page of your google books result: 1) Mount Egmont/Taranaki - business listing in a backpackers guide. Not RS. 2) Masters Thesis, using the name in the geology sense (geologists call it the Egmont Volcano). 3) Mount Egmont, now known as Mount Taranaki - tourist guide book. 4) Historical quotation from James Cook's Journal. 5) No data 6) Verbatim report of a conversation which predates the book by some years. 7) Mount Egmont (Taranaki) National Park - which is a mistake in naming the National Park. The book (another tourist guide then calls the mountain Mount Taranaki three times. 8) Taranaki (or Mount Egmont) 9) Refers to a visit "some years ago" to Mount Egmont (possibly predating renaming. 10)Reprint of a well-known 19th century work.

The only conclusion possible from this dataset is that it is totally useless for determining what the current usage is. Looking at the google scholar results, they are divided between geological papers, historical references, or quotations from cited papers published before or shortly after the name change.

As evidence of current usage I offer data from an earlier no-consensus discussion:

(In most cases below, some of the uses of Egmont are where both names are 
mentioned or the alternative naming is the point of the mention. There are 
also some groups whose official name still includes Egmont, e.g. Mt Egmont
Alpine club - which  crop up.). 
* NZ Herald - generally uses Taranaki
* Fairfax group newspapers use Taranaki exclusively
* New Plymouth District Council: Taranaki 250, Egmont 5
* Taranaki Regional Council: Taranaki 115 - Egmont 9
* The Dept of Conservation generally gives both names, with a slight advantage to Taranaki.
* The Prime Minister's 2010 Waitangi Day speech cited the switch in usage from 
  Egmont to Taranaki as an example of how people accept change.

Thus, recent reliable sources in New Zealand strongly favour Taranaki. dramatic (talk) 08:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

With respect, current New Zealand usage is only one piece of evidence we need to consider in deciding on an article title. This is the global English-language Wikipedia, so we should try to choose the name that the greatest number of English speakers would recognize. The article itself will let people know about official names, and changes in usage. An example is Ganges. A large number of people in India refer to that river as Ganga. But move requests to "Ganga" have failed, because the rest of world still largely uses "Ganges". The same principle applies here. The NZ usage is definitely changing towards "Mount Taranaki", and that will, in time, affect the rest of the world - as it already has begun to do. But for now, "Mount Egmont" still predominates.

As for the Google Books and Google Scholar results, they are perfectly reliable sources to determine what published authors call this mountain, which is all that they are being used for. I don't know why usage in geology papers doesn't count. And I agree that many of the sources use both "Mount Egmont" and "Mount Taranaki". But that goes both ways, and it remains the case that "Mount Egmont" simply appears more often than "Mount Taranaki". Dohn joe (talk) 18:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support, with the lead para staying the same (that is 'Mount Taranaki, or Mount Egmont,') and having a redirect from Mount Egmont. peterl (talk) 23:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the article wording would not be changed. It is only the title that is a problem. dramatic (talk) 05:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support article name change. Moriori (talk) 00:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

LOL @ "2011 style". Nice work getting the article moved. – Liveste (talk • edits) 00:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

What a stupid decision. Both names are still equally valid. Nothing new has been presented since the last argument, but some people really want to push their POV. Good job getting an entire naming convention changed just for this special case. This is almost as ridiculous as the W(h)anganui City debacle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.63.106 (talk) 14:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution to the consensus decision on the naming policy, which covered dozens of articles. </irony> It is one of Wikipedia's most fundamental naming policies that if something has several names, one of them must be chosen. If we were to call the article "Mount Taranaki or Mount Egmont" then we would have to have "Whanganui / Wanganui" which is clearly nonsensical. dramatic (talk) 20:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

That sort of high-handed attitude is what discourages people from joining Wikipedia. Wanganui the city was moved to push a POV despite clear arguments against, and the same thing happened here. The old title precisely identified the subject, was concise, and recognisable. There was nothing fundamentally wrong with the previous title, nothing absolutely against Wikipedia policy, which are bendable in a suitable situation anyway.

But I'm sure you had good reasons to get rid of the still widely recognised, used and official name. Maybe someday you'll tell us them. </sarcasm> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.171.254.97 (talk) 10:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Distance to other volcanoes

This volcano is part of the Taupo Volcanic Zone, yet the article does not mention the distance between Mount Taranaki in relation to the other volcanoes such as Mount Tongariro, Ruapehu. Nguaruhoe and Taupo. --Dunedinite (talk) 08:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not part of the Taupo Volc. Zone, the source of the Egmont Volcano activity is quite separate. Efil's god (talk) 22:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The peak of Mt Egmont is 132km directly west of Mt Ruapehu's peak. Mt Ruapehu is about 170km SW of White Island ,the northern end of this active Volcanic Zone. Mt Egmont is seldom or never considered part of the Taupo Volcanic zone, even though its lithographic origins are similar. The west moving Pacific Plate has been subducted beneath the North Island at an average rate of about 20-30mm per year. The angle of subduction is about 45 degrees. Molten magma from the melt zone between the 2 plates is forced to the surface through fractures in the earth's crust,a process which is helped by the many thousands(most of them very tiny) of earthquakes the central North Island experiences each year. The magma which formed Mt Egmont just came from much deeper in the earth's crust-probably about 250- 300km deep compared to about half that for Mt Ruapehu. The magma origin is progressively shallow as you move NE with magma from the near coastal volcanoes of the Bay of Plenty comming from a mere 20km down. Likewise Earth quakes are normally very shallow on the east and much deeper in the west. The Whakatane region quake - 5.2 on the Richter scale of during the 1987 was only 8 km deep. Claudia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 22:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Mount Taranaki?

Okay there have been several attempts at a title change which have foundered on a lack of consensus. So I'm letting that go. But the opening sentence says 'Mount Taranaki / Mount Egmont' and that is plain wrong. The mountain is either Taranaki or Mount Egmont. It never was Mount Taranaki and never will be. The nearest equivalent is Snowdon in Wales. You could say 'Mount Snowdon' but 'Mount Yr Wyddfa' is stupid. Consequently I'm changing the sentence to reflect reality. Sometime soon the official name may change to Taranaki Maunga. This will not change things one little bit. Most people will still call it 'The Mountain' or 'Taranaki' and traditionalists will call it 'Mount Egmont'. Only people writing official reports or folks trying to make a point will call it 'Taranaki Maunga'.OrewaTel (talk) 04:10, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

You're not wrong - so why are you trying to speed things up by censoring the Infobox? --BushelCandle (talk) 06:27, 31 August 2021 (UTC) BushelCandle

Over several years a consensus was painfully reached. Opinions vary between "No mention of Egmont whatsoever" and "The real name is Egmont and Taranaki is a neologism." Eventually a compromise was found. The name, 'Egmont', is prominent in the lead paragraph and is well described in the name history. I would prefer not to re-open this issue but if it is to be opened then it should be done here in the talk page rather than through edits in the article. OrewaTel (talk) 12:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

The official name in the Gazetteer is "Mount Taranaki or Mount Egmont" (source: https://gazetteer.linz.govt.nz/place/3830), and "Mount Egmont" on its own is listed as an "other", "unofficial" name. So surely the article's opening paragraph and infobox should reflect this. For example, the opening line should perhaps read "Mount Taranaki or Mount Egmont is a dormant stratovolcano in the Taranaki region...". Furthermore, I suggest the name "Taranaki Maunga" should be removed from the opening paragraph as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Ddaveonz (talk) 01:40, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Name Change to Taranaki Maunga

We have known for some time that the mountain's name will change from Taranaki / Mount Egmont to Taranaki Maunga. This Stuff Article, https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/117865581/egmont-out-taranaki-maunga-in-agreement-reached-on-mountain-name-change, said it would happen in December 2020. The current LINZ website https://gazetteer.linz.govt.nz/place/3830 states that the official name is Taranaki or Mount Egmont. Elsewhere LINZ states that Government documents have exclusively used Taranaki since 2018 and the use of Egmont is deprecated. But I have not found a reliable source that states the name change has actually happened. An IP user changed the article saying that there is now only a single name but like most IP users he did not provide a reference. I naturally reverted it. My change has been reverted by a named user. Please provide some evidence that the change has actually happened or I must revert back to the last cited fact.OrewaTel (talk) 03:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

It would be reasonable to put priority on the government website (LINZ) over a news article (Stuff) so Wikipedia should follow the official government naming (as much as I would personally prefer the name to be just Taranaki, or Taranaki Maunga). --Pakaraki (talk) 07:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

36-sided Polygon

A claim was made that the Egmont National Park actually formed a regular polygon and it was cited by a generic reference to Google Maps. There are three things to note

1. Google Maps do not show National Park Boundaries
2. The Park Boundary does not coincide with the wooded area
3. Neither the Park nor the wooded area is a regular polygon.

Naturally field boundaries tend to be straight and so the boundary between farmed and natural will always be a series of straight line segments. Since the National Park is based on a circle then straight segments will always approximate to a regular polygon albeit with irregular lengths. But both the wooded area and the park contain outliers that destroy the apparent regular shape.

The original post has been reverted and re-instated at least twice.

The park boundaries can be seem by drilling down from https://maps.doc.govt.nz/externalmaps/index.html?viewer=docmaps

The wooded areas can be seen here https://www.topomap.co.nz/NZTopoMap?v=2&ll=-39.279729,174.139137&z=12 OrewaTel (talk) 21:34, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

The same debate has also affected Egmont National Park. I think the idea that the boundary is a polygon is original research and should not be in either article.-gadfium 05:16, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes to all of the above, I could find nothing to support the multi sided option in refs. I find it interesting in the context of the Coastline paradox. Dushan Jugum (talk) 07:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

The original statement in the article "the change in vegetation is sharply delineated circular shape in satellite images" is not supported by the cited source. The article makes a claim about the edge of the forest, while the used source only says the that the national park was defined as a circle in 1881. The source doesn't say anything on the current shape of the national park, nor the shape of the forest.

I did not yet find a detailed map of the current park boundaries (the link above seems to be not working). So, I limited my additional (now removed) statement to the shape of the forest. The forest seems to have an edge that is partly coinciding with a circle around the summit. However, if one zooms in on aerial imagery (e.g. Google Maps), it is visible that the circle is made up of piecewise straight edges of the same length (and some deviations from this pattern, but that problem is true for the interpretation as a circle too). With just a little bit of effort one can count 30 of these straight edges and see that there are nine edges in each quadrant. Therefore, I added the text: "If one looks more closely, it becomes clear that the circular shape is actually 30 sides of a 36-sided polygon with sides of just over one mile."

I understand that this might seem as original research (especially for anyone that did not zoom in and look closely at the forest edge), but it is not. Counting and even simple calculations are NOT considered original research (read WP:CALC). As a surveyor I might have developed a very good eye for the difference between a circle and a polygon, but it is clearly visible even for the untrained eye.

For anyone with difficulties to recognise the regular polygon in the straight edges of the forest, I found an additional source today that makes it undeniable. The map of the cadastral parcels contains a 36-sided regular-polygon parcel: https://data.linz.govt.nz/layer/51571-nz-parcels/ (the map layer should open automatically, but you have to zoom in on the park manually). The same website of New Zealand's National Mapping Agency can show the parcel map also as an overlay of aerial imagery, e.g.: https://data.linz.govt.nz/layer/99133-taranaki-03m-rural-aerial-photos-2016-2018/ (but you have to select the second layer you want to show at the same time manually), this results in a combined view like this detail (unfortunately this link expires). In this combined view, the regular polygon of the parcel coincides with the forest edge for 30 sides of the regular polygon.

Gollem (talk) 19:17, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Under WP:CALC we just have to all agree with the basic mathematical calculation (counting the sides). The information seems too glib for the main text, I would prefer it as a footnote "the apparent circular shape has been created by a ...." my ref preference would be https://www.doc.govt.nz/map/index.html with the Public Conservation Areas layer enabled. But I will not die on that hill.

The NZ encyclopedia reference is pretty good to get across the main point "The dramatic circular outline of Egmont National Park was delineated in 1881". If in a more hypothetical example our only reference says something is "black" when it is ~objectively "white" what is Wikipedia's best practice? Dushan Jugum (talk) 21:47, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I just now noticed that the Public Conservation Areas layer contains the park boundary (sorry, I should have noticed this right away). That is very interesting. Using the right keywords, I found this same map layer in the LINZ viewer: https://data.linz.govt.nz/layer/53564-protected-areas/. The border of the national park is in exactly the same place as the parcel borders. The main advantage of this new layer is that it makes clear which parcels belong to the park, and which parcels do not.

If formulated concisely, I think the polygon could be mentioned in the text instead of in a footnote, e.g.: "... the change in vegetation is sharply delineated in satellite images. The apparent circular shape has been created by 30 sides of a 36-sided polygon."

Gollem (talk) 17:38, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

How is "The dramatic circular outline of Egmont National Park was delineated in 1881" not a statement on the current shape of the park? Dushan Jugum (talk) 11:47, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't specify how the outline of the park changed since 1881, but this is a minor problem. The main problem is that the source doesn't say anything about the shape of the forest visible in satellite/aerial imagery, while the article does. And the shape of the forest and the park are not circular. Gollem (talk) 13:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC), edited Gollem (talk) 17:38, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Both surveyors and farmers use straight lines so the Park edge will be a polygon. Since the Park is circular, its extent is a polygon inscribed within a circular shape. However I went to a definitive map and measured a random line segment along with the adjacent segments. They all had different lengths. Consequently we can say that the Park is not a regular polygon. Both the Park and the wooded area have irregular extensions and these extensions do not exactly coincide. Since the irregular extensions obscure some sides of the underlying polygon and that polygon is not regular, it is impossible to determine how many sides it would have had.

Counting and reporting the visible sides is reasonable (but not necessarily noteworthy). It is possible by careful measurement of lengths and angles to estimate both the actual bounding circular shape and the likely number of line segments. But that would be original research. OrewaTel (talk) 23:47, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

What map did you use? It seems like you did not overlay the NZ parcel map on the aerial imagery at the LINZ website I linked above, since some of your statements are contradicted by that source. Some other statements are a bit vague, due to lack of clear distinction between park and forest.

Discovered facts so far:

1. The National Park consists of a number cadastral parcels.^{source: LINZ data}
2. The cadastral parcel at the centre of the National Park is a 36-sided polygon^{source: alternative LINZ data} (the sides are easily countable), but it has deviations from a regular polygon (see below).
3. The forest edge has just as many deviations from the parcel border as deviations from a circle, but it coincides better with the parcel border than with a circle, it coincides (partly) with the parcel border for 30 sides of the parcel polygon.^{source: additional LINZ data}

The corner points of the parcel (and park) are: 0 (North), 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 (East), 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 (South), 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 (West), 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35

At these points and at points halfway each edge of this nearly regular polygon, I measured the deviation from a regular polygon and the deviation from a circle:

• The standard deviation from a regular polygon is 18 m for the radius. The standard deviation of the edge lengths is 28 m.
• The standard deviation from a circle is 25 m for the radius.

These deviations are in the order of 0.2% of the radius.

My conclusion: The forest edge visible in aerial imagery is closer to a 36-sided nearly regular polygon than to a circle. It is close enough to a regular polygon to link to this article, but not close enough to claim it actually is a regular polygon in the text. Therefore, my addition is still valid: "If one looks more closely, it becomes clear that the circular shape is actually 30 sides of a 36-sided polygon with sides of just over one mile." However, I'm open for suggestions for rewording this.

Gollem (talk) 11:29, 14 July 2021 (UTC), edited Gollem (talk) 17:38, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I had a look around, there is the original legislation and official documents [9][10], a few newspaper articles, the NZ encyclopedia and some glorified blogs one from NASA [11] referring to a circular or near circular shape. So I think the polygon idea is original research. That said, thank you Gollem for giving me a better understanding of something I have been mildly curious about for the last 25 years or so. Therefore, I am not going to stand in your way on this topic. Dushan Jugum (talk) 02:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for searching for official documents. It looks like the original Egmont National Park Act from 1900 declared a 6-mile circle, but the practical realisation of parcel ownership is a slightly larger nearly regular 36-sided polygon that encloses this circle. I would not consider the polygonal shape original research, since the NZ parcel map of LINZ is a reliable source. However, as it is difficult to interpret the exact legal consequences, it might be saver to refrain from too specific claims about actual current shape of the park. On the other hand, there is no doubt on the shape of the forest. This is close to a nearly regular polygon (with some small extensions and a large extension in the northwest), as can be seen in aerial imagery of all available sources. 30 sides of the polygon can be recognised in the imagery. It can be seen that there are exactly 18 sides in the eastern half of the polygon, so the entire polygon would have 36 sides. This use of a single source with some counting and a very simple calculation is WP:CALC, not WP:OR. This result of the calculation is backed by the 36-sides of the polygonal parcel in the NZ parcel map as additional source. Gollem (talk) 06:41, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

National Park being renamed

The Egmont National park is being renamed Te Papakura o Taranaki - announced in December 2019 [12] While COVID has delayed the settlement of the agreement, the new name appears to already be in use - e.g. [13] despite the DOC website not having caught up yet. user:dramatic <- but unable to log in 103.225.6.68 (talk) 08:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Seems legit, I have made a redirect. We can wait and see how things turn out for changing the pages name. Dushan Jugum (talk) 08:19, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Name meaning

The Māori word tara means mountain peak, and naki is thought to come from ngaki, meaning "shining", a reference to the snow-clad winter nature of the upper slopes.

This sentence has been in the article for many years, but I'm now removing it for being unsubstantiated and also wrong. It seems to come from Maori Place Names by A.W. Reed

There have been many theories about this name. Tara (peak), presents no problems; naki may be ngaki (clear of vegetation). Probably Taranaki was the tribal name given to the mountain.

This looks like speculation, not scholarly work, and doesn't mention "shining". 2407:7000:AA16:A600:1D02:3EDC:616B:EA6E (talk) 05:10, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Reed is one of the major scholarly works on Maori place names, so it is "substantiated" by a reliable source and is widely cited. Picking between options is original research, which we don't do on wikipedia - our job is just to reproduce what the scholars have said, leaving it to our readers to judge between the options. The part of the sentence on ngaki should be updated to more closely reflect what Reed says and the level of doubt that he expresses, but it should appear in the article. Furius (talk) 11:29, 28 January 2023 (UTC)