Talk:Whanganui

Pronunciation

The provided audio file file of someone speaking "Wanganui" (at the beginning of the article linked as "pronunciation") implies that this is the correct way to say it. I suggest removing the Ogg file until the naming debate is over, or supplementing the article with other pronunciations. 202.78.240.7 (talk) 03:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I suggest leaving it until any change takes place. The pronunciation of "Whanganui" is not very different from "Wanganui". Although many iwi pronounce "wh" as approximately "f", the local iwi does not. The closest English pronunciation is the "wh" of "what". The Māori Language Commission suggests that the change in pronunciation may not be noticeable to people not familiar with the Māori language.-gadfium 23:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The trouble with comparing the pronunciation of "wh" with that of English "what" is that English speakers also pronounce "what" both with and without the aspirate. You presumably mean with the aspirate.--Hugh7 (talk) 23:31, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Now that the change has taken place, this issue should also be addressed. My suggestion is that we provide two sound files; one for each spelling. Given that the pronunciation by the local iwi is not too different from the Wanganui one, his might help with diffusing the heated discussion (on this talk page, that is). It also serves the encyclopedic purpose of documenting what the differences are, and that the local iwi have a pronunciation that differs from the usual 'wh'. Schwede66 (talk) 19:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

As for "Wanganui", I would say most who are familiar with Māori pronunciation would go with /waŋanui/, with others opting for the more "English-sounding" /wɒŋəˈnuiː/, as per the audio file currently in place. As for "Whanganui", from what I can gather the local iwi pronounce it as something similar to /ʍaŋanui/ or /hwaŋanui/, where other iwi would pronounce it /ɸaŋanui/ or even /faŋanui/, again with various "English-sounding" variants (/wɒŋəˈnuiː/, /fɒŋəˈnuiː/, /hwɒŋəˈnuiː/). http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wh_(digraph)#W Xolodilnik (talk) 09:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Anglicised pronunciation in this video appears to favour a hard g, and emphasis on the first syllable, i.e. /ˈwɒŋgənui/ Xolodilnik (talk) 04:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Spelling and pronunciation are two totally separate things as any English speaker will tell you. The spelling is, and should be, 'Whanganui'. 'Whanga' is a Te Reo prefix/word. 'Wanga' is meaningless. The written form of Te Reo was devised after Māori unification. The oral tradition is, however, centuries old dating back to the time when Māori lived in separate village states each with their own dialect. The local iwi do pronounce and always have pronounced the name 'Wanganui' and that is the pronunciation that should be here. OrewaTel (talk) 02:55, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Something else

Ko Ruapehu te Maunga

Ko Whanganui te Awa

Ko Atihaunui a papa rangi te Iwi

Ko Turoa te tangata

Ko ahau e uri o Matata Turoa raua Ko Te Mihiata

Ko Matata Turoa

Wanganui shouldn't have an 'h' in it.

As one who has very strong ties to Wanganui, I still regard the 'Whanganui' spelling as incorrect, & that spelling has very strong racist overtones. The people of Wanganui weren't consulted over the spelling change anyway! - (Aidan Work 05:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC))

As one who also has very strong ties to Wanganui, I would prefer that someone other than you, anyone else, appointed themselves the defender of the faith. This talk page is for Wanganui the area/district. Note the spelling, without the "h" which you are bitching about. Also, when you claim that "the people of Wanganui weren't consulted" you reveal very clearly where "very strong racist overtones" exist. Iwi were consulted (among others) but it is obvious to me they are not among your "people of Wanganui". What was that about "racist overtones"? Moriori 07:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Moriori,the proposal should have been put to a referendum, but Parliamentonly consulted a racist faction from the 2 Maori nations, which to me, smacks of racism. Jim Bolger caused a lot of anger among the people of Wanganui, especially in light of doing nothing to end the illegal occupation of Moutoa Gardens. My family are in agreement with me that Tariana Turia & Ken Mair should have been shot for their parts in trying to cause a bloodbath, which decent-minded British New Zealanders & Maoris certainly do not want! - (Aidan Work 03:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC))

Has it ever occurred to you what POV means? Turia and Mair should have been shot? For trying to cause a bloodbath? You should recuse yourself from editing any Wikipedia articles re New Zealand. Also, can you pay attention just for a little while? You inserted the subhead here which says Wanganui shouldn't have an "h" in it. How many times do you need to be told that the word Wanganui doesn't have the "h" in it. Got that? It doesn't have an "h" in it. Moriori 06:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Moriori, the debate is in reference to both the river & the national park, not the town! The idea that I should be banned from editing any New Zealand-related article is just plain ridiculous! What is wrong with expressing a viewpoint on a talk page? I have met Tariana Turia personally, & was racially abused by her & threatened by her low-life gang member pals when I was involved in opposing the illegal occupation of Moutoa Gardens. Boy, you are very forgetful. - (Aidan Work 01:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC))

Firstly, for the last time, this page is Talk:Wanganui. It is NOT in reference to "both the river & the national park, not the town" as you claim. Please read the name at the top of this page. Secondly, regarding my suggestion that you should recuse yourself from editing NZ related articles, I am even more convinced that you place Wikipedia in a perilous position. You have asserted that a (now) NZ Member of Parliament should have been shot for trying to cause a bloodbath. I wonder how Wikipedia could ever try to defend your statement, which it "published", that this MP tried to "cause a bloodbath". Moriori 06:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Sadly, as you may or may not know, your premonition turned out to be correct and Aidan Work was banned from wikipedia for sockpuppetry (and other offences). I believe his problematic editing was beyond just NZ related articles. P.S. For the benefit of future edits, what's wrong with expressing an opionion, any opinion, on a talk page is that it's against policy. Talk pages are for the express purpose of improving articles, not random rants Nil Einne (talk) 01:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you see the news tonight? (30/03/09)

The spelling will be changed but the choice of being pronounced the same is favourable.

[sarcasm]Also, PC FTW[/sarcasm]125.236.190.151 (talk) 09:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Spelling

The official decision is to be announced today. According to [1], the Government will use the name "Whanganui" but others are free to use "Wanganui" if they prefer.

The Wanganui District Council - like most organisations and individuals including the local newspaper, the 'Wanganui Chronicle' have decided to retain the h-less spelling and that is both the tradition of the area AND a lawful spelling of the city and district.

Whoever is adding the 'h' is falsely supposing only one legal spelling exists. The place is unique - two valid & legal spellings exist.

My feeling is that we should use the government spelling in this article, while noting that the alternative spelling is acceptable. Accordingly, I propose we rename the article to Whanganui. Category:Wanganui should also change. Related articles such as Wanganui Airport and Wanganui Chronicle should change only if those organisations start using the "h" themselves. Similarly, we will need to change the Manawatu-Wanganui Region and its categories once the regional council changes its website. See [2] for their current spelling.

Please do not debate the merits of the name change here, only the effect it should have on our article naming.-gadfium 17:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Wikipedia should follow spelling used by the government, and by the entity that is the subject of the article. --Pakaraki (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree We need to be using the official spelling of the name. I'm also tempted to move as much content as possible related to the name change to it's own page, since people seem incapable of discussing the place without arguing over the spelling of the name. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment Also see [3] which shows at least one media source (TVNZ) is going to use the 'h' spelling. Also the Wanganui Chronicle, Wanganui Rugby Club and Wanganui Jockey Club are not chasing their spelling [4] Nil Einne (talk) 10:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Thought (This thought only relates to comments above. I am not proposing reversing the change) We should not, nor have we ever (as far as I know), feel obliged to use New Zealand's government's "official" spelling. As far as I was aware, Wikipedia uses the term that is most commonly recognised for the title of articles (Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Deciding_an_article_name). Governments come and go, making both good and bad decisions. We shouldn't be tied to either. Lanma726 (talk) 15:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Disagree
Firstly, both names can be used officially so 'Whanganui' is not the sole official name.
Secondly, even if it was (due to the government using it), there are plenty of cases on Wikipedia where the official name has been dropped for a name more commonly used.
For example, they use "Lady Gaga" instead of "Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta".
They also used "Jennifer Anniston" instead of "Jennifer Pitt" when she was married.
The common name for it, which people recognise and which has the highest level of common and popular acceptance is the spelling without the 'h', "Wanganui".
This issue is obviously far from resolved. Therefore, I will be returning the page to the status quo until better consensus can be reached. Until then, let us be prudent. Wipkipkedia (talk) 05:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree the name ought to be the official spelling, and reflect the recent change. Wipkipkedia kindly don't move pages back when you are the sole Disagree. XLerate (talk) 09:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

XLerate, there are two official spellings not one. I don't see why you think Whanganui is more official than Wanganui. Yes, national government uses Whanganui, but the Wanganui District Council on a local level is continuing to use Wanganui.
The issue that needs to be resolved here, is what name or names do we use when we have two official spellings. We have on a national level, the government using Whanganui, but on a local level and regional government level we have Wanganui being used. It is also quite obvious that Wanganui has far greater general acceptance in the Wanganui population.
Let's discuss. Wipkipkedia (talk) 10:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Whanganui per "New Zealand Geographic Board decided this year that the spelling should be changed to the Maori version, Whanganui", "the correct spelling of the Maori word Whanganui". I find it odd you'd give us an argumentum ad populum on the title, yet act unilaterally against everyone else's wishes moving the page. XLerate (talk) 10:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Wipkipkedia has yet to come up with any argument other than that both names are allowable. There is no argument given for why we should adopt a name other than that recommended by the New Zealand Geographical Board, used by the New Zealand Government, TVNZ, and TV3. It would appear that the large majority of references to the name henceforth will be to the spelling Whanganui.

Wipkipkedia said on my talk page that there was not consensus here for a change of name, referring to earlier discussions on this talk page. The only earlier discussion I can see was in 2005. This was before the Geographical Board and Government made their decisions, and in fact no one was arguing at the time for the article to be renamed. The person making the argument was subsequently banned indefinitely from Wikipedia.-gadfium 17:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course there are more reasons for Wanganui without an 'h'. If we want to go with an 'official' name, then the Wanganui District Council is the most official you can get. The council of the city itself uses no 'h'. This feature of the debate has huge significance so needs to be addressed. It has not been addressed yet. It seems that most want it to stay Whanganui in the time being. Although I'd prefer it to stay status quo (Wanganui) until a decision is reached, it looks like majority rules for the time being. Wipkipkedia (talk) 12:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Has the Wanganui District Council announced that it will not be changing its name? I have not seen any announcement by it on its website. As a local body, I am not sure whether it is obliged to follow the government name. Links to opinion surveys would be useful. I would expect surveys conducted in the Whanganui area to be substantially against the change, but national surveys to be more mixed. However, evidence is worth vastly more than supposition.-gadfium 18:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, whether there is an announcement or not, the Wanganui District Council holds the highest officiality of any governing body, more so than the national government. My question is, why do people here believe that the opinion of the national government be higher than the local one? Wipkipkedia (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not correct, the New Zealand Geographic Board is the authority on official New Zealand placenames, in this case the final decision was made by Maurice Williamson, Minister for Land Information. "Local government in New Zealand has only the powers conferred upon it by Parliament", the Wanganui District Council gets to decide local street names. XLerate (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The advice from the New Zealand Geographic Board was rejected in favour of having both Wanganui and Whanganui. The New Zealand Geographic Board requires ministerial approval. Therefore, Wikipedia has effectively a free reign over which one to choose. For the reasons I have listed above, it should be Wanganui. Wipkipkedia (talk) 01:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Decided

Now it's official. Citing the Minister:

"My expectation is that all official documents will be able to use either form of the spelling as the official city name. However, Crown agencies will be expected to move to the name Whanganui over time."

We should here clearly give both names in bold letters at the beginning, but the title of the article should reflect the way government agencies use it. --B. Jankuloski (talk) 23:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I've moved the article and made some changes to it to use the changed spelling. I've left "Wanganui" for use in any historical context, and when referring to any organisation. This will need to be updated if/as organisations adopt the changed spelling. I have not addressed the issue of categories or the District and Regional Councils as yet. Other editors are welcome to do so.-gadfium 05:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Can I ask a question? Because the government has not passed the legislation yet, they still are not using the Whanganui spelling. Why is it that Wikipedia becomes the first and only party to use it? Wipkipkedia (talk) 12:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

That's wrong, the government is using it - e.g. here. XLerate (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice find! [5] Wipkipkedia (talk) 02:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The government may be using it (in this instance for a lottery appointment), but the fact that they also incorrectly use it to refer to Dot McKinnon being the Deputy Mayor of Whanganui when she is Deputy Mayor of Wanganui means this cannot be taken as proof of anything, and that they are likely as confused as everyone else. Not sure what the tvnz weather link is supposed to demonstrate; it is Wanganui (as is the rest of tvnz.co.nz, tv3.co.nz, NZ Herald and the MetService), but perhaps it was Whanganui for a while when Wipkipkedia commented.FanN | talk 01:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Spelling Review

I have started a new section to make it simpler to navigate. This is an appeal of a previous decision. I propose to revert the name to 'Wanganui'.

The issue is one which I would like to bring under reviews. Several significant issues were left out in prior discussion.

• Whanganui and Wanganui are both official name, Whanganui is not the sole official name.
• The Wanganui District Council, the official governing body of the city, continues to use Wanganui.
• The NZ Geographic Board's recommendations are useless unless approval is given by the minster. Approval was not given for an exclusive change in name to Whanganui, but simply the inclusion of Whanganui as well as Wanganui. This means the policy of the government/NZ Geographic Board is officially neutral. The only reason that suggests otherwise is the government motive to get crown agencies to change to Whanganui with an 'h'.
• TVNZ is irrelevant.
• The issue of which has greater significance, a Wanganui-only district council, or a Whanganui/Wanganui national government has not been properly addressed.
• The issue of which name has general popular social acceptance has also been left out. This obviously falls to Wanganui without an 'h'.

Personally, I think it makes far more sense to name the article 'Wanganui' without an 'h'. Wipkipkedia (talk) 11:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be mixing fact, opinion and misunderstandings here. Several of the issues you list are covered above. Please read the earlier section. You believe that it is irrelevant that TVNZ, TV3 etc use the name Whanganui, yet you assert that popular social acceptance has been left out. The name used by the mainstream media is the name most people will see every day. I have already asked you for a link indicating the policy of the Wanganui District Council. That they have not yet updated their website is no indication that they will not do so in the future. You also appear to believe that a District Council has equal power to the National Government, which is clearly incorrect.-gadfium 19:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Calm down mate, let's not get upset over things. Popular social acceptance is a very important issue. The reason I have assumed it to not have been discussed is because it actually hasn't been discussed. The Wanganui District Council is continuing to stick with Wanganui. My point is that we must assume they are holding the status quo until an announcement is made. In regards to national versus district, you seem to have not understood my point. The point was not about power but about which was more official. You have a good point about mainstream media, I just don't think it warrants Wikipedia to change the name of its article. Wipkipkedia (talk)

Wikipedia:COMMONNAME#Common_names suggests that Wanganui should be used as it the name more commonly used. Am I interpreting this wrongly? Wipkipkedia (talk) 12:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You might be. What makes you think the more commonly used name since 18 December is not Whanganui? Sources published before the change obviously don't count. With both major TV channels giving the Whanganui spelling, I suggest that most people see the "h" spelling more often than they see the "non-h" spelling. Linking to statements by reputable bodies that they plan to keep using the non-h spelling would be useful, as otherwise we can't be sure that they have simply not yet updated their websites or policies. I have suggested this to you before, but you have not responded.-gadfium 18:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry mate, it doesn't work like that. The onus is on you to provide evidence to show where the majority of people and organisations (see Wikipedia:COMMONNAME#Common_names) are changing to Whanganui. You can't just assume that they're taking a while to update their signs. Please provide us with evidence that shows that it is not just the national-level government that is changing to Whanganui. Wipkipkedia (talk) 12:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Search_engine_test - Wanganui: 4,750,000 - Whanganui: 433,000 - Wipkipkedia (talk) 12:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Revert to Wanganui, as it is the most common and recognisable name, as Wikipedia:COMMONNAME#Common_names states, by Wikipedia policy. No evidence given that Whanganui has succeeded this. Wipkipkedia (talk) 00:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The appropriate place to register your position is in the preceding section, which you've already done. I think it's good to have an independent opinion on what the article title should be, but unhelpful trying to circumvent the result above because you don't agree with it. Maybe next time your points can convince others to adjust their position. XLerate (talk) 04:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The previous section is a decision which has already been decided. This section is a review of the name. I don't see why you think I'm being unhelpful when I've clearly respected a previous decision, but simply expanded discussion. If you read Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus_can_change, you will see that it reads "Wikipedia remains flexible because new people may bring fresh ideas, growing may evolve new needs, people may change their minds over time when new things come up, and we may find a better way to do things." If you have an issue with my Wikipedia discussion, please feel more than welcome to use my personal talk page at User:Wipkipkedia. Wipkipkedia (talk) 11:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Your search engine test is clearly not suitable, because it fails to differentiate between the various places and things called Wanganui and those called Whanganui, and it fails to exclude references made before mid December. Even allowing for these factors, it still produces anomalous results. For example, there are far more Google hits for "Whanganui District Council" than for "Wanganui District Council". I suspect this is an artifact of some sort, rather than evidence, but your logic would dictate that each mention of the council should be renamed.-gadfium 19:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

That is a good point, but I still believe that it is obvious that Wanganui is the more common of the two names generally used. You have yet to provide evidence of a significant number of organisations other than the government that are changing to Whanganui. Until anyone can provide us with this evidence, the issue of commonality will side with Wanganui. Wipkipkedia (talk) 06:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

To gadfium, here is a link that you have requested. [[[6]]]. The Wanganui District Council will keep with Wanganui. Also, the legislation has not even been passed yet, so it is far too premature to change to Whanganui, even if that was the best case. Wipkipkedia (talk) 12:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused about what legislation you're referring to. AFAIK this is simply an executive decision, made under existing legislation and simply requires the NZGB to gazette the name in a notice. Now evidentally they are waiting legislation because the current legislation would require both official names be used (see FAQ 2) and the name hasn't been gazetted but this largely isn't a legislative issue (and if the Minister had decided on Whanganui solely I presume there would be no need for any legislation). I would also point out there is no change to the official (central) government name since as was pointed out numerous times during this process and is e.g. in the FAQ there is no official name and this was one of the reasons the NZGB decided to look into the naming issue. In terms of common names thing, it's not entirely clear how this plays out. The preference is apparently for Wanganui in the area covered by the council (at least among people who cared enough to vote in the referendum), outside there it's less clear Nil Einne (talk) 13:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Spelling of related category

See discussion here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed 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.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move. It appears that the result of the common name test is, at best, uncertain, and there is sufficient opposition to the move for me to close this as no consensus. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Whanganui → Wanganui — It appears that the form without the H is still the WP:COMMONNAME, and thet above discussions seem to reflect this. It's a long-held precedent that "the government said so" generally is not reason enough for a move. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 15:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC) (typo fixed 81.111.114.131 (talk) 16:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC))

According to Wanganui District Council (no H), the name of the place is (quite correctly) a matter for the locals. Indeed, our own rules for article titles suggest that we eschew official names in favour of another form if it is more commonly used in English-language sources (this being the English Wikipedia). The tourism portal refers to the area without and the river with. A look at search engine results gives 5.3M hits without the H, including the local newspaper, an independent school, a state school and the rugby team; over 200 news stories, including the New Zealand Herald, TVNZ[7] and TV3[8]. With the H, 414k hits, with much of the first page referring specifically to the river rather than the city or district. Excluding "river" and "Tara" reduces this to 300k, including the local health board; 90 news results, including Radio New Zealand, and rather unhelpfully the New Zealand Herald (again). Most telling perhaps is the referendum, where the locals overwhelmingly fell in favour of the form without the H. Participants are encouraged to read the competing essays WP:OFFICIAL and WP:OFFICIALNAMES. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 15:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

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.

• Comment A word of caution about the search results quoted. Anything prior to the name change in December 2009 (or thereabouts) is irrelevant. We need to know what the common name is after 2009. However, we have a convention for names in New Zealand, which is to use the version used by the New Zealand Geographic Board. That poses special problems in this case, because neither the Government of New Zealand, nor the District Council, have adopted the Geographic Board's deliberations. The Government has gone for a hybrid solution of Whanganui and Wanganui, but government agencies being required to use Whanganui, whilst the District Council is insisting on continuing to use Wanganui. And I thought we got in a mess with names in Europe! It might just be better to put any moves on hold for a year and see what pans out. The article already explains the controversy over the two names in some detail. Skinsmoke (talk) 15:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure that's entirely relevant - one of the common criticisms of the Google test is that Google prefers recent content. Therefore, if any local institutions have recently adopted the rename, Google will show the new name in preference to the old. I would suggest for the moment that we move the article back for consistency, because the new name clearly has yet to establish itself as a WP:COMMONNAME, and then revist all related pages after a year or so, but the current situation of having a bunch of articles at different spellings with there still being questions over the change suggests to be that we need to go back to the status quo ante bellum. We should probably also look at revising any convention that says "use what the government use" for place names, given that we explicitly reject such a rule in most circumstances (of all places in the Anglosphere, even for Ireland we do not enforce the rule for places in the Gaeltacht, where the government has effectively abolished English names). 81.111.114.131 (talk) 16:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support move back to Wanganui. I agree that the situation is a bit of a mess right now, and that it will be easier to resolve as time passes. But I also agree with the nominator that from our standpoint today, there seems to be little question that Wanganui satisfies WP:COMMONNAME. It also makes sense to revert to the status quo ante, since the article was moved in the first place without what I would call a clear consensus. I don't really care what this city is called, but I do support the principle of WP:COMMONNAME and don't like it when articles get moved to a controversial new name without consensus. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose move, COMMONNAME is invalid here because the name has just changed. It will take years for a common name to appear, if at all. Google tests will show mostly hits prior to the change and so is unreliable. COMMONNAME is also less relevant because is it a different spelling more than a different name - colour vs color for example. Wanganui is a 150-year old spelling mistake, the New Zealand Geographic Board says Whanganui is the correct name to use, as does the Maori Language Commission[9]. The NZ Herald also has an editorial about the change, calling the government wimps for not putting it right: [10]. This is the second attempted reversal of the move in a few months, I'd also like to put a moratorium on move requests for one year, in the interest of preventing disruption. It is unreasonable to have this discussion every month or so. XLerate (talk) 23:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
  • In that case, surely the way to stop these discussions from recurring is to move the article back, declare moratorium, and consider all the articles that need moving together after a year or so? The current situation where this article is out of step with the related entries is not acceptable, and neither is moving everything else into line with this, given the absence of a clear consensus to have the article at this title in the first place. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 00:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose move. Agree with points made by XLerate, especially the last one. The article recognises both spellings, and the title uses the spelling that government agencies will use throughout the land. Moriori (talk) 23:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Can you show me this policy that says that the government decides how we title our articles? 81.111.114.131 (talk) 00:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Can you quote me where I said the government decides how we title our articles? Extremely disingenuous of you. Moriori (talk) 03:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The government decides the official legal names of places, which is then typically used by the media, the public, and consequently Wikipedia. For example Whanganui River, which the government changed in 1991. XLerate (talk) 01:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Your first sentence is spot on there, however, the second is a false consequence - we do not use that name for the river because the government says so, but because that's what most people call it. The important word is "consequently" - Wikipedia is a descriptive tertiary source. That means we don't lead, we follow - when the new name has widespread consistent use among the media and the public at large, then we change here. From the facts on the ground, it's abundantly and indisputably clear that this simply hasn't happened yet, therefore our move last December was horribly premature. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 01:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Even if it was premature, (which I do not believe), then what is wrong with that? Will continuing to use Whanganui harm Wikipedia? Moriori (talk) 03:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Not that it's even remotely relevant, but yes - it sets bad precedent. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 16:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

We are following precedent, not setting it. See our Kolkata, which was changed from Calcutta years ago. Also, we are not discussing "inclusionism versus deletionism" here (which is what NOHARM is basically about). Moriori (talk) 22:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

No, we're not following precedent. The Kolkata name change was in 2001, yet our article was moved in 2005, by which time the name Kolkata had gained global currency. Can you show us evidence that the form with the H has become the most commonly-used form in English? 81.111.114.131 (talk) 13:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I see where this is leading, but no, I'm fresh out of enthusiasm for circular argument. Moriori (talk) 06:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

So, in other words, you can't find any policy or precedent that supports the article being here? 81.111.114.131 (talk) 01:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose move. Per Xlerate.Kahuroa (talk) 03:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Can you show us the policy that supports your opinion? 81.111.114.131 (talk) 16:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose move Whanganui is the correct spelling of the name, according to both the local iwi (=tribe) who coined the name and the government. Whanganui as a name is also geographically descriptive, in that it means 'big habour.' Stuartyeates (talk) 04:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Since when do the local tribe decide what Wikipedia calls its articles? The form with the H might be "correct" Maori, but we have a long history of precedent to suggest that we don't correct other people's spelling mistakes, in that we follow common usage even if it is considered "incorrect" by some (Chili pepper vs. Chile pepper, etc.) The overarching policy here is WP:COMMONNAME. It is beyond dispute that "Whanganui" is not at this time the most common spelling in general use. The local tribe and NZGB can say what they like - until we can verify that the name "Whanganui" is the most common spelling in general use, the article should not have been moved to its present title. Some imagined consensus does not trump this simple fact, and a handful of editors do not get to overturn such overbearing conventions. So far, nobody has provided any reason to keep the page at its current title that isn't primarily political ("Government says X, we must obey"). 81.111.114.131 (talk) 05:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
• oppose move. It is not clear what the most common spelling now is. Since both the major TV channels give the Wh spelling in the weather each night, this is certainly the spelling I see usually. The time I usually see the W spelling is in NZ Herald articles on the controversies surrounding the current mayor.-gadfium 06:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
  • So, what you actually mean is support revert of move, since as you say we cannot say that the form with the H is most common, so by that logic the article should be at the last location known to be the common name. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 03:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
    • No, I am refuting your appeal to COMMONNAMES.-gadfium 06:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose move. The page as it is currently reflects the correct spelling as determined by the naming authority (NZGB) and confirmed as preferred by the Minister concerned. Please note that this consistent with the reason I opposed the move of "Mayor of Wanganui" to "Mayor of Whanganui", as the name of the Wanganui District was determined during the local government restructuring of 1989 and has not been changed since then. Daveosaurus (talk) 08:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

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.

Spelling

• Why is Wikipedia the only place spelling Whanganui? TVNZ, the Wanganui District Council, all the road signs are all Wanganui. It doesn't make sense to me. 219.89.245.42 (talk) 06:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

See above. There are numerous sources using the Wh spelling.-gadfium 08:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected?

Why on earth is this semi-protected? Reading the talk page, I can perhaps understand move protection, but what is up with this? 98.82.180.48 (talk) 16:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem was that people who disagreed with the name change made wholesale changes to the article against consensus. In an extreme case, someone appears to have made a change of most occurrences of "Whanganui" to "Wanganui", ignoring that some entities, such as the river, are almost universally given the "Wh" nowadays, and making a complete mess of the article. See [11]. Shorter periods of semi-protection have failed to deter such people. There have also been cases of editors making search and replace changes of "Wanganui" to "Whanganui". I suggest you use {{Editsemiprotected}} for changes you wish to make.-gadfium 19:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. Thanks for the answer. 98.82.180.48 (talk) 20:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

"Although previously called Wanganui"

In the introduction, this phrase is untrue. Both Wanganui and Whanganui are official spellings. Wipkipkedia (talk) 06:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I've changed it to say "Although called Wanganui from 1854".-gadfium 04:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Wanganui?

[[12]] Fact. Benner9 (talk) 07:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I find it hard to credit that the concept of "spelling a word correctly" is evidence of bias against anything other than illiteracy. Daveosaurus (talk) 08:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The hypocrisy an observer can see within senior members of wiki when it suits them. Its amusing. I personally couldn't care less what name wikipedia chooses to use. But, it is fantastic to see practices and rules ignored because it suddenly suits them. For starters, this shouldn't have been moved before consensus in the first place. I've seen plenty of naming arguments with similarities to this one. I am not really able to argue it properly because I am not as higher educated as some here. Does that make me ignorant on the issue? No. Does that mean my ability to think logically on the topic is any less? No.

Debating with senior members is like trying to defend yourself without a lawyer. You don't have a chance whether you're right or wrong. And here I am now, strongly off topic. Is there anywhere I can ask for another opinion from a non New Zealand admin? Please don't see this as a personal attack - I do respect the people behind this place!

Benner9 (talk) 09:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying, as I've been on holiday.

There is no formal method that I am aware of to appeal against a closed move request. There is nothing to prevent you from starting a new move request, especially as over a year has passed since the last one. However, it would not be reasonable to request that "senior members" not participate.

If you would like some advice from an admin who is sensitive to New Zealand issues but who supported this article being moved back to "Wanganui", I suggest you contact Good Ol'factory.-gadfium 21:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Protected

I have protected this article from edits by new or anon editors. Jeepday (talk) 12:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

pronunciation

Where is the stress in the Maori? First syllable?

The English has a hard gee in the news coverage, apart from the one guy who says "WONG-ə-noy", so I put that back in. — kwami (talk) 00:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

From the name section, it sounds as though it's either [w] or [ɸ] in Maori. Also, we say that it's pronounced with an initial glottal stop in Maori. However, Maori doesn't have a glottal stop. What's that about? — kwami (talk) 01:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Spelling: Wanganui/Whanganui

It is unfortunate that consensus has still not been reached on this issue. We should collate a number of members, policies and arguments together and go through this issue methodically and with respect. The process so far has been less than ideal from both sides it seems. If you would like to contribute to this please sign your username below. Also feel free to make suggestions on process et cetera.

Speaking of signing usernames, how about you lead by example? Also, re consensus, we've been using Whanganui for three and a half years now. That suggests to me more consensus for than against. If it ain't broke.....Moriori (talk) 04:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't mistake an unwillingness to engage in a fruitless and protracted dispute over the town's name as consensus. Apart from Iwi, NZ Geographic Board and Wikipedia consensus comes down heavily on the haitchless side with Google hits of 12,800,000 for Wanganui and 1,260,000 for Whanganui. After three and a half years usage is overwhelmingly in favour of the original spelling, and such is the hostility generated from this minor topic several organisations that switched to "Whanganui" in 2009 were forced to revert back to "Wanganui" due to public pressure - except here, apparently. FanN | talk 02:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to chirp in here - firstly I agree completely with Fan. Trying to argue against the "Maori PC stance" on Wikipedia is nigh on impossible. Secondly, you say "if it ain't broke don't fix..." yet it was changed in the first place. Furthermore the irony extends to why an "H" was even added by the New Zealand Geographic board. 04:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The reason it was changed in the first pace was because it was considered 'broke' without the H, and it was fixed by adding an H.

This will be interesting. Moriori (talk) 22:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

And was it changed with the absolute fullest level of support, the highest level of which you would make us get before it got changed back? FlyingKiwi (talk) 23:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Huh? Fullest level of support? Like unanimous? No, of course not. Look, if the Whanganui District Health Board decides by only one vote to not add the letter "H" to Wanganui Hospital's name, I would accept that. If the Whanganui District Health Board decides by only one vote to add the letter "H" to Wanganui Hospital's name, I would accept that too. Would you? Moriori (talk) 01:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely. So then - why was the name of this page changed? FlyingKiwi (talk) 10:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The early Europeans spelt it as "Wanganui" because that's how it was pronounced in Maori (source: Lonely Planet guide published Oct. 2012). If you spell it as "Whanganui", then the vast majority (99%) of people would pronounce it as "Fanganui"/"Fonganui"/"Funganui" and this departs from the original Maori pronounciation in which the closest english approximation would be "Wanganui". --BrianJ34 (talk) 13:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

If there is doubt, and given that the government agencies can't decide (which is clear given the number of number of government agencies still usingthe Wanganui spelling) perhaps Ghits would give a good guide? Excluding items relating tot he river (which is clearly spelt with an -h-), ghits for Whanganui give 750,000; ghits for Wanganui give 26,000,000 - about a 35:1 ratio for the spelling without the h. Grutness...wha? 05:43, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, we clearly have no consensus. Before we delve into debate, let us collate the participants and decide how we will approach the issue. I am in the process of remaking an account so will sign soon.

Participants

• Moriori
• Fanx
• FlyingKiwi
• BrianJ34
• Grutness

Approach

There are a number of issues which we may want to discuss individually.

• What Wikipedia policies apply to this issue?
• Does Whanganui or Wanganui adhere to these policies?
• Are there issues beyond Wikipedia policies that we should consider?
• Any other questions? Please contribute other issues that may be important.

I'm attempting to make this process as useful and collaborative as possible. Please contribute on how we can improve this.

Charles Mackay

Mayor Charles Mackay needs his own page; the link directs to one of the two other Charles Mackays. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giantflightlessbirds (talk • contribs) 07:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Gang Insignia

I am editing the statement which makes the claim that Whanganui is the only New Zealand city to ban gang insignia. Gang insignia have now been banned in all public places in New Zealand (swimming pools, schools, libraries, museums, government buildings, etc).

http://www.3news.co.nz/nznews/gang-patch-ban-bill-about-to-be-passed-2013080705

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/hawkes-bay-today/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503462&objectid=11107202 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorrowawaits (talk • contribs) 07:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The references were automatically deleted by a bot, so I suggest rewriting the section to indicate what was new about the Whanganui legislation, but putting it in context with the law change in NZ as a whole. The NZ Herald reference seems a good one. The nickname for the legislation “Laws Law” seems to not be widely used: Googling "Laws Law Wanganui" turns up no examples but this Wikipedia article, So unless we can find more examples I suggest that part of the section be removed. Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 17:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Editing by Whanganui Wiki Wednesday group

A community editing group in Whanganui, Wiki Wednesday, has been recently formed and is enthusiastically trying to improve this page and some related ones; I'm group coordinator. Could I ask editors to be supportive of this, and try to fix or tweak any mistakes they see rather that necessarily revert? I will do my best to tidy things up as well. I'm encouraging them to use Talk pages and make incremental edits rather than wholesale changes. Many thanks. Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 17:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Pronuciation, again

Can someone who knows their IPA listen to some sound samples and fix the pronunciations listed? I've just reverted a well-meaning change. To reiterate and expand the topics above, there are three current pronunciations of the town's name; Wanganui is usually spoken by pakeha locals with a hard g, the Māori pronunciation of Whanganui begins with a hw sound (local) or a f sound (for other iwi). Any way of conveying that? Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know IPA so can't fix it, but I do know the 'hard g' pronouciation is completely wrong. I can only think of two Māori words (both place names) which include a 'hard g'; both of them are far from Whanganui, and the one I am most familiar with has the 'hard g' in a situation where standard Māori would probably have a 'k'.

The 'wh' is more difficult to explain. To the best of my knowledge, in the local pronounciation it was close enough to a 'w' that settlers with no knowledge of the Māori language struggled to pick up the difference. In the standard version of the Māori language - imagine a relationship to local dialects similar to the one 20th century BBC announcer speech would have to English dialects - it's a sound close enough to 'f' that, again, the difference isn't easy to explain. To someone without any knowledge of the Māori language, pronouncing 'wh' as 'f' while not ideal, would be the easiest way to make one's self understood. Hope this helps. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

See Voiceless labio-velar approximant, Voiceless bilabial fricative and Glottal stop. My understanding is that [ʔw] is the local pronunciation (per Māori language#North Island dialects), which may be approximated by monolingual/native English speakers using [ʍ] or [hw] (close to wh in whine for speakers who distinguish this from wine), and [ɸ] (similar to English [f], but pronounced with both lips, like [w], as if you were blowing out a candle or blowing at a spoon of soup) is the standard Māori pronunciation. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Whanganui. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090923172253/http://www.linz.govt.nz:80/placenames/consultation-decisions/a-to-z/whanganui/index.aspx to http://www.linz.govt.nz/placenames/consultation-decisions/a-to-z/whanganui/index.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Whanganui. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131005080217/http://www.wanganui.govt.nz/AboutCouncil/Election2013.asp to http://www.wanganui.govt.nz/AboutCouncil/Election2013.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090925144902/http://www.linz.govt.nz:80/placenames/about-geographic-board/nzgb-news-notices/2009/0330-nzgb-wanganui-decision/index.aspx to http://www.linz.govt.nz/placenames/about-geographic-board/nzgb-news-notices/2009/0330-nzgb-wanganui-decision/index.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Notable people of Whanganui

I've been editing the list of notable people of Whanganui, adding Jane Winstone, trimming the professions/claim to fame to a standard length, and removing a few. Carl Takarangi-Hutchby and Doreen Bennett, both listed as " international advocate at UN for Human Rights", could be Wikipedia-notable – a quick search only turns up a couple of mentions in the news, though – so perhaps it would be better for someone to create their pages, establish notability with links to secondary sources, and then add them to the list. Mark Christiansen seems to be a candidate for notability, based on news coverage. It would also be good to go through the list establishing their exact link to Whanganui: Victoria Ransom's article had no mention of Whanganui, and all I could find was that she grew up near Bulls (which I added), so presumably Whanganui is where she went to high school. Is that enough to make her a Notable Whanganui Person? Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 10:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I suggest if you want to make a limit to how many notable people are listed on the Whanganui page please do that, when that number is reached the list can then be broken up into sections (various ways). Riverviewhouse (talk) 03:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I will keep my conversations about notable people to my own circle, both the question of "should they have a page of their own before they appear on a notable people list for a town/school etc AND who are notable Whanganui people. We remain in disagreement over these.Riverviewhouse (talk) 03:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I think User:Gadfium put it well: "Others will be removed if suitable references are not added (or articles on them written) to establish notability." So maybe link to people who have an obvious Whanganui connection in their Wikipedia page, and if they don't have a Wikipedia page make one for them. If the new page survives challenges to its notability, then they're a notable Whanganui person. See WP:N for definitions of notability. You're welcome to have your own definitions of notability, and to start your own blog or website to highlight those notable people. But we're editing Wikipedia, so let's use its definitions. Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 10:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Schools Whanganui

You have raised again the subject of schools, should they be there?. Secondary schools are on Whanganui's page, that follows the Gisborne, Oamaru pages. Do you have a problem with the layout? (easily changed) or the content? 03:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't set the rules. Go ahead and make the schools section, following the model of other cities about our size (maybe pick cities in the USA or UK rather than New Zealand as a model). Also, conversations on the Talk page are really with all of Wikipedia, not just with me. Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 10:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I have reduced the section and have no further plans.Riverviewhouse (talk) 00:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Gonville, New Zealand

I suggest that the aforementioned article be merged into this article, as it is a small suburb of this city. Per WP:NPLACE. --MrClog (talk) 09:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support it appears this article was created only today and contains very little detail to make it notable as a spinoff to Whanganui. Ajf773 (talk) 09:28, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• What?. "Pakaitore Marae and meeting house is located in Gonville." Really? The reference goes to a map which doesn't show that to be so. Isn't Pakaitore at Moutoa Gardens? Moriori (talk) 21:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support merge as suggested. Sam Sailor 06:59, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

"Te Ao Hou Marae" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Te Ao Hou Marae. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 5#Te Ao Hou Marae until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Spelling Again (Oh no!)

The town of Whanganui has always been pronounced (roughly) as 'Wanganui' by local people and strangers who know how to pronounce the name. It is pronounced (roughly) as 'Fo nga nui' by outsiders with a political axe to grind. That doesn't matter, it's settled, but the consequence is that there has been a major argument over the spelling. Māori spelling is phonetic so if it is said as 'Wa nga nui' then it seems to make sense to spell it as 'Wanganui'. However since the local Iwi pronounce 'Wh' as 'W' then 'Whanganui' is phonetically spelled in the Taranaki dialect. The argument was effectively closed when in 2015 when a definitive ruling by LINZ declared the name to be Whanganui. The reason I am reopening this discussion is a recent edit changed the lead from "Whanganui previously spelled Wanganui" to "Whanganui also spelled Wanganui". This was reverted but then re-reverted. I will not revert a second time without a consensus. I believe that since 17 November 2015 the word 'previous' is correct. Please confirm or deny this proposition.OrewaTel (talk) 03:16, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• Seems to me the description is correct as it is. Both the ref given and the Gazateer entry say it can officially be either spelling. The detail of how that came about is in the 'Controversy over Wanganui/Whanganui spelling' section. An alternative would be to replace 'also spelled' with 'or'. Johnragla (talk) 04:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be determined by RSSs? "Previously' would mean that in a period recent enough to be relevant today, the spelling was 'Wanganui', as confirmed by RSSs from that past time. That might apply to Wanganui in say 40 years time, but probably not now (because a significant number of recent sources use 'Wanganui'). For that reason 'also spelled' would be better. Additionally, 'previously' used today, implies the recent change to the official spelling is the reason for using 'previously', which goes against the principal of common usage. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

"political axe to grind" Really?

The spelling and pronounciation of "Whanganui" in the standard form of the language taught in schools is what would be most appropriate. No different from pronouncing the "D" in "London" even though Cockneys apparently don't. You wouldn't expect people to use Billy Connolly's pronounciation of "Glasgow" either.

If people can't pronounce "wh" properly and instead use the closest English equivalent "f", that isn't Wikipedia's problem. Daveosaurus (talk) 01:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I have no problem with people pronouncing Whangārei as 'Fongarei' (instead of ɸangarei) but the nearest English pronunciation to Whanganui is 'Wanganui'. The English equivalent is not whether you pronounce London as 'Lunnon' (which is NOT standard Cockney) but whether you say 'Lōndōn' or correctly say 'Lunden' (or rather 'Lundɘn'). There are many places where the name is not pronounced the way it is spelled and many people, including school teachers, try to 'correct' the local pronunciation and add silent consonants. Whanganui is one of them.OrewaTel (talk) 06:26, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Pronunciation in this debate is IMO a red herring. The question is the spelling, and what language is being used (both of which are independent of each other), not the pronunciation. Follow the pronunciation line and we are opening a Pandora's box. Why not tell every Christchurch resident that they are pronouncing Antigua St wrong when they say An-tig-yua: it should be Ant-ee-ger! And let's not get started with Southwark St or Buccleugh St or Keighley Rd. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:43, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

References

I was just about to change the lead sentence from "Whanganui, previously spelled Wanganui..." to "Whanganui, also spelled Wanganui...", because the latter seems to more accurate reflect current reality in the town, and because it better matches the text in the reference [13], which clearly states that either name "may be used as the official geographic name". But then I realized that this would likely be controversial, and then noticed this thread from May 2021, which specifically asks about this (the wording in the lead sentence), but which never seemed to be resolved. So to address just this one question (not pronunciation or anything else in the article): Should the lead sentence say "previously spelled Wanganui", or "also spelled Wanganui"? PatricKiwi (talk) 02:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Tricky one isnt it. To support your suggestion Patric you gave the reference above which doesn't even mention Whanganui the city which is the article in question. Moriori (talk) 02:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

No, the reference I was referring to wasn't the one that appeared below my post. That was a floating reference for an earlier discussion (I've now moved it earlier). The reference I was referring to was this one - [14] - the one that appears in the lead sentence of the article. This is the LINZ declaration that both spellings (for the name of the city) are 'official'. IMHO this question ("previously spelled" versus "also spelled") isn't 'tricky' at all; "also spelled" is clearly more reflective of the current reality. But I accept that there are some people out there who want to see the "Wanganui" spelling banished to the history books. PatricKiwi (talk) 06:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The reference shows a final decision in 2012 to name the place 'Whanganui' but allow an alternative spelling of 'Wanganui'. A subsequent ruling (a ruling after a 'final' ruling) in 2015 declared the sole name to be 'Whanganui'. However another statement made 16 April 2016 stated that 'Wanganui' is also acceptable. Without a definitive statement that is not contradicted by another definitive statement, it is difficult to resolve this. Probably 'also named' is the more appropriate wording now. We'll change when we get another final ruling that contradicts the current final ruling.OrewaTel (talk) 20:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, LINZ's gazetteer currently lists both names as 'official': [15],[16] PatricKiwi (talk) 01:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh my goodness. Seventeen years ago next Monday, yes 17, I made the second ever edit to this article. Check out the subject . User:Roger 8 Roger asked above whether our current problem should be determined by RSSs, and I agree with him. In the meantime it would probably be better to leave it as it is. What say others? Moriori (talk) 01:47, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Moriori, well, the edit anniversary is next month (17 February 2004), but I'm afraid to say that's not 17 years ago. 18 is the right number! Either way, happy upcoming edit anniversary. With regards to the exact wording, I don't have too strong an opinion on the matter. Schwede66 03:19, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Ha ha ha. Eighteen huh.The changes we have seen. These days i can edit using the thumb on my right hand only. So don't do much. Cheers. Moriori (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

There not being strong objections, I went ahead and made the change.PatricKiwi (talk) 14:39, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Link to Freezing works

@OrewaTel: I added this link because "freezing works" is not such a well known term. In an encyclopedia with a global readership, many readers won't know what it means. Why did you remove the link? —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Maybe instead of linking to a redirect, create a piped link to Slaughterhouse#Freezing_works? Daveosaurus (talk) 19:37, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

If a link is useful, it should be included. There are very few reasons for avoiding a redirect. I can't think of one that would require us to avoid a redirect in this case. If an editor has a personal dislike to redirects, they can create a piped link, but the removal of a redirect just because such a personal dislike is not appropriate. Schwede66 22:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, we should link to the redirect per WP:NOTBROKEN. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 02:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

The problem is the phrase 'Freezing Works' was linked but when you followed the link, it went to Slaughterhouse. Freezing Works and Slaughterhouse are different. In a Slaughterhouse, animals are slaughtered whereas in a Freezing Works food is frozen. Whilst some Slaughterhouses freeze animals on the premises, that is not always the case. Some Freezing Works freeze carcases and these may be associated with a Slaughterhouse but others buy the produce from one or more independent Slaughterhouses. Other Freezing Works freeze fruit and vegetables and are associated with pack houses. To simplify, 'Slaughterhouse' and 'Freezing Works' are two different beasts and a link labelled 'Freezing Works' that routes to 'Slaughterhouse' is wrong. OrewaTel (talk) 03:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

In that case, should the Freezing works redirect to Slaughterhouse#Freezing_works instead of Slaughterhouse?-gadfium 03:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

It does now. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:22, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

City or Town?

The question has been asked. To quote from New Zealand Gazetteer (https://gazetteer.linz.govt.nz/place/7006)

Whanganui

This is an official name Current Status: Assigned

Feature Type: City

Does that constitute an answer? OrewaTel (talk) 20:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Importance of the river to the settlement

At present, this article does not appear to give sufficient emphasis to the importance of the river for the early settlement and commercial success of the town, or to the on-going influence of the river on the town, both physically and culturally. While there is a separate article Whanganui River, there is a need for appropriate summary content in this article, and a "main" template link or similar to put the importance of the river in context in this article. The history (in particular) and also the geography of the city need stronger links to the river and the associated article. This proposal may require some improvement to Whanganui River as well - particularly expanding the lead. Any offers to help out ??..Marshelec (talk) 08:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC)